Changes coming to Major League Soccer in 2012 - Part 3 New Schedule
by denz on Dec 28, 2011 1:56 PM MST
Email
Print
Well after a couple years of having a schedule that actually made sense, at least to soccer fans, of every team playing every other team in the league twice (once at home and once on the road), the league took what I consider a huge step backwards as they announced the format of the 2012 MLS season.
Now I have heard the arguments coming from MLS, that their new schedule format will allow them to save more money (no number released on current costs or potential savings) on travel, and will result in better quality of play. Which is kinda funny considering that all of the top 3 teams in MLS in 2001 played in more matches and traveled more than average teams as a result of competing in Champions League matches. I find it funny that this concern seemed to not impact the LA Galaxy who jetted halfway around the globe after their season for a couple of friendly matches, and I didn't hear the Seattle Sounders complain as they not only advanced in Champions League action but played extra matches as they won their third straight US Open Cup, those teams finished in the top two spots in MLS.
Now I understand that there is a level of complexity in scheduling matches, the number of issues that have to be dealt with are exhausting, first you have your TV partners who will want a say in what matches happen when so they can get the best possible ratings (I understand that), then you have to deal with FIFA dates (something that now involve more and more MLS players), then you have to deal with stadium issues (a shame that even at some "SSS's" that soccer isn't the top grossing events), then you have travel issues, you have teams who want matches to benefit holiday traditions (or avoid playing on particular days), and countless other issues to take into consideration.
I also now understand from what Don Garber said in LA during MLS Cup, that the league has a full time person with years of experience in scheduling, several outside consultants, and multiple computer programs that all work together to make the MLS schedule. I also understand that moving from the 34 games of 2011 to 36(with the addition of a new team) would add even more complexity, I do get that.
more thoughts after the jump:
So from the perspective of MLS it seems that the major issues that caused them to dump a balanced schedule (after they choose to adopt one) were, travel and fatigue. So instead of simply playing each other team twice (once at home and once away) and perhaps scheduling away matches as part of "road trips", something MLS has done a bit of in the past. We reject that for a system that clearly is so much simpler:
REGULAR SEASON:
Each of the 19 MLS clubs will play 34 games, 17 at home and 17 away. All clubs will play an equal schedule within their respective conference.
Western Conference - 24 in-conference + 10 out-of-conference games:
Western Conference clubs will play each West opponent 3 times (24 games):
West clubs will play 4 conference opponents twice at home and once away
They will play the other 4 conference opponents once at home and twice away.
The home and away games will be reversed in 2013.
Western Conference clubs will play each East opponent once each (10 games):
5 of these will be at home and 5 will be away.
The East opponents each team faces at home and away will be reversed in 2013.
Eastern Conference - 25 in-conference + 9 out-of-conference games:
Eastern Conference clubs will play 25 games against other East clubs:
East teams will play 7 conference opponents three times each (21 games) and
2 conference opponents twice each (4 games).
Eastern Conference clubs will play each West opponent once each (9 games):
Some will play 4 at home and 5 away while others will play 5 at home and 4 away.
The West opponents each team faces at home and away will be reversed in 2013.
Now this is what MLS had to say about the change:
"We have established a fair and compelling format for the 2012 season," said MLS Executive Vice President Nelson Rodriguez. "This regular season will include more games between regional rivals and less total travel than we have seen in recent years. Because of the wide geographic distribution of MLS clubs, this structure should improve the quality of play, while continuing to give every club an equal chance of qualifying for the MLS Cup Playoffs."
So while I am not sure, I believe Nelson is telling you that MLS quality of play has gotten worse over the last few years because of travel? And that more games with regional rivals is better than a more balanced approach.
So I thought I would just look at one very basic measurement of how this new schedule could impact "the quality" of play. So in 2011 teams in the Western conference (based on playing each team in the league twice) averaged 12.44 wins, while teams from the East only averaged 9.77 wins. So now a team in the West will have 24 matches against teams that averaged 12.44 wins, and just 10 against teams that averaged 9.77 wins, while the East will have 25 matches against teams that averaged 9.77 wins and just 9 against teams that averaged 12.44 wins. Whom do you think will have an easier schedule, teams in the East or the West?
