Opportunity missed for MLS; Championship format will remain the same
by Steve Davis on Jan 4, 2010 3:59 PM EST
Email
PrintAlso file under: Man, who saw that coming?
Major League Soccer commish Don Garber announced – pretty much out of nowhere – that the league’s championship will remain at a neutral site.
There was significant momentum during MLS Cup week for the big decider to be played at the site of the higher seed. I loved the idea, as it would help solve a whopper of an MLS conundrum: how to make the long regular season matter just a little more.
As it is, the 15th MLS season, which will begin in March, will see the regular season landing with more importance than ever. That’s just simple math, as an all-time high 16 teams will compete for 8 playoff spots. For the first time ever, half the field will fail to qualify for the playoffs, and that’s a significant evolution. If you’re not in the top half of the field over the seven-plus month regular season, well, too bad. Pick up your gift for participation on the way home.
So, maybe the timing of this idea wasn’t ideal. Still, I loved the nation of a home team in the title game for one other important reason: presentation remains critical to the domestic game. And talk about a crazy atmosphere waiting to happen.
On the other hand, when these things play out in neutral sites they usually land a little flat on the sizzle factor. They lack a little zip and zing –
Heck, there’s been more genuine excitement at my neighborhood Christmas Tree lighting ceremonies than at some of these neutral site snoozers.
So, MLS missed the boat on this one. My guess: the deciders got pressure from Red Bull to put the final in their spanking new grounds (which are going be fabulous, as I’ve written before.) Bad weather afoot? Probably. But the mighty marketing dollar speaks loudly.
Again, that’s just a guess. We’ll soon find out.
7 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
Not a problem if
I have no problem with neutral sites, what I have a problem with is a championship game played where fans of the teams playing have to sit in the 3rd deck of a NFL stadium to watch a match played on fake grass.
It is funny that “the Don” spoke several times on MLS Cup weekend in Seattle about knowing that the most likely growth channel for the sport is the supporter groups, so will he put actions behind his words and have the stadium (cough New York, or Philly) dedicate at least 1,000 quality seats for each of the teams playing in the match? If not then like so many other things you will end up with a stadium full of people who are there but really don’t care who wins.
Don’t get me wrong I love the fans in Seattle, but aside from one “Seattle…….Sounders” chant before the match they were a very silent bunch. The Brit, I was sitting next too on the pitch was amazed that the loudest fans were in the 3rd deck of the stadium. I believe his statement was “shame the real fans get such #*^$ seats”.
Neutral is OK
I think neutral works. If you want sizzle, instead of giving people a home game which is just not that fair, put the game in a good place. Just look at Seattle, or Chicago. Which brings me to my point. I like to channel my angst over bad fortune to specific things. So, in my mind a mini-conspiracy theory has been formed concerning MLS being unfair to my Fire. But one of the actuallly strong points of it is this: Toyota Park was opened in 2006, and, although the allstar game was played in TP, no final. It seems to me that every new stadium hosts the cup in its first year. RBNY? Commish’s pet, even through terrible seasons in an empty stadium. LA? Same case, but stronger. I believe that Chicago fans are tough, and we are still in the bleachers after terrible resultsby all of our teams. Cubs, Sox, Bears, Bulls, Fire looked pretty woeful for a while. We deserve a final.
by patrickhattrick on Jan 4, 2010 11:14 PM EST via mobile reply actions
want the regular season to matter more?
top 4, only, make playoffs (I should mention this would involve finally getting rid of conferences). They play a 3-match round-robin, — like a tournament “group stage” - with higher-seed hosting (meaning 1st seed hosts three matches, 4th seed none). Top two play in neutral-site Cup Final. MLS gets to keep the neutral site cup final
-
— Regular season means a hell of a lot
...that's MISTER Keller to you!!!
Problem with that is it makes the second half of the regular season mean nothing to most of the clubs since they won’t be able to get into the top 4.
by danielfarrell on Jan 5, 2010 9:21 AM EST via mobile up reply actions
Why not Chicago??
I’ll tell you why. It’s a nightmare getting there. It’s Frisco, but with public transit, with a caveat. The train only goes halfway. Then you get to wait at Midway Airport for god-knows-how-long for a bus to take you the other half. The game I went to there, I didn’t know how to judge the time, and we didn’t get to the stadium until well into the 1st half, damn near half-time. Stadium is nice, but it’s even more in the booneys than our beloved (ahem) PHP.
Chad the Ref
the reason for neutral site
The season goes too long and had for some reason RLS was the top seed playing a game in SLC would be terrible. It was in late November and playing games in winter in Salt Lake, New York, Boston, Columbus, DC, Chicago, and even Frisco can have show or very cold weather. I think the season is way too long, its what April till November? I think it should try to end in last September or first week of October to avoid most weather issues and be able to have the higher seed host.
