New Clean Sheet: Tons of stuff / rumors

I would prefer 4 best teams instead of 8 in the playoffs (no room for mediocrity in the playoffs IMO). Plus the first to 5 series doesn't make sense to me. I would like a home-away series better with no away goal rule.

 

How about taking the top four teams, then having them play each other in a round robin round, with the top two teams advancing to some kind of final. I think that might be a good solution with the limited number of teams in the league.

 

Re: Re: New Clean Sheet: Tons of stuff / rumors

What specifically makes no sense? Two wins and you're through. Any kind of a tie and you get a Game 3 at the higher seed. It eliminates the need to decide every game. I think you understand it, you just don't like it.

Before I rant, give me this: You say the current system makes no sense. OK, Why? Could you please articulate that into a thought or logic stream somehow?

The away goals rule is a poor way to decide anything. IMHO, a playoff series should be decided by a clear advantage on the field. You can't get a consistently available clear advantage within two games because of the nature of this sport. Crashing out on two ties because the weather was better in your park is brutal at best. A three game series is much better. 2 wins and through. One win v none over three games and through. All square after 3, well you get the dreaded penalties because soccer isn't designed to be played endlessly. (BTW, it hasn't happened yet under the current system). Plus, if a team wins in two, they have some time off to gain an advantage over the other team that played the Game 3 during the week. This furthers the theoretical advantage of having earned a high seed during the 28-game season. It's a great system. The regular season determines what it should - participants and seeding.

Playoffs are an American reality and will continue to be. Having a Game 3 gives real meaning to the seeding (ask Chicago, LA, and KC), and increases drama to the series. It's a shame nobody outside KC and LA saw 2000 Semi Game 3 and the subsequent mini-game. It was one of the best games played all year from a competitive, edginess, skill level and dramatic standpoint.

Another point: Sports should be about wanting to beat the Champion. The proper way to beat a Champion is to pay the dues by having to go to the Champion's house. Think Boxing, think any American team-sport league. A 2-leg series allows you to merely tie the Champ/higher seed (or even lose) at his house and still progress. To me that misses the essence of why people watch sports in the first place.

The sum total of the logic behind a two-leg playoff seems to be distillable to: "That's the way Europe does it. Sorry, not good enough for me, and it shouldn't be good enough for you.

 

Re: Re: Re: New Clean Sheet: Tons of stuff / rumors

I disagree. A lot of the logic between a home and away play-off system (or single elimination) is that it adds a lot of certainty to the scheduling. For a league that is fighting tooth and nail to get on tv, this is very important. I think this also helps draw in casual fans, who want to know if the game 1 they are paying to see matters or if it could turn out to be meaningless.

Also, I don't understand your point about the weather. Are you advocating eliminating weather as a factor in the game?

Personally, I think the league needs to lower the number of playoff teams to six (or four) and to increase the importance of the regular season. I would advocate either single elimination or a home and away, with the better team in the regular season advancing if the teams end up tied. But that's just me. I'm sure this has been debated ad nauseum elsewhere.

 

You can have a two-game home and home without deciding on aggregate goals if tied. Use the mini-game after game two!

Granted, in this scenario, you'll probably see a lot more mini-games, and possibly pks. But who cares? The main benefit is that MLS can schedule the playoffs without having that phantom game three mucking things up. Last year, it was extremely difficult to get Fire games at Soldier Field. We have to play our games on Wednesday nights during the playoffs, and we were the higher seeded team?

If done right, the quarters and semis could be wrapped up in two weeks: Do a Wed./Sat. playoff schedule, with the Wed. night game at the lower seeded team, and the Sat. night at the higher seeded team. That way, the higher seeded team has better potential for a bigger crowd, plus they would get the mini-game if it came down to it.

It's pretty simple.

 

This (plus the addition of the regular season record tiebreaker instead of PKs) would be exactly how I'd do a two-leg playoff.

Having the second game, plus the OT should the series be tied, is a tremendous advantage.

 

Re: Re: Re: Re: New Clean Sheet: Tons of stuff / rumors

Maybe there's something I'm just missing. For scheduling purposes Game 1 and 2 are exactly alike with each system, one game each city, Wed/Sat. Is getting a football stadium for a Game 3 October Wed./Sat. reserved in February such a big problem that cutting playoff revenues by 20-25% is a good solution?

