How do you figure this? I would gather 75% do mind, 25% do not. I wish we could have a poll on this. Even on BigSoccer where everyone will defend MLS to the end should garner more than 2% anti 8 out of 10.
If you did a poll this year, you'd find out that 80% of the fans agree with the present method of selecting playoff teams. The 20% that disagree would be fans of Dallas and Chicago.
We are talking about 2 different things I think. When talking about meaningless, you are taking it literally. Yes there is meaning. Thats one point. My point is completely different. Its structuring a format rewards winning more than the current system does. And the effects on the league that would result from that. Its not just how many teams make the playoffs or who happen to win these playoff games. They might both be valid, completely valid, but its dicussing 2 different things.
I didn't want to read all 29 pages which I'm sure of there was some good points there but if we are talking about the attendence of the playoffs games let's look at 2 things 1) What are their regular season numbers in comparison 2) Competition, the games was playing on the weekends (some at night) Denver - Broncos New England - Patriots, Red Sox, Parade Metrostars - Giants, Jets, "The Hunt" Plus Halloween parties, youth soccer games, HS football games, Etc
right, let's go back to the original sentence in this thread. I'd say 7 out of 8 games so far were very good or noteworthy games. So, yes the playoffs have generated an exciting conclusion.
This is the main point I disagree with. Reducing the number of playoff spots will likely make the regular season a little more intense, but not as much as you are making it out. There are a couple other areas that in my opinion would increase the competitive nature much more then reducing the number of playoff teams. They are: 1. Increase the number of players on a team. Make the players fight for a playing spot. Play poor uninspired soccer and you will sit. 2. Have more fans into the game. It is hard not to play inspired soccer when you have thousands of fans cheering you on. These are profesional athelets that are playing out there. By and large these are the type of people who are highly self driven and self motivated. If they were not that highly self driven and motivated then most of them would not have made it to this level. Do you think many of them do not care if they lose a game during the regular season. They care! I have seen numberous times players walk off the field in utter disappointment after losing or tieing a game during the regular season. Yes 8 out of 10 is too many, 8 out of 12 is a little high, 8 out of 14 is just fine. I do not like the idea of a bye week, that would mean for me only 4 teams would make the playoffs. 4 of out 10 is find, 4 out of 12 is a little low, and 4 out of 14 is too low for soccer and its current fan level. We are expanding to 12 next year and 14 in another year or two. Soon it will by fine by me. Consistancy is a big thing to me and likely many people. I would much rather keep letting 8 teams into the playoffs as the league grows then to continually change the number of teams let into the playoffs and the playoff format. We need to let the casual fans get to know what to expect in the post season. I am all for letting the current format stay.
No offense, but your suggestion is retarded. How do you suppose we get these fans? Run around with trucks and round them up like cattle?
Crusio, As I understand it your argument is that limiting or eliminating the playoffs would make the regular season more intense since a team could not coast into the playoffs, therefore the soccer would be more entertaining over the whole summer rather than just intense over a one month span in the fall. No one seems directly responding to this so I will: there may be a minor increase in intensity, and perhaps that's enough to warrant a change (though then you have to start considering all the economic issues that you seem to want to bracket off from this debate) but in my opinion (not-backed up by any facts, of course) the change in intensity will be minimal, instead you will just see about the same number of intense games as we have now, but they would be spread out over the season and would mostly involve the same three or four teams (which seems to be the case in Europe). I don't believe that you can convince any player in MLS, making the money they do and given the parity of the league that on a hot night in July they need to kill themselves going for the win or else their season will be over. Coaches will continue to play for ties. Players will continue to turn in subpar performances in the middle of the season. In the last month of the season you might start to get some real intensity as teams realize their season is literally on the line, but we have the same thing now, we just call it the post season. If the issue is fairness or attendance or the proper way to determine a champion then there is plenty to debate with the current system. If you simply are looking for more entertainment, I don't think changing the playoffs will provide it. Instead changing the playoffs will take the entertainment we experienced over the past two weeks and redistribute it over the regular season. If what you want is intensity for thirty regular season games in a row then you need to have millions of dollars on the line, thousands of obsessed fans, constant media attention, and probably pro/rel.
This was a very good post Artist. While I disagree with lots of it ofcourse, its intellectually honest and you make some very valid points. It makes me challenge the format I am pushing here. I dont have time to repond right now, but I will soon. Again good post...
Artist: I completely agree with you on your point that no system that MLS might adopt, will create urgency over a 30 game season. My point is simply to create more urgency than there is now. In short, my suggestion of having 12 teams, battling for 6 playoff spots, bye weeks for the division winners, and the 2 teams with the better record of the remaining 4 would earn true homefield advantage in a one-off knock out game. For the players: In this system there is always something to fight for. First to make the playoffs, then to earn homefield in the first round then for a bye week. These rewards add some real incentive to win games, win the most games it can. Currently, its more about just making it into the playoffs cause while there are rewards, they are not incentive enough to play 30 games for... In my opinion ofcourse. For the fans: Fans can see their team battle for the various rewards, instead of just watching all season pretty much knowing your team is going to be in the playoffs. It brings an element of excitment and drama knowing their are valuable rewards on the line. Look at how exciting the playoffs have been. Bringing a sense of that same excitment to the regular season would be so interesting to follow. More to care about, cause there is more to watch your team fight for. Are there some problems with this format? Sure. You pointed out the economic aspect (which i wasn't excluding, just leaving out of the equation for now, because throwing too many issues into the mix just couds the point). Will this make every single game exciting? Ofcourse not. This rings true in the best of leagues. But will it bring some much needed excitment to a less than thrilling regular season. I think so.. It rewards winning much more than our current format does. Then to provide even more incentive, how about a cash bonus for the Support Shield Winner. Thats another story though.
