First, merely because the race for the Premiership title is over and done with this year doesn't mean that it's always boring. On the contrary, it's produced some great finishes, as have many of the European leagues. The likelihood of a boring finish in MLS is far lower than in Europe because of the greater parity of our league. Second, if the MLS Cup were made like the other league cups (e.g., the FA Cup) there would still be a single-elimination tournament that teams could focus on, with a fun final game after the regular season to be an MLS showcase. This would give teams a chance even in years when one team was dominant in the regular season. Third, this is a great idea but I don't see the evidence that this is happening anytime soon. One oblique mention by Garber in a press conference doesn't mean much.
He said PROMOTION AND RELEGATION won't be happening for quite a while because we don't have the infrastructure in place for that. Not single table.
A single table doesn't necessarily prove who the best team is any more than a playoff. It may prove who has the deepest team. It may prove which team avoids the most injuries to key people. It may prove who can spend the most money. It may prove who got more calls and bounces to go their way than against them. It may prove who had the most favorable schedule (playing the right teams on the right days). In MLS it might prove who had the fewest callups to the national team. It might prove who the most consistent team is. None of these are clearly equivalent to the best team. Most of the time the team at the top of the table is the best team. Most of the time the team that wins the playoffs is the best team. The only difference is one is most exciting at the beginning, the other is most exciting at the end. I can live with either one.
It's a common misconception that the point of any league or playoff structure is determining the "best" team. The point is to generate fan interest and create an exciting, watchable season and post-season.
These do not exist in MLS and only the top two are going to concaf and sud america. So with sinble table with no play offs what would have be the point. Most would loose interest as their is NOTHING to fignt for. At least now you still have at the end of the season a fight for the last two teams in the division to try and get the last spot, even if minimal.
A team who gets calls and bounces and avoids crippling injuries for a 4 game stretch is called lucky A team who gets calls and bounces and avoids crippling injuries for a season is called good. Shouldnt we want to reward the good teams...not the lucky ones? That being said, I don't think a single table will work w/o relegation.
Nothing like your traditional pro/rel and single table format thread to kick off another year of MLS, some things never change.
You are spot on here. What would be the incentive of being high up in our current MLS? Well, the first two, like you said, get cup spots for regional competitions. But then what? Say we are a month from the end of the season and 1st place is already determined, but 2nd place is being fought between three teams. What about the other teams? They know that they can't get a cup spot, so how are these final games "meaningful" to them? Why wouldn't they just fight for last? - since there is no relegation (or at least any in the near future) It seems that without more incentives, a single table might end up being worse than the current playoff structure that we have now. Why not go single table and have playoffs? That would be at least marginally better than the current setup.
My suggestion to make the Supporter's Shield more meaningful: Let the Supporter's Shield winner have the opportunity to host that season's MLS Cup. Note: 1) The Supporter's Shield winner is known at least 4 weeks before MLS Cup, so making travel arrangements to the Cup should not be a problem for sponsors, league official, die-hard fans, etc. Additionally, since only a few teams are usually in the hunt for the Supporter's Shield 2 or 3 months before MLS Cup, considerable preliminary legwork could be done to reserve hotel space, meeting space, etc, at potential Cup locations 2) Supporter's Shield winners have historically made it to MLS Cup about 1/2 the time. So that means that 1/2 the time, the Cup will be played at a non-neutral site, which makes for a more exciting and energized crowd at the Cup, which in turn hopefully makes the Cup a more enjoyable TV event for the casual soccer fan. 3) If the Supporter's Shield winner is not able to host the Cup for logistical reasons (stadium conflict, etc). Then the team with the 2nd best regular season record would be given the chance to host the Cup, and so on, until a Cup host is found. While some fans might proclaim this unfair, having such a rule in place would be an added incentive for an investor/operator to build an SSS for his team, or at least attempt to block-off the date of MLS Cup (usually known about 1 year in advance) from scheduling at his team's football stadium (e.g. Gilette Stadium)
that's a misconception? right, so the championship trophies they award are just a thank you for creating a good spectacle for TV? you might as well say that the point of a match isn't to try and win and prove who's best on the day, but to provide 90 minutes of entertainment for the spectators.
It proves who is the best team over a season. A play-off proves who is best over a few weeks at the end of it. Cup football, which is more similar to play-offs, always produces a wider range of winners than the league because there is little chance for good/bad luck (in all of their guises) to even out.
loved this one myself, apparently, back when the league format was first created, the primary concern was the televised spectacle, "fan interest," and a "post-season." at the time, Accrington Stanley did not have enough "fan interest..."
huge tangent, but if Accrington Stanley get a win today at Woking then they (or the club that re-formed after the old one folded) are back in the football league.
