Poll: CCL Knockout Rounds v MLS Cup v Supporters Shield
by Dave Clark on Aug 16, 2011 10:42 AM PDT
in Life in the Sound
Email
Print
MLSsoccerfutbolfootball.com set-up a poll today that pitted the CONCACAF Champions League trophy versus the MLS Cup. Not surprisingly about 70% preferred the CCL title to MLS Cup Champions, but that really isn't the point. That even 30% of people would prefer a title that is won every year versus one that an MLS team hasn't one in nearly a decade, and only twice (by DC United and the Los Angeles Galaxy), is stunning.
And that isn't really how a team can approach the CCL. It is much harder, takes much more effort, has a mini-season (Group Stage) within one MLS season and a knockout in another. The question of prioritization of the regional tournament against the league season and playoffs takes place next year, not this.
This year is about making it out of the knockout rounds, which is rare enough for MLS sides. And so the more difficult question is posed. It is the kind of challenge that Sigi Schmid and Adrian Hanauer are dealing with right now. You can't win a Cup without making it to the knockout stages of either the CCL or MLS.
46 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
Too Easy
Just look at last year. If all you are promised is an appearance versus a trophy, take the trophy and run.
by AshReza on Aug 16, 2011 10:47 AM PDT reply actions 2 recs
How does last year relate?
the Sounders didn’t make the knockouts
I am not a Supporter | I am not a Fan | I am a Sounder
Sounder At Heart
read it wrong
thought it was group stage vs. trophy. Either way…promise a trophy, I take the trophy.
League success
MLS Cup: #1
Shield: #2
CCL Championship: #3
USOC: #4
I realize that in the grand scheme of things, CCL championship is on the whole more important. But to a nation that doesn’t seem to be able to comprehend a separate international tournament, winning something that’s familiar is more important to spreading the game. After we get people into a mode of better understanding, then I think that the importance would shift to CCL wins.
Just to be clear, I believe CCL win is the best possible and most important thing. As far as raising general awareness of the sport to the general public, “winning the playoffs” is most important.
by chrisperry1983 on Aug 16, 2011 10:54 AM PDT reply actions
League success
1. Supporter’s Shield (=“winning the league”)
2. MLS Cup (=“winning the FA Cup”)
3. Nice weather we’re having.
4. CCL (=“an honor”)
5. Open Cup (=“winning the League Cup”)
Yes, I know that the two cups are reversed in terms of how they are organized, but not in importance. Similarly, CCL is not as important as the UEFA one. I think the caliber of the teams we, and the other clubs, put on the field reflects this. It’s great, and I hope we win, or at least go far, but compared to the real thing — THE LEAGUE — it doesn’t matter much at all. The league is where you play most of your games.
And no, I don’t really give a damn about the UEFA CL either unless Spurs are in it. Barcelona? Man Utd? Screw those guys. That’s not the game I follow.
by Fnarf on Aug 16, 2011 11:03 AM PDT up reply actions 1 recs
I'm torn between MLS Cup and Shield
I know the shield is a big deal, it shows who the best in the league is across the whole season. But I like winning the cup better, because there is significantly more fanfare. In the end, nobody really remembers who was the best, all they remember is who won the championship.
Sidenote – I am also a huge Spurs fan.
by chrisperry1983 on Aug 16, 2011 11:15 AM PDT up reply actions
Spurs fan?
Shocking! Nice to meet you!
I agree, the fanfare is bigger with the cup, but that’s just one of the things that annoys me about MLS. I’m not super-crazy about the Latin American Apertura-Clausura system either, but it’s better than this. We are hamstrung by American exceptionalism (and weather, and stadium availability, and a bunch of other things). Such is life.
I still want to crush those Galaxy bastards like the disgusting disease-carrying bugs they are, though.
I'm a bit of a mix
I would love a single table. Top team gets the shield. Then the top X number of teams overall go into a playoff format. I don’t see what’s so difficult about that. I could care less if east vs west aren’t evenly represented. If you aren’t among the best, you should not be in the playoffs.
Seahawks were a losing team last year going 7-9. That is a travesty, because there were many other teams better than them that missed out, only because they played in a much tougher conference.
by chrisperry1983 on Aug 16, 2011 11:35 AM PDT up reply actions
and by X number
I mean less than 50% get in. Top 8. How about that?
by chrisperry1983 on Aug 16, 2011 11:36 AM PDT up reply actions
The Seahawks making the post season last year is not that much of a travesty when you consider that the NFL scheduling means every team is playing a vastly different schedule.
A 7-9 team making the playoffs is just the result of an imbalance in team quality between the divisions that will correct itself over time. It would be different if a 7-9 team was making it every year, which isn’t even close to being true. Divisions make less sense in MLS where (at least for now) every team plays every other team home and away, but even still, the it will not always be true that the 5 best teams are all in one conference. Things will balance out.
