Should we have a two part final for MLS

Discussion in 'MLS: General' started by whip, Jul 5, 2005.

  1. CMeszt

    CMeszt Member+

    Farewell Sweet Prince
    Jan 9, 2004
    Gentrification's Apex.
    Club:
    Philadelphia Union
    agreed, the first leg of the two legged final really just isnt going to be that great of a draw for a LONG time. One game is simply the most exciting.
     
  2. KCWiz

    KCWiz New Member

    May 8, 2003
    Manhattan, Kansas
    Not sure what a safety wink is, but it was just a joke.
     
  3. mlsfan31

    mlsfan31 Member

    Nov 1, 1999
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
  4. aleaguer

    aleaguer Member

    Feb 17, 2000
    Wichita, KS USA
    Fortunate coincidence. The game was already scheduled for Foxboro long before anyone had any idea the Revs would be in it.

    And if you wait around long enough on Bigsoccer, every single thread eventually comes around again.

    As for raising the average attendance at the championship games, the MLS Cup average to this point is 40,359. How are we going to do better than that when we're busy building stadiums that seat 20-25,000?
     
  5. Aljarov

    Aljarov Member

    Sep 14, 2004
    fmnorthamerica.com
    Club:
    Tottenham Hotspur FC
    Nat'l Team:
    England
    I like this idea also.

    However, I would prefer either that or to have a home and home (never understood that expression - it's home and away to an English bloke like me) over the current system, which works okay for the Champions League, but in a domestic competition it would seem to make more sense to have it based at the finalists' stadium/s (depending on one or two legs). It would certainly help attendance you would imagine.
     
  6. Aljarov

    Aljarov Member

    Sep 14, 2004
    fmnorthamerica.com
    Club:
    Tottenham Hotspur FC
    Nat'l Team:
    England
    Good point. Perhaps they should have said create more sell-outs?

    Anyways, in the absence of a national stadium (hopefully there will be one someday here, much like there's Wembley in England etc....), it's always going to be like that.
     
  7. Vascao

    Vascao Member

    Jul 24, 2004
    Zona Sul
    Club:
    Vasco da Gama Rio Janeiro
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    For the time being, I don't mind the single game final with a pre-determined host, but as soon as we have a majority of teams in SSS (2008 :rolleyes: ) - and after all these new venues have been designated their token MLS Cup/All-Star Game, MLS needs to start some serious lobbying with the TV powers-that-be to get a two-game finale going.

    What really pisses me off about the post-season: the 1 game conference final!!!! Hopefully an All-Star announcement will be made and they'll squeeze in the second leg of the conf. finals on a wednesday night, hosted by the team with the worse regular season record...then again, isn't a big plus to play the decisive game in the friendly confines? So, 1st game WED @ team with worse record and
    2nd game weekend @team with better record
     
  8. Diego Pasley

    Diego Pasley Member

    Jun 26, 2005
    Lake Ozark, MO
    Not to rain on the parade here, but the MLS is still trying to market to the soccer moms and dads and their kids. I would personally love to see the 2 game playoff format in MLS, but the people MLS is directing marketing toward would not understand the concept of goal differential. All other major US sports that have a multi game playoff system use the winner of the most GAMES to determine the winner, not a running score. I am NOT saying this is right, I really think the MLS is making a mistake by building the game around the desires of the uninformed (see clock running down to zero as an example), but this is another factor preventing the multi game playoff format.
     
  9. CUS

    CUS New Member

    Apr 20, 2000
    Hold on, slick. I am agreeing with you.
     
  10. aleaguer

    aleaguer Member

    Feb 17, 2000
    Wichita, KS USA
    Why?

    And why would they have to lobby the powers that be? If MLS wants to have a two-game final, they'll have a two-game final, TV or no TV. If they want both games on ABC, that might be a problem. If they wanted both games on ESPN, they could probably do that.
     
  11. JasonC

    JasonC New Member

    May 21, 2001
    Billings, Mont.
    Wembley works for a small country like England where even a trip from the borders takes no more than 8-9 hours by car or train. (okay, maybe not train. :D)

    The same length of driving in the US barely gets you out of your region. FWIW, it took me about 20-21 hours of driving to get from Michigan to Montana. It's another 11-12 to Seattle/Portland.

    If you're going to have a 1-match final at a neutral site, or national team matches better to go to different places to give more people at least the chance to watch. Whether they actually go is a different story and another set of problems to fix.
     
  12. T.B.G.F.

    T.B.G.F. New Member

    Jun 24, 2005
    Tampa
    I like the single game final in a predetermined venue. Also, I'd like the first round to be single elimination as well. Why make the 1 seeded team play a game at the 4 seeded team's stadium? Team 4 should have to beat team 1, on the road, as their only chance to advance. They shouldn't be rewarded with a home playoff game, unless its a best of three, but single elimination would still be better. Having 2 game series throughout the playoffs, to me, would promote a "who cares what place we finish the season in" attitude, because teams wouldn't even have the benefit of home field advantage then. I'd go with two single elimination rounds, then a week off, and then the final. Kind of like the NFL used to do.
     
  13. CMeszt

    CMeszt Member+

    Farewell Sweet Prince
    Jan 9, 2004
    Gentrification's Apex.
    Club:
    Philadelphia Union
    part of the reasoning behind the need for the final on ABC is for the final to be a "showcase" event. I know more than a few people that tell me that watch the first game of the season and the final simply because they bump into it on the weekend wide world of sports lineup. On ESPN it doesnt likely get any more serious notice than a regular season game. And while scheduling is an issue why they dont play two games, atmosphere of the game is another. The sleepy atmosphere of the HDC last season is still a much much better showcase for the league than what the alternative would have been... a second leg game in Kansas City... eeeewwwww. With the single game neutral site the league can at least get a reasonably good crowd at a good stadium, even if there isnt strong partisan fan support.

