Let me ask you this: Which of the previous eight champions under this horrendous format did you not respect, exactly? Oh, you're talking about the potential that it could happen. Well lah tee freaking dah. Again, when it happens, come and see me. Until then, you're just crying about the sky falling when it hasn't fallen yet.
to be fair i don't respect the yankees, cubs, astros, dodgers, mets, packers, raiders, cowboys, blackhawks, redwings, lakers, knicks and that baseball team in tampa bay that boggs retired with (does anyone know if they have a name yet?... thanks)
Makes sense to me. At least one more game revenue or no gate revenues at all. Sounds like an easy decision to include more teams than needed.
That may be true...but why not admit that MLS is having problems in convincing the legitimacy of their playoffs, and thus the legitimacy of the league since the playoffs are the most important things to Americans (whether they be casual fans, hard core supporters, or, naysayers) when they seem very happy with the playoff formats of MLB, NFL, NBA and even NHL. People on BS constantly say that MLS is in the U.S., so MLS should do things that conform to domestic standards. I don't see what's wrong with arguing that there needs to be a way that resolves this conundrum. When a season ticket holder is able to convince a casual fan to actually attend a game, that person is going to want to know how the champion is decided. Try telling anyone with a straight face that 8 out of 10, or even 8 out of 12 for next year make the playoffs. They laugh and think its a disgrace, whether they know much about the beautiful game or nothing, let alone MLS itself. You can try all you want about saying the future this and the future that for the league. All people care about is now, or the near present. Its like Dubya said to Woodruff in regards to the future..."Who cares! By then we'll all be dead!" ahhh...such wise words from a wise man....
Are you serious? The long-term success of this league is based on the product on the field. How many teams in the playoffs directly affects the quality of play througout the season through to the final. Whats the point of a nice 20,000 seat stadium if you can't convince the fans to want to attend. As for the point of all teams being mediocre. If you raise the bar and permit 4 out of 10 teams into the playoffs, perceptions throughout the league and the season change.
MLS' biggest problem is not convincing people in the legitimacy of their playoff system. MLS' biggets probelm is getting MLS fans to show up for a game that was not on the schedule at the beginning of the year. I agree that 8 of 10 is asinine. I agree that 8 of 12 is less dumb, but still dumb. But reducing the playoff teams to 6 or 4 won't have much of an effect on attendance other than there will be fewer games that average 11,000 fans. That's not true exactly. MLS Cup willl raise the playoff average more because there are fewer games overall. But so what? 20,000 fewer fans will have gone to an MLS playoff game and how is that good for the league?
Strangely the teams WITH stadiums don't seem to have any problem convincing the fans to attend. It also seem kinda wacky that these are the only teams that have ever even come close to profitability. Strange huh?
Its good for the league because we would have gained "legitimacy" in the eyes of some fan who may or may have supported the league in the past, may or may not support the league now and may or may not support the league in the future. Also don't discount the stabilising influence of the "atmosphere" that will be created since the games will mean so much more. So there.
I think your point of establishing true playoff races is a valuable one. And it would really be interesting to see if a team chasing after that valuable final playoff spot would see an increase in interest and attendance. My whole issue isn’t necessarily predicated on improving playoff attendance, rather than it is improving the product on the field through the season right onto the MLS Cup. One of the biggest ways to improve competition is to make it tougher to compete for a championship, and that is by limiting teams into the playoffs. It bears repeating until all of Bigsoccer bleeds by the ears. This league needs a competitive change! And yes I hate sounding like a broken record, but it just baffles me on how people cant realize that the status-quo is WRONG.
I think the soccer fans here in US are actualy full time baseball fans. So, Full time baseball & part time soccer.
Interesting article on the matter that I don't agree with http://www.dailyherald.com/sports/sports_story.asp?intID=38286168 Would say cut it down to 4 or 6 teams though and make the reg season actually count for something.
(OK... I just read this entire thread in one sitting, so I'm sorry for jumping around/re-hashing stuff) If the idea that the playoff format is screwed up is based on attendance, then I don't agree. I don't think the average fan is sitting at home saying "Wow, I hate the playoff format, so I'm not going to buy a ticket." The fact of the matter is, a fan knows that playoff matches are much, much more important than regular season matches. So if attendance is down for the playoffs, it's not a format problem -- it's a marketing problem. What playoff format would I suggest? I would go back to the old best-of-three series format. The regular season standings would have slightly more importance, because the better-seeded team would get an extra home match in a series, as opposed to simply getting one match each. Plus, I prefer to base who advances on wins/losses/ties rather than adding up the score. That's the way it is in the regular season; that's the way it should be in the playoffs. I don't like the idea of single-elimination. I think it's backwards to play a 30-match season (that people are complaining is meaningless) and then turn around and play the playoffs like you have to catch a cab. By the way... somebody mentioned the idea of not playing extra time if a series is tied on aggregate -- just let the higher seed advance. WRONG!!!!!!! On what universe does this seem like a good idea? I know we're looking for ways to make the regular season more valuable, but once you have a postseason series that will determine which team advances and which team goes home, is it really asking too much to get an outright winner? Besides -- who wants to see a series where one team does nothing but bunker for two entire matches because they know they can advance with a pair of scoreless draws? The only way you're going to make the regular season better (from a format standpoint, anyway) is to have a lower percentage of teams making the playoffs, as we've all mentioned at some point. Also, the Shootout? I like the Shootout -- but strictly as an alternative to penalty kicks. No more, no less.
