i wonder if the leafs would have won the cup by now if there was the threat they'd be relegated to the AHLOriginally Posted by Cashcleaner
I wonder if we would still be selling out BMO Field every game if TFC ended up playing in a league below MLS...
Somehow, I don't think so.
or if the marlies would have
I will agree that the relegation system would not be accepted in North America.
Nor do I think it should be implemented here...
But there still needs to be a better playoff system that rewards the top teams.
Simply playing a lower ranked team is not enough.
How does the playoffs get better as there are more teams ie less talent in the league? Why would I care about playoffs more if more crappy cities I care nothing for are in it? As long as the playoffs are not any more popular than the league the subject of playoffs won't die.Garth Wheeler is smoking weed again...Christ promotion and relgation will not work over here. No MLS investor would want to see his club forced down into the USL. So thats a no go from the start. The playoff format they have now is fine and will be better as the league grows. I hope this issue will finally die as it is not going to happen.
Well, given that the Leafs send right up to the salary cap, what you're asking is would they have made better choices if there was the theat of relegation? Would they have drafted better, made better trades or hired better coaches/managers?
Well, if there was relegation in the NHL with the owners the league has now, there'd only be teams in Montreal and Toronto, so yeah, I'd say the Leafs would have won a cup by now.
yes, that is what i am asking
and the answer to my own question is yes, they probably would, and would certainly have a better record year to year even if they didn't end up winning it, because a smaller margin of error means you have to work a lot harder and smarter
Are there any seasons that the Leafs would actaully have been relegated? Relegation only adds incentive not to finish last. Those who annually finish middle of the pack would also have no fear of relegation, not just the winners.
Looking at the EPL, you have your top 4 and then the the battle for relegation. Those in the middle of the pack are likely destined to stay there (for the next few years at least). I like the parity of the MLS which makes it exciting for all teams. Next year any team can be the team to beat (see Columbus).
Although I am sure many will disagree - this has been largely successful in the NFL and really does increase interest in the sport. Heck - even the Lions may have a shot at the playoffs next year
The exact same can be said for relegation. No-one really knows the importance of any match until the season draws to a conclusion...
"Probably would." But maybe not, there's no gaurantee.
The best that would have happened is that the Leafs would have become one of the big spending teams because they would have had the fan base to support it. It would have been great for Toronto and Montreal, they would have become the ManU and Liverpool of the last decade.
The rest of the league would have folded.
What I see with relegation is that the top few teams simply spend more money and the gap is widening every year. It works (for now) because supporters of those other teams have decades invested in them and for most of that time those teams had realistic chances at the championship. We'll see how this plays out over the next 10-15 years with that gap getting even wider.
Now, if there was relegation and revenue sharing with a salary cap, that would be something. Let's see if we can talk the billioniare's club into that.
I don't see why the promotion/relegation system has to involve USL or any other North American leagues. In any event, those leagues are too fractured to get a tiered system in place (who ranks above who) and the geography would be a nightmare for the lower leagues with less money. The whole idea is way too complicated to even consider.
BUT, there's no reason MLS cannot expand to say, 20 clubs, and then have a double MLS league, one above the other. The top two teams from the "MLS Championship" (or whatever) go up to "MLS Elite" (or whatever) and the bottom two teams go down. You only play teams in your own MLS division on a home and away basis. Otherwise, equality in terms of salary cap, tv coverage etc all remains the same and the draft picks start at the bottom of the lower MLS league and finish with the league winner of "MLS Elite". This will prevent anything like a "top four" problem occuring.
It also removes all the financing and franchise issues since all the teams are still under the MLS umbrella and no-one pays a franchise entry fee and risks getting booted out of MLS. There would be 18 league games a season (9 home and 9 away) so to keep all teams playing each other you could introduce, for example, two cup competitions: one is a genuine "MLS Cup" and is run like the FA Cup but with home and away legs on a straight knock-out basis, and the other is a series of local rivalry cups (because the MLS loves these) based on three or four "local" teams. That way the guaranteed home games each season goes up to around 9 league games, at least one MLS Cup game and probably around three local rival cup games.
