Let's talk about what was written in today's New York Times, thanks to Jack Bell. Some of us have discussed this before in various forums, but what is important is that by the Times making a point of it on their pages, the issue is being brought to the attention of the general sports reader and those who only follow soccer in a peripheral fashion. What may be a common disagreement to us is finally being revealed to a wider audience. It's one of the reasons domestic soccer "bores" the typical American sports fan, not to mention keeping away so-called Eurosnobs and South Amerisnobs. Parity Does Not Equal Excitement by Jack Bell Halfway through MLS's ninth season, only three teams have winning records, all in the Western Conference. Eight teams in the 10-team league make the playoffs after 30 regular-season games, and in some circles--on the league's Web site and on TV broadcasts--parity is extolled as keeping it interesting and making every game important. But parity can equal mediocrity. Still battling for acceptance, the league does not want losing teams going through the motions in July. But does the league need a dynasty, a marquee team? In the early years of MLS, DC United was the best team, the league's cornerstone that launched the professional coaching careers of Bruce Arena, the men's national team coach, and the MetroStars' Bob Bradley. Bradley went on to lead Chicago to a title in the team's first season. People may loathe George Steinbrenner and his Yankees, but baseball thrives when the Yankees are ascendant. Around the world, great teams and great players energize competitions from England to Italy. In MLS this season, 30 percent of games (23 of 77) have ended in draws. No team has a winning record on the road. Keep it close, stay alive. No one breaks from the pack, no one falls too far behind. Two MLS veterans--John Harkes and Eric Wynalda--have proposed alternatives. Harkes wants to eliminate the playoffs, which he says would make the US Open Cup a more interesting competition and make the regular season more meaningful. Wynalda wants to institute a bonus system, which is used in most parts of the world. Cash for each victory. Cash for each point. Cash for each victory on the road. Cash for a shutout.
Two problems. The first is that all of this talk ignores the fact that the most popular sport in the US is American football. Every year a number of different teams can win, and people don't seem to mind. In fact, it has caused greater excitement and the league has never been any better. Now, one could always argue that in any particular season, there are always a couple of teams that are juggernauts, which is generally true. However, it seems that when most people talk about MLS needing a great team, they are talking about a team that wins year in and year out (as was evidenced in the article by his reference to the Yankees). Now if you are looking for a dominant team in any particular year, the 2nd problem would be how do you artificially make a team dominant in year "x"? should the league go out and stack one team every year to create a goal for everyone to shoot for? Personally, I would just be happy to see the quality of play and players continue to rise. The NFL has proven that if you have a great product, people will come .......... eventually. lol Lastly, I think that the end of single entity would do more for creating a dominant team than just about anything. once you truly allow the teams to be separate and to go out and take chances on players, entirely on their own, undoubtedly mistakes will be made, and the difference in competence from one front office to the next will rear it's ugly head. Right now, the incompetence of some gm's is masked by the fact that the league is always there to generally bail a team out from being fodder year after year. If single entity ended today (even if the salary cap were kept), there would immediately be 3 teams next year who were absolutely putrid, and 2 teams who would plow through the league due to exactly what I have just said.
THe difference between the MLS and The NFL is that in MLS different teams win becuz they can suck the entire season win their last five games and make the playoffs and eventually win the title...Football(NFL) has parity but is still exciting because the entire season you must play to win and you must take chances and if you don't you will be sitting on your ass in December...you cant backdoor you way into the playoffs nor can you play your way into form...fans know this and therefore they know that any season could be their teams season...mls doesnt even require a regular season...the way the system is now we mine as well just make it a two week tournament.
