2 PART FINAL....ABSOLUTLY!! The first part will be appox. 45 minutes long, the second part will also be approx. 45 minutes long to take place about 15 minutes after part 1. The team with the best combined score from those 2 parts should be the champion. You know, you guys should really pay me for this stuff!!
You look at the trend. Up 9% in 2001, Up another 6% in 2002, then down about 6% in 2003, and finally up again about 4% in 2004. 2005 isn't over yet, but if it's slightly down, it's slightly down. It's halfway through 2005 and you're worrying about an attendance disaster? At least wait until the whole season's numbers are in, and then do yourself a favor and ask MLS for its P&L figures and then you can worry about radical changes to the competition in the name of staving off this "dismal" attendance. That's the theory. Like I said, it's a theory.
Okay, let's revisit this at the end of the season. I'm sure the attendance figures will rebound nicely. I don't want to be accused of being Chicken Little! Well, the theory that Americans need playoffs is also a theory. So far, I'm not convinced by the data. Maybe it's time we try something else.
Or maybe we can just stick with what we have and build a...what's it called..oh yeah..a tradition instead of reinventing the wheel every damn year.
I think by this point, unless people start showing up in droves (August is usually pretty bad), the final average is destined to be lower than last year. Where we disagree is on how much to overreact about it. There's what onionsack said, or there's my point that I don't think it matters. And as long as it doesn't matter, you may as well have playoffs because Americans expect playoffs. I don't know about "need," but I think they expect them. There's not much data on the other side because there's not many sports that don't have playoffs. Except NCAA Division I-A football, I guess. And what's the big debate about in NCAA Division I-A football? Oh, yeah. Many people think there should be a playoff. Imagine that.
while no one really denies that the current playoffs need a little tweaking, the whole "making games more meaningful" is moot. Yes, having 80 percent of teams in the playoffs wasnt the greatest idea, but it can be fixed by the addition of new teams and eliminating the first round home and home. (my only real explaination for why they've done this is so that every team can have a chance to market and catch "playoff fever".) Until the recent reallignmetn of the NFL, a team could make the playoffs with a 8-8 record, yet with all the battles for home field at the end of the season, you didnt see many complaints about games not being meaningful. If anything a simple regular season championship wouldnt hold much meaning or significance to me because of large blocks where players are missing due to Gold Cup, Confed Cup, World Cup, etc. New England could very well take a slide in the table in the coming month, and that's hardly fair. Furthermore, people have said that we should have both a regular season champ and an MLS cup champ and have both of them mean something. If you really think that idea will work, than you really should go out and watch a few other sports out there. Find me an american sport where there is more than one championship that means anything. The only thing that I can really think of is college basketball, where you have a tourney champ and an overall champ, and even so, the overall, means much more than the other. Only in the small conferences do you see the tourney and the overall have separate significance, and that's only because the one NCAA spot goes to the tourney winner, thus giving a good incentive to do well. (and sorry, but a spot in the Concacaf Champions Cup will never been any real incentive). Part of this "America loves a champion and only one champion" mentality is why the US Open cup will never carry much more significance than giving the small PDL/USL clubs a chance to challenge the big boys and give some local excitement to a yearly matchup in the hope of an upset. Having the MLS cup be a secondary feat to the "League champion" will only make MLS's showcase event fall somewhere in signigicance between the All-Star game and the first two Superbowls (which didnt mean jack at the time they were played). Plus, dont forget that the USA isnt the only place that has playoffs. The promotion playoffs in the cola leagues help energize the middle of the table, giving more teams a shot at promotion, thus "giving more meaning to regular season games". The dutch have also begun to implement a playoff format to give away its european spots
We do. The regular-season champ means the team wins the Supporters' Shield. The MLS Cup champ means the team wins the playoffs. Of course, it's debateable as to how much the SS "means." Some would like to think it's vitally important. The market seems to think otherwise. For better or worse, you're not really a champion in America even if you blow the league apart during the regular season if you don't win the playoffs. Case in point: 2001 Seattle Mariners.
yes, and, "mean something", the supporters shield does not. Does anyone really care what Columbus did last season? They have a big ugly pontiac logo in their trophy case, that's about it. As long as we have the MLS cup, that's all it will mean.