It would also get round the "no-one wants to watch a relegated side" issue because each season there would be all these trophies up for grabs:
MLS Elite (overall MLS league title)
MLS Championship (winner of second tier)
MLS Cup
Local Rival Cup
Plus, for the "relegated" teams there is a promotion place to play for on top of the trophies and the need to avoid relegation for those teams in the top league, so interest is maintained throughout the season [EDIT - not to mention an MLS Cup run]. The changing teams in each league and the random MLS Cup draw means you wouldn't just end up playing the same teams over and over each season and the equality issue and draft pick system would prevent serial powerhouses emerging and dominating for decades on end.
Anyone see any serious flaws with this? Because I reckon it could definitely work...
Last edited by Hitcho; 11-17-2008 at 10:42 PM.
We are the Angry Mob, we read the papers every day
We like who we like, we hate who we hate
But we're also easily swayed
^
I actually have thought about that scenario a few times.
I like it... and if there is any expansion in the league then those new teams would start in the MLS "Championship" (as you call it)
- in order to balance out the number of teams in each league they could just alter the number of relegated and promoted teams in a given season.
I think there would be even more incentive if there was a decent cash prize for the winner at the end of the season.
(not sure what there is now)
Whatever it is... they should make the biggest cash prize for the first place team in the league and the next biggest payout would be for the MLS Cup.
They could tack on a sponsor to the trophies (in order to raise money for the payout)...
- like The MLS Elite Pepsi Champions, The Sierra Mist Championship Trophy, The Carlsberg MLS Cup.
Last edited by flatpicker; 11-17-2008 at 07:33 PM.
as of right now, under the 'parity for all clubs' rules, this just aint gonna happen.
noone wants to pay 40 million to watch their team get relegated, spose that might be different if you start at the bottom and work your way up.
^ if it's all under the MLS umbrella and there is still a level of shared revenue... then it wouldn't be so bad
But you can't say the season leading to playoffs are treated as seriously.
the only thing I find confusing though with the single table format...
Let's say there are two teams tied for first place with one game each to go (on the same night and not against each other)
How do they award the trophy to the winner?
Do they just guess what city to take it to?
They make a replica and take that to the team considered less likely to win it. AT least, that's what I've seen done in other leagues.
We are the Angry Mob, we read the papers every day
We like who we like, we hate who we hate
But we're also easily swayed
^ I thought that might be the case.
Your kidding right? You don't understand the significance of relegation and promotion???
Relegation in Europe is about giving clubs and supporters the hope and opportunity…for the strong and worthy to be promoted and the weak to be demoted…its not really that difficult to understand. It’s survival of the fittest. Sure teams of substance need not worry but for the rest its game on!!!
IMO, the most compelling competition in football is the promotion from the CCC to the EPL…the drama is unparallelled in all of sport. It is absolutely brilliant…so much at stake…money…prestige…a payout of $120 million!!!
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/6616459.stm
I don’t follow other leagues close enough to know what’s happening at the bottom of the table and in Scotland the prize isn’t worthy of the crown, there’s no money…other than Old Firm pay days.
Relegation offers a perspective of European sporting culture that North American's have great difficulty in grasping…hence your comment…it does work and thousands of supporters throughout Europe embrace it every May…hope springs eternal…
Last edited by Toronto_Bhoy; 11-17-2008 at 11:08 PM.
“We changed the entire league’s opinion of the viability of soccer in North America. And then we blew it because we chickened out." —Tim Leiweke
I understand the significance of relegation, it's just not that many teams actually face it. If there was a realistic chance that Celtic could get relegated, then it would be significant, then it would be the strong and worthy, survival of the fittest. But it's not, it's survival of the richest and the rich are getting richer and distancing themselves more and more from the rest of the pack.
Right now it looks like the only thing relegation/promotion does is give out some kind of distant second-place prize to teams that have no hope of a championship. Sure, it's compelling competition for a few teams at the bottom of the table in the EPL and the top of the CCC but is that really the best way to go? I don't think that would work here.
My knowledge of the Scottish league comes through a writer named Christopher Brookmyre (if you haven't read his books, they're great, start with A Big Boy Did It And Ran Away) and he's a supporter of St. Mirren. So I look up St. Mirren online and I see a team with a stadium about the size of BMO, some great supporters groups and zero chance of being league champs. The Chicago Cubs may have gone 100 years without a world series, they still have a better shot than St. Mirren does at the Scottish League.
