http://www.mlsnet.com/content/02/oped1007young.html Props to MLS for posting an opinion slamming the way they are currently doing the playoffs. I'm sold on this way of doing things. A 4-0 waxing by LA may make Game 2 less tense, but in this system that Game 1 is played in Denver and as such is less likeley to happen. And even if it did, who here thinks Colorado actually has a chance of winning the series anyway? If we had this format for the Burn v Rapids series, Colorado still advances based on the results. It may have its flaws, but I am for this system. It is simple, traditional and easy to understand.
The trouble is the article presents cogent, compelling reasons for two-game ties. Obvioulsly MLS will reject it. It makes too much sense, and MLS would align itself with FIFA standards that are understood world-wide. Foreign nationals living here might even take a gander at what MLS has to offer. Even casual fans might take notice. Yep, it's bound to be rejected out of hand.
Agreed. A hint perhaps? Not as much of a home field advantage as the author makes out IMO. (jsut playing devil's advocate here.) You mean the current series? I do. Wouldn't it have been 4-3 Dallas? Your Burn would be burning baby!! I basically agree with one exception. Make the Supoorters Shield a League-supported Cup complete with ceremony and panache. Substance. Then do the 8-team playoff for the MLS (League) Cup for a second trophy. That way the lack of a home field doesn't matter so much.
Sounds good to me...although I cringed when I read the last line of the 1st paragraph..."a two-legged tie with away goals counting double." Sorry, but this is a pet peeve of mine. Away goals do NOT count double. If the aggregate is tied, then the team with the most away goals wins. Isn't that simpler?
Re: Re: MLSnet: Six Points for Two Legs No Chance. The Rapids are done. I know all and see all. You're right - I was confusing systems. Aggregate Goals means Dallas Wins. WE WERE ROBBED. How about top 7 teams make the playoffs, the SS winner gets a first round bye?
I am uncomfortable trying to place the results of the first to 5 system into the two-game aggregate system. The teams would be playing differently because of the nature of the system, if they were playing a two-game aggregate. And although I agree that the two-game aggregate would be a simple way to determine the victor of the series, I think the biggest strength of the system is the fact that games would be known well ahead of time and would be relatively easy for teams to plan for. In other words, there wouldn't be a "phantom" game three to worry about--especially in this era where most teams do not have much control over their stadia. If the league really worries about the aggregate system creating "meaningless" game twos, one solution could be to not have an aggregate system, but play a first to 4 points, with their mini-game followed by pks after game two. That way, if the higher seeded team has game two, they would also have the benefit of the mini-game and pks at their home stadium if needed.
Re: Re: MLSnet: Six Points for Two Legs This is a concern I have as well. After all, aren't most of the European competitions where this method is used based on a blind draw? If so, then home field advantage shouldn't really matter. If MLS wants to really reward the higher seed, then they should do what the Mexican league does, put play-off seeding into the list of tie-breakers. I can't remember if they use it as the 1st or the 2nd (after agregate), but I think using it as the 2nd tie breaker would be the right amount of advantage for having the better regular season record. It hasn't really been reflected in the play-offs, but during the regular season it was the lower ranked teams that had the better away records for the most part. A two-leg w/o a points based tiebreaker would seem to be rewarding those teams for playing badly at home.
Point one is subjective piffle...you could equally say that there is nothing as exciting as the deciding game of a multi-game series, or a single winner-take-all game. Point three is nonsense...the incentive for an MLS team to win any playoff game is far greater than any benefits they would accrue from tanking a game. The only way this could be true is if one team is getting shellacked in game one of a two-legged series. I still don't get the objection raised in point four, that the second Revs-Crew game is meaningless because the first one ended in a tie. It's true that the series cannot be decided in Columbus, but whoever wins Game 2 will have a massive advantage going into Game 3, because they can advance with a draw. The "media and fan involvement" angle is a sick joke--those who already care about MLS care about the Revs-Crew game, and those who don't won't suddenly be converted by a shift in the playoff system. Point five is total crap. For all its defects, and they are legion, the present MLS playoff system does correctly reward superior regular-season performances by giving home-field for the playoffs to higher-seeded teams. How you can increase the home-field advantage by decreasing the reward for good regular-season play is beyond me. The whole article boils down to two points: 1) two-legged series are more exciting than the MLS playoff system, and 2) the author likes the two-legged system, so it should be adopted despite the fact that it's not ideally suited to the problem of what to do with the MLS Cup playoffs. I will cheerfully concede that the first point is true, but the second is blatant Euro-wankery. What MLS needs is a playoff system which provides the excitement of a two-legged series without making the regular season any less meaningful than it is now. Fortunately, the ideal compromise is on display on the other side of the Rio Grande: two-legged series with the higher-seeded team advancing on a tied aggregate. I'm surprised the idea hasn't been more widely contemplated.
The other point no one ever talks about is how wise is it to play "playoff soccer" sat-wed-sat-wed-sat? By the last two or three games, play gets pretty ragged and the opportunities for injuries, I would think, increase significantly. It's too much IMHO. And Northside, giving the SS a 1st round bye means they would sit out, what?, for 3 weeks, if the other teams were doing a weekend home and home? That's too long to sit out. That's actually a disadvantage, unless they were involved in some other competition in between (which is highly unlikely). I like home and home with Mexican tiebreaker. I don't think we had one Morelia-KC 6-1 shellacking in all of MLS all year, much less betwseen playoff teams, and even in Col-LA's game, when it was 2-0, instead of tossing in the towel, the Rapids would have fought harder than ever to either a) stem the tide at 2-0 and/or b) get that one goal to help the aggregate score. Unlikely in a homeandhome the result would have been 4-0. And even when you're down, say, 3-0 after the first leg, to me anyway, it's still exciting as hell to watch a team try and claw back into it on the return leg. And when it happens? Priceless. Still, the debate rages. No one seems to agree on any of this. I'm sure at MLS HQ the debate is similarly multisided, passionate and lacking in clear outcome.
