Achowat - Just because you didn't recognize or didn't like my answer doesn't mean I didn't give one. I'll change your 2 scenarios to 4 scenarios to see if you can recognize the difference. If for a league with 19 MLS teams, format A has no postseason and crowns 1st in table the champion, format B has 10 teams in the postseason, format C has 16 teams in the postseason but makes the playoff path easier for each team that finishes better in the regular season, and format D has 16 teams in the postseason but the postseason brackets are drawn at random so seed 16 will have as easy as path as seed 1, do you see any difference as to how meaningful week 1 of the regular season would be for the various formats? Achowat - it seems to me that if I apply your arguments to college football that you would suggest that if college football had a 64 team tournament then they would increase interest in college football because more teams would be kept in the running for longer. To me that seems preposterous. What's your ideal amount of size for the postseason college football tournament?
The fact that you and others who agree with you often have to make mind-boggling statements like this should be a sign that your position may not be as strong as you think it is.
No, but the fact that you didn't answer the questions means you didn't give me one. Question: In what way is the first week game (when both teams can still, technically, finish first past the post and qualify for the Playoffs) less important in one system or the other? Your answer was something about 3 or 9 game series, and did not address at all the idea of groups, qualification to a tournament, or the actual issues. You gave me an answer, sure, you just didn't answer my question. Question: What about an 8 team playoff with a play-in round?I was, of course, referring to the current MLS Cup Playoff system. Your answer was something about 10:19 v 8:10. You gave me an answer, sure, you just didn't answer my question. I have no idea size for a college anything. I don't care about college athletics. Like, not at all. But you suggested that the size of the number of teams who play postseason basketball was greater than that of those who play postseason football, and that was hurting attendance. More teams play in Bowls than in the NCAA Tourney (it's actually 68 in the tourney, my bad). And see this thing you're doing now. When you make a claim, it's refuted, so you talk about something else. It's called "moving the goalposts", and we don't much cotton to that 'round here
To the extent that you are making it an issue, yes it does. This is particularly because they identified why the NCAA tournament was impacting attendance and that was because there was so much attention on the tournament that it sucks the air out of the rest of the season. That isn't the case for all playoffs and it is fairly unique to NCAA basketball because how they've marketed the NCAA tournament as the most important sporting event ever and have basically ignored the regular season marketing.
The bottom line is that MLS has a structure that 1) makes it pretty tough to get into the post season (yes it's 10 of 19 but supporting a team that hasn't made it two of three seasons, I can say it isn't easy especially compared to years when 80% went) and 2) rewards regular season giving the strongest teams the best chances of winning the playoffs, then I'd say we struck a pretty nice balance. Anymore teams in it becomes too easy to get in and it becomes even tougher as the league expands.
so unless I use your terminology - 8 team playoff with a play-in round - then your brain shuts down and can't work through my argument? It seems to me like you should be more flexible. I think by referring to the status quo as an 8 team playoff with a play-in round instead of a 10 team playoff you are in the tiny minority of MLS fans.
right now 90% of the games (the regular season) are to do 48% of the work (eliminating 9 out of 19 teams). That to me seems like a recipe to cause people to tune out the regular season.
I would agree that, perhaps, the playoff system is too great for a league this size. Great meaning large or immense, I use it no other sense. How many games would be worth it though if only finishing in first mattered?
You never addressed it! It's not like you didn't use the same terminology...you didn't even recognize the point that was made. It's like you saw "8" and "10" and then didnt' bother to look at the words, because the numbers were more fun
People would bitch because it's something that doesn't fit into our sports business, psyche, or structure here in America. It wouldn't be because they'd be looking for something and simply hell bent on not liking it. That's called smart business, doing it in the way you'll be the most successful. However, how, in any way is the MLS oversaturated ? I think that is a direct result of college basketball having such a large postseason tournament while college football has an incredibly small postseason. Even if U.S. fans are becoming more and more accustomed to deciding everything through playoffs, I think the college football/basketball regular season attendance trends indicate that U.S. fans in general subconsciously realize that expansive playoffs is not always the most exciting way to go. [/quote] It's one way to look at it, sure, but I don't think it's the answer. The size of the season itself is the biggest hinderence to baseball/basketball. In football you'll only face a "shit" team or "unpopular" team once or twice a season and the attendance will drop a bit. It'll be made up more so in football than other sports because the fan that normally can't get a ticket will pick up some of them. With baseball you'll get an entire weekend against one of those teams. In basketball you'll play them at least twice. With all of the other chances to see a game you won't see those tickets picked up in comparitive numbers. You've also got the advent of digital media that is taking fans away from all sports. Despite an overall 6% decline the last 5 years, college basketball also has teams like Kentucky setting all-time attendance records (done last year). But you've also got to look at total attendance, not just average attendance. The total attendance is up. With more teams over this time period, the overall number is going to go up, but you're going to see many of the one year wonders and fly by nights lose much of their following as well. That's the key part, and there's an overwhelming majority that don't feel that way. I don't think you grasp how large Division 1 basketball is. Currently there are 347 Division 1 programs. 