Should we have a two part final for MLS

does't the mexican league have a split season the apetura and the cluasura?

 

I personally would love to see a two legged final if were gonna have the playoffs, i think they should be completely two legged from the first round through the final but MLS will not even consider that until all teams have SSS and TV would support it.

 

Well, if we're going to do what other soccer countries do, maybe we should take a look at Europe, too!

 

Two-game finals are nothing new to American soccer. The NASL did it back in the 60's. I'd like to see a two game championship decided on total goals. I think it'd be a fine idea, especially if it's a home-and-home series.

 

We can stop right here. If any team makes it into the final that shares their stadium with an NFL team, scheduling the final would be difficult at best.

 

Yes, I know. I was referring to the "they do it in Mexico" comment.

Anyway, my preference is to (1) have a "regular season" championship to satisfy the Euro purists, and (2) emphasize the US Cup to satisfy those in the we-Americans-want-playoffs camp. That way everybody's happy (or PO'd, one or the other).

The reason I'd like to see it that way is that the two competitions measure two different things. The regular season measures the best team over the long haul, while the Cup (a single-elimination tournament) adds the volatility and excitement of teams peaking at the right time. We've already got both competitions, so it shouldn't be too much of a stretch to institute this format.

 

Yes... Argentina too and many other Latin American leagues.

 

Yeah I agree that this is the way to go with the final choosing a single site makes it hard for fans too travel and see their team in a championship. I think that the play-offs all the way to the final final should be two-legged and detrmained by goals scored. But I can see how not having your own stadium would be a problem.

 

I've never been a big fan of the apertura and clausura split. I like being able to say so-and-so was the league champion of 2005. It seems to complicate it to have the exact same competition twice during the same year. Maybe I just don't understand the split, or its purpose. Can somebody explain it?

 

Yeah its the equivqlent of a really long Euro or mls season they play 18 games the first time around and they play the other 18 games. But the only diff. is that in Mex. they have play-off sort of like mls and in Argentina they have a single table, leader at the end of the season wins it all.

 

My preference would be to keep a one-game final, but have the finalist with the best record host MLS Cup.

This would hopefully be a good incentive for team's to play with 100% effort throughout the season, and probably increase average attendance at the championship games.

 

So it sounds like the Argentina apertura/clausura is nothing like the Mexico apertura/clausura. In fact, the Argentina a/c is closer to the EPL than it is to the Mexican a/c, and the Mexican a/c is closer to MLS than it is to the Argentina a/c. Hey, I guess MLS is not that far from the Euro system after all!

 

The problem with this plan obviously being football and building availability. But yes, looking long-term, I'd like to see this eventually adopted.

 

This seems to be a poor man's version of what I outlined in post #7, above. Anybody interested in eventually adopting that?

 

thats exactly what i said, read first man.....

 

thats exactly what i said, read first man.....

 

We could have the 2 legged final in the same place twice.

PHP twice.

 

Yeah, I'd like a 2-leg final as well. Granted it's not going to happen until every team is in its own stadium.

I'll concede to having an all-star game as a place for the league's high-rollers to move and shake if they were to give me a 2-leg final.

 

First to 5, anybody?

 

******** off.

:safetywink:

 

New England hosted MLS Cup while sharing the Big Razor with the Pats. While scheduling would be a pain, it obviously can be done. Home and home for the final would certainly be better financially than playing to a less than full Crew stadium

 

Let's not even consider this until all teams have their own stadiums. Right now, if you made the final two-legged, you would need to do that for the conference final as well, and that negates any home field advantage. Unless you did the Mexican thing of saying the higher ranked team advances if level on aggregate. But I like the idea of the championship being one game, even though Fire would've beat KC in 2000 in a series.

 

there's a big difference between an event scheduled months in advance, and one that may or may not exist as little as 7 days beforehand.

 

I like a single game final the best, makes for one big day to end the season.