PDA

View Full Version : Portland Gets It



Calvin
03-20-2009, 11:47 AM
http://web.mlsnet.com/index.jsp

Thats a lot of north pacific expansion

Too many teams in the west, will Dynamo or Colorado go to the east?

TorontoBlades
03-20-2009, 11:50 AM
not when they add ottawa and montreal

Technorgasm
03-20-2009, 11:50 AM
what what?















in the butt.

TorontoBlades
03-20-2009, 11:50 AM
...or go to a single table format

drewski
03-20-2009, 11:52 AM
should make for an excellent 3-way rivalry up there

flatpicker
03-20-2009, 12:11 PM
I'm jealous of the close proximity between Portland, Seattle and Vancouver.

I wish Detroit had a team!

Kevvv
03-20-2009, 12:16 PM
I wish Detroit had a team!


Yeah, but: http://www.redpatchboys.ca/forums/showthread.php?t=10755




I'm jealous of the close proximity between Portland, Seattle and Vancouver.


Sucks that WE'RE the centre of the universe, yet they'll have two rivals within a 5 hour drive

flatpicker
03-20-2009, 12:17 PM
^ well... I never actually thought Detroit would be suitable... I just wish there was a team closer to us!!!

Kevvv
03-20-2009, 12:19 PM
Site's up; it wasn't yesterday:

http://www.portlandmls2011.com/

Kevvv
03-20-2009, 12:21 PM
^ well... I never actually thought Detroit would be suitable... I just wish there was a team closer to us!!!


Tonawanda needs a team.

flatpicker
03-20-2009, 12:35 PM
Seattle press conference is decent.
Good enthusiastic crowd.
A little trash talking too... nice to see!

koryo
03-20-2009, 12:37 PM
When the league gets to 18 teams don't be surprised to see re-aligment along the lines of East, Central, West

East:
Toronto
New York
DC
New England
Philadelphia
Columbus

Central:
Chicago
Houston
Dallas
Colorado
Salt Lake
Kansas City

West:
LA Galaxy
LA Chivas
San Jose
Seattle
Portland
Vancouver

Not sure if they plan to lengthen the season at this stage but they can set it up so that each team plays its divisional rivals three times a season, and then spread the other games between the remaining two divisions.

Not a purist's approach by any means but not illogical either.

Calvin
03-20-2009, 12:40 PM
I perfer 1 table. every time the mls tries to northamericanize the league it fails, when it is europeanized it succeeds..

koryo
03-20-2009, 12:42 PM
I perfer 1 table. every time the mls tries to northamericanize the league it fails, when it is europeanized it succeeds..

Don't get me wrong, I'd much rather see a single table as well. But given how they've set up their playoff format, I don't see it happening in this league.

flatpicker
03-20-2009, 12:50 PM
If they insist on a more North American set-up then I would prefer two single tables.
Have an East Champ and a West Champ at the end of the regular season.
Let those two play for the MLS Cup.

With a possible 20 teams, they could play home and away with each team in their own conference.
That would make 20 games... plus, have 10 more games against the other conference.
30 games total...
Though I would say it's even better to play 3 games each against your own conference and none against the other conference.
Then the MLS Cup would be a true measuring stick for who is better; East or West.

Beach_Red
03-20-2009, 12:56 PM
I perfer 1 table. every time the mls tries to northamericanize the league it fails, when it is europeanized it succeeds..

As long as they don't Europeanize it to the point where the same 4 teams sit at the top of the table every year....

denime
03-20-2009, 12:58 PM
Don't get me wrong, I'd much rather see a single table as well. But given how they've set up their playoff format, I don't see it happening in this league.

Can you elaborate on this one ,please.

Why can't we have Single table format and best 8 teams go to playoffs?

drewski
03-20-2009, 01:09 PM
1, 2 or 3 conferences, playoffs aren't that hard to setup

flatpicker
03-20-2009, 01:16 PM
Why can't we have Single table format and best 8 teams go to playoffs?


