MLS Playoffs 2012: Conference Semifinals PBP [Multiple R]

Been there, done that, never again please

 

Personally, I hope MLS keeps a two leg playoff series but starts using weighted away goals next year.

 

FWIW, having that tiebreaker wouldn't have made a difference in who went to the next round this year.

And given how DC, LA, KC and SEA played last night, I don't know if it would have made that big of a difference in how they approached the game. SEA was the only team of those that was perhaps conservative last night, but they also had a relatively comfortable 0-0 series aggregate to work with.

 

I know, but I'd still like weighted away goals. Maybe MLS doesn't do it because it seems so confusing to casual American soccer fans. Then again, as was previously noted in this thread, we also don't know what "rubbish" is.

 

Been there too, and it is way better than a 2-game series.

 

Away goals is a way to avoid ET and PK. It does not address the HFA problem of a 2-game series.

 

When was the last time MLS did the three game thing? Did we still have the Shootout?

Anyway, I disagree. I'm not a "Eurosnob" but I like the home and home series with weighted away goals a lot better than a three game series.

 

IMO, weighted away goals is a way to encourage road teams to attack rather than sit back and hope for a 0-0 draw.

 

However, I do accept a compromise. A 2-leg series, with a first to 4 points format. If no team reaches it, there is a third game.

I still prefer a 3-legged-first-to-5-points series, though.

 

No. It just twist it. A 0-0 draw goes to the host of the first match.

 

The problem is not be European. It is League v. Cup. After a 34-game regular season, having a stronger HFA in the playoffs makes more sense.

 

And here I thought nobody had even noticed that post

 

Agreed. No "series" is really perfect, but I personally think that the best option is home and home with weighted goals.

And I honestly can't remember, when did MLS go to two game series? I know they got rid of the Shootout starting in the '00 season, but I don't recall if they used three games playoffs after that date, and I'm too impatient to wait for http://www.mlssoccer.com to respond to look it up.

 

Yeah, I agree that a three game series gives the higher seed a bigger advantage.

Hmm, might have to rethink my opinion on this.

 

I still prefer2 games but the highest seed, in case the teams are tied in goals, should go through.. no extra time, no penalty kicks...

 

That could work too

 

I'm a fan of the away goals rule as well. It obviously encourages away teams to attack and home teams can't really afford to waste home field advantage playing for a 0-0. It provides both teams impetus to attack in both games.

 

Thanks. I was so happy when they got rid of the Shootout that I kind of stopped paying attention to other rule changes after that.

 

Difference in points between 2010 Rapids and SS winners (LA) - 13 points
Difference in points between 2012 Houston (lowest seed remaining and one of your 6 "good" Eastern teams) and SS winners (SJ) - 13 points

So explain to me how Houston winning wouldn't be an example of a half-decent team getting hot at the right time but the Rapids were.

 

That would have preserved D.C.'s advantage even with the location swap. If we must do two legs, which I don't like (it should be a single game), then this makes the most sense to me.

 

For what it's worth, I distinctly remember the earlier iteration of the 3 game series, and it was a "first to 5" series, which was the big mistake. It basically forced a game three in almost every instance, and team's knowing this, came out EXTREMELY conservatively in the first game - self fulfilled prophecy, I guess. The series ended up being too long. Unlike baseball and other sports where you can pile the games up in a short amount of time, you need time to recover, so these series would just go on forever.

I think the biggest mistake was not making it a "first to 4" series instead, and if so we may still see that format today. First to 4 at least gives you the ability to do what most teams want to do during a home and home - tie on the road and win at home and you are through (for the mathematically challenged, the first to 5 basically means that a tie on the road and win at home would still force a game 3).

But I also do like the two game series as well, as it ties things up a bit more neatly in a quicker amount of time, IMHO. Thus, I would be willing for the two game series, with overtime and PKs being the tie-breaker after two games.

The only difference between what we have now and this is getting rid of aggregate goals, which I think would favor the higher seed, as a blow-out in the first game on the road would not be the killer that it is now.