General MLS Discussion

[moogoo]

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.

i understand the difference. but my initial complaint is the same. it's potentially too many games in too little time. and who's to say you aren't seeing teams play like RSL did. bunker and survive and take their chances in PKs? I don't see that being very entertaining either.

one off games were perfect, imo. but they want money and i get it. it is what it is. season is almost starting so now i need to switch into "just enjoy it mode"

 

[Gene]

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). !

Bro, that's the exact reason why they did it.

 

[Seth]

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

Historically the college bowl games were “extras” and not part of the season. And that worked fine. Now though they’re kind of part of a perhaps overly complicated playoff system. I’m (sort of) fine with voting for old-style bowl games but not sure it makes all that much sense for deciding standings in a table. I get it that college football has 53 separate leagues so a unified table is difficult but not a fan of the current system either.

It’s like all-star voting in baseball. It’s not necessarily fair at all, but it’s not a huge deal because the game doesn’t mean all that much.

 

[mgarbowski]

Historically the college bowl games were “extras” and not part of the season. And that worked fine. Now though they’re kind of part of a perhaps overly complicated playoff system. I’m (sort of) fine with voting for old-style bowl games but not sure it makes all that much sense for deciding standings in a table. I get it that college football has 53 separate leagues so a unified table is difficult but not a fan of the current system either.

It’s like all-star voting in baseball. It’s not necessarily fair at all, but it’s not a huge deal because the game doesn’t mean all that much.

Correct.
I will add that college football is a completely different animal historically. Until 20-30 years ago teams could only appear on national TV during the regular season twice (or maybe 3x, but I think twice) every year. All the biggies: Notre Dame, USC, Alabama, Michigan. Just twice. But locally, they would be available multiple times.
It was a completely regional sport, which is why almost nobody in NY cares about it because we never had any big local teams.
Bowl games developed in part as a way to get extra games on national TV between teams from different conferences and regions who otherwise could and would never play each other. Midwest against West coast, Southeast against Southwest. But they also were sponsored by the destination locations to promote tourism and such. The first bowl, the Rose Bowl, was originally created as a way to generate money to pay for the parade, because you couldn't sell tickets to a parade on public streets. Using college football bowl games as a model for anything in modern pro sports makes zero sense.
Also, the majority of current bowl games have pathetically terrible attendance and exist almost entirely to generate television content.

 

[Revfugee]

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 pre

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.

Not sure what you mean. The two leg system is gone replaced in one round by a best of three. And good riddance.

 

[Revfugee]

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 one of the 2-5 teams who win it every year with the best record after a 38-match round robin tournament. Far superior! (For fans of those 2-5 teams)

FIFY

 

[Seth]

FIFY

LOL

But your point is valid, to a degree. So let's talk baseball. Everybody hates the Astros (sorry 'stros fans!). Not even counting the cheating thing, but because it's boring to have them win every year. Same with the Yankees dynasty in previous decades. But the thing with the Astros is that they win because they're currently the best team, and have been for a few years. Do I, a Mets fan, want the Yankees to beat the pants off of them? Heck yes! Do I want some 3rd place team in a five-team division to sneak into the World Series? Not really, to be honest. I remember baseball before divisional play (vaguely), and the Mets won in '69, the first year where we had divisions. But the current system is totally out of hand.

So yes, Man City is always near the top of the table. But I've been a fan for a long time, back to the time when United was always the winner and I was mightily relieved when City would make it up to 40 points every year and be out of danger in 12th place (if we were lucky!). And I'm not necessarily a fan of some teams having billions to spend and others only having $20 laying around. Perhaps a separate discussion. But if City is at the top of the table and clinched the title early, great! Or if they have to battle it out to the last day, also fine! But do I want to see them play the snuck-in 9th place team for the title in a long and complicated playoff system after having already won the league? Not really.

My main point here I guess is that the best teams are at or around the top of the table. And I'm fine with that.

 

[mgarbowski]

WRT the preceding posts, the relative lack of turnover of the best teams in the top European leagues (with the PL actually being somewhat more fluid) is not because of the lack of playoffs. It is a result of pro/rel and an open barely regulated international player movement system (plus a cultural norm that players have to be allowed to quit a team almost any time they want regardless of contract status as long as someone pays) with no enforceable salary limits combined with very weak revenue sharing.

In the US, playoffs incorporate a significant element of random chance. This create an illusion of parity more than the actual thing.