If this were the system I would have little problem with it. The possible flaws (significantly fewer playoff games, the possibility of the best teams getting rusty, more games decided by penalty kicks, no home games for some teams, more teams eliminated from playoff contention with several weeks left in the season, teams advancing to the final by winning one game at home) are no worse or more numerous than the obvious flaws in the current system. However, I think there is some advantage to the eight team format with everyone getting a home leg at this point in MLS history. This is a young league trying to develop its fan base and I think playoff excitement is a good way to do that (though I fully realize that making the playoffs doesn't have much short term effect on attendance - see San Jose). If this league was 25 years old with 15,000 season ticket holders in every city then I think making the playoffs a hard-earned prize would make more sense. As to your main point, I'm still not sure how much more intensity this would create. Would it be enough to make up for the six playoff games we would lose? Would it make up for the complete lack of anything to play for in the last few weeks for the bottom teams? I think ultimately cash bonuses would create just as much intensity as any change to the playoffs. I'm just glad to know you're not advocating single table with no playoffs.
You make very valid points here. It shows me that this choice isn't as clear cut as I once thought. Will teams get rusty? Maybe. But can they also have a chance to rest and heal after a long season. Could more of these games come down to pk's? Perhaps. But can you imagine how exciting playing 120 minutes and pk's might be with a trip to the finals on the line. No home games for some teams? Yes, it would be a cost endured to bring some drama to the regular season. In some cases, like METRO with low attendance and high costs, it might save teams money. But you are right in the end, they would lose that game as a showcase. Again, you are also right about teams being out of contention to early possibly being a problem. Some fans that follow the team might lose interest and not attend games toward the end, completely true. If you look further you also see a league of parity. This should help to keep teams in contention for most of the season. Lastly, much of the attendance in MLS is manufactured. Kids, moms, youth teams, groups. I am fairly certian these demographics are not keeping up with their teams spot in the standings. I feel this format in combonation with your mentioned bonus system would really rev this league up a notch over the marathon 30 games. The players would play for rewards both finacially and in the standings. A word about fans. I realize there are many types of fans that watch soccer for different reasons. Some just like to watch their team kick the ball around. Just winning a game the matter its meaning is good enough for them. Another group are the kids and soccer moms just looking for a day out and while they might have a faint interest in soccer, they really dont live and die with the the team. The last group are people that like to watch sports for competition. The drama of following their team winning and losing in meaningful situations. While MLS does a decent job at reaching out to the first two groups; it does a woeful job in the latter demographic. This demographic, is where I feel, the real soccer fans lies. Can my format be tweaked a little here and there to accomodate more home games? It wouldn't be as dramatic, but sure. I am just asking for a structure that might appeal to those who like sports for the same reasons I do. Sports that provide drama and competition.
Of course I watch soccer for the drama of the competition as well and I agree with you that MLS doesn't concern itself much with these sorts of fans, assuming, I guess, that most of them are happy to have any decent soccer to watch live. Like I said, if 10 years from now making the playoffs is still no big deal for most teams and seeding and the Supporters Shield and the Open Cup still seem mostly meaningless to anybody not posting on Big Soccer then my patience with MLS will come to an end. One can only sacrifice for the good of the league for so long. For now I understand that it might be in the best interests of the league to keep the playoffs a month long event where each team gets to showcase itself for its home fans at least once and where every team is in contention until the last two weeks nearly every year. I'm not particularly attached to any playoff system (as long as we have some kind of playoffs). I think in the end our only point of disagreement is that you think the league should focus on the competitive side because better competition will lead to more exciting games which will attract more fans whereas I think that if the league focuses on drawing more fans then there will be more money at stake and more pressure on the players to perform and only then can the league risk eliminating teams early in exchange for more regular season intensity. If your system would give the teams more to play for without alienating many of the casual fans who won't stick with a team that is rarely in playoff contention then I'd be all for it.
Its definatley a bit of a catch 22. By making the league more cut-throat and exciting in hopes of finding a more loyal following, you would also take away gates and showcase games that you believe are necessary to the league at this juncture. The gates are easy to make up. 12 teams can play a 32 game schedule. Those 2 extra games per team would easily make up the reciepts lost by the fewer and less attended playoff games. Your second concern involves teams out of contention. Parity should help to keep most of the teams close, no? Also, with many MLS 'fans' being kids, their moms and youth teams out for a day at the park; don't you think teams could still manufacture a decent enough crowd?
Changing the subject a bit here, but after last nite's game... i think the league is crossing their figures Freddy's DCU would win tonite. How much would anyone (outside the MLS hardcore fans) care if we have a KC vs NE MLS Cup.
If the league didn't want a KC/NE final, they should have tried harder to stack LA and Metros with better players.
I know my fingers are crossed DC wins for the leagues' sake. Ratings would be solid with the Freddy factor involved in the cup, plus I think KC and DC are really the best two teams in MLS, and they have a nice contrast in style that should make for an entertaining final. KC - NE would be a ratings disaster compared to what could happen with Freddy involved.
I'd say the difference between a 0.7 and a 1.4. At least I'm hoping there's enough Freddy hype for a 1.4.