RichardL just nailed it. He is exactly right, and the FA Cup example seals the deal. That's why it would be lunacy for MLS to adopt a single table as long as the playoffs are still around: You would be following a superior competition (season-long double round robin) with an inferior one (quick tournament), and using the latter to declare your champion. MLS isn't eliminating the playoffs, and thus won't be adopting a single table. It will continue using a conference structure, which rightly justifies the playoffs and gives them meaning. Anything else would be goofy.
Okay, fine. How about two-thirds of the season? Columbus is a pretty good example of this. They won the Supporter's Shield (backing into it), but finished the season flat, scoring one fluky goal in their last month of league games. Under a pure league system, they'd be champions (crowned after a loss). Under our playoff system, the Crew now have to prove they're worthy of the title. Both are valid systems. I just prefer the playoff system. Which is also one of the reasons why playoffs are so popular. The other, bigger, reason, is that it ends the season with a burst of extreme intensity. In a pure league format, the eventual champion often has it all but sewn up with several games left to go. Barring a sudden, inexplicable collapse, it's just a matter of when they'll clinch, not if. It's an anticlimatic end to a long season. Playoffs prevent that. That's why NASCAR added the Chase. There's a huge difference, though. Nobody has to qualify for the FA Cup. (Okay, technically the non-league sides do, but it's "qualification" in name only -- the non-league teams just play more rounds is all.) When only the best teams over the course of a full season make it into the knockout tournament, it gives that tournament more validity. I mean, sorry to flog the obvious, but are the World Cup winners seen as less of champions because they won their title via a knockout playoff following a group stage? The problem is that there is no single agreed-upon definition of who is "best". In the American system, if you can't get through the playoffs without choking, you're not the "best", regular season results be damned. The Buffalo Bills went to four Super Bowls in a row, an astounding achievement. But because they either choked or were blown out in each of them, football fans remember them as losers. It's just the way we look at it over here. ------RM
Well actually, no. I pretty much shot a hole in the FA Cup argument. And I rebutted this as well, but you never responded. I'll add another rebuttal. If conferences are the only reason for playoffs, why do we send more than simply the conference winners through? ------RM
The point remains, why are the results of a short knockout competiton seen as a more accurate way of deciding who is best? There's a whole "myth" around the idea that there's something inherent in truly great teams that will seem them triumph in a play-off. Other than the fact that every play-off winner has "proven" itself to be truly the best by winning the play-offs, what actually is there to back it up as opposed to accepting that cup football sometimes produces surprising results? As do most in the USA. It also helps to maintain interest in the season for nearly all the clubs. Tradition is important. I'm sure nobody at all really believes that MLS' 8th best team really could be the genuine best team in the country, so why are they in the play-offs? That's true. The last game or two can sometimes be dead. Nobody here minds as it just means they were clearly better. A few years back my team won promotion with 7 games to spare, and won the title with 6 still to play. Yes, it deprived the division of a close title battle, but arranging a post-season tournament to "prove" who was the best would just be ridiculous and contrived. A showpiece final is great if that's your objective. that doesn't really make any sense, unless you are suggesting the true proof of superiority shown in "man to man" contests would mean the true best in a 2nd v 3rd duel would win, but would be less likely to if it was 2nd v 30th. If there was an alternative, then yes, they would be. Do you think world cup qualifying would be better (in terms of sending the genuine best teams) if done on a seeded cup basis? Indeed it is. Tradition and all that. People here accept that the play-off winners get that last promotion place, for example. We just accept the post-season competition for what it is, rather than having any ideas that if a 6th placed team beats a 3rd place team that finished 10 points head it proves they were really the better team.
Often, when the question is actually asked in the media, our pundits (who are generally as awful as sports media pundits always are) will admit that the system is not meant to crown a "best team," but instead a "champion." There is an ethereal, romanticized quality to that term, but it ultimately boils down to: "a team good enough to qualify for the playoffs and then good and lucky enough to win it." Ergo, the eighth best team in the regular season may well be the champion, and no one is all that worried, except in soccer where the fan base has exposure to a different and equally well-established way of doing things.
You may have shot a hole in some FA Cup argument, but not this one, which is the one RichardL made and which I then seconded: "If it (weren't liable to create shock results), then people would regard the FA Cup winners as the genuine best team in England." At the risk of becoming RichardL's lackey, I'll second his latest response as well: A knockout tournament is either a valid tool for establishing superiority, or it isn't. You can't have it both ways. You didn't rebut it. You merely begged the question, in the logical sense: You provided a handful of examples where single table + playoffs does exist (USL, NBA conferences). But that in fact is the very debate we're having: whether it should exist. I argue that it shouldn't, because a single table undermines the rationale for playoffs in the first place. We're having an "ought" argument, and you went all "is" on us. I think it's goofy for USL to have a single table and then crown its champion via playoffs. And I think it would be goofy for MLS to do it. Because MLS, like most modern sports leagues, "fakes it," for lack of a better term. They give the playoffs a foundational integrity by pitting conference-vs.-conference, which gives them leeway to toss a few wild cards in without eroding the basic appearance of the thing. Look, I think you might be misinterpreting my underlying argument here. I'm a huge fan of playoffs, just like you. I love all the same stuff you do: the end-of-season excitement, the burst of intensity, the teams who man up and rise to the occasion. That's what makes it all so great. I want the playoffs to stay. And that's exactly why I don't want a single table -- because it would water down the playoffs. A single table would "erode the basic appearance of the thing." I want playoffs, and I want them to have a firm rationale, and so I don't want a single table.
