"It’s unfortunate that the league didn’t work out a balanced schedule for the Cascadia teams."
Garrett Dittfurth of the Timbers Army
The Cascadia Cup format was announced today with an eye towards the future of the competition. All matches will count in the Cascadia Cup math, with the home/away records playing no part in the tie breakers.
4 months ago
Andrew Wheeler
68 comments
0 recs |
Email
PrintComments
MLS probably wouldn't balance things for the Cascadia teams in '13 as it would unbalance everyone else even more
MLS > Cascadia, at least in the eyes of MLS. It’s their league, so this is the schedule we’re stuck with at this point.
I agree with you
And I think the SGs made the wrong decision. They should have settled on a Cup format that would work regardless of the schedule the league handed down. I definitely agree with Garrett’s sentiment, but we can’t rely on the league to balance their decisions out over the years.
When I write, I write for the Timbers. Contributing Editor of Stumptown Footy
by Andrew Wheeler on Jan 24, 2012 11:43 AM PST up reply actions
I think this does accomplish that, though
If all games count, as long as each Cascadia team plays the other an equal number of times, it’ll work. It’s not the best solution, but given the constraints it was probably the best they could do.
I agree...
I think others are more fair, but honestly… sometimes simplicity is better than fairness. I feel like there is enough things I have to explain about soccer to non soccer people that this would be just one more.
Now it is very simple.
by lysander on Jan 24, 2012 12:24 PM PST up reply actions 1 recs
Yeah, I can see how any degree of complexity might be a difficulty in a place like Seattle
tee hee.
When I write, I write for the Timbers. Contributing Editor of Stumptown Footy
by Andrew Wheeler on Jan 24, 2012 1:26 PM PST up reply actions 1 recs
I didn't like the SGs tone
“The league better listen to us.” Or what?
I’m not crazy about the unbalanced schedule either but I understand why they’re doing it. If you want a meaningful USOC, CCL runs, FIFA breaks, friendlies, and a balanced schedule for 19-20 teams in North America it is very hard to do.
And the players (you know, the ones who would have to do all of that travel and play, unlike supporters) are not robots. Did anybody ask them what they think of a balanced schedule in NA?
That's what she said.
by yepyou'reright on Jan 24, 2012 1:10 PM PST up reply actions
I wasn't fond of those demands either.
pdb has already spoken on my sentiments.
Jag kom, jag såg, erövrade jag.
The implication of "the league better listen to us" is what?
They’ll withdraw their support? I’ll call their bluff on that one. And if anybody withdraws their support of the club just because they’re unhappy with the unbalanced league schedule, then they were never really supporters at all.
I’m just tired of listening to people whine about not having an away trip to Chicago every other year. I expect whining on Twitter and elsewhere, but not from an official 107ist post.
That's what she said.
by yepyou'reright on Jan 24, 2012 1:21 PM PST up reply actions
"better listen to us"?
I’ve read the release three times and still haven’t seen where this was said. Is this on something other than the link? I do see a mild admonishment that “the league should pay attention”. But I’ve yet to identify any threats or demands. What am I missing?
I paraphrased
I don’t see it as different than “the league should pay attention”.
That's what she said.
by yepyou'reright on Jan 24, 2012 6:33 PM PST up reply actions
But when the league...
exploits the rivalry for ratings it is not an unreasonable consideration to balance our schedule.
The MLS governance made it clear when they made this schedule that they don’t care about supporters needs and desires, yet I bet the TA, ECS, and SS will be portrayed in their advertisements. That’s just unfair.
And you misquoted. TA’s Garrett Dittfurth said, "We think the league should fix this." ECS’s Greg Mockos said, "The league should pay attention." Both are right. Neither implies a threat.
This is the point in MLS' development at which the TA, ECS, and Southsiders have to start being very, very careful
MLS is more than just three teams. The more “demands” that get made, the more opinions will start to turn against the Cascadia axis, both within the league and across the various fan bases.
This should've only been an announcement of the Cascadia Cup format
No side opinions on league scheduling was necessary.
Jag kom, jag såg, erövrade jag.
I am not offering an opinion on league scheduling
I am commenting on the “call for a balanced schedule” part of the original post. If you feel that’s off topic, please delete my comment, but I thought it was germane. The TA is a great group, but they do need to be a bit politically careful at this point if they want to keep their good name around the league. That’s all I was saying.