Now clearly facing opponents who average almost 4 wins fewer per year will mean that the best record in all of MLS is very likely going to be an Eastern Conference team. The ramifications of that are huge, it impacts which team wins the Supporters' Shield, could impact which team hosts the 2012 MLS Cup, impacts which teams qualify for Champions League in 2013/14. Oh I get that MLS will save a little bit of money, but the cost of the changes will mean the sport with the very simplest schedule in the US last year, now has one as complex as any sport. It means the sport that could say it had the fairest schedule in the US, now is as bad as the NFL and BCS. It means that once again MLS dug into their bag of preset answers and instead of picking out the one about respecting the traditions of the sport, they found the one that says "this is North America and we should be like the NFL".
I think they got it wrong. If the issue was the number of matches teams played, then why not just cancel MLS exhibition matches with European teams, or go back to playing matches on FIFA dates (it worked for a decade). If the issue was travel time and expenses, why not look at booking just 5 trips to the opposing conference each year and doing a Wednesday - Saturday road trip each time, or why not allow teams to use charter flights to reduce fatigue? If the issue was getting the best soccer at the end of the season, why did the two teams in MLS Cup have a combined 7-2-1 in their last 10 matches, that seems like great quality of play.
So what was the real issue that MLS felt they needed to address? Was it to cement their preference for geographic conferences vs. a single table? Was it to find a way to propel the Eastern Conference to be more competitive? Only 1 team actually from the East has won MLS Cup since 1999. Was it to save some money for the owners by reducing travel? Will a trip to Dallas or Vancouver really be cheaper than New York or Boston? Was it simply a way to put more emphasis on the playoffs and less on the regular season? Clearly the Supporters' Shield will mean less to me, with teams not playing the same or even similar schedules. In the past RSL might play one extra match with Colorado or LA, but now it will be 24 matches against teams from the West and just 10 against the East. Clearly nothing even closely resembling a fair or remotely balanced schedule.
I just think the cost of giving up on a balanced schedule (something MLS finally got to) was sacrificed too quickly and too easily by the league. That doesn't mean that they didn't have real issues to address, but I am sorry if this new way was so much easier, and so much better why a month after announcing it do I still not have a schedule for the 2012 season? Why doesn't my opposition to this new schedule seem to be diminishing? Why does it seem like the opinions of the fans didn't matter on this topic? Why am I and a lot of fans left with more questions than answers?
I am sure many of you will disagree with me, and you are entitled to, but simply ask yourself this simple question does the system above look like something that is easier? Cleaner? Better? If so please tell me why.
OFF MY SOAPBOX
19 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
FCD fan in peace...
Great write up & I couldn’t agree more!
I’m tired of the “NFL guy” running the North American Footie League in “their” image.
Balanced Schedule, Single-Table, winner takes home the MLS Cup! USOC tourney during the first 6 months of the year – Supporter Shield Tourney (base schedule upon Regional Rivalries) in the last 6 months of the year.
Rant over.
DTID
COYW
Agreed.
I loved the balance schedule. I am Illinois-based and am the only RSL supporter around for probably a few hundred miles and I hope I don’t lose my annual trip up to Chicago to see my royals take on the fire.
On a different note, I can’t stand the silence! When are we going to bring in some new blood??? I feel like every other side has offers on the table or are already bringing someone in. However, the last time Kries went to a different hemisphere, things ended up pretty good. Hopefully, we find a few diamonds and soon.
The flaw in this
The only flaw with this new schedule is that the 3 strongest teams are in the western conference. In a perfect world, the strength of each conference would be equal. Then it would work. If teams like NYRB, Phil, C-bus were to be as strong as the 3 top western teams, the schedule is fair. But they are not so we suffer.
Best Teams will change
Who and where the best teams are will change, so while it is the West that averaged 12.44 wins per team to the Easts 9.77 last year that can easily change.
