As much as I would like to see the Evil Empire crushed again, I'm bothered that an MLS Cup will again provide a team with home field advantage. I don't think we have reached the point where an MLS Cup at a neutral (i.e. non-MLS) site would make sense. But things could be getting much worse. http://sports.yahoo.com/mls/news/ap/20021018/ap-mlscup-garber.html " next year's championship could be in mid-November --" Obviously, the later you have the MLS Cup, the less likely it would be in a cold-weather city. Is LA going to now get the MLS Cup every other year? Every year? There is no getting around that home field advantage is a huge one. If we're going to base the entire season on this one match, it should be fair.
How could MLS loose 250 million,where the salary cap for each team is less then 1 and half million.It seems the sport writers have the same line every time they write about MLS " The players law suit and lost 250 million the first 5 years". What else is now..
Why find some non MLS site that would be lucky to draw 20,000 people? Why not 2 legs, home and away? There goes the homefield advantage problem, plus you get two big crowds?
Re: Re: Home field advantage problem MLS CUP (R) Because you get a much bigger crowd when the game can be announced well in advance. It would not be certain until fairly late who would be playing in the MLS Cup,and therefore where the finals would be located. Though as MLS gets to be a larger league this will not be a problem. The Super Bowl is only in warm-weather locations. How many times has home-field advantage been an issue?
Re: Re: Re: Home field advantage problem MLS CUP (R) Not necessarily true. It's not a question of the crowd size, it's a question of whether or not you can get the stadium. Look at last year's final - 20K non-sellout in Columbus, announced years in advance. You certainly would've gotten a larger crowd in San Jose or Los Angeles, even on a week's notice. Come gametime Sunday, the Revs will have sold 35-40,000 tickets in the 8 days during which we knew the matchup.
Re: Re: Re: Home field advantage problem MLS CUP (R) Why are you making this case? We're now at 2/7 of MLS Cups with home-field advantage without LA getting one yet. Limit things to warm-weather locations and we could easily see LA with a home field advantage 1/4 of the time or more. If there were 28-30 teams, this might not be such a problem. With 1/5 of the teams making the MLS Cup, it is a big one. Further restrict the locations of MLS Cups and a couple of teams could benefit enormously.
Re: Re: Home field advantage problem MLS CUP (R) There are other considerations. The one game MLS Cup has done very well. It has a certain prestige and following. Getting rid of it could make MLS look even more like a minor league. One big game is exciting. The trend is going in that direction (i.e. European Cup). For all we know, a home and away might do little better than the other playoff games.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Home field advantage problem MLS CUP (R) I'm not certain of this at all. It could easiliy be no more successful than other playoff games. Best of 2 championship game? That might not connect with the casual fan that doesn't watch European soccer.
The MLS Cup is the crown jewel of the MLS season, it gets a prime time slot on a major network with even the semi-casual fan interested in the result. This allows MLS to hype it and piggy-back on the championshipmania with it's annual awards and other things. It's a fantastic opportunity for the league to put it's best foot forward. Because MLS takes full advantage of it (like every other intelligent sports league in the US) it needs to reserve a lot of things well in advance. Fixing the location is imperative. Also, it's a guaranteed revenue producer, so MLS uses that to reward new stadia or strategic partners. You can't make plans for all of that stuff at the last minute, it's just not possible logistically. MLS can't do a home and away because in the US teams that play once a week play a single game and otherwise the mainstream US sports audience wouldn't take it seriously. Basketball: college ~35 games, single elimination; professional 82 games, series. Baseball: professional 162 games, series. Football: college 11 games, single elimination; professional 18 games, single elimination. It's not clear cut (and I didn't even list hockey), but I think one game is what would be expected. Also, we need to shorten the season, not lengthen it, because when we compete with the NFL and college football, we lose attendance in a major way, and we lose our TV coverage almost completely. I say make all playoffs 1 game at the higher seeded team. -Tron
I know this has been beaten to death in other threads, but I am big proponent of the one game final. I have no problem with that. Hey, the Champion's league does it (I know, I know, we don't need to do everything like Europe...) And I understand all of the problems with not having the final designated way ahead of time. (Ask Andy_B about that!). But if MLS has control over more of its stadia, why not have the one game final at the higher seeded team? If you put two weeks between the semis and the final, and then market the hell out of the game, you will have a big crowd. And actually, a championship game tends to market itself. Look at this year. The Revs ticket selling really started after the Revs made the Cup. One idea I have seen that may make it a little easier, AND give a greater possibility of having the higher seeded team make the final would be to reward the Supporter's Shield winner get to host the Cup. That would be quite a reward for the Supporter's Shield winner.
