[R] Low Scoring Playoffs + Playoff format discussion

to not drag this thread too far in one direction, here's a Group Stage thread:

 

i understand how playoff ticket sales have worked in the past, but i think the new model of a group stage would potentially change/improve the playoff ticket-selling scenario.

it has been "date and time to sell" in the old and current formats. perhaps a new "format" would be easier to sell. i don't know. but i can see how a group stage is easier for fans to understand, and the opportunity to see either 3, 2, or 1 group stage game at your team's venue is certainly more exciting than the "let's go see a the first half of a 180-minute total goals series."

my underlying contention is that "more MLS playoff games" and "more HOME playoff games for the better teams -- those more winning/successful in the regular season," (as well as things like fewer or no MLS games on Fifa dates) will go a long ways toward helping the MLS clubs "become more tightly knit into the fabric of their markets."

sitting around (although there do appear to be economic reasons for doing so currently and in the past) and continuing to use the "underperforming" (imo) H/A playoff fromat is not doing anything to help "establish" MLS. if MLS wants to move forward, and perhaps "grow" their business, I think a new playoff fromat would be useful. i don't think the current playoff format does enought to "help or promote" the league.

a SuperLiga-like MLS post-season playoff, I think can help MLS in many ways. but i realize that is just my opinion.

pushing and adopting "new ideas" is what I think can help a league/business get to where it wants to be.

 

Just implement the away goals rule.
Right now there is ZERO incentive for the visiting team in the 1st leg to attack. Every away team would have been happy to get a 0-0 draw, and take their chances at home.

That's an easy, easy change. It won't necessarily work, because 0-0 is still a good score for the away team.

 

see the Group Stage link https://www.bigsoccer.com/forum/showthread.php?t=613858.
the semifinals would be hosted by the group winners. so even the 4th seed or the 3rd seed or the 2nd seed can host an MLS Cup semifinal (if they can put on a nice 3-game run and win their first round group - although that is admittedly more difficult, as it should be, for the lower seeds that would have more road group stage games).

winning the group is far more desirable than finishing second and having to travel to the other group's winner for an away semifinal match.

 

That's one way to do it, I suppose. I don't have any reason to think it's the single best way, but it could be a way.

Though we had more home playoff games for better teams in the early days of the league. It seems to me that time and stadums and stuff do at least as much as more playoff games.

"Underperforming" is your word, as you mentioned.

And it's not without its challenges, as I outlined above.

So I don't see a huge advantage in switching.

 

agreed it certainly could be a way, or even the best way. i don't know. but i think a change is worth a try.

right, but the first-to-five series (that did reward the higher seeds with potentially more home games) had a lot of other problems (repetitive opponent, imperfect series scoring mechanism) that don't exist in a group stage.

the current system now also rewards the higher seeds with more home games (should they get past the first round), but I think that is not enough of a reward, and the first round should have that built-in scheduling of more (guaranteed) home games for the higher seeds.

sure they do. and the league has earned itself the time and is constantly working on the stadium situations. certainly some playoff re-consideration or changes could be on their minds as well.

all playoff systems are not without challenges. i just happen to think that a group stage in the first round would be a good (if not the best) system, despite its challenges.

i don't see a huge advantage (or possibility for growth and improvement and exposure and committment and passion for the league) while sticking with the H/A format in the first round of the playoffs. yes, it works, but i think a different system would work better in the (immediate) future.

 

Sounds like change for the sake of change.

If I said "I think staying the course for the sake of establishing continuity is worth doing," that would, of course, be the opposite side of the coin. And, to me, there's merit in that, too.

And I don't see a huge advantage to what you've outlined, as I've noted above. Not in relation to what we currently have. What we currently have has its challenges, no doubt. Everything does.