Any time you don’t have teams playing the same schedule (a balanced schedule) then some teams will play a weaker schedule than others, and in a league that uses the overall record to determine the winner of the Supporters’ Shield, and has used it to determine which teams represent MLS in both the US Open Cup (not for 2012, but who knows beyond next year) and the Champions League. Those things determine which teams get allocation money, prize money, and other things, so now those decisions are based on a much more flawed system than ever before.
Now it is true that MLS didn’t always have a balanced schedule, but they actually did as before 2012 each team would have faced each other team at home and away each year, now they may have had more matches than that but it at least was balanced plus. Now the difference isn’t playing each team twice and then some matches, now it is that you will only face some teams once a year, and others 3 times a year. Which is nowhere near a fair or balanced schedule.
Cleaner indeed
I suppose the “Cleaner?” quip at the end was directed at me. Or rather as a continuation of your misunderstanding my comment to Part 2 of this run down of changes coming to MLS. Here’s a copy/paste of my explanation on how this does indeed result in a cleaner playoff system…
How is each team playing a schedule different than every other team, going to be cleaner
That’s not what I was referring to when I said it would be cleaner. I was referring to the topic of your post (Part 2), the new playoff system, and more specifically to the conference playoff system. Since we no longer have a balanced schedule (or as you put it every team playing a different schedule) there is no longer pressure to let wild card teams cross over. This has been a subject of ridicule and complaining by MLS fans (the Eurosnobs as well as the regular ones) because we’ve had multiple cases where the European championship game was contested by 1 or even 2 Western conference teams. This new playoff system, in connection with the newly unbalanced schedule, becomes a lot cleaner with no cross over weirdness.
so breaking the regular season
In order to justify a past stupid move int he playoffs is a good thing? Never should have been crossover, never would have been needed if the league would have just said that the top 8 teams make the playoffs, rank them 1-8 and let them play. The whole conference thing is and has always been a bit of a joke to soccer people hasn’t.
We have have 3 of the last 4 MLS Cups with two teams from the same conference, which was proof that the system was broke, but to screw up the regular season in such a way to “fix” a broken playoff system would be breaking just another thing.
I understand many of the arguments that MLS presents for this new schedule, but I simply think giving up on a chance to really make MLS stand out as a sport where the regular season means as much as the playoffs and leaving the future up to this new system is a mistake.
You weren’t the first person to say that all the changes would result in a cleaner, or more effective system, I told them they were wrong, just like I believe you are wrong.
While MLS has only had a balanced schedule for a couple years, never in the past did the schedule have as much unbalance as what we will have in 2012, I believe that it is simply a move by MLS to drum up their playoffs, which often have drawn criticism from soccer purists. I like the playoffs, I thought moving teams around conferences was silly, I would have loved to (as I have said in the past) seen it been just the top 8 teams, seed them 1-8 and go about it.
I am interested to know how you think the new schedule with teams clearly facing very different strength of schedules will impact CCL spots, as well as possibly impacting US Open Cup spots in the future?
Answers
So breaking the regular season in order to justify a past stupid move int he playoffs is a good thing?
I reject the premis of this question. The regular season is only as broken as it was prior to 2010. Nobody was saying it was broken then. They’re just saying it now because we had a balanced schedule for 2 years. If unbalanced is as broken as you’re making it out to be, then you must have been hating life when a team showed up in Salt Lake. What a nuisance for you I guess.
Never should have been crossover
RSL should give back their MLS Cup then. Because they never would have made the ’09 playoffs without crossover.
Since there was a balanced schedule in 2010 and 2011, it made sense (pretty much required) to have crossover because every team had the same schedule and therefore the top 8/10 deserved to to get in regardless of conference. Now that the balanced schedule is gone, the crossover makes less sense and therefore is eliminated (hopefully for good). Very clean.
You weren’t the first person to say that all the changes would result in a cleaner, or more effective system
Didn’t say that I was. You’re definitely not the first to whine and gripe about the playoffs or the loss of a balanced schedule either.
I am interested to know how you think the new schedule with teams clearly facing very different strength of schedules will impact CCL spots, as well as possibly impacting US Open Cup spots in the future?