After reading through this thread, I think that my overall desire for a single table is gone. My reasoning for this is the watering down of the playoffs, something that I am a big fan of for all the reasons listed above. Simply put: you can't have both Single Table and Playoffs without cheapening one of them.....
Welcome to the world of Double Table. check out my setup when you have time. - East and West Double Table. - 12 clubs in each table, 24 total in the top flight MLS. - Home/Away in table and 1 game against the other table = 34 games. (for example, DCU visiting LAG one year, LAG visiting DCU next year) Regular season top performers in each table = conference champions. It's a big accomplishment and very legitimate title(since balanced schedule). They get CCL Berth. It basically replaces the SS. - 4 top clubs from each table go to MLS Cup playoffs. Inter-conference first round = E1 vs W4, E2 vs W3, W1 vs E4, W2 vs E3 at home of higher seed. Home/Away semi-final. One game Final at home of higher seed.
It depends. Take the AFL in Australia for example. That has single table and play-offs. They just don't play a full schedule (16 teams play 22 games each). Two big differences are that 9 of those teams are from the same city, so regional conferences would be impossible, and their play-off system is heavily weighted towards the top two. If either of them lose in the first round of play-offs, they actually get a second chance and play in the next round. That sounds a bit nuts, but it's a) 1 v 4 b) 2 v 3 c) 5 v 8 d) 6 v 7 then e) loser of b v c f) loser of a v d then winner of a v e winner of b v f then the final (or something very close to the above)
If I understand you correctly: a season long encounter, a team who dominates, plays a team, a cinderella team, which makes it to the other half of the top of the mountain, then knocks off the premiere team, is the true champion of the league because they were given a second chance called the playoffs, they were rewarded because they never gave up, thats cool, a sigle table alignment wont change that, we also have qualifying to the champions league, the superliga and the USOC; so dominate the league regardless of your geographical location so you play a cinderella and send her packing early then play the second strongest team in the league, win. To be the best you have to beat the best.
Who says they're "more" accurate? There is no perfectly accurate method of determining the best team, in large part because there's no universally agreed upon definition of "best". Your question assumes that everyone who prefers playoffs agrees with the number of teams in the playoffs. That couldn't be further from the truth. Even people who love playoffs often think there's too many teams in them. I would prefer that no more than half the teams get in, preferably less. What you describe happened in 2005. Los Angeles snuck in as the 8th team on the last day and won the MLS Cup. A lot of fans thought they didn't deserve to be there. But only the most extreme thought we should get rid of the playoffs altogether. I disagree. Again, if it's so ridiculous and contrived, get rid of all the promotion playoffs. After all, you already know who's "fourth best", don't you? But somehow I think the fans would throw a fit. And that's what this is about. Remember: sport, especially professional sport, is entertainment. Giving the fans a dramatic end to a long season increases interest and fan satisfaction. That's why NASCAR added the Chase. NASCAR was pure single-table. The champion usually clinched on the second-to-last race, and the contest wasn't in doubt for several races before that. NASCAR got sick of people tuning them out for football. The answer was something similar to a playoff system. My point is that "fluky upsets" are considered less "fluky" if the winning team has earned the right to be there by performing well during the regular season. In some cases, it is!! The US had to win a two-legged elimination round before entering the first group stage. Again, the question isn't whether it would be "better". I don't think that's a question that could be answered. The question is "would it be equally valid"? I think it would be. Really, it all comes down to this: no one wants their World Cup dreams dashed in a mere one or two games. It's that pesky fan thing again. (Also, World Cup qualifiers tend to be profitable affairs, so it's not just the fans that want more of them.) Playoffs aren't better or worse than a league system. It's simply another way to determine who's "best", using a different definition of the word. (And a lot more exciting way, IMHO.) ------RM
YES!!! I refrenced this site back on page 4 of the thread but no one commented Don't know if you got it from my post, but it is a clutch-site, especially in terms of this discussion.....and it makes me happy 2
You claim that the only valid rationale for playoffs is to reconcile the champions of different conferences and divisions. The problem is that playoffs almost NEVER work that way. In order to work that way, only a single champion of each division or conference would qualify for the next round. There would be no wildcards, no second-place qualifiers. You would be arguing that MLS should keep their playoffs, but greatly reduce who gets into them. But that's an inconsistent argument. If making the top 8 finishers in a single table play off for the championship is "wrong", then making the top 4 finishers in a conference play off for the right to go to the final is just as wrong. You can't have it both ways, as was said. ------RM
I saw this on MLS rumors too, interesting write-up. But for the record that is literally the same table from http://www.settingthetable.info/home.asp site we have been discussing with 'Pan Pacific' & 'La Magna' cup also inserted.
