I know you weren't trying to be exhaustive with this analysis but thought I'd just add: 6-6-0-0 = two teams eliminated and two teams guaranteed advancement though with home field to play for (would coaches exhaust their starters to gain home field? Probably, but it depends on the schedule) 6-4-1-0 = one team eliminated and one team advanced though with homefield still to play for. 6-3-3-0 = if first place plays last place on MD3 then one team eliminated and one team advanced with home field still to play for. 6-3-1-1 = one team advanced though still homefield to play for 6-2-1-1 = one team advanced with home field locked up Without a doubt most coaches and teams will be motivated by homefield in the semi-finals and it is something tangible to bring the fans to the game. On the other hand, the intensity and pain (as a DC fan) of last night's game cannot be duplicated by the threat of a road game. In other words what makes the playoffs special for me is that gut-wrenching fear of your entire season ending on one shot (or ref's call). While battles for homefield will be enjoyable and interesting (as will battles for tangible third-place rewards) there is no substitution for two teams playing with their seasons on the line. There would be no tears shed after losing home field and no mass celebrations after securing third place. Basically, I agree with all the pros that have been presented as to group stages. They could be really interesting, they could generate revenue, and they could give clear rewards for regular season performance. And if on Matchday 3 all four teams are playing for their lives in two simultaneous games it could be awesome (though even then results in one match might make the other match less interesting). But most likely one group per year would end on a dull note, or at least with a match unworthy of the playoff moniker.
great comments. but i'd take that 1 out of 6 "dull games" possibility, especially considering how the current system (H/A) starts with two "incomplete" and "dull games." i'd take 5 out of 6 (if not 6 out of 6) in terms of potentially exciting/relevant games, compared to what is offered in 2 of the 4 "games" of the current first round game for one conference. in terms of relevant and potentially very exciting games i think the group stages 5 (or 6) out of 6 games in the first round is far better than the current group of games in the H/A first round.
Group stage? Please lets not think up schemes that add games that don't decide anything and are not do or die.
it's not a scheme. it's a format. know one here thought it up. we just stole the idea from the World Cup and the SuperLiga. it seems to be a fairly exciting and useful tournament format. the group stage (across a nice set of three games) is do or die. the current system is only (or primarily) do or die just in the second leg.
They might still be a fan, but I suspect they would watch more if the regular season meant something. It's only logical that people would be more likely to watch a meaningful match than a meaningless one. Imagine the EPL used a playoff format like the current MLS one. I might still watch Arsenal - Man United tomorrow (albeit with less interest), but would I watch Wigan - Chelsea? No at all! Anyway, I am rooting for all the "underdogs" in the MLS playoffs this season. Maybe it'll open some eyes.
It's increasingly clear that people who talk this line are just flat full of crap. The playoff qualification gets harder and harder as the years go by, and the league rewards the Shield more as well, but certain people refuse to see the progression that's obvious to everyone else. The BS here is that if the EPL used the MLS format, Wigan might be better than Arsenal, you wouldn't know until you'd seen them play a few times. It's in the current EPL format that Wigan has no chance and isn't worth watching to anyone who isn't blood-tied to the club. And that's another layer of the hypocrisy--you wouldn't watch Wigan now unless they were playing against a powerhouse. When you say "The Premiership" you don't mean it, you mean about four CL-quality teams, and the Devil take the rest. I think the last two games did open a lot of eyes. . . in ways you're surgically incapable of opening yours.
OK, I just read the first page of this thread (I'll continue on with the rest when I have the time), but there's a major flaw in this analogy that appeared on the first page (and maybe it has been covered since, in which case this post is irrelevant, but I'll go ahead anyway). The World Cup Qualifiers -- MLS regular season in your analogy -- exist for the simple reason that there is no easy way to pare ~200 teams down to 32. You can't have them play in one big comprehensive group stage like our MLS Regular season without necessitating a minimum 40,000 game schedule. Instead, you have the teams in each region play each other to get the top few teams from each. At the World Cup Group Stage -- MLS playoff group stage in your analogy -- the teams who qualified from the same region are purposely SEPARATED from each other as much as possible. Your scenario suggests the opposite. The regular season already determined the best 4 teams in each conference, so yes, a second group stage would be pretty much redundant. You simply cannot compare the World Cup and its qualifiers to the MLS playoff structure.
you are right. it is not a "perfect" analogy. as there are so many discrepanices between the set-up of international and club football. the main intention of my analogy was to express the "feel" of the two competitions (see the notes in parentheses from the bit you quoted). part 1: (many teams participate, only the best* move on) part 2: (a group stage to eliminate 1/2 of the teams) part 3: (knock-out matches) a WC cycle is over 4 years. an MLS season is within one year. of course the logistics and schedule will be different, so the analogy is not ideal, but I do think it presents an appropriate "outline." i agree a Playoff (especially if MLS sticks with conference alignments and groups for the post-season) is always a bit redundant. but, since MLS wants to have a post-season playoff, the same teams from the league are going to have to play one another once again, no matter the format used. i think the best format would be a group stage (and i do prefer the 1,4,6,8 and 2,3,5,7 model to the E1,E2,E3,E4 and W1,W2,W3,W4 model), as it seems the most balanced and presents the games in the first round in an exciting fashion (even though clubs are facing opponents they played in the regular season). but for the time-being (and maybe forever), MLS like the idea of conferences to attempt to build local/regional rivalries. that's why i think we'll always see the post-season be split into conferences, although i wouldn't mind seeing a single table during the regular season and the playoffs with groups done by a straight seeding (1,4,6,8 and 2,3,5,7).
But the more meaningful the matches are (or, if you will, the fewer meaningless matches there are), the greater the average TV ratings will be. Right. If the first 7 months of the EPL season were wiped away and everything came down to one month, Wigan might stand a chance. Although they sure wouldn't have deserved it... Who said that? I said I would NOT watch an early season Wigan v Chelsea match. Either that or in your gleeful attempt to be a complete mong, you totally misread my post. The Chivas and DC United losses last weekend seemed to have rendered the regular season virtually meaningless. And the team about to be crowned MLS champions won't actually deserve it. But everything seems fine to those with their heads buried in the sand...
If the first round was one game and DC and chivas got eliminated at home then the team that eventually wins the cup does deserve it because they won when they had to, on the other teams home field. For the two conference leaders not to lose at home does make the regular season meaningless. MLS doesn't seem to care that the playoff system is unfair to higher seeds, they just want all playoff teams to have a home game whether they deserve it or not and whether it does enough to make the regular season more meaningful.