If they insist on a NA style playoff format, then I would also prefer they go with a single table.

Kevvv
03-20-2009, 01:29 PM
You'll notice that the conferences are organised geographically, as they are in the NHL, NFL, NBA. If the US was the same size as England or Italy, geography wouldn't matter. To me, the single table concept will never be considered practical here.

flatpicker
03-20-2009, 01:31 PM
You'll notice that the conferences are organised geographically, as they are in the NHL, NFL, NBA. If the US was the same size as England or Italy, geography wouldn't matter. To me, the single table concept will never be considered practical here.

which is why I am ok with having two single tables:

If they insist on a more North American set-up then I would prefer two single tables.
Have an East Champ and a West Champ at the end of the regular season.
Let those two play for the MLS Cup.

With a possible 20 teams, they could play home and away with each team in their own conference.
That would make 20 games... plus, have 10 more games against the other conference.
30 games total...
Though I would say it's even better to play 3 games each against your own conference and none against the other conference.
Then the MLS Cup would be a true measuring stick for who is better; East or West.

this sort of set-up works for MLB.
Yes they have a couple playoff rounds, but they also have a lot more teams.
Only recently did they insert the inter-league games... and they make up a small portion of the schedule.
I think a system like this is great.

Lucky Strike
03-20-2009, 01:37 PM
If they insist on a more North American set-up then I would prefer two single tables.
Have an East Champ and a West Champ at the end of the regular season.
Let those two play for the MLS Cup.

With a possible 20 teams, they could play home and away with each team in their own conference.
That would make 20 games... plus, have 10 more games against the other conference.
30 games total...
Though I would say it's even better to play 3 games each against your own conference and none against the other conference.
Then the MLS Cup would be a true measuring stick for who is better; East or West.

That's 28 total actually. A team only would have 9 opponents in its conference but 10 in the other (a team can't play itself).

ThunderTundra
03-20-2009, 01:51 PM
http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_plt_LafzKm0/SBhWeOU0d3I/AAAAAAAAAKw/PgEwRNIdp0U/s320/portland_pge2.jpg

Here is the potential look for PGE park with the other side filled in

That will be a nice stadium, good sound with the roof

koryo
03-20-2009, 02:38 PM
Can you elaborate on this one ,please.

Why can't we have Single table format and best 8 teams go to playoffs?

Posting at work and not thinking it through. Playoffs are playoffs regardless of league structure.

flatpicker
03-20-2009, 02:46 PM
That's 28 total actually. A team only would have 9 opponents in its conference but 10 in the other (a team can't play itself).

hmmm... now I'm flustered!

no wonder I took grade 10 math twice!

so, in that case... I would add a few more games within your own conference against "regional rivals".

I seriously don't like the idea of divisions in sport if the league insists on playing all the teams against each other and then, come playoff time, the concept is almost scrapped when choosing playoff teams.

If your gonna have divisions, make them count for something!

Give them some autonomy from the other division.
Make the reward for winning your division mean more!
Scrap the playoffs and go straight to a Cup Final between the two division champs!

if they really want to have a playoff round, then they should go to 4 divisions once the league hits 20 teams.
Maybe set it up with an East and West Conference with 2 division in each.
The 2 division champs play a home and away playoff to determine the regional champ... then those two champs play for Cup Final.


I dunno... I could ramble on here... I just think there are more logical ways to go about this...

Beach_Red
03-20-2009, 02:59 PM
You'll notice that the conferences are organised geographically, as they are in the NHL, NFL, NBA. If the US was the same size as England or Italy, geography wouldn't matter. To me, the single table concept will never be considered practical here.

It might be. I noticed last year at the NFL website they offered the standings as a single table or each of the NCF and AFC as single tables.

Kevvv
03-20-2009, 03:12 PM
But (according to wikipaedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regular_season_(NFL)), because I wouldn't know) the regular schedule has them playing teams in their own division twice a season, versus less than an average of less than once a year for all other teams.