Er...
I think you misunderstand Kejsare — he’s saying the SG’s announcement shouldn’t have included their side opinions.
When I write, I write for the Timbers. Contributing Editor of Stumptown Footy
by Andrew Wheeler on Jan 24, 2012 1:32 PM PST up reply actions
"The league should pay attention"
is basically the same as saying “you better listen to us.” Yeah, Cascadia gets no respect from the league. Such nonsense.
That's what she said.
by yepyou'reright on Jan 24, 2012 1:44 PM PST up reply actions
The ECS spokesperson said that.
Not that it matters. It wasn’t a threat anyway. The league screwed up the schedule. They should be called out on it.
But that's just it
The league didn’t “screw up the schedule”. The league scheduled as they saw fit to accommodate all teams, not just Cascadia. Their schedule screwed up the Cascadia Cup, but that’s not the league’s problem as they have no official role in the Cup.
I get that we brought our cup to MLS.
You and the league have made it very clear that they don’t care about supporter culture EXCEPT when it helps get TV deals. I think that’s wrong and I have no problem saying the league is wrong to do it.
The reason Portland got so many home games against rivals is because our supporters are the wildest and get the most attention. Great. But if we’re going to be used to market their product they should pay attention to our desires, like a balanced Cascadia schedule and more away allocation.
We’re rabid fans but if we want to keep this momentum going it’ll be more difficult with 4 HUGE rivalry games and a home opener on a MONDAY night. And then our away trips to those rivals are in back-to-back weeks—all before the season finale! I’m fatigued just thinking about it!
I feel like the TA (and the Cascadia Cup) is the goose that lays the golden egg and the MLS is ready to slice up open—and you’re defending them saying they can do whatever they want with their goose.
I have never once said that I don't care about supporter culture
I just don’t understand why people don’t get that MLS represents all 19 teams, and can’t cater to a small minority.
I feel like the TA (and the Cascadia Cup) is the goose that lays the golden egg
This is exactly the kind of attitude that will make MLS and other supporters’ groups turn against the TA and Cascadia. Sporting KC sold out every game in their new home last year, the Sons of Ben are an amazing supporters group, and LA draws pretty full crowds every week.
Is MLS better for having the Cascadia teams in it? Sure it is. But don’t make the mistake of thinking Cascadia can dictate terms to MLS, because that won’t ever happen.
I'm not saying you don't care about supporter culture...
I’m saying that everything you said supports that MLS doesn’t care. I didn’t mean it as a personal attack, I worded it poorly.
This may come as a surprise to those of you out of the North End, but not all 3k in the TA section are ultra supporters. It’s tough to get the whole section up and yelling for the whole game.
Now consider this: Nearly 1/4 of our home games are against our rivals. Throw in the opener, closer, and the Champions and we have 7 big games out of 17. That’s too many.
By focusing on the atmosphere, MLS risks ruining it by over-saturation. That’s the “goose that laid the golden egg” analogy. I’m not worried about what the rest of the league will think of us (away days build bridges, not walls) but I am worried that our own home atmosphere will begin to suffer.
I hope we can tifo all 4 games but that will be twice what we did last year. Back-to-back Cascadia road trips is going to be rough on the pocketbook. This makes it hard on supporters. Yet the league is using the supporters to sell the league. I hope the TA is hard enough to make it happen but it certainly feels like they’re trying to wear us down. That pisses me off.
Hmm.
I think you’re overestimating the Timbers Army’s role in the league’s vision and purposes in scheduling.
volatilelyle.com
by almost awesome on Jan 25, 2012 9:22 PM PST up reply actions 1 recs
"You and the league have made it very clear...
…that they don’t care about supporter culture EXCEPT when it helps get TV deals."
That is awfully presumptuous of you.
That's what she said.
by yepyou'reright on Jan 24, 2012 6:38 PM PST up reply actions
Exactly
And the TA (who I adore) needs to remember that the North End folks are not the only ones in the stadium or watching on TV and not everyone is a 107ist.
That's what she said.
by yepyou'reright on Jan 24, 2012 1:25 PM PST up reply actions
But there were no demands... only requests.
TA’s Garrett Dittfurth said, “We think the league should fix this.”
ECS’s Greg Mockos said, “The league should pay attention.”
