WAIT. Remember how I (not me really ) screamed how the playoff format was not working 4 games in to the 11 game playoff system? I was wrong and I amdit it. Here is why: Out of the 4 series, 3 of the top seeds advanced depsite the fact that two of them were behind going in to the second game. Week 2 Playoff attendace averaged 15,259 fans - about the 2004 season average. That makes the 2004 Playoff attendance 11,820 - which is not great but not a wasteland either. Plus you know DC will pack the house. KC? Anybody's guess. The games were riveting. All 4 series. DC dominance and the Metros inability to do anything. The stunning collapse of SJ while KC somehow mustered 3 goals with a 93 minutes goalazo from some no-name rookie. LA overcoming their own coach to victory. But most of all the iron-spined Revs and the COLOSSAL coaching blunders by Andrulis. Witness: 1. Not starting Edson Buddle? In favor of Dante Washington Huh? 2. Having Tony Sanneh play center-mid. Huh? 3. The PK's. On the humanity. Paule's - okay I understand. But Sanneh's slow-motion PK would have been saved in city league. 4. Taking out Martino? In place of a rookie? All of this drama brought to you by a playoff format which I hated last week but love this week. We can argue about 8 teams out of 10 or 12. We can argue the merits of any perceived home field advantage. But the home and home format makes for great playoff drama. Every goal counts.
The playoffs have been kick butt this year. I loved watching COlumbus getting their butts knocked out. I also want DC to win it all because Peter Nowak deserves it.
Just curious - would you (or anyone else who wants to respond) like the idea of a home-and-home conference final as well?
Yes--but when they announced the current playoff format, I figured it was a compromise between the one-offs and the home and home series proponents. Plus, since the game is at the home of the higher seed, they most likely viewed it as a way to make the regular season mean more.
Except for last years La-sj second game the games are not great they almost all have one team getting shutout with usually the visting team bunkering down hoping for a 0-0 tie. Just like the NFL prevent defense it usually means preventing victory. I would rather have both teams going all out to win one game.
I see why the system is in place, but wouldn't it make more sense to compromise with the first round as the one-off and the conference final as a home-and-home? I'm not actually suggesting this system, I'm really just seeking an explanation of the current system. I don't have any big objections or anything, but on the level of appearances, it seems home-and-home in the conference final makes more sense. Why level the playing field by giving both teams a home game for the 1 seed v. 4 seed first round matches when you could instead level the playing field more for (in theory) a more tightly-contested, more meaningful battle between the two best teams in a conference? Is the theory that stretching the series over 2 games actually benefits the higher seed by giving them more time for their superior ability to prevail - is more minutes is actually a bigger advantage in some sense than true home field?
I agree this happens far too often in MLS, both in the regular season and in Game 1's of the home-and-home format. Makes the soccer less than exciting, and makes very little sense when you consider the teams are usually playing in front of (in the first legs anyway) 10-12k murmuring fans in an NFL stadium, not a chanting, screaming, whistling, sold out Old Trafford. The conservatism on the road seems unwarranted, but coaches will coach how they want. Anyway, I agree one-offs typically produce more exciting matches. This first round of this years' playoffs (along with the famous SJ-LA series) shows the two-leg series can produce thrillers - but with the exception of SJ-LA the first legs in these series were still uninsipiring. I would rather beat my face with a board than watch a replay of that LA-Colorado leg in Denver.
I actually liked the best-of-three format (with ties allowed) that the league stupidly referred to as "first to five." But this ain't bad. It's familiar to everyone, and has so far yielded the right results.* *"The Right Results" is defined as a significant, but not insurmountable, advantage for the higher seed.
Yes - I like the idea of more playoff soccer as a concept. But a one game conference final at the home of the higher seed is just about the only tangiable incentive to the regular season so it must stay. (the only other being a Top 4 finish). I don't what soccer you've been watching christhestud - but since Dallas didn't make it in - all I want to see is some entertaining, compelleing soccer. I think Round 2 is the best week of the season. 4 games and every goal mean something. There was intensity and pressure evident on the players that was mostly lacking for 29 weeks of the season. I will rail on MLS for boring, scoreless soccer sometimes during the season. But this weekend's game were very interesting. Maybe not all pretty - but watching Colorado and Columbus strain under the weight of their dumb coaches and poor effort has high entertainment value.
