that looks fairly accurate to me. but that does assume that everything goes to plan, and the favorites (and home teams) always win. of course that's not how it always goes, and upsets are part of the playoff excitement. i think having 1v2 on matchday 2 does seem to be a good way to help limit meaningless games on matchday 3, but there of course is no way to know/prove if they can be avoided. but as you note, (even in the case where there is a meaningless matchday 3 game) the other matchday 3 game in that group will decide who hosts a semi-final, and who travels, so that game is very important. would setting up the possibility for "not playing" any "meaningless" game that could be scheduled for matchday 3 mean that results on matchdays 1&2 would likely lead to all (or a better percentage) of the matchday 3 games having meaning. (i.e. -- if teams know they could be knocked out after two games, and not even have the opportunity to play on matchday three if their scheduled opponent was also knocked out, would that somehow lower the instances of meaningless games on matchday 3?) i doubt there's an answer to that. either way, i like the schedule that has the 1 seed playing HHH, the 2 seed playing HAH, the 3 seed playing AHA, and the 4 seed playing AAA in each group.
Except the first leg is nothing even resembling meaningless. If you win the first leg by, say, two goals you have a significant advantage that's probably even bigger than if you won your first group stage match. Anyway, meaningless final matches of the group stage isn't even the biggest problem. It'll be a little boring, but most people probably bought their tickets anyway. The biggest problem is when its meaningless to one team but not the other. Then it's not fair to the other teams in the group who never got to play a team's "B" side who doesn't care about the result.
i see what you're saying, and of course a 2-goal win (or lead) is important. but a 1 goal win isn't really a win. it is just a lead. and a lead that has to be protected over a full 90 minutes in the second game. there's no real prize or points or anything for having that lead (yes it is great if that lead is large), so i see very little meaning in the first game of the H/A series, as there's no real "totality" to that first 90 minutes. i just don't see it as a game. i see it as half of a larger game, and i think it is usually played as such. and i think that detracts from the sport and I think the playoff system could be a better one if it didn't use the total-goal H/A format. yes, it is an issue, when one team is eliminated and the other is not. but i do think that the eliminated team would play to knock out the other team. of course they don't have to. although it was great to see RSL (and eliminated team) take out Colorado who was still playing for a playoff spot on the final weekend of the regular season. i just think MLS teams are interested in helping to knock out as many teams as they can. but if team A is lucky enough to be facing an "eliminated" team B in matchday 3, then that team A did enough against teams C and D to not be elminated after just two matchdays, as happend to team B. i don't know how the percentages will work out, but there are sure to be some games that involve 1 (or 2) already eliminated teams, but i think there will also be a fair share of years that feature important games on all three matchdays.
If you're going to change the playoff system to reward final position in the table (which it should) without cutting down to six teams, try the AFL Finals Series setup. There's no real advantage, I just find it to be so chaotic that's it's wildly amusing. It also sets up the potential for a playoff rematch, which I think is interesting Goes like this: First round: A: 1 v 4 B: 5 v 8 (loser eliminated) C: 2 v 3 D: 6 v 7 (loser eliminated) Second round: E: Loser of A v. Winner of B (loser eliminated) F: Loser of C v. Winner of D (loser eliminated) Third Round/Semi-Finals: G: Winner of A v. Winner of F H: Winner of B v. Winner of E Finals Winner of G v. Winner of H at Neutral Site Like I said, I just love the sheer chaos this involves. No real advantage to it other than that it provides regular season success with very tangible advantages.
Well, that's the scenerio that has 0 meaningless matches, as I wrote in my post. The one that has 1 v 4 in matchday 3 has the same table entering matchday 3, except #1 has clinched top spot already (unless you use goal difference as your tie-breaker) because they win the tiebreaker having already defeated 2 and 3. Hence, the 1 v 4 match is meaningless. Of course, when I assume that the higher seed always wins, its based on the idea that the higher seed usually wins and therefore the favorites-always-win scenerio will occur more often than any other scenerio that involves one or more upsets over the long-term.
that is an interesting (and perhaps even useful) system, but it is for a sport that doesn't have a lot of draws. the issue i have with one-off games for soccer is that they need extra time and pks often to decide the winner. a group stage works for soccer (as draws are ok), and it is a battle to accumulate points across the three games of the group phase. the AFL's system also has 9 games (which is fewer than the 11 of the current system used by MLS). the group stage, as it is discussed here, would be 15 games, and 15 instances to sell tickets. and as a business, I see MLS wanting to expand (not shorten) its playoffs.
The more expansive you make the postseason the more you devalue the regular season. Don't make MLS into the NBA playoffs. I do not want to spend three years watching the playoffs.
this system (as listed by the thread-starter) actually values the regular season more by giving more home-field games in the playoffs to the higher seeded teams. did it take three years to watch SuperLiga this summer? this proposed format for the playoffs is the exact same number of games. (although SL had breaks for league play, and the MLS playoffs would be on successive weeks/weekends). it has one more matchday (or weekend) than the current playoff system used by MLS. I don't think one more additional week would be an issue (especially if MLS shortened the regular season, perhaps be removing the All-Star Game -- or by pushing that to the post season kinda like the Pro Bowl). I see the increased excitement and vitality of a group phase as something that would be worth this minor extension of the playoff timeframe.
