sure, but only if Des Moines has a 20k stadium drawing at least 15k per game in a manner that would actually make them look like a professional organization.
But you are acting as if the playoffs is a cup competition where any team can win it. The playoffs is the culmination of a long regular season, where the best teams separate themselves (admittedly, MLS is not the best example of this given its low number of teams). You also seem to be defining "best" team as most consistent team. There's nothing wrong with that I'm just saying it's not the only way to define best. Most American sports define best as the team that plays its best when the season is on the line against the best competition, not as the team that can take all three points from Sunderland. Chelsea could drop points left and right to Man U, Liverpool, and Arsenal but still win the title by beating up on everyone else. All else being equal, more samples equal more accurate results, but if you start taking samples from adulterated data (injuries, luck, refs, etc.) why would more samples NECESSARILY give you more accurate results? Again, I have nothing against the EPL or the single table, I dispute the idea that just because two teams play the same teams the same number of times the end result proves the better team.
Good post, Indy Trojan. Got lost in the shuffle I think. At least it's a novel idea. Don't know if there's a good way to deal with the overlap (one team "makes" the playoffs in both halves), or if there's a way to reward/provide incentive for teams that already "made" the playoffs in the first half. But it's thought provoking.
Isn't it rather arbitrary to claim that beating the "best" teams is worth more than beating supposedly weaker teams? if you truly are the best, shouldn't you have to prove that against all your competition rather than a small subset of it? Additionally, given the knockout nature of the playoffs, you don't even play all of the supposedly "best" teams anyway.
Man, did I ever enjoy moving this thread to MLS: General. P.S. The never-ending reincarnations of this "WE WANT TEAMS TO BE ABLE TO FINISH 10TH IN THE LEAGUE AND NOT JUST 5TH IN THE WEST OR ELSE THIS ISN'T A REAL SOCCER LEAGUE!!!!111oneoneone" thread actually makes me wish that MLS hadn't gotten rid of the shootout. After all, if they hadn't, people would have something substantial to bitch about, and not just how to organize the league.
again, statistically, the more samples you take, the less impact unusual results have. If you were to do a random survey to find the height of the population of a town, you'd be much more likely to get far more accurate results measuring 38 people than you would measuring 4, even if you are more likely to hit the odd midget or basketball player in that sample of 38. All clubs get injuries, suspensions, bad luck and bad ref calls over a season. If those things hit a team during the play-offs, then they go out.
So, if a playoff spot is not on the line, it is impossible to have an exciting match. Once the playoffs are set there are no more goals, no more good saves, no more shots on goal, no more tackles. The players don't even run. The only reason they pass is to get rid of the ball. I don't buy this. Any game can be exciting or crap. One of the things that I love about soccer is the game itself. There is always something for which to play. Mainly, the game at hand. Teams have an incentive to play well to attempt to salvage some pride and hope for the future. Individuals, hopefully, will continue to try hard to maintain their position on the team as well as enjoying the game. As for the fans it ought to be about supporting their team even if it is the last game of cellar dwelling season. The games should be enjoyable on their own merit, not dependant on league position. Winning the championship is not the only incentive to play well, hopefully it is not even the first reason.
This is where we disagree. They do it for money and spectacle in England and teh results are sometimes bad. Wolves had no buisness being in the premiership after only finishing fifth(?) in the championship. But they did manage to beat United at Old Trafford that year.
they were introduced at a time when crowds were tumbling 20 years ago. It was thought that increasing the "target" to the top 6 places would keep the season alive longer for more teams, and give more teams ambitions of going up in the first place. In short it's a gimmick. everyone accepts those are the rules now, but people don't think winning the play-offs makes a team better than the other 3 in the play-offs, nor more deserving of being promoted than the other three. The fact that it was only the last promotion spot that'd been sacrificed (which had only been introduced 13 years previously - it used to be 2 up 2 down) kind of made it tolerable.