It won’t. MLS Cup winner and runner up will make it. Team with the best record will make it, and USOC winner will still make it. No changes. None needed. All US based teams will be in USOC this year. Play-in matches are gone for good I think (or at least gone for 2012).
Wow, short memory
Please tell me what year in MLS history before 2010 that each MLS team didn’t play every other MLS team at least twice a year? You make it seem like we are going back to something that close to what existed in the past, but we aren’t in the past the scheduled was what I would call (given the current schedule) balanced plus, each team played every other team twice (once at home and once away) plus a couple of other matches to fill out a season. Those additional games went away as there were more teams joined the league, so we can compare RSL’s 2006 season where they played Chivas USA 4 times but they still played New York twice with the 2012 season where they will play Chivas 3 times but New York just once and see a clear difference.
RSL should give back their cup, why they still were the 8th best team in MLS, they still would have made the playoffs. In fact they as the #8 would have still faced Columbus in the first round of the playoffs. You really do hate that RSL won a MLS Cup, since you are always trying to come up with some reason to take it away. Reality is you are wrong, the top 8 made it to the playoffs, the only difference with cross over is that we played in the East, and had they been seeded 1-8 we would have faced Houston instead of Chicago in the Semifinals.
Won’t impact CCL or other decisions? Really a team playing 25 matches against opponents with an average of 9.77 wins in 2011 won’t have a much easier path to the playoffs than a team that has to play 24 matches against opponents with an average of 12.44 wins in 2011? OK, believe what you want. Reality is the team with the best record will be subjective due to opponents played, even teams in the playoffs will be subjective because you aren’t getting the 8 best based on them playing the same level of competition. Yes in 2012 all the MLS teams will make the US Open Cup, but who knows what they will do in 2013? In the past positions in the tournament were based on a teams performance in the regular season, which with the new schedule will be very unbalanced and very subjective when it comes to these types of decisions in the future.
You miss however the entire point of my post, what is gained by these changes? MLS would tell you so you have teams that have traveled less and will play better, but didn’t Seattle play more games and travel as much as anyone, yet they made the playoffs, qualified for knockout round of CCL, and won Open Cup? Didn’t LA have so much energy that they were able to go on a tour after the MLS season? Didn’t the New York Red Bulls pack up for a week long trip and matches in the UK? Come on, the reality is that MLS wants very modest financial gains (which they could have got with better planning) and to justify their conference and playoff format to try to make better TV. That is why they are saying this is about “rivalries” but I can say the RSL vs Colorado matches were much more anticipated when we faced them just twice a year, than when we did 4 times a year.
Now we won’t get to see teams from the other conference that we have built rivalries with over the last few years, and I would say based on the last couple years both Houston, Columbus, and even KC after last year were all teams that I looked forward to the RSL matches against because of the rivalries on the pitch between the teams. Nope that is dead and now we will be forced to deal with more matches against San Jose, Vancouver, and Portland, teams that are fun to play but I would much rather only face them twice a year, and keep those other matches.
Wow, shorter memory
In 2009 RSL was 5th in the Western conference. If 8 teams make the playoffs and the playoff system has no crossover, RSL doesn’t make the playoffs in that position. 4 make it from the east and 4 from the west and RSL would have been out. Crossover allowed RSL to sneak into the playoffs after being 5th best in the West.
Don’t tell me how I feel about RSL. I don’t hate that RSL won the cup. I’m glad they did. I was rooting for them after Seattle was elimintated. I was just trying to drive my point home on this RSL blog by explaining how your stance would have affected the team you blog about. Spare us all the ad hominem please.
One irony of this whole situation I just realized is that RSL, despite winning an MLS Cup, has never actually won the west. They also can’t win the east any more as a result of losing the crossover goofyness. Funny.
“Balanced plus” is still unbalanced. What about the team that gets to play Chivas twice while another team gets to play LA twice. How is that fair? Seems like the same kind of discrpancies you’re complaining about now. Why where you okay with it then, but not now?
Really a team playing 25 matches against opponents with an average of 9.77 wins in 2011 won’t have a much easier path to the playoffs than a team that has to play 24 matches against opponents with an average of 12.44 wins in 2011?
