As the League Matures, Is It Time to Switch MLS Cup and Supporters' Shield Trophies?
by Geoff Gibson on Feb 14, 2011 9:35 AM PST
Email
Print
Let's face it, as a soccer league we are still painfully American. Not to say that's a bad thing though. As somebody who was raised with American sports, I can definitely see the appeal in the play-off system. To be perfectly honest, it's fun and it extends the season (post-season) a bit more so that the off-season isn't so terrible. That said, as we mature as a league and acquire more foreign coaches to lead our teams, is the Supporter's Shield supplanting MLS Cup as the perceived league winner?
Here's what the New York Red Bulls' head coach Hans Backe had to say about the upcoming season in an interview with the New York Post:
"I'm not sure I care about the MLS Cup, (but) we need to be No. 1 after 34 games; then you’ve proved you’re the best team in the U.S. Then of course you can see with a Cup what you can do. But that, for me, is more like a mini-tournament for five games. Being No. 1 after 34, that's the target for me and the team.’’
Bold words from the coach of one of MLS's most important clubs.
Personally, I can totally relate to how he feels. Yes, the play-offs are fun and I'm absolutely not saying we should ditch it altogether. However, doesn't it also makes more sense that the league winner (the club with the most points at the end of the season) should be treated as the real league champion? So, for 2010, the honor would fall to the Los Angeles Galaxy, not the Colorado Rapids as LA had the most points. In fact, Colorado had almost 15 points fewer than LA heading into the play-offs and yet they are regarded as the best team in the league due to their winning of a play-off tournament series.
It's because of situations like this that allow me to suggest that the winner of the league acquires the MLS Cup and the winner of the play-offs acquire the Supporter's Shield because, well let's face it, if the coaches and teams begin vying for the league winning trophy anyways then the play-offs become more and more just for the fans, i.e. supporters of the game here in America.
Of course, the biggest draw back for the league in implementing this is that, once a league winner is crowned, interest in the play-offs could become significantly less. The reason for the play-offs, at least in terms of American sports, is that they're huge money generators. Television revenues, attendance, league-wide attention all skyrockets when the play-offs are occurring because of the drama involved: "such and such beat who?!"
Such a system also allows for true parity within a league, something we Americans are certainly fond of. Honestly, had the play-offs not existed last season, Colorado would have had no chance to win a trophy and LA was practically guaranteed winning the league seven games into the 2010 season (although there was some last minute drama heading into the play-offs).
Still, there are advantages to making the change as well, for the league. For one, everything becomes more predictable. The English Premiere League has a consistent "top four" teams: Chelsea, Manchester United, Arsenal, Manchester City (supplanting Tottenham Hotspur this year). Knowing ahead of time which teams are likeliest to win the most makes it far easier to market specific teams, coaches and players. it also makes marketing specific games far better. If the Supporter's Shield actually meant something, then maybe a game with the Los Angeles Galaxy vs. New York Red Bulls would actually be a meaningful game nationwide, thus drawing more people to watch the game and see how it impacts the league. As it stands, most people just tune in to casually see how the league's superstar DPs are playing.
Additionally, this system will also allow our dear ol' commissioner, Don Garber, to finally be able to tell the media and press that the Designated Player system works and is providing real results to teams that invest in said players. Today, no team with a DP has won MLS Cup.
There's no easy answer here for MLS. American sports fans will demand one thing, hardcore soccer fans will demand the other. There, unfortunately, won't be a perfect system that allows for both to be sought after, worth-while trophies. Still, with head coaches actively stating they care more for the Supporter's Shield than MLS Cup, and with the near-disaster that was MLS Cup 2010, perhaps it's time to think about making the switch.
Where do you stand? Keep it the same, or make the switch? Perhaps you have some other idea? Sound off below!
91 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
I'm a baseball fan first, football second
and as a baseball fan I’ve gotten pretty heavy into sabermetrics. This may seem obvious, but that’s what it took for me to realize a pretty well-proven fact – the larger the statistical sample size, the more confident you can be in the result. It should be pretty obvious that a team that proves its quality day in and day out for months is almost always better than one that gets hot for a few weeks at the end of the year. Long story short, I hate playoffs. They may be exciting, but in terms of determining a champion they’re awful, to be frank.
I would prefer all American sports leagues to forgo playoffs, but I know the chances of that happening are literally nil. So I’d be happy settling for the one league where the vast majority of fans would understand the move. We can keep the playoffs as sort of the Carling Cup of American soccer, I guess.
by Thomas Wachtel on Feb 14, 2011 10:03 AM PST reply actions
NFL
For a sport like NFL where there is not a practicle way for each team to play the other in a balanced schedule pretty much requires a playoff to be at all fair. But NBA, MLB, and MLS all play enough games that they should be able to make it balanced within the season and scrap the playoffs.
In a league where points are awarded for wins and draws, and where there's a balanced schedule
there is no need for a playoff at the end of the year. You play everyone twice and get the most points? You win the league! Simple.
