Technically, that's actually known as an anthora cup.
http://www.nycoffeecup.com/
This should be the trophy though:
[Debunked] Strange Rumor from Reddit: CFG Open to Buying Cosmos Brand?
- Thread starter sbrylski
- Start date
- Status
http://www.nycoffeecup.com/
This should be the trophy though:
Technically, that's actually known as an anthora cup.
http://www.nycoffeecup.com/
This should be the trophy though:
That minimal advantage is not nearly sufficient as a reward to a first-place team.
I take it that your system calls for 33 games along the lines that I mentioned (2 each vs. division opponents; 1 each vs. all other teams). This type of schedule would smooth out the disparities that currently exist in the schedules of one team as compared to that of another; this sameness of schedule would make the standings more legitimate.
But I would say that I don't like the 34th game, the "rivalry" game. (Side complaint: all teams but Dallas and Houston have two "rivarly game" opponents which they alternate every other year; but Dallas and Houston get each other every year.) An additional game against a selected opponent reintroduces the flaw of variable schedules that the 33-game / 28-team / 4-division schedule solves.
And I don't like the ignoring of the divisions. If we're going to have smaller divisions, then the divisions need to be the basis for the playoffs. The conference finals in a four-division league should always be contested by teams from a opposing divisions, just as the MLS Cup final is always between teams from opposing conferences. (At least it is now! Red Bulls 2008 Western Conference champions!?)
But most of all, your system offers no reward at all for any team; in that respect, it's not as good as what we have now, where the top two teams have a significantly reward over teams no. 3 through 6 (even if no. 1 is not sufficiently rewarded relative to no. 2).
If we're not going to have the simplest and fairest system of allowing only the four division winners into the playoffs (which the league would never do, because it has established that it subordinates the integrity of the competition to the creation of more playoff games), then the appropriate system would be the same one that I mentioned earlier as the ideal for the league's current setup: three teams qualify from each division; no. 3 visits no. 2; the winner visits no. 1. This leaves four teams, one from each division. Then we could have two-legged ties for the conference finals, with a single game league final.
I've come to justify American playoff systems as a reasonably accurate determination of which team is best at the conclusion of the season. While it's standard to view a season in it's totality, what our systems actually determine is which team grew into the best version of themselves by the end of the year. And I think it's ok to honor that.
If that is the goal, then it makes sense to admit a large playoff field. The Timbers were a great team last autumn and totally deserved their MLS Cup. But they wouldn't have made the playoffs if the field was smaller.
What I love about MLS is that we also have the Supporters Shield. This trophy is awarded to the team that has been determined to be the best team over the course of the entire year. This is also something to honor.
With that said, the goals I have for MLS structure is to (1) level the playing field for the Supporters Shield, and (2) keep as many teams as possible motivated to become the best team they can be by the time the season is over (i.e. compete for the MLS Cup).
To accomplish #1, I hope we retain an everybody-plays-everybody schedule. By the time we expand to 32, which I believe is the likely equilibrium, only 3 games will be different when comparing different teams' schedules - each team will play the 31 other teams, plus 3 conference rivals. The Supporters Shield would then be nearly fairly contested.
To accomplish #2, I'm alright with a large playoff field. I'm also ok with relatively small benefits for your postseason seed. Top seed plays #8, 2 plays 7, 3 plays 6, 5 plays 4 - second leg is hosted by higher seed. The goal here is to let everyone believe they have a chance, if they can just get in. Under a system where 50% qualify for the playoffs, about 75% have a chance to win the MLS Cup until the final 2-3 weeks or so. It keeps all teams moving forward all year, keeps the fans interested, and let the hot teams show their stuff in the playoffs. I'm ok with that.
Nope. Atlanta was founded in 1847. It wasn't even close to being a colonial city.
If Trenton got a soccer team they'd have reason to be included.
What's your point? Atlanta wasn't a city when Georgia was a colony.
Neither was Harrison, New Jersey...
I'd swap Dallas and Houston with Detroit and Chicago. Makes it a little more sense geographically. But I like it.
Began as a penal colony and hasn't improved since.
Harrison wasn't, but that area was part of either Newark or Bergen, New Netherland depending how you look at it, both being two of the three oldest settlements in NJ. Being across the river from NY, it was as close to the epicenter of the traditional colonial cities as one could get.
That was the orginal idea but in reality it never happened. Formed as a buffer between the Spanish/Native Americans in Florida.
Florida was actually a British colony at the time of the revolution. They had just acquired it from Spain. After the British lost the war, they sold it back.
Please close this clusterfuck. It's making the Stadium thread look like a pointed discussion.
I was of a mind to let the thread burn itself out as people clearly still wanted to discuss the possibility of something like this, but the topic has drifted now and I don't think this needs to go any further so I'm going to lock it down.
If people want to discuss a rivalry cup they can make a new thread for it but I think even that discussion was losing its way.
- Status