Happened in '01, I guess, when New England was 5-5, won their last 6, and went on to the title. They did beat the other two division champions in their conference and the team with the best record in the league to do it, though. It's not like they got a bye. 2003 - New England (14-2) 2002 - Tampa Bay (12-4) 2001 - New England (11-5) 2000 - Baltimore (12-4) 1999 - St.Louis (13-3) 1998 - Denver (14-2) 1997 - Denver (12-4) 1996 - Green Bay (13-3) 1995 - Dallas (12-4) 1994 - San Francisco (13-3) Total - 126-34 (.788) 1993 - Dallas (12-4) 1992 - Dallas (13-3) 1991 - Washington (14-2) 1990 - NY Giants (13-3) 1989 - San Francisco (14-2) 1988 - San Francisco (10-6) 1987 - Washington (11-4) 1986 - NY Giants (14-2) 1985 - Chicago (15-1) 1984 - San Francisco (15-1) Total - 131-28 (.824) The difference in records between the last 10 NFL champions and the 10 prior to that is 4.5 games. The NFL's current system (which the players were bound and determined to get, mind you) does make it harder to make a dynasty. It also makes it harder for a team to continue in extreme suckitude forever. I know which system I prefer. I'd rather have more teams have a chance than have the same team(s) win all the time. But that's just me.
Yep, well said. However, you can't develop a good national side if they only play 2 weeks a year. The only difference in your analogy from that point of view between the MLS and NFL is that the NFL has more teams, so you have to be among the elite. You also don't get anything from a draw unlike soccer. So what is the solution? Well, it's a three part answer. First, you need more teams. A lot more teams. The league can't just expand by six cities tomorrow. There are lots of reasons for it. A lack of willing investors and proper facilities, and lots others but we all know this by now. Secondly, I agree with John Harkes. Let's make the US Open Cup the prestigious TOURNAMENT in this country. It'll be different for non-soccer people at first, but we may as well do it now while the general public remains rather ignorant of our sport. A single table league would make it much more competitive to win a championship - particularly under single entity. I think that you'd have to play every game as if it were a final, especially late in the season if you're near the top of the table. Lastly, I agree with Eric Wynalda. OUCH, never thought I'd say that out loud. There needs to be incentives for finishing near the top of the table. There should definitely be economic incentives for qualifying for CONCACAF competitions. I also think that with the lack of relegation, you need to make sure that there is some restriction for the last place teams in the table as well. While in a single table format, the top half of the table has everything to play for, but if it became a two horse race and the other teams are just battling for incentives of CONCACAF qualification, then what do the bottom dwellars of the table have to play for? Their livelihood should be the answer. Economic consequence of finishing so poorly would be proper. Not necessarily that you should take money away from them, but make it where the teams that don't finish in the last three places get substantial economic incentives for having a good season. At least a better season than the last three teams. The incentives should go to the players of course, but perhaps a bit to coaches and management as well. This can only be done when there is a significant number of teams though. MLS would need at least sixteen teams to implement this kind of setup. I hope one day it turns out that way...
Let's put the Goliath team in Colorado, KC, SLC, or Columbus and <i>then</i> see what article the New York Times writes about parity.
There seemed to be less parity before the league folded the Florida teams. I can think of two reasons for the current problem of all teams being equal: (1) When MLS folded Tampa and Miami, this allowed all the teams to select talent to fill their needs and plug any holes. Instead of teams having obvious weaknesses, all were made more or less complete. (2) Maybe there simply aren't enough teams for some to become better or worse than others. Certainly the NFL, which has comparable salary cap and draft rules, but many more teams, has its dog teams and its consistently good squads. Now if these assumptions are correct, having 12 or even 14 teams in the next couple years will fix the problem. In any event, we won't get the same teams playing each other oever and over again.
Kenn, where's your "Not this ____ again" picture. Its one thing for a newbie to favor us with their insight. Its another thing for a regular to resurrect this chestnut which has been argued to death.
I don't disagree with that at all, but that's a problem that is going to have to be addressed through expansion. The number of teams in the playoffs is not going to go up any, but with expansion, a lower percentage of teams will obviously make it, and eventually it will be a similar situation to the NFL playoff situation. Of course, that will take several years, but those are the kind of growing pains that are necessary for a relatively new league.
Still have the MLS Cup champ game, but make it just one game between the best team in the East vs. the best team in the West. No playoffs. That's what the regular season is for. That's what all these sportswriters talk about when they argue against a play-off system in college football which is arguably more popular than pro football. That's what the BCS tries to do (poorly). Pit #1 against #2. The only reason for playoffs is that you get more money from more games. I say drop the playoffs and just extend the reg season to get in more games. Then hype up the USOC as the knock-out tournament.