I agree that the league should pay attention and fix this.
So...
Does this mean Sounders fans are going to complain when either Vancouver or Portland win it this year?
Contributing editor to Stumptown Footy the Portland Timbers SBN blog.
I promise
My only compliant was they did not make it more balanced (3home and 3 away for all 3 teams) when the released the schedule. I think all three teams fans all agree with that and are complaining equally.
With that complaint out of the way, i promise not to complain when the sounders have to win more on the road this year to keep the cup! :)
okay okay… and I will not complain if we manage to lose it also. :)
Here's hoping the three SGs signed away their respective rights to complain about the outcome
Here’s also hoping the Timbers take advantage of their home field advantage this year, because in theory it will be a while before the schedule is quite so advantageous.
When I write, I write for the Timbers. Contributing Editor of Stumptown Footy
by Andrew Wheeler on Jan 24, 2012 1:23 PM PST up reply actions
As long as the Timbers fans don't whine about having to play 4 on the road in 2013
And you’re making an assumption there that it’s true. Even with 4 away games, the Sounders still have to be the favorites to win it this year.
Good point
I was just being cheeky but you are right Portland will get hosed next year in terms of home vs away matches.
Contributing editor to Stumptown Footy the Portland Timbers SBN blog.
* that isn't true...
Hopefully I didn’t just jinx the Sounders…
Timbers have the best advantage of the three though
Portland Timbers will host both Seattle Sounders and Vancouver Whitecaps twice, Vancouver will see Portland once and Seattle twice at home, and Seattle will only host each team once. Despite this imbalance, the three supporters groups agreed to count all matches equally in order to keep the 2012 Cascadia Cup format simple.
I’m glad it works out in our favor that way especially because Seattle has the advantage of, unfortunately, having a better and more experienced team. Sucks for Vancouver though.
And in 2013 the schedule gets flipped
So Seattle gets 4 at home, Vancouver 3, and Portland 2.
BTW...
Do we actually know that this was true? This how it should be of course, but I hadn’t seen anything from the league exactly promising that.
I certainly haven't heard it.
Obviously it’d be nice if the league did, but they’re under no obligation to do so.
When I write, I write for the Timbers. Contributing Editor of Stumptown Footy
by Andrew Wheeler on Jan 24, 2012 2:39 PM PST up reply actions
It was in the initial release on the league website
Link.
Here is how the conference-based schedule will work:
Western Conference clubs will play each other three times, totaling 24 matches. They will play four conference opponents twice at home and once away, and play the other four conference opponents twice away and once at home. The location arrangement will be reversed in 2013.
West clubs will complete their schedule by playing each of the 10 Eastern Conference clubs once. Five of matches will be at home and five will be on the road. Again, the arrangement will be reversed in 2013.
Now whether or not the league holds to this in 2013 is another question.
Which is probably about when they add the 20th team
At which point we’ll probably go to 4 five team divisions, and this problem goes away anyway.
How do you figure? I don't see this problem going away just because the league gets another team.
Assuming the league goes with four 5 team divisions, I’m assuming the schedule would be:
1x game versus the 10 Eastern teams = 10 games
2x games versus Southwest division = 10 games
3x games versus Northwest division = 12 games
Two additional games of some kind
Total = 34 games
Those two more games would bring the schedule to 34 games which seems like what the league is targeting. As for where those games come from, I can’t see the league doing 4x intra-division games. I could much more easily see the league doing a couple “competitive balance” or “psuedo-pro/rel” games by having the teams in each division every other team that finished in their place the year before twice. So the 3rd best team from the northwest would get additionals game against the 3rd best team from the two divisions in the East.
At that stills leaves the problem of potential unbalanced Cascadia scheduling.
It goes away because MLS will come up with some crazypants ridiculous schedule idea that will nullify all this
by pdb on Jan 24, 2012 3:33 PM PST up reply actions 3 recs
yup.
When I write, I write for the Timbers. Contributing Editor of Stumptown Footy
by Andrew Wheeler on Jan 24, 2012 4:23 PM PST up reply actions
I agree with you
And for the Timbers fans not looking forward to 4 away Cascadia matches next year, I wouldn’t be surprised if the league says something along the lines of “We said the ‘location arrangement will be reversed in 2013’? We mean that all the teams will sit on the opposite side of the field in 2013.”
