I've started this thread to avoid the further derailment of an unrelated thread on this board. Specifically, the derailment of: https://www.bigsoccer.com/forum/showthread.php?t=613114 So, here's the debate: would a Group Stage, rather than the current first-round setup, improve MLS Cup? I realize this has been discussed before, and proponents advocate different details, here and there. But, more or less, it's something like this: Seeds: 1. Supporter's Shield Winner 2. Other Conference Champion 3. Conference Runner-up with most points 4. Other Conference Runner-up - Among the remaining teams, regardless of Conference: 5. Team with most points 6. Team with second most points 7. Team with third most points 8. Team with fourth most points Group A: 1, 4, 5, 8; re-seeded: A1, A2, A3, A4 Group B: 2, 3, 6, 7; re-seeded: B1, B2, B3, B4 Group Stage - Week 1: (home team listed first) A1 v. A4 B1 v. B4 A2 v. A3 B2 v. B3 Group Stage - Week 2: (home team listed first) A1 v. A3 B1 v. B3 A2 v. A4 B2 v. B4 Group Stage - Week 3: (home team listed first) A1 v. A2 B1 v. B2 A3 v. A4 B3 v. B4 Consequence: Top seeds (A1 & B1; Shield Winner and other Conference Champion) host 3 of their 3 Group Stage matches. Second seeds (A2 & B2; Conference Runners-up) host 2 of their 3 Group Stage matches. Third seeds (A3 & B3; top two "wild cards") host 1 of their 3 Group Stage matches. Bottom seeds (A4 & B4; bottom two "wild cards") must play all Group Stage matches on the road. MLS Cup Semi-final: (home team listed first) Winner Group A v. Runner-up Group B Winner Group B v. Runner-up Group A MLS Cup Final: Semi-final Winners, at a pre-determined site. I think that's the guts of it, with my personal bias for its specific organization. Discuss.
We already had a group stage. Knocked out five teams. Next year, we'll knock out 6 teams in the group stage. Now we have our final 8. Where's the problem?
The idea was that the current setup does not provide any kind of home-field advantage for the top teams in the first round of the playoffs. A group stage like this would compensate (dramatically) for that.
Not sure if that is the solution but i will say the two goal aggregate first round is the dumbest thing i have ever seen. Whoever came up with a two goal agg. should get a beatin'.
There's nothing wrong with the 2 goal aggregate. And MLS didn't come up with the 2 goal agg. They just don't know how to apply it.
the two-game aggregate goals series works when you want to put a teams on equal footing, like in something like the Copa SudAmerica or the Concacaf Champions Cup. MLS playoffs should put teams on un-equal footing, prehaps by giving the higher seeds some kind of significant home-field advantage. I like the idea of a first round group stage for the playoffs. i look at it like this -- World Cup Qualifiers ~ MLS Regular season (many teams participate, only the best* move on) World Cup first round ~ First round of the MLS playoffs (a group stage to eliminate 1/2 of the teams) World Cup second round (knock-out matches) ~ MLS semifinals and final *this will improve as the league fills out into a 16 or 18 or 20 team league, or whatever, but 8 teams will make more "sense" than it does in a 12, 13, or 14 team league.
here are some other threads (and my posts) on this topic: https://www.bigsoccer.com/forum/showthread.php?p=10516462#post10516462 https://www.bigsoccer.com/forum/showthread.php?p=9867359#post9867359 https://www.bigsoccer.com/forum/showthread.php?p=12553648#post12553648 there is some very useful discussion in many of these other threads on this topic. it would make for some useful background reading for anyone who is interested in this topic. this much more recent thread did have some useful discussion, even though it was way off-topic for that particular thread: https://www.bigsoccer.com/forum/showthread.php?p=13052217#post13052217
Six teams make the playoffs. Top 2 seeds get a bye (clear advantage for them). It's simple, and yet most teams have something to play for late in the season. - top 3 to 4 teams will be fighting for the bye - the rest of the top 10 or so teams will be fighting for the playoffs
A group stage for the playoffs? Why do people want to make a system so complicated no one but die hard fans will understand. The playoffs are long enough now why extend them. The reason playoff games are exciting because they are mostly do or die why eliminate that even more. The only reason we have stupid home and away first round is because Hunt complained his team never got a home playoff game because they weren't good enough.
this would the same system used at the World Cup in the first round. People seem to understand that system. the only tweak would be to give more home games to the higher seeded teams based on MLS regular season results. the current H/A system (that is based on aggregate goals over 180 minutes) of the first round means that there is practically nothing resolved, and very little interest in the first weekend's games. a group phase, where each team fights through three games, means that each 90 minutes is an important event with 3 points on the line. that is not at all the case with the current H/A first round system. often we see teams just trying to hold on and keep the scoreline respectable (or even) during the first game (90-minute portion of the 180-minute total goals series). the group stage idea isn't perfect, but i do think it has some significant advantages over what MLS has used for the last 4 seasons in the MLS playoffs.
my main contention with jfranz is the order that the first three weeks of games are set in the playoffs. the one and two seeds shouldn't play in the third set of group games, as I think that would likely lead to more "meaningless" week 3 games, if two teams are already through to the semifinals, and the 3 and 4 seeds are eliminated with one game to play -- against eachother as you have it. by putting 1v2 in week 2 that would likely help add "value" to week 3. of course each system seems ok to me, but there are minor issues with each.
