PDA

View Full Version : Playoff soccer doesn't resonate with MLS fans



denime
11-13-2008, 02:23 PM
Playoff soccer doesn't resonate with MLS fans

by Jamie Trecker (http://msn.foxsports.com/writer/Jamie-Trecker?authorId=279) foxsports.com

Whoulda thunk it? The poster children for futility, the terminally awful New York Red Bulls, are in the MLS conference finals.
A win over Real Salt Lake Saturday could send New York to their first ever MLS Cup final, a prospect that must have MLS HQ in whiplash.

On the one hand, the league needs a hit in the most influential media market on the planet. On the other, how can anyone take a league that would crown a sub .500 team champion seriously?

This situation plays up the silliness that are the MLS playoffs. A thirty-game regular season is thrown out the window, in favor of this compressed, uneccessary four-game sprint.

Read more (http://msn.foxsports.com/soccer/story/8785972/Playoff-soccer-doesn%27t-resonate-with-MLS-fans)

denime
11-13-2008, 02:25 PM
god article ,except


People filled BMO Field up north despite the fact that Toronto FC collectively couldn't kick a ball into the ocean from a beach front. :eek:

Kevvv
11-13-2008, 02:32 PM
Yeah, what would give them that idea?



I would watch the playoffs, if I could actually find them on TV. That the 30 game regular season is "thrown out the window" could apply to any North American sport - hockey may be the worst for playing 80 games and eliminating so few teams from the playoffs.

flatpicker
11-13-2008, 02:40 PM
nicely written... too bad the league won't listen though...

A league champ at the end of the season is far better than what we have now.
But one can't ignore the fact that North Americans like a "championship game" - the one that decides it all.

Sorry for repeating myself, but I will say again:
I think the league needs to make the East and West more independent of each other.
Only a few inter-league matches per season.
Crown an East Champ and a West Champ.
Have those two face off for the MLS Cup.
That way you are guaranteed to have the best team in the final.
And it would be a good fight to determine what division/league is best, East or West...

it's a system that works well with baseball's American and National Leagues.
Yes, they do have a playoff format... but it is very exclusive considering how few teams make the post season (and there are far more clubs in MLB than MLS)

denime
11-13-2008, 02:40 PM
Yeah, what would give them that idea?



I would watch the playoffs, if I could actually find them on TV. That the 30 game regular season is "thrown out the window" could apply to any North American sport - hockey may be the worst for playing 80 games and eliminating so few teams from the playoffs.

I would agree with you on that if soccer was North American sport.
MLS tried to Americanize soccer,and lets face it they failed.Soccer moms and family friendly atmosphere with the playoffs in November is not the right way to promote a future MLS champion.

Another good quote from this article:


There are markets that care about performance, to be sure. But there are many, many others that are either not wholly sold on pro soccer, or deeply resistant to it. It's a pretty cut and dry situation. New stadiums haven't helped Dallas or Colorado — and I doubt they'll help Kansas City — while Houston, Chicago and Toronto have made their teams part of the fabric of the community.

JonO
11-13-2008, 02:47 PM
I like what Mr. Picker has to say on this. If you insist on the play-off format, do it MLB-styles... Maybe have two divisions in each league - the division champs face off and then face the league champs from the other side....

flatpicker
11-13-2008, 02:54 PM
I like what Mr. Picker has to say on this. If you insist on the play-off format, do it MLB-styles... Maybe have two divisions in each league - the division champs face off and then face the league champs from the other side....

thanks... I think the MLB system is the best measure for success in North American sports.

Also, if MLS went with that kind of setup, it would drastically shorten or even eliminate the post season (with the exception of the Cup game) and then the league could add 2 more games to the season which would be more profitable to the league than playoffs are.

trane
11-13-2008, 02:56 PM
nicely written... too bad the league won't listen though...

A league champ at the end of the season is far better than what we have now.
But one can't ignore the fact that North Americans like a "championship game" - the one that decides it all.

Sorry for repeating myself, but I will say again:
I think the league needs to make the East and West more independent of each other.
Only a few inter-league matches per season.
Crown an East Champ and a West Champ.
Have those two face off for the MLS Cup.
That way you are guaranteed to have the best team in the final.
And it would be a good fight to determine what division/league is best, East or West...

it's a system that works well with baseball's American and National Leagues.
Yes, they do have a playoff format... but it is very exclusive considering how few teams make the post season (and there are far more clubs in MLB than MLS)

That is a great compomise. Plus less travel would make economic sense, and the rivalries would likely get stronger.

C.Ronaldo
11-13-2008, 03:53 PM
amen to east vs west

its what makes the world series exciting

similar with the super bowl.


Too much shit can happen in soccer, all it takes is one goal.
Playoffs can crown the luckiest team sometimes.

flatpicker
11-13-2008, 03:56 PM
That is a great compromise. Plus less travel would make economic sense, and the rivalries would likely get stronger.

yes the travel issues would be better.
and let's face it... a single table with no Cup game is not an option right now.
so yes, it would be a good compromise.

any way we can start a petition to the league to set it up this way?
as long as we make it clear that this way makes more money for everyone, why wouldn't they like it!!

:noidea:

Beach_Red
11-13-2008, 04:05 PM
amen to east vs west

its what makes the world series exciting

similar with the super bowl.


Too much shit can happen in soccer, all it takes is one goal.
Playoffs can crown the luckiest team sometimes.

The Super Bowl isn't always east vs west, though, it's by conference. It's possible for the Giants to play the Jets in the Super Bowl. And the Bills did play the Giants one year.

I hope they get this straightened out soon. With even college football (which is the closest the US has to single table) looking for the right playoff format it really seems to be what people want.

And yeah, a lucky goal can win championships, even penalty shots can do it, remember last years Champions League final.

I still say the playoffs in the MLS is just an internal champions league played at the end of the season instead of througout. Once the CONCACAF champions league becomes a bigger deal, we won't need the playoffs.

Don Julio
11-13-2008, 05:33 PM
I don't personally disagree with him, but playoffs are important in North America, and MLS can't grow without attracting fans that are used to playoff sports. This problem will fade over the next few years as we add a bunch of new teams. It's the same issue as with the CFL.. too many teams make the playoffs.

jloome
11-13-2008, 05:42 PM
I don't personally disagree with him, but playoffs are important in North America, and MLS can't grow without attracting fans that are used to playoff sports. This problem will fade over the next few years as we add a bunch of new teams. It's the same issue as with the CFL.. too many teams make the playoffs.

That's a "straw man" argument; it's predicated on the suggestion that without playoff races, north Americans wouldn't watch a sport, when in fact the theory hasn't been tested since the early days of baseball. Maybe they would, maybe they wouldn't.

You just as easily argue -- with as little foundation -- that because it's a sport that's new to them, they'd accept it on "new" terms. You don't require rule changes to reflect North American sports, so why operating structure.

You might be right. But there's nothing so far to suggest that's the case.

mighty_torontofc_2008
11-13-2008, 06:09 PM
I don't personally disagree with him, but playoffs are important in North America, and MLS can't grow without attracting fans that are used to playoff sports. This problem will fade over the next few years as we add a bunch of new teams. It's the same issue as with the CFL.. too many teams make the playoffs.


and the NHL too many teams make the playoffs,,MLS needs a slight fixing of the playoffs....New York should not be playing for the western division title??Have the top 4 in each conference make the playoffs until the league growns then have the top 6 in each conference once the league hits 20 teams.

Beach_Red
11-13-2008, 06:42 PM
You just as easily argue -- with as little foundation -- that because it's a sport that's new to them, they'd accept it on "new" terms. You don't require rule changes to reflect North American sports, so why operating structure.

The closest comparison is probably college sports in the US - college football right now is almost a single table - except they are trying desperately to bring in some kind of playoff format. And of course, March Madness is one of the main things that pushed college basketball into the mainstream.

I can't imagine a major American sport that doesn't have some kind of elimination series and a Championship Game.

In fact, pretty soon the Champins League will become more important that any single European league because only 3-4 teams from each league will consistently compete at that level. Elmination format and a championship game. It's the future.

And really, it's a fine system.

flatpicker
11-13-2008, 07:03 PM
^ well the system I suggested still provides a championship game... so that much taken care of.

But I still say that having two divisions, and two champs who play for the title is enough.
No playoffs are necessary.

When this league reaches 20 teams, then I would say break the East and West into two divisions each.
Then the top team from each (that would be 4 total) would playoff for the East and West crown and then for the Cup.

exaggerated playoffs are a waste of time.
I am a Canadian... I have grown up loving hockey...
But I will admit that the playoffs are too big and render much of the regular season meaningless.

trane
11-13-2008, 07:27 PM
Flatpicker for Comish!!!!! A man of ideas and vision.

flatpicker
11-13-2008, 07:29 PM
Flatpicker for Comish!!!!! A man of ideas and vision.

does the job come with a big hat???

:hat:

trane
11-13-2008, 07:33 PM
^The biggest.

Beach_Red
11-13-2008, 08:08 PM
exaggerated playoffs are a waste of time.
I am a Canadian... I have grown up loving hockey...
But I will admit that the playoffs are too big and render much of the regular season meaningless.

It's true, I very rarely watch regular season hockey anymore but I do get interested in a good playoff series. I find the play really improves by having two teams play only each other up to seven times in a row.

I understand the really big hat is one of those three-cornered ones.

Canary Canuck
11-13-2008, 09:00 PM
I like the East champ vs the West Champ. Another idea would be to have only 3 teams from each conference get in with the conference champ getting a first round bye. It's not as bad as it was just a few years ago when it was only a 10 team league with 8 teams making the playoffs.

stretchthetruth
11-13-2008, 10:14 PM
Play for the league... award the Supporters' Shield to the winner of the league... After its all done, have a cup competition... all teams are in, aggregate goals, etc... the whole east vs west thing is too cliche for me...

CDNSoccerFan
11-13-2008, 10:47 PM
North American sports and their fans are all about the playoffs though.

The last couple possesions in game 7 in basketball

2 out rally in baseball

OT in the playoffs in hockey

2 min drive in football to make it to the Superbowl.

Hey crowning a league champion like they do in Europe makes sense but its won't sell here IMO. Playoff games in the right markets will work

denime
11-14-2008, 07:28 AM
The closest comparison is probably college sports in the US - college football right now is almost a single table - except they are trying desperately to bring in some kind of playoff format. And of course, March Madness is one of the main things that pushed college basketball into the mainstream.

I can't imagine a major American sport that doesn't have some kind of elimination series and a Championship Game.

In fact, pretty soon the Champions League will become more important that any single European league because only 3-4 teams from each league will consistently compete at that level. Elimination format and a championship game. It's the future.

And really, it's a fine system.

I have to disagree with you on this part.

Ask any fan in Europe what they want more national Championship or Champions league.You will get one answer" National Championship".

That question was asked so many times in Europe and always the same answer, National Championship is more important for fans,players,coaches,Managers.
Local derby's like Inter vs AC,Dortmund -Schalke 04,Red Star -Partizan Belgrade,MANU-M City,can't be compared with any euro league,this games will be always more important to fans than Euro Champions league games.


Elimination format and a championship game. For tournaments like World Cup or Euro league,National Championships NO.
Single table will never change.

denime
11-14-2008, 07:30 AM
North American sports and their fans are all about the playoffs though.

The last couple possesions in game 7 in basketball

2 out rally in baseball

OT in the playoffs in hockey

2 min drive in football to make it to the Superbowl.

Hey crowning a league champion like they do in Europe makes sense but its won't sell here IMO. Playoff games in the right markets will work

Hey crowning a league champion like they do in THE REST OF THE WORLD.(Fixed) ;)

Fort York Redcoat
11-14-2008, 08:51 AM
Hey this Picker guy just stole my thread. Bloody Journos.

