I like promotion/relegation. In countries where it has a long tradition of working reasonably well. Introducing it to MLS, however, wouldn't work reasonably well. I like single-table, too. In countries with a long tradition... etc.... Soccer in the US is the same game as it is everywhere else, but the culture and history here are different. The structure of the sport at all levels is going to reflect those differences. We can hold our breath until we're blue in the face, but that's not going to turn MLS and the USSF into the Premiership and the FA.
I don't like promotion and relegation or a single table format for MLS either. His other points are seemingly valid though. At the very least, they are debatable. Eitherway, just because we are not the EPL nor will we be anytime soon, doesnt mean this league doesn't have to work hard to make itself better. It definetely does. For the most part, You guys here seem to be satisfied with the status quo, but there are many more out there that havn't been woo'ed.
Question: How do you keep conferences and such once the league gets past 16 teams (say 18 or 20)? Some teams won't play eachother during the season? or only once (so no Home-Away series)? The game counts just get really high if you add more conference/divisional games... I see the value of conferences in the 12 team league (and 10 team league for that matter)... but I just don't see how the conferences would work if you play EVERY team in the league Home and Away... at 18 teams its 34 games minimum (before additional conference games) and at 20 teams is 38 games. Even at 16 teams you have 30 minimum games... To me, it seems like conferences work well up to say 14 (which I actually have no clue how to handle - single table 26 games or conferences/divisions???).
Just because the league isn't the Premiership at this point doesn't mean it ISN'T working hard to make itself better, either. And I think "status quo" beats the hell out of "No MLS," so basically, those who aren't wooed yet, from my perspective, can go ASTERISK themselves and the horse they rode in on. They're not real fans anyway, they're posers who pretend to be connoisseurs when all they really are is jersey consumers and import beer drinkers. There's nothing wrong with that, unless of course you think it makes you smarter and better than someone less sophisticated.
At 14 teams, break the MLS season into two halves; in each half you play conference opponents twice, everyone else once. Total of 38 games. Conference winners and runners-up of both halves advance to the playoffs. After 14 teams, break the MLS alignment up into divisions and restore the MLS season as one continuous whole; play divisional opponents four times and conference opponents twice. At 20 teams in four divisions across two conferences, a total of 36 games. Conference and divisional winners advance to the playoffs. These are not the only solutions, and probably not the most palatable, but it only took me ten minutes to devise these, and I stopped at Calculus I. Not a whole lot of ingenuity is required to preserve the conferences. If you think about England, with the gazillion competitions each club has over there, 38 games in MLS is not a back-breaking schedule, let alone 30.
I don't think breaking the season into halves is a good idea. A summer break for the Gold Cup is a good idea, but not splitting for playoff qualification. I don't like divisions of 4 either. 2 conferences is fine for now. God forbid someone finish say 6th. You can keep the conferences even if each team doesn't play the exact same schedule. That's what playoffs remedy. I think for MLS the cap on number of games is not so much a matter of how many is too many for players, but rather how many we can play in reasonable weather. They solve that in England by having a longer season and playing in freezing weather. You might be able to get away with 32 in the regular season (assuming you keep the current playoff structure), but 38 plus a 4 week playoff means playing in the winter. That's not going to help attendance in most places.
Understandable, but not to worry. There's no chance MLS will be fooled into thinking he does speak for "the rest of us." Hats off to him for speaking his mind. But its one man's rant - no more, no less. And MLS will treat it as such.
Why would you say that those thare are not woo'ed yet are not real soccer fans? I love it, you might love it, but to assume that this league is interesting enough to appeal to all soccer fans is a little strong, no? I agree that the status quo beats no MLS......... by a long shot. I also agree that they are working to make the league better. Personally, I think they can do a much better job still, but thats just me.
Re: Steven Patton’s Letter to Major League Soccer The idea of more off season international competition could be the begining of a more steady much needy income for the league, beside new soccer cities could be open for bussines on winter time... may be Phoenix, San Antonio, El Paso, Mc Allen Tx...San Diego, Hey any mexican team is a sale in any of these cities .....