First, as I just said, very similar discrepancies existed prior to 2010, but nobody complained then (not even you). Second, by this reasoning, the only pure route for qualification in the CCL was the SS. And that was only ever true in 2010 and 2011 because of the fully balanced schedule. MLS Cup participants are totally subjective based on the dice roll that is the MLS playoffs. The USOC winner is tainted by several factors as well, the most obvious being that teams can essentially buy home field advantage. So now, with an unbalanced schedule again, the true reality is that all 4 CCL berths are unpure, at least in your eyes.
Look, I’m obviously not going to change your mind on this no matter how many contradictions I can catch you in or how many rediculous statements I can bait you into making. I’m simply trying to voice my support of the other side of the coin on these scheduling and playoff changes and make it clear that such support is not as ludicrous as you make it out to be. Isn’t that the type of comment you simply made this simple invitation (see what I did there?):
I am sure many of you will disagree with me, and you are entitled to, but simply ask yourself this simple question does the system above look like something that is easier? Cleaner? Better? If so please tell me why.
Sorry if I misunderstood the request. I’m letting you know that I agree with MLS’s changes and why. I can go away if you really didn’t want anyone to respond or intended to attack their character (“You really hate that RSL won a MLS Cup”) in addition to their points. I’ll admit that I’ve had just about enough of this.
I have never said
I want the top 4 teams from the East and top 4 from the West, I have always said I want the 8 best teams to be in the playoffs. Now with the fact that we will never get MLS to dump their geographic conferences that add no value to the league, I am happy that in the future (or at least in 2012) that the stupid moving of teams to other conferences for the playoffs appears dead. It doesn’t change the fact that in 2009 RSL was the 8th best team and made the playoffs.
So again you miss the whole of the point, RSL winning MLS Cup in 2009 isn’t the topic, the structure of the league or the playoffs in 2009 isn’t the topic. Yet you constantly think that because RSL won MLS Cup in a flawed system that I must embrace a flawed system or call for RSL to return the Cup, really? Come on. Had MLS had a smarter structure in place maybe RSL wouldn’t have won the Cup, maybe they would have. Maybe having to face an Eastern Conference team in the 2008 Western Conference finals cost them the 2008 MLS Cup, who knows and to be honest who cares.
The point is replacing a flawed system with a more flawed system and using something as generic as travel as the justification, when the 3 best teams in the league were the 3 teams who played and traveled more for meaningful matches than most in the league, is a crock
You also miss the point that every MLS team played every other MLS team at least twice in all previous seasons, this will be the first time that they don’t since the league was created. When the league wanted (for whatever reasons) to fill their schedule with additional matches against conference teams, it was a lot less impactful because they still had to at least play every other team twice.
You have yet to catch me in a contradiction, rather just things you don’t like to admit. I will say it again for you, none of this has to do with RSL winning or losing anything in the past, none of it has to do with the schedule before 2010, when teams still played every other team at least twice. At no time did I say that was awful, because each team at least did the minimum of playing every other team and there may have been 4-6 additional matches) now we have eliminated playing every other team twice a year. So we haven’t supplemented to fill a schedule, we have bastardized it to fit an agenda.
So ask yourself the simple question is eliminating 9-10 matches against the opposing conference going to have more of an impact than 4 additional matches played against conference opponents to fill out the schedule in the past? You might believe it won’t, I on the other hand believe it will.
I do believe that the Supporters’ Shield (even if RSL were to win it) will mean less with the new schedule because the schedules of teams in each conference will be so very different. While I love awarding the right to host MLS Cup to the team with the best record, that too will be tainted as one conference will be weaker or stronger than the other.
I believe firmly that MLS would gain more soccer fans, and more respect from general sports fans around the world if they did their best to stay true to the sport and how it is played around the world. So I don’t understand the logic of geographic conferences, they add no value to the league and have served to confuse most soccer fans who are used (with some exceptions) to a single table format for league play So instead of changing to it, we do more and more to make conference seem like something that the league has to do.
