Group Stage in MLS Cup?

Now I would like to suggest something that I haven't read from anyone else on this thread. Something quite controversial .......... the current playoff system is pretty great.

1) I agree that single elimination, while cool, would result in a slightly too short postseason, especially for those teams eliminated in round one. The current system means everyone is involved for two weeks and a four week playoffs is just right for me.
2) Unlike the three game system or first to five system, the current system is easier to plan ahead for, for both stadium and TV.
3) While the first game of a two game series doesn't decide anything, every single minute of it is important. Normally if a team falls behind 3-0 the rest of the game is pretty pointless. Not so here as even one late goal can completely change the dynamic of the "series."
4) The current system has produced some of the most memorable playoff games in MLS history (admittedly a small sample). Of course other systems could produce great games,but it's at least a mark in this system's favor that it has been exciting every year that it's been in place.
5) While the major complaint is that the playoffs are a crapshoot only 7 of 24 "series" have produced an upset. Two of those seven upsets were in the single-elimination round when there was a distinct home field advantage. For me this means the current system more often than not places deserving teams in MLS Cup, but upsets can happen and are exciting.

I do wish there was a more tangible reward for the regular season, though hosting the conference final is pretty good one. Sometimes both teams sleepwalk through the first game of a series, though I hope DC doesn't make the same mistake this year by playing for a draw in Chicago. Another week of playoffs might add more money and excitement, but I don't find it absolutely necessary. In short, this system is not perfect but it has a lot of good qualities that make it worth keeping.

 

this can be worked with. modifications to the schedule can be made if a group table looks like this after the first two matchdays:
Seed 1 - 6 pts
Seed 3 - 2 pts
Seed 2 - 1 pt
Seed 4 - 1 pt

adjust the schedule to cancel the Seed 1 v Seed 3 game (as Seed 1 has won the group). move the Seed 2 v Seed 4 game to the midweek (and play OT and use PKs if necessary). the winner of that midweek game plays at the weekend on Matchday 3 against Seed 3 (with the winner of that match earning the runner-up spot in th group).

the options there would be to cancel the 2v4 game (the option I favor), or to play it, but add some incentive like a cash prize or some qualification/draft standard for next season.

the MLS Cup already survives 4 "meaningless" games on the first weekend in the current season.

even with the parity that is in the league, you are correct the group stage format has it's dangers, but i think the positives of the system far outweigh even the worst case scenarios (should those arise).

having concurrent games on matchday three should not be a problem. the coverage on either network will be able to provide in game updates and highlights, and people have DVR's and there can be game replays if the action is fantastic in the "other" game.

 

you make some excellent points.

and while i do agree that the current system is "good" in some ways, i feel that there are other options out there (that MLS could try) that would make their post-season "better."

 

This would pretty much destroy the simplicity, familiarity, and ease of scheduling arguments in favor of the group format.

 

that is of course true, but such a modification would only be needed in the case where one team won both of their games on Matchdays 1 & 2, and the other two games in their group on those Matchdays ended in draws.

the Group Stage "works" more often than it "runs into complexities" or "meaningless" games.

in fact, they don't even have to use the modification i suggested, they could just play out the group games as scheduled and the top 2 teams on points would go through to the semifinals.

there are quirks in a group format, and if a team can't get the necesary results from their three games, then they don't advance. every team would know that going it. there is some debate about the best way to arrange the matchdays and order of play to ensure the most useful/fair groups (outside of the home-field advantage) and to hope for limiting the possibilities of teams playing meaningless games.

yes, the group stage can lead to that possibility (but there are ways that the system can be adjusted -- all be those complex adjustments) that could help address the situations should they arise.

 

And if were lucky we will be able to see a team advance on a coin flip.

 

if the tie-breakers in the group every came down to that point, i would hope they would use "regular-season record (or playoff group seed)" as a tie breaker before they flipped a coin.

 

We are entering the cure is worse than the disease territory.

Considering the MLS is still adding teams would it not make the most sense to just tweak what we have until we can see how things shape up?

Sometimes it just happens that you get a good team that squeaks in the playoffs.

 

I love the original idea, and have advocated it for years here, with a couple of minor adjustments.

I would seed the groups slightly differently, 1,4,6,8 and 2,3,5,7, based solely on regular-season overall finish (to simply eliminate the possibility of a conference runner-up having fewer points than the third-place team of the other division, but having a higher seed). The reason is that, in this system, every higher seed is better than the lower one, either another home game or avoiding being in the same group as the top seed. That really would make every late-season game meaningful for every team (except those already eliminated from playoff contention completely).

And, I would play the three group games within a one-week span, Saturday, Wednesday, Saturday, just to cut down the length of the playoffs.

I have also toyed with the idea of skipping the semifinal round altogether, and simply having the MLS Cup Final between the two group winners, but there are pros and cons.

 

I'd support the weekend-midweed-weekend set-up for the first round, but i think the cons of that system (rushed travel, short re-coup time, low mid-week attendace) outweigh anything gained by keeping the playoffs at 4 weeks and not 5 weeks in duration.

I think the semifinals needs to be maintained to keep interest/importance in the group stage on as many games as possible. by only having the group winners advance, more of the group stage games have the potential to involve "eliminated" teams.

