MLS Schedule Details Matter
Spend too much time examining the MLS scheduling format and the philosophies therein, and one will inevitably fall down a logical rabbit hole - though, to be fair, this doesn't differ significantly from other "major-league" North American sports.
MLS version 3.0, or 2.1, or whatever we are up to, has become all about "local rivalries", or so it seems. Never mind that this is a spiritual epiphany that seems to have suddenly occurred to Don Garber, et al. once Seattle belatedly joined the League - causing a rush to "promote" the much deserving municipalities of Portland and Vancouver, which, in turn gives the Current Era an admittedly self-indulgent Seattle/NW-centric feel. (I write for a Sounder blog, popular amongst Sounder supporters and fans, and live in a world where EVERYTHING is Seattle/NW centric. Nonetheless, I openly invite rival supporter/fans to take me out of context and blow this utterly self-indulgent opinion piece disguised as "analysis" completely out of perspective)
It could also just as easily be said that the Current Era is just as likely all about "the supporters". This is certainly the case insofar as a hallmark of the last few years is an open effort - or at least an ostensible one - to make MLS culture seem less "manufactured". In other words, take what is already there and nurture it, rather than try to start from scratch and ignore the actual history soccer-football has in this country (which is far more diverse than many people seem to realize).
There is no doubt that MLS has done a fantastic job at growing the game in the USA/Canada - the results speak for themselves. Even so, things that work in a macro sense can still fail in the micro. The basic idea is that once you get the machine working you can fine tune it and get it running better and better. This is a process that is actually quite intuitive and is fundamentally built into the way we handle a lot of things in our daily lives. So a lot of us knew that we needed to tolerate things like 10-team, 32-match seasons which resulted in 8 teams "making" the playoffs and asinine shootout rules. We knew better things were coming... or at least we could reasonably hope.
Given all this, it seems an odd contrast that we face the reality of unbalanced schedules and a geographical segregation in the Era. The very people who it would seem most stand to benefit from unbalanced, "local rivalry" influenced schedules - the supporters - seem to be almost dead set against it. This makes intuitive sense to me, as a supporter, but find myself having a hard time explaining why. And thus we can help define a disconnect.
Many people would have you believe that a disconnect exists when groups of people don't understand each other's ideas, but this actually misses the point. Understanding an idea is one thing; I have no difficulty "understanding" philosophies I ardently disagree with. The barrier - and thus the disconnect - arises when one, or both, or all, of the groups involved can't understand the other'[s] Way of Thinking. In other words, you may have what you feel is a great idea, I may think it's a shitty idea. You will say I don't "understand" your idea. I will say I do and its still shitty. We'll both walk away angry and frustrated, wondering why the other can't comprehend the "truth" about the idea.
Which leads us all to the 2012 MLS schedule. From where I sit the fact that MLS completely bolloxed the Cascadia Cup is essentially an unforgivable sin. I am left to mutter to myself things like "it's about local rivalries, my ass" and eye Garber, et. al. with genuine disdain (despite the fact I am perfectly aware of all the good things he/they have done for soccer-football).
Not to put to fine a point in it, but the 2012 schedule contains a flaw so egregious I have a hard time believing that it was possibly accepted by the three Cascadia clubs. What has seemingly been written into the schedule for the near-term is that the Cascadia Cup itself is now intrinsically unbalanced.
I am basing my reasoning on two assumptions. I think that they are logical and sound assumptions - to the point where I am essentially accepting them as reality - but they are still nonetheless assumptions. The first is that the idea of playing "local rivals" 3 times a year is something that will be around for a while (as I outlined in a previous post), and the idea that with odd numbers of matches against teams in any given year, over any 2-year period any one team will have an equal number of home matches against any other team (this is a complicated way of expressing that if I play there this year, They will play here next year... and if I play them twice there and once here this year... etc.).
Like most people, the first thing I looked at is when we would play our Cascadia rivals, expecting to see two home matches against one of them, and two road matches against the other. What I did NOT expect to see is that one Cascadia team will have 4 home matches and another 4 road matches. This, as the Chewbacca defense clearly states, Does Not Make Sense. In MLS V3.0 (or 2.1 or whatever) Garber, et. al. ought to be trusted by getting at least THIS detail correct. They have forced unbalanced schedules, too many playoff teams, a questionable championship tournament, and an odd aging former-European superstar complex all down our throats.
So imagine my surprise when I saw the schedule.
My objection is not that the Sounders have four road Cascadia matches. Frankly, road Cascadia matches are great fun - and easier on the pocketbook that even San Jose or Salt Lake - our next-closest "rivals." Yes, there is the dilution effect, which is best explained as the "part of what makes Christmas so awesome is that "it only happens once a year" concept. I had resigned myself to the fact we would no longer have a simple "home and away" against our "local rivals" and had come to an odd acceptance of it. (truth is, I saw this type of format as an inevitable a year ago). What I had was reasonable hope that Cascadia would at least remain partially intact, with each team having 3 home and 3 away. No this...this... is just F-edup.