Yep, you're right: The system as it exists isn't perfect, and it is inconsistent. But again, remember the ultimate thrust of my argument here: It is not so much an argument for playoffs as it is an argument against single table + playoffs. My purpose has been not to advocate for "perfect playoffs," but to oppose something that would make them way too imperfect. The truth is that playoffs are not an ideal method for determining overall superiority. A single table, round robin is a far better method. But playoffs are awesome, for all the reasons you and I have already rhapsodized about. (And for an American sports league, they're basically an obligation.) So if playoffs are going to exist, they can't have their value undermined by a preceding competition (single table) that is inherently better at doing what they purport to do: determining the best team. What you're advocating (single table, then playoffs) basically amounts to: "OK, we'll stage this ideal competition for seven months and figure out who's best, then pretend to forget all that just so we can savor the excitement of the playoffs for three weeks and call that winner the best." Now, as it stands, MLS is doing its own "pretending" too, with wildcards and second-place qualifiers, etc. But the basic structure at least has foundational integrity (pardon the clunky phrase again) by pitting conference-vs.-conference. So, yes, they dilute the purity of their playoffs. But at least they aren't doing the thing that would render them totally pointless: establishing a single table.
Tambo, I don't know how to respond except to repeat that I don't see any real difference between inviting the 4 top finishers in a conference (8 in the NBA and NHL) to a playoff to determine the "conference champion" who goes to the finals, and a playoff between the top 8 finishers in a single-table to determine the "league champion". It's exactly the same. Okay sure, in a conference setup, you have the championship final between two teams who didn't play similar schedules. But since that final isn't guaranteed to have the two "best" teams (by round-robin standards), so what? I think what is going on is that you want to maintain the illusion of "playoff legitimacy" by keeping at least two tables. But if you don't send the top finisher in each table, an illusion is all it is. As for the "superiority" of round-robin over knockout for determining the "best" team, if you read my replies to Richard, you'll see that I don't believe that. Round-robin and knockout both determine the "best" team, but using different standards for "best". Round-robin followed by playoffs is the best of both worlds, if you ask me. A team has to be good enough at the round-robin to get into the playoffs, and then show they can win a knockout stage. Like you said, we both want playoffs. But unlike you, I don't give a damn how many tables there are, as long as the regular season is consistent. Teams in the same table should play almost identical schedules and teams in different tables should play significantly different schedules. That's why I don't like the idea of everyone playing the same schedule next year, but still having conferences. It raises the possibility of one team being seeded higher than another for nothing more than geographical location. ------RM
Ding ding ding! You've nailed it. And a single table prevents the playoffs from appearing legitimate. That is the basic point: The current setup is not perfect. But it's less not-perfect than a single table + playoffs would be.
I think that tambo means is that if you have single-table and playoffs then you will always have the argument about who the real champ is. Whereas is you have two conferences with different schedules the only real champ would be determined by playoffs. But I don't want to speak for him.....so I'll shut up...
Don't we now? (I mean, I remember all the hullabaloo when LA snuck into the playoffs on the last day and won it all in 2005. Imagine if NYRB had beat Columbus last year.) Arguments just come with any playoff system. I don't mind. Gives us something to talk about in the off-season. ------RM
The current setup is fine. When there are 20 teams in the league it will make even more sense. I don't know why people obsess with it. For me, as a Englishman, single table makes no sense without promotion/relegation (which will not happen in our lifetimes). And promotion/relegation makes no sense with a salary cap. The league is built around parity, with every team having a chance to win MLS Cup. No matter how you decide who's going to make the playoffs, there are going to be crazy results. When we have 20 teams, and only 8 of them make the playoffs it's going to be exciting. Every game is then going to matter, because the parity is so extreme. The difference between DC United making the playoffs (and hence getting a chance to win the title) was miniscule this season.
when there are 24 teams in the league, it will be perfect. 12 teams in each table, home/away in table and 1 game out of table for 34 games. Then 8 team playoffs - 4 from each table.
If only there was no Supporters Shield then we could all pretend being the best over a season didn't matter at all.
Where are all the players for 24 teams coming from? Or even 20 teams? I'm concerned with adding 70 players in the next 2 seasons. Seems like quality of play ought be more important than a lot of the stuff discussed in this thread. my 2 cents.