NYCFC in the Media Thread - 2021

A less than optimistic preseason analysis at ASA by Kevin Nelson of the Outfield.

 
How many times has the top overall seed won the NCAA Tournament?

How many times has a #1 seed won the NCAA Tournament?

A large, single-elimination tournament is highly dependent on luck. A crazy shot, a judgment call by the ref - all kinds of things can tip the balance one way or another.

===

Answers to the above
- The overall #1 seed has won 3/17 times since that seed was first announced in 2007.
- One of the four #1 seeds has won 63.9% of tournaments in the 64-team era.
- Also, the odds that a #1 seed makes the Final Four (i.e. wins it's mini 16-team tournament) is about 40%. Only once have all 4 #1 seeds made the Final Four.
I think its a bit tougher to apply NCAA to pro sports. With so many teams, many of which don't play each other, the rankings to begin with are highly subjective. In MLS, a 65 point team is generally going to be fairly ranked in comparison to another 65 point team, but a 32-3 NCAAB team could be clearly better than another 32-3 team because of strength of schedule and other factors, but the difference between the two teams are very difficult to compare and hence, highly subjective.
One of the 2 seeds could potentially be actually better than the top seeds but the varying regular seasons make that impossible to determine.
 
Last edited:
How many times has the top overall seed won the NCAA Tournament?

How many times has a #1 seed won the NCAA Tournament?

A large, single-elimination tournament is highly dependent on luck. A crazy shot, a judgment call by the ref - all kinds of things can tip the balance one way or another.

===

Answers to the above
- The overall #1 seed has won 3/17 times since that seed was first announced in 2007.
- One of the four #1 seeds has won 63.9% of tournaments in the 64-team era.
- Also, the odds that a #1 seed makes the Final Four (i.e. wins it's mini 16-team tournament) is about 40%. Only once have all 4 #1 seeds made the Final Four.

I think its a bit tougher to apply NCAA to pro sports. With so many teams, many of which don't play each other, the rankings to begin with are highly subjective. In MLS, a 65 point team is generally going to be fairly ranked in comparison to another 65 point team, but a 32-3 NCAAB team could be clearly better than another 32-3 team because of strength of schedule and other factors, but the difference between the two teams are very difficult to compare and hence, highly subjective.
One of the 2 seeds could potentially be actually better than the top seeds but the varying regular seasons make that impossible to determine.

Over the last 10 years the Supporter Shield winning team in MLS each season has averaged a winning percentage of 73.33% in regular season games that do not end in a draw. I know the draws mess that percentage up, and MLS lacks identical schedules, but over a decade I think this is a fair way to measure how often the best team in MLS wins rather than loses. Similarly, this does not directly account for injuries, or late season acquisitions who vastly improve a team, but again, I think a 10-year record evens those things out.

Now, admittedly, I get confused sometimes (embarrassing for someone who plays with stats and odds as much as I do), but I believe that calculating the chance, as of the playoff outset, that a team who wins 73.33% of its games will win MLS Cup if it has to win 3 straight games is simply 0.7333.. * 0.7333.. * 0.7333. Someone let me know if I'm wrong. But if correct, that comes to 39.44%. It goes down very fast.

Now maybe you think the best teams should be able to "turn it on" for the playoffs. I'm not convinced of that, but even if true you have to account for that fact that the 73.33% winning rate in the regular season is compiled against easier competition overall, which makes winning in the playoffs objectively harder.
Maybe you think the SS does not prove the best team. FIne, but it's hard to argue that a hypothetically better team should be expected to win at a higher percentage rate than it did in fact win, which would makes its odds even lower.

Bottom line - the playoffs is a game of darts played by drunks in a bar.
 
Over the last 10 years the Supporter Shield winning team in MLS each season has averaged a winning percentage of 73.33% in regular season games that do not end in a draw. I know the draws mess that percentage up, and MLS lacks identical schedules, but over a decade I think this is a fair way to measure how often the best team in MLS wins rather than loses. Similarly, this does not directly account for injuries, or late season acquisitions who vastly improve a team, but again, I think a 10-year record evens those things out.