Its not just this year, as this seems to lock Cascadia into a cycle in which even years will see the Timbers with 4 home matches and odd years the Sounders with 4 home matches. Granted, there is the possibility that when the 20th team is added (in 2014 I would suppose) there will be a "reset" on the scheduling and 2012 and 2013 will be a "two-off" in the cycle. But this just ads to the concern. What other things will MLS get wrong?!
Another way to look at it is like this.
There is an old bromide about certain big-time musical acts including in their contracts with show venues certain clauses that prohibit specific esoteric items from being provided to the band. The most common iteration is that a band will demand a bowl of M&M's, but with a specific color removed. This has long been associated with the eccentricity and ego commonly associated with performers, but in fact it serves another purpose. High achieving people are very often perfectionists, and the details are important, vital, even, as in some cases they can be the difference between a bad show and a good one. sound, lighting, equipment, all need to be just right. If a performer walks into his dressing room and sees a certain color of M&M's, they can be immediately alerted that the people at this venue may not be as detail oriented as they would like, and other, more serious, problems may arise.
So I guess what I'm saying is, the first thing I did when I saw the schedule is look at the bowl of M&M's.
52 comments
|
1 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
The flip side to this argument
is that we burn an extra road game against one of two shitty teams which ideally means one less road game against a RSL or LAG or a FCD.
We can win in Portland and Vancouver. We can bring away support to those stadiums.
Heck, last year we did better away against both teams than we did at home. (we obviously drew at home and won on the road against both).
I’d just assume play all six Cascade Cup games on the road.
we did pretty well on the road
Against fcd and rsl and la in reg season too. Going undefeated and being a fredy M PK away from winning in LA.
by python6114 on Jan 9, 2012 10:05 PM PST via mobile up reply actions
Not to speak for Jake...
But the point is not that this is somehow unfair to US, but rather that it’s unfair to the rivalry.
Editor/writer at Sounder at Heart, MLS editor SB Nation. Follow me on Twitter. You'll Never Yacht Alone.
by Jeremiah Oshan on Jan 9, 2012 11:26 PM PST up reply actions 4 recs
I understand what Garber is trying
to do and I get where he’s attempting to take the league. The problem with that direction is that it’s going to go against what a lot of soccer fans love about the game…its tradition and its simplicity. Single table and a balanced schedule…what a beautiful thing.
definitely agree with this.
you play everyone home and away. the team who does best here wins. whether there are playoffs or not is fine (they can be exciting), but I always thought the supporter’s shield was more important than the MLS Cup. Now I’m tempted to say we just have several trophies, but none that determine a real champion.
The
problem with playing everyone home and a way is you can’t just keep adding more games as the league expands.
Once #20 is announced and if we were in a single table and balanced schedule that would mean we would have to play 38 games. I don’t see that happening.
why not?
I would hope that eventually we would get to a full balanced schedule as the league gets closer to its peak. I don’t see this as not possible, I just don’t think that Garber wants it right now.
by DMS12 on Jan 9, 2012 10:31 PM PST via Android app up reply actions
Balance
schedule is possible in the future but it won’t be home and away vs every team in the league.
I'm confused
What do you mean by a balanced schedule then? To me it refers to a double round robin competition. Or a quadruple round robin (which they do have in Switzerland), but that’s obviously an academic point of view in an MLS discussion.
I could see a quadruple round robin
With no interconference play. Make is sort of like the old MLB rules.
Why not?
there are plenty of leagues in the world where this works. In fact, there are several leagues with more games than this (46 in the english second division) that operate just fine.
The amount of traveling they actually have to do in England is significantly smaller
It would be comparable if we could play all 46 games in different cities in Washington.
Split MLS into multiple leagues.
This is why I think eventually league should be split. Maybe start with East West, where each side is like EPL, Bundesliga, La Liga, etc. Maybe more as the sport grows.
The problem here is that the US is MUCH larger then most countries in Europe. As MLS grows, this is going to be more of a problem. I can see multiple MLS leagues with the top teams moving to something like Champions League.
However, this would obviously be a long way off as the sport would need to grow quite a bit more.
38 games is a normal amount
EPL plays 38 (they used to play 42). La Liga: 38. Serie A: 38. 20 is a solid, standard league size.
And would mean that only 15 US cities are in a "major" US sport
I am not a Supporter | I am not a Fan | I am a Sounder
Sounder At Heart | Follow Dave on Twitter @bedirthan
do you mean 18 cities
or are there more cities with two teams that I’m not seeing?
I met a possum.
by s0merand0mdude on Jan 10, 2012 10:13 PM PST up reply actions
I realized as soon as I hit "post" that you meant US cities
In that you weren’t counting the Canadian cites.
