Who cares what they think? At least mainstream fans have concerns that are easier to deal with. Those concerns are stupid, like "soccer is un-American" or "nobody watches soccer", but I prefer to tackle those problems just so I can keep "MetroStars" emblazoned across the front of the team jersey. And if you want, I can look at a list of MFL clubs, point, and laugh at some of their names for you. Keep OT.
Get rid of it. Ya played 90, that's the length of the game. Why do you need a winner? Many times a draw is what they deserve. At season's end it all sorts itself out anyway...the teams that win more usually end up on top. I like the way some teams play for the tie. For whatever reason, injuries, in the midst of a poor run, some teams can only hope for a tie, so they go for it. It is a strategy. Not always the most exciting, but all they can hope for. Let 'em try to level the playing field and cling on to a powerhouse. Again, it all adds up, (or not for the weaker squads), at the end of the season. So what's all the fuss? Play 90.
The best argument I've heard for eliminating ot is that late in the game is when players are getting more tired, often frustrated and most likely to get injured, especially the way the schedule is with some teams playing Wednesday evenings, up to 100 minutes, then travelling to another game on Saturday afternoon. I'm sure everyone can agree that we should keep our players as healthy as possible throughout the season, so we don't end up depleted at the end of it like many teams are now. Also, if you're going to accept a tie as a potential outcome of a game, then I don't understand why we need overtime. When the players, coaches and fans know that overtime is imminent when the game is coming to a close, it doesn't feel like the climax of a game, it just feels like we're playing it close until overtime. The same excitement that overtime brings exists in the final minutes of regulation if there is no overtime.
You must be new. In ice hockey a draw is a potential outcome, do we get rid of overtime there? A draw is a potential outcome in American football, and yet they play overtime. There are even ties in baseball under rare circumstances, yet extra innings exist. And I'm sure everyone can agree (see how I viciously turn your phrase against you) that when MLS players play far less games then their European counterparts, our boys are all the better for playing 100 minutes in one stretch because they are more easily conditioned to play ninety at, say, the World Cup or some other international competition.
Who decided what's "meaningless" So the argument here is that worldwide conventions are meaningless abstractions. This is a fine argument if one also thinks that FIFA is a meaningless abstraction. Did you happen to hear Stoner on Sunday forget that OT needed to be played and prematurely announce that DC had made the postseason for the first time in years? If anything is to be labeled meaningless, it is the extra two five minute periods MLS insists on inserting before allowing a point to be allocated. Despite the result of that game, the tie breaker is meaningless enough that an announcer forgot to consider it in a very important league game. In the interests of consitency, probably another meaningless abstraction, regular season OT should be dropped next year if the new Home and Home playoff system turns out to be a success.
There is also the issue that golden goal is not fair, they should play the full 10 minutes. If people want more soccer, a reason often given for OT, then the proper way to do it is to schedule more games, and expand the roster to be able to rotate the players for the extra games. There are 2 main reasons against OT. First is the added expense of bought broadcasting time. Second is the danger of injury, especially in the brutal heat of summer which is more than 50% of the season. In how many games does regulation end with the temperature above 85, and humidity high?
Quit the whinning you can't ever make anybody happy. The lone reason why this is even an issue for you is the fact that DC United has come up with the short end of the stick more than any other team. Personally, I believe there is no such thing as perfect result. The present system is just fine with me. Trust me it could be much worse.... you could still have the "shootout". 10 extra minutes ain't going to kill anyone, most games still end up tied and even then the 3 points are still split to credit both teams in some manner , should someone win in OT. All you have is an extra 10 minuites (which go rather quickly) that adds to the overall excitement. This is no big deal and it provides some amaizing excitement especially if you are on the winning team... that extratime goal by Metrostars rookie 16 year old, Eddie Gaven, against DC (I believe) earlier this year was simply awesome by any standard.
While both reasons are ridiculous, the first is irrelevant since sporting events run over all the time (which is about as good an explanation as "ties happen all the time"), and the second is just stupid since only less than half of the season is played in the summer. Or is there a rash of injuries in overtime of which I am unaware? And the second concern could be rectified if MLS moved to a winter to spring season and is only a passing and futile glance against overtime. Nice try.
Re: Who decided what's "meaningless" Oh, the high and mighty FIFA, the very same organization that is loathed by many on BS for any number of reasons, all of a sudden they are "legitimate" when it comes to erasing overtime. Con-veni-ent. What are they going to do? Kick us out of the World Cup?
Unless you can find evidence of a higher rate of injury after 90 minutes (and we've played four seasons with OT, so I'm sure that if such evidence exists, you can find it), then I'm chalking this anti-OT rationalization up to chickenlittleism. In other words, the supposed danger of injury after 90 minutes sounds cool, but there's nothing to substantiate it, much like "it's better to host the second leg at home."
Re: Re: Who decided what's "meaningless" Actually, both FIFA and the Laws of the Game give their blessings to an overtime period, as long as the overtime period is played in two halves.