 

to me, swapping the order of the H/A games in the first round of the current playoff system would be a "change for the sake of change".

to me, a group stage playoff actually sounds like a method for seeking and achieving some real improvement in the MLS playoff format.

to you the group stage idea sounds like "change for the sake of change". (as you don't see the potential for real improvement that I see. maybe you're looking at it incorrectly. maybe i am. maybe we both are, and there's a better, third way to look at this.)

to me, MLS opting to go with a group stage sounds like changing in order to seek (and likely obtain) improvement.

but those are just our varying opinions. (i'm sure some people -- not me -- loved the shoot-out clocks and were sad to see them go).

we'll see (or not) if the MLS BoG or the Competition Committee has any thoughts or opinions on this playoff format matter. as clearly their opinions are a bit more "actionable/relevant" than ours are on this topic.



------------
i certainly don't agree with your cute new sig: "Group stage playoffs are the new pro/rel."

"Group stage playoffs" can't be the new "pro/rel", because pro/rel will (likely) never happen in MLS for business and competitive sporting reasons. whereas a group stage playoff in MLS could indeed happen exactly because of business and competitive sporting reasons, again imo.

 

ok.
you still have the problem that your 1-seed will make it through almost literally always. people should pay just to see if they manage semi-final home-field? and then consider paying again for the fourth time?

 

kenn, your concerns are the best, most coherent arguments against a group stage I've read since these threads heated up. I'm not sure I can answer all of them, but one of them - the question of timing - I'll try to answer.

First, you would have to extend the post season to five weeks (from the current four), thus allowing the Group Stage to last three weeks. Otherwise, it's a travel and ticket mess. As you say, extending the post-season by only one week shouldn't/wouldn't be a deal breaker. It's only one week.

Now, about selling tickets to group stage games. I'll leave out the question of how attractive those tickets might or might not be to fans. That's a whole other discussion maybe better suited to another thread. But, as far as time for an FO to sell or market those tickets goes, this would be an improvement over the current system. Let me see if I can explain this clearly (based on the scheduling model proposed in the Group Stage thread).

-During the regular season, the instant a team secures at least a 2-seed, they can start selling tickets to both Matchday 1 & Matchday 3; because the eventual 1-seed and the eventual 2-seed both host on those two matchdays.
-The only real concern is extended uncertainty between one or more 2-seeds and one or more 3-seeds; because the eventual 2-seeds would host on Matchday 1 and 3, but the eventual 3-seeds would hosts on Matchday 2. However, once these seeds are resolved (even if that doesn't happen until the final day of the regular season) the eventual 3-seed would still get longer than they currently do to sell tickets (currently: 3-seed hosts during week 1 of the playoffs; with groups: 3-seed hosts during week 2 of the playoffs). The team that is potentially effected in a negative way is a late-clinching 2-seed, because they now hosts during week 1 of the playoffs (versus week 2 under the current system). But, they also host a second home game during week 3, giving a late-clinching 2-seed time to make up for a potential rush to sell Matchday 1 with at least three weeks to sell/market Matchday 3 (the critical and final day of the Group Stage).

Did I explain that ok? Or just make a mess of it? Honestly, for whatever its other problems, time for an FO to sell tickets is not a concern for a Group Stage format. In almost every conceivable situation, they will have more (if not significantly more) time to sell and/or market their home games.

 

And this is further proof that you and I are two people separated by a common language.

I considered "Group stage playoffs are the new black," but that didn't have quite the impact I was looking for.

What I meant (and I can't believe I have to explain, but here goes) was that "Group stage playoffs" are the new cause celebre around here, apparently. The new trendy thing, the hot chick. The way things are going, it's going to be the thing thrown into every discussion of why MLS sucks, and why it'll never be any good until there's (insert thing here).

In short, "Group stage playoffs" is replacing "pro/rel" as the thing we've just gotta have. As a discussion point, not as an actual theory or possibility. Just that it's new and trendy and this is the Next Big Thing.

Plus, it's a frigging sig and I only get so many letters. I'm not going to make a grand goddamn political statement and explain it like it's my senior thesis in a signature. It's for laughs.

 

You may very well be right, then again, my eyes glazed over somewhere in that discussion (as I'm sure many others' eyes did during my post above). So I'll take your word for it that you've laid it out well, and it sounds reasonable. (But extending the playoffs to another week may not be desirable - isn't the length of the NHL and NBA playoffs negatives in the eyes of many?)

I'm still not of a mind that the best teams will necessarily be the best ticket-selling teams, but I'm fine with something that gives them more time to do what they do.