This will of course depend on MLS always having a balanced schedule, but a league needs either a playoff or a points system, not both.
No need
I think to change the names of the titles. If teams start to put more emphasis on the Supporter’s Shield they’ll start to market it as the more important to their fans. The fans will ultimately decide which is more important and right now it seems the Supporters Shield is getting more supporters (ratings MLS Cup 2010). A playoff is fun, it’s fun to see who can get it done in a one off situation with the pressure of ending a season (think about if every team in the EPL had to stop playing as soon as they were mathematically eliminated, that would lead to some pressure packed last few games).
It would be good for Don to say the DP system works as it is, but you’d also like to see some DP’s step up to their world class reputation and win a game when the pressure is on. Also I think parody is a big deal. Knowing going in that my team isn’t going to contend at all this year sucks. Granted the top four in the supporter shield race hasn’t been all that consistent up until now. The way the top four system in the EPL happens is a bit like baseball here (no salary cap, best markets, best players, best paychecks, best team.). However, the great equalizer in baseball is when the Minnesota Twins win the world series. The fans will make the change if they want the change.
by Michael Devoe on Feb 14, 2011 10:06 AM PST reply actions 1 recs
Playoffs are fun...
but it’s true that they are a piss poor way to figure out who the best team is. Playoffs are way too much luck.
I forget where I read this, but someone had calculated that in Major League Baseball if you match up the team with the best record in the league against the team with the worst record in the league in a 7 game series, the bad team, on average, will win the series something like 15% of the time. So if the worst team in the league would have a 15% chance, how large a chance must the regular season’s #2 team have? 45%? 48%? It’s little better than a coin flip.
Billy Bean had some comment (I think from Moneyball) that “My sh*t doesn’t work in the playoffs.” He essentially had a system to win in the regular season, but the playoffs were just too small a sample size for him to consistently win.
I’ve got no problem with the MLS Playoffs existing, and I’m certainly hoping the Timbers get in. But I’d far rather see us finish near the top of the league in the regular season, than see us finish 9th or 10th and then go on a deep playoff run.
Determining the champion based on league play is great!
But will be moot once we have an unbalanced schedule.
Jag kom, jag såg, erövrade jag.
Not really
It becomes slightly less unfair with an unbalanced schedule but it would likely still be less unfair than the current situation.
Making the conference finals a home/home series
Will help a lot, IMO. Who knows if that will ever actually happen though.
by B-Lot tailgater on Feb 14, 2011 3:14 PM PST up reply actions
The way I see it....
The idea of the playoffs is to have a fair competition to win a league trophy.
In baseball, for example, the 2001 (I believe) Mariners won 116 games, tying the all-time win record for the regular season. Should they have walked away with a league championship? Some would argue yes. However, they were beat in the ALCS by an inferior Yankees squad.
The 2008-09 and 2009-10 Cleveland Cavaliers, for example, in the NBA: Both years, they had the NBA’s best record, and yet they couldn’t make it out of the 2nd round of the playoffs, being beat first by Orlando and then by Boston.
Of course, these examples are using a best of seven format, and I’m not sure what the MLS format is, but I’m pretty sure if anything it’s best of 3 at the most.
However, in the NFL it’s a lose-and-you’re-out format, and as the Packers showed us this season, it’s whoever wins the day is the better team, right? They were the last seed in the NFC, and won 4 road games en route to a Super Bowl win. I think THIS is more what MLS should do for their post-season, if they don’t already. Obviously the teams in the playoffs are good teams, but whoever wins the day should move on.
Just because one team wins the most games or scores the most points in a regular season doesn’t necessarily mean they’re the best team. From what people have described above, the Galaxy had the best points total at the end of the season last year, so they were the best team, or more correctly, the most consistant team. However, that didn’t help them in the postseason, when RSL won the MLS Cup, right? That just proves that no matter how good you are regular season, the playoffs are a whole different beast.
Not saying that winning the regular season record should be any less of an accomplishment, but the nature of that award seems to be a completely different goal. Ideally, the same team should win both the Supporter’s Shield and the MLS Cup, no? How many times has that happened though?
Blazers win!
Wow dude
I could not disagree more with you. Sadly, I’m currently using my iPhone and can’t give you a full reply. When I get back to my computer, I’ll put up a more cogent response. Unless someone else beats me to it.
"I have something 95 percent of all those All-Stars only wish they had: a World Series ring. If I had to choose between that and being an All-Star, it would be no contest. I’d grab the gold ring and never look back." -Tim Salmon
by BruinHalo on Feb 14, 2011 1:34 PM PST via mobile up reply actions
Yeah, I gotta disagree too
Just because one team wins the most games or scores the most points in a regular season doesn’t necessarily mean they’re the best team.
Well yeah, it kinda does. That’s the point of a regular season. All that a one-and-out playoff proves is who was a better team of two teams on one specific day, which is a vastly different thing than a team being better than every other team in a league for several consecutive months. One requires sustained quality, and one requires ridiculous amounts of luck.
and as the Packers showed us this season, it’s whoever wins the day is the better team, right?
