MLS League Champion/MLS Cup Champion VS MLS Cup Champion/SS Winner... US Super Cup, could be another good adition to US soccer ("Soccer Superbowl"), with 3 US champions competing...
Under-capitalized or under-motivated owners who couldn't, wouldn't, or didn't know to make capital investments, but hoped that rapidly increasing popularity in the future would make up for losses in the present. MLS learned plenty of lessons from NASL, but having an insufficiently-capitalized ownership base was a problem for the current league for quite some time. This is generally no longer the case, but it certainly was in the early days. Even in the second expansion batch, Checketts was under-capitalized and Vergara under-committed. Even adjusting for inflation, original NASL expansion fees were six digits, and stadium requirements were minimal at best. Those who are buying in now have much more expected from them. When the expansion fee is $100M+ and physical facilities are also expected, participation is limited to those who can actually do it in the long run.
Sure the end was anti climate, but, like a roller coaster, the ride was thrilling. I thought they'd get caught at the finish line, they were running out of steam. I enjoy the differences in formats, I don't think either MLS or European leagues should change. But I do think we continue to acknowledge the Supporters Shield, a body of work and a playoff run are different things and both should be heralded. Plus, it makes the rare double extra special.
Do you honestly find a team winning a title with weeks left to spare in the season to be more entertaining than a winner-take-all match on the very last day of the season? Honestly?!?
All of those games still count. You have to be good enough to make the playoffs and you have to be good enough to beat the best teams in the playoffs. Sorry if your simple little mind can't comprehend that.
Or you have to be average enough to sneak in and catch a hot streak. MLS has had a champion with a losing record in the regular season. I comprehend it but in no way think they are deserving champions.
When Derby County finished their season in 1972, manager Brian Clough took his family to some remote islands off the English coast and sent the coaching staff and players to Spain for an end of season break. Derby were top of the table but due to the vagaries of the time Leeds and Liverpool still had one game left. Leeds needed a draw and Liverpool a win to overtake Derby. Liverpool drew and Leeds... Clough and his players only found out they'd won the league when they got phone calls.
This! Now this is exactly what I'm talking about. This encapsulates the excitement of winning the English Premier League(and every other league without playoffs) in the proverbial nutshell.
No, it doesn't, certainly not today. Watching (that's a difference right there- Vardy & co were chilling out like a tourney-leading golfer in the clubhouse waiting for the last couple of pairs to finish. They saw the Chelsea match) Hazard put Spurs* out of contention with a late goal --and seeing a club like Leicester win with two matches remaining-- was as exciting for me as a playoff final in this sport, IMO. I'm cool with playoffs, but I see them as somewhat unnecessary when there are few enough clubs for a single table. A single table is like a long, tough climb up a mountain, with the guy who stays in front the longest having the best chance to get to the top first. It's not likely that the climber who's halfway down the hill in the middle of the pack is suddenly going to make a huge lunge and pass the guys ahead of him. That IMO is how this game should be. Playoffs make the lead guy wait at the next camp until x of the rest catch up, then those x they start again together for the summit. And you're not taking into consideration the rest of the league's matches for the season. You've got clubs playing to stay up, playing to get to a confederation tournament, maybe playing to send a rival down or keep them from a title or a confederation tournament spot. The relegation battle isn't relevant in MLS, but the others are. Part of the single table allure is that the title can be won at any time after a certain number of games are played, and that draws as much attention as a tournament. It takes on a life of its own (lol), because you don't know when it's going to end. I love playoffs in all the sports that I grew up watching. That's why I think some Americans want playoffs in soccer here only because we're so accustomed to having them (and the single, scheduled Big Event that concludes the season in so many other sports). I'd prefer to have a single table in this game. *Nothing against Spurs; I was just hoping Leicester City would win.
They key part you wrote was much of the table still having something to play for. Here that just isnt the case hence playoffs so much of the table has something to play for.
Much more exciting ... just saying. But you know, hockey <-- if we can understand how they do ties and points in that regard ... yeah. How is the fact that they are used as a qualification and elimination method to get to said winner take all game ... discounting them?
FL Championship Pts GD 1. Burnley FC: 93 +37 2. Middlesbro: 89 +32 ------------------------------------------ 3. Brighton: 89 +30 4. Hull City: 83 +34 5. Derby C: 78 +23 6. Sheff W: 74 +74 Burnley and Middlesbrough automatically promoted to the Premier League. Brighton miss out on $150 million bonanza by 2 goals Play-off semi-final - Sheffield Wednesday 3 - Brighton 1 (agg). Brighton again miss out on $150 million bonanza losing to a team that finished 15 points behind them Is it fair? - No Is it justified? - Yes, as teams who would have been condemned to mid-table mediocrity for most of the season without playoffs still have something to play for.
"Okay, Board. Teams in our league currently compete for 5 different trophies, and no one cares about four of them...anyone got any solutions?" "MORE TROPHIES!!" "Shut up, Paulo"