You didn't give me TV as a serious reason did you?!? With a 2 leg series there would be less TV not more. Only one game is shown each matchday. Less matchdays = less games. No Game 3 = no opportunity to show a Game 3. Less teams = less games = (again) less games on TV. If you think more TV truly is important, two games makes no sense.

No, sorry, this isn't even up for debate. Casual fans (not you, not I) understand that a three game series can go three games, hence the name. They understand that anything less than 2 wins in 2 games means a Game 3 will be played. They understand you can't win or lose a series in Game 1. More importantly, casual fans of anything understand that a great series almost always goes the distance. Casual fans do not understand two game series that end after a Game 2 tie. Only (some) soccer fans understand this.

No, I'm saying it shouldn't ever be the main factor in a playoff series. If it rains hard/snows/excessive wind on the road leg and the weather is more condusive to scoring in your home leg, you are at a huge disadvantage in a 2 leg series. A 3 game series eliminates this and makes the individual result on that day the important factor, not the comparitive result to another day in another place. Most importantly, it's universally accepted that the best team has a greater chance of progressing in a longer series - as it should be.

You just advocated a system where higher seeded team can play for a tie because they advance, and a #1 seed wouldn't have to score a goal or even win an on-the-field tie-breaker of some sort to get to a final. You can't be serious.

You prefer a 1 or 2 leg series. OK, I don't get why you prefer it other than Europe does it. A two leg series lessens the importance of a regular season, not the opposite.

 

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: New Clean Sheet: Tons of stuff / rumors

The major problem with the MLS playoffs is stadium availability. When a team is sharing a stadium with the Bears, Giants, Chiefs, etc., then a scheduling nightmare arises. Not only that, but playing soccer on a gridiron marked field is an ugly sight, especially on television. Until ALL teams own their own soccer-specific stadiums, this situation makes MLS appear less than a serious, major-league operation IMHO.

 

I think the league is definitely taking a step in the right direction if they actually do change the playoff format. To reduce the number of teams in the playoffs I would like to see the round robin groups reduced to 3 teams each.

 

So where is the incentive to win your conference? Sounds like the top four teams in each conference are all equal in the playoffs, making the regular season even more of a joke.

 

Man, I love a good playoff-system argument.

Here's what I'd do:

6 teams make the playoffs, with the division winners getting byes into the second round.

The first round is a single match, played at the home of the higher seed. If the game ends in a tie, go to overtime. If the overtime still ends in a tie, the higher seeded team advances.

The second round is a home and away series decided by aggregate goals, with the higher-seeded team hosting the second game of the series. If the two teams are even on aggregate after 90 minutes of the second match, play a 30 minute overtime. If the aggregate is still tied after overtime, the higher seeded team advances.

The second round winners advance to MLS Cup, which is played as it is now.

This system:

* Reduces the number of playoff teams, but not by so many that you have a string of meaningless games late in the season.
* Increases the incentive to succeed in the regular season--the top two teams get the first-round bye, and the next two teams get home field in the first round.
* Gives the top two teams a lot of lead time to sell tickets to the playoff match, since it can be scheduled several weeks in advance.
* Eliminates the possibility that a team will get knocked out on PK's (at least, before the Final.)
* Makes for dramatic situations where a player can change his team from losers to winners with one kick of the ball--if the game is tied 1-1 and the lower-seeded team scores a goal in the 89th minute, they've just snatched victory from the jaws of almost certain defeat. Some of the best nail-biter moments in soccer are generated by situations where one team needs a win while the other team just needs to not lose.

 

Are MLS playoff ratings and attendance significantly different from the regular season? I would guess they are lower, since when they occur at the same time as baseball pennant races/playoffs, college and pro football, and the start of the NHL. Really, the playoffs happen at one of the most crowded times on the sports calendar. It will never happen, but I would like the team with the best record at the end of the season to be declared champion and that's that. Then, I think the US Open Cup should start after the regular season this way teams that have been out of the running for awhile would still have something to shoot for and the Cup would get more recognition.

 

I say give Godot22's six team system a try. A clear reward for the division winners, a la the NFL, and much more clarity in scheduling.

Of course, as a DC United fan, all talk of the playoff formats is pretty theoretical anyway...

 

This is the only issue that pisses me off when it comes to MLS.

Take the top two teams in each conference and play a best of 3. Then the winner meets up in the Final.