Wrong. I don’t know anything about football, but just because a team wins on the day doesn’t mean they’re a better team overall. So many things go into an individual win that are out of that team’s control – the other team’s injury status, your team’s injury status, weather, crowd support, etc. – that you can’t seriously think that a team who wins one game is the best team in a league, can you?
Let’s go back to your first example, the 2001 Mariners. that team had the best regular season in the history of the sport, tied with the 1906 Cubs. Just because they were beaten in the ALCS by the g**damn Yankees does not take away in any way from how awesome that 2001 team was. You can’t really say that the Yankees were a better team over the course of 2001 than were the Mariners, because they clearly were not – but you can say that they won “when it counted”, if you must. But a seven game series in baseball is an equally horrible way to determine a “best” team. Over 162 games, the best rise to the top; playoffs are, as Billy Beane said, a crapshoot.
That just proves that no matter how good you are regular season, the playoffs are a whole different beast.
And it also proves that they are an unnecessary beast. If you believe that whoever “wins the day” in a playoff is a better team, no matter what the regular season says, then why not set up a sports season like the NCAA tournament – you lose, you’re out? No more games after you lose one, because clearly losing a game means you are an inferior team.
Playoffs are arbitrary, capricious, and a horrible way to determine the “best” in any sport. “Winning the day” is one thing, but being the best over the course of the season is far more important to me.
by pdb on Feb 14, 2011 2:05 PM PST up reply actions 2 recs
Thanks pdb
You did exactly what I intended. And I generally like The X-Man, so I’m not gonna pile on.
Thanks for sparing me the time and effort.
"I have something 95 percent of all those All-Stars only wish they had: a World Series ring. If I had to choose between that and being an All-Star, it would be no contest. I’d grab the gold ring and never look back." -Tim Salmon
The 2001 Mariners played a different schedule than the 2001 Yankees
Head to head, the Yankees were better, which is why they won the series.
Head to head is ALWAYS the best way to determine who is better.
by B-Lot tailgater on Feb 14, 2011 3:16 PM PST up reply actions
That presumes that there is a simple definition of "better"
By any objective measure, the 2001 Mariners were better than the 2001 Yankees. Pitching, hitting, defense, you name it, the Mariners were a far better team over the course of the 2001 season.
They also beat the Yankees in the regular season.
If head to head is always the best way to determine who is better, then why bother with a regular season? Go back to my idea of setting every sports season up like the NCAA tournament, and whoever goes undefeated is the champion. By your logic that seems to be the only way to run a league.
And to address the 'different schedule' thing
MLB teams all play the same mix of in-division and out-of-division teams, so every team plays the same TYPES of teams all season long. The AL West was a strong division in 2001 (the A’s won 102 games and finished a distant second!) , as was the AL East. So it’s not like the M’s played a cupcake schedule while the Yankees played a really tough one.
And the Yankees won 4 of 7 when it counted
Regular season is just that, a regular season. Playoffs determine champions.
by B-Lot tailgater on Feb 14, 2011 6:20 PM PST up reply actions
Sure,
but if we put $1 on a coin flip and you won, and then we put $50 on a coin flip and I won, we could say that I “won when it counted”. Would we then conclude that I was better at flipping coins in important situations? That I’m a clutch coin-flipper?
Your argument is circular. Good teams win “when it counts”, and oh look during those games “that count” the good teams won (as defined by having won when it counts.)
Playoffs crown champions because someone says they do – not because there is something in their nature that makes them uniquely suited to do so.
by Disclaimer on Feb 14, 2011 7:38 PM PST up reply actions 1 recs
So you are arguing that a game of chance
is the same as a game of sport? Seriously?
by B-Lot tailgater on Feb 14, 2011 9:07 PM PST up reply actions
In the case of the playoffs
Yes. Especially in something like baseball. Excellent teams win just about less than 60% of the time. Poor teams win just over more than 40% of the time. In a 7 game series, that’s essentially a coin flip with a slightly weighted coin.
"I have something 95 percent of all those All-Stars only wish they had: a World Series ring. If I had to choose between that and being an All-Star, it would be no contest. I’d grab the gold ring and never look back." -Tim Salmon
That is ridiculous
Over the course of a regular season, the top teams generally win just over 60 percent of the time as well.
by B-Lot tailgater on Feb 14, 2011 9:59 PM PST up reply actions
Best two teams in baseball last year
Tampa .594 winning percentage. Philly .599 winning percentage
Even if they won 100 games, it would be .617.
That’s essentially 60% for the sake of my argument.
Obviously it’s not a perfect 60/40 odds situation since the odds of a crappy team beating a great team is much lower than that. But the fact remains that even a crappy team has a decent chance to win a series against a great one. That’s why playoffs are a craps shoot. They pit two 60% against each other.
"I have something 95 percent of all those All-Stars only wish they had: a World Series ring. If I had to choose between that and being an All-Star, it would be no contest. I’d grab the gold ring and never look back." -Tim Salmon
But that is exactly why they are entertaining!
