General MLS Discussion

don’t like it….too many games it’s basically who has the depth and less injuries will win out.

This all but guarantees playoff games at RBA imo.


Although scenes when a team wins first game 6-0 and then lose next two 1-0 on a counter goal.
 
Play 3 on 3 golden goal for 5 minutes like hockey. Would probably need to shorten the field, maybe in half. If nobody scores, then PKs. It would be extraordinarily entertaining, and I bet most games would avoid PKs. Completely murders all norms and traditions, though.

Old nasl had mini games (after the 90) as a tie breaker can’t remember what the rules were but I think we’re confusing
 
  • Like
Reactions: Gene
Old nasl had mini games (after the 90) as a tie breaker can’t remember what the rules were but I think we’re confusing
The really old NASL games used to just keep playing 15 minutes extra time sessions until someone scored.
 
  • Wow
Reactions: Fantazma
A top seed now has the chance to host 5 additional games. That’s a lot of extra scharole! Even the low seeds are guaranteed a home game. My question is when do they move MLS Cup to a neutral site?
They did that. It didn't work. we're not ready for that now lol
 
Old nasl had mini games (after the 90) as a tie breaker can’t remember what the rules were but I think we’re confusing
If the game was tied after the mini game they went into the "shoot out" where the shooter would start at the 35 yard line and have 5 seconds to score.

I was there the night the Cosmos were down to their last shot to stay alive and Carlos Alberto dribbled the ball from knee to knee down the field and scored. Legend. I'll see if I can find something on YouTube.

ETA:

Not exactly as I had remembered, but then again it was 1978. ;)
 
Last edited:
Per my daily newsletter from chartr (highly recommend).

I wonder how much of our 12M operating loss on this chart is from our stadium rentals. Take away those fees. Add concessions. I wonder where we will be in 2027.

510b154e-27a8-f09d-a3ff-d00f24e7d8bf.jpg
 
Per my daily newsletter from chartr (highly recommend).

I wonder how much of our 12M operating loss on this chart is from our stadium rentals. Take away those fees. Add concessions. I wonder where we will be in 2027.

View attachment 12568
There’s still debt service on the construction & lease fees to the city. We will probably accrue those while still at YS & paying rent there too. So we can figure out those costs real quick once we drop below -$12mm. Can’t wait till we’re showing -$36mm and everyone starts freaking out.
 
  • Like
Reactions: FootyLovin
don't like it. why not just bring back typical 2 leg matchup? too many games at the end of the season in probably too short amount of time. the players will be gassed. injuries will probably be more likely. performances may suffer as well.
IMHO two legs doesn’t reward the higher seed at all. It’s ok in a random draw situation but in a system where regular season results are supposed to be rewarded, two legs removes that reward.
 
They did that. It didn't work. we're not ready for that now lol
TBF it worked fine for the first few years. The two times they held it in Foxboro it was pretty packed. But soccer was a lot scarcer back then. Gonna be a minute before we get back to the a Wembley/Super Bowl model.
 
IMHO two legs doesn’t reward the higher seed at all. It’s ok in a random draw situation but in a system where regular season results are supposed to be rewarded, two legs removes that reward.

the reward is playing a lower seed. isn't that how tournaments usually are?

but my point is, if they are going to do a best of 3, why not just do traditional 2 leg ties.
 
  • Like
Reactions: FootyLovin
If the game was tied after the mini game they went into the "shoot out" where the shooter would start at the 35 yard line and have 5 seconds to score.

I was there the night the Cosmos were down to their last shot to stay alive and Carlos Alberto dribbled the ball from knee to knee down the field and scored. Legend. I'll see if I can find something on YouTube.