Yes, but the World Cup doesn't have two group stages. Not anymore at least. The UEFA CL also got rid of a second group stage because it made the competition too long and tedious. Everybody hated it!
the group stage proposed here is only for one stage of the MLS playoffs (to replace the current first stage H/A series that is used to eliminate half of the teams). out of the 8 teams that make the playoffs, they go to two groups to play one group stage. 4 teams advance out of that to the semi-finals. it's relatively simple and short, imo. it is exactly like the SuperLiga was in 2007 (except for the fact that the MLS playoffs is all MLS teams, and the weighting of more home games based on seeding). you're introducing arguments and offering comparisons that don't really apply here. the UEFA CL is a H/A group stage, where each team plays 6 games, not 3. that is to ensure and equal number of home and away games for all teams in the group stage. all teams are treated equally, and there is no "home-field" advantage given. the proposed format for MLS playoffs is only 3 games, and the lower seeds (based on the MLS regular season results) have fewer or zero home games. there would be a massive home-field advantage given to the 1 seed, and an advantage also give to the 2 seed, if this short group stage was used in the MLS playoffs.
As I've said before and as another poster did in the second post in this new thread, the regular season is essentially a group-stage. So this would be a second group stage. I guess we'll agree to disagree.
This is actually the major Achilles Heel of the group stage plan: meaningless games in the final week. But, something tells me that, no matter how you arrange the schedule, you can't eliminate this risk. You may be right; you may be able to at least reduce this risk. But I'll have to look at this a bit more, because I doubt that a "1 v 2" match in Week 2 actually reduces the odds of one or more meaningless matches in Week 3. I'll have to get back to you on this. Unless, of course, you already have some insane spreadsheet or something showing that, in fact, the "1 v 2" match in Week 2 reduces the odds of meaningless matches in Week 3. The risk of "meaningless final matches" is, for me, the main flaw in this plan. Any advocates for this plan would need to show that this risk is low - or that, at the very least, the potential rewards are greater.
No insane spreadsheet is needed. If the favorites always win, then having 1 v 2 on the final match day means 2 games out of 6 are meaningless. Having them play on match day 2 means only 1 game is meaningless if 1 plays 4 on matchday 3, and 0 games are meaningless if 1 plays 3 on matchday 3. But of course, if 1 v 2 occurs on matchday 2, you are giving #2 a punishment for finishing higher than 3 or 4. It's a clear advantage to play the favorite on the final matchday, as they will have probably clinched top spot and will treat the match as a tune-up for the semis.
And then one bad call, or one miraculous goal, could put an end to an otherwise superior team's post-season. With all it's flaws, at least in the current format there are two games in the first round to reduce the chance that a single fluke will put a premature end to a superior team's post-season.
i posted this earlier, and i think we agree more than you suspect: i look at it like this -- World Cup Qualifiers ~ MLS Regular season (many teams participate, only the best* move on) {This is kind of a group stage -- put it's not an actual part of the playoffs or the WC final tournament} World Cup first round ~ First round of the MLS playoffs (a group stage to eliminate 1/2 of the teams) World Cup second round (knock-out matches) ~ MLS semifinals and final *this will improve as the league fills out into a 16 or 18 or 20 team league, or whatever, but 8 teams will make more "sense" than it does in a 12, 13, or 14 team league.
BS users are just offering opinions. no one is an expert. if you don't like the threads, ignore them. if others don't like how some things are done by the league, they'll offer up new ideas here. it's just an online discussion that seems to be worth having. if you're sick of it, why worry about it? just ignore it. you're free to follow what the league does and approve of it, but not everyone has to do so. others clearly think the league could do some things better.
in addition to this fine answer, single elimiation also limits the number of games played in the post season. MLS is a business, and i'd imagine they want to have as many games as they can, to sell tickets and get on tv and increase their exposure and all of that. with 8 teams, a group stage prior to the semifinals seems to make good business sense for MLS. a single elimiation (bracket) tournament would be fine, but I think MLS would view that as "too quick."
i have no insane spreadsheet. i know of no league or tournament that seeds teams in a group and awards home-field advantage as we are discussing for a single round robin. i do agree that the "major Achilles Heel of the group stage plan: meaningless games in the final week" is an issue, but i think the "meaningless first 90-minutes of an 180-minute total goals series" as they currently do the first round is an even bigger problem. half of the first round "games" in the current H/A series aren't really even games and they don't decide anything or offer 3 points to the winner. with a group phase we're sure to have 4/6 (or 5/6 as teams would be fighting in third game to host a semi-final) games that are very meaningful. and with the parity of MLS, I'm guessing, that the amount of games featuring two already-elimiated teams from the group would be low. but of course that is a guess, and any adoption of this group phase plan would need to accept that there could be some "meaningless games". the potential rewards (of more games and more meaningful excitement) from a group stage do outweigh the benefits of the current H/A system used by MLS in the first round of the playoffs, imo at least.
Ok, you're right. And wrong. If the favorites always win, then having 1v2 on Matchday 2, and 1v3 on Matchday 3, would make 0 games totally meaningless. But, you are wrong that in the favorites-win scenario, #1 would would be able to treat the final match as a tune-up for the semis. They would not be guaranteed to make it through. And, moreover, they would not be guaranteed to win the group, and thus host a semi (a significant incentive to win the group, not just simply advance) If the 1v2 game is on Matchday 2, and if the favorites-win scenario holds for the first two matchdays, then the group table before the final match would be: #1 - 6 points #2 - 3 points #3 - 3 points #4 - 0 points With the following games to be played: 1v3, 2v4. So, depending on the tiebreakers, ANY team could advance to the semis, and any team except #4 could still win the group and thus host a semi-final! Am I wrong about that?