The teams that fared the best over the course of the season facing off against each other to determine a champion!
Think about it this way, a points champion could beat every weak team in the league but lose their handful of matches against the other top 1 or 2 teams and win the points title. Does that really make them the best team?
by B-Lot tailgater on Feb 14, 2011 10:09 PM PST up reply actions
Why did the other top teams lose to the weak ones?
Everyone plays everyone else equally.
"I have something 95 percent of all those All-Stars only wish they had: a World Series ring. If I had to choose between that and being an All-Star, it would be no contest. I’d grab the gold ring and never look back." -Tim Salmon
Because one off games a coin flip
You said so yourself.
by B-Lot tailgater on Feb 14, 2011 10:18 PM PST up reply actions
Right
So over a longer period of time, the better team would rise to the top. If the team with the most points cannot beat other top teams, it’s proof that the season should be even longer. If those other teams are better, they will surely beat out the other team over time.
"I have something 95 percent of all those All-Stars only wish they had: a World Series ring. If I had to choose between that and being an All-Star, it would be no contest. I’d grab the gold ring and never look back." -Tim Salmon
by BruinHalo on Feb 15, 2011 8:01 AM PST via mobile up reply actions
Got to disagree with that...
…I’m not even sure I think head to head is a good way to determine who’s better, let alone the best way.
Anything can happen in one game. Bad teams beat good time all time and in every sport. Man U lost to Wolves last week. Anyone want to raise their hand and say it’s because Wolves is the better team? They are obviously the worse team, and worse by a huge margin. But they still won.
Sure you can say “They were the better team that day.” but that’s just another way of saying they won the game. It’s otherwise meaningless.
That’s why we have the season. More games. More data. Larger sample size. That will ALWAYS tell you who the better team is. You wouldn’t pick out one random game in the middle of the season and say “The Yankees lost to the Royals on Day X, so the Royals must be better.” So why is it more meaningful if that one game happens to be in the playoffs? It’s not more meaningful – it’s just more recent. Anything can happen in a small number of games.
Playoffs are fun. I like playoffs fine. I have no problem with the MLS having them. Hell, I say open the MLS playoffs up to all 18 teams and have at it. It’s now some post-season League Cup. But please don’t tell me Colorado was better than the Galaxy last year because of the playoffs. That’s like saying Wolves is better than Man U cause they won one game. It’s just silly.
by Disclaimer on Feb 14, 2011 3:51 PM PST up reply actions 2 recs
This is truth
Last thing I’ll point out, especially relating to baseball, is the role of substitutes.
In the playoffs, bench players play a minimal role (a pinch hitter, a pinch runner, etc.). During the regular season, bench players often fill in for starters for 1, 2 or 3 games a week. Furthermore, pitchers deep the rotation (#4 and #5) pitch just as many games per year (or so) as the ace up front. In the playoffs, however, this all changes. Starters play every game. Pitchers 1-3 are the only ones who see starts. Long relievers are barely used. Does this really tell us who the best team is?
It may tell us who the best lineup is, but a team implies depth. It implies roles. Determining the best team in the league by focusing on a long regular season truly highlights the best complete team.
Finally, regarding injuries, playoffs leave a lot to chance. If a star player, or even an important role player, gets injured in time for the playoffs it dramatically affects the process to determine the “best team.” If a player is hurt during the season, even if it’s season ending, there is ample time to reformulate a new strategy and that same depth I mentioned above becomes even more important.
Sure, playoffs are exciting, but with a balanced schedule, they’re unnecessary, and I stand on the side of maximizing the Supporters’ Shield while minimizing the MLS Cup.
"I have something 95 percent of all those All-Stars only wish they had: a World Series ring. If I had to choose between that and being an All-Star, it would be no contest. I’d grab the gold ring and never look back." -Tim Salmon
by BruinHalo on Feb 14, 2011 5:08 PM PST up reply actions 2 recs
*This same argument can be applied to soccer as well
"I have something 95 percent of all those All-Stars only wish they had: a World Series ring. If I had to choose between that and being an All-Star, it would be no contest. I’d grab the gold ring and never look back." -Tim Salmon
Playoffs determine the champion
You are talking about one team being better than another, I am talking about a CHAMPION.
To be the champion you must earn your way into the post season and win the playoff tournament.
Of course the “BEST” team does not always win, but the bottom line is the championship path is laid in front of every team each season. Its not like LA was promised a championship at the end of the season only to have the script flipped on them. Colorado won the championship, fair and square.
by B-Lot tailgater on Feb 14, 2011 6:18 PM PST up reply actions
Playoffs only determine a champion
only because someone says they do.
People are arguing that playoffs are a poor way to crown champions because the best team is not likely enough to win. You’re coming back with “But playoffs determine champion.” Yes, I think people get that bit.
