Does the regular season matter?
Looking at cumulative totals among the 15 teams that have contested the '09 and '10 MLS seasons, it becomes clear that the Sounders are among the top teams in overall performance, despite their flirtation with the bottom of the League table through the first half of last year. They are tied (with RSL) at 3rd overall in wins, alone in 3rd overall for fewest goals conceded, and most importantly they are 4th overall in points; which is to say their cumulative record is 4th-best behind L.A., Columbus, and RSL. They do rank an average 7th in goals scored, but to put that in perspective the Galaxy rank 5th.
This year's MLS season will be a grueling, 34-match, double round-robin grind. It may be the last year of the short-lived "balanced schedule" era in which every team plays every other team home and away, just like the Euro's do. It could very well be said that the team that finishes top of the overall table is truly the League's best, regardless of what a post-season trophy knockout phase may indicate.
While we aren't sure of this year's playoff format, we do know there will still be conferences, and we know there will be 10 teams. What this means is that the 34-match marathon of a regular season will only eliminate 8 of 18 teams from MLS cup contention, and as we have seen, the MLS postseason is a complete crapshoot. Each of the last three seasons, a team seeded 7th or 8th has reached the Cup Final, and while in '08 NYRB lost to Supporters Shield winners Columbus, the last two years has seen the low seed lift the Cup. While one could quite rightly see this as an accomplishment of League parity, and the adage of "win when it counts," one could also take a cynical view and openly wonder what a team's priority should really be. If winning as many League matches as possible has shown to not give you a demonstrably better chance at winning the MLS Cup, what purpose does success in the League serve? There is the Supporters Shield, for sure, and while I certainly covet the award, it isn't necessarily recognized as the accomplishment that it is. The MLS Champion is the team with the MLS Cup, not the Supporters Shield.
And such as it is, Sigi this week, with the start of training camp and a somewhat astonishing 40 players in camp, seemed to announce that this year's goal was MLS Cup or bust, and anything short of lifting that trophy may result in a rebuilding of the team.
Let's envision a scenario. Let's suppose that this year the Sounders finish 2nd on the overall League table and they manage to secure progression to the knockout stages of the CCL, but they are knocked out in the semifinals of both the USOC and the MLS Cup. The Sounders will have finished trophy-less, and won't have the satisfaction of taking on their CONCACAF opponent in the quarterfinals until Spring of 2012. How do we feel about this? Does such a season really constitute a stripping down and rebuilding much of the team?
It doesn't help that we still have no idea what exact conference and playoff format is in the works for this year, which is a tad stunning considering that teams have actually begun preparing for the season (and, for that matter, we still don't have a complete schedule). I suppose there is the possibility that Garber, et. al. have cooked up a formula which will actually reward the regular season in a more meaningful manner than we have seen recently, particularly last year, when the teams seeded 7th and 8h were given de-facto higher seeds by switching to the East, and the Western bracket was a murderers row of teams seeded 1,2,4, and 6th.
These issues strike directly at the heart of competitive credibility, which will always circle back on the League's credibility. Parity is all well and good, and the "anyone can win the title" philosophy certainly works well for other American/Canadian sports. However, at least the NHL and NBA bail themselves out by having best-of 7 playoff series, somewhat mitigating the circumstance that they each play overly-long 82-game schedules to only eliminate 14 of 30 teams from championship contention. By contrast to the MLS, the NFL is stingy with only 12 of 32 teams advancing to the post-season, although the divisional format does create bizarre situations like we saw this last season.
Another way of looking at parity is to consider that if there is little competitive difference between any two teams in any one game, then what is necessary is a relatively large number of games, and a balanced schedule, to sort out who is really good and who isn't. The MLS accomplishes this, in spades, as a matter of fact. They do a better job than any other League of significance in North America. This makes it all the more mystifying that they are so willing to throw this away come playoff time, weighting one match on one night so much higher than 34 over 32 weeks.