Now, admittedly, I get confused sometimes (embarrassing for someone who plays with stats and odds as much as I do), but I believe that calculating the chance, as of the playoff outset, that a team who wins 73.33% of its games will win MLS Cup if it has to win 3 straight games is simply 0.7333.. * 0.7333.. * 0.7333. Someone let me know if I'm wrong. But if correct, that comes to 39.44%. It goes down very fast.

Now maybe you think the best teams should be able to "turn it on" for the playoffs. I'm not convinced of that, but even if true you have to account for that fact that the 73.33% winning rate in the regular season is compiled against easier competition overall, which makes winning in the playoffs objectively harder.
Maybe you think the SS does not prove the best team. FIne, but it's hard to argue that a hypothetically better team should be expected to win at a higher percentage rate than it did in fact win, which would makes its odds even lower.

Bottom line - the playoffs is a game of darts played by drunks in a bar.
On top of that, winning the Cup can be so damn fragile and often too much credit is given when it's won, or too much blame is given when it doesn't happen.

For example, the Portland Timbers won it in 2015. They had a Cup-run deserving team, finishing 3rd in the Western Conference and winning the playoff games they needed to, but let's also remember that they barely scraped past SKC in the first round of the playoffs, winning 7-6 on PKs. SKC would have won the PK shootout except for Saad Abdul-Salaam's double-post PK miss.

On top of that, they beat Columbus 2-1 in the final, that included an early goal on a very bad keeper gaffe from Steve Clark.

I say all of that not to discount Portland winning the Cup that year, but to demonstrate that there is some luck that happens that happens to be much more impactful.

On the flip side, what if Matarrita doesn't commit that egregious penalty against TFC in the playoffs? Now, I know he has a bit of a history of some bone-headed plays, but I think that could be thrown into the luck category a bit. That team was talented enough it could have made a run to the Final that year. But instead, it was TFC that did it.

Cup runs are fragile and while still the ultimate goal (I believe for the majority of fans, but do realize not everyone), should likely not receive the credit/blame that is given when it is achieved or failed.

ETA: I do think the college bball analogy is a great one, because this exact same thing happens there. Since I attended Marquette, our best-ever tournament run was to the Elite 8 in 2013. That year, as a 3-seed, we barely scraped past 14-seed Davidson, needing a furious comeback over the final minute where we hit three 3's and a layup at the buzzer, while Davidson (one of the best in NCAA at taking care of the ball and hitting free throws), turned it over twice and missed two FTs. How close that team went from 1st round tournament failure to having a great tournament run.
 
How about this - there are 4 teams that qualify for CCL every year. Let’s judge our success every season by whether or not we qualify. Isn’t that pretty much how a fan judges club success in real leagues in Europe?

That means either 1) Win MLS Cup 2) Win Supporters' Shield 3) Win US Open Cup 4) Be best team in non-supporters' shield winning conference

I'll take that as a successful year, except really the last one. Because we've already done that and then lost in our first playoff match...
 
  • Like
Reactions: Kjbert
How about this - there are 4 teams that qualify for CCL every year. Let’s judge our success every season by whether or not we qualify. Isn’t that pretty much how a fan judges club success in real leagues in Europe?
If we're going to do that, I'd sooner just say finish in the top 4 (or 5 as the league gets bigger). The CCL qualifications seem to change every other year, and fluctuating benchmarks don't actually measure things well. Plus there is the whole Canadian wildcard, and extra spots opening if the same team wins MLS Cup and USOC, and so making CCL is actually a rather random accomplishment. You can have the 7th best record and make it, or 5th best and not. I'm not prepared to accept that as a measure of success. Also, 2 of the slots usually are earned by winning a single elimination cup competition, which is what your suggestion seemed to want to avoid.

The downside of a simple top 4 regular season finish if that in MLS that doesn't necessarily get you anything whereas in the PL getting into UCL is a big deal. It's hard to get people to think, "Yay, we came in 4th in the combined table which gets us nothing!" And I can't say they're wrong.

It's the best actual measuring stick that knocks out some of the hyper-randomness. but it also circles us back to "NYCFC has the best overall regular season record in MLS over five years." People who recognize that as a meaningful achievement will tend also to think top-4 is a reasonable benchmark, and those who find nothing acceptable outside of cups and trophies won't.
 