I'm glad someone outside a board recognized that playoffs in soccer in NA are a bust. I'm not a fan of the baseball method either and think it's a comprimise for a smaller NA league that can't afford travel. GOOD MORING CSL AND PCSL.

Same story for me playoffs are watchable if my team is in it only.

This system rewards mediocraty (playoffs) and failure (draft picks).

And let me end with the fact I realize this is just how its done over here.

jabbronies
11-14-2008, 09:11 AM
hmmmm I don't know that I can agree with this 100%

Fans will not fill the stadium knowing that a team - in August - are technically out of the championship race. The only reason why most of the fans still go to the stadium in the last few months is because there is a hope for the playoffs.

Perhaps there could be a two cup system? one for the season, one for the play offs

SLBuu
11-14-2008, 09:19 AM
Suppporters Shield is for the season, MLS Cup is for the playoffs.

jabbronies
11-14-2008, 09:36 AM
Suppporters Shield is for the season, MLS Cup is for the playoffs.

but the emphasis it seems is on the MLS Cup rather than the Supporters Shield.

Fort York Redcoat
11-14-2008, 09:36 AM
hmmmm I don't know that I can agree with this 100%

Fans will not fill the stadium knowing that a team - in August - are technically out of the championship race. The only reason why most of the fans still go to the stadium in the last few months is because there is a hope for the playoffs.

Perhaps there could be a two cup system? one for the season, one for the play offs


Suppporters Shield is for the season, MLS Cup is for the playoffs.


Dude. C'mon. This is the problem. Winning the league should be all season long not decided on a tournament that dismisses half of it.


We're going to have some heated debate on this issue at this moment in time. Newcomers to the sport will expect things to be done like all NA sports while newcomers to the league (most of us) will expect things to be done like most other top rate leagues in the sport.

I'm of the opinion (no surprise I know) that the NA way will not compete after a certain point but I will concede that the format and strange ways of the league rules are growing the league faster than a tradtional method.

As long as there is a little steak with all that sizzle we'll be fine.

Beach_Red
11-14-2008, 11:15 AM
I have to disagree with you on this part.

Ask any fan in Europe what they want more national Championship or Champions league.You will get one answer" National Championship".

That question was asked so many times in Europe and always the same answer, National Championship is more important for fans,players,coaches,Managers.
Local derby's like Inter vs AC,Dortmund -Schalke 04,Red Star -Partizan Belgrade,MANU-M City,can't be compared with any euro league,this games will be always more important to fans than Euro Champions league games.


Elimination format and a championship game. For tournaments like World Cup or Euro league,National Championships NO.
Single table will never change.

I hope you're right. Someday I'd like to see a fully Canadian league with a single table. I know it sounds crazy, but I still don't see why they can get 30,000 fans out in Winnipeg and Calgary and Edmonton and Regina for the CFL and not for soccer - it'll happen someday.

The only thing that worries me about Europe is who you've left off your list of players, managers, coaches and fans -- owners, TV execs and sponsors.

More and more the big money is being driven by TV ratings and if the top teams in each national league continue to put so much distance between themselves and the rest of their leagues then the big TV money will come for Champions League games. Those crosstown derbies are great for ticket sales but don't produce the kind of TV ratings that Champions League games sometimes do.

I'm sure this has been written about and debated every minute of the day in Europe. I just read an article in a magazine called Driven (it came with the Globe and Mail) about big money in European soccer and it talked a lot about the ever-widening gap between the richest clubs and the rest. It referred to the movement of players as one way - from all over the world to the top European clubs - mostly the EPL.

Things are just not as settled there as we'd like and really have no idea what European soccer will look like in ten years.

Money, as the wise philosopher Cyndi Lauper once said, changes everything.

I_AM_CANADIAN
11-14-2008, 11:28 AM
Excellent article. I've been thinking this all along. The Red Bulls are shite, a fact king dave has made the whole world aware of... :D The playoffs are a waste of time. They should crown the champion at the end of the league season MLS champion and spin the playoffs off into a League Cup sort of tournament, or just get rid of it. I've always thought the League Cup in England was a waste of time, and the US already have the Lamar Hunt US Open Cup and we have the Voyageurs Cup, so there's no need for it.

jabbronies
11-14-2008, 11:28 AM
Dude. C'mon. This is the problem. Winning the league should be all season long not decided on a tournament that dismisses half of it.


Which is all fine and dandy, and I agree BUT...in other world leagues, you are not only fighting for The Championship (1rst place), you are fighting for a champions League birth (1-3 place), Uefa Cup birth (4-6) and relegation.

What is there for the MLS fans to look forward to if the team can't crack the top 4 spots???

I_AM_CANADIAN
11-14-2008, 11:30 AM
Which is all fine and dandy, and I agree BUT...in other world leagues, you are not only fighting for The Championship (1rst place), you are fighting for a champions League birth (1-3 place), Uefa Cup birth (4-6) and relegation.

What is there for the MLS fans to look forward to if the team can't crack the top 4 spots???
Well, in Europe, in a 20 team league which gets, say, three CL spots and three UEFA Cup places, there are still teams in the middle that don't have anything to look forward to after the season, except for maybe the Intertoto Cup....? ;)

trane
11-14-2008, 12:29 PM
^ For many leagues, ( the usual suspects EPL/Serie A/ La Ligua/ Bundesliga ect) staying up and being comptitive is a big achievement for small clubs. It shuold be rememred that some teams like Sienna, Udinese, Chievo in Italy are from small cities it takes maximum effort to compete with teams from Cities like Rome, Milan and Torino ( a smaler city but economicaly powerfull). So that is what they look forward. For Udinese to beat a big club a couple of times a year, and make it to UEFA is a great achivment in itseld if it can do even more then it is a fantastic year.

Beach_Red
11-14-2008, 12:37 PM
^ For many leagues, ( the usual suspects EPL/Serie A/ La Ligua/ Bundesliga ect) staying up and being comptitive is a big achievement for small clubs. It shuold be rememred that some teams like Sienna, Udinese, Chievo in Italy are from small cities it takes maximum effort to compete with teams from Cities like Rome, Milan and Torino ( a smaler city but economicaly powerfull). So that is what they look forward. For Udinese to beat a big club a couple of times a year, and make it to UEFA is a great achivment in itseld if it can do even more then it is a fantastic year.

I guess that works in Italy, but in America all fans want to know that their team could be from Green Bay, Wisconsin and still have a realistic shot at the championship.

If their team doesn't, they'll go support a college team or some other sport - there are lots to chose from.

Fort York Redcoat
11-14-2008, 12:37 PM
Which is all fine and dandy, and I agree BUT...in other world leagues, you are not only fighting for The Championship (1rst place), you are fighting for a champions League birth (1-3 place), Uefa Cup birth (4-6) and relegation.

What is there for the MLS fans to look forward to if the team can't crack the top 4 spots???

It works both ways. How pathetic is a league that has all but 2 or 4 teams that can claim a possibility of being called the best and the team with the best record is an afterthought for the fans.

It's a damn shame that people here have to be winning to show up in numbers. Even more the pity that we're strung along with the hope of being called a possible champion.

denime
11-14-2008, 12:38 PM
Which is all fine and dandy, and I agree BUT...in other world leagues, you are not only fighting for The Championship (1rst place), you are fighting for a champions League birth (1-3 place), Uefa Cup birth (4-6) and relegation.

What is there for the MLS fans to look forward to if the team can't crack the top 4 spots???

So you are trying to say,every year teams in Europe are not interested in National Championship,being 3rd or 4th is ok. :noidea:

In this case you can ask what is there for the MLS fans to look forward to if the team can't crack the top 8 spots ?
What was that we where looking forward last summer?
We where out of playoffs long before season finished,but as far I remember BMO was sold out anyway.It's passion for soccer and your FC.

I will quote Mr. Picker again:

There are markets that care about performance, to be sure. But there are many, many others that are either not wholly sold on pro soccer, or deeply resistant to it. It's a pretty cut and dry situation. New stadiums haven't helped Dallas or Colorado — and I doubt they'll help Kansas City — while Houston, Chicago and Toronto have made their teams part of the fabric of the community

Why Columbus has 100 000 fans for college football game and not even 10 000 for soccer game?
Againit is passion,tradition,rivalry,part of community,soccer at the same time in most MLS cities is family event for soccer moms with kids. :eek:

Fort York Redcoat
11-14-2008, 12:42 PM
In this case you can ask what is there for the MLS fans to look forward to if the team can't crack the top 8 spots ?


I love this. I'm changing my phrasing from here on in.

"I hope we sneak into the top 8 next year."

flatpicker
11-14-2008, 12:49 PM
I understand that fans from mid-level teams want to have something to cheer for.
I stand by my East/West Champs Final scenario...
But isn't there something called SuperLiga?
Doesn't that offer lower teams a chance to play for something?
Isn't that basically a North American Cup?
Perhaps it should be extended to more teams... maybe top 8 from MLS, top 8 from Primera Division, and top 4 or 6 from USL?

Should that not satisfy the need for a playoff competition?
But then I guess the knock against SuperLiga is that many of the teams are also in CONCACAF Champions League. So why have both?
I dunno... the whole thing gets so confusing!

Fort York Redcoat
11-14-2008, 01:00 PM
I understand that fans from mid-level teams want to have something to cheer for.
I stand by my East/West Champs Final scenario...
But isn't there something called SuperLiga?
Doesn't that offer lower teams a chance to play for something?
Isn't that basically a North American Cup?
Perhaps it should be extended to more teams... maybe top 8 from MLS, top 8 from Primera Division, and top 4 or 6 from USL?

Should that not satisfy the need for a playoff competition?
But then I guess the knock against SuperLiga is that many of the teams are also in CONCACAF Champions League. So why have both?
I dunno... the whole thing gets so confusing!

I respectfully disagree. To use the world model will work it's just that adopting it all at once would cause NA to backlash.

League champion- the shield. simple. Or rename it like the do every year.
US + V cups- Champions league
League top 4- Champions League
League 5-8 Superliga

if there are redundancies simply move down one place in the table or tournament eg. We win the league (can't wait) so the next years V cup runner up would get a spot.

plenty to play for. When looking at it like that and to think we have to schedule for FIFA dates and (argh) friendlies it's a full schedule. So yeah forget the playoffs in November or a league cup throughout. We're settled here!

tfc
11-14-2008, 01:16 PM
here is an issue I have with the playoffs and MLS in general, and let me know if this is offbase/im hung over and not thinking straight haha but with the MLS's goal of having such parity within the league, it seems to me that it also hampers the credibility of the playoffs because ANYONE can win it if they play hard during the playoffs...Ex. the incredibly shite Shite Bulls.

ultimately, this leads me to believe that the parity MLS wants in the league is stupid. The reason why teams in England have such history and tradition is because they aren't all equal, and teams have a duty to fans to maintain their spot in the table. When this doesn't happen, people get pissed and eventually fired. In MLS, you can go from the bottom of the league one year, to top of it the next, to bottom again the year after, and managers can blame it on bad luck and get away with it because most teams are about the same quality. If you want to build a league that has solid teams in it you have to allow for diversity, for TFC to sign a whole team of DP's and everyone else, particularly shite bulls, to sign all the shite players.

I understand what MLS is trying to get at with highly restrictive salary caps, to allow teams to come in to the league and have a reasonable chance of doing well, but without allowing teams to sign better players (and thats more than one or two DP's), you have almost just as much of a chance of picking the league winner out of a hat than watching the season.