So however they offer the standings, the schedule is dependent on division.

Stouffville_RPB
03-20-2009, 03:19 PM
As long as they don't Europeanize it to the point where the same 4 teams sit at the top of the table every year....

Would you say the same thing if TFC was the MLS' Man U? The way I look at it MLSE would spend the cash to keep a consistent winner out there. The Leafs, pre-cap, we're one of the top 3 spending clubs every year and the Raptors are hovering at the upper end of the cap too (last year, don't know about this year).

All signs point to TFC having a great chance at being consistent title contenders with MLSE behind them.

Not saying you wouldn't change your mind just pointing out that it's easy to say that now when we haven't won anything yet. There wouldn't be many saying that if we were on top on a consistent basis.

Dave67
03-20-2009, 03:34 PM
Can you elaborate on this one ,please.

Why can't we have Single table format and best 8 teams go to playoffs?


In theory the only deterent being that a strong East or West division could dominate the top 8. At playoff time you could alienate fans on one coast or the other. Thats a stretch, but it's all I've got.

Shakes McQueen
03-20-2009, 03:42 PM
You'll notice that the conferences are organised geographically, as they are in the NHL, NFL, NBA. If the US was the same size as England or Italy, geography wouldn't matter. To me, the single table concept will never be considered practical here.

Exactly. Single table would always favour north-eastern teams. In Europe, almost every domestic game is a few hours away, since the countries are so small.

I'm more or less satisfied with what we have now, though I'd like to see more emphasis put on the Supporter's Shield, and maybe turn the MLS Cup into a Copa Del Rey or FA Cup-ish tournament that runs during the season.

- Scott

Luanda
03-20-2009, 03:50 PM
Whatever the table format (single, two or three conferences), one can assume two things. It will be done with the continous expansion for 2012 AND the costs of team travel in mind.

Calvin
03-20-2009, 04:22 PM
In theory the only deterent being that a strong East or West division could dominate the top 8. At playoff time you could alienate fans on one coast or the other. Thats a stretch, but it's all I've got.

thats pretty stupid. it doesnt matter if too many teams from the north get in, we dont worry about alienating southern fans. we dont worry about too many teams with blue jerseys getting in, alienating red teams' fans.

its much more to do with geography. north america is huge and having games so far away so often is too costly.

Beach_Red
03-20-2009, 04:31 PM
Would you say the same thing if TFC was the MLS' Man U? The way I look at it MLSE would spend the cash to keep a consistent winner out there. The Leafs, pre-cap, we're one of the top 3 spending clubs every year and the Raptors are hovering at the upper end of the cap too (last year, don't know about this year).

All signs point to TFC having a great chance at being consistent title contenders with MLSE behind them.

Not saying you wouldn't change your mind just pointing out that it's easy to say that now when we haven't won anything yet. There wouldn't be many saying that if we were on top on a consistent basis.


Yes, I can honestly say I would lose interest in a league dominated by the same four teams even if my team was one of them.

I grew up in Montreal in the 1970's and lost interest in hockey when the Canadiens won all the time.

I also don't think soccer would ever sell in North America if the same teams dominated year after year, Soccer is a tough enough sell now, if four teams dominated they would quickly become the ONLY four teams - the sport just doesn't have the history or culture here for people to support a, say, Cubs type team year after year.

One of the main reasons the NFL was able to challenge baseball in the 60's and 70's was because the championship team was usually different. The parity of the NFL (Lions notwithstanding ;)) is one of its biggest selling points. The MLS will need that to stay alive as well.

flatpicker
03-20-2009, 04:38 PM
I wonder if Montreal is gonna try again to get in MLS for 2012.
If they plan to cap expansion at 20 teams then that doesn't leave much room.
It would almost certainly mean either Montreal or Ottawa will not be getting a team.
Obviously I would much prefer Montreal get in MLS.




