Actually Lions fans in Detroit filled the silverdome every sunday even when they were 2-14 and everyone knew they would be 2-14. There are numerous examples of this in the NFL. People like football because it's football. MLS has parity and according to you numbers don't lie so..... I have no idea why people bring the NFL into these discussions because it's not comparable but if you're gonna try to argue that parity has helped the NFL (it hasn't) then are you gonna mention that the NBA matched the NFL in licensed product sales this year - and the NBA hardly has parity (despite the salary cap) with only 5 different champions since 1987 (lakers 87, 88, 00, 01, 02 - san antonio 99,03 - detroit 89,90,04 - chicago 91,92,93,96,97,98 - houston 94, 95)
Actually, we probably should distinguish between two types of parity: 1. no clear team dominates accross a couple of years. Teams get a run going for 2-3 years, but then fade back into mediocrity. This is the type of parity NFL has. 2. no clear team dominates during one season. Right now the best record in the MLS is 7-5. Even when the worst team beats a fairly good one (see Metros and Revs last weekend), it's no big deal because all the teams are so close. This is BOOOORING. When I watch games, I like to root for the underdog. Anyone wanna clue me in who's a consistent underdog in the MLS??? MLS needs to strive towards the first kind of parity, not the second kind (no idea how to actually acomplish this). In the NFL, there are plenty of 13-3 and 12-4 teams every year. The teams might rotate in this role, but there are always some favorites. Why isn't MLS like this?
And I agree with them both! Its funny, even to this day, in my travels, and conversations with people from other countries, espeically in europe, the most widely recongnized club in MLS is still D.C. United. MLS had this in the bag to begin with, and then all the sudden.. "oh no, we cannot have one team taking all the glory" and decided to go all "parity" on itself. MLS in my mind all but stepped in, and forced D.C. United from the top, to allow other teams more of a chance at the the Cup. When in reality, MLS should have left well enough along, and let things run thier course. It took me a while to get over being angry at MLS as a whole, but I did. MLS is lucky D.C. United managed to win 3 of the first for and finish runner up the other year. If it wasnt for D.C. United, or any other club no matter who it might have been for that matter, MLS would not have gained the international attention / respect that it did in the beginning. To me, the beginnings of MLS are in fact the most IMPORTANT times for it as an entity. It seems to me that right now, MLS is all but crying out for alittle less parity. Of course everyone is giong to want thier teams to be "that team" for MLS. I want it to be D.C United. DUUUH. C'mon, no one here is going to say anyting other than they want it to be the side THEY support. That being said, there would be some advantage to having it be D.C. United once again, for obvious reasons. D.C. United became, and still is MLS's most widely recognized club. Like I said earlier, outside of the U.S. the first club that usually comes to mind when someone thinks of MLS is still D.C. United. If I had to pick any other team I think would be good to be that next dynasty for MLS, I would have to say Chicago Fire. I say Fire because I belive ( id have to go back and look to be sure)that they have the most or second most MLS cup appearances AND they have one championship. just my .02
Not long enough period of time. DC faded after 4 years. That's not long enough. I can't imagine the Quakes not fading very soon. Goose and Onstad are old, and Landon isn't likely to be around next season.
And yet, NBA ratings have declined precipitously since Jordan left at the end of the Bulls' dynasty. And when the NBA did their new TV deal, they only got the same amount of money that they got previously but the ABC/ESPN and TNT got more games in exchange.
BTW Ted, If the NFL is as popular as it is only because it's football and people in this country love football, then explain this: Up to the 1950's, the most popular football in the USA was college football. Pro football was a distant second, and probably only the fourth or fifth biggest sport in the USA, behind baseball, boxing, college football, and horse racing. Given that, exactly how did the NFL catapult to not only becoming the most popular football competition in the USA, but probably the single biggest spectator sport. If it's because people love football, then obviously, there would be no way that they'd be able to eclipse the college game which was already more popular. What was it about the NFL that allowed it to pass college football in popularity?
There are many other contenders, but is there a more overblown issue in the league today than the "problem" of parity? Close games are exciting. Close playoff races are exciting. And it's not because we have a bunch of mediocre teams. The Fire are playing mediocritically (not a real word), but they're a good team. Ditto los Terromotos. Same with the Galaxy. It's also much easier to sell tickets to a contender than to a washout. Unfortunately, this is the reasoning behind the 8 out of 10 playoff setup, which is the real problem in the league right now. But parity makes it easier, not harder, to cut down the percentage of teams in the playoffs. We need dominant teams like we need Luis Hernandez back. I'd rather have a bunch of good teams than one New York Cosmos and Insert Possibly Invalid NASL Comparison Here.
