For example, I really hope NISA ditches the single table championship format next year when they ditch the fall/spring calendar. Single table really sucks for a fan of a small market team. Playoffs at least provide a glimmer of hope. This would change if there was pro/rel, but right now it feels like we’re playing a lot of games for nothing.
Have you looked at the MLS standings this year? Out of the top 5, only the Sounders could be considered the "upper class" of MLS. Going top 10 adds 3 more (LAG, POR, NYCFC).
Correct me if I’m wrong, but I am pretty sure we have been talking about these guys: and I’m not throwing Cincinnati in because I don’t think been around long enough. But, yeah, it’s built as a parity league. We expect also rans to have unusually good seasons. The Whitecaps have qualified for the playoffs in recent history, but that doesn’t mean championships.
Dunno? I was responding to your comment about there being an upper class and a lower class in MLS. Even in the group that you circled, 3 of them have won MLS Cups and have been regulars in the playoffs within the last decade. The big thing about MLS is that a team's success isn't based upon the size of their payrolls or market. It certainly helps, but the biggest determining factor is the quality of the front office. RSL is the smallest market in MLS and thanks to the quality of their FO in the early 10s, they were among the best teams in the league every year. Once that FO fell apart, they quickly plummeted down the standings. The opposite could be true for the 4 teams you circled. If the Whitecaps ever got a competent FO, they could vault up the standings in relatively short order. That isn't true in pro/rel leagues. Payroll and the ability of your market to support that payroll largely determines where your team places. Having a bad FO does have an impact (Arsenal), but just having a significantly larger pool of money to spend than other teams softens that blow.
Who are these perennial bottom rung teams that couldn't be champions. Colorado and New England could both could win their conferences in 2021. Philly were down there before a couple of seasons ago and Toronto's best performance in their first 10 seasons was 11th overall. I wouldn't be surprised to see Cincinnati, Austin or Vancouver in the playoffs next season. Houston I can't see but a few off-season signings and I found be proved wrong.
Dallas won the Supporters Shield in 2015 and 2016, the Open Cup in 2016 and reached the CCL semi-finals the same year. The Earthquakes have been pretty bad recently but they have been MLS champions within the last decade.
I’m going to stop you there: there’s zero correlation between pro/rel and disparity. The disparity in European leagues exists because there is almost zero effort to prevent it. It’s not some inherent quality of promotion and relegation. Liga MX has seen plenty of champions. J-League seems to have, too. Meanwhile, 75% of all A-League championship have been won by one of three teams. Latest first time champion is owned by CFG, so thank goodness the little guys still have a shot. Nearly half of all NBA titles are between 2 teams. Long story short, diversity of champions has nothing to do with the openness or closedness of a league.
This is a completely different argument. There’s a big difference between any team can win a championship some year, and any team can win every year. But set MLS to the side for a bit: the salary budget is so low and there are enough teams that gaps between the ceiling and the floor can’t be that great, yet we still have teams that miss out on the playoffs more than they make it. Let me ask: these seasons you’re pointing out to me about these teams, would you consider them exceptional for these particular clubs? Meanwhile, what’s your expectation year in and year out for the Sounders, or the Timbers, or SKC, or the Galaxy? And, yes, the Galaxy may have had a rough last couple of years, wouldn’t you consider their condition “disappointing”, and, likewise, Orlando’s current season “surprising”? Or take Atlanta United’s “disappointing” 2019 season when they won the USOC, Campeones Cup, and were in the MLS semifinals. Yes, things got much worse (for 18 months!), but wouldn’t Minnesota or Montreal fans be elated with such a “disappointing” patch?
Not at the time they did them. San Jose were pretty good in the 00s and Dallas likewise in the 20teens. About the same as Toronto if you'd asked me last year. Orlando's current season isn't surprising and Minnesota are so inconsistent they could finish anywhere.
You seem to be digging yourself a hole? But realistically, the reason why certain teams’ results are considered “surprising” or “disappointing” is because of previous years’ performances. Atlanta started out with a bang, then dropped off a cliff, The Galaxy had a solid run until all their stars and Arena left. As far as Portland goes… they aren’t really consistent enough to pick a direction. While they have consistently made the playoffs they seem to be on a roughly biannual cycle where they end up towards the top of the division one season (13, 15, 17, 20) and barely make/miss the playoffs the next (14, 16, 18, 19). A lot of the “disappointment” around the Timbers is because of their fanbase. They have a large, passionate fanbase and people think they should be consistently good, but because they aren’t, their bad seasons are disappointing.