ETA:

Not exactly as I had remembered, but then again it was 1978. ;)
First few years of MLS had that too and there are some surprising fans of that model still. I recal recently some
European commentator (maybe Thierry Henry?) saying he though it was a better way to settle a match than pens. I think it’s a wash. IMHO They are equally frustrating and also exciting.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Gene
the reward is playing a lower seed. isn't that how tournaments usually are?

but my point is, if they are going to do a best of 3, why not just do traditional 2 leg ties.
The reward is supposed to be home advantage + facing lower seed. Especially in a salary capped parity league where the latter doesn’t count for a lot. 2 leg ties are “traditional” in soccer because in most cup competitions the draws are bucketed but still drawn by lots. But US style playoffs are strictly seeded and like it or not that’s our system. It works great in hockey, basketball, baseball and Football. I still prefer single match knockout in the playoffs but the two leg system positively sucked in MLS and I’m glad it’s gone.
 
The reward is supposed to be home advantage + facing lower seed. Especially in a salary capped parity league where the latter doesn’t count for a lot. 2 leg ties are “traditional” in soccer because in most cup competitions the draws are bucketed but still drawn by lots. But US style playoffs are strictly seeded and like it or not that’s our system. It works great in hockey, basketball, baseball and Football. I still prefer single match knockout in the playoffs but the two leg system positively sucked in MLS and I’m glad it’s gone.

except it's not totally gone. it's a best of 3 tie now. at least the later rounds are still single game knockout, which i prefer.
 
except it's not totally gone. it's a best of 3 tie now. at least the later rounds are still single game knockout, which i prefer.

The difference is that the games aren't tied to each other. Leg 1 of a two-legged round was usually dull and boring because no one wanted to lose the series in Game 1. This way, you can lose Game 1 6-0 and still be in the series because total goals & road goals isn't the tiebreaker. Each playoff game should be compelling.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Gene and mgarbowski
The difference is that the games aren't tied to each other. Leg 1 of a two-legged round was usually dull and boring because no one wanted to lose the series in Game 1. This way, you can lose Game 1 6-0 and still be in the series because total goals & road goals isn't the tiebreaker. Each playoff game should be compelling.
This is the difference. The units of 2 legged series are not games. They are halves. It doesn't matter who wins or loses each 90 minutes - what matters is the total aggregate score. Yes I would rather be winning at the end of the first 90 just as I would rather be winning at halftime of an NFL playoff game. But in neither instance have you won anything. You just have a lead. People act as if the aggregate score is a tiebreaker but it's not. It's the score of a single contest with a very long halftime played in 2 locations.
The best of three format does not just add an extra game. It is a fundamentally different format that turns a single 180 minute unified contest into 2 or 3 separate games and winning or losing each game is all that matters. At the end of game 1 somebody won and that's all that matters regardless of whether the score was 5-0, 2-1, or 2-2 with kicks.
Maybe it's better; maybe you like it worse. It's largely a matter of taste. But it is fundamentally different in kind from 180 minute aggregate score competitions.
 
Last edited:
I'm not any kind of soccer historian but I'm wondering if the two leg tie system came about so each team would have a match at home (and the income from said match). A series is more or less a longer version of that, although they're not tied together. And the NFL has a one-game championship game at a neutral site, with tickets sold to each team in equal amounts, approximately, the point being to remove a home field advantage. So, three different ways to approach this.

And of course there's a fourth way, used around the world, where the championship is determined by the team with the best record after a 38-match round robin tournament. Far superior!
 
I'm not any kind of soccer historian but I'm wondering if the two leg tie system came about so each team would have a match at home (and the income from said match). A series is more or less a longer version of that, although they're not tied together. And the NFL has a one-game championship game at a neutral site, with tickets sold to each team in equal amounts, approximately, the point being to remove a home field advantage. So, three different ways to approach this.

And of course there's a fourth way, used around the world, where the championship is determined by the team with the best record after a 38-match round robin tournament. Far superior!
I believe NFL’s neutral site location is less about fairness and more about producing additional revenue like a bowl game (you forgot about that option, maybe at the end of the MLS season everyone should vote for which 2 teams gets to play in the championship game). There’s even been a push to make the AFC & NFC championship games to neutral sites.