    And as for the "they're still marketing to the average joe sportsfan" logic behind having a two game final, lets remember that MLS doesnt want to be a niche sport forever. The aggrigate goals series really clashes hard with the "american sports worldview" (oxymoron I know). In other combined games series in american sports, a win is a win, a loss is a loss. As amazing as Liverpool's CL run was, for the neutral, the games before the final would not have been all that entertaining. A team advancing to the semis by bunkering for 90 minutes for a draw on the road isnt exactly something that you can market your league on. While it's true that MLS's core will come from "soccer fans", the league needs to one day reach a point where the average joe watches its major events the way that the rest of the country who dont care about baseball follow the world series, or those of us who dont really care about basketball still followed the NBA playoffs.

    And in a two legged final there's just too much possibility of a team running up a 4-1 scoreline in the first game, making the second game of not too much importance, with the winning team simply bunkering.
     
  14. whip

    whip Member

    Aug 5, 2000
    HOUSTON TEXAS
    Euro purist :eek: What we need to satisfy is MLS and soccer investors
     
  15. John L

    John L Member+

    Sep 20, 2003
    Alexandria, VA
    I don't care who has this or who doesn't have this - It just won't fly in the American Sport Conscience - This works only in sport that are easy enough to play 3-4 days in a row, so you end up with best of seven series in Baseball, Prl Basketball and Hockey - In sports like football where there is usually only game a week, there's interest in the play-offs and then A SINGLE championship - A single championship game made the most sense in the past and does now as well

    As far as hosts for the single championship game, YES, when nearly all teams have SSS, then the top-seeded team hosts the Final
     
  16. John_Harkes_6

    John_Harkes_6 New Member

    Mar 29, 2000
    Baltimore, MD.
    This is spot on. The idea is to make the Final an event. They have things that go on all weekend - Commissioners Party, Awards Ceremony, etc. it is also a chance to showcase the League Sponsors. I was fortunate enough to get to get invited to all these events and happened to get caught in a conversation with some people and Garber about this very topic. Some folks were asking him why not have the team with the best record host the event given the large crown NE was able to get when they played in the final. His repsonse included a couple things: Availability, Limited time to sell tickets, but most important was the "event" aspect of it. Also, reading between the lines you could tell awarding the game to a city with a SSS was a reward.
     
  17. Rocket

    Rocket Member

    Aug 29, 1999
    Chicago
    Club:
    Everton FC
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    Interesting. But I still think letting the team with the better record host the game would work best since it gives teams added incentive to play all-out the entire season.

    As to the "event" factor we enjoy now with a neutral-site MLS Cup, why not shift a lot of the corporate schmoozing, meetings, etc to the MLS All-Star weekend?
     
  18. CMeszt

    CMeszt Member+

    Farewell Sweet Prince
    Jan 9, 2004
    Gentrification's Apex.
    Club:
    Philadelphia Union
    well the All-Star game has been kind of a so-so event recently. and given the fact that some of the friendlies this season are more appealing than the current all-star game, I wouldnt mind that MLS use its midseason ABC slot on an appealing mid-season matchup instead. The USA game was a disaster. The Chivas game was a decent event, but most of the crowd were supporting Chivas over MLS, not making the the league all that great looking to sponsors. Last year was East v West, which no one really seems to care about. The fulham match seems interesting, but it's not the most high profile matchup.
     
  19. Pbourgeacq

    Pbourgeacq New Member

    Aug 8, 2001
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    Yes, but if fans don't come to the games, then good luck satisfying your investors.
     
  20. aleaguer

    aleaguer Member

    Feb 17, 2000
    Wichita, KS USA
    I don't think a playoff format, or a playoff-and-a cup, or no playoffs, are going to have a marked impact on the level of fan attendance. I doubt seriously it's going to make fans not come to the games.
     
  21. Pbourgeacq

    Pbourgeacq New Member

    Aug 8, 2001
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    I sure hope you're wrong.
     
  22. aleaguer

    aleaguer Member

    Feb 17, 2000
    Wichita, KS USA
  23. Pbourgeacq

    Pbourgeacq New Member

    Aug 8, 2001
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    Because I'd like to think something can be done to improve the dismal turnout this season in MLS. If improving the product and making the season more exciting won't help, what will?
     
  24. aleaguer

    aleaguer Member

    Feb 17, 2000
    Wichita, KS USA
    This is dismal? Attendance is off around 10% comparing apples to apples. That's dismal? Seems like normal fluctuation to me. Look at the history of the league - we're right around the normal parameters of an MLS season. Just because last year was pretty good, everyone loses their minds when there's a drop the next season even though drops from one season to the next are absolutely nothing new.

    Trust me, a two-legged final, a one-legged final, a three-legged final, no playoffs, playoffs with cup, whatever you can come up with, ain't gonna substantially boost this "dismal" turnout of which you speak.
     
  25. Pbourgeacq

    Pbourgeacq New Member

    Aug 8, 2001
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    Take a look at the attendance trend over the last few seasons. It was going up. Now take a look at it this season. It went down...against the trend. If you think the word "dismal" is too harsh, fine. Either way, things were going good, now they're not so good.

    I agree that a two-legged final vs a one-legged final vs a three-legged final are all about the same. I do think, however, that if we have a regular season champion (coupled with a Cup champion), people will be more interested in the regular season games because the games will be more meaningful toward winning the regular season championship.
     

Share This Page