There are many ways to do it, depending on how much you want to value conference and divisional play and how many total games you want to play. For example, you could do 32 games with 14 teams by dividing teams into two seven-team conferences, have each team play the other teams in its conference three times apiece (18 games), and have them play teams in the other conference twice apiece (14 games). Personally, I think that MLS will have conferences and/or divisions for the forseeable future, because * nobody really, honestly gives a rat's ass about having a single table other than Steven Patton and the dozens of other people of his ilk, * "3rd in the division" sounds a lot nicer (and is easier to promote) than "8th in the league," * there are relatively few numbers of teams where single-table makes sense (In other words, it makes sense when you've 16-20 teams, but not if you have more or less than that range. And no, I don't think that MLS suits are too concerned about capping the league membership at 16 or 18 or 20 teams, contrary to what they've said. If they find enough solid ownership groups for 24 teams, MLS will have 24 teams.), and * conferences and/or divisions allow schedule makers to schedule more games against teams that fans care about (For example, if you're the Metros, would you rather have more games against DC United or Kansas City?).
Rant my tailpipe Rand my rear end buddy ....MLS is not in the position to treat anybodys idea lighly, keep in mind that MLS directives have fail to bring our soccer league out of the RED INK and few attrocious decision does not show too much of the imagination required to run a successful league...
Neither do I. But aosthed raised the idea that conferences in a large league is unworkable. I just presented two of many ideas (and with a law of large numbers, one of them has to be a good idea) that are possible.
Once again having a single table and playoffs is not a one or the other type of thing. YOu CAN have both. Someone should make a poll about the topics we have discussed here and see how many people are for or against the following topics: Single Table Limiting the number of playoff spots Making MLSCUP a home and home series Pro/Regulation All Star game Break for US National team games
The only thing I don't like with a lot of the scenarios is the "odd" number of games (1 or 3 vs. an opponent) since it seems most fair to play at least each team at your home and away at their home equally... just because "Home" field is a big advantage. However, I guess something where you played the non-conference/divisional opponent home and away on alternating years is ok... I'm not "married" to either system. I think both have merit and work best at certain numbers of teams in the league. To satisify the "traditionalists" (or less flaterringly the "eurosnobs"): You could at 14 teams go to a single table Home & Away format (26 games), declare a "league champion", and then use the extra weekends/games to expand the MLS Cup into an elimination tournament that runs partially during the season that includes ALL MLS teams... The real problem with that system though is that in the MLS you need to guarantee teams a certain number of Home games for revenue purposes. Ticket sales are affected by too few home games... Hey, I'm already trying to figure out what the other 4 games are that I bought with my season tickets... RSL sold me a 20 game package - but I thought a 32 game season (16 home games) was pretty much settled?? I hope they aren't lame "preseason" games or something... but then again if that what it takes to financially support a start-up club, so be it.
Yes, you can have both, but why would you want to? If all teams play each other the same number of times, then single table is the fairest way to determine the league champion and no playoffs are needed. And if teams play unbalanced schedules, then a conference or division setup with playoffs is the best way to determine the league champion.
Hey, you're talking to a guy who can't get enough soccer (I have to follow multiple leagues to get my fill)! I like 38 games in a season... It's not like MLS is playing a lot of mid-week AND weekend games in the same week (like the UEFA Cup/Champs League forces teams to do). So, I could easily stomach a 2 Conference (7 teams each) with 24 Conference games & 14 non-Conference games. Maybe then they should reduce the playoff schedule a bit (say Top 6 or 4 advance??). To me, I like the idea of building some local/geographic rivalries with Divisions/Conferences (I like them in other US sports so why not MLS)... I also like the idea of ONLY playing a team twice a season (Home & Away) - it seems to place significance on every game and you can more fairly declare a league champ - they aren't "helped/hindered" by being in a strong/weak conference... (I think that is what some argue for why "League Champ" shouldn't be awarded without a single table ... because it's not fair until it's a true "round robin"). In my opinion, the league/cup can be entertaining and meaningful either way you approach it, but you should try to play to the strengths of each system... For example, a Single Table plays to crowning a "League Champion" and thus (to me) would be better NOT to use it to have a "playoff" but rather have a "cup" where every MLS team plays in it (single elimination or Home-Away - you can base that on league seeding)... OR, play with Conferences/Divisions as a qualifier for the "playoffs" (like we do today). But, in the end, competition is easy to create ... I play soccer every Saturday with a bunch of old farts (like me) and all we need is to say "next goal wins" and the intensity kicks up - no athlete (even a "has been" like me) likes to lose... we all play to win.