I agree that this is a step in the right direction. I don't think if you have 26 games that it's a little too short, especially when there are international fixtures (and tournaments) to schedule around. My ideal MLS would be a 16 team league (preferrably teams in Philly, Rochester, Montreal and Toronto). I'd have a single table format with 30 games 15 home and 15 away with everyone playing each other twice (once home and once away). The 1st placed team wins the MLS, no playoffs necessary. I wish (and I know I'm stetching it) that someday the top two MLS teams played in Copa Libertadores while the 3rd and 4th place team played in the CONCACAF Champions Cup. There's some pretty good soccer played in the Copa and MLS teams can only get better playing in it. Just my two cents...
There's a unique set of circumstances that could conveivably come up that would make pro/rel a plus. It ain't here and it may never be. I wouldn't rule it permanently out, though. It has undeniable attractions.
Which is why I'd kinda prefer to threadjack this into the 1001st pro/rel thread. That's a pipe dream with an actual point.
What the point, since the chances of pro/rel are infentessimally smaller than the chances of a single table?
Last I checked no NCAA sport takes EVERY team in the League but four. The playoffs look stupid right now that is true, but they are here for good. The American public (not to be confused with Eurocentric Soccer fans aka Proponents of the single table and no playoffs) will never support a sport that does not have a postseason. The postseason just needs severe tweaking. I feel that even with a 20 team league (the FIFA max for a top flight league) taking eight teams to a playoff is still to much. While I think four is enough, a compromise could easily be with six teams, where the top two recieve a bye while 3 plays 6 and 4 plays 5. one will than play 4/5, and 2 will get 3/6
It's similar to the NHL's playoffs or the NBA's playoffs where over half the teams make it. In two years, when we have two new teams in the league, it will make more sense.
i like the single table format as 12 teams is too small for a conference system. i reckon in 2030 the MLS will get a second division due to slow, sensible growth. with the US being a large country by then a conference system would be needed.
Why not just promotion until MLS gets to 20 teams? Sure, continue to expand the normal way, if you want, by taking a team a year. But also, give the winner of the USL an option for promotion IF they can come up with the franchise fee. If they can't, or don't want to, fine, try it again next year. But if they do have the money, MLS gets what it wants (money) and the excitment for that USL team will generate even more revenue. I'm assuming if a USL team can afford the franchise fee and some kind of mandatory minimum payroll, they have enough support to be viable in MLS. Then when you get to 20 teams, reassess. Also, single table without playoffs would be a shame, IMO. I think it is safe to say Americans love the playoff thing, or else why would the Super Bowl be such a huge deal?
I still do not like it. And as i said I would not care if there were 20 teams in the league. I still think eight is to much. The playoffs need to be something that is hard to get into (not something you back into when other teams are having an "off year"). In two years we will still be taking more than we are sending home. 4 or 6 is what I want. Just my opinion, and you can have your own as well. This will be very difficult. USL (if I remember correctly) has no salary cap, no limit on foreigners, etc. This would cause all kinds of trouble. Players contracts would have to renegotiated (and purchased from the individual team by MLS), foreigners would have to be released, etc. You would get to the point (even if attendence is not an issue), that you could be watching a very new team the following season. This is imaginative, but USL needs drastic reform if this were to be the case.
Good info, I guess it wouldn't be a smooth transition. But I guess that would be a good thing, b/c a USL team would really have to make a commitment to become a MLS team, and that's what you want to see. I have to believe fans would still come to see the team, even if the roster is drastically different, if only to see the competition.
Sorry, by 'point' I mean that pipe dream would at least be a substantive change, instead of empty symbolism.
the Don also made refrence to interleague play with mexico at some point. Maybe they are looking at something like top 4 play inner conf. top2 play CCC and innerconf. Single table will only work if there are several teams playing for something. this probably means an attempt at more focus on the open cup as well. shift the paradigm to multiple title more like europe
well the size of the league is what causes the current need for a conference system. The conferences actually add games rather than reduce them. currently you play conference opponents 4 times (2h 2a) and non-conference opponents twice.