MLS reveals new set of standings tiebreakers for '12 season

i get it. great. but this league needs to stop switching and changing rules all the ********ing time. actually this applies to the game worldwide as well.

 

I don't believe they've changed these rules in years -- despite the long standing need for them to be changed. I don't recall how old these previous rules were, but they were very long standing. Indeed, for all I know, this is the first time the tie-breaking procedure has been changed. (Somebody I'm sure can say for certain on that point.)

So I'm not convinced your complaint here is really founded in reality.

 

I believe he is making a complaint about how MLS changes rules in general on a basis, not just this specific instance.

 

In addition to SS, an East vs. West tiebreaker could be needed to determine MLS Cup home field, and also CCL qualification if a fill-in team is needed due to someone qualifying by more than one criterion.

(Also, less importantly, it could matter for draft and allocation orders.)

 

Why are they changing these rules in the middle of the season? Why not establish them before the season starts?

Seems a bit unfair to me.

 

The only thing that was possibly a change I can think of had to do with the elimination of the shootout.

The original rules listed the the first tiebreaker as "head-to-head win-loss record," which was interpreted by fans during the shootout years to mean that shootout wins and real wins counted the same for tiebreaker purposes, even though they had different point values in the standings. I don't think the league ever said so explicitly, though, and there was never a situation where varying interpretations would have made a difference.

After the shootout was scrapped, nothing was changed in the published tiebreakers--it still said "win-loss record" with no mention of draws. For two-way ties, this didn't really present a problem--whoever won the most games between the two teams was the winner, even if there were also some draws mixed in. It became confusing when trying to analyze 3-way (or more) ties, especially when the 3 teams didn't all play each other for the same number of games. You'd add up the combined head-to-head records, and it wasn't clear what the standard was to rank the "win-loss record." Winning percentage? Points per game? Winning percentage with draws ignored? Who knew? Eventually some journalists dug into their league sources and it was revealed that the real standard was points-per-game, and at some point they finally fixed the published tiebreakers to explain that.

So, it would seem that the only change before now was from win-loss record with shootouts to points-per-game without shootouts, and it just took them a few years to tell us about it.

However, it could be that points-per-game was always the standard, even in the shootout days, and they just did a horrible job of drafting the published rules from Day 1, which would mean they never made a change before this one.

 

If the idea were to materialize, which market could be the first to stage such games? Japan? Aussie?

 

I was thinking that too. But I wasn't completely certain either.

Somebody must have some old media guides from back in the 1990s ...

 

No, but they have changed the playoff format quite a bit recently. Gone from a fairly simple unbalanced schedule to a balanced schedule to a even more unbalanced schedule centered around conference play.

 

So I understand Matt Doyle reports elsewhere that these changes were adopted in the winter and the teams were informed. So that addresses my big complaint. Leaves me only to whine about the incompetent lack in timeliness of communications which is kinda just bitchin. So, whatever.

 

If 2012 rules were to be applied to past seasons, the most significant impacts would be:

2000: Chicago Fire would have won the SS ahead of KC on Goals Scored.
2009: Houston would have won the Western Conference and Runners up to the SS ahead of LA Galaxy.

 

Does the league's Board of Governors have jurisdiction over the SS? Is it automatically required to abide by MLS's tiebreakers? Or, is there a separate governing body that would have to adopt the updated tiebreakers?

 

When it was created the supporters had jurisdiction over tiebreakers, and decided it should follow the same format as the league rules as that was what the teams were following/playing for. I don't know if that means the tiebreakers automatically adjust to what the league decides though. Also with the SS having more importance due to Champions League spots, I don't know if the supporters the supporters have the same control. Sam Pierron would likely know the most about this.

 

The league will determine the SS winners (or minimally the teams to be awarded the CCL spots) based on the new rules, which say:

 

Good Point.

On the note of non-US teams winning the SS, the best placing so far was 11th in 2010 by TFC. In 2009, TFC were 12th at 39 points (the highest by non-US teams), just 1 point away from 8th-place and play-off.

Vancouver is currently sitting on 8th place at 37 points, 10 points away from SS with 10 games to go, well on-course to set new records for placing, points total and play-off advancement (should they qualify).

Keep it up...

 

More "impacts" on past seasons with the new rules:

2005: LA Galaxy would have finished 3rd in Western Conference ahead of Colorado, and played Dallas instead of San Jose in the conference semi-final.

2007: Chicago would have finished 8th overall behind Kansas City, and needed to "switch conference" to face Chivas USA in the conference semi-final instead.

 

Bingo... This rewards BOTH sides of the game. There is no genuine reason to penalize teams that play good D.