You are right
but still, why make the winners of each conference the ones that advance? If the Seahawks are continuously in a crappy NFC West division, they should be able to come out with a respectable record and make it into the playoffs as at least somewhat legit contenders as far as record goes.
I guess my fundamental point is, I would love to see the top teams playing in the playoffs. I want to see the best of the best. I don’t want handicapped teams making it in because they’re in a weak conference but they still came out on top with a losing record.
I know that on ‘any given day’ someone like the Raiders could beat the Packers or Steelers or whoever. And that’s fine. But when we’re talking national championships, I want to see the best of the best.
by chrisperry1983 on Aug 16, 2011 11:47 AM PDT up reply actions
I'm with you
I think the current MLS playoff format is fine, but the number of teams that qualify should be cut down; too many playoff spots.
SSFC | What I do for fun: Sometimes-Interesting
by ABTsportsline on Aug 16, 2011 12:05 PM PDT up reply actions
East-West is stupid
Especially since they don’t actually play amongst their own region more. If they split the league so that we actually played West teams more, that would almost make sense. But not really. It should be a single table.
But a single table of that size (over 16, say) requires relegation to make the bottom half interesting. Otherwise the season’s over for 3/4 of the teams by Week Six. I would LOVE to see relegation, but it would just be too difficult to implement here — the lower league has to have better stadiums.
Devils advocate
One common reason that people say they do not follow MLS is becuase their teams do not compete against the best in the world. Saying that we beat mexican teams would surprise many people and weaken that argument.
I could see that
In my experience though, when I explain what CCL is, I get asked if the Sounders are playing in the world cup. I guess I’m talking about the general sports populous that are unfamiliar with the game, the USA-Mexico rivalry, etc. I certainly think what you’re saying applies to some percentage of those fans.
by chrisperry1983 on Aug 16, 2011 11:27 AM PDT up reply actions
I forgot to note
Making it out of the Group Stages gets you more allocation dollars next year, and MLS helps foot the bill for charter travel in knockouts.
I am not a Supporter | I am not a Fan | I am a Sounder
Sounder At Heart
Auto-start videos suck
SB Nation has decided to add an auto-starting video for MLS to the sidebar of selected reloads of the main Sounders at Heart page. Really, really horrible idea. I don’t know if there’s anything Dave or the others can do about it, but I hope so.
I tend not to block ads
On sites I really like. Dunno if it matters, but I want to support the site.
Sidenote
It bothers me on sites like Lifehacker and Gizmodo where people using adblockers are belittled by commenters and writers alike, and yet they are always showing tricks on how to get past subscription systems, how to best use DVR’s to skip commercials, etc. Fricken hypocrites.
by chrisperry1983 on Aug 16, 2011 11:41 AM PDT up reply actions
I like the ads
I don’t mind auto-start videos if they don’t have sound. Would like it to play a greater variety of videos though.
The worst thing is
not knowing where it’s coming from. I have dozens of tabs and pages open, and I’m constantly refreshing and switching back and forth, and the video takes some time to load (and is preceded by a silent video ad), so all of a sudden out of nowhere some jackass starts shouting at me and it takes a while to figure out which tab it’s on, and where on the page it is.
Hate is not too strong a word.
by Fnarf on Aug 16, 2011 11:23 AM PDT up reply actions 5 recs
Ads
My connection is slow enough already here at work (shared between thousands of people I’m sure), so that thing you speak of slows my browsing down considerably as well. I’m ok with Dave & co. earning their share though – so no complaints from me.
At least those Nestea ads or whatever it was that occupied both sidebars with half-naked chicks went away. Don’t think those people around me thought my surfing was “clean” when those were around :D
SSFC | What I do for fun: Sometimes-Interesting
by ABTsportsline on Aug 16, 2011 11:47 AM PDT up reply actions
Speakers are on mute unless I'm watching/listening to something
That way the only ads that piss me off are the ones that explode across the entirety of the page
by MicahRowe18 on Aug 16, 2011 11:16 AM PDT via mobile up reply actions
Winning trophies trumps getting a chance to win a trophy
In that light, I’d rather win MLS silverware rather than make the group stages. I’d also rather win the USOC a third time rather than make the knockout rounds if I have to make that choice (yeah, it’s a lesser trophy than the others, but how many teams have done it three times and how many chances will we have to three-peat ANYTHING in parity-crazy MLS?)
by Nevtelen on Aug 16, 2011 11:17 AM PDT reply actions 1 recs
I don't think we really ahve a shot at the shield anyway.
