What's this RIDICULOUS playoff scheme?

more for tv

I think they did this so that the playoffs could have a more regular schedule for TV and the fans. With the MLS essentially going off the air come playoff time casual fans and those like me who do not have a home team are left out in the cold.

 

You didn't quite get it straight. There are tremendous advantages to finishing higher in the standings. The playoffs aren't a straight table, so conference rivalries are more important. One team from each conference doesn't make the playoffs. The pairing in the first round is 1 v 4 and 2 v
3, so finishing first is a sweet deal. The first round is home and home, with the second game at the higher seed. It's aggregate goals, without an away goals rule. Aggregate ties are settled with a 30 minute golden goal overtime and then PKs. If all that were to occur, it would be at the home of the team with the better regular season standings. The semifinal match is a single game conference final at the home of the higher seed--so there's another reason why to win the division in the regular season. Like the final and the second quarterfinal game, this game would have the potential to go to PKs, like real soccer tournaments.

This system allows all playoff games to be played on weekends, which is better for attendance and allows more time to promote games. It eliminates the "if necessary" problem that made game threes--arguably the most exciting--some of the worst attended. A more certain playoff structure also allows for better TV deals. And it allows for one of the most tense and unnerving things soccer has to offer, which MLS has not yet allowed anywhere but the final--the Penatly Shootout.

My guess is that after the 2003 playoff have occurred, most of the old First To Five fans will be converted.

 

I couldn't agree more. We esentially trade playoff games at playoff intensity for 10 vanilla regular season games contested between non-divisional, non-rival teams...{and the peasants rejoiced...yea} We also trade March games for frigid November nights

[soapbox]Here's the bottom line on the curent system on offer: If it existed in the last four seasons three of the four Champions would have been booted. {Note: under old system the lower seed played Game 2 at home}


What the "Eurosnob's" don't account for is that in Continental Cups, unlike a league, playoffs are meant to be played between two teams under a NEUTRAL set of conditions. Neither team has earned an advantage in direct competition, so there shouldn't be much, if any, built in advantage.

On top of everything a Game 1 upset blowout by the low seed will now render Game 2 impotent. If you think it will not happen, just check MLS history: 11 lower seeds have won playoff series. More importantly, there have been 8 blowouts (win by 2 or more goals) by the lower seed in their home game.

To the people now rationalizing to themselves that the current format now makes Game 2 worth something: You're so right...that's why so many people skip every other playoff game except the decider. Also, Americans have been so historically open to Euro ideas not directly involving taste. [/soapbox]

 

This exists under EVERY system

All series the last 3 seasons had the potential of PK's. I'm also not aware of a clamoring for more (or any) pk's. No pk's ever under first-to-5.

The 1-game final is interesting and more proper than a two-leg series. Still, the format does not reward the fans, who will not get the chance to celebrate an upset road victory in Round 1 by going to the home park in Round 2. Flukes are given a higher shot also. That is bad all the way around.

We're now playing in November, you can have a 3 game set, all on weekends in R1 and still be cold in November.

What games? You've gone from 4-6 games to only two games that make up the Semis. Of those two, only two cities can "plan" on it far enough in avance to make any difference - the #1 seeds - and they still have to win the opening series. At most we are talking about 6 days between winning the R1 series and playing the Conf Final!!!

Yes, other leagues have had such a huge problem selling tickets for "if neccessary" games.

Your solitary valid point. Will the allowance actually manifest itself in reality, though? Also, it matters less if you have the Shootout package.

Guess again.

 

It's better than first to five in that there will be fewer post season games. It's worse than first to five in pretty much every other respect.

 

In the past, if the first game was looking like a blowout, the team on the short end of the stick could just pack it in, pray for no injuries and let the goals come because it didn't matter.

Now, it does matter. They'll fight even harder to keep the score down and put in a few of their own. To the contrary, I think that playoff games will get even more intense ~because~ every goal counts. Even more so than in the past.

Imagine the prospect of coming to the second leg and the home team has to win by 3 to advance, and they do!

Ok, at the end of the day you either like apples or oranges and there really isn't much crossover. But this is MLS, they love to change the rules every year.

 

I still wish they'd scrap the play-offs and go straight to the MLS Cup. Once upon a time baseball became the most popular sport in America using that formula.

 

While I personally feel the same way, I begrudingly accept the 2-legged playoff. To me it really demeans the regular season, and I feel no need to emulate Europe just because their leagues make more money. But, the realitiy is that 2-legged playoffs make more sense for the league's survival.

While in most sports the deciding game (i.e. game 3) would be the highest attended and most sought after television product, that's not the case in MLS. For some reason, game 3's were the least attended playoff games. Plus, MLS need to constrict the season a little more IMHO, so that it gets more play in the summer months when there is less other major sports media competition. Also, the later the playoffs go, the harder it is to get the games televised. So the alternatives would be to either lessen the number of teams that make the playoffs (sounds reasonable) or limit the number of playoff games.

The best thing about 8 out of 10 teams making the playoffs is that late season attendances seem to be very high, and that makes money and increases interest. The actual playoffs themselves happen during football season, and tend not to draw very well. So while it's kinda silly that 8 out of 10 make the playoffs, it's actually preferable from MLS' perspective. Frankly though, I'd like to have a single playoff game at the home of the higher seed.

-Tron

 

A long time ago...baseball's regular season league champion (best record) played their opposite number in the World Series.