I met a possum.
by s0merand0mdude on Jan 10, 2012 10:14 PM PST up reply actions
finding compromise
Isn’t an easy process. Myy guess is huge amount of travel is one of the biggest complaints and this was a good way to reduce travel.
I just feel sorry for ecs travel monkeys, the cascadia road trips are a lot of work and now they have to plan for four of them.
by python6114 on Jan 9, 2012 10:18 PM PST via mobile reply actions
Dilution argument is a bit weak imo
How many El Clasicos happen these days between league, cups, and potentially champions league a year? I don’t think that dilutes the rivalry if they happen to play 5 competitive matches in a season. I don’t think the 3rd game is going to dilute the cascadia derbies one bit.
-Ben R.
If you use that argument, you need to take other competitions into account for us too
We could potentially play against the Timbers 6 times this season. Three in MLS regular season, two in MLS playoffs, and 1 in USOC.
And if the MLS format remains the same, we could play them up to 8 times in one season in all competitions (add a two-leg CCL series).
With te Whitecaps the maximum goes to 9. Obviously cannot play against them in USOC but we could play 4 matches against them in CCL (2 in group stage, 2 in the last three rounds).
Point being, though
We got ourselves all worked up about one more game.
'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.'
Eh, I get it but...
We’ve had unbalanced Cascadia Cup years, and most years of MLS have been unbalanced schedule.
Sometimes what’s fun about sports is that it’s not equal.
I'd disagree with that last statement
At least applied to scheduling. I think any team’s fans in any sport would accept a balanced schedule. It just seems like the simplest way to determine the best team. I’m not saying get rid of playoffs, but what is the argument against a balanced schedule other than travel?
Time Zones
As a DCU fan, I’d like as many of our road games in the Eastern time zone as possible.
'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.'
I am all for 2 leagues
at some point for east and west and treat them entirely as two seperate leagues just as US and Mexican leagues are seperate.
That's going a little too far
But I’d love balanced schedules within conferences with no interconference play. Make the conference champions the regular season supporters’ shield winners within their conference, and have that trophy mean something. Then have top 5 in each conference (assuming 10 teams per conference) qualify for the playoffs, 4 v 5 in a wildcard play-in game, and have cross-conference group stages for the first round of the playoffs.
I'd rather have the Supporter's Shield go to the highest point value, still
That would mean there would be an inter conference competition for it. On top of that, add the MLS Cup and Playoffs with maybe 5 teams from each conference making it, and you should have a pretty even league. Factor in US Open Cup and CCL, and you have a pretty fair and entertaining set of leagues. The only thing is, each league would need more teams. I suppose 12 teams on the west and the east would do, with each playing each other 3 times (still not balanced) would do until their were like 15 teams on each side. So, what I’m saying is that a balanced schedule for 2 leagues/conferences split into East and West would be good but require significant expansion. That said, the size of MLS crowds (minus Seattle) are small enough that a relatively small sized city could support it. With that logic, more smaller cities (like Salt Lake and Columbus) could get teams. So, if we get that #20 team in NY, each conference would have 10, with Dynamo moving west. Add, say Detroit and Orlando on the East and San Antonio and Phoenix in the West, and there’s 12 each. After that, expansion is a bit of a problem. There’s not too many cities out west without a team nearby. Coverage out west is pretty good, though cities are also spread apart. However, in the east, the midwest and especially the south are under represented. Instead, the league has gone with a North East feel with Montreal and the Union there.
West could still get...
Pheonix, Edmonton, Calgary, Vegas, Sacramento, San Diego.
Cascadia cup has been played among three teams in 6 seasons, and the schedule was balanced in 5 of those seasons
The only time the schedule was not balanced was in 2007. That year the Virginia Beach Mariners folded just before the season started, which forcing USL to revise the schedule and add more Cascadia matches.
In 2008 it was a triple round robin where each team had an equal number of home matches. I’m going to call this balanced.
(I do not care what happened n 2009-2010.)
And yet for the majority of the rivalry's history
unbalance has been the norm.
The ALeague and NASL are as much part of Cascadia Cup history as any other year. Despite not having a trophy.
I am not a Supporter | I am not a Fan | I am a Sounder
Sounder At Heart | Follow Dave on Twitter @bedirthan
Argh
They are as much part of the rivalry, but that has nothing to do with the Cascadia Cup.
I don’t think people would be worried about unbalanced Cascadia schedules if there was no cup on the line.
All the Cascadia Cup is
Is formalization of a rivalry that existed long before the actual Cup. That’s part of what makes it different than other MLS supporters cups.
The rivalry will not be reduced by unbalance. Winning the Cup under these circumstances will just make it sweeter.