It's true, I don't know about any other leagues, but I know what effect money has and with no salary caps and no revenue sharing the gaps between the rich teams and the rest will continue to widen. I'm not convinced that in 10-15 years people will be so thrilled with a relegation/promotion system. You know, other than supporters of the top few teams. (but hey, if it happens here I'll be okay with it)
^ but if that relegation system were confined to the world of MLS (as brought up by Hitcho) then might it work?
Maintaining a level of salary restrictions would prevent a couple of teams from complete dominance of the league.
Personally I don't like identical cap rules for all teams... I think there should be some wiggle room for those that have more financial success.
But not so much advantage as to remain at the top of the table for years on end.
So, as was brought up earlier... a two tier MLS system with a single table format could work well...
I think these are genuine concerns and I'd hate to see MLS become a procession of the same few teams winning the league year after year because it's not exciting and it kills incentive for other teams to boot. But if you look at my post above about a two tier MLS system then the powerhouse/rich sides win all scenario is unlikely to come into play, and the "relegated" sides don't stand to lose much other than a bit of pride whereas they'll have a real prize to play for in promotion.
Another point about that system is that MLS can grow and expand freely, because they could end up with two leagues of 16 sides each, or an "elite" league and two parallel "championship" leagues or even a third tier system and, as in the good old days in England, a well managed side can easily jump up two divisions in as many seasons, and vice versa for a poorly managed side. But despite that, no MLS franchise will be penalised financially or stand to gian too much and be able to cement their place.
It's a much better system, IMHO, than resorting to divisions within conferences as the league grows, a la hockey etc.
We are the Angry Mob, we read the papers every day
We like who we like, we hate who we hate
But we're also easily swayed
I love relegation because unlike North American sports it means absolutely every league game counts! Regardless of who you are…you can’t take a day off…
And even for those teams that will never face relegation, games involving them become significant to those clubs at the bottom of the table. In the EPL and SPL the relegation battle is usually far more compelling than the Championship. The league can be won weeks in advance of season's end but promotion/relegation is usually decided on the last weekend…its phenomenal sports drama!
Beach_Red, what would your option to relegation be? The same teams stay…forever? What do the St. Mirren’s, Fulham’s and Reggina’s have to play for? What do their supporters have to hope for? Ask a Birmingham or Leeds supporter why bother supporting a club that has no chance…cause there’s that hope…opportunity. What about the teams that win their Championship in lower leagues? Don’t they deserve a crack at the Celtic’s and Liverpool’s?
Relegation is a two way street…a team goes down…one comes up…it’s as much about promotion as relegation.
Love Street, home to St. Mirren is about half the size of BMO…10,000…if that
And your absolutely correct, Christopher Brookmyre is a terrific writer…right up their with Ian Rankin!
“We changed the entire league’s opinion of the viability of soccer in North America. And then we blew it because we chickened out." —Tim Leiweke
Seriously? Come on. Yes, there is revenue sharing in MLS, but it isn't complete revenue sharing. You give a portion of your revenue to the league, not all (or ever close to it) of your revenue. Do you seriously expect teams to draw the exact same crowds, sell the same merchandise, etc, when they are relegated? Do you really expect the American public to show up to see a team that isn't even in the top league? They're barely showing up for the top league in the country.
It's a pipe dream. Relegation won't happen because the investors won't agree, and the fans won't support it. The reason we go with divisions here is so that all fans know their team has a shot at the title. I'd rather, as we expanded, strengthen the division concept. I'd rather, eventually, move to a league with completely different, yet equal, divisions. With an "MLS West" and an "MLS East". Each with 16 teams in it. Each only plays teams in their own division. At the end of the regular season, there will be a champion crowned from each division, the top dog out of 16 teams. After that, the top 6 teams from each division will enter into a cup tournement (like we have today) for the MLS cup, champions of all the MLS. Since you're playing different teams, there is an added element of interest. It also allows MLS to expand past 20 teams, keep its division format, and increase the interest in the playoffs. To me, that would be a perfectly north american solution, one that would sit better with fans and investors, and still give those set on their own ways something to grab onto (A real champion of your league, and a post season compitition with another league).
Maybe one day we will realize that soccer in every league doesn't have to be done the same way. Just because Europe does it doesn't mean we have to. As long as the game is being played at a high level, who says relegation HAS to be a part of the equation? Let's not forcefeed this to the American public which doesn't understand nor cares to.
This is pretty much what we have been discussing in the "playoff" thread.
It would be my first choice (as I'm sure you have figured by now)... even though you seemed to disagree with it in that thread...
