there you go but seriously, what was with listing san jose? i could have understood another team, but not them
Well, I was really struggling for a second example - in retrospect, an "i.e" would've been better in that context than an "e.g." - and SJ with two influential starters (Agoos and LD) out several weeks for the WC seemed like the next best example. If Chicago wins the "best management of extraordinary roster disruption" category by a mile, who would you consider the runner-up? Maybe no one even comes close enough to merit consideration?
for many of us who followed football before MLS, I think the supporters shield is more important. It's just how it's done in the rest of the world and it's how I want it to be here. Especially with the MLS playoffs having huge drops in attendance and barely any of the games being on TV. The MLS cup is nice though, aside from last year which was slow and boring and played in a empty stadium. Which reminds me of another point, does anyone really think that LA and San Jose were the 2 best clubs last year? I think a Chicago-Miami match would have been one of the best MLS cups ever. Damn playoffs.
I think the Supporters Shield is more important...and I also think that qualifying for cups such as the FC Champions Cup or whatever its called now or going to be called...should go by finish in the table...like its supposed to be...the MLS Cup should be a major Cup competition that the top 8 teams qualify for...With the real league champion being the supporters shield winner...
I don't care about the Supporter' Shield. The reason is because the league doesn't care about it. What is the reward for being the team with the most points during the regular season? An award from the fans that gives the players no money and no spot in an international competition. If MLS were to acknowledge the winner with a bonus and/or a spot to the holder in an international competiton than I would care because it would mean something tangible to the players and the fans. I have never seen or heard a quote from a player saying they wanted to win the Supporter's Shield. I think it's a great idea to reward the top point getter, but unless it's official from the league it is meaningless and I couldn't care less.
I agree with you except I do care about it. I think I should care about it because maybe if more fans push it on the league, then they will take it more seriously. I definately think players deserve like a $1,000 dollar bonus for winning it. I also think players should get like $100 for a win and maybe $25 for a tie during the regular season and maybe they could change the format in the playoffs. Possibly, the winner of the (hopefully will be changed from first to five into a two game home and away they way they do in Europe) series gets a $200 dollar bonus and in the semifinal round they get a $400 bonus. And I definately agree that the winner deserves an automatic birth into the international competition. I'm not sure MLS is capable of pulling off these bonuses but it would be cool if they could.
from http://www.concacaf.com/news/article.page/182 2000 FC CHAMPIONS CUP – FINAL ROUND D.C. United (USA – 1999 MLS Cup champion) Los Angeles Galaxy (USA – 1999 MLS regular season champion) from http://www.concacaf.com/news/article.page/428 2002 FOOTBALL CONFEDERATION CHAMPIONS’ CUP PARTICIPANTS (LEAGUE STAGE) Kansas City Wizards (USA, winner 2000 MLS Cup) Chicago Fire (USA, winner, 2000 MLS Supporters’ Shield) D.C. United (USA, runner-up 2001 FC Giants Cup) TO BE DETERMINED winner, USA 2001 MLS Cup Notice that the 1999 and 2000 Supporter's Sheild winners qualified for the CONCACAF club championship. (I think KC actually won the 2000 Supporter's Sheild, but they were tied on points with Chicago at 57. Anyways, if Chicago wasn't the 2000 Supporter's Sheild winner, they would have qualified as runners-up since KC qualified as MLS Cup winners.) Too bad CONCACAF had to make the farcical Giant's Cup mean something, and too bad DC United won it, since that meant that the 2001 Supporter's Sheild winner didn't qualify for this year's championship. That's a joke, get it? Next year's competition also won't have to cover two previous years' worth of champions, and 3 or 4 US teams will qualify. Do you think that maybe one of those teams will be the Supporter's Sheild winner? Do you care now? - Paul
Of course, saying that we should care about the Supporters' Shield because it qualifies for the Concacaf CC only begs the question of how much you should care about the Concacaf CC. Actually, I think both are worthwhile, even if they're each of more limited worth than most fans wish. It's cool to recognize the team that wins the most points over the course of the MLS season, regardless of how the league's set up. It's also cool (and probably very helpful in preparing young American players for WC quals) to compete against strong teams from Concacaf. I don't think either the SS or the CCC will, in the foreseeable future, likely represent what fans most wish they would represent, but they're still good things even as they are presently.