Dear Landon Donovan: please do not step up your play in the MLS play-offs like you did last year because I don't want to read endless single table vs. playoff threads on BigSoccer next spring. Of course, it looks like you've already found out that teams have figured out how to stop you this season. Also, you'll be tired after the WC anyway. thanks, millions of BigSoccer readers
You let the cat out of the bag. Round-Robin and knockout tournaments to determine the "best" team, as played by sports teams in various sports and various leagues, are not statistically reliable to any reasonable degree of certainty. If the public knew and understood this, all sports leagues would go down the drain. I'm not a statistics guru, but I believe to achieve 98% certainty that one team out of a league with 12 teams is the best would require HUNDREDS of results for EACH team in the SAME season. And even then there will be a 2% chance that it is not the best team.
Okay... wow this is going to be long. MLS is in flux and will be in flux until at least 2010. There are more teams coming in and stadia being built - and these developments are going to alter the competitive format of the league. Right now, it's a work in progress. I've always seen playoffs as a version of promotion/relegation. You play a season, then the bottom teams get knocked out. Assuming we don't (and won't for a long long time) have relegation: if halfway through the season, you're three-quarters of the way down the table, what are you playing for, aside from a chance to sneak into the playoffs? Furthermore, in the US, it makes sense that teams should play rivals in their region more frequently. In England, for instance, what's the longest trip a fan needs to make to an away game? An eight-hour drive? Right now, for the Fire, that's the distance to our closest rival. Every other away game in the league, Fire fans need to fly to. Knowing that away fans create better atmosphere, and that travel and time-zone shifts wear down players, it makes sense to me that Chicago should play Columbus more frequently than they play LA. And New York should play DC and the Revs more frequently than they play Dallas. Does each game in MLS need to be more important? ABSOLUTELY. Does the league need to reward the best teams in the regular season in a better way? Absolutely. I'd agree with anyone who says that last year's championship made a mockery of the current system. But with more teams - which we will soon have - it will get harder to get into the playoffs. You'll have to be a top-half team to do it, and that will eliminate the 2005 Galaxys of the future. Finally, in awarding the championships, it's two different ideals is all. The single-table style winner - it answers the question of "who played best over the course of the year?" The playoff/elimination tournament style winner answers the question of "who played best when it mattered most?" They're both valid questions, but in the US, we've always had a preference for the latter.
i'll bet the Accrington Stanley supporters are quite excited about the prospect. imagine that, in a single table system. before kick-off, 38 matches played, 25 victories, twelve points ahead of second position Hereford. but they're not the "best" team unless they win a mythical mini-tournament...
That may be, in fact, what you meant, but I wasn't sure. No it's not. For example, San Jose was the Supporters' Shield winner last season and NE and LA went to the CCC as the Cup winner and runner up. And if I'm not mistaken, the Shield winner now not only gets a spot, but the first spot.
I am not saying the single table format is a bad thing. It would bring a number of good things if it were implemented. This said, however, the single table format loses something when you don't have the promotion/relegation system in place. As the season matures, the teams at the bottom of the table are playing for what, exactly? With promotion/relegation and numerous cup competitions to qualify for, the single table works very well. But with a static set of clubs in the league and a draft, meaningless regular season games are still possible for the teams at the bottom half of the table with no real hope of climbing out.
There is a fundamental difference between British and American mentalities which needs to be addressed here. Americans believe -- at least in principle, anyway -- that everyone is equal and deserves an equal opportunity to succeed. Hence, our athletic competitions are designed to weed out the very weakest competition and then have playoffs where the remaining teams battle it out in single elimination to determine the winner. Therefore, teams who may not have had the best regular season record can turn on the heat and win the championship anyway -- as LA Galaxy did last year. As a result of this mentality, American sports fans nearly always focus on their teams winning the championship and see second place as "first loser." Britons believe in clear distinction between social classes. Therefore, their sports leagues tend to be "winner-take-all" scenarios and the average sports viewer does not mind it. There is pride in the various social classes -- upper class, middle class, working class -- which deflects their interest from "winning it all" to other competitions, such as avoiding relegation, moving up to a mid-table spot from a lower-table spot and winning single matches of the Carling Cup or FA Cup against the "big" teams. Hence, a Chelsea fan focuses on winning the championship, a Wigan fan focuses on winning a mid-table spot (and amazingly almost winning the Carling Cup before being mauled by Man U) and Fulham focuses on avoiding relegation. That's not to say that members of several social classes might not enjoy the same EPL team, but British class consciousness plays a large part in the structure of British sport leagues.