 

[adam]

LOL

But your point is valid, to a degree. So let's talk baseball. Everybody hates the Astros (sorry 'stros fans!). Not even counting the cheating thing, but because it's boring to have them win every year. Same with the Yankees dynasty in previous decades. But the thing with the Astros is that they win because they're currently the best team, and have been for a few years. Do I, a Mets fan, want the Yankees to beat the pants off of them? Heck yes! Do I want some 3rd place team in a five-team division to sneak into the World Series? Not really, to be honest. I remember baseball before divisional play (vaguely), and the Mets won in '69, the first year where we had divisions. But the current system is totally out of hand.

So yes, Man City is always near the top of the table. But I've been a fan for a long time, back to the time when United was always the winner and I was mightily relieved when City would make it up to 40 points every year and be out of danger in 12th place (if we were lucky!). And I'm not necessarily a fan of some teams having billions to spend and others only having $20 laying around. Perhaps a separate discussion. But if City is at the top of the table and clinched the title early, great! Or if they have to battle it out to the last day, also fine! But do I want to see them play the snuck-in 9th place team for the title in a long and complicated playoff system after having already won the league? Not really.

My main point here I guess is that the best teams are at or around the top of the table. And I'm fine with that.

Just wait till baseball realignment

 

[Seth]

Just wait till baseball realignment

Well you totally suck at cheering me up LOL

 

[moogoo]

WRT the preceding posts, the relative lack of turnover of the best teams in the top European leagues (with the PL actually being somewhat more fluid) is not because of the lack of playoffs. It is a result of pro/rel and an open barely regulated international player movement system (plus a cultural norm that players have to be allowed to quit a team almost any time they want regardless of contract status as long as someone pays) with no enforceable salary limits combined with very weak revenue sharing.

In the US, playoffs incorporate a significant element of random chance. This create an illusion of parity more than the actual thing.

agree. but even without the playoffs, the MLS table is pretty all over the place very year. it's not easy to predict who is going to be in the top 10 of the supporter's shield race.

i think that does show the league has pretty decent parity. although that is slowly fading since every team doesn't play every other team twice anymore... or at all for that matter.

 

[mgarbowski]

agree. but even without the playoffs, the MLS table is pretty all over the place very year. it's not easy to predict who is going to be in the top 10 of the supporter's shield race.

i think that does show the league has pretty decent parity. although that is slowly fading since every team doesn't play every other team twice anymore... or at all for that matter.

I agree. My point was meant to be that the parity is US sports leagues (more in some than others) is not because of playoffs. Rather, especially with MLS, it is a result of a strict if flexible salary cap, plus substantial revenue sharing and comparatively limited players rights.

 

[Joe_Cos]

Do I want some 3rd place team in a five-team division to sneak into the World Series?

I love the Phillies Shade

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.

I know it is going to happen, but this infurates me because the NFL are telling STH who spend thousands of dollars for season of tickets, plus eight to nine sundays attending games, that even though you spent your time and money supporting your team. F**K off we are going to make you fly to some neutral site so we can have some rando come to the game who are just going to the game to say they went and have no home field advatnage. They wonder why they need to build smaller stadiums, because they are telling the STH to f**k off, we don't need you, they want to grab money and have city bid on these games. But god forbid the teams smell the playoffs, they will send out emails asking can you please pay for the all the rounds, and we will credit your account if we get knocked out, but if you must you can pay as you go. I needed to rant, I just sent my $ to renew my football tickets, so its a sore subject.

 

[mgarbowski]

I know it is going to happen

FWIW (nothing really) I don't think it will happen. They barely pull off the logistics for the Super Bowl with 2 weeks lead time, and most of the attendees made arrangements months in advance. Nobody is going to NFL CC games except fans of the teams involved and getting all of that sorted in 7 days is a nightmare The closest analogue is CFB conference championships, and those more or less work, but I don't see it transferring to the NFL.

 

[BxLio91]

I get why they made those changes but it feels gimmicky.

 

[413Blue]

I'm going to be honest, I kind of love the new playoff format after sitting on it for a while now. Sure, it's a little clunky, but I think it's the best of both worlds business and sporting wise.
Every team is now guaranteed a home match (except the 9 seed if they lose the play-in match, but that's just a weird thing and I don't really consider that part of the playoffs) and we should see seeding matter more. Better teams should advance out of the first round more often, reducing that first round variance a bit.
This is much better than the world cup format that was rumored.

 

[GratefulDawg]

Anyone else watching the 360? I don't know why they think we'd want to look at the backs of four commentators, although the woman does have nice legs.

 

[KevinJRogers]

Anyone else watching the 360? I don't know why they think we'd want to look at the backs of four commentators, although the woman does have nice legs.

I thought that was odd, too. They should be in their chairs with the screens behind them.

 

[franchise646]

i wish the bottom box on MLS 360 was smaller.

 

[GratefulDawg]

Had to move over to DC v TOR when 360 went to commercials.

Watching Sean Johnson play is like seeing an ex-girlfriend in public.