You know, two years ago, these same ********ing arguments were thrown out about "needing" to go from first to five to aggregate. Ya'll will find some other pathetic excuse to whine when the playffs include a smaller percentage of teams. Eight of 10 is not ideal, but the bottom line is that the people writing checks are willing to live with it so it's not critical. Because it's their ass on the line when the day is done, not some yahoo comparing MLS to the mythical "rest of the world" or pontificating about how many thousand more people will come just because the playoffs are shorter. Did anyone even stop to consider that maybe there are legitimate economic benefits that fans don't know about because we don't get to see sponsor contracts and lease agreements and television deals and such. We know about 1 percent of how MLS works, yet we're all geniuses and can solve all the league's problems. Lighten up and watch the games. More soccer is better for the soul.
Yeah, I am. If Anschutz dies tomorrow, that's going to have a hell of a lot bigger impact on MLS' future than whether or not the Revs made the frigging playoffs. Uh, no. Many of the people who buy tickets can't tell the difference and don't care. It's hardcores like the people on Bigsoccer who overstate the importance of this when it comes to the actual survival of the league. Ayup. I have never, ever once had a casual fan ask me how we determine the champion of the league. Ever. And it should have no bearing whatsoever on whether or not they attend a game in June. They want to know if they're going to have a good time when they go, who's playing, is the weather going to be nice, what are we going to do afterwards, but I've never had anyone ask me how the champion is decided and then make their decision about whether or not to go. Again, overstating the importance of something that really doesn't matter outside of this little community that kvetches about every single little thing. But it's not true. I've said before - it doesn't matter what the players are fighting for if the players are just the average guys we're able to get into MLS. For the most part, MLS is populated by average American players making average wages who aren't as skilled, by and large (except for the few stars) as players in other leagues that are seen as "quality" leagues. In that regard, it doesn't matter if Team A is fighting harder for a championship because fewer teams make the playoffs if Team A's players just aren't that good to begin with. It's like the "Well, in the second leg you know exactly what you need to do" nonsense. Sure. You know what you need to do. But can you do it? Are you good enough to do it? There is nothing we can do within the financial constraints of the current system but to continue the development of the American player to the point where teams that want to fight for a championship are able to do it because they've got the horses to do it. And by the time that happens, we'll be at 16 teams anyway and the point will be moot. In your opinion. And it may be wrong, but you're tilting at windmills by continuing to chase this Holy Grail of yours. They're not going to do it. Get over it. You had me right up until the last sentence. Blame the marketing again. It's a product problem. Playoff games are tacked onto the end, they're not scheduled well in advance, there isn't time to properly market them or to sell group tickets for them, they're important to the hardcores but not to the "extra" people who make up the difference between a 9,000 crowd and a 13,000 crowd, and they come at a time of year when it's a tough sell for a lot of reasons. You can't do best-of-three with ties. What do you do if a team wins the first game and ties the second? We had that with first-to-five, and game threes averaged 9,000 people a game. You'd have to have a tiebreaker, which gets us to either PKs, play til you drop, or a shootout. Unless rock-paper-scissors is now an option. Two legs, while not perfect: a - is traditional b - provides better dates, usually known farther in advance than a best-of-three c - guarantees a playoff team a home game, but only one home game (meaning you don't have to go back to the people who you just told "This is a big game" and say "I know I said that was a big game, but this is a really big game, so could you pony up some more?") d - provides adequate recovery time for the players, which should ostensibly lead to the "better product on the field" that everyone seems to think is the be-all and end-all. I'm on record as being in favor of single-elimination. Screw it, if you can't win on the day, you can't be champion. Tough noogies. But I'm not going to whine about it. There are advantages and disadvantages to two legs, to single elimination, to best-of-three, to 8 teams in, 6 teams in, 4 teams in, 2 teams in, no teams in. But no matter what format you use, no matter how many teams you let in, no matter how many kilobytes you waste on it, this isn't what's going to make or break the league. As long as Anschutz and company are in for the long haul, and as long as we can get 15k or so a game and get the stadiums, those concerns are always-always-always going to outweigh your perceived "credibility" concerns. Look at it this way - two and a half years ago, MLS contracted two teams. What could be worse than that? One of the teams was probably the best team on the field in the league. Did the league survive that? Is there a noticeable drop in the perception of the league, or are things seemingly getting better? What does that tell you? Dallas may have done serious harm to their fanbase by playing in a crap high school football stadium, but has the league taken a serious hit because of it? Too early to tell if Frisco will be the difference, but it seems like people have pretty short memories. The teams getting whacked in the Champions Cup in '03 that everyone said was proof positive that MLS was horrible and wouldn't be taken seriously ever and yadda yadda yadda - has that come back to haunt us? Does anyone really give a rat's ass how we do in the CCC? Bottom line - like most things on Bigsoccer, you're arguing about minutiae.
Believe it or not, but that format has worked very well for the Mexican league and has now for years. In fact, it has allowed for some very exciting affairs. Bottom line: it is a proven format. Of course adopting such a format would require getting past the whole "Mexicanization" paranoia...
With a Club World Championship spot on the line next year - you better believe it. I can already hear the outcry after Columbus gets spanked 4-0 by the Coconut Bankers from San Juan Jablome...
No it would involve getting past the fact that americans like decisions and winning by drawing will not wash in this country.
There are two distinct camps. Those who think building an exciting, competitive league will go a long way in selling the league and the sport. And those who dont care as much about the game, but care more about selling tickets and building stadiums and the such. This thread illustrates this pretty well.