MLS playoff system is flawed

AreliusIII · 10-31-2005, 09:15 AM

It doesn't help that the MLS playoff system is flawed. San Jose and New England were the best teams of the regular season but were not duly rewarded. Instead, they entered a two-legged aggregate-goal series that favored neither team.
http://www.miami.com/mld/miamiherald/sports/soccer/13033627.htm

Rover · 10-31-2005, 10:31 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by AreliusIII

It doesn't help that the MLS playoff system is flawed. San Jose and New England were the best teams of the regular season but were not duly rewarded. Instead, they entered a two-legged aggregate-goal series that favored neither team.
http://www.miami.com/mld/miamiherald/sports/soccer/13033627.htm

Sure is tough to please these soccer writers. Do they want us to go back to the three game plus minigame format? Is single elimination any fairer to higher seeded teams? Sure they get homefield advantage, but one bad game and you're out. I'm sure the Revs love the two game format.

Maybe I just look at the playoffs differently. Seeds are great, but there's more to an MLS season than the MLS Cup. There are three domestic trophies to win each year.

--The Galaxy won the all-comers, single elimination FA Cup-style competition--the US Open Cup.

--The Quakes won the season championship--the points-based Supporters' Shield.

--And now we have four teams left for the playoff-based MLS Cup.

And as with all playoffs, it's a new season now and anything can happen. Just ask the 2004 Crew. In fact, no team has won all three trophies in the same year and only four teams have won all three at any time in their existence (DC, LA, Fire, KC).

Anyway, that's how I look at it. I like the two game aggregate system. If we played single elimination, that's OK too. But San Jose had plenty of opportunities to take care of business in LA last week, and didn't get the job done. In a playoff, we get to see who can bring it when it counts.

The winner of a playoff is a championship team, and that doesn't necessarily equate to the best team (if by best we mean best players, coaches, and system). If you get it done at the right time, you win in the playoffs. That's just the way it is. Fair? Sure. Take care of the 90 minutes on the field and everything else works for you. San Jose (and DC and FCD) didn't, so they get an early off-season.

fuegote · 10-31-2005, 10:42 AM

Bananas for Rover....Right on!

AreliusIII · 10-31-2005, 11:35 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rover

--The Quakes won the season championship--the points-based Supporters' Shield.

I have a hard time equating the Supporters Shield with the MLS Cup. I think I came across one (maybe two) articles this year on the Quakes winning the Supporters Shield. Simply put, there is no prestige assocated with the Supporters Shield. MLS certainly doesn't promote it -- at least not like MLS Cup and US Open Cup.

prk166 · 10-31-2005, 11:42 AM

I think the core part of the issue is parity. It's too easy to say "the higher seed didn't have an advantage". Look at the west when CO, FCD and LA finishing with nearly identical records. That said, I'm not sure why the better seeded team doesn't get to play at home first. They would then have the advantage of getting the win at home and being able to pack in on the road. LA was able to pull off a nice win at home to open things up and put all the pressure on SJ to win. And NE was lucky the metrostars didn't put in another in either of those games.

And at that, some of it is that the higher seed just didnt' deserve to win. DC seemed to sputter a bit as the season winded down. And they completely self-desctructed at RFK yesterday. The Rapids were lucky to tie it at 2-all and win in PKs. But then again, FCD couldn't stop them from scoring 2 at PHP + didn't have a good 2nd half of the season.

But it comes down to the only real way of rewarding teams for their regular season play is to have the MLS Cup go to the team with the best record in the regular season. That's not going to happen so we may as well learn to live with the playoffs.

Rover · 10-31-2005, 11:59 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by AreliusIII

I have a hard time equating the Supporters Shield with the MLS Cup. I think I came across one (maybe two) articles this year on the Quakes winning the Supporters Shield. Simply put, there is no prestige assocated with the Supporters Shield. MLS certainly doesn't promote it -- at least not like MLS Cup and US Open Cup.

Well, I'd say we're talking about two different issues here.

First, many consider the MLS Cup to be the big one. Of the three, it's the only trophy sponsored by the league itself. The Supporters' Shield is just that--given by supporter's clubs to the supporters of the season points winner. The USOC is run by the USSF, not MLS. As it is, MLS pays most attention to the MLS Cup and considers the MLS Cup winner to be the league champion.

In fact, it took several years for the league to recognize the Shield at all, although they have generally been more supportive of the USOC even though they don't own it. If fans or others don't have much interest in these other trophies, fine. The fact remains that they are distinct and unique to American soccer (as a group--plenty of countries have cup competitions and of course league championships) and that's something I personally want promoted. We as fans have a say, and I can tell you that fans and players do pay attention to the Shield and the Dewar Trophy.

Second, the primary issue from the article was about the playoff format, and I still believe that no matter the format, you just have to get it done. MLS has used several playoff formats and none have been perfect. And they never will be because we all have differing opinions about what a playoff should look like. The two game format is common in European soccer, and I think it works well. I'd prefer to also have the away goal rule, but we don't and that's the way it is for now. Bottom line--win your games and you move up the bracket.

AreliusIII · 10-31-2005, 12:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rover

the primary issue from the article was about the playoff format, and I still believe that no matter the format, you just have to get it done. MLS has used several playoff formats and none have been perfect. And they never will be because we all have differing opinions about what a playoff should look like. The two game format is common in European soccer, and I think it works well. I'd prefer to also have the away goal rule, but we don't and that's the way it is for now. Bottom line--win your games and you move up the bracket.

The solution is to do away with the playoffs and give the league cup to the leader on top of a single table at the end of the season. Why the h*ll do we have to do things so differently from the rest of the world -- something that happens to work fine for everyone else?

Deuce · 10-31-2005, 01:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by AreliusIII

The solution is to do away with the playoffs and give the league cup to the leader on top of a single table at the end of the season. Why the h*ll do we have to do things so differently from the rest of the world -- something that happens to work fine for everyone else?

That is what I am talking about!
🕺

Stucki · 10-31-2005, 01:55 PM

I believe that several Latin American leagues also have a playoff structure of some sort to crown champions.

AreliusIII · 10-31-2005, 02:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Stucki

I believe that several Latin American leagues also have a playoff structure of some sort to crown champions.

You're right. In Mexico, its called "La Liguilla." However, for the life of me, I don't see why we can't pattern our league after a single table champion (i.e. Premier League, La Primera Liga, Serie A, Bundesliga, etc.).