By the way, picker's idea rocks my socks.

flatpicker
11-14-2008, 01:24 PM
^

when it comes to the issue of parity in MLS I agree with you.
too much emphasis is put on making all things equal.
I think the salary cap should fluctuate from team to team based on their individual revenue or size of bank account.
If teams like Toronto, LA etc are able to spend more then they should.
Not unlimited amounts, but just enough to add a little flair to the league.
MLB is dominated by teams like the Yankees and Bosox, but most don't seem to mind.
In fact, when teams like that come to smaller market towns, it usually means a larger attendance for those games.
Therefore, would it not make sense to allow wealthier teams to spend more?
Would that not actually increase fan attendance in the other cities and thus create more revenue for them?
Sometimes you have to spend money to make money. (just as long as it is not done blindly)

I_AM_CANADIAN
11-14-2008, 01:31 PM
^ I also agree on parity. The whole system needs an overhaul. Clubs should be able to sign players, the salary cap needs to be raised, etc.

trane
11-14-2008, 01:32 PM
Flats,

Dude, I am seriously starting to think about getting you that big hat.

I_AM_CANADIAN
11-14-2008, 01:34 PM
^ For many leagues, ( the usual suspects EPL/Serie A/ La Ligua/ Bundesliga ect) staying up and being comptitive is a big achievement for small clubs. It shuold be rememred that some teams like Sienna, Udinese, Chievo in Italy are from small cities it takes maximum effort to compete with teams from Cities like Rome, Milan and Torino ( a smaler city but economicaly powerfull). So that is what they look forward. For Udinese to beat a big club a couple of times a year, and make it to UEFA is a great achivment in itseld if it can do even more then it is a fantastic year.Very good point. A lot of clubs hope to eventually become among the big clubs in the league, but for some that come from small towns where you can only make a certain amount of money, the whole focus is on staying in the league and taking what you can get. Of course, North American sports don't work that way...

Steve
11-14-2008, 01:46 PM
Wow, I disagree with pretty much everyone in this thread.

I like the playoffs. I mean, I think they could be done better, and I'm disappointed in the attendence of them, but I like them in concept. Yes yes, I understand that the rest of the world does things a different way, so what? North American sport is about the playoffs. It's about using the regular season to do well enough to make it into the playoffs, while finetuning your team to ensure you have the best shot of winning them. It's about opening up the possibility of a cinderella story, of a team struggling, against all odds, and coming together to win the cup. It's about perpetual hope, that this year, this season, your team is going to win it all.

We don't like to "hold our position" here. We aren't happy finishing mid table and knowing there is no way we will ever do better. We don't like looking at the same 4 teams win year after year, knowing we're, at best, playing for 5th place. I'm not making a value judgement, but that's not the way most north american's view sport.

Now, I'm sure some of you would argue that a relegation system would work here (the same people that would probably argue that calgary should be able to get as many people to a soccer game as a CFL game). But, seriously, it wouldn't.

So, with that said, you cannot have a league with no relegation and no playoffs. It doesn't work. Teams need something to play for. Fans need something to hope for. Once you're out of the running for the SS (which could very well happen by mid-season) who cares anymore? What, you want to get into the superliga? It's useless, boring, and the players don't even care about it. Maybe the CCL? Ok, I can see a future for the CCL at least, but right now, again, teams don't really care about it. Plus you're not playing in it until the next year, with a different team, what's the point?

I would rather go into the last few games with at least a statistical chance of sneaking in to the playoffs, than with nothing to hope for. I'd rather dream of a miracle run (no matter how improbable) than have nothing to dream about at all. I'd rather have a thrilling championship game, with everything on the line, with the fans there to join in the emotional release, than have the loss of another team secure us a league championship.

Now, obviously there are problems with the system. Personally, I would rather have 3 game series with the top seed getting the last game at home, but I know our season can't accomodate that. As for the number of teams getting in, for a long time it was ridiculously high, but it's sorting itself out. Even this year 6 out of 14 didn't make it. In a few years we'll be at less than 50% of teams making it. That's a good number to settle at, as it makes getting into the playoffs an accomplishment, but still allows for good end of season drama when the lower teams struggle to make a push and teams on the bubble struggle to hold onto their spots.

So, instead of wishing we had a team in a different league (where everyone loved soccer, tickets sold themselves, and there was a 100 year history), why not play in the league we're in?

Beach_Red
11-14-2008, 01:59 PM
Now, I'm sure some of you would argue that a relegation system would work here (the same people that would probably argue that calgary should be able to get as many people to a soccer game as a CFL game). But, seriously, it wouldn't.

Just to clarify, I'm the guy who thinks someday McMahon stadium will be a soccer stadium and I also like the playoffs.

It's globalisation, you really can't fight it. It affects everything else, it's going to affect sports, too. Sports that don't go global, like the CFL, will start to shrink. It's not like there's a deep love of football in Canada, we get people out to CFL games but that's it. Someone made the point that in Columbus they get 100,000 to a college football game, in Canada we can barely get 100.

As to the European leagues, that 100 years of tradition got exploded when foriegn billionaires started buying teams. Maybe the billionaires will go away someday and the game can return to what it was, but right now it's getting further and further from that tradition. That's too bad, but it's true.

I_AM_CANADIAN
11-14-2008, 02:07 PM
I was about to point that out. It started with the creation of the Premier League in 1992, continued with Sky getting a monopoly on broadcasting it and pumping millions into the league, and has gone past the point of no return with this trend in the last ten years of billionaires buying clubs.

That's definitely not the kind of league I want, where only 4 teams even have a chance of winning, but MLS needs to allow its teams to reach their full potential. What we have now is communism. Everything is owned by a central government. I'm not saying we need an absolute free market system like in Europe, but clubs need to be allowed to breathe. It's not right that we can draw 20,000 a game and sell sh*tloads of merch and not be allowed to spend more than Kansas City and Columbus.


The old Football League Division One was a league where, on any given day, a Liverpool or Manchester United could lose to a Leyton Orient or Burnley and weren't gauranteed a trophy a year. That's what football should be like.

To add to that, Southampton were relegated with 32 points in 2005. By comparison, in 1974 they were relegated with 36 points in a league that gave 2 points for wins; and in which the champions Leeds United had 62 points. Under the modern scoring system, Southampton would have had 47 points, which last Premiership season would have been good enough for tenth place. Much more competitive than what we have now.

flatpicker
11-14-2008, 02:17 PM
Steve - I see where you are coming from.
Who doesn't like a Cinderella story...?

There could be a compromise between the set-up I suggested and what we have now...
As someone mentioned... having the top 3 teams from East and West would be better than the current format.
Giving the top team from each division a free pass to the second round while the 2nd and 3rd place teams fight their way into the semifinals would be ok.
I just don't think allowing 50% of the teams into the playoffs is a good idea.
And there must be some reward for finishing in first place:
- first place in each division automatically goes into the semis
- the award for finishing first in the league needs to be emphasized! I say rename the Supporters Shield so it sounds a bit more important.

Steve
11-14-2008, 02:44 PM
Steve - I see where you are coming from.
Who doesn't like a Cinderella story...?

There could be a compromise between the set-up I suggested and what we have now...
As someone mentioned... having the top 3 teams from East and West would be better than the current format.
Giving the top team from each division a free pass to the second round while the 2nd and 3rd place teams fight their way into the semifinals would be ok.
I just don't think allowing 50% of the teams into the playoffs is a good idea.
And there must be some reward for finishing in first place:
- first place in each division automatically goes into the semis
- the award for finishing first in the league needs to be emphasized! I say rename the Supporters Shield so it sounds a bit more important.

I see where you're coming from. I mean, I agree that you should get some benefit from doing well in the regular season. I agree that a Cinderella story should have a team overcoming the odds (not just in their skill, but in the fact they did poorly in the regular season). But, I don't know if I like a team skipping out on the first round. As I said, for me, the perfect system would be a 3 game series where the last game was played in the home of the higher ranked team. It would also be point based, on goal based. Since home team advantage is so big here, I think that would be a good way to award the better team without making it too easy for them.

As for the supporters' shield, I have to disagree with that. I like the history of the Supporters' shield, I like that the supporters' groups designed it, paid for it, and awarded it. I don't think that needs to change (but I do think it should be more important, just don't know how to make that happen).

Fort York Redcoat
11-14-2008, 02:48 PM
Wow, I disagree with pretty much everyone in this thread.

I like the playoffs. I mean, I think they could be done better, and I'm disappointed in the attendence of them, but I like them in concept. Yes yes, I understand that the rest of the world does things a different way, so what? North American sport is about the playoffs. It's about using the regular season to do well enough to make it into the playoffs, while finetuning your team to ensure you have the best shot of winning them. It's about opening up the possibility of a cinderella story, of a team struggling, against all odds, and coming together to win the cup. It's about perpetual hope, that this year, this season, your team is going to win it all.

So, with that said, you cannot have a league with no relegation and no playoffs. It doesn't work. Teams need something to play for. Fans need something to hope for. Once you're out of the running for the SS (which could very well happen by mid-season) who cares anymore? What, you want to get into the superliga? It's useless, boring, and the players don't even care about it. Maybe the CCL? Ok, I can see a future for the CCL at least, but right now, again, teams don't really care about it. Plus you're not playing in it until the next year, with a different team, what's the point?

I would rather go into the last few games with at least a statistical chance of sneaking in to the playoffs, than with nothing to hope for. I'd rather dream of a miracle run (no matter how improbable) than have nothing to dream about at all. I'd rather have a thrilling championship game, with everything on the line, with the fans there to join in the emotional release, than have the loss of another team secure us a league championship.

Now, obviously there are problems with the system. Personally, I would rather have 3 game series with the top seed getting the last game at home, but I know our season can't accomodate that. As for the number of teams getting in, for a long time it was ridiculously high, but it's sorting itself out. Even this year 6 out of 14 didn't make it. In a few years we'll be at less than 50% of teams making it. That's a good number to settle at, as it makes getting into the playoffs an accomplishment, but still allows for good end of season drama when the lower teams struggle to make a push and teams on the bubble struggle to hold onto their spots.

So, instead of wishing we had a team in a different league (where everyone loved soccer, tickets sold themselves, and there was a 100 year history), why not play in the league we're in?

And this is the view that makes our league a joke worldwide.

What do you play for? Something bigger than the league. I laid out basically the same qualifications for playoffs except its for a competition bigger than the MLS (whateveryoucallitthiswek) cup. People complain all season about players mailing it in when this league is the only one the can and still satiate fans will 8th place for a chance to play 2 more games.

But let me catch my breath and say that if we're not united on this on the board than I don't expect my opinion to be widely accepted among the masses that go to MLS games with less interest.

mighty_torontofc_2008
11-14-2008, 02:52 PM
The playoffs need to stay and having the MLS cup winners as league champions are fine. Finishing first overall gets you into the SuperLiga and the Concacaf Champions League. The excitement of playoffs where teams with poorer records get to knock off a beter side is terrific. When the promotion playoffs were started in England the purists thought it was a bad idea, but now makes the whole prmotion race exciting.
MLS don't mess around ith the playoff system...if its no broke don;t fix it.

flatpicker
11-14-2008, 03:26 PM
^ but it is "broke"!

just look at the lack of interest in MLS playoffs from fans... something needs to change!

Keystone FC
11-15-2008, 05:10 AM
^ but it is "broke"!

just look at the lack of interest in MLS playoffs from fans... something needs to change!

To add to this we have the NEW YORK Red Bulls (who are shite) playing for the WESTERN Conference finals? That right there is just wrong on so many levels. If the MLS wants a playoff system between East and West then keep it East and West, but they are trying to combine a single table process with geographical conferences....it just doesn't work, or it works for a while until you have a situation like we have between RBNY vs RSL.
They either need to stick with E vs W or do a single table process and have a 1 through 8 tournament (1 v 8, 2 v 7, 3 v 4, 5 v 6) for the cup and get rid of the conferences.

denime
11-15-2008, 10:04 AM
Wow, I disagree with pretty much everyone in this thread.