 

i agree wholeheartedly with everything jfranz just wrote. and i don't need a picture/diagram to recognize the simple benefits of the plan being offered/discussed in this thread.

i don't at all agree with Sakatei's assessment that:
"We are entering the cure is worse than the disease territory."

the "disease" (the current H/A first round playoff system used by MLS) is actually quite bad and has many problems.

the "cure" proposed here (a group stage in the first round) is in many ways better than what we've been looking at for the past 4 seasons (and anything else MLS has tried in 12 seasons of post-season play).

 

This might be a good time to remind everyone that Lamar's dead.

 

I'm late to this thread, but am really glad its been taken up. I've been supporting the 1st round group play for MLS playoffs for years.

That said, you raise some good points. I think you are overstating the problem of a meaningless group play match. MLS can and would survive such a problem. Group play has a long tradition in soccer; soccer fans would recognize and accept this possibility.

To help reduce the problem of a meaningless match, you could have the top two teams from group play advance to a final four. Here, E1 could host W2 and W1 hosts E2. Personally, I think this is a bit of overkill.

Another thing you do for, say, team 2 hosting a meaningless match on the last week of group play, would be to offer fans a free ticket to a match the next year, or offer a small discount for next year's season tickets. Or hand out free soccer balls.

But If I'm weighing the benefits and disbenefits of group play versus the current system, I want to err in rewarding the conference champs. That's a bottom line for me.

Finally, you don't have to hold final matches at the same time. That's a WC construct and doesn't have to affect MLS. Simply give the higher-seeded team their choice of times to play.

 

That's fine.

I could live with that

But I hate this idea.

I still like group play a lot better than any of these ideas, though - even if a number of them are better than the current system.

 

Do you really think team #1 is going to risk injury and exhaustion in order to keep form and possibly knock out team #3? If anything they should be happy to see team 3 win since that will knock out team 2, presumably the more dangerous opponent. Even if they play their starters there is no possible way they will be as motivated as they were against team 2, so the problem still exists that team 2 finishes ahead of team 3 in the regular season, ties team 3 in the playoffs, but can be eliminated because team 3 received a much easier playoff schedule. This is crippling to any sense of regular season reward and competitive fairness.

The earlier idea that you would just cancel the 1v3 game means that team 2 would have to play four games to qualify while team 3 only needs to play three, again wrongly giving advantage to the worse team, not to mention all the disappointed fans of team 1 who have purchased tickets well ahead of time to see the most exciting game of the group stage.

I don't have much preference about how the playoffs are structured or whether we have playoffs at all. Every system has advantages and disadvantages, but I can't see this option as viable until someone can solve this competitive dilemma. Unless we're talking hundreds of thousands of dollars for each win in the group stage, as in Europe, then I don't think bonus dollars are going to be enough motivation either.

 

It was done previously - and it sucked. MLS had a bastardized version called the best to 5 points. You could add OT & penalties to avoid ties, but ties are a part of the game. Do you want to potentially wipe out the players or use a system that is a basically a throw of the dice?

 

Attendance would suffer - as would quality of play - IMO, if this was done over a seven day schedule. If you want to cut down on the playoffs, don't have a semifinal match. The 1,4,6,8 vs 2,3,5,7 is a good idea, though - unless you want to reinforce conference rivalries during the playoffs.

 

That's because jfranz laid out the argument carefully point-by-point. Sakatei merely stated a problem, but with no argument or analysis to support the point.

 

Meaningless games at the end of the regular season are inevitable so people can get over that. Meaningless games in the WC happen but the glory of the games is being at the event and being seen by billions of people so that's okay. Meaningless games in the CL still result in hundreds of thousands of dollars and an international stage for advertising your best players to bigger clubs so that can be survived. Meaningless games during the playoffs goes against the very nature of playoffs, which is to condense a season's worth of work into one intense month of play. Worse than the games being meaningless is the fact that they unfairly alter the competitive structure of the playoffs.

Even if the top two teams qualify for the next round there can still be meaningless matches for one team or another.

Someone buys a ticket to what is supposed to be the most important match of the year but then you give them a couple reserve teams and a free soccer ball? Sounds like bait and switch to me.

I agree that rewarding the conference champs is the largest benefit of the group stage and should be a primary focus of any playoff system.

Of course you have to hold final round matches at the same time. The CL does it as well and the WC didn't come up with idea because it was cool, they do it because otherwise two teams will play for a tie, knowing that both teams will be happy with the result and you have not only an awful match but the integrity of the result comes into question.

 

The logic here makes my head spin. Since 3 has to play at the home of 2, how does 3 get the easier schedule? I was with you on the point that the third round has the potential for meaningless play.

Without going into great detail here, I would simply eliminate the semi-final game - unless group 1 winner played group 2 runner up, and vice versa. That at least lessens the idea of Seed 1 tanking it in the final group stage game.

What? Team two plays four and team three plays three? Huh? I must have missed that "plan." This is beyond dumb.

 

If I understand this correctly the solution is to have a playoff roster of 20 (or so) players. Period. If a player goes out with an injury he can be replaced by another active player (you can't go an add a Riquelme).

That way no reserve squad players can be used. I hope that at least settles that one point.

I can't devise a system that forces the first and second stringers to play their hardest; they are, however, professionals and will need to answer to their fans and media.

I suppose that if the group winner is known after the first two matches, you just cancel the third round. Like game 5 of the World Series this year.

Again, I'm not in favor of semi-final matches. I think that's just redundant.

 

Geez, way too many posts on my part. Sorry about that.

One last thing: I strongly favor having the MLS Cup winner host the MLS Cup at their home field the next year. I think that's a great reward to the players and club organization.