Last edited:
ETA: I do think the college bball analogy is a great one, because this exact same thing happens there. Since I attended Marquette, our best-ever tournament run was to the Elite 8 in 2013. That year, as a 3-seed, we barely scraped past 14-seed Davidson, needing a furious comeback over the final minute where we hit three 3's and a layup at the buzzer, while Davidson (one of the best in NCAA at taking care of the ball and hitting free throws), turned it over twice and missed two FTs. How close that team went from 1st round tournament failure to having a great tournament run.

To extend the college basketball analogy - I reference my beloved Gators. In 2000, we made a highly unlikely run to the championship game as a 5-seed, and that included a buzzer beating win in the first round. The next 5 years, we fielded strong teams, did well in the regular season, and suffered one bad tournament exit after another. Fans were sick of it. They were calling for Billy Donovan's head. We won the national title the next two years.
 
If we're going to do that, I'd sooner just say finish in the top 4 (or 5 as the league gets bigger). The CCL qualifications seem to change every other year, and fluctuating benchmarks don't actually measure things well. Plus there is the whole Canadian wildcard, and extra spots opening if the same team wins MLS Cup and USOC, and so making CCL is actually a rather random accomplishment. You can have the 7th best record and make it, or 5th best and not. I'm not prepared to accept that as a measure of success. Also, 2 of the slots usually are earned by winning a single elimination cup competition, which is what your suggestion seemed to want to avoid.

The downside of a simple top 4 regular season finish if that in MLS that doesn't necessarily get you anything whereas in the PL getting into UCL is a big deal. It's hard to get people to think, "Yay, we came in 4th in the combined table which gets us nothing!" And I can't say they're wrong.

It's the best actual measuring stick that knocks out some of the hyper-randomness. but it also circles us back to "NYCFC has the best overall regular season record in MLS over five years." People who recognize that as a meaningful achievement will tend also to think top-4 is a reasonable benchmark, and those who find nothing acceptable outside of cups and trophies won't.

If you finish Top 4 in the league enough times, the MLS Cup will come. You just have to keep getting yourself a seat at the table.
 
If you finish Top 4 in the league enough times, the MLS Cup will come. You just have to keep getting yourself a seat at the table.
Literally Seattle. Ignoring the USOC success, in my instance.
1618504319054.png

Compare that to NYCFC:
1618504399036.png

Not so far off in terms of trophy success in the beginning. Yet, the overall looks strikingly similar.
 

New York is such a tough market for MLS to crack. I'm among the first to say (and keep saying) that MLS has screwed up here, but even if the league handled it better, and even if there were an interested local mogul willing to invest, this would still be a tough market. Too much other stuff going on, both generally and specifically in sports.
 

New York is such a tough market for MLS to crack. I'm among the first to say (and keep saying) that MLS has screwed up here, but even if the league handled it better, and even if there were an interested local mogul willing to invest, this would still be a tough market. Too much other stuff going on, both generally and specifically in sports.

ill only comment on the Mexico ones. Those are national sports newspapers (yes, people still buy them) not local ones, we dont really have that in the US. ESPN and Fox Sports do a league preview online or in social media or in their channel for MLS. Its just different interaction with the target audience.

Here in nyc Basebeall runs everything and it will be really difficult to change local coverage. since they probably make more covering an injury on the yankees/mets than they would nycfc in MLS week 8 for example. MLS is Niche here and probably will remain that way for long time.
 
ill only comment on the Mexico ones. Those are national sports newspapers (yes, people still buy them) not local ones, we dont really have that in the US. ESPN and Fox Sports do a league preview online or in social media or in their channel for MLS. Its just different interaction with the target audience.

Here in nyc Basebeall runs everything and it will be really difficult to change local coverage. since they probably make more covering an injury on the yankees/mets than they would nycfc in MLS week 8 for example. MLS is Niche here and probably will remain that way for long time.
And ESPN is terrible at their soccer coverage.

Example: Club America just advanced on away goals in the CCL past Olimpia. But on the ESPN site:

1618595590586.png

 
And ESPN is terrible at their soccer coverage.

Example: Club America just advanced on away goals in the CCL past Olimpia. But on the ESPN site:

View attachment 11118


lol yea i dont go to ESPN for my soccer coverage. For scores its Fotmob for me ...sofascore is good too but sometimes i use that for other sports instead
 
  • Like
Reactions: SoupInNYC