Or some other stupid thing.
Makes sense
We have the upperhand this year but will have the worst schedule next year so it will all even out
by jeffmoe on Jan 24, 2012 1:01 PM PST reply actions 2 recs
I think some people may be misunderstanding what Garrett meant.
I don’t think he meant that it’s unfortunate that MLS didn’t rearrange the whole schedule so that we’d have the same # of games home and away against each of Seattle and Vancouver individually. Obviously that would have been asking a huge amount from MLS and that wouldn’t be realistic. And honestly it would mess up the integrity of the MLS schedule itself.
I think what he meant is that it’s unfortunate that of the 9 games played between the 3 teams, that each team wasn’t hosting 3 of them.
It would be very easy for MLS to make sure that, for example, we host Seattle twice, Seattle hosts Vancouver twice, and Vancouver hosts us twice. MLS really ought to be willing to do that as a courtesy.
Why?
MLS can’t show favoritism in scheduling. It has to do things league-wide, otherwise it has no credibility.
They tinker with the schedule for all kinds of reasons.
I’m not suggesting they rearrange the schedule for us. There is no need for that. But within the schedule we currently have, it’s irrelevant if in a given year we host Chivas 2 twice or San Jose twice. To pick out 3 teams and make sure that A hosts B hosts C hosts A would be very simple and would cost them nothing.
The don’t need to schedule a press conference about it, and they could deny that it was anything other than luck of the draw if they really wanted.
It's absolutely relevant to Chivas and to San Jose
At the very least, that’s the loss of a home game and its associated revenue. At most, it’s a huge advantage for Portland, Seattle, and Vancouver. And don’t forget, there are 16 teams in MLS who couldn’t give less of a damn about the Cascadia Cup, which after all is not an MLS-affiliated competition.
MLS has literally no incentive to juggle its schedule around to suit PDX, SEA, and/or VAN.
I don't think you understand what I'm saying.
I am not suggesting that anyone would have one less home game. I apologize if I’m being unclear somehow, but that’s really not what I’m suggesting.
I’m really not sure why everyone is getting so bent out of shape here.
Here's my confusion
But within the schedule we currently have, it’s irrelevant if in a given year we host Chivas 2 twice or San Jose twice.
That implied to me that you were suggesting that one of the current Chivas or San Jose games get switched from one of those venues to JWP. Is that not right?
Also, as above, any scheduling change like this needs to be done league-wide, and can’t just be for the benefit of three teams – would you agree with that?
Sorry then, here's what I mean:
This year, in the real schedule we have PDX @ LA twice; LA @ Seattle twice; Seattle @ PDX twice. That’s all I’m looking for.
That didn’t require stealing a home game from anyone. It would be extremely simply to rearrange about 3 games in the entire schedule, to make sure that PDX/VAN/SEA had the same arrangement.
For example, Change one of our games against Vancouver up there instead of here, change one of Vancouver’s games hosting LA Galaxy (of which they have 2) to be in down in LA, and change one of our games at LA Galaxy to be up here.
If you changed only those 3 games, and changed nothing else in the entire MLS schedule, that would result in each Cascadia team having 3 home games in the Cascadia cup. That’s all I mean to suggest. If you don’t want to do it with LA, there are about 4 other teams we could swap games with and it would work.
OK, I get what you're saying now, but
change one of our games at LA Galaxy to be up here.
This is what I was mentioning above – LA has zero incentive to agree to this, as they would lose the revenue from that home game and face a much trickier road game, all in service of a cup competition they have no stake in. I’m not sure why MLS would be up for this either, since the Cascadia Cup isn’t an MLS-sponsored/owned event.
if we could balance all the games just among the Cascadia axis, that’d be one thing, but the minute you try to balance Cascadia games at the cost of a non-Cascadia team’s gate revenue, that’s where the plan stops dead in its tracks.
Right...
but you don’t have to do it at the back end by swapping games around. You could do it at the front end and just build it into the schedule.
There are probably hundreds of trios of teams in the MLS schedule that randomly ended up with the arrangement that A hosted B twice, while B hosted C twice, while C hosted A twice. It’s just a natural part of this kind of a schedule. It’s really not some unnatural arrangement that you have to cheat someone to get.
