Re: First To 5 is the winner, by far If the fans get "screwed," why is it any better for the NFL or US Open Cup? Seriously, I think that fans are a bit heartier than you give them credit for. "We don't get a home playoff game?" "No, we didn't finish with a very good record." "Oh, OK, that makes sense." My own team, during the seven years in a row that they did make the playoffs, would've only had a first-round home game three times (1996, 1999, and 2002). But in those other years, I would've understood. We weren't that great in the regular season. This is not like the US Open Cup, where the USSF picks sites capriciously and at times without reason. This would be on regular season record. Or have I just been oblivious to all those fans of NFL wild-card teams who were bitter because their teams didn't get home games. Incidentally, somebody asserted that single-elimination would be more prone to "making the regular season meaningless" than the current system. The closest analogy that I could think of was Game 3 in the best-of-3 system that MLS had from 1996-99, where the higher seed had a home game and it all came down to one game: 1996: Columbus 1, at Tampa Bay 4 1996: MetroStars 1, at DC United 2 1996: Kansas City 3, at Dallas 2 (SO) 1996: San Jose 0, at Los Angeles 2 1998: Columbus 0, at DC United 3 1999: Chicago 2, at Dallas 3 1999: Columbus 0, at DC United 4 1999: Dallas 1, at Los Angeles 3 Admittedly, eight games aren't a particularly big sample, but it did happen only once that the team that hosted the "victory or death" Game 3 lost. If we expand to look at the Game 3 situations in first-to-five where the two teams had each won a game, then we get the following: 2000: New England 0, at Chicago 6 2000: MetroStars 2, at Chicago 3 2001: Kansas City 0, at Miami 1 2001: San Jose 4, at Miami 0 2002: Kansas City 2, at Los Angeles 5 2002: Colorado 1, at Dallas 1 (Colorado won the mini-game) So there you go -- three times in 14 almost-identical situations has the lower seed won. And in two of those, it was close -- one went to OT and the other went to the first-to-five mini-game.
Wheelock proves that it is possible to be wrong in every paragraph of an article. Since we're throwing in all the variants, I'll mention the "Bowling Ladder" system again. (4 plays at 3 for the right to play at 2 for the right to play at 1). Have 4 play at 3 midweek so #1 doesn't get too rusty from a layoff. (Low attendence for 2 games out of 160, small price to pay for meaningful regular season). The games are one-offs, but the #4 seeds have to get lucky 4 straight times to win MLS Cup so it's quite a gauntlet to run. Should be favorable to the Lamar Hunts of the world because the home games are handed out evenly 1 per team. (Sorry #4) If we're looking for problems with the Rugby format, the biggest concern I have is that it may seem bizarre to fans. Having a non-elimination playoff series aint 'merican, nor is the top seeds meeting right out of the gate. I personally have no qualms with the system. (Micropoint: San Jose won in Miami 1-0 not 4-0. The 4-0 was game 2)
Stick with the current format I like the current format the best for a couple of reasons... 1) It gives every team at least one home playoff match 2) Single-elimination in the semis ensures at least some reward for regular season performance 3) All the playoff games fit nicely into the four weekends of November. November could become to soccer what October is to baseball. 4) Unlike many of the other systems being batted about in this thread, it is easy for the casual fan to understand. No more watching your friends and family's eyes glaze over as you try to explain the playoffs. 5) It does a good job ensuring a worthy winner in the first round. 6) It makes the semi-final games big event material which will help sell those tickets in a short amount of notice like that. (remember there have been some great crowds for those conference final game 3's before. Colorado in '97, Chicago in '98, KC in 2000, Chicago in 2001, etc.)
First to 5 was great, but was difficult to schedule. THe current system is pretty good. Thank God no one has mentioned away goals. My vote is to have the same playoff system, even if it sucks, several years in a row until it becomes so natural it no longer sucks. OT: Has anyone explained yet to Sean and Harkes how a home and home series works? During the DC-CHI game Sean kept getting upset at Chicago for trying to score a second goal on a counterattack and Harkes said DC should throw everyone forward because "Lose 5-0, lose 1-0, it doesnt make a difference" ????? Maybe the current system isn't so easy to understand.