I’ll grant you that the system is perfectly “fair”. Nobody is saying that the system isn’t fair – they are simply saying it’s a bad system because they want the best team to be the champion, not the one that gets hot for 4 games at the right time.
by Disclaimer on Feb 14, 2011 7:47 PM PST up reply actions 1 recs
The best team doesn't necessarily end up with the best record either
Players get hurt, suspended, etc
So your argument is just as flawed by your own logic.
by B-Lot tailgater on Feb 14, 2011 9:09 PM PST up reply actions
Haha
If you’re going to claim that his logic disproves his own point, then it murders your point.
"I have something 95 percent of all those All-Stars only wish they had: a World Series ring. If I had to choose between that and being an All-Star, it would be no contest. I’d grab the gold ring and never look back." -Tim Salmon
That was the point
Please try to follow along.
by B-Lot tailgater on Feb 14, 2011 9:57 PM PST up reply actions
The point was that his logic, when accepted, disproves his own point
But if you claim that to be the case, the injuries and suspensions are only amplified in a playoff.
I’m clearly keeping up, but I must admit, it’s taking every brain cell I have to try to see things from your perspective.
"I have something 95 percent of all those All-Stars only wish they had: a World Series ring. If I had to choose between that and being an All-Star, it would be no contest. I’d grab the gold ring and never look back." -Tim Salmon
This is like pulling teeth
You pro SS folks are saying that the SS is the ultimate way to determine the best, and that playoffs are flawed, but you cannot prove that. It is merely an opinion.
It is my opinion that only pretentious eurosnob DBs think the SS means more than the MLS Cup.
by B-Lot tailgater on Feb 14, 2011 10:06 PM PST up reply actions
Your opinion is a sweeping generalization and a putdown of fellow Timbers fans
I’m just still unsure of how proving that you are the best team over the course of a longer period of time isn’t intuitively better than proving it over a short period of time. Greater sample size being the key here.
Big teams win in big games is circular begging the question that doesn’t pass the logical smell test.
Don’t get me wrong, I love the concept of playoffs. It satisfies the kid in me who wonders who would win a fight between a shark and a lion. But when we’re discussing the best team, it goes to the won who played everyone else around him and came out on top.
"I have something 95 percent of all those All-Stars only wish they had: a World Series ring. If I had to choose between that and being an All-Star, it would be no contest. I’d grab the gold ring and never look back." -Tim Salmon
Of course its a sweeping generalization
And I am not a Timbers fan.
But 100 years of sports history in this country across multiple sports tells me that playoffs do pass the smell test. No one remembers the teams with the best regular season record, unless they fail (See 93/94 Supes and 2001 Mariners).
by B-Lot tailgater on Feb 14, 2011 10:17 PM PST up reply actions
Forgive my assumption of your fanhood.
And dude, I don’t deny that playoffs have been the standard in this country for a long time in many sports. Heck, some sports that shouldn’t really even have a playoff have added them in (golf, NASCAR). But just because league decide to crown a champion with a playoff does not make it the fairest system- it just makes it a crowd pleaser.
Sometimes playoffs are the fairest given a large amount of teams and a limited amount of time (good God could you imagine NCAA bball with a balanced schedule, it would last years). But in a sport with few teams and enough time to play a balance schedule, playoffs are moot. They’re just there for fun.
"I have something 95 percent of all those All-Stars only wish they had: a World Series ring. If I had to choose between that and being an All-Star, it would be no contest. I’d grab the gold ring and never look back." -Tim Salmon
But MLS has not had a balanced schedule for some time
And after this year, who knows when it will again.
by B-Lot tailgater on Feb 14, 2011 10:42 PM PST up reply actions
There's no way to say it won't have one next year.
The schedule isn’t determined until winter.
And that argument is a non-sequitur. The frequency or probability of a balanced schedule does not disprove the inherent fairness of a regular season champion with a balanced schedule being crowned the best.
"I have something 95 percent of all those All-Stars only wish they had: a World Series ring. If I had to choose between that and being an All-Star, it would be no contest. I’d grab the gold ring and never look back." -Tim Salmon
You do not know me, and know nothing of me, my motivations, or my likes and dislikes
and I really do not appreciate being called a “pretentious eurosnob douchebag”. Knock off the personal attacks and keep to the discussion at hand, please.
Lighten up francis
You completely missed the point of that post.
by B-Lot tailgater on Feb 15, 2011 7:22 AM PST up reply actions
Stop with the name calling
It is my opinion that only pretentious eurosnob DBs think the SS means more than the MLS Cup.
What about that point, exactly, is missable?
If you want to have a reasonable discussion, that’s awesome. If you want to resort to name calling, I’m done.
Lighten up francis = movie quote
The point of the eurosnob comment was that it is an opinion, something that cannot be proven, just like the assertion that regular season is better than the playoffs.