One game championship. I hate a series. A final is just so special. I think the MLS playoffs are a bust once football season arrives. Baseball attendance takes a nosedive when football comes around. People only watch the World Series because it has become a big part of the American sporting culture. The NFL and College Football kill MLS. So I don't think playoffs are even necessary for MLS. Just have the two division champs play for it all at the team with a better records stadium, ON LABOR DAY. NOTHING happens on Labor Day, everyone is off work. There is no competition for fans. If you have to have playoffs then single elimination is the way to go. AND start the season in March.
Probably because they counted investor fees and stadium contruction in those losses. On topic, I have no problem with the home field advantage. The NFL does it too, its just that with 30+ teams, the odds of the host city's team making the Super Bowl are a lot lower than in 10-team MLS.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Home field advantage problem MLS CUP (R) He was stating the LA hasn't had a home field advantage, hence the 2/7 meaning 2 of the 7 mls cups have had a team with home field advantage (dc 97, revs 02), neither of which is LA.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Home field advantage problem MLS CUP (R) This reads to me like there have been 2 MLS Cups with home-field 'despite LA not hosting an MLS Cup', and that if they were limited to warm locales 1 in every four would be LA hosting and playing in the game.
The regular season should matter for something. Awarding MLS Cup to the Supporters' Shield winner is an interesting proposal, but giving it the higher seeded team in the final is clearly the better idea. MLS is a business, and there might be THREE TIMES as many people at this final as last year. The way the home advantage issue has played out this year could set an interesting precedent. LA is the higher seeded team, so they're wearing their home uniforms. If the host team always had to wear away uniforms and use the away locker room, the headgames might level the field a little.
radio unica said that mls is thinking of having all future mls cups at the venue of 1 of the finalists! i dont know how they will chose it , probably by cointoss?
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Home field advantage problem MLS CUP (R) Well, if they had everyone it would be 4/7. So far, no team has had more than 1/7. We could easily see LA with something around 1/4, which is immensely unfair. I'm assuming LA wouldn't host all of them, but will be a much better than average team. The issue isn't just what % of MLS Cups aren't fair, but how this affects every team. All things being equal (which they aren't since LA is likely to be better than average), restricting the location to a certain area shouldn't increase the number of unfair MLS Cups, but it will give the advantage to a select number of teams.
whatever, look at it this way: LA Girlies suporters have a ready-made excuse set to go for when they lose.
As the Supporters' Shield winner, LA should be hosting the MLS Cup. With 10 teams next year, play in two divisions and two weeks after the end of the regular season have the Supporter's Shield winner host the MLS Cup against the other division winner. When we get back to 12 teams, play in three divisions and insert the MLS Playoff game in the week before the MLS Cup between the other two division winners to see which one goes to the Cup to challenge the Supporters' Shield winner. Let MLS take the spot as the only major pro sport where you've got to win your division to have a shot at the championship. Currently MLS playoffs generate no significant popular "buzz". Even MLS championship games at neutral sites don't do much better. Championship games at hosted by a participant are about the only things that even come close. (See DC in '97 and now New England this year.) Weather concerns are overrated. (See DC in '97, and even New England as a neutral site in past years, if you want proof.) If MLS needs a few more games to get revenue, instead of devaluing the regular season by letting everyone but the very worst teams into the playoffs, use the division-weighted schedules to add a few games to the regular season.
You are all missing the obvious candidate. First select three teams that have never been in the finals: NY, Columbus and Dallas. Subtract the cold weather cities: NY and Columbus. Dallas is the winner! Would give Fair Park a good reason to fix up the Cotton Bowl knowing they would host the final each year. Another plus is it is about halfway across the country so it would be far for everyone!
Easy solution. No MLS Cup or playoffs. Winner is the winner of the regular season. Wow, what a concept! Actually, you award a team for the performance during the regular season rather than the playoffs... You don't run into conflicts with MLB, NFL, and college football and the games may even be on television! P.S. Stanford Stadium can hold up to 70,000+. Great warm weather final location...