So, is this season really MLS cup or bust? Are we willing to overlook a season full of wins, and accomplishments, and memories, if we go trophy-less? Is this a team that would need to start over if they can't navigate the post-season lottery? I guess we'll have to wait and see...
45 comments
|
1 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
Hard for me to believe
That if the sounders accomplished all your put out there that the FO would still blow up this team. They’re a pretty reasonable bunch and if they are clearly a top 4 team, blowing up the core would be a hard way to improve, I’d think.
Editor/writer at Sounder at Heart, North American soccer editor SB Nation and of course follow me on Twitter
Starting over has many degrees
I do not think he meant blow up the team. I believe me meant tweaking a few of the core players. We already know that Keller will not be back, which will open up a lot of cap space. N’kufo is on his last legs, which also could open up cap space.
What Sigi mentions is that the Sounders are not scoring goals in the playoffs. If that continues this season, I think you can guess what core players he is talking about.
Note how many of the "core" potential starters have been here more than a full season
And then note how many are under 28
I am not a Supporter | I am not a Fan | I am a Sounder
Sounder At Heart
I think a lot of what Sigi is saying was motivational
But, changing the core of the team is somewhat built in with Keller retiring, as he was a big leader. Most of this team is around 24-25 years of age. They should just be hitting their stride this season. Keller, Jaqua and Gonzalez are the three core players over 28 that I can see (I do not include players like Levesque who get most of their playing time in non MlS games).
Sigi really wants the expectations to be raised for the players, as being satisfied just making the playoffs is not good enough anymore. There are interesting comments.
lack of scoring in playoffs
Could also be the result of playing two of the stingiest teams in terms of goals allowed the last two years. In ‘09 we tied with Houston for fewest goals allowed, making the 1-0 aggregate after extra time in the 2nd leg somewhat predictable. Last year L.A. finished #2 in fewest goals allowed with only 26… and let’s not forget that this team took their foot off the gas a bit in the second half of the season. Remember that they allowed a stunningly low 5 total goals in their first 15 matches…
When I talk of the playoff crapshoot or lottery, this is the type of thing I speak of. Imagine of we had finished 7th last year and been able to take on Columbus in the first round. I think we have had success scoring against that team…
I am not going to argue that the Sounders are a great goal scoring team. We are actually only very slightly above average over two years, with 77 against a 15-team average of 75.1. But the fact is is that we have also been screwed by geography each of the last two seasons, playing teams seeded higher than we would’ve played in a single-table format.
...that's MISTER Keller to you!!!
by malcontentjake on Jan 27, 2011 10:21 AM PST up reply actions
To counter and I think that this is what Sigi is thinking
Great teams find a way to score no matter the competition. That is what wins championships. If the current goal scorers are not getting the job done, then they will find others that will.
to an extent
what we saw in the Final was great goal scorers scoring in regular time (Ferriera and Casey). The Cup ultimately went to the team which got a lucky bounce in extra time. This is soccer… and this is why it takes 34 matches to decide who is really “best”
...that's MISTER Keller to you!!!
by malcontentjake on Jan 27, 2011 11:01 AM PST up reply actions
34 matches
It seems the Supporter’s Shield should be held in higher esteem? I’ve learned after becoming a fan of the sport again in 2008 that you do always have to have a season long outlook because those fluky losses can be hard to take one game at a time.
by seattle dude on Jan 27, 2011 11:16 AM PST up reply actions
We can probably agree that's how it should be...
But MLS clearly recognizes the Cup winner as its champion, and so do most fans.
Editor/writer at Sounder at Heart, North American soccer editor SB Nation and of course follow me on Twitter
by Jeremiah Oshan on Jan 27, 2011 11:38 AM PST up reply actions
Change should be fan directed
It may be that the league recognizes the Cup Winner as the champ, but I honestly I did too. Over the past two years I have been migrating torwards supporters shield. But if the league came out with some official edict saying it was the new championship I do nto think fans would really care.