Make the last few weeks of the season mean something. With the parity in this league, it is absolutely impossible to get excited about an eighth place playoff birth. This whole playoff thing is so frustrating.

Look at the standings and tell me that the last few weeks of the season would not be absolutely thriling if the top two teams where the only ones to advance.

This reeks of MLS trying to squeeze every last penny out of its fans.

 

You can take any playoff system and find an extreme to run up the flagpoll as your reason not to do it. I'm convinced of that at least. That said, consider yourself a league guru/owner. Your job of running a business is to run it as if it will be there forever. It's called the Principle of Going Concern - pretty basic business stuff. I mention it because everyone is going nuts about 8 teams in except me. Fine, just consider what 8 in would be if the league had 22 teams, or 16, or 32. That is a contingency MLS is planning to acheive. It may never get there, but that's not the point. You plan as if you will. Even remove the money and you are left with a solid business reason for having 8 go; continuity. The NHL has had 16 go since the league was 21 teams 30 years ago, maybe longer. NBA is similar. The NFL has 12 and had pretty much forever in our terms. Now all the leagues have 30ish+ teams. Continuity.

That brings me to having 6 teams with an opening round bye for the Conf champ. I don't know that it's necessarilly (sp?) an advantage for a CC to have 10-14 days off before a playoff opener. I'm sure we can agree soccer isn't football. Football is body and structural pain and the infliction of it. Soccer is more towards aerobic pain and the tolerence of it. Both sports have skill. Not playing football for 2 weeks give the body time to reconstuct itself and heal, that being more important to football. The absence of PT in soccer gives the heart a chance to wain in fitness in addition to the above. A balanced playoff schedule should be preferred.

So, why not pool play? That's a balanced schedule. Not if you have 6 teams it isn't because only two can play at one time. One team could have up to 10 days off depending on scheduling. You have the above problems plus MLS would lose the hype generated from public interest in a winner to a degree with a 10 day layoff. This situation can't be accurately compared to NFL byes for obvious marketing reasons.

Unlike what may happen at a World Cup or Euro championship, I'm not a firm believer that the world (or our media) will somehow take notice because a Conference Champion is knocked out on the weakness of a 1-1-1 pool record. That's a low grade steak with no sizzle.

The only compelling reasons to switch to two four team pools is to go to a Sat and Sun only format for the pool matchdays for TV; or to simply shorten the season by the elimination of three matchdays. The latter only maters if the current Final date is deemed to late and playing more games earlier (or during every team's scheduled 2-3 week break) also isn't a good thing. Playoffs will have football lines even if you moved them ahead several weeks. So that leaves a TV contract being the catalyst.

Fine, but are there that many people watching to make a difference, yet? What I mean specifically is MLS goes from six possible matchdays (and the Final) with all the local TV deals to three with a national deal. The math has to be accurate and spectacular for this to work; even in the next few years with significant growth that isn't here yet.

Again, six to three implies that double is needed to be in the same spot. We know pool play will have "dead" matches, hurting the bottom line. Under current structure there is no such thing as a dead match.

 

You can take any playoff system and find an extreme to run up the flagpoll as your reason not to do it. I'm convinced of that at least. That said, consider yourself a league guru/owner. Your job of running a business is to run it as if it will be there forever. It's called the Principle of Going Concern - pretty basic business stuff. I mention it because everyone is going nuts about 8 teams in except me. Fine, just consider what 8 in would be if the league had 22 teams, or 16, or 32. That is a contingency MLS is planning to acheive. It may never get there, but that's not the point. You plan as if you will. Even remove the money and you are left with a solid business reason for having 8 go; continuity. The NHL has had 16 go since the league was 21 teams 30 years ago, maybe longer. NBA is similar. The NFL has 12 and had pretty much forever in our terms. Now all the leagues have 30ish+ teams. Continuity.

That brings me to having 6 teams with an opening round bye for the Conf champ. I don't know that it's necessarilly (sp?) an advantage for a CC to have 10-14 days off before a playoff opener. I'm sure we can agree soccer isn't football. Football is body and structural pain and the infliction of it. Soccer is more towards aerobic pain and the tolerence of it. Both sports have skill. Not playing football for 2 weeks give the body time to reconstuct itself and heal, that being more important to football. The absence of PT in soccer gives the heart a chance to wain in fitness in addition to the above. A balanced playoff schedule should be preferred.