Actually--this is rarely talked about as well. We hear the reverse a lot. If a team is down 3-0 going into game two, then the second game is meaningless. Well, if this was the system, and a team did manage to climb back and win the series after being in such a hole--this would be an instant classic of a game--one that would be talked about for years. I say--MLS should experiment and try the two-game aggregate for a couple of years and evaluate the system. Then we will know once and for all whether it is worthy to keep, or whether it should be scrapped for something else.
Another issue that the league should pay more attention to. When a game 1 has slipped away, the losing team has absolutely no incentive to do anything except avoid injuries and cards. Why fight to keep it close when it can only cost you?
One quick point to raise: when mentioning hypothetical scores from the playoffs, keep in mind that if the style of play, especially in a blowout, would have reflected the home-home format. I'm a big fan of aggregate / higher seeded tiebreaker format. It actually rewards the home team and will make the race for seeding all that more exciting (assuming there are still 8 teams, which unfortunately, I think there will be for next year.)
I say BRAVO!!!! Exactly what the league needs - a playoff system that can be explained in less than one sentence! However, I would suggest that away goals be replaced by higher seed being the tiebreak. Thus the higher seed is rewarded for its performance in the regular season. Thus getting the higher seed means much more than just "home field" advantage - it means that the lower seeded team MUST beat you. If you draw then the higher seeded team advances. (negative is that defensive squads don't attack as much and will settle for the draw on points - whereas away goals doesn't have that problem.) Either way a Home and Home is the way to go. I still vote for one game for the final.
I liked the last line at the bottom of the article: "Young's views and opinions are not necessarily those of Major League Soccer." Yeah, and on this issue, that's too bad.
But game 1 would have been in KC, Game 2 in LA. As the author states, things would have been handled differently by both teams, knowing there was only two games, namely, LA would have handled the game differently without knowing they'd be back in LA even if they got beat 20-0.
I don't know... they dumped the shoot out and the counting-down clock, didn't they? I have hope that regular season overtime and the first-to-five playoff format are the next gimmicks to go.
Single game elimination. Traditional home and home aggregate. Home and home with a Mexican tiebreaker. At this point I'll buy into just about anything that stands a better chance of getting more fans in the seats and more games on ESPN2.
And therein lies the rub. Going to a two-legged system will not add one single fan to the stands nor a single game to the TV schedule. It's windowdressing. You either like the games and show up to them, or you don't. This whole "creating excitement" discussion is a myth. The guy in the article likes two-legged playoffs and is coming up with specious arguments to support them. Here's a thought: Why don't we just play the games? Why not leave things as they are? Fan confusion over how first-to-five works is significantly less than fan confusion when the playoff structure changes every other year. Pick something and stick to it.
You must have been reading a different article. I thought each of his six points were weak, at best. Moreover, with three of his six arguments, you could infer that single-elimination is even better system than home-and-away.
I think changing the system will have an effect on both attendance and getting games on TV. Aside from LA, playoff attendance thus far has been ABYSMAL. Why would ESPN consider showing a game with only 10,000 fans sitting in Arrowhead or the Cotton Bowl for that matter? It makes for bad TV. Part of the reason for the low attendance is many of the games are on Wednesday nights. Home and home or single-elimination means fewer games and thus fewer mid week games (not to mention less player fatigue). Higher attendance improves the leagues image and I contend that helps in the cause of getting games on TV. This 1st to 5 mess ensures that LA can't start selling tickets to a Saturday deciding Game 3 because they don't even know if they will have one or not. If something doesn't work, you fix it. This system is broken. MLS is only 7 years old - it neither has the history nor the luxury of time to stick with plans that don't work.
For what it's worth, the A-League's been using this system (without the away goals rule) for 2 years and it creates very interesting playoffs. Ie Vancouver this year beating behemoth Seattle 2-0 in Seattle and forcing them to go all out in the second leg, only to be shellacked 2-6 at home. Or Richmond winning it on Rochester's field and becoming instant darlings to the rest of the A-League . And for fans and media exposure: people at the higher seeded city KNOW they only get one agme per round, so no one holds out for "Game 3". Also, dates are all settled in advance (ie ties are going to be at a precise date).
Actually, I bought my tickets over the phone yesterday. I get the money back if the Galaxy wrap it up tomorrow night.
I did not know that. I guess I am surprised they do that. Nonetheless I stand by my point: My guess is that not knowing if there will be a Saturday Game 3 until late Wednesday night suppresses attendance figures.
But that's just it--it just a guess. I submit that the manner in which MLS decides its post-season tournament is irrelevant to attendance. Check the season-by-season review: http://www.mlsnet.com/archive/year-by-year.html The fact is that playoff attendance is always spotty, regardless of format. My solution would be to put a better product on the pitch. That might generate more interest. Salaries, roster limits, reserve teams, transparent allocation/acquisition rules--these are all things that measurably impact the quality on the pitch. Why don't we focus our energies on something important? How the playoffs are decided is not important. It's not going to put more butts in seats, one way or the other. You want to try something to spur attendance? Fine. Get better players. Expand the rosters so teams aren't desperate to fill boots come this part of the year. Raise the cap so you can afford decent backups. Going to a two-leg system doesn't address the real problems this league faces. Like I said, it's window dressing. Let's think about putting a little glass in that hole in the wall, eh?