Simple question. Garber and AEG president spoke numerous times about attacking soccer and how entertaining they are and yet they have done nothing to further improve the entertainment of the game. Action speaks louder than words. Advocating attacking soccer is not the same as mandating it. An example: Garber spoke so cheerfully about how entertaining and 'this is what soccer is all about' at last year playoff between DC-NE. Even if the game wasn't a playoff game and the crowd wasn't so into it, it would still be a great game. Why? because two coaches played attacking soccer at the same time. It was a great game to watch. In fact, I can say with confident that most of MLS 20 best/classic games are played when the two opposing coaches played attacking/offensive soccer. One reason a coach might not want to play attacking soccer is the fear the other coach would not. If the playing is level as in every team is mandated to play attacking soccer, the coach will be more willing to play offensive soccer. What do MLS got to lose for mandating all its team to play offensive soccer? If Chivas USA is mandated to do it, why not all teams? I believe the quality/entertainment level would pick up a bit if the two teams play attacking/offensive soccer with little/no cost to MLS.