I like the playoffs. I mean, I think they could be done better, and I'm disappointed in the attendence of them, but I like them in concept. Yes yes, I understand that the rest of the world does things a different way, so what? North American sport is about the playoffs.



Steve,Soccer is not North American sport,and playoff is nothing else than money making scheme from greedy owners to get their pockets full,playoff tickets are double price ;),wonder why.
Shitty attendance is the best sign that soccer is not NA sport,that why fans are not buying it.It BS that,team after 30 games can fly out in first round and team like NYRBareshite advance.

I rather have my team in the middle of the table trying to get best result they can,instead playing like shit and get reworded with better draft pick at the end.
Why only in NA shit team gets reworded at the end of season,and in the rest of the world you get relegated?

Playoff is reworde for mediocre teams,and Draft is rword for shit teams.

Maybe at work we should try same, do fu*k all whole year,and than ask for more money,I mean why not, works with NA sports.Shit team gets 1st draft pick.;)

Beach_Red
11-15-2008, 10:23 AM
Maybe at work we should try same, do fu*k all whole year,and than ask for more money,I mean why not, works with NA sports.Shit team gets 1st draft pick.;)

I've sure seen that at a lot places I've worked, a little well-timed performance and a big bonus.

It will be interesting to see what happens if the playoffs don't work for the MLS. If attendance is too low to bother having playoff games it will be seen by North American fans as as a huge failure and it could easily keep the league from becoming one of the 'Big Four' sports leagues.

SoccMan
11-15-2008, 10:46 AM
I think that the attendance in the MLS playoffs this year although not great has not been that bad. Chivas USA had over 19,000 for their playoff game, they average around 15,000 for the regular season, Chicago had around 17,500 close to their average, Real Salt Lake had 15,000 also close to their average for the regular season, Kansas City had close too 11,000 which is capacity at their temporary stadium, Columbus had 11,000 for one playoff game and had around 15,000 for their last playoff game, while not great they did get more to their last playoff game than their first and the atomsphere was pretty good. The only major problem with attendance at their playoff game was New England with only just over 5,000, however their stadium is in the middle of nowhere with no public transit to the stadium during weeknight games. Although playoffs are not the best way of decide a champion I don't think that the attendance has been as bad as people think if you look at the numbers closely.

flatpicker
11-15-2008, 04:14 PM
well I think we can all agree that there needs to be more reward for finishing first in the league.

Perhaps publicise the Supporters Shield more. Make more of a ceremony out of it.

And give the first place teams a free pass into the semis. Let's face it, they deserve it if they finish on top after 30 games!

Beach_Red
11-15-2008, 11:38 PM
well I think we can all agree that there needs to be more reward for finishing first in the league.

Yeah, maybe, but all I can say right now is if that was TFC beating RSL and going through to the Championship it would be pretty damned sweet.

jloome
11-16-2008, 01:04 PM
Wow, I disagree with pretty much everyone in this thread.

I like the playoffs. I mean, I think they could be done better, and I'm disappointed in the attendence of them, but I like them in concept. Yes yes, I understand that the rest of the world does things a different way, so what? North American sport is about the playoffs. It's about using the regular season to do well enough to make it into the playoffs, while finetuning your team to ensure you have the best shot of winning them. It's about opening up the possibility of a cinderella story, of a team struggling, against all odds, and coming together to win the cup. It's about perpetual hope, that this year, this season, your team is going to win it all.

We don't like to "hold our position" here. We aren't happy finishing mid table and knowing there is no way we will ever do better. We don't like looking at the same 4 teams win year after year, knowing we're, at best, playing for 5th place. I'm not making a value judgement, but that's not the way most north american's view sport.

Now, I'm sure some of you would argue that a relegation system would work here (the same people that would probably argue that calgary should be able to get as many people to a soccer game as a CFL game). But, seriously, it wouldn't.

So, with that said, you cannot have a league with no relegation and no playoffs. It doesn't work. Teams need something to play for. Fans need something to hope for. Once you're out of the running for the SS (which could very well happen by mid-season) who cares anymore? What, you want to get into the superliga? It's useless, boring, and the players don't even care about it. Maybe the CCL? Ok, I can see a future for the CCL at least, but right now, again, teams don't really care about it. Plus you're not playing in it until the next year, with a different team, what's the point?

I would rather go into the last few games with at least a statistical chance of sneaking in to the playoffs, than with nothing to hope for. I'd rather dream of a miracle run (no matter how improbable) than have nothing to dream about at all. I'd rather have a thrilling championship game, with everything on the line, with the fans there to join in the emotional release, than have the loss of another team secure us a league championship.

Now, obviously there are problems with the system. Personally, I would rather have 3 game series with the top seed getting the last game at home, but I know our season can't accomodate that. As for the number of teams getting in, for a long time it was ridiculously high, but it's sorting itself out. Even this year 6 out of 14 didn't make it. In a few years we'll be at less than 50% of teams making it. That's a good number to settle at, as it makes getting into the playoffs an accomplishment, but still allows for good end of season drama when the lower teams struggle to make a push and teams on the bubble struggle to hold onto their spots.

So, instead of wishing we had a team in a different league (where everyone loved soccer, tickets sold themselves, and there was a 100 year history), why not play in the league we're in?

That's your best argument? "But seriously, it wouldn't....."

Shit. Call off Quincy, we solved the case.

Beach_Red
11-16-2008, 02:34 PM
That's your best argument? "But seriously, it wouldn't....."

Shit. Call off Quincy, we solved the case.

Well, come on, this whole argument has been, "It's not the way it is in Europe," versus "It's the way it is in North America."

Past being a matter of taste, I don't get it. Even then. Playoffs = elimination games to a single final game, winner take all. Sounds a lot like the Champions League to me. What got the biggest TV ratings last year, the Champions League final or some game in the middle of the season that may (or may not) have been the turning point deciding the eventual champion.

If people want to say they prefer the system they grew up with fine, but no one's made any arguments that one or the other is better - or really, "more profitable" which is what drives this whole thing.

Fort York Redcoat
11-16-2008, 03:18 PM
Well, come on, this whole argument has been, "It's not the way it is in Europe," versus "It's the way it is in North America."

Past being a matter of taste, I don't get it. Even then. Playoffs = elimination games to a single final game, winner take all. Sounds a lot like the Champions League to me. What got the biggest TV ratings last year, the Champions League final or some game in the middle of the season that may (or may not) have been the turning point deciding the eventual champion.

If people want to say they prefer the system they grew up with fine, but no one's made any arguments that one or the other is better - or really, "more profitable" which is what drives this whole thing.


I think we know which system is more profitable and since this playoff system "doesn't resonate" why wouldn't we try the model that's been proven the most profitable?

In the Champions league those teams have earned the right to be there by playing games that mean something all season long instead of finishing wherever in the top 8 and going for the "title".

So yes the better system for MLS is still opinion till we try the un-NA way but why the hell wouldn't we when looking at the attendance/response to the playoff system?

Beach_Red
11-16-2008, 03:42 PM
I think we know which system is more profitable and since this playoff system "doesn't resonate" why wouldn't we try the model that's been proven the most profitable?

In the Champions league those teams have earned the right to be there by playing games that mean something all season long instead of finishing wherever in the top 8 and going for the "title".

So yes the better system for MLS is still opinion till we try the un-NA way but why the hell wouldn't we when looking at the attendance/response to the playoff system?

Has this changed at all over the last ten years? From what I can see what gets teams into the Champions League is that they spend the money they received for being there the year before. The gap just seems to be widening and widening and it seems to be the same teams year after year. Maybe not in the first round, but the big teams settle in pretty much after that, don't they?

I'm not sure the system is so "proven" anymore in Europe. I don't think we do know which is most profitable for the most teams. Really, it's a whole new game since the foriegn billionaires got involved and you might want to wait and see how it goes over the next ten years before deciding which is better. Those profits aren't being shared very well are they?

Really, I don't care which system we use - but this city would be a blast during the playoffs if TFC was marching to the Championship the way NY is this year. I know it would mostly be a lot of bandwagon jumpers but it would still be a lot bigger than if TFC was doing really well in August and looked like they could finish on top of the table.

And maybe it isn't so much bandwagon jumping as much as for one month during a playoff run the team would be the main sports interest in the city. I guess it would be better if they could be the main interest for their whole season, but there are a lot of other sports going on at the same time. A playoff runs allows for a narrow focus on one team in town.

denime
11-16-2008, 10:49 PM
Has this changed at all over the last ten years? From what I can see what gets teams into the Champions League is that they spend the money they received for being there the year before. /quote]

Don't let the name Champions League confuse you.This is not the league it's tournament as WC or Copa America.

You can't compare National Championships with Euro Champions League CUP.
Champions League have 8 groups and teams are not playing each other twice unless in the same group.Other than that I don't remember reading anywhere that second stage of the Champions League being called playoffs,or having a "wild card" teams qualifying for playoffs.It's knock out stage and same term is used in all other big Tournaments around the world.
League=playoffs
Cup/Tournament=Knock out stage

From UFEA web site:
[quote]Rome's Stadio Olimpico will stage the European Champion Clubs' Cup final for the fourth time this season as the UEFA Champions League reaches its climax in the Italian capital on Wednesday 27 May.As for foreign billionaires changing the game in Europe,Yeah riiight.

The threat of a breakaway European super league to rival the Champions League became a thing of the past last night with the announcement that G14, the influential cartel of 18 clubs, is to be disbanded after almost a decade of club-v-country feuding.
At a meeting Fifa and Uefa, football's world and European governing bodies, signed a potentially far-reaching agreement with the clubs – including Manchester United, Liverpool and Arsenal – to dissolve G14 and replace it with a more representative body, the European Club Association, which comprises over 100 clubs and is recognised by all parties.
UEFA nad FIFA are too strong and too rich to alowed few foreign billionaires to change the game as it is.

As far I'm concern and I'm sure as many other fans that support one or another team in Europe,all those foreign billionaires owners can go F*CK themselves in case they don't like the way it is.(ask MANU or Liverpool fans what they think about their foreign billionaire owners).

As we know by now NYRBareshite will play in MLS finals representing west conference,so if this example is not enough to call this MLS bush league a Fu*&ing joke,than I don't know what is it.
I hope NYRBareshite will win this one too,so Columbus can stick it up their ass the whole season,including the game in NY when they played with 2nd team a lost the game just to keep us out of magical 8th place.
And yeah, magical 8th place,imagine what would happen to Manager if at the beginning of the EPL season he goes public with his plan how he would like to be a mediocre and finish at 12th place so he can go to playoffs .Probably revolution,but here it is ok if Manager hopes to be 8th place from 14 teams.
Who cares about deserving 1st place after 30 games and hard work over the year,when you can be mediocre team and still become champion,how pathetic.On top of that let's reword the teams that did not perform good and finished last with 1st draft pick.
Or the joke with Academies,MLS made it mandatory for every club to have own Academy but allowed them to sign only 1 player per year,so if you work really good and eventually produce 2 good young players in same generation 1 of them will be picked up by your opponents, since reword for your hard work and money is only 1 player per year.
It is not about NA vs Rest of the World system,it is about MLS retards ruining this sport all together.
They don't follow FIFA dates like The Rest of the World,they change 2-3 rules every year,what's next extend playoffs to 10 teams so LA Galaxy might go in.
I hope those morons in NY are visiting our site and picking up the ideas what to do with stupid two tables and playoff format.

:rant:


And now :topic: !