My point is I think if we think the Shield is more important, than just say it is act like it is, explain to others why it is and eventually you get more and more fans. Only then will the league change, but at that point who cares what the league thinks anyhow? :)
by lysander on Jan 27, 2011 3:15 PM PST up reply actions 1 recs
One game final
works just fine for Uefa champions league, and the eurosnobs don’t seem to have a problem with that.
Win or lose, we will always be here for you.
by johnjahafanclub on Jan 27, 2011 8:12 PM PST up reply actions
who are you responding to?
Editor/writer at Sounder at Heart, North American soccer editor SB Nation and of course follow me on Twitter
by Jeremiah Oshan on Jan 27, 2011 9:01 PM PST up reply actions
I don't even remember now
don’t pay any attention to me
Win or lose, we will always be here for you.
by johnjahafanclub on Jan 27, 2011 9:05 PM PST up reply actions
Champs. Lge is cup competition, not league competition...
despite the name. Beyond that, my issue is not with single-game cup finals, they are actually great. My issue is with what I see to be an undervalued League season. In the Euro model, League competitions are just that, and Cup competitions are just that… but here we have a League competition decided by a Cup playoff. I also want to make two things clear. I am not necessarily anti-playoff. And there are certainly other soccer league’s around the world that do it the MLS way - as Dave will gladly point out ;)
...that's MISTER Keller to you!!!
by malcontentjake on Jan 27, 2011 9:04 PM PST up reply actions
yup, works well for the Mexican league too
Win or lose, we will always be here for you.
by johnjahafanclub on Jan 27, 2011 9:05 PM PST up reply actions
the Mexican system
has never made sense to me
...that's MISTER Keller to you!!!
by malcontentjake on Jan 27, 2011 9:07 PM PST up reply actions
it makes sense to the mexicans
25k avg attendance
higher than Italy and France
http://www.thebesteleven.com/2009/12/world-soccer-average-attendance-list.html
Win or lose, we will always be here for you.
by johnjahafanclub on Jan 27, 2011 9:18 PM PST up reply actions
not sure what argument you're making
there are dozens of factors which go into League attendance… I’m not sure League format is a major one…
while most agree the major-college football system is atrocious, that hardly stops people from going to games…
...that's MISTER Keller to you!!!
by malcontentjake on Jan 27, 2011 9:22 PM PST up reply actions
Who cares about Eurosnobs?
2 games, home-and-away is a much better way to decide a championship in soccer.
We don't want the dreaded
“Scourge of lesser opponents” tag. You have to have an offense that scores enough against the toughest defenses that it no longer pays to shell up against us.
Right now, it’s the best way to beat us. Put 10 guys behind the ball, kick it long and hope for a lucky shot. Win 1-0 or tie 0-0. Until we can break those, the best teams will always get the best of us.
We've won plenty of 1-0 games
I wouldn’t go panicking based on four playoff games just yet.
Editor/writer at Sounder at Heart, North American soccer editor SB Nation and of course follow me on Twitter
by Jeremiah Oshan on Jan 27, 2011 12:50 PM PST up reply actions
I'm not panicked
But I’d say we are between a anomoly and a trend right now. One more year and it’s a trend.
Six games is still a really small sample size for a trend to mean much.
The regular season is more than 5 times as long!
Playoffs
Think it was a big mistake to expand to 10 teams, was looking forward to an 8 team playoff after expansion.
by Irrlicht on Jan 27, 2011 10:26 AM PST reply actions 1 recs
10 teams makes the regular season more 'important'
Paradoxical though that may seem. Reason being that there’s no real way to have a 10-team playoff without giving some higher seeds a bye.
'Gentlemen' he said,
'I don't need your organization,
I've shined your shoes,
moved your mountains and marked your cards,
but Eden is burning.
Either get ready for elimination,
or else your heart must have the courage,
for the changing of the guards.'
the most obvious way
is to have seeds 7-10 play a “wildcard” round, then have an 8-team playoff probably identical to what we’ve seen the last couple years (2-legged first round, single-game after that). I would put my money on this being how it’ll all go…
But the big questions involve how teams will be seeded, and how much “conference crossover”, of any, there will be. If you recall Mr. Garber seemed to indicate that they will try to find a solution to Western teams in the East, and vice-versa, when interviewed about this topic during half-time of the Cup final in Toronto last November.
