http://www.mlssoccer.com/news/artic...ates-will-observe-november-international-date As soon as the playoff field is set, #2 seed automatically knows where they are playing on Nov 2/3. #1 seed has to wait until the 30/31 to find out who they play, then book a flight on short notice. Then for Conf Finals Leg 1, assuming 1 and 2 advance, #1 is flying into town to play their 3rd game in a week, 2 of which are on the road. Is that really advantage?
a little "you be the don" forum-ish, but I always felt first place should host both games in the conference semi finals. its a small change but a good reward for a teams efforts.
My biggest issue with the current format and schedule is that the lower seed gets to host the first leg of the conference semifinals on the weekend, while the higher seed has to host the second leg on a weeknight. A two-leg series already minimizes home-field advantage, and this aspect of its implementation by MLS reduces it even more.
I wouldn't like one club to host both legs. I'd rather 1 host the 4/5 winner in one game than in two games at the same site.
Well, except you go on the road on short notice. If the #4 seed wins, I feel they have the upper hand. This playoff format is very problematic IMHO. If it was single elimination, it would work better. 4/5 game would be severe punishment if you definitely had to go on the road to the #1 seed and everything was on the line.
No you don't. You know WHEN the match is going to happen, just not where. If the extra rest/preparation (you can gameplan a bit of both potential opponents) isn't more of an advantage than playing a better team that has as much rest and preparation as you, then there's no such thing as an advantage.
I really wish higher seeds had a choice just so fans would quit complaining. You choose whether you go on the road first or host first.
How long would the club have to decide where to play? Can never see this happening as the league and networks probably want the better team hosting last for the chance at showing them advance in front of their fans.
The league might want that, even though there's really no reason for it, but the networks couldn't give two shiny craps about it. The networks want ratings, period.
Could be wrong but doesn't the current format bring about the best chance of both legs being the most competitive and more viewed as a consequence?
If MLS ignored the (mostly) meaningless Nov dates, I don't think people would have as much of a problem. The schedule c/would be much more spaced out.
Look at the reverse scenario then. Portland is going to square off with either Seattle or Colorado. If you're the Timbers, playing match 1 at home would be a bigger advantage, I think, because the opponent would be on the road on short rest. But the flip side would be that the higher-seeded team would then have to face Seattle in that hornets' nest or Colorado in the cold and altitude with the series on the line, against an opponent now on equal footing rest-wise, in what could potentially be a one-off. Not to mention, I'd prefer that the higher seed has the opportunity to celebrate the series win in front of their home fans. At the end of the day, this is a playoff. Win or shut up.
Not really. One of the dumbest recent MLS decisions (I'd argue THE dumbest) was changing the conference final to a two game playoff. I know I'm a tiny minority, but the 2 legged playoffs in MLS undermine my enjoyment of the playoffs, since there's literally NO sporting reason for it. It's 100% a money grab.
I find these claims a little Rube Goldberg-ish and dubious. The 1 doesn't have as much advantage over the 2 seed as it ought to--because the home-and-home is a lousy format for home field advantage. Much simpler, and more empirically observable.
If hosting the second leg is such an advantage in the MLS playoffs, then it's an equally large advantage for New Zealand to get to host the second leg of their playoff against Mexico, something which was decided by a coin toss!
The formats aren't equal, because WCQ uses the away goals rule, making the 2nd leg host much less likely to host the 30-minute extra time.
Regardless of whether or not one team earned the right to host the second leg, somebody has to host the second leg. The fact that it was determined by a coin toss doesn't tell how much of an advantage it is.
Actually, why not just push out the start of the playoffs (play-in game) by mere 3 days and solve all the issues? Play-in: 4th place team get to play at home on weekend, and every other team get more time to sell tickets. - Check Conf Semi Leg 1: 4/5th & 3rd place teams host the 1st/2nd place teams in mid-week (reduced home advantage) - Check Conf Semi Leg 2: 1st & 2nd place teams enjoy return leg at home on a weekend (added home advantage) - Check And so on for 2 legs of Conf Final: Lower Seed host in mid-week, Higher Seed host on weekends. Problems solved?
Works for me, although the FIFA dates are what complicated everything this year. Sounds like MLS may ignore them after all.
How about in the event of a tie in aggregate score of the two-game playoff, the better-seeded team wins? No extra time, no PKs. Makes the second game more friendly for TV scheduling too.
That's too much of an advantage. Like the one game final in an unbalanced league, IMO. There should be an actual winner to conference series just like in the cup final.
Speaking of this, will AWAY GOALS rule help in anyway? Given that it is adopted in FIFA WC and CCL, why not fall in line too?