LA in 1999 and Chicago in 2000 got in for being MLS Cup runners up not the League Champions. League Champs of both those years also turned out to be MLS Cup champs. If concacaf wants to call those two teams the League Champs for those years I guess they can, but that doesn't make it true.
i may be in a personal soccer-loving slump, or i may be a dc united fan, or both, but i'm having trouble caring about much with regard to MLS this season. why? hmm...not sure... 1-no stadium news 2-few quality foreign acquisitions 3-bitterness about poor investment (league-wide) in marketing 4-sick of watching utd suck 5-tired of empty expansion talk/rumors 6-tired of crappy news coverage 7-tired of lame content on bigsoccer
I understand, and actually sympathize with, that point of view, but it's probably worth noting that recognizing the team with the most points at the end of the regular league season is not really how it's done in the rest of the world. It's how it's done in most of Europe, but not how it's done in most of Latin America. In most Latin American systems, the regular league season is followed by playoffs and the final placement in the table (or within groups/divisions, as the case may be) is only meaningful to the extent it influences seeding for the playoffs. But regular season league games are still vitally important because seeding in the playoffs is critical. Some countries have playoff matchups with only one game, instead of a two-legged series, hosted by the higher-seeded team (i.e., Brazil's national league). In the event of a draw, the higher-seeded team advances. Seeding can be also be significant because the away-goals rule isn't usually used. Ties in the playoffs are usually broken by OT followed by PKs, but in some countries (such as Mexico, IIRC) the higher-seeded team advances. The Latin American approaches are of some interest to MLS because a fair number of MLS fans are either from Latin America or at least grew up following those leagues. Those fans are more familiar with playoffs than they are with a Supporters' Shield concept. Most Latin American countries also don't have any sort of domestic cup competition that pro clubs take seriously. (Brazil has all sorts of leagues and cups, but they're not typical in this regard.) So, when fans familiar with Latin American leagues look for a meaningful championship or title, they're often only thinking in terms of one title - the winner of the playoffs based on regular season league standings. Let me just add that I don't think that the traditional Latin systems are inherently better than the traditional English or other Euro systems. It's just a matter of what you're accustomed to seeing. My point is that we shouldn't think that the way it's done in Europe, or even just in the Home Countries, is the way that things are done everywhere in the world - or should necessarily be done in MLS.
What's the shield? I have a slight idea of what the Supporters Shield is but, I'm not completely sure. Can someone explain exactly what it is?
Re: What's the shield? make mls a single table... whoever is on top of it at the end of the year wins the supporter's shield got it?
oh yeah i care, and for those of you whining because it doensn't mean anything... it won't mean anything if you don't make it mean something stand up and be accounted for, quit crying in your cup of tea... demand your team fights for it this is by the fans, we made this happen and it will go where ever we take it
A couple things. The representatives to the CONCACAF Champions Cup are determined by USSF, not CONCACAF. CONCACAF only says how many each federation gets. The federation determines who those representatives are. The precedent for the winner of the Supporter's Shield to be a representative to the CONCACAF Champions Cup was set by the USSF in the selection of the two representatives for the 1999 CCC (other than DC as the reigning champ) being Chicago as the winner of the 1998 MLS cup and LA as the winner of the 1998 Supporter's Shield. Assuming that when you say "League Champions" you mean winners of the Supporter's Shield, I think making that as a blanket statement is a bit rash. In 1999 DC won the MLS Cup & the Supporter's Shield. LA was the runner-up in the Supporter's Shield race and was also the defeated finalist in the MLS Cup. Saying that they got in because of their defeat in the MLS Cup rather than than their 2nd place finish in the Supporter's Shield race is a bit presumptious. I'd prefer to think that it was because of their second place finish in BOTH events that earned them the invitation. In 2000 Kansas City won the MLS Cup and was tied in points with Chicago for the Supporter's Shield. Notice in the post that you referenced that it specifically says that Chicago's invitation was based upon its record in the Supporter's Shield race. (Yes, I know that it says winner, and based on goal differential the shield did go to KC.) The criteria used by USSF for the invites to the CCC were the MLS Cup winner and the Supporter's Shield winner - in this case "co-winner," if you will - just as for the 99 CCC.
Yes, this is exactly correct. It means something if we say it means something. It is brought up here, in news articles, and elsewhere. As long as we keep track of it, it counts. I like the idea that there are three trophies to win each year. I also like seeing who will have the best record instead which team will finish 8th.
It shows up in 18 pages on mlsnet.com Examples: http://www.mlsnet.com/games/01/0818dalmia.html " Miami (15-4-5, 50 points) sits comfortably atop the Eastern Division and league standings, and has already clinched a berth in the 2001 MLS Cup Playoffs. However, Miami is still shooting for the coveted Supporters' Shield, the award bestowed upon the team with the most points at the end of the regular season." http://www.mlsnet.com/special/mlscup00/gansler.html "United States soccer coaching veteran Bob Gansler engineered a remarkable worst-to-first turnaround in Kansas City in his first full season with Kansas City. Gansler's system worked to perfection all season, as the Wizards finished with a 16-7-9 record to capture the MLS Supporters Shield."
By having the Supporters Shield, you make the regular season more interesting... More cups = more glory in a year...don't people like silverware??? (or as the Rothenberg trophy looks...a wannabe Vince Lomardi that makes great for a Viagra commercial!?!?!)
I care. All silverware is important. I find that often (but not always), those people who support teams that have never won the Shield, are chief among those who claim not to care about it, or try to devalue it.
mmmm.....LA fans chanting we want the shield last night after word of the SJ-DC result found it's way to the stands. Guess we care.