Or you could make MLS Cup a version of the Charity shield. Pit the winner of the league versus the winner of the Cup... just a thought. I mean, if the first place team finished ahead of the second place team by 15 points, then they deserve the championship.
I think parity is a great way to keep fans engaged but is being snuffed out by the fact that almost everyone makes the playoffs. If you kept the playoffs but decreased the number of teams qualifying for post season play to 6 and giving a first round Bye to the Easten and Western Conf Champs the fight for post season spots would be a lot more contested.
Well next year, apparently, it'll be 8 of 12 teams making the playoffs. Hopefully the year after that it'll be 8 of 14, and by the end of the decade it'll be 8 of 16.
It's going to continue being argued to death until single entity is abandoned and clubs can decide their own destiny. I can't tell you how happy I was to see this in the Times, and not just some soccer website or magazine. People who normally wouldn't be exposed to this debate within MLS can now read about it. The eras of the Yankees, Celtics, Canadiens, were wonderful and glamourous periods for their sports. Those eras are not denounced. They are benchmark franchises whose histories transcend their leagues and sports. Everybody knows those teams, even non-sports fans can identify them. The Yankees are the biggest draw in baseball for the opposing clubs. They put butts in the seats of every ballpark. Some come to experience the quality, others to vent their spleen. What difference does it make--THEY COME. The Yankees make money for everybody--and you know it. We see some of this in the Freddy phenomenon. Folks are coming to watch Adu because he fascinates them. Think of a club that can draw like Freddy, year-in, year-out. Drawing people who love them and people who hate them. And interested non-soccer or non-MLS fans. Goliath teams fascinate people. And I'm as interested as hell to see if ChivasUSA can tap into some of this--not that they will be a Goliath club, but because of a similar passion and fire they will ignite in many people. Outdrawing everyone else on the road thanks to a bit of a national following among the ethnic constituency on the one hand, and the bile some of you express towards them on the other. To DoctorD: #1. If a George Steinbrenner-type wants to buy the KC Wizards and the league allows him to turn them into a ####ing powerhouse, I say GOD BLESS HIM. Show the way, baby! #2. I'll bet you'd be more interested in seeing a Yankees-type MLS franchise when they come to town rather then a crappy one. Or are you seriously going to tell us you'd rather wait for Salt Lake City to drop by.
What this doesn't recognize is that for the most part, these glory eras took part at a time where everyone believed that it was possible for any team to become a dynasty. There were other great teams as well in places: Pittsburgh Pirates, Edmonton Oilers. Nowadays, its impossible to envision these teams becoming dominant again. I hate these debates mainly because it seems like you are either for extreme parity or eternal goliath teams (I wonder why someone with the name "riverplate" is just fine with eternal goliaths). The NFL is not as interesting to me as it was in the late 90's because it just seems to be a crap shoot from year to year. However, just having DC, NY, LA or even Columbus or KC being eternal giants would be silly and uninteresting as well.
I hope you're being facetious. If DC United had remained a powerhouse, they would--by far--be the biggest draw in the league today. What's wrong with that? Everybody would be making money off of them. Fans would flock to see them. They'd be a great marketing tool for the league. They would represent the quality of the league at its highest. The name DC United still has resonance today, despite being allowed to become a laughing-stock. Is your opinion that the league should be dedicated, through its rules and regulations, to destroying any club that gets too good for too long a time? How stupid. Why would you want to punish a front office that knows what the hell it's doing?
Is there any reason why some of the financial and attendance experts on the MLS boards are not addressing the economic impact of what a Goliath/Yankees-type club(s) would bring to the league? Nobody is going to tell me that revenue or attendance will drop if clubs like DC United or the Galaxy (or, I hope, ChivasUSA) become the top quality clubs in the league and tend to dominate. There will still be the "Cinderella" thing on occasion, especially with a playoff structure, but Goliath will be ultimately great for business.
The biggest thing with Goliaths is that they are more apt to do well in international club competitions. Unfortunatly the only real competition like that that MLS participates in is the Champions' Cup which is an absolute joke. Now if MLS clubs participated in Copa Libertadores, that'd be different. But we don't so right now have a giant club or to that can wipe the floor with other clubs isn't necessary.