The point is, as we have seen in the Sounders first two years, they finished 4th overall in ’09, but matched up against the #3 overall (instead of the 5th overall) in a #2-v-#3 Western matchup. Last year we finished 6th overall, but played #1 (instead of #3) in a #1-v-#4 Western matchup. If Garber, et. al. decide to continue this fallacy then it hardly helps to reduce the “crapshoot” element to the playoffs.
...that's MISTER Keller to you!!!
by malcontentjake on Jan 27, 2011 10:55 AM PST up reply actions
It's motivational talk
Anyone who thinks a 2nd year team being in an international tournament (and I still think but by luck we could have advanced out of the group stage of the CCL) and wining a major trophy isn’t a success is mental. It’s not the BEST success— who doesn’t want us to win all of these in one go?
CCL
World Club Cup
MLS Cup
Supporter’s Shield
USOC
…I know I do. I want the Sounders to be 34-0 with 102 points and 5-0 clean sheet victories all, but if we defend the USOC for a three-peat—who does that in any major sport?—go at least 2nd-3rd round in MLS playoffs, at least do better in CCL group play/flirt with the knockout rounds, and requalify for the next CCL after, it will be an amazing season.
This might not be the best place to discuss this but I've been thinking for a while that the best way to add importance to the Shield is to give the winner a bye to the final of the MLS Playoffs.
Not sure what this would do in terms of number of playoff teams but it eliminates the argument that the playoffs are a crapshoot because for then on it would pit the best team of the regular season vs. the winner of a playoff.
by Robert on Jan 27, 2011 1:00 PM PST reply actions 1 recs
That's a good idea
I like playoffs. I’m not one of the people that think we should drop them or reduce their importance. But they REALLY need to be tweaked, for many of the very good reasons brought up here.
I think making the opening rounds all single-leg games and making the cup-final a 2-leg home-and-away affair, with the winner of the Supporters’ Shield getting an automatic by into the final would be great. You reward the team that wins the SS in a big way and you still have the excitement and pressure of playoffs. You also make it harder for a team seeded 7 or 8 to advance if they’re playing away at the higher seed in a winner-takes-all game.
Will a (somewhat) radical change like this happen? I’d say almost certainly not. But I think it’d be smart in a lot of ways.
Nice idea
but it wouldn’t work cuz of the lost revenue from the limited number of games. Maybe a SS winner should get to put a star on their crest just like a cup winner.
Honestly, is it really a problem. I know Jake doesn't like it because he thinks it devalues the regular season
But, do most MLS fans think as he does? I know that I don’t. To me, we play a season to crown a champion. Sometimes the best regular season team is the champion and sometimes it isn’t. Sometimes the Supporters Shield winner is the best team at the end of the season and sometimes it is not. I do not think that LA was the best team at the end of last season.
Now, the way that MLS seeds teams in the playoffs is idiotic and should be changed, but I have no problem with the basic structure.
Simple Regular Season/Playoff Fix
MLS fans need to accept that conferences and playoffs are a permanent fixture in the league. However, in saying that, having Colorado (2010) and Salt Lake (2009) as Eastern Conference playoff champions and NY (2008) as Western Conference playoff champions is, to say the least, embarrassing.
Make the regular season and playoffs cohesive. Eight teams with the Eastern and Western Conference Champions seeded #1 and #2 based on their regular season record. Scrap Eastern and Western playoff brackets. Every other team is seeded by their regular season record regardless of conference. Conference Champion would mean a conference trophy, priority placement in the playoffs and home field advantage.
#1 Galaxy (WC) vs. #8 Earthquakes
#2 Red Bull (EC) vs. #7 Rapids
#3 Real vs. #6 Sounders
#4 Crew vs. #5 FC Dallas
A two leg format throughout the entire post season with away goals deciding the aggregate. The second leg (game) would go to penalty kicks if the goal differential was equal; no overtimes in either leg.