Sure MLS has had to change their schedule a bit when they have added or contracted teams. Hell the league hasn’t been able to do anything with any type of consistency in the past, number of games, PK shootouts, number of conferences, format of playoffs. In less than 20 years of existence the league has been anything but logical or consistent in what they have done, and I believe that 2012 is the latest example of poor planning, poor decision making, and moves that will further alienate soccer fans in favor of pandering to some mystery element that MLS is constantly chasing.
If it is a contradiction for me to expect that the people in charge of MLS find some spine to keep the league simple and as close to some of the traditions of the sport, well then so be it. If they honestly believe that these changes will make the league more attractive to generic sports fans, well then say so. Come out and say “to hell with traditions and simplicity” we want to be the NFL, and let fans come or go based on that, but the offer up half truths and half assed ideas year after year in what seems like a very random attempt to capture some mainstream attention, isn’t doing much good for anyone.
The growth of the league over the last 6 years has been almost exclusively because of new teams joining the league. No team that was struggling before 2005 has become hugely more successful, no team that was successful before 2005 has become hugely less successful, so for all the changes the reality is that the difference has been new teams joining the league. Even clubs with new stadiums over the last 6 years haven’t been overnight successes, FCD, Colorado, Columbus, all still struggle in their markets. Houston will get a new stadium, and will sell more season tickets but their attendance has been good since moving there. Perhaps the only change to make a difference has been the DP rule, but that has been as much of a flop for most teams as it has been a success for LA.
If you need proof that MLS’s decision making lacks real intelligence, you only need to look at NY2. They built a new stadium for their current team, and attendance went up a bit, they filled that team with big names, and the team is still an after thought in the market. Yet MLS has a full time person, hired consultants, and spent thousands of dollars dedicated to putting another team in that market to compete with them. Despite the two teams in one big market being a flop in the other market they have tried it. No, I don’t think Don, Nelson, and others are stupid, I just think sometimes they get so caught up in trying to be something their not. Listen MLS is never going to be the NFL, it should stop trying, it should spend much more time trying to be La Liga, EPL, Ligue One, or any of the other soccer leagues around the world. Trust me there are plenty of issues to address in trying to be a good soccer league. Perhaps they should release their plan to be a top league by 2022, so fans can offer their feedback, because nothing I see coming from MLS in the past year leads me to believe that they will be more than a minor player in US sports or in the soccer world in 10 years.
So ask yourself the simple question is eliminating 9-10 matches against the opposing conference going to have more of an impact than 4 additional matches played against conference opponents to fill out the schedule in the past? You might believe it won’t, I on the other hand believe it will.
I think they create very similar inequalities in strength of schedules which is why I’m puzzled that you’re so up in arms over the new changes. The scheduling prior to 2010 was similarly unfair. I get that your point is each team played every other team in the league at least twice before 2010. Great. Amazing. Almost irelevant though. Your question from the blog post was: “How is each team playing a schedule different than every other team, going to be cleaner?” That’s exactly what the situation was prior to 2010.
I do believe that the Supporters’ Shield (even if RSL were to win it) will mean less with the new schedule because the schedules of teams in each conference will be so very different.
It’ll mean about the same as what it did prior to 2010.
The growth of the league over the last 6 years has been almost exclusively because of new teams joining the league.
KC and Houston would disagree. Both are significantly improved in stadium situation and attendance over 2005. Besides them, expansion is definitely the biggest growth factor.
If it is a contradiction for me to expect that the people in charge of MLS find some spine to keep the league simple and as close to some of the traditions of the sport, well then so be it.
Oh they’re finding quite a bit of spine right now standing up to complainers like you obsessed with making MLS and exact copy of European leagues. I’m mildly impressed with the backbone they’re showing these days.
Listen MLS is never going to be the NFL, it should stop trying, it should spend much more time trying to be La Liga, EPL, Ligue One, or any of the other soccer leagues around the world.