I like the format and the games were great. However, the crowds are disappointing. 15,000 in DC is the bare minimum. C-bus should be packed. It says something about the league that the largest crowds come at the begining of the season, not at the end.
Certainly. From a purely athletic point of view, there should be two rounds of home-and-home ties. I think this gives the players great experience in the kind of tournament play that most of the world's clubs take part in. I really think the experience will help get better results for MLS teams in the Champions Cup.
I completely agree, these weekend games were very very good. A sense of urgency, full effort, strategy and excitment. For me though, its more of a testament to why we should bring some of these elements to the regular season than proclaiming this format a success. Eitherway though, the playoffs have been great to watch.
I agree with you completely. I even said in my post that "the first round games this year (along with LA - SJ classic) show what thrillers a two leg format can produce," or something along those lines, in one of my posts - I do have to say the first legs were a bit dull though. At any rate, I'm not questioning the 2-leg format in any way. I'm really just wondering why it's used in the first round and not in the conference final. To quote myself (in my second post in this thread): "I don't have any big objections or anything, but on the level of appearances, it seems home-and-home in the conference final makes more sense. Why level the playing field by giving both teams a home game for the 1 seed v. 4 seed first round matches when you could instead level the playing field more for (in theory) a more tightly-contested, more meaningful [2-leg] battle between the two best teams in a conference? "
I have thought of this myself. I do think that two-game series benefit the better team, in that they can erase a crappy performance in game 1, whereas, there is no second chance in a one-off. It seems that one-offs increase the odds of upsets, in my opinion. And then there is the marketing aspect. While the turnstyles aren't necessarily turning for the playoffs now, I think that MLS is anticipating it will not always be this way. Therefore, they want to have every market tapped for the teams left in the playoffs, which means every team gets at least one game. The only way to to do that is to make the first round a series. In a perfect world of playoffs, I think home-and-home for every round (including the final) would be the best. But before I get crucified, just let me say how I absolutely understand the league wanting a one-game final "event."
If you thought the the first leg was borning and second game exciting; then wouldn't you perfer a one game, winner take all format?
Great points. I'm still not sure about what's the greater advantage - true homefield or a 2-leg series to erase mistakes. Homefield advantage was a huge factor in the MLS all season this year. But the 2-leg series seems to provide a comparable advantage by doubling the time for the better team to show through. The shorter the match, the greater chance of an upset - unless homefield advantage outweighs this idea. I hadn't thought of the point about tapping every market for the playoffs - I guess I was a) just looking at things from the standpoint of the competition itself, not really the business side, and b) not looking ahead to when (hopefully) MLS playoffs are big sellers. Right now, though, I'm certain MLS has to be losing money on the playoff formats. They're opening 8 venues in the first round for 4 small attendances and 4 average attendances, instead of opening 4 venues for 4 average-to-large attendances. So as long as MLS is paying rent in most of the playoff stadiums, seems like the format hurts business. Of course, if MLS wants to look towards the future, and the system will make great sense when (fingers crossed) the crowds pour in for playoff matches.
I actually do. In all the threads where I've put forth my own playoff ideas, I've suggested a 6-team one-off playoff with two first round byes and true homefield advantages, or an 8-team one-off playoff with true homefield advantage if we must stick with an 8 team playoff. I don't think my dream world will become a reality, though, and this thread isn't a "what's the best playoff model?" thread - at least not yet. I posted here because I saw someone endorsing the two-leg format and I was just wondering if they knew/had opinions about why the two-leg format is used in the first round rather than in the conference finals.
I have to agree with you about the fans on past 2 weekends. The best soccer been played but fans somehow did not show up at games,maybe they save their money for the American Football.
Did Andrulis really start Dante over Edson, play Sanneh at Central Mid, and replace Martino with anyone while down a goal or two? Plus allow Sanneh to take the PK with about 4 better PK takers waiting their turn? O the crime against humanity!!!!!! The playoffs have been great so far this year.
Basically because Lamar Hunt wants everyone to have one home playoff game. So they developed a system that pleased him on that end, had a "traditional" element (two-legs), had fixed dates to help with preparation and allowed their to have some element of home-field advantage (conference final beinga one-off). Really, just a lot of compromises.