As holiday mentioned, though, you're now asking fans to shell out (what I'm sure will be inflated) ticket money for up to four games if you're the top team (conceivably) and go week after week after week in what will seem to some to be a ponderous march to either inevitable victory or flameout.

The people of Atlanta got tired of shelling out money for all those playoff games for the Braves all the time when they became reasonably sure the Braves would at least advance to the NLCS and maybe to the World Series. That's one reason they took heat for "not being able to sell out playoff games." Well, shoot, excuse me, but as pro sports become more an more of an expense or a hassle, I'm not going to let you call me a bad fan because I don't drop a couple grand I wasn't planning to so I don't have to hear you call my hometown a bad sports market.

There's a fine line between not having enough to sell and having too much. When you have water in the desert, you want to have as much as you can possibly carry to sell, because you know you're going to sell it. When you have a boatload of MLS playoff tickets to sell, I'm not so sure that's always a good thing.

When we're at the point where almost all of the teams control their own yards and play in properly-sized venues, that becomes slightly less of a problem. But only slightly.

 

It didn't mean anything to be up 4-1 instead of down 1-4? One team was able to clinch with a draw in game 3, and still be alive even with a loss, while the other team was forced to win just to get into a tiebreaker? Saying game 2 was meaningless is pretty much like saying game 1 of the current home/away is meaningless.

I think the biggest problems with attendance were the uncertain game 3's, the midweek games forced because they didn't have 6 weeks to play two 3-game rounds, and the best playoff attendance team DC United didn't make the playoffs any of those years.

 

Were you alive then for first-to-five?

Remember what would happen when the first game was a draw?
You knew there was going to have to be a game three and who won game two was irrelevant because they couldn't advance just by what happened in game two.

There was no point in attending or paying attention to game two.

There are those who say there's not much point in attending or paying attention to game one of the current two-leg format. And that thought has some merit as well.

 

it's not so much the language as the medium (the internet). i have a tough time seeing the brilliance of many people when all i see is what they type on a online discussion board. but i'm usually ok with that relationship.

gotcha. no harm.

but i wasn't laughing. now that i see where you're coming from (and what you were going for with the joke, I can see why some would consider it funny). i find it kind of offensive {that's a joke, folks} (as someone who supports the Group stage, and strongly dislikes the idea of pro/rel in MLS).

maybe i'm too sensitive. maybe other people are laughing at your sig.

maybe.

 

You'll just have to trust me then. Of all the things worth arguing about a Group Stage (and there are many), the amount of time that an FO would have to sell tickets is not a concern. In almost every possible scenario, an FO would have more (if not significantly more) time to sell tickets.

Now, how to sell those tickets, and whether or not they are attractive to fans is the tough nut. I fully understand your argument on the difficulty of selling those tickets. And I'm not a business/marketing person, so I can't really reply. But the possibility of "playoff packages," etc might be one way to go. I don't know.

The two things that are not debatable are: 1. A Goup Stage means more first round games (specifically, 4 more), and 2. An FO would have more time to sell tickets to those games. Now, more games and more time does not guarantee more revenue. But, it does improve the potential for revenue... if those tickets are attractive/affordable enough.

(and, re: the NHL/NBA post-season; I don't think the problem is, necessarily, the length of the playoffs. It's a combination of a bloated regular season and the number of games (not necessarily the number of days/weeks) in the post season. I don't think either of those is a problem in MLS.)

 

Yes, I was fortunate enough to witness the best MLS playoff format ever.

How was it irrelevant to be up 4-1 instead of down 1-4? Just because it's not the decisive game doesn't mean it doesn't matter. Otherwise nobody would go to game 3 of the World Series.

Except the part where game 2 counted just as much as games 1 and 3.

Those people are whiners. It might not be their favorite format, but the game is entirely relevant. A team that takes advantage of the opportunity can essentially win the series in game 1. See: 2005 Galaxy.