As for the league structure conversation...
I mentioned that an East and West Conference with two divisions in each could be one possibility.
I like to add that I think a set-up like that would be good for rivalries.
If you had 5 teams per division and you played teams within your group perhaps 3 times each, then 2 times each for the other division within your conference and then the few other games in the schedule would be some inter-league games against the other conference.
That would build a much stronger identity for your group and your conference.
Then you would have the top team of each division reach the post season.
That gives you a Conference Final and an MLS Cup Final.

flatpicker
03-20-2009, 04:41 PM
Yes, I can honestly say I would lose interest in a league dominated by the same four teams even if my team was one of them.

I grew up in Montreal in the 1970's and lost interest in hockey when the Canadiens won all the time.

I also don't think soccer would ever sell in North America if the same teams dominated year after year, Soccer is a tough enough sell now, if four teams dominated they would quickly become the ONLY four teams - the sport just doesn't have the history or culture here for people to support a, say, Cubs type team year after year.

One of the main reasons the NFL was able to challenge baseball in the 60's and 70's was because the championship team was usually different. The parity of the NFL (Lions notwithstanding ;)) is one of its biggest selling points. The MLS will need that to stay alive as well.

As long as there is a reasonable salary cap then you are not going to have the same teams dominate every year.
I'm not sure why this is even a discussion?

If the cap increases you will see no more league giants than there are in the NHL.
Sure, the smart teams with a budget tend to have better odds (like Detroit).
But everyone still has a shot.

Detroit_TFC
03-20-2009, 04:44 PM
Yeah, but: http://www.redpatchboys.ca/forums/showthread.php?t=10755






Sucks that WE'RE the centre of the universe, yet they'll have two rivals within a 5 hour drive

How did I miss that thread? :noidea:

rocker
03-20-2009, 04:45 PM
I hope it never changes to the point where a top 4 emerges due to success purchased by the highest bidders.
Why? Well I was a Jays fan back in the day. The Jays spent more than anyone and it was so cool.. we won the world series twice! but then ownership changed hands, the owners were cheap, and they cut back, allowing other teams to spend to their heart's content. With a structural imbalance in finances leading to poor records, I grew disinterested with baseball (a game I had played since a boy). I haven't attended or watched a whole baseball game in probably 10 years now.

As much as MLSE could spend, spend, spend and have us as the winners every year, what if LA can spend more and MLSE chooses not to compete financially? Or what if MLSE gets bought out by somebody who wants to pinch pennies more? Then we'll be at the bottom of the league wishing we had the money.

sorry for the digression but I feel passionately about this issue. I'll take the imposed financial parity even if it seems to hinder us. I don't want TFC to end up like the Jays did in my life.
I want to see a salary cap and revenue sharing forever.

flatpicker
03-20-2009, 04:47 PM
^ how did we get on this financial parity discussion?


Salary cap is there for a reason... it's a good thing (perhaps a little low though)... and it will be staying.

no need to worry about what will never happen.

Pookie
03-20-2009, 04:52 PM
http://web.mlsnet.com/index.jsp

Thats a lot of north pacific expansion

Too many teams in the west, will Dynamo or Colorado go to the east?

Why is this is a problem?

In 2009, there are 7 teams in the East and 8 in the West.

In 2010, there will be 8 teams in both conferences (Philly)

In 2011, there will be 8 in the east and 9 in the west.

In 2012, there will be 8 in the east and 10 in the west.

Expansion in 2013 is bound to go to an eastern based city. So you are essentially looking at 1 year of a slightly unbalanced league.

8 Teams make the playoffs. 4 of those spots are wildcards that can come from any division. Provided that the schedule is fairly balanced (ie. interconference play is consistent), I don't see an ongoing problem.

ThunderTundra
03-20-2009, 05:36 PM
This league can't get too much larger though, they need to make sure they don't make the mistake of outgrowing their market, then the league will be forced to contract again and it will make the whole league look like a joke. I know that they are expanding smarter this time around, but still

Kevin
03-20-2009, 05:42 PM
I heard while we were down in Charleston that Atlanta had looked into the MLS. I really can't believe that there is not a team down here in the south east. That would be a road trip that I could make!