I completely agree with you. BUT, this system would add only 1 match (per team) to the current system. Currently: Minimum for a Cup Qualifier = 2 matches; Maximum = 4; With Groups: Minimum = 3; Maximum =5. It's not going to devalue the regular season. Indeed, because of the dramatic incentives built into this model (more home playoff games the higher up the table you finish) it would increase the value of the regular season. Or, so I'd like to suggest. I've worked out several scenarios, and, honestly the problem of "meaningless" encounters on the final matchday is less likely than I first feared. And, if we you can find a proper incentive for the teams that finish third in each group, you can eliminate the risk of "meaningless" matches entirely. Could/would a cash incentive for third be enough? Maybe award higher draft picks to the third place finishers? Direct qualifying for next years Open Cup (instead of top six in the regular season, top six in the playoffs). Some combination of cash, draft-position and Open Cup qualifying? Any other ideas? Finding incentive for third would solve the biggest problem with this system.
Well, that's just a difference in philsophy. I personally prefer to limit playoff games as much as makes sense. For one, it makes playoff tickets a scarce resource. I find it very hard to take the NHL and NBA playoffs very seriously, and I don't think I'm alone...they just drag on and on without much drama or urgency as a result of allowing so many teams to participate. And if entry to the playoffs is limited as in baseball and the NFL, the regular season simply means more. So maybe more tickets are sold during the course of the year because the "pennant race" time of the season is more meaningful (and yeah, I realize I have no numbers to back that up, that's just my general mindset).
This isn't even close to the tedium of the NBA/NHL playoffs. NBA Playoffs Maximum number of games for a playoff team: 28! Minimum for a championship team: 16! Absolute minimum for a playoff team: 4 (2 at home) MLB Playoffs Max games: 19 Minimum for a champ: 11 Absolute minimum: 3 (1 at home) MLS Playoffs (Currently) Max games: 4 Min: 2 (1 at home) MLS Playoffs (w/ Group Stage) Max games: 5 Min: 3 (0, 1, 2 or 3 at home, depending on regular season performance) This would not be anywhere near the playoff saturation (and thus regular season minimization) that a league like the NBA has.
Everything starts small. You play a regular season with the purpose of seeding teams and than you play again to reseed the eight. Two of those teams will more than likely never see a home game. Seems like the regular season would lose value as your group play would determine your seed for the elimination rounds. And home field is not exactly a great advantage in MLS at this time. If MLS wants to give the higher seed an advantage they can use away goals and put them on the road first in the two-leg matchups.
I don't think there's enough time for a group phase before winter, or that MLS could sell the games. But if there was and they could, it wouldn't be a bad idea.
The first 7 years of MLS had a format with a maximum of 7 games per team, and in 6 of those years the final was played before Nov. 1. This format would have 5 games per team, just one more than they have now. I think they could figure out a way to schedule it if they really wanted to do it. Doesn't mean I endorse the format.
Seems to work for the NFL and MLS is fine with it after the first round. Single elimination gives the higher seeded team a genuine home advantage.
Fair enough, but they a) often started the season too early, b) only had 28 regular season games for some of that, and c) didn't have as many other tournaments to deal with (as in, you can't go two a week to make up for that because in many instances MLS teams will already be doing that). What I'm saying is that in general, MLS has many, many scheduling constraints. It gets increasingly difficult to accommodate more of them.
And that's different from the current situation how? Lesser teams regularly defeat "superior" teams in the playoffs. That's part of the excitement. I'd love to know how important home field advantage really is in the first round of the MLS playoffs. I'll hazard a guess it's not much.
I have to disagree. The regular season would gain significant value because your group seed - a direct result of your play in the regular season - becomes critical to your chances of advancing to the semis. And, moreover, you're not just "playing again to reseed the eight." You're playing to eliminate half the teams (which is exactly what happens now). Yes, the winners of the groups - which would not necessarily be the highest advancing seeds - would host a semi. It's the best way to add incentive to winning the group, not just simply being satisfied to advance, and thus add more vitality to the group stage matches. But the higher your seed, the more likely (in theory) you are to win your group, and thus host a semi. And besides, with this model, 1-seeds will be guaranteed 3 post-season home matches; more than the maximum possible under the current system and a significant competitive - and hopefully, someday, financial - reward for a strong regular season. And 2-seeds will be guaranteed 2 post-season home matches; more than they are currently guaranteed, and equal to the maximum possible under the current system, and again, a significant competitive/financial reward for a strong regular season. 3-seeds would be guaranteed 1 post-season home match; equal to their current guarantee. The only team really "missing out" are the two 4-seeds. But, arguably, that's the strongest regular season incentive built into the model. Want a home game in the Cup? Win in the regular season! Because a top 8 will get you into the Cup, but only a top 6 will guarantee a home game.