 

Sure they did, in a 7-game series. Also ask yourself what the bigger Corporate event would be: A planned-in-advance final at a pre-set location with a week to kill with parties and events OR an undetermined final game at the home of the highest surviving seed? Super Bowl or Arena Bowl Final?

No need to regress to days of yore that also saw, no TV, no internet, horse-drawn carriages, white males only voting, and playing out the meaningless string as a normal course of events.

BTW, the Cup Finals in 1999, 2000, and 2002 were as discribed above also.

 

This was my absolute biggest complaint about the first to 5. Every minute should count.

I don't think that there will be too many blowouts in first leg because there's enough parity in MLS to avoid it, and even if it does, if you lose 5-0, you don't deserve to go through.

The only thing they should have done is give the higher seed the tiebreaker. If scores are level after the second leg, the higher seed advances. That would really make the fight for a #2 seed in the conference really worth fighting for.

And who cares if fans don't see their team in the conference final? Do you think Tampa Bay Bucs fans were upset that they didn't get to see the Bucs play in the NFC championship?

 

IF MLS is going to go with 8 teams making the layoffs - and given the attendance spike at the end of last season it is hard to see them changing that - This format is light years ahead of past formats.

1. Every goal counts. (The new Game 2 is going to make the old Game 3 look like the old Game 2 after a Game 1 tie.)
2. More predictable schedule.
3. Likely weekend games means higher attendance.
4. Playoff games can be slotted for TV times.

Meaning: Likely Increased attendance and TV playoff exposure - impossible to argue against.

It also gives the conference winner a decided home field advantage by playing the conference finals at home.

Really - if anyone has a problem with this new plan, it probably has more to do with 8 of 10 teams making the playoffs than the format itself. I like 4 or 6 teams better than 8 - but I like this format.

 

Re: Re: What's this RIDICULOUS playoff scheme?

Now if anyone doesn't get it, there is nothing more to add, just sit and relax and let it happen, experience it firsthand. Real soccer intelectuals want this system and are glad it finaly arrived to MLS, was about time.

 

What about having the higher seed host both matches...

1) has all the timing benefits of a two leg system
2) makes the final season results hugely important

 

Interesting idea - perhaps for the #1 seed.

I've been advocating the first round of playoffs be round-robin amongst the 4th teams in each conference.

#1 seed: 3 home matches
#2 seed: 2 home matches
#3 seed: 1 home match
#4 seed: Road warriors

Top two advance to conf. finals. I think a one match conf. final would suffice.

However, for all of those with their undies in a wad over the home-home 2-leg series - Its an entirely pragmatic call! This new plan means no more embarassing attendances on Wednesdays!

Check out playoff attendance figure for the first two rounds over the past couple of years - attendance was terrrrible. Something had to be done. I like my plan better, but I also like the new plan better than the old system.

The other alternative is to have single match playoffs - at the home pitch of the higher seeded team.

 

Re: Re: Re: What's this RIDICULOUS playoff scheme?

Eee gads man, this is one of the scarier things I've read here.

Phoney soccer intellectuals unite!

 

An idea not without merit. But...

One of the stated objectives of MLS is to create a more emotional attachment between the fans and the team.

By guaranteeing each team that makes the playoffs at least one home game - that emotional attachment has that much more chance to grow.

I am sure this was a driving force behind the home and home first round setup - instead of a single eliminations game (which also reduces regular season performance due to fluke goals in a single game. Seeds playing over 180 minutes tends to let the stronger team determine the outcome - not always - tends to).

 

the whole notion that 3 or the last 4 champs would have lost in the playoffs under this system is a straw man. the teams obviously would have played differently under this system, and who knows how it would have turned out.

i'm looking forward to this system. i think it'll be great. not perfect, but as long as we're having an 8-team playoff system, probably the best we can do. (until the next idea comes along.)

 

The Revs are giving this a shot right now in the CONCACAF Cup. Can't say I'm a big fan of the idea though...

 

It also isn't true. Take a look at the playoff runs of the last 4 champs:

1999 -- DC United. First round vs. Miami they would have won 2-0 on aggregate. So they would advance to the semifinal, which would have been one game at home against Columbus. Taking game 1 as a proxy for that one game, DC wins 2-1 and goes to the final.

2000 -- Kansas City. First round vs. Colorado they would have won 1-0 on aggregate. Second round would have been one game at home vs. LA. Game 1 vs. LA was a 0-0 draw, and we can't take the comparison any farther because we can't say who would have won the tiebreaker.

2001 -- San Jose. First round vs. Columbus they won 6-1 on aggregate. 2nd round 1 game at Miami they lose 1-0, except Miami wouldn't have been there, since they would have lost to KC on aggregate in the first round.

2002 -- Los Angeles. Lose 5-2 to KC in the first round. (there would have been no game 1 OT).

So we have one champ that wins under the new system, 1 that loses, and 2 that are indeterminate.

 

You mean those 'Eurosnobs' who argue there shouldn't be playoffs at all? Good point ... or maybe not.

 

funny...in the original version of my post I was gonna rip the Revs, but I decided to give it a pass.

 

(This was a sarcastic response to someone pointing out the FACT that game 3's are poorly attended and cost the league alot of money.)

You're confusing MLS with leagues that are much more popular and get vastly more free publicity, like the NHL, MLB, and the NBA.