I know that sounds doomy and gloomy, but I think the international matches and and the MLS cup really adnvace the prestige of our team more than anything else, particluarly in North America. The Supporters’ Shield, while actually the true measure of the best team in MLS (and what most “real soccer fans” say is the most important), seems to be an afterthought in the casual observer’s mind. When people ask who was last year’s champion, you don’t say the winner of the Supporters’ Shield, you tell them who won the MLS Cup. So I say get into the playoffs, go as far in CCL as possible, and then put all the eggs into the playoffs basket. The Shield is going to be nearly impossible with the LA machine down south. Think we can nip them in a playoff format, though.
by Kyle Ritter on Aug 16, 2011 11:29 AM PDT up reply actions
Pretty much exactly my position
1) MLS Cup
2) Open Cup
3) SS
4) CCL
I know that doesn’t make sense to a lot of you, but trophies are what people remember, not what stage in a tournament a team advanced to. SS is great for bragging rights, but as has been said – no one remembers who the SS was in any given year. The MLS Cup winner is who everyone remembers, even though I’d agree with those that say the SS is the true champion.
SSFC | What I do for fun: Sometimes-Interesting
by ABTsportsline on Aug 16, 2011 11:49 AM PDT up reply actions 1 recs
CCL is what 16 year old kids in Mexico
that want to be future 20 year old DPs remember, though.
by Kyle Ritter on Aug 16, 2011 11:55 AM PDT up reply actions
Don't want to make it appear I don't care about the CCL
I definitely agree to its level of importance.
However for this exercise it was an option for CCL advancement, not a trophy. If we’re talking trophies, for me the CCL would most certainly be at the top.
SSFC | What I do for fun: Sometimes-Interesting
by ABTsportsline on Aug 16, 2011 12:07 PM PDT up reply actions
Yep, me too
I’d rather win the CCL than any other option on the table. But if we’re talking advancing to the knockouts vs a trophy – I’ll take the trophy every time.
This IS a difficult question.
Winning the MLS Cup or Supporters Shield gets us back into the CCL Group stage next year, so I would probably take the trophy. However, making the knockout round would be nice too.
However, we are much less likely to win the SS, and we ARE likely to make the playoffs, which is the important first step to the MLS Cup
so I would keep the goal of making it out of the Group state in the CCL a priority.
Single Table ... Arguments for and Against?
Why is MLS so married to the east/west division format? The only way I can make sense of it is that they plan to add well beyond 20 teams with an unbalanced schedule and are worried that removing it will make it difficult to add back. With the current balanced schedule, it really makes no sense at all. I would much, much rather see a single table. I would also like to see MLS stop at 20 teams.
Regarding the poll question – it’s all in the way it’s worded. A lesser trophy in hand is more valuable than a chance to play for and win a slightly more prestigious trophy (especially when that trophy in hand gives you another shot at the more prestigious one the following year). IF the question had asked which I want more to be CCL Champs, to win the Supporters Sheild, or to be MLS Cup Champs, I would say I would want them in that order exactly.
Regarding the playoffs, there are WAY too many teams in. How about single table, top 8 seeded in order of finish, 1v8, 2v7, etc. Why do we have to make things so stinkin’ complicated??
Unbalanced schedule is comming soon (probably next year)
The MLS has almost always had an unbalanced schedule As far as i care to check back, only this year and last year were balanced. With an unbalanced schedule a conference setup with playoffs makes sense. Doing away with conferences for 2 seasons, just to add them back, is somthing MLS probably did not want to do.
Next year with 19 teams a balanced schedule will be 36 games. Historically MLS has tried to keep seasons to 30 games. Money is on a 30ish game season next year with unbalanced schedules. Thus conferences make more sense.
Here is my thinking
I want MLS to be the best league in CONCACAF. I want the best talent in our region to be playing in MLS. The best way to do that is to win CCL. As now it doesn’t get the emphasis I think it deserves. The way to do this is for clubs to make it a preference. If MLS starts winning, FMF will start taking it seriously. As right now FMF teams can send out reserve squads and still compete. If we can get more competition in our region it will only help to strengthen our league and our ability to attract more talent.
I would prefer a Supporters Shield to the group stage, but I think I would prefer the group stage to the MLS Cup.
I don’t think the organization feels that way though, and I’d prefer them to meet their goals.
by Aaron Campeau on Aug 16, 2011 3:39 PM PDT reply actions 1 recs
Kind of a Loaded Question
I think this is a bit hard to decide. I would love to win the SS, but I would also love to get deep into the CCL. If you made the choice between winning the CCL and the SS, I would probably go with the CCL.
I just think the question is a bit unfair in that it is like comparing Oranges and Satsumas.
by fox3r on Aug 16, 2011 3:53 PM PDT reply actions 2 recs
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
Related FanPosts on Sounder At Heart
Related FanShots on Sounder At Heart
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
