So I have to hate the 2007 DC team, the 2007 Chivas team, the 2006 FC Dallas team (they had Ruiz, that one's pretty easy), the 2005 SJ EQ team, the 2004 Crew team...kenn, I just don't have that much hate. I'm lazy that way.
This thread is already too long and filled with statistics, so I'll merely rely on my memory and anecdote. I think that the Champions League games are set up in a way that acknowledges the second-leg is an advantage. Either the higher "seed" (i.e., Group A #1 vs. Group C #2) gets the second leg or something. In any event, if Champions League does it (I'm claiming they do), the advantage must be something more than ethereal.
you may be right. but, the "2nd leg advantage" that is (or might be) available in a H/A in which away goals are the tie-breaker could be different from the ethereal "2nd leg advantage" in a H/A in which there is not an "away goals" tie-breaking rule. my take is that the "higher seed" (even when there is not an MLS style series OT) gets to host the second leg because that is the "more important" leg -- in that it "settles/concludes" the series. both legs seem to have equal parts of and influence on the series, and who knows what the "advantage" is of "hosting the second leg" -- but the 1st leg seems "less important" because the series still has the second leg and only after that additional match with the series be decided.
John, I know you said that there were already enough stats, but... I thought I'd take another look at the Champions League. If I recall correctly, the first knockout round is "seeded" but the rounds after that are not. Since 1999, the total advancement rate of second leg teams (included seeded teams) is 64%, with 86 matches. Games have been settled in extra time 4 times (less than 5% of the time), with the second leg team winning 3 out of the four times. Not counting seeded rounds, the second leg advancement rate is 59% out of 34 matches. Looking at unseeded rounds of the UEFA Cup, over the 614 pairings, the advancement rate of second leg teams is 54%. 22 games have been won in extra time (3.5%), 64% of the time by the second leg team. Keep in mind that MLS, by not using away goals, will increase the number of times that extra time is used, which should increase that amount of the advantage. Given the large number of matches involved, I'm very inclined to trust these numbers. BUT keep in mind, even in the UEFA Cup, with tons of participants, the numbers vary a lot from year to year (with first leg teams advancing 55% of the time in one year). That means that, although there does seem to be some second leg advantage, it's not going to mean that teams can't overcome it in any given year.
if we look only at the results after 180 minutes, then yes, not using the away-goal tie-breaker means that the 2nd leg team gets the advantage of OT being played at their home (a home field advantage). but, we have no way to know if series played with the "away goals" rule are played differently (tactically) than those series in which the "away goals" rule is not used. we can not be sure if the "tie-breaking" structure does or does not play a part in deciding how the series are played (and how many goals are scored) and if indeed "that MLS, by not using away goals, will increase the number of times that extra time is used." the "away goals" rule, in theory, encourages open play by the visiting team, and i would suspect it leads to more goals being scored in a series (although it can also be argued that the "away goals" rule encourages defensive-minded play by the home team). but i would think the "more goals" could in fact mean "fewer" ties than expected, when comparing series that use an "away goals" rule and those series that use some other tie-breaker.
Uh no.... Away goals dramatically decreases the number of situations where there can be a tie, so it's pretty clear that ties will result more often in MLS than in an away-goals format simply because they're actually possible... Obviously teams use different tactics (it obviously changes what you need to do to win). But there simply are a limited number of results that will lead to overtime when you use away goals... In MLS, in 30 playoff series, overtime has been used 8 of 30 times, and 5 of the 20 two-legged series. It's a relatively small amount of numbers, but it looks nothing like the UEFA numbers...
I hate the away goals rule, one team advances by tieing 1-1 on the road and 0-0 at home? What a way to decide a winner.I would rather have ot or even pks.
I disagree, the Champion's League finals have usually been quite good over the last 10 years. Same for MLS cups. Someone should print the list and go through which finals were good or not. I usually think of them as good but maybe my perception is wrong. I feel like I've watched a lot of bad playoff games in the 2 game format, but not a lot of bad finals. I'm not suggesting the Champion's League should change, I think when teams from different countries are involved (and the teams have not played each other that season) the format is intriguing. But in the MLS, where your dealing with the same league and the teams have visited each other's stadiums already (and of course, played each other already), the one game playoff might be better.
In fact, now that I think about it, some of the dullest Champions League knock out stage games were between Chelsea and Liverpool, two teams that meet each other during the season. As for the away goals rule, the MLS should not use it simply because fans would not understand or hear about it. The aggragate goal format is complicated enough for the unintiated American audience. But personally, I have changed from supporting the two leg format to thinking that it should just be single-knock out - at the home of the higher seed.
AC Milan 2-1 Liverpool FC -- Not great FC Barcelona 2-1 Arsenal FC -- Ok AC Milan 3-3 Liverpool FC (aet; Liverpool win 3-2 on penalties) -- Excellent AS Monaco FC 0-3 FC Porto -- BORING Juventus FC 0-0 AC Milan (Milan win 3-2 on penalties) -- TERRIBLE Bayer 04 Leverkusen 1-2 Real Madrid CF -- Ok-- great goal by Zidane FC Bayern München 1-1 Valencia CF (Bayern win 5-4 on penalties) -- don't remember Real Madrid CF 3-0 Valencia CF -- not great-- the RM-Barca semis were of greater interest. Manchester United FC 2-1 FC Bayern München -- bad game, great finish Real Madrid CF 1-0 Juventus FC - pretty crappy. Madrid really wasn't that great that year. You know, more of these were good games than I was expecting. And there were more blowouts than I remembered. 5 of 10 were bad games by my estimation. On to MLS (and trying to leave fan emotions out of it): Houston-Revs 2-1: Good game HOU 1, NE 1 -- not really a very good game, despite the awesome finish LA 1, NE 0 -- Simply terrible DC 3, KC 2 -- Great game SJ 4, CHI 2 -- best MLS Cup? Great game LA 1, NE 0 -- Awful SJ 2, LA 1 -- Decent. KC 1, CHI 0 -- Not bad for 1-0. DC 2, LA 0 -- not really a good game. LA lost on mistakes, which always sucks. CHI 2, DC 0 -- it's ok, even if Chicago spent half the game managing the win. 4 of 10 were bad. I don't know whether this says that one-offs are a good format or not, but my impression is that they do produce a pretty hefty proportion of games that are awful. I'm still recovering from MLS Cup 2002...
Yeah, I agree more or less with that list, except I thought the Monaco-Porto game was good. I stick to my contention that the MLS should go to 1 game play-offs. The Rapids were so dull this year we were glad when they missed the play-offs; we were spared watching them try to "keep it close".
And I simply could not fathom a 30-game league boiling down to three games deciding a winner. As it is now, 4 games is too little as well, but I happen to like the two game series. But I remember the three game (first to 5) series the league had in its early years, and the games were just plain dull. You got through the first game and had to think--we have two more games of THIS??? Ughhh. I still think the best first round would be round robin stage (top team gets all games at home, bottom team gets none) followed by semis and final. I have not heard a good solution to the possible "not needed" final game in the series, and it would be difficult to schedule games at the same time to minimize this.
Just came across the thread and do not care to read 28 pages worth, so I apologize if someone has already posted something similar. I currently see almost no advantage for the the higher seeded team in the first round of MLS playoffs. Three games is just too much for a series. I propose that MLS adopts the Mexican playoff system, which is a two game home and away that rewards the higher seeded team with advancement if the total goals are tied. I think it is just the right amount of reward for having a better season record and it has the added advantage that at no point is the series "tied". No matter what the score, on team will need to score again to advance. There is no bunkering and hoping for penalties against a better team.