And a lot of those jackasses are EPL snobs. Maybe I'll think about taking them seriously when one of their idiot teams beats DC United. So far, many have tried, none has succeeded (although Leeds did manage to steal a draw from us). AQ
Well, not according to one standard -- fairness. Eddie Gaven should not have been in the game, excpet by a cheap manipulation of the rules by Bradley. Now, that wouldn't mean too much to me if soccer (and FIFA in particular) wasn't so big about "fair play" -- you know, the kicking the ball out when a player is down, the awarding of "Fair Play" awards, etc. But since it is such a big part of soccer, i am surprised Bradley didn't get any *#*#*#*# for it. As for overtime, I love it. And I am DC United season ticket holder who still is reeling from Sunday. AQ
Are you sure about that? The bigger goals, I mean. I remember this being discussed a while back, and my memory is that MLS refused to be the guinea pig for that one. As to OT...I like it. I don't love it. The shootout? Hated it.
You know there was really interesting rule in Japanesere Soccer League (J League) during 1994-2000. Here's the play-time rule: Play 90 min (45 min half) If score is tied OT for 30 min (15 min half) If it's still tied, PK Shoot Out Now here the interesting part: If a team win in regulation or OT, the winners gets 3 points as usual, and losers picks up none. If a team wins in PK shoot out, the winners get 2 points, and loser get one point for keeping the game tie for 120 min. But what they could in MLS is that they could keep the 10 min OT rule, and then go to PK shootout.
Look, it's one thing to be against OT. But at least be sensible about it. 1. Dude, if we add games to get more soccer, we also have to rent the stadiums more. So this is a ludicrous argument. 2. If you're afraid that more time = more injuries, then the logical conclusion is not to play the matches at all, unless/until someone demonstrates that injuries are more common in OT than in regulation.
The discussion has been good. Even as a United fan I am not against the OT. This is how they are going to decide the games in the play-off anyway so might as well practice it in the regular season. Also, I think that it is exciting since DC usually does try to get the W in the extra time. WRT injury I believe that playing on fake grass is more detrimental than the extra time. Affect in 2002: http://www.geocities.com/Colosseum/Base/3833/mls/MLS2002OTAffect.gif In 2002 it was good for Dallas and bad for KC.
This isn't the reason that I don't like overtime, but you don't need to prove a higher rate of injury to argue that overtime increases the number of injuries. If the rate of injury during overtime is exactly the same as during the rest of the game, it stands to reason that, all other things being equal, a 30-game season played with overtime will have more injuries than a 30-game season played without overtime.
I'm a firm believer in that if you need a paragraph at the bottom of the standings to explain them - that's a bad thing. As for OT, I'm indifferent. I do like getting to see 10 extra minutes of soccer, otherwise....
Jason Halpin of MLSnet.com must be reading this! WRT OT, it looks like Jason Halpin has been reading the stuff I put up this weekend (http://mlsnet.com/content/03/90min1022ot.html). Then again he could have done his own analysis (it is more fun for me to take credit). His conclusion is that DC needs to win in regulation and not gamble on OT and Metros should be favored in OT games. That is what I been saying
Re: Jason Halpin of MLSnet.com must be reading this! Is it luck? Or is it due to strategical coaching adjustments? With 1/3 of the games going into OT, coaches should adjust their coaching. Are my players able for 100 minutes? When do I substitute to protect a 1 goal lead? (Taking out a forward with 10 minutes to go in regulation could cause a loss in OT, whereas in regulation the worse that is likely to happen is a tie.). Players also have to adjust their style. Even with a 2 goal lead with 20 minutes to go, they have to save enough energy for OT. Just like with the designated hitter in baseball, the strategy has to be adjusted.
KC, I hope you were being sarcastic---they both SUCKED!!!!!! Play 90 minutes and a tie...then one team gets 1 point and the other 0?? C'mon, dude!!! Be real.
Re: Re: Jason Halpin of MLSnet.com must be reading this! MLS teams with a lead tend to make defensive substitutions, I think this is similar to the prevent defense in the NFL. In the NFL, that strategy tends to allow teams to move the ball where they can hurt you unless you are up big. In the MLS if you are not threatening the other team's net your goal may seem like a shooting gallery. Note to Peter Hirdt: It would be interesting to see what kind of substitutions are made late in the games and the result of those adjustments.
Check out the latest installment of *Analyze This* on MLSnet.com In Analyze This: Golden Goal, Golden Noose (http://www.mlsnet.com/content/03/analyze1024.html), Peter Hirdt has an interesting analysis of the OT WRT United. United has taken more shots 16-14; however, their opponents have only had 5 shots on net, or should I say back of the net, since they were all game winners. United has also lost more OT games than any team in the 4 years that this has been going on. Also this tidbit: United better be planning on taking care of business on their own, as we all are expecting they may not get any help from Chicago.