London
11-17-2008, 06:45 AM
i like the playoffs!!!!

you vs me is the most pure form of sport!!!!

if you want to win the tilte beat me, rather than winning the title by beating lesser clubs and earning max pionts!!

denime
11-17-2008, 06:56 AM
i like the playoffs!!!!

you vs me is the most pure form of sport!!!!

if you want to win the tilte beat me, rather than winning the title by beating lesser clubs and earning max pionts!!

The same lesser teams that you couldn't beat in regular season and that why you have less points than me?
there is a new article in the news from GARETH WHEELER,seems to have same opinion as many of us on this board.get rid of the playoffs.

London
11-17-2008, 07:36 AM
i understand where everyone is coming from, there are pluses and minuses to both systems, but it would realy suck to lose a title on goal diff. or something like that!

I guess i like seeing the emotion and atmosphere when both teams on the field have something to play for

Steve
11-17-2008, 08:20 AM
That's your best argument? "But seriously, it wouldn't....."

Shit. Call off Quincy, we solved the case.

I'm sorry. My post was making an argument for playoffs in the light of the fact we have no relegation, I was considering arguing why we couldn't have relegation then decided my post was long enough as it was and I would have to base my argument on an unargued premise. I would be happy to argue why relegation wouldn't work here sometime, but I'm pretty sure that argument has been done to death.

And again, I have to go with RPBlondon. I'm sorry if I'm "the problem with the MLS". Truely I am. But I happen to enjoy playoffs, I like winner take all, I like playing head to head with someone, knowing that one loss could be the end, but every win takes me that much closer to the cup. I like the final game, for all the marbles, when emotions are at their peak.

The Kingpin
11-17-2008, 08:46 AM
I'm sorry. My post was making an argument for playoffs in the light of the fact we have no relegation, I was considering arguing why we couldn't have relegation then decided my post was long enough as it was and I would have to base my argument on an unargued premise. I would be happy to argue why relegation wouldn't work here sometime, but I'm pretty sure that argument has been done to death.

And again, I have to go with RPBlondon. I'm sorry if I'm "the problem with the MLS". Truely I am. But I happen to enjoy playoffs, I like winner take all, I like playing head to head with someone, knowing that one loss could be the end, but every win takes me that much closer to the cup. I like the final game, for all the marbles, when emotions are at their peak.

Imagine having that all season long.....

Fort York Redcoat
11-17-2008, 08:49 AM
i like the playoffs!!!!

you vs me is the most pure form of sport!!!!

if you want to win the tilte beat me, rather than winning the title by beating lesser clubs and earning max pionts!!

So why play so many season games? Why play a season at all? We could start the season (playoffs) and then rank the teams according to their finish the prior year. That'll purify the sport!

Steve
11-17-2008, 08:56 AM
Imagine having that all season long.....

That wouldn't happen. Actually, I take that back, that could happen only if you destroy any semblance of parity we have, which I think would be a disaster. Yes, there are season's in places where you have between 2 and 4 teams with any kind of chance to win, where a single loss will be difficult to overcome. In a league where parity is king, every team is going to have many losses, so any one loss is not going to be a dream-breaker (even if it is disappointing). Essentially, there is rarely going to be a "win or die" scenario in the regular season, aside from at the end of the season. And, at the end of our season now, we have many "win or die" scenarios to even make it into the playoffs. When total victory is achieved throughout a season, you just spread out your joy and your pain over a longer period of time. The highs aren't as high, the lows aren't as low. Personally, I prefer a moment of ecstasy over drawn out joy (which is why I like soccer over basketball, I live for that one goal to change a match).

As has been said, I understand where other people are coming from, I understand (especially for those who grew up in another country) how it looks like America is just trying to destroy a game you love. I'm just trying to say there are reasons for both systems, and "it's always done that way" isn't a good enough reason to change.

Fort York Redcoat
11-17-2008, 09:00 AM
Has this changed at all over the last ten years? From what I can see what gets teams into the Champions League is that they spend the money they received for being there the year before. The gap just seems to be widening and widening and it seems to be the same teams year after year. Maybe not in the first round, but the big teams settle in pretty much after that, don't they?

I'm not sure the system is so "proven" anymore in Europe. I don't think we do know which is most profitable for the most teams. Really, it's a whole new game since the foriegn billionaires got involved and you might want to wait and see how it goes over the next ten years before deciding which is better. Those profits aren't being shared very well are they?

Really, I don't care which system we use - but this city would be a blast during the playoffs if TFC was marching to the Championship the way NY is this year. I know it would mostly be a lot of bandwagon jumpers but it would still be a lot bigger than if TFC was doing really well in August and looked like they could finish on top of the table.

And maybe it isn't so much bandwagon jumping as much as for one month during a playoff run the team would be the main sports interest in the city. I guess it would be better if they could be the main interest for their whole season, but there are a lot of other sports going on at the same time. A playoff runs allows for a narrow focus on one team in town.

Yes I believe it would be better. The problem we're discovering here is the timing of the playoffs is the worst possible in this market (NA). The narrow focus is trying to divert attention away from more entrenched sports here. My point is to try something different here instead of competing in the same playoff form. It may generate more interest.

The Champions league tournament is profitable, the teams earn more because the tournament is so popular. That's a measure of success. MLS playoffs are watched by less people on the whole then in regular season play. I would quantify that as unsuccessful. I didn't think more research would be necessary to prove that. I'll let someone else supply numbers if they're interested.

Oldtimer
11-17-2008, 09:31 AM
Let's suppose next year TFC makes the playoffs.

Seriously, would you guys not attend them because it's not done in Europe?

We all know BMO would be packed.

We also know that if TFC won the MLS cup, there would be a big parade and Toronto would party.

I agree that it would be better if the top team in each conference got a bye, Other than that, I wouldn't majorly change things. Given that we don't have relegation/promotion, we need the playoffs to add some excitement.

Mark in Ottawa
11-17-2008, 09:39 AM
Given that we don't have relegation/promotion, we need the playoffs to add some excitement.

^^ Exactly.

Fort York Redcoat
11-17-2008, 09:44 AM
Let's suppose next year TFC makes the playoffs.

Seriously, would you guys not attend them because it's not done in Europe?

We all know BMO would be packed.

We also know that if TFC won the MLS cup, there would be a big parade and Toronto would party.

I agree that it would be better if the top team in each conference got a bye, Other than that, I wouldn't majorly change things. Given that we don't have relegation/promotion, we need the playoffs to add some excitement.

I don't think that's what we're suggesting. We party after every win. It would be no different for me. The meaning of the win would be different. I would rate the MLS trophy under both the V cup and the Supporters Shield.

I wanted Toronto to finish their season with the best record possible and tried to ignore the playoff talk because we were that team looking to sneak in and win it all. It's been mentioned before that this is the purest form of sport. To me it's getting far to many chances to validate a lesser performance.

As to excitement, as mentioned, every game meaning something creates excitement.

Beach_Red
11-17-2008, 09:54 AM
I don't think that's what we're suggesting. We party after every win. It would be no different for me. The meaning of the win would be different. I would rate the MLS trophy under both the V cup and the Supporters Shield.

I wanted Toronto to finish their season with the best record possible and tried to ignore the playoff talk because we were that team looking to sneak in and win it all. It's been mentioned before that this is the purest form of sport. To me it's getting far to many chances to validate a lesser performance.

As to excitement, as mentioned, every game meaning something creates excitement.

Well, try thinking of the playoffs as a post-season tournament. Don't teams that get eliminated from the Champions League get to play in some other Euro tournament? Is that seen as a chance to validate a lesser performance? (the bold is a joke for Denime)

It seems unlikely that with the NFL, NBA, NHL, MLB and so many college sports that very many fans in the near future will be hanging on every game of the MLS season. That's too bad, but it doesn't do much good to live in denial. So, the playoffs are a chance to build interest for the cities that do well.

I think the idea of a Championship Game is becoming more popular in the whole world - driven by media and especially TV coverage. Again, maybe that's too bad, but how can we fight it?

denime
11-17-2008, 09:57 AM
Let's suppose next year TFC makes the playoffs.

Seriously, would you guys not attend them because it's not done in Europe?

We all know BMO would be packed.

We also know that if TFC won the MLS cup, there would be a big parade and Toronto would party.

I agree that it would be better if the top team in each conference got a bye, Other than that, I wouldn't majorly change things. Given that we don't have relegation/promotion, we need the playoffs to add some excitement.

Well, honestly BMO is packed every time TFC plays no matter who is opponent.TFC and BMO are not the measure in this case.
TFC can win MLS Championship without playoffs and we would have a party,or you think we would stay at home and watch TV.

How about NER with 5,221 fans in first playoff game,or Columbus conference finals with 14,688 fans,Real SL Conf.Finals with 20,008 not sell out again.
From same article:

Only one playoff game so far has been a sellout — Kansas City's meeting with the Crew at tiny CommunityAmerica Ballpark sold out all 10,385 seats. The Houston Dynamo came close this weekend with a fine crowd of 30,053 at Robertson (cap: 32,000) and Real Salt Lake was just short with a house of 19,265 (cap: 20,000).
But the other five games were poor in terms of attendance. New England reported a pitful 5,221 to see the Fire, and New York, Columbus and Chivas also were soft at the gate.
Now, MLS will point to the fact that nearly 120,000 people have attended the playoffs, which isn't horrible ... it's just about 2,000 below the league's regular season average, that's all. And between the stands and the parking lots, that many people show up to see a college football game at this time of year in many major markets.


Playoff are excitement when you have only top teams competing,but with MLS playoffs where 8 from 14 teams go trough is mediocre competition.You want playoffs, make it to top 2 from each conference and that it,why do we need playoff where 70% of all teams can make it?

Fort York Redcoat
11-17-2008, 10:12 AM
Well, try thinking of the playoffs as a post-season tournament. Don't teams that get eliminated from the Champions League get to play in some other Euro tournament? Is that seen as a chance to validate a lesser performance? (the bold is a joke for Denime)

It seems unlikely that with the NFL, NBA, NHL, MLB and so many college sports that very many fans in the near future will be hanging on every game of the MLS season. That's too bad, but it doesn't do much good to live in denial. So, the playoffs are a chance to build interest for the cities that do well.

I think the idea of a Championship Game is becoming more popular in the whole world - driven by media and especially TV coverage. Again, maybe that's too bad, but how can we fight it?

yes the UEFA cup is treated as a secondary tournament. There is a lot of discussion on omitting the spots from the Champions league every year.

Playoffs are in DIRECT competition with those others while regular season has less competition. If those games mean more perhaps more people will show up.

And why would you think a Championship game is getting more popular? Any in particular that is proving that it's going to turn things around for MLS cup?

denime
11-17-2008, 10:14 AM
Well, try thinking of the playoffs as a post-season tournament. Don't teams that get eliminated from the Champions League get to play in some other Euro tournament? Is that seen as a chance to validate a lesser performance? (the bold is a joke for Denime)

3rd place yes ,they go DOWN to UEFA cup,4th is going home,and if they want to compete in Champions League next year they have to be competitive in their National Championships.Championships that rewords the teams for being competitive whole season,not for sneaking into some post season Tournament (playoffs) ;) as 8th place from 14 teams,and with 1 lucky goal reches a finals.(see under NYRBareshiite :eek: )

*NYRBareshiite
Ten wins in 30 games. A goal differential of minus-6. A team with only one road win in the regular season. A future 2008 MLS Cup winner. :puke:

Fort York Redcoat
11-17-2008, 10:18 AM
3rd place yes ,they go DOWN to UEFA cup,4th is going home,and if they want to compete in Champions League next year they have to be competitive in their National Championships.Championships that rewords the teams for being competitive whole season,not for sneaking into some post season Tournament (playoffs) ;) as 8th place from 14 teams,and with 1 lucky goal reches a finals.(see under NYRBareshiite :eek: )

*NYRBareshiite
Ten wins in 30 games. A goal differential of minus-6. A team with only one road win in the regular season. A future 2008 MLS Cup winner.:puke:

Oh the playoffs are...

flatpicker
11-17-2008, 10:21 AM
All this talk about "Champions League style" tournaments with "Group Stages"...
Fine... then make MLS more like that...