Dave67
03-20-2009, 06:20 PM
thats pretty stupid. it doesnt matter if too many teams from the north get in, we dont worry about alienating southern fans. we dont worry about too many teams with blue jerseys getting in, alienating red teams' fans.

its much more to do with geography. north america is huge and having games so far away so often is too costly.

Time zones don't work North to South and in theory MLS would worry about maximizing tv audiences. So for the sake of searching for a reason as to why MLS might avoid single table MLS playoff system. MLS may not want to risk a heavily loaded playoff year with too many East or West coast teams as night games out West would kill Eastern viewership.

At least now they know 3 teams from a conference must make it. Like I said, just a theory for sake of argument.

mighty_torontofc_2008
03-20-2009, 06:29 PM
...or go to a single table format


that will never happen...for MLS to succeed the conference/division format must stay the way it is..Maybe someday add a central conference
but thats a while away from happening...a single table works in europe/south america..it just wont work here in MLS

james
03-20-2009, 07:03 PM
http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_plt_LafzKm0/SBhWeOU0d3I/AAAAAAAAAKw/PgEwRNIdp0U/s320/portland_pge2.jpg

Here is the potential look for PGE park with the other side filled in

That will be a nice stadium, good sound with the roof

That stadium kinda looks like a smaller versin of Celtic park!!!:D

im so happy Portland is in. They got great fans from what ive seen on TV. And after looking at highlights from the Seattle game last night they had great supporters to, nice big flags to. Its good to see its not only gonna be TFC and DC with decent supporters now.

james
03-20-2009, 07:13 PM
honestly since most of MLS games are played on the weekend i dont think a 1-league table would hurt TV rattings. I mean if a Western team like say LA was to play an Eastern team like TFC all LA have to do is play an afternoon game that starts at anywhere from 12-6pm and then it would be shown here on TV at 3-9pm. And games are only 2 hours. SO its not like they would go to early hours in the morning lossing Eastern teams fans.

james
03-20-2009, 07:21 PM
As long as there is a reasonable salary cap then you are not going to have the same teams dominate every year.
I'm not sure why this is even a discussion?

If the cap increases you will see no more league giants than there are in the NHL.
Sure, the smart teams with a budget tend to have better odds (like Detroit).
But everyone still has a shot.

im agianst hardcore salary caps, but im also against no cap at all.
If a team has great support, and is making good profits from it then they should beable to spend a bit more money then other teams, the fans deserve it. But dont let them spend to the point where the same teams win year after year cause they got billions of dollars like you see in many Europe leagues now, It gets really borring.

Keegan
03-21-2009, 12:06 AM
http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_plt_LafzKm0/SBhWeOU0d3I/AAAAAAAAAKw/PgEwRNIdp0U/s320/portland_pge2.jpg

Here is the potential look for PGE park with the other side filled in

That will be a nice stadium, good sound with the roof

Looks so shit I love it! Has a real UK CCC/Scottish PL look to it

nascarguy
03-21-2009, 12:48 AM
i bet there home opener will be vs. seattle & van will be vs. tfc

nascarguy
03-21-2009, 12:50 AM
Looks so shit I love it! Has a real UK CCC/Scottish PL look to it
yeah it does

onemanbarmyarmy
03-21-2009, 06:34 AM
Here's the coles notes of this thread for me:
1. As long as there are Beckhams and Lundbergs the league needs to milk them. ie. as many away games as possible to all cities. Can't lock them into one confrence.
2. Quit expansion and just relocate shite teams. ie. move KC Wizardsleeves to St. Louis
3. Detroit should get a team and call them the Bullets and Marshall Mathers should be the owner because that's the only way americans can get behind a team. ie. Get a funny, blond fat guy to buy them. (you aint seen "slim" shaddy recently have you?)

koryo
03-21-2009, 07:35 AM
^^ aka: thread done. Thanks Barmy.