64 make the playoffs. 32 of them alone are conference champions. Only 18% of the teams get into the tournament each season. Comparatively, it's not at all bad to the 37.5% of the NFL, 53% of the NHL, 33% of the MLB, and 53% of the NBA. MLS ? 53%. That 64 team tournament isn't as large as you think it is. Really ? Game 1 of a 7 game series is pretty damned huge. Just ask anyone that's played in the World Series. Wait, an early season loss in the European format gives less time for a team to make things up ? Explain then, the fluctuation between ManU and ManCity last year. Games are equally important during the season in regards to order ... only thing I see, is that WHO is on your schedule at various times can make things harder/easier for certain times of the season. Que ? Then why are the tv contracts for college basketball continuing to go up ? No, but it's kind of hard to point to an article to support you when it provides evidence against you as well. I mean, what is this, the Presidential debates ? 3pts is 3pts. All points add the same in the end. The only in difference in effect that they have is in regards to WHOM they are taken against, not WHEN they are taken. [qutoe]so unless I use your terminology - 8 team playoff with a play-in round - then your brain shuts down and can't work through my argument? It seems to me like you should be more flexible. I think by referring to the status quo as an 8 team playoff with a play-in round instead of a 10 team playoff you are in the tiny minority of MLS fans. [/quote] I tried to be nice, but this is beyond the first time you've acted like this. You really shouldn't be slinging out insults about brains shutting down and people being unable to work through an argument when A) you're dumb ass can't even see the point being made to you, and B) you pretty much disregard the bits that you do understand and continue talking like a politician.
Just in case there was doubt about "seeding mattering" to clubs .... just ask LA and their situation with the CCL. Win, and you're likely the 4th seed and get either Herediano out of Costa Rica or Guatemala's Xelajú. Lose ? Either the 7th or 8th seed and either Santos or Monterray ... ... nope, nothing about that matters at all.
But, but...the CCL is not something as low as the playoffs! English teams compete for Champions League berths and third is usually much better than fourth, so seeding matters there too. It is the playoffs that are BAAAAAD!!!
Do you have any official statement from MLS that the current setup is an 8 team playoff with a play-in round? Maybe instead its a 4 team playoff with 2 play-in rounds. Or just a 2 team playoff with 3 play-in rounds.
In the end, does it matter what sort of terminology is used? I think we all agree that once the regular season ends, 10 teams play off until one remains. Once a team loses in any of the four rounds, they are done. Whether it is called a 10 team playoff, an 8 team playoff with wild cards, a 4 team playoff with 8 wild cards, or a two team playoff with three preliminary rounds, on paper the bracket is the same: Ten series of one or two games. Winner moves on, loser goes home. Winner of one series faces the winner of a specific series in the next round, a hard bracket.
How would any of that make a difference, at all ? Seeing as how doing any work, research, or prior fact finding is something you're either incapable of or flat out too lazy to do: http://www.mlssoccer.com/mlscup/2012 The league is calling it a "knock out" round. So it's an 8 team playoff with a "knock out round" that determines the final 2 entrants.
All I'm saying is that playing a one-game match-up on a Wednesday before starting the home-and-home on the next Saturday feels like the 4th and 5th place teams aren't in the Playoffs proper, yet
To me, it's like the play-in game for the actual wild-card spot in MLB or the 64th spot in the NCAA tournament. The playoffs don't start until the last teams are determined in those knock-out games.
So what keeps me interested the last day of the MLS season Chicago 56 points +5GD Seattle 56 +19 Salt Lake 56 +11 If all 3 win, then we are not in a good spot for hand me down CCL spots. Obviously if the FIRE make the MLS Cup then there is no need for hand me down spots. San Jose (S.S.) and Kansas City (USOC) already have CCL spots, so if one or both make the MLS finals they will have to pass down one of their CCL spots to the next best American team in the General table. http://settingthetable.info/ So I am rooting for Vancouver @RSL this Saturday and LA Galaxy vs Seattle on Sunday just in case we get screwed by a ref and we do not make the Final. Because I can’t wait until Joe Public and Tauro FC come to Toyota Park I have 3 games that have something to play for (IMO) this last weekend of the season (DCU @ Chicago is the 3rd).
PS, this is all depending on the FIRE beating DCU Saturday afternoon, if we lose, then I could care less about the 2 other games .
Well how about that, RSL and Seattle did everything possible to hand the FIRE 3rd place overall and a great chance to go to the CCL with a hand me down spot (if KC or SJ make the final) but we could not take care of business at home vs. DC United (who now hold the best spot for a hand me down). Really made that LA-Seattle game a "who cares" type of game for me on sunday.
What about a playoff structure that places the East #1 and West #1 in their respective conference championship game automatically. Then have teams 2-4 or teams 2-5 battle it out. Either with play-ins or no play-ins.