Why does it have to copy European leagues? Why can’t MLS do their own thing ever? They’ve done a good job on the field of staying true to the game (after some early years of poor deviations). Of the field they’ve got unique challenges with geography that none of the leagues you listed face.
again your version of reality is interesting
So Kansas City in 2005 was playing at Arrowhead stadium, a less than ideal situation, they then moved to Community America Ballpark while they waited on a stadium, again a far less than ideal situation. so of course moving to a new stadium is great, so is the rebranding of the team, we will see in 3-4 years if it is a success. I hope it is.
Houston moved from a bad situation in San Jose and their attendance since moving to Houston has been good compared to other markets, will they get a boost from the new stadium, yes, will it last? Again like KC we will know in a few years, I hope it does.
For someone who wants to compare apples to apples, you sure looked for the oranges.
It is funny that you think adding additional matches after playing each other team in the league twice is some how equal to playing some teams 3 times and other teams once. That in additional matches played to fill out seasons in any way is close to the schedule we will face in 2012. Of all the points you try to make, this one just rings hallow. Not sure how you can even begin to believe that playing every team in the league twice, and then playing Colorado and Houston two additional times is some how the same as playing every Western Conference team 3 times and every Eastern team once, One adds a couple matches to a balanced schedule, while the other tosses balance out the window.
Don Garber said he wanted MLS to be one of the top leagues in 10 years, do you honestly believe we will get there with conferences, bizarre schedules, and the current single entity model? He clearly believes that he can create a NFL, thus the embracing of conferences, wild card playoff matches. I don’t want us to be like the European leagues, I want us to respect what is the norm of the sport around the world, I don’t mind us having playoffs, I wish we would get rid of conferences that add nothing to the league.
If this is about growing the league, do you think it is likely that growth will come from the millions of soccer fans around the US, or from the millions of casual sports fans? Because that is the choice MLS is making, they are saying to everyone that they think growth will come from casual sports fans. They are saying it by their actions, which they choose to cater to the things those folks are used to as opposed to what soccer fans are used to.
Now you're just talking nonsense
For someone who wants to compare apples to apples, you sure looked for the oranges.
You said that the growth over the last 6 years has been exclusively expansion. I refuted that and provided teams that prove it. How is that an apples and oranges comparison? You’re making no sense and saying more and more ridiculous things each time. My favorites of course are when you start talking about hidden agendas and start inventing conspiracy theories.
It is funny that you think adding additional matches after playing each other team in the league twice is some how equal to playing some teams 3 times and other teams once.
I’m just using your own words as the measurment. Your words: “How is each team playing a schedule different than every other team…” We had that prior to 2010 and we have that again in 2012. This is irefutable.
My turn to say something ridiculous… maybe your right and everything you’ve stated will indeed come to pass. Maybe they just want to make MLS like the NFL. It’s probably a secret agenda even. We’ll probably have 4 divisions in each conference in no time. Your also probably right that KC and Houston are fleeting and will fizzle out. No way Houston sells out next season or KC does it again. It’s really just the expansion teams that account for all the growth and recent success. You’re likely a prophet when it comes to USOC as well. No way they’ll let all US based MLS teams directly into the tournament after next season. 2012 will be a one time deal with that for sure. Right? And most of all, you’re absolutely right about the unbalanced schedule prior to 2010 being way, way more fare than the unbalanced schedule of 2012. When the 2009 SS winner CBus got to play bottom dweller TFC twice at home, that was completely fair and balanced. No strength of schedule problems of any kind. I don’t know why I didn’t see all of this before. Clearly your wisdom far surpasses my own. How foolish of me.
And I’m done.
I said almost exclusively
Houston by all accounts of MLS is an expansion team, which leaves one team which had to do a complete rebrand and get a new stadium to show real growth beyond the expansion teams.
So in 2009 every team played every other team twice, then added in a couple matches to fill out their schedule so it looked like this:
Team A vs. Teams B-O twice = 28 matches + 2 other matches vs B-O
The 2012 schedule will look like this:
Team A vs. Teams B-I 3 times = 24 matches + Team A vs Teams J-S once
You are right those are so damn similar how could anyone ever notice the difference.
