MLS playoff structure: keeping score
by Steve Davis on Nov 15, 2010 10:37 AM EST
Email
Print
If it makes anyone feel any better about the highly flawed MLS playoff system, know that the whole thing is slightly less flawed in the conference finals.
A lack of reward for the higher seed is the predominant complaint about the opening round; One team can be significantly better over the long, seven-month season, but really not gain much benefit for it in the opening round. (Well, other than playing a lower seed.) That’s because of the first-round home-and-away aggregate goals format.
The raw data reveals that there higher seeds do gain an edge in the conference finals – but not a massive one; the better team over the entire season gets the do-or-die, one-match decider at home.
So, how’s that worked out for everyone? Since MLS adopted the current system, the home team is 11-5 in those conference finals.
In fact, one road team has prevailed in the pair of conference finals in five of the last six years. L.A. downed the Rapids in Denver back in 2005, New England overcame D.C. United inside RFK a year later, New York won against the run of play at Real Salt Lake in 2008 and RSL eliminated Chicago in the Windy City (in penalty kicks last year. And, of course, is the most stunning win yet by a visitor in a league semifinal, Dallas ambushed the Galaxy last night.
So, there is an advantage. But is it enough? And what will that mean this week as playoff structure unfolds as one of the major discussion points for MLS deciders during league meetings going on in Toronto.
I’m not sure, honestly. But that’s more data for everyone to chew on – and that can’t be a bad thing.
7 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
Playoffs
I’ve really kind of soured on the whole thing after some of the results we’ve seen. I know that playoffs are a fixture in US sports, and that upsets are supposed to be exciting and great and all that, but MLS especially has a playoff structure that penalizes succesful teams, not only teams that are succesful in season, but teams that are succesful season to season.
It would be one thing if playoff teams only had to concentrate on the season and the playoffs, but as we’ve seen mentioned over and over, the teams who do well one season are then entered into concurrent competitons like CCL, Superliga, and the Open Cup, saddled with an increased number of games, meaning that come playoff time they have that many more miles on their tires than their competition.
I think it was Fanhouse that had stat showing that teams who avoid these competitions end up winning MLS cup more often than teams who are entered.
On the one hand parity is nice, but on the other you end with Cup finals like the one we have coming up, with two of the least-supported teams facing off. Its good for their fans, few in number though they be, but needless to say not the matchup league officials were hoping to see for the league’s marquee event.
I think at this point Id like to see the whole thing scrapped, have a single table with a single champion, maybe run the MLS Cup concurrently with the season, but I know thats not going to happen.
Yes, if they keep this format
Every team should be required to play the same number of games. Add a “Cupa Crapia” or “B League Showdown” or something to give the rest of the teams some more work when they are eliminated or don’t qualify for the other competitions.
I don't get the reasoning behind not wanting a playoff
I’ve never understood the sentiment that the best team is always the team that finishes at the top of the standings. Why should games against the worst teams in the league and at the begining of the season be so influential on who the ultimate champion is? What’s the matter with “In order to be the best you have to beat the best”? Personally, I think you find out who the best team is when the game means everything.
exploding highfive
Im not at all opposed
to a playoff per se, even though I think that it some sports it works better than in others.
The problem with MLS is that it attempts to serve two masters: not only is there an American-style playoff tournament at the end of the season, but there are also Euro (and rest of world) style concurrent tournaments during the season.
Stats have shown that teams that are in these competitions (that is, teams that had a good season last year,) don’t do well in the MLS playoffs. In effect you are putting teams at a disadvantage because they did well.
There are probably other solutions to scrapping the whole thing: adding roster places, adding games for bad teams (probably not feasible as no one watches the CCL already.)
I know that some of the Latin American leagues also have playoffs, and itd be interesting to see what kind of model they use. Their teams sometimes refuse to enter a tournament if they dont want to (like America with Superliga.) Is that an option for MLS teams?
It used to be that way in all sports, but in soccer more emphasis is traditionally placed on the league winner, and I think MLS has recognized that by creating the Supporter’s Shield, and to me that’s the real Championship. This year every team played the other team twice. Everyone had the same schedule. Its much harder to be the best over the long haul than it is to catch fire for one night, especially given all the variables that can affect one single game (like an injury to one of your best players, or some god-awful officiating, or whatever.)
Looking at the whole season, can you really say that Colorado was a better team than LA, or RSL, Seattle, or even NY? They got a soft draw, benefitted from an upset in their bracket, and made it to the final, and could even end up as MLS Cup winners. I know that’s part of the excitement of the playoffs, but does it make them the best team on the year? For me there’s too much luck involved.
by ianua ditis on Nov 18, 2010 12:10 PM EST up reply actions
I think we've all seen enough World Cups with Brazil winning the whole the thing
to know that the best team can easily win these knock-out tournaments, and this year most people would have picked Spain, but even these teams need a little luck to get through to win. I think home field is pretty well established advantage as well, its just not that a very high percentage 5-10%?, not really a guarantee in a one game final assuming the other team isn’t bad. I don’t know enough of the MLS to say for sure, but I really don’t think there have been any dominant teams, and it has always been a tossup who would win.
But it is a long season, there are a lot of games, a World Cup mixed in the middle, and who knows how much of a factor that grind is on the players, and I’m not convinced a sport that takes so much out of you is played at the highest possible level at this point in the season. I would go for an MLS Cup (leave the US Open Cup for the MLS teams who are out of contention) running through the coarse of the season with a Supporters Shield vs. MLS Cup Superfinal. I like that idea as well.
yes
the best team certainly can win a knockout tournament, but in the World Cup they don’t give Brazil all these extra games in the runup to the real competition.
The fact that you so rarely see World Cup upsets, whereas in MLS cup they happen on a regular basis is a good argument for some tweaking of the format ( I think we agree on that point anyway.)
I like your idea of a concurrent MLS cup followed by a superfinal. That would give some element of a postseason as well as alleviate some of the fatigue element that clearly plays a part in the current playoff format. It also gives a greater emphasis on winning the league.
by ianua ditis on Nov 18, 2010 12:16 PM EST up reply actions
Hmmm....
I like this idea. The only drawback I see is what happens if the Supporters Shield winner is also the MLS Cup winner? What do you do with the Superfinal then? Not play it? It would be a little like canceling the Super Bowl, wouldn’t it?
by DissidentAggressor on Nov 18, 2010 11:23 PM EST up reply actions