Since the Supporters Shield seems to be the hurdle many fans use against a playoff format, MLS should reward the Supporters Shield recipient, besides a spot in the Champions League, the following season’s All-Star game.
huh?
what do mean by this, “besides a spot in the Champions League, the following season’s All-Star game.”
Reward them by making them play against the all star team? Or better yet exclude their players from having to play in the all star game? :)
Hosting it
Financial benefit
I am not a Supporter | I am not a Fan | I am a Sounder
Sounder At Heart
Just say no to away goals tiebreaker
Two-legged series are really one long 120-minute game and the away goals tiebreaker diminishes home field advantage (which was won through the hard-fought regular season.) The away goals tiebreaker forces the higher seeded team to expose itself more to an early deficit in the 120-minute game by having to push for goals in the first 60 minutes.
Let the higher seed win any aggregate draws. It’s more straightforward and clearly gives an advantage to the higher seed. It also has the benefit of never going to penalties.
Ultimately it’s a matter of taste, but I find the away goals tiebreaker to be rather arbitrary and unfavorable. I get that the goal is to have more attacking soccer, but I’m not sure it accomplishes that goal all that well.
I like Playoff Systems that reward homefield advantage when within the same league
I can understand two leg series with Away Goals for cross league tourneys, but NOT within.
I am not a Supporter | I am not a Fan | I am a Sounder
Sounder At Heart
I actually couldn't care else about crossover teams...
and neither should the League, because the conferences serve absolutely no purpose with the balanced schedule. It didn’t really bug me that San Jose and Colorado played for the Eastern title, but it actually really pissed me off they directly benefited from finishing lower on the overall table by going into the easier half of the bracket. This is the real problem!
...that's MISTER Keller to you!!!
by malcontentjake on Jan 27, 2011 9:24 PM PST up reply actions
This I agree with wholehartedly. The way the seeding is done should be restructured.
I do not know how they will structured it with 10 teams. I would have the winner of each conference get a first round bye and be seed 1 & 2. The next 4 highest point totals get to host a home games for a loser out game with 3 playing 10, 4 playing 9 and so on.
Then, it is reseeded where the lowest seed that moves on plays the 1 seed in a two match series. Then the next lowest plays the 2 seed. Then of the four remaining teams, the highest seeded team hosts the lowest remaining seed and for the last two teams the same.
I'll make my plug for the Super League again
Though I wholeheartedly support two-legged play-offs due to the high game-parity of soccer, I still think that Super League Rugby has the best playoff format there is. It seems to have the right sort of balance between rewarding a team’s league performance and giving lower seeded team’s a fighting chance. Plus the inherent drama that is club call gives the media and fans plenty to cause a frenzy over. Clearly some tweaking would be in order- but the general design is what I’ve been saying I would love to see the MLS adopt (knowing full well that the league would never actually adopt a format written above the 3rd grade level).
I like the idea brought up about awarding the higher seed the victory instead of away goals or a shootout quite a bit as well. Not sure if I’d demand extra time first…but here’s a big +1 to that movement in intra-league competitions.
At the end of the day , the answer to the headline is- A little, but not enough to give any real meaning to any particular game.
And if you ask me, that’s too bad.
No
If I did not have a local team to support, I would devote very little time to MLS because of how stupid the season format is. As written, the regular season is essentially meaningless and the entire league season is based on four games rather than 34. And then the semifinal round (conference final) is one leg, which also lends itself to the lesser team winning more often than should be the case.
If anything, we should have lessened the number of playoff teams to six so that the regular-season conference champions would have earned a bye (reward) for being the best over 34 games. As someone who hates playoffs (well, playoff games are cool, but I hate how meaningless they make regular-season games), I know full well they are not going anywhere, so right now I am just hoping we give regular-season results more value. And that is not done by ensuring more than half the teams make the playoffs.



