If I have to spell everything out for you, I’m done.
by B-Lot tailgater on Feb 15, 2011 8:09 AM PST up reply actions
It is possible to express an opinion without insulting a whole bunch of people though
I’m interested in hearing your opinions about the whole playoff v. point system debate. I’m not interested in hearing your opinions of the people who hold differing opinions to yours.
by pdb on Feb 15, 2011 8:16 AM PST up reply actions 1 recs
Playoffs are arbitrary, capricious, and a horrible way to determine the "best" in any sport. "Winning the day" is one thing, but being the best over the course of the season is far more important to me.
I really think this all comes down to what you are used to. As an American who’s grown up watching many sports with the regular season/playoff format, I could think of no quicker way to douse interest in ANY sport here than to not have a playoff.
If MLS ended up playing out like the Premier League where, as you guys have already said, the standings and thus the championships are dominated by the same few teams year after year… well, we’d be down to an eight team league in a damn hurry.
I don’t know you guys personally, but I have a hard time believing your from America if you actually think this is the way MLS should go.
wow
I don’t know you guys personally, but I have a hard time believing your from America if you actually think this is the way MLS should go.
This kind of statement is pretty outrageous. That would be like saying you are not American because you hate the BCS. As thehemoglobin pointed out there is really no right or wrong answer here. American or not American is not the debate.
Dude. It's thehemogoblin. With a GOBLIN at the end of it.
You know, the dudes who watch the bank in Harry Potter. One of them.
I write for Stumptown Footy, SB Nation's Portland Timbers blog.
by thehemogoblin on Feb 18, 2011 2:05 PM PST up reply actions
I don't think we all want to eliminate the playoffs
Just minimize them.
Make the regular season champion a bigger deal. They should still play for the MLS Cup, but treat it like a tournament of champions rather than a league championship.
I don’t think a table structure and importance on the Supporters’ Shield is unamerican. I think it’s uniquely soccer and may help set this sport apart.
Plus, it’s easy to logically support a system where there is no playoffs. Playoffs don’t always make the most sense, especially when you play a balanced schedule.
"I have something 95 percent of all those All-Stars only wish they had: a World Series ring. If I had to choose between that and being an All-Star, it would be no contest. I’d grab the gold ring and never look back." -Tim Salmon
Thats exactly the point though
MLS rarely plays a balanced schedule. This is going to be gone next season.
Not to mention the format you are talking about is completely foreign to most American sports fans.
by B-Lot tailgater on Feb 14, 2011 6:23 PM PST up reply actions
I was born and raised in this here country
And you’re deluding yourself if you think American sports are better just because they have a playoff.
If MLS ended up playing out like the Premier League where, as you guys have already said, the standings and thus the championships are dominated by the same few teams year after year
Like baseball is, and like basketball is, you mean? There are only a few teams in any sport that are legitimate contenders for a championship, playoffs or no.
You will change your tune
The first season that the Timbers are out of the SS chase in August but still very alive in the playoff hunt.
by B-Lot tailgater on Feb 14, 2011 9:10 PM PST up reply actions
Doubt it
But even if that’s the case, it’s showing that playoffs have a purpose- to keep fans engaged. However it’s hard to objectively argue that the BEST team in the league ends the season with the best record after playing every other team.
"I have something 95 percent of all those All-Stars only wish they had: a World Series ring. If I had to choose between that and being an All-Star, it would be no contest. I’d grab the gold ring and never look back." -Tim Salmon
You misunderstand my tune.
I want my favorite team to be the best team it can be. Ideally, that means compiling the most points in the regular season. But in the case of a league with a playoff, that also means compiling enough points to make it into those playoffs.
I never said I don’t want the Timbers to make the playoffs. I said that playoffs are the worst possible way to determine a “best” team. Those are two very different things.
The Premier League gets around the problem nicely
Usually, the top team in the league is two or three team race from very early on in the season. However, due to relegation battles, in-season tournaments like the FA and Carling Cup, and multiple positions being available for European competition, most teams still have an incentive to play for throughout the season.
MLS doesn’t have relegation, and the thrill of improving your draft position is no thrill at all. The US Open Cup is a nice FA Cup style tournament, but many MLS teams don’t take it seriously. SuperLiga is pretty unneccessary. And honestly, not enough teams or fans seem to care about getting into the CONCACAF Champions League.
That makes the MLS Cup and the Supporter’s Shield the two trophies teams aim for. I like the current system, and I feel that these two honors are pretty evenly respected/desired. If there’s more recognition that comes with winning MLS Cup, well that’s the price you pay for playing in America. But the rewards for both are equal. I think the system is fine, especially because no matter which one is more coveted, the Red Bulls still won’t win either of them.
by Brendanukkah on Feb 15, 2011 6:53 AM PST up reply actions 1 recs
How about an FA cup type scenario instead of playoffs?
Perhaps if we (america) had a cup played during the season, but ended a little early?
We could include the division 2 teams….just for fun…
Then there would be an elimination style tournament as well as the league/table winner at the end of the year….
-Zol/Go Timbers!
Well, it's official. We need to communicate.
Guess who had this post totally researched and half-written — this guy.
I have class in half an hour and have to work tonight, so I can’t tell the full story right now.