I agree about competition, that's why if you ask around, only the most ardent soccer purists will argue for a single table and balanced schedule. I would bet the money I have in my wallet right now that in no other professional sport is fairness debated so passionately. There are too many teams at the college level in basketball and football, but at the end of an NCAA tourney a winner is a winner. Watch ESPN for a day, I figure you wouldn't even hear the word "fair" unless it's to talk about the weather on the golf course. In nine seasons, no one has ever made a substantiated claim that the winner of the MLS Cup is not the league champion. At a trophy celebration, no one disputes the winning team's dominance. That's because MLS already succeeds in creating competition (getting people to watch is another story). A single table is not going to enhance the competition or draw in new fans. Like many have said, those who say they don't watch MLS because it's unfair wouldn't watch it if it were fair. Those are not the kind of fans that we need.
I disagree that single table is inherently more fair than playoffs in any scenario. Just because two teams play the other teams an equal number of times does not mean their schedules are equal. One team plays LA on the fourth of july in front of a sold out stadium, another team plays LA on a Wednesday night while Ruiz is playing a qualifier. One team plays DC (the team that committed the most fouls last year) with a ref who doesn't call anything, another team plays DC with a ref who calls everything. In my opinion it is generally more fair to determine a champion by having two teams play each other on the same field with the same ref under the same conditions. Admitedly one team might have an injury in the playoffs while another team might not but this is equally true with a single table. At least with the playoffs everyone knows they need to be healthy, playing their best, and safe from suspensions during the same four week period and the national teams can avoid scheduling games during that period. Given the lack of depth on MLS teams a single table basically allows Bruce Arena and injuries to be the major players in determining the league champion. I'm not saying playoffs aren't subject to unfairness, but I don't think single table with a balanced schedule is any more fair.
I don't disagree with you. One reason people might discuss fairness is that one very unique thing about MLS is that it is a new professional league in the US still searching for a more concrete identity. The other big sports are so well established... another thing that makes soccer so unique is the fact that it IS well established in a large portion of the modern world. It would be like Europe trying to create a new NBA for all of Europe... hoping possibly to rival our NBA. Think of it, the scope and potential is so enormous and thus - people tend to be opinionated about it. Also, the fact that many soccer fans in the US grew to love the game outside the US - so they bring with them to the discussion what they "think" soccer is... In the end, MLS is good stuff... not perfect, but getting better. As far as single tables/conferences/divisions, I think any can work... just as long as the league understand what each IS and ISN'T.
True, but how many people knew that? Even I had to think about it for a bit, which proves the point. The people who say single table isn't fair are correct in a sense, but nothing is truly fair for the reasons pointed out. So the question becomes which is most fair. I'd argue single table is because it's more spread out, so while anything can happen in one game or a couple week period, the best teams rise to the top over time (that being why they're the best teams) and things like dumb refereeing or heavy rain have a lesser effect. But until we can have an even schedule with a meaningful number of games, playoffs are the most fair. I agree that ST makes no sense if MLS continues to play on international dates. Hopefully that stops regardless of the system used to crown a champion. ST also won't triple attendances or television ratings or anything like that, but that's ok, no single solution will. It could be worse, we could have a BCS-type system.
I don't care that much about single table versus conferences/division, but it would seem that a single table sytem works only if MLS has some sort of promotion & relegation system. If there's no pro/rel, why would any but the hardest core fans of teams suffering through a miserable season bother coming out to games? And, with no T.V. broadcast money to speak of, the only way teams make money is by selling tickets and merchandise. (By the way, I've got a cousin who lives in England who tells me that fans really do get all worked up if their team is in danger of being relegated and that entire communities go into mourning when their team actually is relegated, but I digress.) Since pro/rel probably is never going to happen (sigh), it would seem that conferences and divisions are preferable in the sense that more teams might be kept in the playoff hunt each season. In addition, playing regular season schedules "weighted" by geography and setting up the playoffs geographically would save teams money in travel expenses.