Like I said, we got that arrangement with Seattle and LA just by random chance. We ALSO got that arrangement with Vancouver and LA by random chance. I’ll bet there are a 8 or 10 more pairs of teams that we also have that arrangement with. It’s just luck.
It wouldn’t have taken much to just insert that in to the mix in the first place. We’d get the nice Home/Away arrangement for the Cup, and nobody loses out on anything.
But whether it's on the front end or the back end
it’d still be different than the scheduling pattern for the rest of the league, and that’s the part that won’t fly.
There are probably hundreds of trios of teams in the MLS schedule that randomly ended up with the arrangement that A hosted B twice, while B hosted C twice, while C hosted A twice.
It’s not random, though. From above, and from MLS schedulers:
Western Conference clubs will play each other three times, totaling 24 matches. They will play four conference opponents twice at home and once away, and play the other four conference opponents twice away and once at home. The location arrangement will be reversed in 2013.
It was designed that way, and will alternate every year. I don’t know how they decided which teams would host two games in 2012 and one in ‘13, but it’s definitely not random.
I disgree
It wouldn’t be a different schedule pattern at all. We’d have exactly the same pattern as everyone else.
Like I said, we have this exact arrangement now with about a quarter of the possible pairs of teams (I think). And if you get it the first time then (apparently) you have it forever (by which we mean, until the league changes the system again in a couple years.), because the home/away just swaps every year.
If the Cascadia Cup were played between us, Seattle, and LAG, we’d have this arrangement now. There’s no special accommodation being made for that. It would just happen naturally. All you had to do was start with about 3 games scheduled differently in the first place, and you’re fine. You swap all the home and away for the league every year, and it continues to be fine every year.
Of course, since we didn’t do that the first year, we can’t just start doing it next year, because that would cheat someone (e.g. we’d host Seattle twice this year and again next year.)
In fact
I think with any random set of 3 teams from the west, there is a 1/4 chance of getting this arrangement.
This
And arguments over “fairness”, if properly rotated year to year, are bunk. Yes there are year to year swings in the qualities of teams, but thats what you get for having an unbalanced schedule. The teams we play this year vs next at home vs away out of the east is even more odd/seemingly random.
Home: Philly
SKC
Columbus
Chicago
DC
Away: NE (early in season again)
Tor
NY
Hou (in summer)
Mon
This year we should have more tough games at home (given early season prognostications) but then next year we have ALOT of travelling to tough teams away to do, especially because two of the younger teams in the league (DC and Chicago) will have gotten a year older.
I’m with Disclaimer, it wouldn’t have been hard at all, would have meant other teams like RSL and Colorado wouldn’t have to play 3 games to decide the Rocky Mountain Cup.
The only issue is (and why they didn’t do it), is it would mean alot of good rivalry games this year, but less next year upon which to try and get more national games out of. The game, and this cup, is for us though, and while I understand the desire of the league to utilize the rivalry aspect in broadcasts, the unbalanced nature is too much to me.
Yeah, why should MLS do such a thing?
Because we draw crowds, do tifo and stuff? Why can’t supporters change the cup format?
In return for the unbalanced schedule we’re getting a SEA/POR match at Jeld Wen Field broadcast nationally on NBC. I’ll take that trade off.
That's what she said.
by yepyou'reright on Jan 24, 2012 1:52 PM PST up reply actions
It's possible that MLS could make that arrangement
And I think the SGs, as fans, have a right to suggest a fair schedule to the league, and I agree with them. I just think it’s unrealistic for them to expect the league to oblige, which, to me, is what they have done by settling on a format that doesn’t do anything to take an unbalanced schedule into account.
When I write, I write for the Timbers. Contributing Editor of Stumptown Footy
by Andrew Wheeler on Jan 24, 2012 1:56 PM PST up reply actions
It should be the boop test.
I feel strongly about this.
Contributing Editor for Stumptown Footy
by William Conwell on Jan 25, 2012 2:19 PM PST up reply actions
Boob?
I think you misspelled it, should be boob.
Contributing editor to Stumptown Footy the Portland Timbers SBN blog.
Because I was involved
Just kidding of course.
I think because it’s TA related and we all love the TA… at least I do, even when I get pissed at some of them.
That's what she said.
by yepyou'reright on Jan 25, 2012 12:30 PM PST up reply actions
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