I gotta bring this topic back outta mothball bc I wasn't a member when this thread happened. I'll also answer this question: scheduling. A combination of actual talent and strength of schedule due to rotating division scheduling contributes to some of the "strong" teams that we see from year to year. Part of this is due to the fact that the NBA has been built around dynasties. People aren't as loyal to teams as they are to the icons of the sport and the personalities. It's as close to an individual sport as a team sport can get. The dynasties of the Lakers and Celtics are what got the NBA off of tape-delayed finals and the Bulls dynasty carried them into the 90's. Then two things happened, there was a near decade long scoring recession that the league has only recently recovered from; highlighted by a 120 pt playoff game between, I believe, the Pacers and Celtics. And there was no clear successor to Jordan until a few years back with the Shaq and Kobe Lakers. People tuned in to watch Shaq and Kobe in the Finals regardless. That was a dynasty that helped the league. Noone tuned in to watch boring Tim Duncan and the boring Spurs win titles. That is a bad dynasty, a dynasty that lacked personality and also placed a rather conservative, low-scoring, style of basketball.
yes, so the whole point is lift the salary cap and stuff eventually, and let whomever happens to become a superclub, let it be.
They weren't call the Quakes after 2005, but in every season after that post they never failed to either win the MLS Cup or finish at or better than second best in the league.
Yeah, nothing like continuing on a thread that is four years old. That said, isn't it obvious who the MLS' dynasty team will be starting in 2009?
I agree that parity increases excitement. One reason I could never support the English or Scottish leagues is because you know that it is close to impossible for anyone to topple the big four in England or big two in Scotland. However, I would like to see a MLS club have a shot to win the Concacaf champions league and even make a respectable run in either the Liberatores or Sudamericana if we were to qualify for those competitions. In order for that to happen, we would need a more stacked team which would probably dominate the league for a year or two.
Yet the EPL remains more popular in this country than MLS, obviously they're doing something right. I'm not saying that we need their type of dynasties. But we do need teams that capture the imagination. Even parity in the NFL allows for one or two dominant teams each season. Heck the Pats went 16-0 last season. The MLS playoffs are the equalizer and as we saw with the Pats last year it is more exciting to watch the big dog get knocked off than to have no big dog at all.
It wasn't locked so it made more sense to continue this thread than to start a new thread on the same topic. Yet the EPL remains more popular in this country than MLS, obviously they're doing something right. The MLS' goal is to convert those fans into fans of MLS. They say this over and over yet ignore everything that they want. You have to give a inch to to get a foothold. I'm not saying that we need their type of dynasties. But we do need teams that capture the imagination. Even parity in the NFL allows for one or two dominant teams each season. Heck the Pats went 16-0 last season. The MLS playoffs are the equalizer and as we saw with the Pats last year it is more exciting to watch the big dog get knocked off than to have no big dog at all.
You had a big dog last year. It was Columbus. They won about everything they could. And they didn't get knocked off in the playoffs. The question you are not answering is whether the league (not the Columbus fans) would be better if Columbus repeated for a few years. I doubt that would be a big draw in LA - people buying tickets and watching on TV to see if Columbus repeats. Wouldn't happen here, I think. We already had the repeat experience with Dynamo. So what's the big deal? Why is that not enough to satisfy the fans that want to see a dominant team? My guess is that this is another shiboleth trotted out by people who are drawn to the Euro game (and who have no time for MLS) trying to articulate a rationale for their viscera.
Source/link? I don't know how you'd measure that, since the Prem relies on TV exclusively in the US, but I still call shenanigans. Now, the MFL, that league is more popular than MLS.
But if there were a dominant team or two in MLS, the same situations would not arise. While the rest of the league may not hvae the same shot at the Supporters Shield, the playoffs would be the great equalizer as far actually winning the MLS Cup, and then all the "Davids" would still have a shot at the "Goliaths" in the playoffs, which MIGHT prove extra-exciting for those so inclined. I myself am not necesarily in favor of having dominant teams in MLS, but with the playoff system here (as opposed to the EPL or SPL or La Liga or wherever), there would still be an equalizer at work with the playoffs.
Good point that I pointed out several times in bigsoccer. a few superclubs + playoff = better than superclubs alone or parity + playoff
I'm gonna go out on a limb and say that that "something right" EPL is doing is paying their players more than MLS is.
The league absolutely needs 4-5 "super" clubs.. the degree of their "super-ness" can be mitigated by mechanisms (such as luxury tax, 2-tier cap model, etc..), thereby avoiding the pitfalls of to wide a disparity in payrolls ala EPL, yet all of the benefits (discussed above).
MLS did have a Real and a Man U type of dominant teams. LA and DC and league parity rules didn't do them in, horrible coaching, front office decisions and personnel decisions did, just like happens to every other dynasty
During this transition, I ask you to keep an open mind... ...and give us the chance to blow you, I mean, your mind