I agree with you. But I'm not sure exactly what you could make the regular season "mean" if you have playoffs at the same time. Whether you give the regular-season champ a trophy or a million bucks or a berth in the CCC or whatever - I'm not sure what you can do to make a regular season championship in a league with playoffs "mean" anything at all. And since playoffs aren't going away, you're kinda stuck. Take away the playoffs, and you have a pretty good idea by August who's just playing out the string. The illusion (and sometimes it's nothing more than that) that a team can "make the playoffs" (whether they can or not, whether they will or not, whether they'll do anything once they get there or not) is seen as good for business. I don't know whether it really is or not, but that's the thinking - more teams in contention late in the year is better. Teams that are out of it is seen as bad for business. And like it or not, we tend to base a "successful season" in America on whether or not you "make the playoffs."
Yes, I agree we need to build a tradition. But instead of building it with the lousy format we currently have in place "just because it's already there", lets put something good in place and THEN stop reinventing the wheel so we can build a tradition.
The problem is that there is no consensus about what qualifies as "something good." Your opinion may not be shared by everyone else.
I'm totally agreeing with your point of view, btw. like I said, such reasons for having more teams "in it" is the reason why the cola leagues added playoffs so many years ago, and why the dutch are going to do it now. as it stands now, my only real tweak to the playoffs would be eliminating the home and home first round series, so we have have some nice battles for home field late in the season. Last year, DC and Metro had one game to decide second place in the east, but the whole thing didnt really mean much. The game would have carried MUCH more excitement if the winner won the rights to play at home the next week.
I'm willing to wait until the end of the season to see just how much lower the final average attendance is before I (over)react, if you are. See my earlier post for my response to that. Heck, I'll just say it again. I'm all about building tradition, but let's get it right first before we decide to keep it. No sense in building a tradition around something that's no good. I guess where we differ, then, is on whether it matters. You say potato, I say...uh, tomato. You were talking about comparing apples and apples earlier. Well now you're comparing apples to roast beef. The reason there is the debate for NCAA football is that you've got hundreds of teams all playing for the same title and most never ever get to play each other. In this case, I think a playoff system would be ideal. Pick the top few teams (a manageable number), and let them play single elimination until there is one left. There's no need to do it this way for MLS, though, because we already have it pared down to a manageable number (i.e., all of them), and several months during which they can prove which is the best.
Never said it was. That's the thing about opinions. If everyone had the same one, there would be no need to express it. Of course, the same can be said about yours.
I don't think most of the proponents of a D-1A college football playoffs have thought it that far through. I think what they really want, at the bottom of it all, is finality and no ambiguity. They don't want two 12-0 teams and the bickering over who's "really" the #1 team in the country, they want it settled on the field. They're not so much worried about whether or not Oklahoma played Georgia in the regular season or not. And let's be honest, there are a small number of teams with a legitimate shot at the mythical National Championship of college football in a given year anyway. It's not like Indiana is really playing for the same title that Southern California is playing for.
And I wouldn't count on yours carrying the day anytime soon. But just in case, I'll send Don Garber a link to this thread.
There's a tremedous gulf between "something good" and "something I like." I like the current system. Don't love it. Hope they tweak before they overhaul. But the league will continue to be in flux - in format and in attendance and stuff - until they get more teams and more stadiums. Way too many people swinging from lightpoles this season for no good reason. This is a marathon not a sprint.
In the same time frame, the league has signed a 10-year deal with adidas, two stadiums have reached or are close to reaching naming rights deals and DC United is expected to be sold to the people who will build the new stadium they are proposing.
Whatever the reason, for NCAA football, playoffs make sense. For MLS, I just don't see that it does...in my opinion. Yet another reason for playoffs in NCAA football that does not apply to MLS. By the way, how would one determine where to draw the line between Indiana and Southern California for the "mythical" (I don't like mythical, I like real) championship? Fortunately we have a manageable number in MLS so we don't even need to address that question. Hey, my "mythical/real" parenthetical made me think of something. Rep to the first person who identifies the movie quote "I don't want neutral, I want dead", including the actor who said it. (No reason we can't have a little fun while we debate, is there?)
Aw, shucks, you beat me to it. I wanted to post the exact same message so that I could be the one to sound like my opinion was better. Oh, well. Early bird, I guess. ;-)
Um, I was talking about attendance. See, I just knew somebody was going to characterize me as Chicken Little!