I am not a Supporter | I am not a Fan | I am a Sounder
Sounder At Heart | Follow Dave on Twitter @bedirthan
I'm not worried about the rivalry
But if the Cascadia Cup is ever won by a team that has a favorable schedule, it will an asterisk on it in a lot of people’s minds.
I would also think that if we ever win it when we have a favorable schedule, it wont feel quite the same as when everybody was on an equal footing.
We shouldn’t be just looking at the upcoming season when we talk about what is good for the Cascadia Cup.
I am actually more concerned about the stretch of wednesday games
If I were to complain about the schedule…. I would have started there. But I really like the schedule and M&Ms.
Nos audietis in somniis, Nos audietis in altum: You will hear us!
by chrisso on Jan 9, 2012 11:12 PM PST via iPhone app reply actions
Seeking balance... and quality preseason games
This would not address the dilution problem (though I think that we could look to the Yankees and Red Sox and see that dilution is not a problem), but what if the schedule was balanced by adding some Cascadia preseason games? This coming year for example, Sounders would play Timbers and Whitecaps at home and prior to next season we would travel for those preseason games.
I understand that this would be impossible this season.
I can assure you that none of the three SGs would want to count preseason matches to the Cascadia Cup
You cannot have training matches and competitive marches count the same.
Please do not apologize for being NW centric
This is the only sport that is. As you know, every other sports media orbits around the Northeast and Los Angeles, with occasional fly-bys around Chicago or Atlanta. We earn the right with our attendance and support to be heard in this league, and to have this league be about us and our history now. Talk to me when NY draws 50,000 a game. Or when LA does more than just fill a 22,000 seat stadium.
And it would be nice if we had a league that didn’t try every dumb idea out first before settling on common sense, rather than the other way around. Garber and his buddies are so tone deaf to how to run a league.
Good post. Keep up the good work promoting the voices of Cascadia. Our support and numbers and history have earned — are earning — the very thing you started to apologize for. I don’t see ESPN apologizing for 90% of their junk to be about the teams around New York or LA.
You looked into the bowl of M&Ms
and saw that the canary was dead.
by lysander on Jan 10, 2012 7:07 AM PST reply actions 1 recs
4 away Cascadia games: the nail that broke the camel's back.
by yuniform on Jan 10, 2012 8:24 AM PST via Android app up reply actions
Timbers Army and Southsiders should be the ones complaining
Given how strong the Sounders project to be and how weak Caps and Timids are, winning the Cascadia Cup is a long shot for either one this year. Then in 2013 they both have to play Sounders twice away. By 2014, MLS should realize the error of their ways and make sure 3 home / 3 away happens. By then we will have three straight MLS Cascadia cups in our cupboard.
Flipped Schedule in 2013
1) the world ends in December, so this is irrelevant
2) Where have we ever heard that Western games will flip for next year? I’ve read somewhere that I think was official saying that the East/West travel game will switch next season, but I’ve never heard anything other than my own common sense and other fan’s opinions tell me that next year we will have four home matches vs Cascadia opponents or two home matches vs LA, etc. And we all know what happens when we assume that the MLS will use common sense…
by thegreatsultan on Jan 10, 2012 12:23 PM PST up reply actions
Thanks
But the world still is ending in 2012.
by thegreatsultan on Jan 10, 2012 1:04 PM PST up reply actions
I would gladly give up Portland and Vancouver away
For Galaxy at home. Galaxy are unbeatable in their stadium; here we have a chance. I don’t really care about the Cascadia Cup; I care about winning the damn league.
If I had to pick something MLS is failing at, I’d say “Hispanic fans”. I know quite a few Hispanics (not just Mexicans, but South Americans too) and none of them even know Sounders are playing. They don’t care AT ALL; it might as well be girls high school tennis or something. Not even Montero or Rosales. They don’t care about European football at all either, except Barcelona and Real Madrid; the only thing they are ever watching is Mexican and South American football.
They’ve got to find a way to capture those fans, just like they did Premier League fans earlier (i.e., me). I dunno how to do that, but they need to.
by Fnarf on Jan 10, 2012 12:49 PM PST reply actions 1 recs
I've not really had that problem
The latinos at work who follow any soccer outside of Mexico also somewhat follow the Sounders. A couple of the dishwashers have talked to me about the team numerous times (I wear a Jersey under my whites on game days).
Last week one of the Pantry guys comes up to me and asks “So is Flaco Fernadez going to Europe? He’s a good player, he’s good on the Sounders.”
i am a new fan to the sport
However, I can say with full confidence that part of what makes the MLS exciting and appealing is its identity. Their American style playoff isn’t fair; rather, it matches the culture of the average fan.
The unbalanced schedule will create controversy and attention that I am sure MLS would like to have. Having said that I believe constant changing of a system is dangerous.
by SeaSolSounder on Jan 10, 2012 7:23 PM PST via iPhone app reply actions



