 

love my 'keepers (and the 'mls tix aren't like water in the desert' analogy).
i'd like to point out also that not only your 1-seed would make it through 9 times out of 10, but your 4-seed would be eliminated likewise 9 out of 10.
so you're doing this whole group thing to figure out whether 2 or 3 make it to the semis. after a few years this reality will become painfully obvious to the fans.

 

so you're saying that fans would stop supporting their team in the playoffs if their team only and consistenly qualified as a 3 or 4 seed for the playoffs, and it was "unlikely" they could advance to the semifinals?

i'm not sure i agree with that argument.

don't you think local supporters would still stay with and support (and perhaps even travel to away games for) their local/favorite team, just for that 1 in 10 chance?

(and i do not know where you come up with that projected number, but i think the parity within MLS would keep the groups tight, the games on the third matchday relevant/important, and we'd see more than the number of "upsets" -- w/ lower seeds advancing -- than you suggest).

 

To be honest, I was not trying to make arguments against such a scenario, nor was I just automatically naysaying it (either just to be contrary or because I'm such a huge fan of the two-legs, one-off, one-off format). I was just asking questions because I was sure that anyone who would advocate something so strongly and call for a change that was going to bring many benefits would have thought everything through. I had some questions. So I asked them.

See, this is the new me. I was trying hard just to make my case and ask questions and not just be a sarcastic bastard.

 

You were one of the few.

Average attendance in the first-to-five format was lower than under any other format MLS has ever used.

Best two-of-three with shootouts: 14,780
First to five: 10,811
Two legs: 13,729

(all exclude MLS Cup)

I'll try to explain it again:

First game draw. Now you know there's going to be a game three. Nothing can be decided in game two. In fact, whoever wins game two would be up 4-1 but would still have to finish it off. All the team down 1-4 has to do is win one game to force series OT and presumably PKs.

Game two was a game that didn't mean much. Maybe you felt it was great. Many of us did not.

Oooh, that's good. America's pastime, 104 years of tradition, second-most popular sport in the country vs. MLS. Good analogy.

See: 2003 Galaxy. How'd that work out?

 

That takes care of the first game. And, as you mentioned, many teams already do this. Yet, many consider MLS playoff crowds to be "underwhelming," despite this little trick of accounting.

To be honest, I don't even know who's on the competition committee. All I know is that Ivan Gazidis has said they constantly look for the best way to do things, but that, when in doubt, they prefer to keep some bit of tradition (8 teams in the playoffs) and let the league grow its way out of that being ridiculous at 8/10.

I agree with this. I can't for the life of me imagine why away goals aren't implemented. It's like they wanted it to look like an internationally-used convention, but not too much (in other words - one of the most interesting parts). As a result, we have teams that play for a draw on the road in game one, making for some boring-ass soccer.

And the Mexican thing, that's not a bad idea either.

 

Or See: San Jose 2004 and MetroStars 2005 (both surrended 3 goals in the second leg overturning 2-0 margins..in NY's case the second didnt come until the second leg before the 3 goals by NE were scored)

 

Depending on how long you stretched it out over. In the extreme case of playing three games in a week (as Superliga was staged), you wouldn't have much time to sell. If you did it over three weeks, yeah, that team with three would have plenty of time, and I'm sure they'd combine all three games into one package (they'd be dumb not to).

But you're still not going to get coaches to be okay with potentially being the team that has to go on the road for three straight weeks, or three times in one week or even three times in two weeks. I don't think.

I don't know if it's 9 times out of ten, but, to respond to tab without quoting him, we already see a dearth of support when a team has a good chance to win the Cup. If they feel they don't have a reasonable chance, I don't like your chances.

And, for its faults (and it does have them) the current system does give everyone a reasonable chance. Just ask the Galaxy.

Many say the advantages in the system aren't enough to adequately reward regular-season excellence and I'd say I'd agree with you on that. Since it doesn't appear like hosting the second leg (and the potential Series OT and PKs) is a really big advantage, I don't know what else we can give them other than away goals and the Mexican tiebreaker.

But hosting the one-off conference final? That seems to be a decent advantage. Though every time you talk about a one-off, people chime in that that's not fair because in one game, anything can happen and it increases the chances of an upset. Well, duh.

I don't care what they do anymore. I just want Edward James Olmos back.