Divide the East and West into 2 parts each.
Give them fancy names like they used to in hockey to salute important folk (ie. Norris, Adams etc. of the NHL)
- it could add a little bit of that history MLS is so keen on creating.
Play half the season against teams in your group, and the other half against the rest of the league.
The top team from each group goes on to the playoff round - that would be 4 total... so all you would have is a Conference Final and then the Cup.
Different from the format I suggested earlier... but you would still be guaranteed the top team from East and West in the semis
Some would argue that a second place team in one group might be better than the first place team in another... well, them's the breaks...


... but I still prefer the "two single table system" that I mentioned before, with East and West Champs meeting for the Cup...

Fort York Redcoat
11-17-2008, 10:28 AM
All this talk about "Champions League style" tournaments with "Group Stages"...
Fine... then make MLS more like that...

Divide the East and West into 2 parts each.
Give them fancy names like they used to in hockey to salute important folk (ie. Norris, Adams etc. of the NHL)
- it could add a little bit of that history MLS is so keen on creating.
Play half the season against teams in your group, and the other half against the rest of the league.
The top team from each group goes on to the playoff round - that would be 4 total... so all you would have is a Conference Final and then the Cup.
Different from the format I suggested earlier... but you would still be guaranteed the top team from East and West in the semis
Some would argue that a second place team in one group might be better than the first place team in another... well, them's the breaks...


... but I still prefer the "two single table system" that I mentioned before, with East and West Champs meeting for the Cup...

I would prefer the Aptera/Clausera (little help Mi Amigos?) style if it had no playoffs in it.

Beach_Red
11-17-2008, 10:30 AM
3rd place yes ,they go DOWN to UEFA cup,4th is going home,and if they want to compete in Champions League next year they have to be competitive in their National Championships.Championships that rewords the teams for being competitive whole season,not for sneaking into some post season Tournament (playoffs) ;) as 8th place from 14 teams,and with 1 lucky goal reches a finals.(see under NYRBareshiite :eek: )

*NYRBareshiite
Ten wins in 30 games. A goal differential of minus-6. A team with only one road win in the regular season. A future 2008 MLS Cup winner. :puke:

Well, you've convinced me. It will be slightly better when it's 8 teams out of 20 or 24 that make the playoffs, but there will be many of the same problems. If it got put to a fan vote I'd be with you.

I think playoffs work much better in sports where they have best-of-seven eliminations. In that case the playoffs do become another whole tournament and excitement builds. Or, single game elimination works if it's the biggest sport in the country, like the NFL, and many fans continue to follow even after their team is eliminated. (betting sure helps)

And, you know, America loves second chances and Cinderella stories, it ain't over till it's over, etc., etc..

Still, it's early enough in the life of MLS to make these kinds of changes if they wanted to.

flatpicker
11-17-2008, 11:39 AM
ok... to edit my previous post...

if 4 teams isn't enough to make the run to playoffs worthwhile then...

Have your East and West with 2 divisions in each.
The top team in all 4 groups automatically move into the post season.
But you have the next best team from each conference get in as well.
So, the team that finishes with the best record during the season from each conference gets a free pass to the semis
The the other first place "group" teams play the team in the "wild card" spot to determine who plays the number one team in the semis
Again, the top team from each conference gets rewarded with a first round exemption.


This way you have 6 teams in the post season. Not a bad number.
As they add more teams to the league, this number could grow... as long as the two first place "conference" teams get a pass to the semis!
And they need to have more of the season games played against your own conference!!!!



- to be honest... I have talked about this so much I'm starting to confuse myself...

ilikemusic
11-17-2008, 11:54 AM
Soccer simply doesnt lend itself well to this format. Its a game of consistency, patience and endurance. It isnt like most North American sports where you 'step it up a level' in the playoffs.

I was willing to give playoffs a chance, but after following them closely for three years now, ive come to the conclusion that they are a waste of time.

MLS should turn the MLS Cup into a knockout tournament that takes place over the course of the season with the final being the last event of the season one week after the regular season end.

james
11-18-2008, 11:38 PM
Some people like the playoffs and many hate it in MLS!

i dont have a problem with the playoff format....its the season format i dont like. Make 1 league table. Make winning the league a big deal. Because right now currently with the two east and west shit its hard to say who really won the league when some teams play different teams different amount of times. And i think adding more divisions some of you are talking about like baseball has even a worse idea then jsut having east and west. THe more divisions the worse!

I wouldnt have a problem with them keeping the playoff format, 1 league table season, top 6 or 8 clubs make it to the playoffs!

james
11-18-2008, 11:45 PM
All this talk about "Champions League style" tournaments with "Group Stages"...
Fine... then make MLS more like that...

Divide the East and West into 2 parts each.
Give them fancy names like they used to in hockey to salute important folk (ie. Norris, Adams etc. of the NHL)
- it could add a little bit of that history MLS is so keen on creating.
Play half the season against teams in your group, and the other half against the rest of the league.
The top team from each group goes on to the playoff round - that would be 4 total... so all you would have is a Conference Final and then the Cup.
Different from the format I suggested earlier... but you would still be guaranteed the top team from East and West in the semis
Some would argue that a second place team in one group might be better than the first place team in another... well, them's the breaks...


... but I still prefer the "two single table system" that I mentioned before, with East and West Champs meeting for the Cup...

i got no problem with the playoffs. I just hate this east west shit. I say just have a 1 league table. Each club plays every other club home and away. Top 8 clubs (or maybe 6 clubs to inprove the quality of teams) at the end of the season make the playoffs.

I just find this east west thing tottally unbalances things!

Cashcleaner
11-19-2008, 01:01 AM
ok... to edit my previous post...

if 4 teams isn't enough to make the run to playoffs worthwhile then...

Have your East and West with 2 divisions in each.
The top team in all 4 groups automatically move into the post season.
But you have the next best team from each conference get in as well.
So, the team that finishes with the best record during the season from each conference gets a free pass to the semis
The the other first place "group" teams play the team in the "wild card" spot to determine who plays the number one team in the semis
Again, the top team from each conference gets rewarded with a first round exemption.

This way you have 6 teams in the post season. Not a bad number.
As they add more teams to the league, this number could grow... as long as the two first place "conference" teams get a pass to the semis!
And they need to have more of the season games played against your own conference!!!!

- to be honest... I have talked about this so much I'm starting to confuse myself...

Why not have the three teams of each conference play each other in round-robin and the winners of each go to the MLS Cup Final?

That's really all I got at the moment. Don't really like it myself, but it cuts down on the amount of teams playing in the post-season. I agree that 6 is the right number, but how they play is the question.

denime
11-19-2008, 07:14 AM
Why not have the three teams of each conference play each other in round-robin and the winners of each go to the MLS Cup Final?

That's really all I got at the moment. Don't really like it myself, but it cuts down on the amount of teams playing in the post-season. I agree that 6 is the right number, but how they play is the question.

I like the idea with 6 teams 2nd round robin,and what I would add on that is that all teams are bringing the points won between those 6 teams from regular season.That way every game is important from day one.

Oldtimer
11-19-2008, 08:42 AM
I don't think that's what we're suggesting. We party after every win. It would be no different for me. The meaning of the win would be different. I would rate the MLS trophy under both the V cup and the Supporters Shield.



I would also rate the MLS Cup under the Supporters Shield. I don't agree about the V cup as it is also a cup competition. The V-cup and the MLS Cup are about equal to me.

Actually, all that needs to be done is to give more emphasis to the league winner (Supporters Shield) and less to the MLS Cup winner, and I'd be fine with it. Nothing wrong with a cup competition, it adds excitement. The only problem is the conceit that winning the MLS Cup somehow makes you the "best in MLS."

The Crew is obviously the most consistent and best team in MLS this season. They deserve to have the Supporters Shield seen as the major honour. If NY wins the MLS Cup, well that will be an interesting run (like the FA Cup was last year). No one pretends that the winner of the FA cup is really the best team in England.

Fort York Redcoat
11-19-2008, 08:52 AM
I would also rate the MLS Cup under the Supporters Shield. I don't agree about the V cup as it is also a cup competition. The V-cup and the MLS Cup are about equal to me.

Actually, all that needs to be done is to give more emphasis to the league winner (Supporters Shield) and less to the MLS Cup winner, and I'd be fine with it. Nothing wrong with a cup competition, it adds excitement. The only problem is the conceit that winning the MLS Cup somehow makes you the "best in MLS."

The Crew is obviously the most consistent and best team in MLS this season. They deserve to have the Supporters Shield seen as the major honour. If NY wins the MLS Cup, well that will be an interesting run (like the FA Cup was last year). No one pretends that the winner of the FA cup is really the best team in England.

Good stuff.

The V cup is bumped up for me only for what comes next. Proving club worth across the continent and beyond.

:canada:

denime
11-19-2008, 09:43 AM
Red Bulls riding their luck

Steven Sandor

If, at the start of the MLS playoffs, someone would have asked me to put money on the New York Red Bulls winning the MLS Cup, I would have laughed. And laughed.
Now that the Red Bulls are a game away from the championship, I’m not sure whether soccer fans should be laughing or crying.
Dominic Kinnear, coach of the two-time defending champion Houston Dynamo — the team New York shocked in the first round of the playoffs — isn't going to bet against the Red Bulls upsetting Columbus in Sunday’s MLS Cup.
“Columbus was the most consistent team, along with us, during the regular season,” Kinnear said. “But what we know is that New York has been the luckiest team in the MLS for the last three weeks. Columbus should win, but you get the sneaky suspicion that New York may still have something. It’s a cup game. And in a cup game, the best team doesn’t always win.”


In the past three weeks, New York transformed from a team that wasn’t really any better than Toronto FC into a contender for the MLS Cup. I’m just not sold that this New York story is good for the league.



http://24hourstoronto.sunmedia.ca/epaper/viewer.aspx

GBV
11-19-2008, 10:00 AM
this may have been addressed, but i find it laughable that the mls final is in a neutral site. this often results in indifferent/lame crowds.
heck, this is even the case for the super bowl but what the nfl worry. they don't need the help of selling the "atmosphere" inside a stadium like the mls does.
give it to the team with the top points.

Beach_Red
11-19-2008, 10:02 AM
I would also rate the MLS Cup under the Supporters Shield. I don't agree about the V cup as it is also a cup competition. The V-cup and the MLS Cup are about equal to me.

Actually, all that needs to be done is to give more emphasis to the league winner (Supporters Shield) and less to the MLS Cup winner, and I'd be fine with it. Nothing wrong with a cup competition, it adds excitement. The only problem is the conceit that winning the MLS Cup somehow makes you the "best in MLS."

The Crew is obviously the most consistent and best team in MLS this season. They deserve to have the Supporters Shield seen as the major honour. If NY wins the MLS Cup, well that will be an interesting run (like the FA Cup was last year). No one pretends that the winner of the FA cup is really the best team in England.

It seems like it's really the media you have to convince. That's the tough part - no sports media in North America invests as much effort into a season long struggle as it does to a playoff series or champinship game.

Look at the different coverage the baseball playoffs get over the regular season. It may be expecting too much for sports media with so much to cover to get into the whole season.

Really, I actually don't care about this anymore. Really ;).

Fort York Redcoat
11-19-2008, 10:36 AM
It seems like it's really the media you have to convince. That's the tough part - no sports media in North America invests as much effort into a season long struggle as it does to a playoff series or champinship game.