Or maybe you agreed with the two single table part of my plan... but disagreed with the lack of post season play before the Cup Final...
If we went with the version you say (two single tables but with playoffs, and enough teams advancing to keep hopes alive)...
... then I would suggest making it 5 teams per division that advance.
- the first place team get's a pass to the semi's... while the other 4 playoff for the chance to play the division champ in the semi's
... now this might raise the question - How is it fair that the first place team misses out on the extra revenue of playoffs while the lower ranked teams earn more by playing extra games?
- Well I suppose there could be a playoff revenue sharing plan that splits all playoff profits amoung all 5 teams from each division.
- then of course the profits would be split between 3 teams in the second round (the first place team not playing and the two lower teams fighting for a spot in the semi's)
- then in the Cup Final, the profits would be shared by the host city and the two finalists... with a cash prize for the winner.
Last edited by flatpicker; 11-18-2008 at 11:30 AM.
Yeah, that would work.
And yes, to clarify, I agree with splitting the league into two single tables, I just don't agree with getting rid of the playoffs. I think in the north american mindset, playoffs are too important. The difficult thing to balance for me is:
1) Not letting in too many teams, you don't want to make the regular season mean nothing and;
2) Not letting in too few teams. You always need to keep the cinderella story alive. Look at almost every sports movie ever made in Hollywood. Team overcomes all odds to win the cup. For that to play out in the real world, you need to have a team that does really poorly for the first half of the season, then all of a sudden start to gain momentum. That means you need to have a playoff system that will let in enough team to allow them to JUST sneak into the last spot. Of course, how many teams that is would be the problem.
Personally, 5-6-7 are all good numbers for a league of 16. They allow it to be an accomplishment, but also allow enough teams to sneak in to make for a real story (and keep enough teams in the hunt late enough in the season so all fans have that element of hope).
Well, if we're talking theory here - which would be the ideal system, I have to say that currently relegation/promotion isn't working. It's certainly not headed in the right direction with the operating budgets of some teams so far in excess of others - this pretty much gaurantees their positions - except for the few teams at the breaking point.
Now, if every team in the league faced an equal chance of being relegated - which I undestand is the way things used to be - then it would work.
Right now it looks an awful lot the like playoff system - the few teams that face relegation are the ones not making the playoffs this year and the ones that get promoted are like the ones that scrape into the playoffs and get knocked out in the first round - or, very rarely, make a decent playoff run. In the relegation system that "playoffs run" happens in the next season if they do well and in the playoff system it happens as soon as the season ends.
All I can say is that for the next ten years, the same two teams will be at the top of the Scottish table (and likely the same 4-5 of the EPL), but we have no idea what two teams will be in the Super Bowl this year, never mind five years from now. It could be Green Bay, Wisconsin or Jacksonville, Florida or some other small market team (all we know for sure is that it won't be Detroit).
So, it looks like the choice is the same teams stay at the top of the table and the same few teams in the middle change "divisions" forever or the same 32 teams stay in the league but can move all the way up and down the standings.
Getting the shot at Celtic or Liverpool and/or winning a lower level championship might be enough for fans with generations of history invested in teams but I imagine there are a few of them saying that huge money is ruining the sport and that it isn't as good as it was. There are issues with relegation/promotion that need to be dealt with - on it's own it doesn't look any better to me than a set league with playoffs.
Isn't St. Mirren getting a new stadium closer to 20,000?
And what about Stuart MacBride? He's newer but his books are good as well.
Why are people only fixated on the regulation portion of the article, completely ignoring the fact that the rest of it is pretty much dead on.
The playoff system as it is now needs to go.
More teams make a single table more of a reasonable possibility.
Less games as a result of Home and Home allows for better spacing of games and following international calendar.
Having the MLS Cup (or whatever else) played during the season, still allows for both it and the Supporter's Shield to coexist.
Can you argue against any of these points?
Ya its an american league and the Playoffs system is all they know or care about ..Unless ofcourse its College football , then they fuck that up too..
Won't happen , the playoffs are here to stay..
Because it might be feasible and no one wants to talk about change that's possible. They want to say it'll never happen. Like the most popular player coming to MLS would never happen.
Bad example? Ask the league and their accountants.
single table makes sense to me, playoffs sadly will have to stay for a while and relegation will never happen (if it does itll happen 60 years from now when the league is solid as all hell)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote