There are lots of factors, though. DC United hosted zero first-to-5 games. KC hosted 4 in 2000 alone. Comparing playoff attendance year-to-year is difficult because of different scheduling situations and different teams being involved. I know what the rules were. You're saying that game 2 didn't matter because neither team could finish the series on that night. Is that the only criterion for making a game matter? Isn't it better to go into game 3 needing only to tie, while the other team must win just to force a tiebreaker? Chicago tonight is in nearly the same situation that a team up 4-1 under the first-to-five was in. Is it irrelevant that they won last week? It meant exactly as much as the other two games. The format overall was the best MLS has had from a competitive standpoint. Scheduling problems made it unsustainable. OK, make it game 3 of some ECHL playoff series. (Assuming the ECHL uses best-of-7. I don't know.) Is it irrelevant since neither team can finish the series on that night? Fantastic.
Its funny looking back because i remeber the bitch fest about the older systems too. The two of three was bitched about because too many games in the series were being decided by the shootout and fans felt it was way to arbitray see all three games go to a shootout. Not to mention how much hated shhotouts in general, at least around here. The best to five was bitched about more than any IIRC. People hated that like Tody Keith hates Osama Bin Laden. This one actually in its ifrst year was praised other than the # of teams being at 8. That was the only complaint. There was minor resistance to it and stuff but it centered way more on the % of teams in the format than the format itslef. That all changed when 2005 happened and we came within 15 minutes of seeing every higher seed knocked out in the first rouns and then eventually the 8th qualifier win the cup. Ken T. is right though, people will always complain about the post season, they did in the past and will continue to do so in the future.
Scheduling, yeah. Here's the day breakdown under the three systems (a=best-of-three, b=first-to-five, c=two legs): Day.........a...b....c Monday......1...0....0 Tuesday.....1...3....1 Wednesday..15..18....0 Thursday....7...3....1 Friday......4...6....4 Saturday....9..13...24 Sunday.....19...5...14 No, it didn't. In your opinion. Some of those scheduling problems had more to do with teams not having facility control rather than the format. But, yeah, there were scheduling issues (as you can see above). And this helped make it the best playoff format has ever had because....? Idaho won at Dayton 2-1 in OT to win game 3 of the ECHL finals on May 29 of this year. Attendance: 2,371. When Dayton had averaged 3,644 during the regular season. And it's not as much as "nothing could be decided in game two" as it was "you knew that everything was going to be decided in game three anyway and you had almost as good a chance no matter what you did in game two." Here are the four "first to five" series where the first game was a draw: 2000 LA-Kansas City Game 1 - 0-0 draw Game 2 - LA 2-1 Game 3 - KC 2-0 KC wins series. 2001 MetroStars-LA Game 1 - 1-1 draw Game 2 - 4-1 MetroStars Game 3 - 3-2 LA LA wins series. 2001 Chicago-LA Game 1 - 1-1 draw Game 2 - 1-0 LA Game 3 - 2-1 LA LA wins series. 2002 Columbus-New England Game 1 - 0-0 draw Game 2 - 1-0 NE Game 3 - 2-2 draw NE wins series. So, yeah, you were exactly as likely to advance despite losing game two as if you won game two (in a small data set, I realize). So being up 4-1 really wasn't a big advantage, was it? Plus, while I can't find them at the moment (MLSNet isn't completely archived), lots of stories written after those game one draws mentioned that the second game was largely irrelevant. If it didn't feel that way to you, terrific. But it did to me. And to others. For them. But they didn't finish things off in game one, now did they?
It was the best from a competitive standpoint because it forced the lower-seeded team to get results on the road in order to advance, and it made arbitrary PK tiebreakers very unlikely. Those were the competitive benefits, which are a separate discussion from the scheduling drawbacks, which were significant and rightly brought an end to the format. But it seemed to me that people who were "confused" about it were just looking for something be confused about, because there's nothing confusing about the team with the most wins winning the series. And all three games counted the same. 3 points for a win, 1 point for a tie.
the hard-core fans of the four seed following their team around half the country? i don't really see it... look at tonight's game, how hard chicago played. but they would have gotten only one point, and then had to go two more times on the road. i wouldn't like those chances. dcu on the other hand almost lost but pulled out a tie. now they would rest up and play twice more at home. i think they'd still be ok. it's all speculation of course, and you could answer me that the pk should have been given and made it 3-0, lights out... but i still fear that overall, the 1-seed would almost always get through and the 4 almost never. doesn't it seem like a real risk? but in general the play-offs have to balance: a) recognition of regular season points; with b) a format where the competition and the match-ups are fairly even, so as to be exciting. imho, your format overweights the regular season.
my theory is they fear american fans are poor at math. it's 'too complicated' to explain, when you're trying to get people to bite at your product. aggregate goals as it is now already looks enough like a fishy soccer-y thing, they believe. imho it might be harder to sell packages in the iffy weather season, when it's game-day weather that affects people's decision to go or not. this is essential in a play-off format (without making it just a crap-shoot, of course).
i like the "almost" qualifiers in this statement. the "almost" is why it is worth playing the games (even those in a group stage where the 1-seed plays 3 games at home, and the 4-seed plays three games on the road). anything can happen in a group stage. i like the variability of playing 3 separate teams, and the prospect for a variety of results in the six games, and of the 2 best (or best playing or most effective) teams in that single round-robin advancing on to the semi-finals. the risk (associated with having the 4-seed travel to three games, and the 3-seed travel to two games and making their road to the semi-final that much more difficult/unlikely), is an "acceptable" risk to me, as if those teams didn't want that level of "risk" in the playoffs, they should have had a better regular season. my complaint with the current H/A system isn't so much with the "low scoring" or potential for unattractive play on the first weekend of games hosted by the lower seeds (although that concern is there, but I do realize that concern can happen with basically any "playoff" system for the sport of soccer), but it is that the H/A system pretty much gives equal amounts of "risk" to all teams in the first round, regardless of their seeding and regular season records. i'd rather the system "overweight" the importance of the regular season, than "underweight" it -- or barely consider the regular season at all (as I feel the H/A system of the first round currently does). and i'm not just saying that because my local team is no longer in the 2007 Playoffs, nor have they had much playoff success in the last 3 years. a playoff system, imo, really needs to be "properly weighted" to reward the higher seeds. i'm not sure there's a perfect way to do that, but for the sport of soccer, I don't think the format MLS has used for the last 4 years in the first round of the playoffs (H/A) is anywhere close to the best option. looking at what has transpired so far in the 2007 playoffs, we can't really make an accurate projection on how the "results" would have gone in a Group Stage format. the whole first weekend of games would not have been played, or they would have been replaced with other matchups from the group (since the games in the proposed MLS Cup Group Stage format would always be played at the higher seed). now, if we want to look at the second weekend of games, then yes, a "good/decent/well-playing" team (even a 4-seed) like Chicago can go on the road and get a vital point. but they'd still need to (hypothetically, assuming we are playing a Group Stage that started with the Chi@DC game and continues this weekend - Nov 2&3 - with the NY@NE, KC@CUSA, Dal@Hou matches) go on the road and get some additonal points at NY and at NE. DC would (under the group stage format) be sitting on one point (from the 2-2 draw with Chicago), but they'd still have 2 more home games. (again, this is assuming the first leg games didn't happen, as the lower seeds would not host a playoff match-up, and the Eastern Group stage would start with the Chi@DC and the NY@NE games). both teams (Chi and DC) are in decent shape after their opening draw), and clearly DC gets the advantage (earned from their regular season performances) of playing the remainder of the group at home, while the 4-seed has to keep on travelling. note, there was an actual group of Chicago Fire fans in RFK last night, I don't know how many made the trip for the game, or if they were in or live in the DC area to begin with). but the playoffs are a time when the teams and the fans have to "bring it". clearly some find the H/A format acceptable and exciting (especially game 2), but I do think an equal (and likely greater) number of "away" fans would/could travel to the Group Stage matches. maybe i have that wrong, and maybe the Chicago fans knew the game on 11/1 was do-or-die, and that increased the likelihood of them traveling to that playoff game.
your efforts are appreciated. (although -- and this is not a crack at you, but at the internet as a whole -- i find it strange that the bar has been set to the point where not being "a sarcastic bastard" is worthy of thanks and appreciation. but anyway, your "new" efforts are appreciated.)
So, guys, two games and. . . Nine Goals Later. . . how do we feel now? ---- I had to hit one other point while I was here: So, what you're trying to tell me here is that it didn't matter who scored the goal in game 2 in 2002? That's the kind of ridiculousness that you get when dealing with a sample size that small. Also, it might be obnoxious to go FYP on you, but you counted the Series OT goal as if it had been scored in regulation for 2000, but didn't count it that way (or report it at all) for 2001. Anyway, it shouldn't have passed the Sniff Test: a team has a better chance needing only a tie than needing a win in regulation followed by an OT win. That should be so obvious as to be pointless to say. And the team that needs the OT win ain't gonna get it every friggin' time. In the "first game is drawn" scenario, MLS Game 2 is more important than any Game 2 in the 100+ years of World Series history--with possibly as little as one shot of the ball, you've put the other team's back to the wall. (It's about comparable to winning game 3 of a 5 game series after having split the first two).
First to 5 was so insanely terrible. So stupid. You either win both of the first two games or you win one game and tie two or you win two games and tie one (of the first two). I dunno, just stupid IMO.
the away gaols rule sux butt really and wont sell simple as that. the mexican style thing is ridiculous. keep the agg but add a third game like a replay if neccessary, it trips me out how yall bring the" worlds game lingo" when we dont care, this MLS not the world lolool
Hmm, a surprisingly "undiplomatic" post based on your screen name. And if you actually ARE a diplomat, you might want to run your future posts through a spellchecker. Why exactly does the away goals "sux but"; and what's "ridiculous" about the Mexican playoff tiebreaker? The first one encourages the away team to push for goals and not play for draws, and the second one rewards the team with the better regular season record and forces the lower seeded team to win at least one of the games. What's wrong with this in a playoff system? Let's get this straight, soccer is the world's game because there is a common set of rules (with some minor variations) that work in all countries that play the game. As for your third game replay (if necessary) who's going to televise it on short notice and how can you be sure that in places like Gillette or the Meadowlands you can actually get the place when you want it? And tell me how selling the "if necessary" tickets would work with 3 days of lead time? If MLS wants to succeed with the world's game, we have to play with the world's soccer rules. If you want to see what happens to a sport when we make our own rules, look at American football. It's huge here, but nobody else in the rest of the world plays it seriously. 140 years ago our American football was basically Rugby. But the sport of Rugby never had an umbrella organization like FIFA that established the rules that everyone would follow. So what happened? There are two varieties of Rugby, plus Aussie Rules football, Irish football, Canadian football, and American football that plays with 3 sets of rules (Pro, College, High School). THAT's why having commonly used practices that are recognized by people who play the sport elsewhere ARE important.