It's sounds like a good idea if the league cut the league games by 5, then maby that could be possible. Truthfully it should be (seeds) 1 vs 8, 2 vs 7, 3 vs 6, and 4 vs 5 with 1 game elimination(s), no bullsh*t away goal rule. team with higher seed plays at home. championship would be at highest seeds stadium, It's only fair to the fans!
I'm shocked people are even debating the point. I think they must not quite be picturing it right. The 8 seed in the playoffs would need to place in a group and win an elimination over 4 consecutive road matches to get to the final. Possible but. . . good luck. A couple thoughts: - You could eliminate the Semis and solve any season length issue. . . but the cost would be more meaningless games between. - Or, you could give the top 2 seeds a bye through the first round. . . but that might be more rest than they actually want. (2 consecutive bye weeks). - On another note, you could play a GGOT for every tie game after 90 Min, making it that much harder on lower seeds (as that will theoretically do more to separate wheat from chaff).
Then what is the point of the regular season? All four teams in a group will play the same teams. Home field is not as big of an advantage as it is in some other sports. The team that is hottest will advance regardless of seeds. The MLS regular season is already one large group stage. Why do we need two? What is the economic justification for the lower seeded teams?
Seeds totally defeat the point of having a group. The WC seeds are used to seperate the best teams. In MLS with only two groups this cannot happen. The whole point of a group is to determine seeding for the next round. Why the need to stack the deck?
To get the high seed and the easy path through the playoffs. Aha. This is the crux of the problem. http://www.usatoday.com/sports/sagarin/mls07.htm?loc=interstitialskip Home field advantage was worth .38 goals a game this season, and that's a little lower than the .41 it was worth last year. Or to put it another way, the home team tends to take a little over 60% of the points awarded over the long haul. But where the advantage really kicks in is accumulatively. It's one thing to win a single game against a theoretically better team with a .38 goal disadvantage, it's another to expect to have a high success rate doing it four times. No, that's what people are alleging happens now. Uh, why not? He's just arguing it's better than the other options. You seem to be arguing against your prior post here. At one point you object by saying his system doesn't punish low seeds, and now you say it shouldn't. I disagree on both points, but assuming you were right both times wouldn't that make this system perfectly OK?
Exactly. Guilty as charged. I did not fully understand the proposal. However... What is the overall purpose of the group system? To make the regular season more intense? To increase the advantage of the higher seeds? ------------------------- And it will still happen regardless of the format. -------------------------------- There are two problems that I see with the group stage and I will try and not contradict myself anymore than usual. 1. You get meaningless postseason games. Just like the WC you will get games with one team out and the other team with a virtual group victory. One team with two wins verse a team with no points. If you go on head to head the group could already have been won. If you go on goal differential the gap could still be large enough to remove any real chance of the team being knocked down to second in the group. 2. You weaken the support of the weaker teams. If your team is in a struggle to make the final spot and you know they will never get a home game again support will be lost. We like to pretend that everyone will stick with it but in reality that does not happen. Combine this with the lower chances of postseason succes and you further erode support for weaker teams. A declining fanbase is not great incentive to go out and spend more money to improve your team. While I think the top teams will enjoy the benefits of this system I think it will just create a gap between the classes of teams in MLS.
OK, I can see better where you're coming from now. Theory being that if you do the latter, the former will happen as a consequence. I think that's a little overplayed myself, but the latter is enough for me anyway. Remember, the goal is not to produce a perfect system, just one that's better than what we have now. It can, now and again, but you can substantively change the odds, or how "hot" you have to be, of winning the Cup that way. And I put it this way: supposing you make it harder to win the Cup by getting hot, the teams that still do it will have that much more admirable a playoff series. I personally don't think the 2005 Galaxy catch the same kind of flak if their playoff road is perceived to be harder, even if they still come out on top. I don't much like the idea of meaningless postseason games either, even if they happen to be more the exception to the rule. Maybe the system where, in each group: A1 seed gets bye A2 seed has two home games against A3 and A4 A3 seed gets it just against A4 (and on the road vs A2) (A4 goes on the road twice, vs A2 and A3). And only one team advances from the group. This way, with one less game in the group phase, meaningless games are nearly impossible. Especially if you start with the lowest first. Matchday 1 (Sat): A4 vs A2 Matchday 2 (Weds): A3 Vs A4 Matchday 3 (Sat): A2 vs A3 Here, the only way Matchday 3 is irrelevant is if A4, the upset special, won both times. And you can declare that last one (if necc.) This was definitely why Lamar Hunt wanted 8 of 10 teams in the playoffs, and wanted everyone hosting a game. I think most fans disagree with him, as many MLS fans would say "why give them the reward, when you can give it to the teams that 'earned it'.?" And in practice the playoff game has not tended to be a draw for most teams anyway. (Also, he might have been wrong about 8 teams, as "we made the playoffs!" hasn't proven to be an impressive claim among fans either, in the sense that it doesn't seem to increase attendance the following year much if any).