I had to remind myself but Minnesota were literally minutes away from making the MLS Cup final last season after their second successive last 4 finish.
it just not true but the way mls is every season 12 teams can win it if they make it to play off where two games disade the championship while europe 38 games disade champion. and if mls was designed that way where your goal and aim to win a league is aiming only for 1st place and not 6th if you can not get to 1st would show mls even with less parity
I mean, previous years’ performance is literally how any league’s elite and also rans are established: if a huge NFL fan went into a coma in 1995, was revived 25 years later and you told them that the team that had probably the longest running dynasty in NFL history was Patriots, they would never believe you. Follow that up with Washington and the 49s being two of the worst. Meanwhile, if you told them that the Falcons had two Super Bowl losses, but were otherwise unremarkable, I think that would come as no surprise. A good season or two, but no sustained success, just as you would think. At the same time, there are teams that, before kickoff for the first day of the season, you know will not be lifting the trophy at the end. Nor will they next season or the one after unless some major change happens to the organization. For the life of me, I can’t understand why you all are defending the Quakes or Dynamo here. The Rapids seem to have lucked into a manager? I guess the question would be if they can build on this season or if it’s an anomaly and they revert to the mean.
But this discussion started by someone saying that anyone can win MLS and I think we've established that anyone can, except Houston. This season it could be Colorado, Montreal or Nashville. Next year it could be San Jose, Cincinnati or Vancouver. A couple of DP signings and a new coach can make all the difference. But it probably won't be Houston.
The difference being the length of time and why they are the best. You look at most Euro leagues and the top clubs from 30 or 40 years ago are still the top clubs today. In some cases, even longer. Thaw out a Dutch person from the 60s and ask them who the best clubs are and the list includes Ajax, PSV, and Feyenoord. It may include a few others, but still.. Because that’s the point.. the Rapids “luck” into a good manager and they are a winning club, San Jose and Houston get purchased by bad owners and they turn into also rans.. In most other leagues in the world, the only thing that matters is the depth of the owners pocket and how much they are willing to lose on the club. There’s no “lucking into a coach”. There’s obviously exceptions *cough*Newcastle*cough*, but there’s a strong connection between money and points.
That's fair, and from a literal POV you're absolutely right--there are some teams in MLS which just do not have the roster strength or coaching savvy to have a real shot. At the same time, the premise--that every MLS team has a sufficient baseline to theoretically build a team which could compete, and that the gap in resources between clubs is essentially never insurmountable--seems reasonable. But I see what you're getting at and you're right that we shouldn't pretend that the situation is more equitable than it really is.
The bottom of the Eastern Conference is quite interesting. 9. Philly Supporters Shield holders 10. Columbus MLS Cup holders 11. Red Bulls Supporters Shield winners in 2013, 2015, 2018. Open Cup winners in 2017. Record number of wins (22) in 2018. 12. Chicago potential big club with 7th highest payroll. 13. Cincinnati 3rd season in MLS with 5th highest payroll. Need new manager. 14. Toronto widely considered the best team of all time when they lost the CCL final in 2018. 2nd highest payroll.
Earlier this season, I thought Philly looked like the team to beat in the East down the stretch. Didn't think New England would keep it up, and did not see Nashville turning it on like they have.
Ehhhhhhh. Isn't it tho? Relatively minor tweaks is really the difference from top of the table and bottom of the table in MLS.. Toronto let their Head Coach go and they went from one of the best teams to bottom of the table. LA Galaxy got Toronto's coach and they went from bottom of the table, to a potential top 4 in the West finish. Atlanta let their original head coach go and quickly fell down the table after several bad hires. However, now that they've hired Pineda, they seem to be making a turn around almost instantly.. That's a lot harder to replicate in other leagues.
And yet last season SKC won the Western Conf after being 21st overall in 2019. NE has gone from 15th overall to on pace to set the pts record from last year to this year I'd say it's much closer to truth than it is myth. Sure, it's a bit overblown ... but that comes from more of what's happened than wishful thinking or purposeful bending of things. They've also twice as many championships (one for each half of the season) and even then UANL has won a quarter of them in the last decade, Leon/America/Santos have won 3 ... that's 14 of the 20 possible
There's no reason in principle that the NFL fan would be shocked by that. A huge NFL fan in 1995 would have known how the NFL works and would have seen how first the Steelers and then the 49ers quickly changed from perennial losers to dynasties. It would be very easy for them to understand that yet another team could follow the same path. The only uncertainty would be which one.
Then we both have options that suit our preferences, and there’s no need to crusade for only one system!