The crux of it is that the league needs to just pick one and get behind it, and stick to its guns. It’s either going to have to pick the die-hards to support with the Supporters’ Shield, or the average American soccer fan to support with the cup system. They both have their merits, and I don’t even know which one the league should choose for its own health.
I write for Stumptown Footy, SB Nation's Portland Timbers blog.
I know they are the enemy
But the sounder blog has some great articles on this very subject.
http://www.sounderatheart.com/2010/11/29/1841555/parity-what-is-it-and-how-much-is-right-part-1
http://www.sounderatheart.com/2010/11/29/1841555/parity-what-is-it-and-how-much-is-right-part-2
http://www.sounderatheart.com/2010/11/29/1841555/parity-what-is-it-and-how-much-is-right-part-3
http://www.sounderatheart.com/2010/11/29/1841555/parity-what-is-it-and-how-much-is-right-part-4
I actually read Sounder at Heart on a pretty consistent basis, and I had pulled some of those posts for my arguments.
I write for Stumptown Footy, SB Nation's Portland Timbers blog.
by thehemogoblin on Feb 18, 2011 2:07 PM PST up reply actions
Who considers Tottenham to be in the big 4 over Liverpool?
And the Supporters Shield doesn’t mean squat when you have an unbalanced schedule. This year is an exception, not the rule.
The playoffs are awesome. Having 85% of the league out of the title hunt by mid September is not.
by B-Lot tailgater on Feb 14, 2011 3:10 PM PST reply actions
You can't throw out American tradition just because this is soccer.
Unless MLS is planning on moving to Europe, there will always be a playoff.
American sports fans are used to the drama of the special moment. That’s what’s been marketed to them for the past 50 years and that’s what draws in the casual fan. That’s what is fed to them every night by ESPN. They are interested to see if the biggest names can perform “on the game’s greatest stage”.
Look, you can try and relate this to other sports, but all you really need to look at is the World Cup. What is the one thing that gets most non-soccer fans in the US to pay attention? It’s a single-elimination tournament at the end of a long road of qualifying for said tournament (aka a regular season).
This is the same argument you guys all make about the schedule… “Why isn’t MLS playing a FIFA-style schedule?” It’s because this is America. Do you really believe that MLS can compete with the NFL for the average sports fan’s attention?
Besides, in a league where there is no post-season, there will never be parity. Watching the Timbers come up a few points short for the next 20 years sounds a lot less interesting than getting them into the playoffs to see if they can take down the big boys.
I think you need to re-read my article.
Never, at any point, did I suggest getting rid of the play-offs. I merely suggested that we give the MLS Cup to the regular season winner. Naturally, I’d like both to remain important. As an American sports fan myself I totally love the play-offs, but I just don’t see how Colorado was the 2010 league champion when they came it at 16 points to LA’s 59.
RCTID - Stumptown Footy
Moderator of /r/MLS
by Geoff Gibson on Feb 14, 2011 4:21 PM PST up reply actions
My apologies
Not used to this posting format… I was actually responding to the other comments above and not your article directly.
As an aside
I’m not clear what the point of swapping the Cup and the Shield would be. I agree with your conclusion that the regular season winner is more deserving of recognition, but I’m not clear how swapping the names of the trophies gets you anywhere.
by Disclaimer on Feb 14, 2011 4:30 PM PST up reply actions 1 recs
I sort of like the history of the Supporter's Shield
The fans of MLS, back in the wonky days of clocks that counted down and penalty kick tiebreakers, wanted to tap into traditional soccer rituals somewhere, and created a trophy to recognize who was the best team over the course of the season, not just the (at the time [and still] ridiculous) playoff format. The very same debate that is going on here. The MLS powers-that-be recognized that this was good and appropriate, and now the Supporter’s Shield is a valued trophy.
by Brendanukkah on Feb 15, 2011 6:57 AM PST up reply actions 2 recs
I agree with that...
and I think most others here agree to.
My issue is not whether or not we should have playoffs. Playoffs are fine for exactly the reasons you mentioned. Have playoffs. Knock yourself out.
My issue is simply when people claim playoffs are a “better” way to figure out who the “best” team is, when it so clearly isn’t… Playoffs are a craps shoot. They are a very exciting, very profitable, and very American craps shoot – but a craps shoot none the less.
Fair Enough
I just really felt that someone needed to bring up why playoffs are really great in a lot of respects. I would die a little inside if MLS just came down to NY and LA battling for the points title year after because they have the money.
In a league where everyone can spend whatever they want, there will never be parity either
There’s currently no parity in baseball (will the Pirates ever have another winning season?) – or in basketball (hello Clippers fans!). There’s some semblance of parity in football, but to argue that a lack of parity is a good reason for a playoff system is to miss the point. Leagues will always have good teams and crap teams.
Do you really believe that MLS can compete with the NFL for the average sports fan’s attention?
No, and I don’t think it’s going to try. Nor should it. How does this relate to a playoff/no playoff system?