Look at the different coverage the baseball playoffs get over the regular season. It may be expecting too much for sports media with so much to cover to get into the whole season.

Really, I actually don't care about this anymore. Really ;).

Yes lets move on to a more important topic- the new jerseys.

But really it's interesting the comparison to the largest schedule in the sports world (MLB). The most successful season on the continent being the shortest (NFL) and we're going to keep on competing with both in their prime because we're in an insular league.

I_AM_CANADIAN
11-19-2008, 01:55 PM
this may have been addressed, but i find it laughable that the mls final is in a neutral site. this often results in indifferent/lame crowds.
heck, this is even the case for the super bowl but what the nfl worry. they don't need the help of selling the "atmosphere" inside a stadium like the mls does.
give it to the team with the top points.
The European Cup final is hosted at a neutral site, as is the english FA Cup, as is the World Cup. :rolleyes: As is every major tournament final. The problem is not the concept of hosting it at a neutral site, it's the lack of dedication from MLS supporters not from Toronto. When 100 soccer moms from Columbus is the biggest away contingent at BMO Field all year, you know there's a problem.

I was thinking about it this morning, in fact, and what the US needs to do is build a national soccer stadium in a fairly central location to host important matches and Cup finals, like the US Open Cup and the MLS Cup. Like England do with Wembley. That way, you won't have people from New York and Columbus who aren't great supporters to begin with having to go across an extremely large country to watch their team in the final. Because they won't. St. Louis might actually be an ideal location, especially when you factor in that apparently it's the best soccer town in the US.

Fort York Redcoat
11-19-2008, 02:06 PM
The European Cup final is hosted at a neutral site, as is the english FA Cup, as is the World Cup. :rolleyes: As is every major tournament final. The problem is not the concept of hosting it at a neutral site, it's the lack of dedication from MLS supporters not from Toronto. When 100 soccer moms from Columbus is the biggest away contingent at BMO Field all year, you know there's a problem.

I was thinking about it this morning, in fact, and what the US needs to do is build a national soccer stadium in a fairly central location to host important matches and Cup finals, like the US Open Cup and the MLS Cup. Like England do with Wembley. That way, you won't have people from New York and Columbus who aren't great supporters to begin with having to go across an extremely large country to watch their team in the final. Because they won't. St. Louis might actually be an ideal location, especially when you factor in that apparently it's the best soccer town in the US.

I like the idea but a bit chicken/egg. Where does that $$$ for the stadium come from? It's a pretty big risk that you'll get all of St Louis out or travellers wanting to go to St Louis. London's not central but less complaints than if it was in the geographic centre of England (little help, mates?).

And we all know how widely our own National Stadium is accepted across Canada.

Beach_Red
11-19-2008, 02:27 PM
Yes lets move on to a more important topic- the new jerseys.

But really it's interesting the comparison to the largest schedule in the sports world (MLB). The most successful season on the continent being the shortest (NFL) and we're going to keep on competing with both in their prime because we're in an insular league.

Well, at this point we're an insignificant league and that could work in our favour. Right now the MLS could make just about any changes it wanted and not worry about losing any fans.

I don't what you mean about competing with both in their prime?

Fort York Redcoat
11-19-2008, 03:15 PM
Well, at this point we're an insignificant league and that could work in our favour. Right now the MLS could make just about any changes it wanted and not worry about losing any fans.

I don't what you mean about competing with both in their prime?

Completely agree with the first bit.

Yeah could've said it better but MLB viewership is strongest in their playoffs and NFL is always tough competition. The majority of soccer fans it seems love their blinders of NA way or no way. But it's not really more than infuriating debate until the table is one anyway. If that's too much change then no playoffs and promo/rele is running before crawling.

Beach_Red
11-19-2008, 07:33 PM
Completely agree with the first bit.

Yeah could've said it better but MLB viewership is strongest in their playoffs and NFL is always tough competition. The majority of soccer fans it seems love their blinders of NA way or no way. But it's not really more than infuriating debate until the table is one anyway. If that's too much change then no playoffs and promo/rele is running before crawling.

If the NA fans are like me it isn't a matter of the NA way or no way, it's a matter of familiar and different. I have no experience with a single table and relegation/promotion. I grew up with baseball, football, basketball and hockey and none of them use that system. I only became interested in soccer when TFC started and really I only went to see the fans, so unusual for Toronto.

Okay, so then I started to really appreciate soccer - you really need to see it live. I have no problem with a league of the same teams every year and playoffs, it's what I grew up with in every sport and I'm used to it. I just never thought about any other way.

Then, guys on here start going on and on about single table and relegation/promotion and I look into it. The easiest leagues for me to look into are Scotland and England and what I see doesn't look so great. Now, keep in mind I've only seen the last few years which I have a feeling is quite a bit different from what guys here grew up with - and is probably different from other leagues in which the top few teams aren't owned by billionaires, but what I see now would be a tough sell in NA - especially for a new sport fighting for a place in the very crowded sports market. A few really rich teams getting even richer with big TV contracts and money from Champions League play and the rest falling further and further behind. If it's always been that way, okay fine, but I doubt it would be designed like that if it was just starting up now.

And that's what you're asking from the North American fans. They don't know anything about the tradition of European leagues or the way things used to be, they/we only see the way it is now.

You guys have convinced me it would be fine (TFC with a full house at BMO might even be one of the perennial champions, wouldn't that be great), but how can you sell it to North American fans? You can't really point to the EPL or the Scottish league and say, "It'll be just like that," because people will say fine, have four teams in your league then if that's all that have a realistic chance of winning it all, we're not buying season tickets to be cannon fodder, living for one upset every few years, looking like dorks singing in the stands because we didn't get kicked out of the league.

You may be able to sell it, but you should probably lead with the positives and really explain why it would be better for fans of every team.

Cashcleaner
11-20-2008, 12:27 AM
Good stuff.
The V cup is bumped up for me only for what comes next. Proving club worth across the continent and beyond.
:canada:

Excellent point to bring up. I only wish more people had the same outlook towards the competition. For me, watching to see who the best team in the country could be is very important, but also the fact that they have the door open to CONCACAF as a result.

In my opinion, the V-Cup SHOULD be our biggest game of the season followed by Supporters Shield and MLS Cup. That all might change as the competitions are possibly expanded or retooled, though.

GBV
11-20-2008, 08:16 AM
The European Cup final is hosted at a neutral site, as is the english FA Cup, as is the World Cup. :rolleyes: As is every major tournament final. The problem is not the concept of hosting it at a neutral site, it's the lack of dedication from MLS supporters not from Toronto. When 100 soccer moms from Columbus is the biggest away contingent at BMO Field all year, you know there's a problem.


that's part of my point. the mls doesn't have enough clout to get away with it. put it in the stadium of the top team and at least you'll have a boisterous crowd which translates well over the tv.
i don't really care that other finals are in neutral sites, maybe mls can do it that way when its established enough to pull it off while making it look good.

Fort York Redcoat
11-20-2008, 01:56 PM
If the NA fans are like me it isn't a matter of the NA way or no way, it's a matter of familiar and different. I have no experience with a single table and relegation/promotion. I grew up with baseball, football, basketball and hockey and none of them use that system. I only became interested in soccer when TFC started and really I only went to see the fans, so unusual for Toronto.

Okay, so then I started to really appreciate soccer - you really need to see it live. I have no problem with a league of the same teams every year and playoffs, it's what I grew up with in every sport and I'm used to it. I just never thought about any other way.

Then, guys on here start going on and on about single table and relegation/promotion and I look into it. The easiest leagues for me to look into are Scotland and England and what I see doesn't look so great. Now, keep in mind I've only seen the last few years which I have a feeling is quite a bit different from what guys here grew up with - and is probably different from other leagues in which the top few teams aren't owned by billionaires, but what I see now would be a tough sell in NA - especially for a new sport fighting for a place in the very crowded sports market. A few really rich teams getting even richer with big TV contracts and money from Champions League play and the rest falling further and further behind. If it's always been that way, okay fine, but I doubt it would be designed like that if it was just starting up now.

And that's what you're asking from the North American fans. They don't know anything about the tradition of European leagues or the way things used to be, they/we only see the way it is now.

You guys have convinced me it would be fine (TFC with a full house at BMO might even be one of the perennial champions, wouldn't that be great), but how can you sell it to North American fans? You can't really point to the EPL or the Scottish league and say, "It'll be just like that," because people will say fine, have four teams in your league then if that's all that have a realistic chance of winning it all, we're not buying season tickets to be cannon fodder, living for one upset every few years, looking like dorks singing in the stands because we didn't get kicked out of the league.

You may be able to sell it, but you should probably lead with the positives and really explain why it would be better for fans of every team.

But you've made my point with this post. You've done the research and could appreciate the change and it took you max 2 yrs on the convert. The point I was making was not with you in mind. The majority of MLS supporters in America either don't know there is another way or know and defend their NA way tooth and nail for what? I just think now that this league is international it's a great time to open up to other methods. We'll always see resistance to change but just because one changes doesn't mean one's wrong just different, right? That'll save some bruised egos.

Beach_Red
11-20-2008, 02:18 PM
But you've made my point with this post. You've done the research and could appreciate the change and it took you max 2 yrs on the convert. The point I was making was not with you in mind. The majority of MLS supporters in America either don't know there is another way or know and defend their NA way tooth and nail for what? I just think now that this league is international it's a great time to open up to other methods. We'll always see resistance to change but just because one changes doesn't mean one's wrong just different, right? That'll save some bruised egos.

I have to say that in theory the single table, relegation/promotion system is fine but the way it is currently in practise, at least in the EPL and Scotland, is not superior to 'set league' with a playoff system because it isn't working.

All those things about teams fighting for promotion and every game meaning something through the season are all well and fine in theory, but unless you add revenue sharing and a salary cap the system gets distorted by big money teams and those things (relegation) don't apply equally to every team. Some teams really don't worry about relegation - it's not like the NFL or the NHL where you can be in the finals one year and not make the playoffs the next. Every team that was at the top of the table last year is again this year and will be next year - they have operating budgets so much higher than everyone else.

I'm sure in about five minutes I could find dozens of articles online about how big money is ruining the sport in England and Europe.

So, if you can convince people to have revenue sharing and a salary cap and relegation/promotion, fine. Otherwise you're trying to sell a fine theory but a broken reality.

Fort York Redcoat
11-20-2008, 02:52 PM
Alright so you're not buying what I'm selling. What is it with you and money.:)

The opposite is true about these leagues here. At any point in any season I'm suppose to care more because any team can win? I think we both know the difference in popularity of the Yankees coming to town and whoever else. People love Giant killing as much as Cinderella stories.

Neither system is perfect. We both have our preferences. It doesn't sound like either one of us is about to change. I'm glad you did the research instead of knee jerking.

Beach_Red
11-20-2008, 04:13 PM
Alright so you're not buying what I'm selling. What is it with you and money.:)

The opposite is true about these leagues here. At any point in any season I'm suppose to care more because any team can win? I think we both know the difference in popularity of the Yankees coming to town and whoever else. People love Giant killing as much as Cinderella stories.

Neither system is perfect. We both have our preferences. It doesn't sound like either one of us is about to change. I'm glad you did the research instead of knee jerking.

Oh, I'm all about the research. I'm just not an early adopter - one of these days I'll think about giving up these VHS tapes and looking into this newfangled DVD thing...

The systems may have more in common than we think. It's true, there's more excitement when division rivals or league leaders come to town for baseball - but that's to be expected in a 162 game schedule. I'm pretty sure the excitement level in the EPL isn't the same for every game during the season, that's why people are all about these rivalries.