So, why not pool play? That's a balanced schedule. Not if you have 6 teams it isn't because only two can play at one time. One team could have up to 10 days off depending on scheduling. You have the above problems plus MLS would lose the hype generated from public interest in a winner to a degree with a 10 day layoff. This situation can't be accurately compared to NFL byes for obvious marketing reasons.

Unlike what may happen at a World Cup or Euro championship, I'm not a firm believer that the world (or our media) will somehow take notice because a Conference Champion is knocked out on the weakness of a 1-1-1 pool record. That's a low grade steak with no sizzle.

The only compelling reasons to switch to two four team pools is to go to a Sat and Sun only format for the pool matchdays for TV; or to simply shorten the season by the elimination of three matchdays. The latter only maters if the current Final date is deemed to late and playing more games earlier (or during every team's scheduled 2-3 week break) also isn't a good thing. Playoffs will have football lines even if you moved them ahead several weeks. So that leaves a TV contract being the catalyst.

Fine, but are there that many people watching to make a difference, yet? What I mean specifically is MLS goes from six possible matchdays (and the Final) with all the local TV deals to three with a national deal. The math has to be accurate and spectacular for this to work; even in the next few years with significant growth that isn't here yet.

Again, six to three implies that double is needed to be in the same spot. We know pool play will have "dead" matches, hurting the bottom line. Under current structure there is no such thing as a dead match.

I wish I could be in the boardroom for the decision process, that's for certain.

 

I think a long playoff actually HURTS MLS, here's why: FOOTBALL sEASON! BASEBALL PLAYOFF SERIES! Both are well established in this country. I don't think that right now there is room for the MLS playoffs. There's absolutely no exposure. ESPN hasn't even televised many of the playoffs. I don't have a local team on cable like MSG or FSW. So when Soccer Saturdays end, the MLS season for me is essentioally over. The only coverage i get is here on the web. So I think MLS needs to find a whole in the sports calendar somewhere. LABOR DAY! I think whatever the playoff picture is it needs to culminate with an MLS championship game on LABOR DAY.

MLS has it's season during the spring and summer so it doesn't have to compete against football. But the truth is that it does. This is the most important part of the season and it runs straight into the first half of football season. Not just the NFL but NCAA. We'd be better of starting the league a week AFTER the Super Bowl with it all ending Labor Day. OR just follow a schedule like the rest of the world.

 

Ever since MLS switched to the first to five point format the playoffs have been outstanding. Lots of intensity, great series, dramatic moments, teams playing to attack in every game.

Unfortunately, very few people have been able to see these games. I think that pretty much sums up the current playoff system. Not good from a business standpoint, but outstanding from a competitive standpoint.

If MLS teams build more stadiums, and TV ratings continue to nudge forward, these problems should go away, though that could be twenty years from now.

So if all the two-leggers can guarantee me more games on TV and significantly bigger crowds if their system is implemented, I'm all for it. Otherwise, I say just wait it out and stick with something consistent even if not ideal at this point.

A single-game format with byes for conference champions is also intriguing, though it seems strange that people who are huge supporters of this league would advocate less soccer being played. MLS - now with less games!

 

I would like to see MLS take six teams to the playoffs. The two conference winners would have a bye to the second round. Teams 2 and 3 of the same conference would play a single elimnation game at the site of Team 2. The winner of this game would then play a best of 3 series with the winner of the other conference. The first game would be played at the site of Team 1. There would be no ties in these games. The first team to win two games would be declared the winner. In the event of a tie at the end of regulation and golden goal, penalty kicks would determine the winner. Game 3 would be back at the site of Team 1.

This senario would give meaning to the season along with rewarding teams for their play.

 

I find it very strange that in the MLS quarter-finals and semi-finals it is at least two matches, most likely three matches, but the final is only one match.

In other US sports except NFL, the first round is usually 3 to 5 matches, then the remaining rounds consist of 4 to 7 matches.

In NFL, each round is 1 match.

MLS is the only one where the final has less matches than the other rounds. Not consistent imho. With the current MLS system, consistency demands that the final also be first to 5.

 

The above is exactly why the playoffs should not change one bit.

 

I would point out that the Champions League does home and away, but has just one match for the final. So it's not without precedent.

 

Good stuff, Godot...email the Commish!