Navigation: Jump to content areas:


Pro Quality. Fan Perspective.
Login-facebook
Around SBN: NFL Players Ready To Welcome Gay Teammate

MLS Schedule Details Matter

Cascadia road trips rock. How they are distributed on a schedule is a detail that matters.

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).

Star-divide

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.

Comment 52 comments  |  1 recs  | 

Do you like this story?

Comments

Display:

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.

by Jack Brando on Jan 9, 2012 9:17 PM PST reply actions  

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  

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.

by ComeOnSounders on Jan 9, 2012 9:34 PM PST reply actions  

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.

by connorb3 on Jan 9, 2012 9:41 PM PST up reply actions  

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.

by gstommylee on Jan 9, 2012 9:47 PM PST up reply actions  

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.

by gstommylee on Jan 9, 2012 10:48 PM PST up reply actions  

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.

by AAAA on Jan 10, 2012 4:09 AM PST up reply actions  

I could see a quadruple round robin

With no interconference play. Make is sort of like the old MLB rules.

by Tohoya on Jan 10, 2012 7:57 AM PST up reply actions  

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.

by connorb3 on Jan 9, 2012 11:49 PM PST up reply actions  

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.

by Derek R on Jan 10, 2012 1:19 AM PST up reply actions  

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.

by beowuff on Jan 10, 2012 11:32 AM PST up reply actions  

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.

by Fnarf on Jan 10, 2012 12:43 PM PST up reply actions  

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.

by reesebw on Jan 10, 2012 1:29 AM PST up reply actions  

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).

by AAAA on Jan 10, 2012 4:15 AM PST up reply actions  

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.'

by Sgc on Jan 10, 2012 7:07 AM PST up reply actions  

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.

by bmvaughn on Jan 9, 2012 10:33 PM PST reply actions  

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?

by connorb3 on Jan 9, 2012 11:53 PM PST up reply actions  

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.'

by Sgc on Jan 10, 2012 7:07 AM PST up reply actions  

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.

by lysander on Jan 10, 2012 7:11 AM PST up reply actions  

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.

by Tohoya on Jan 10, 2012 8:00 AM PST up reply actions  

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.

by Adnan Ilyas on Jan 10, 2012 4:25 PM PST up reply actions  

West could still get...

Pheonix, Edmonton, Calgary, Vegas, Sacramento, San Diego.

by lysander on Jan 10, 2012 11:13 PM PST up reply actions  

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.)

by AAAA on Jan 10, 2012 4:22 AM PST up reply actions  

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

by Dave Clark on Jan 10, 2012 7:36 AM PST up reply actions  

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.

by AAAA on Jan 10, 2012 10:15 AM PST up reply actions  

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

by Dave Clark on Jan 10, 2012 11:19 AM PST up reply actions  

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.

by AAAA on Jan 10, 2012 11:44 AM PST up reply actions  

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.

by Sounder in VA on Jan 10, 2012 6:27 AM PST reply actions  

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.

by luckystriker on Jan 10, 2012 6:31 AM PST 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.

by look4wrd on Jan 10, 2012 10:11 AM PST reply actions  

Don't

Don’t count your birds in the bush until they’ve hatched

by Tamuzi on Jan 10, 2012 11:06 AM PST up reply actions  

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  

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.”

by Derek R on Jan 10, 2012 12:59 PM PST up reply actions  

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  

Comments For This Post Are Closed


User Tools

Sounder at Heart is a blog about the Seattle Sounders FC, with occasional forays into Democracy in Sports, Roster Management, Soccer Statistics and Life in Puget Sound. We are not the actual Sounders blog.

FanPosts

Community blog posts and discussion.

Recommended FanPosts

Twitter-icon_small
Fredy Montero with magic at the death vs. the Whitecaps part 1 (animated)
Small
On "fake turf" in Seattle, 2012 edition

Recent FanPosts

2334846872_d5a0828b89_small
The Friendly Confines of the Clink
Small
Sounders go after Drogba, yes or no?
Img957001_small
Substitute +/- Ratings
Twitter-icon_small
Fredy Montero mesmerizes Whitecaps' Joe Cannon (animated)
Acerimmer_small
Eddie Johnson Scores on Michael Gspurning? Yes indeed!
Paraguay_small
Sounders #awaysupport
Small
Andy Rose!
Small
What's our line-up vs. Dallas?

+ New FanPost All FanPosts >

Sounder at Heart exists on Facebook - Like Us

Follow SounderAtHeart on Twitter

Sounder At Heart on Twitter

follow me on Twitter

Follow the rest of us on Twitter

Sounder At Heart (Site Feed)

Sidereal (MLS stats)

Jeremiah Oshan (top 10 soccer journalist on Twitter, Baby!)

Aaron Campeau (Villa, Mariners)

Dave Clark (beer, specfic, mideast)

Brian Floyd (all Seattle sports)

Nos Audietis (podcast stuff, snark)

Chris Coulter (photos, academy)


Managers

Tiny_dave_with_scarf_small Dave Clark

Oshan_small Jeremiah Oshan

Seattlesoccerscene_small sidereal

Nos Audietis Crew

Avatar_small Aaron Campeau

254350_1953423628277_767159_n_small dano_seattle

Authors

Img_0349_small malcontentjake

Devlin_small sum anon

Small dennyoffside

Ravelry_logo_small Abbott Smith

Special1tv_o_small Timm Higgins