The NFL really does look a lot like the EPL to me. Instead of relegation you have missing the playoffs - in both cases what it mostly affects is the teams you play the following year. Some NFL teams will play some others every year, but the rest of the schedule is determined by the previous year's finish. So, not quite relegation, but close.

But in the NFL every team has pretty much the same operating budget and very close to the same size stadium.

Fort York Redcoat
11-21-2008, 08:32 AM
Oh, I'm all about the research. I'm just not an early adopter - one of these days I'll think about giving up these VHS tapes and looking into this newfangled DVD thing...

The systems may have more in common than we think. It's true, there's more excitement when division rivals or league leaders come to town for baseball - but that's to be expected in a 162 game schedule. I'm pretty sure the excitement level in the EPL isn't the same for every game during the season, that's why people are all about these rivalries.

The NFL really does look a lot like the EPL to me. Instead of relegation you have missing the playoffs - in both cases what it mostly affects is the teams you play the following year. Some NFL teams will play some others every year, but the rest of the schedule is determined by the previous year's finish. So, not quite relegation, but close.

But in the NFL every team has pretty much the same operating budget and very close to the same size stadium.

The EPL = NFL? I just puked a little in my mouth.

but good for them rigging the schedule like that but how isn't America screaming for more parity? Doesn't that hit their auto destruct button or something?

interesting similarities but the NFL is my anti EPL.

Beach_Red
11-21-2008, 09:40 AM
The EPL = NFL? I just puked a little in my mouth.

but good for them rigging the schedule like that but how isn't America screaming for more parity? Doesn't that hit their auto destruct button or something?

interesting similarities but the NFL is my anti EPL.

What they want is a parity in opportunity - they don't want the Super Bowl to be something you can simply buy with a bigger operating budget. What's wrong with wanting that? It's still possible for small market teams to win the Super Bowl and it doesn't matter how rich their owner is.

I would think the current EPL is your anti-EPL. Seems to me it's drifted pretty far from its ideal. Well, not drifted so much as been corrupted by big, big money. I'd hate to see that happen to the MLS. Do you think the league would really survive if every year the same four teams - let's say New York, DC, Seattle and just for fun, Montreal, were at the top of a single table every year? Do you really think we'd pack BMO all thrilled that we didn't get relegated to some second division? We'd party in the streets over that? And every three or four years we'd pull an upset over Montreal and the euphoria from that would last another three or four years?

Of course, I think it might be a good idea to meet in the middle - eliminate the problems of the two systems and combine it into one superior system.

flatpicker
11-21-2008, 10:12 AM
I wouldn't want to see a few teams dominate the league year after year.
But, I wouldn't mind seeing a few teams be allowed to spend more if the numbers work withing their operating budget.
Teams like LA and Toronto should get a little more flexibility for spending since they are capable of it.
Having a slight edge is different from "complete dominance" (as in the EPL)

As I have said before...
Having a few teams spend a little more than others allows them to bring in bigger talent.
Bringing in bigger talent means more ticket sales in other cities when those smaller markets are visited by the "slightly" bigger clubs.
The way I see it, if wealthier teams get to spend a little more, it means more money earned by smaller markets down the road.

Perhaps my logic is flawed... but it seems to make sense.

Complete parity seems to lack a little excitement in my books.

But complete dominance gets a little boring too.

Fort York Redcoat
11-21-2008, 11:17 AM
What they want is a parity in opportunity - they don't want the Super Bowl to be something you can simply buy with a bigger operating budget. What's wrong with wanting that? It's still possible for small market teams to win the Super Bowl and it doesn't matter how rich their owner is.

I would think the current EPL is your anti-EPL. Seems to me it's drifted pretty far from its ideal. Well, not drifted so much as been corrupted by big, big money. I'd hate to see that happen to the MLS. Do you think the league would really survive if every year the same four teams - let's say New York, DC, Seattle and just for fun, Montreal, were at the top of a single table every year? Do you really think we'd pack BMO all thrilled that we didn't get relegated to some second division? We'd party in the streets over that? And every three or four years we'd pull an upset over Montreal and the euphoria from that would last another three or four years?

Of course, I think it might be a good idea to meet in the middle - eliminate the problems of the two systems and combine it into one superior system.

Umm, 40 mil for an expansion bid when the team in the final (amongst many others) can't sell out their stadium. More DP's to distract from the unattractive football growing at a snails pace.This league uses quick fixes than the junkie down the lane.

And yes I would celebrate a relegation escape but I like the system already.

And one last thing about euphoria-

What the hells the difference watching Leafs/Habs or the BoO? In concept people celebrate small victories here already.

But to end on a positive note I would gladly be open to comprimise to change the league from present format.

Rome didn't drop playoffs in a day...

james
11-21-2008, 11:35 AM
I wouldn't want to see a few teams dominate the league year after year.
But, I wouldn't mind seeing a few teams be allowed to spend more if the numbers work withing their operating budget.
Teams like LA and Toronto should get a little more flexibility for spending since they are capable of it.
Having a slight edge is different from "complete dominance" (as in the EPL)

As I have said before...
Having a few teams spend a little more than others allows them to bring in bigger talent.
Bringing in bigger talent means more ticket sales in other cities when those smaller markets are visited by the "slightly" bigger clubs.
The way I see it, if wealthier teams get to spend a little more, it means more money earned by smaller markets down the road.

Perhaps my logic is flawed... but it seems to make sense.

Complete parity seems to lack a little excitement in my books.

But complete dominance gets a little boring too.

i tottally agree.

james
11-21-2008, 11:45 AM
I have to say that in theory the single table, relegation/promotion system is fine but the way it is currently in practise, at least in the EPL and Scotland, is not superior to 'set league' with a playoff system because it isn't working.

All those things about teams fighting for promotion and every game meaning something through the season are all well and fine in theory, but unless you add revenue sharing and a salary cap the system gets distorted by big money teams and those things (relegation) don't apply equally to every team. Some teams really don't worry about relegation - it's not like the NFL or the NHL where you can be in the finals one year and not make the playoffs the next. Every team that was at the top of the table last year is again this year and will be next year - they have operating budgets so much higher than everyone else.

I'm sure in about five minutes I could find dozens of articles online about how big money is ruining the sport in England and Europe.

So, if you can convince people to have revenue sharing and a salary cap and relegation/promotion, fine. Otherwise you're trying to sell a fine theory but a broken reality.

see for me i dont see relegation working in NA and im fine with that. But i think they could easily make MLS regular season a 1 legaue table. NA fans could figure that out easily, and in the United Soccer League they already use a 1 league table and it works just fine for them. And id have no problem with them keeping the current playoff format, they just need to show that finnishing the top of the league at the end of the season is a bigger deal.

See the reason many soccer fans want 1 league table in MLS compared to the usual conference and divisons in other NA sports is because finnishing top of the league at the end of the season means more then winning playoffs in say South America or Europe. If you play in different conferences and divisions its really hard to say who really won the season when some teams may play tougher teams more often then other teams did. When you put the league in 1table every team plays eachother 1 game at home and 1 game away so it balances the whole season out evenly.

Fort York Redcoat
11-21-2008, 11:57 AM
see for me i dont see relegation working in NA and im fine with that. But i think they could easily make MLS regular season a 1 legaue table. NA fans could figure that out easily, and in the United Soccer League they already use a 1 league table and it works just fine for them. And id have no problem with them keeping the current playoff format, they just need to show that finnishing the top of the league at the end of the season is a bigger deal.

See the reason many soccer fans want 1 league table in MLS compared to the usual conference and divisons in other NA sports is because finnishing top of the league at the end of the season means more then winning playoffs in say South America or Europe. If you play in different conferences and divisions its really hard to say who really won the season when some teams may play tougher teams more often then other teams did. When you put the league in 1table every team plays eachother 1 game at home and 1 game away so it balances the whole season out evenly.

I know this sounds paranoid but the resistance to a single table is an admission of defeat for MLS. The USL getting something right? Or worse still for them could be more talk of pro/rele if the tables between the two are similar.

Beach_Red
11-21-2008, 11:59 AM
And one last thing about euphoria-

What the hells the difference watching Leafs/Habs or the BoO? In concept people celebrate small victories here already.

But to end on a positive note I would gladly be open to comprimise to change the league from present format.

Rome didn't drop playoffs in a day...

Well, I just have to say, growing up in Montreal in the 70's it was always quite embarrassing watching Leafs fans pretend they'd done something when they beat the Habs' second stringers in some meaningless January game. Well, if makes the kids happy....

Certainly the MLS is a work in progress and working towards making it the best possible league is worthwhile. I think there's a huge amount of merit in simply making it line up with the rest of the leagues in the world - maybe even correcting some of the ways those other leagues have gone off a little lately.

That's the argument I think to be made - not that one system is "better" but that it's the system the world follows and the best thing soccer has going for it - even in North America - is that it's a world game. Americans may actually be "changing" and looking to finally join the rest of the world and this could be a good start.

Fort York Redcoat
11-21-2008, 12:06 PM
Well, I just have to say, growing up in Montreal in the 70's it was always quite embarrassing watching Leafs fans pretend they'd done something when they beat the Habs' second stringers in some meaningless January game. Well, if makes the kids happy....

Certainly the MLS is a work in progress and working towards making it the best possible league is worthwhile. I think there's a huge amount of merit in simply making it line up with the rest of the leagues in the world - maybe even correcting some of the ways those other leagues have gone off a little lately.

That's the argument I think to be made - not that one system is "better" but that it's the system the world follows and the best thing soccer has going for it - even in North America - is that it's a world game. Americans may actually be "changing" and looking to finally join the rest of the world and this could be a good start.

No. MLS works. Don't you read their signs at the games?:)

But yeah, I'm sure we'll sort it all out this offseason and let em know.:D

Marc"2L"
11-21-2008, 06:06 PM
Just remember, when ever we win the Supporters shield for the first time, just play it up. The team should too. Don't let MLS sweep it under the rug. If we win the MLS cup too, then emphasize the supporters shield more.

GBV
11-25-2008, 06:20 PM
also just posted in today's news sect:

http://ca.sports.yahoo.com/mls/news;_ylt=AnynfArr_E1k54FhQOrJ1dadbgM6?slug=ro-mlschanges112308&prov=yhoo&type=lgns

Fort York Redcoat
11-26-2008, 11:07 AM
Just remember, when ever we win the Supporters shield for the first time, just play it up. The team should too. Don't let MLS sweep it under the rug. If we win the MLS cup too, then emphasize the supporters shield more.

Even if we're close we should get some "shields" made up to get it going.

flatpicker
11-26-2008, 12:31 PM
Maybe we should organise with other supporter groups around the league to purchase a new Shield...
A fancy, shiny piece of silver that players would be proud to hold up, and fans would get excited when they see it.

JonO
11-26-2008, 01:09 PM
I know this sounds paranoid but the resistance to a single table is an admission of defeat for MLS. The USL getting something right? Or worse still for them could be more talk of pro/rele if the tables between the two are similar.
This was brought up in the thread regarding the rule changes (so I'm not sure of timing in terms of your comment) BUT with the new schedule it certainly looks like the league is heading towards a "table" format.

The upcoming season will feature a home and away game with each of the other teams in the league + 2 "rivalry" games. Looks more and more like the divisions are for MLS cup purposes only.... maybe moving in the right direction after all

Fort York Redcoat
11-26-2008, 03:02 PM
This was brought up in the thread regarding the rule changes (so I'm not sure of timing in terms of your comment) BUT with the new schedule it certainly looks like the league is heading towards a "table" format.

The upcoming season will feature a home and away game with each of the other teams in the league + 2 "rivalry" games. Looks more and more like the divisions are for MLS cup purposes only.... maybe moving in the right direction after all

Shhh. Don't jinx it.