It’s because this is America
“This is America” is a really bad argument for blindly preserving the status quo. This is a country that used to ban black athletes from playing its sports. Should that have stayed, just because “This is America”? No. I’m not arguing that a playoff is the equivalent of racism, don’t get me wrong, but you can’t just hide behind “This is America” as a valid reason for a playoff when people have presented many other viable reasons to not have one.
What is the one thing that gets most non-soccer fans in the US to pay attention?
If the US didn’t qualify for the World Cup no one in this country (or at least no casual fan) would pay the least bit of attention to it.
"There’s currently no parity in baseball (will the Pirates ever have another winning season?) "
There is parity in baseball. Just because some teams have been run terribly for a long time doesn’t change the fact that nine different teams have won the World Series in the last ten seasons, and an even great amount have made the playoffs.
Of those nine teams how many were low budget though?
In the 10 year period you cite, there were 9 one-time WS appearances:
d’backs
angels
marlins
astros
white sox
tigers
rockies
rays
rangers
Everyone else was the usual economic suspects (Yankees, Red Sox, Phillies, etc). So while there are a decent number of teams in the WS, I would argue that they’re a long way from “parity” as I would define it (everyone having a roughly equal shot at the WS). I haven’t done the research yet, but of this list, I would venture a guess that only the Rays and the Astros were not in the top echelon of league spending in their WS years.
So yeah, by number of teams, there might be parity, but economically (and that’s what tends to determine winners) there really isn’t. And this is the same in any league. I fear we’re getting a ways away from the original point, because I wouldn’t necessarily advocate doing away with playoffs in any of the big US sports – but those sports also don’t use a points system the way soccer does. As I said originally, as a league, you should use one or the other – if you use a points system, you don’t need a playoff, and vice versa.
One of the writers should write a history of the Supporters' Shield
It wasn’t begun by MLS, it was a fan’s award that has been adopted by the league. Interesting to learn about.
Jag kom, jag såg, erövrade jag.
Let's just come out and say it:
Hey Ryan, that would make a cool article. I’d rec it.
"I have something 95 percent of all those All-Stars only wish they had: a World Series ring. If I had to choose between that and being an All-Star, it would be no contest. I’d grab the gold ring and never look back." -Tim Salmon
"Still, there are advantages to making the change as well, for the league. For one, everything becomes more predictable. The English Premiere League has a consistent "top four" teams: Chelsea, Manchester United, Arsenal, Manchester City"
I don’t see how this is a positive. Last I checked, there were 20 teams in the Premiere League, not four. I guess if you prefer a lack of drama and meaningful games for 80% of the league in the second half of the season, it makes sense. I mean last year in MLS only two teams were really in the hunt for the Supporters’ Shield. And to those who want to get rid of the playoffs, EIGHT teams made the playoffs and even more could look forward to meaningful late season games fighting for a playoff berth. Meaningful games = more interested fans.
Which is why
Baseball EXPANDED the number of teams making the playoffs in the future. they want more interested fans.
Let them argue about it
In English football, The FA Cup was seen the most important title for a long time. Now winning Premier League is. It may go back the other way at some point.
Nobody has come on a podium and read anything official on that. Why should they? As long as people are arguing about it, it boosts the value of both.
by afs97209 on Feb 15, 2011 5:44 AM PST reply actions 1 recs
This could work
I was looking at other play-off formats and I really like this idea from Rugby Super League.
Wow
Can you imagine the drama if this were the case?
"I have something 95 percent of all those All-Stars only wish they had: a World Series ring. If I had to choose between that and being an All-Star, it would be no contest. I’d grab the gold ring and never look back." -Tim Salmon
Wouldn't it be just drama filled!
Especially if your team go to pick it’s opponent. Man that would be sweet. Also it gives incentive to finish in the top three, cause you can get the opportunity to pick.
I've always liked the way they play there.
It is almost like a two-loss consolation braket, but the higher seed gets the perks.
Jag kom, jag såg, erövrade jag.
RBNY
Has never won an MLS Cup
Or a Supporters Shield
So its kind of hard to take what their coach has to say about either seriously.
Vamos United!!
P.S. Or a US Open Cup
Playoffs are great. Having nearly the entire league make them is not.
I love the playoffs at the end of the season but too many teams qualify. I’d like to see some kind of seed system so teams that did better during the season play lower seeded teams or get a bye in the first round. There should be a greater benefit for having a better overall record that translates in to the playoffs.
I'll agree...
Now that we’re fast approaching 20 teams in the league maybe we should set a limit on playoff teams, say at 6. Top teams in each conference get a first round bye, and let the other four teams, two from each conference, play a match; winner moves on. The first-round winner then plays against the conference winner, for a conference champion, and the conference champions play for the league title.
If we surpass 24 teams, them make it like the NFL, where there’s two teams per conference with a first round bye.
Just an idea to make it a bit more challenging and elite for the playoffs to perhaps appease the fans with a more European taste. Take it or leave it. If you take it, improve it.
Blazers win!
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