Not once did I say that Houston or KC would fizzle out, but it’s OK you trying to make a point. I simply said you can’t count on success in markets until it happens, I fully expect that Houston will continue the success they have had in that market. Which leaves KC (and to a lesser extent New York) as the teams over the last 6 years that have had any really measurable growth, both spent hundreds of millions on new stadiums and rebranding, how long until those investments turn into a profit? Gonna take 20 years of continued improved numbers, by no means a guarantee.
Who knows what US Soccer will do, it has changed the qualification for the USOC several times in the last 6 years, I hope they finally just open it up to every pro team (heck I would love to see it open to all teams), but again you don’t know what measure they will use for MLS teams in the future, just like I don’t but any system that is based on regular season standings with this new schedule format will be subjective as it is impossible to know any real standings within MLS except for those based on a new flawed schedule system, just like the NFL.
If you don’t see their decisions moving MLS closer to the NFL model, well then nothing I say will matter to you, if you don’t care about the model the league chooses as their foundation, well then it is clear that some of us care a lot more about the integrity of the sport and league than you do. It is really funny how you want to use the difference of playing two additional matches on top of playing every other team twice as the same as the new schedule model, it is clear that you simply shoot any valid points you have in the foot by even trying to play that card.
While I do prefer the balanced schedule here is what i believe MLS is trying to achieve. 1. Take some weight off of the owners in terms of cost because unfortunately not every ownership group has the money AEG and other ownership groups do to provide teams with above average modes of transportation. 2. While I hate to admit (as a union fan) that the eastern conference is weaker there is another component of travel that is affected also. I have seen numbers that the average wins against west teams in the west by eastern teams is significantly lower than the western wins over eastern teams in the east. You could make the claim it is because the west is stronger. However traveling is an exhausting process and compounding that with players losing up to 3 hours sleep is actually detrimental to eastern teams. Now 3 hours may not seem like a lot but when you are a high level athlete like these players are 3 hours can actually throw you off a great deal. And yes this is showing a preference for eastern teams and unfortunately diminishes the SS but at the same time I understand MLS attempt to keep the western conference from becoming overly powerful.
Don't buy the BS
If this were about travel and number of matches played, then we would have dumped the international friendly matches, which disrupt the MLS schedule. We would ban our teams from travelling to the UK for a week in the middle of the season to play friendly matches, and we wouldn’t allow the MLS Cup Champions to force players to go on a overseas tour after the season was over.
Instead we would do what other sports do, reduce over all travel costs and fatigue by scheduling road trips (the MLS already does this when it is convenient) The whole of the East vs West coast travel could be resolved in 3-5 trips a year (either Sat-Wed-Sat or Sat-Wed matches), which would reduce costs and overall travel. It is when you make a team travel to New England on Saturday, play at home on Wednesday, then travel to Chicago on Saturday that cost and fatigue become issues, so all that really was needed was better planning. Perhaps firing the full time person looking for a New York stadium location and getting someone who knows logistics and scheduling instead.
I honestly believe that the changes were made to allow MLS to sell their “regional rivalries” to their TV partners, but what is so funny is that the most hype of the last two years has been New York vs. LA a match now that they just to once a year. Now instead we get 3 LA vs. Colorado, and 3 New York vs New England matches, yup we just trashed real rivalries for the sake of fake ones. Oh and they now get to really make their conferences seem important and have done their job to dash all those who favored a more soccer traditional single table. Yeah they just got tired of saying “This is the USA and we do things different” so they trashed almost everything that could resemble traditional soccer in favor of a model built on the NFL. Instead of embracing those who love soccer, they have simply now tried to pander the sport to a market that for over a decade hasn’t cared about it.
The growth of soccer has come from soccer fans, those who love the sport and not from casual sports fans, but time and time again MLS makes their decisions based on what Don Garber knows, the NFL model. Will it work? Maybe, but I again simply think the cost has been too high as much of what soccer fans wanted and expected has been tossed aside in my opinion too easily.
Player Fatigue
So one of the most used reasons for the changes was to prevent the expense of travel and to reduce player fatigue to improve the quality of play.
Which makes me wonder if that is such an issue why MLS would allow their employees to travel overseas and play even more during training, trials and loans. I mean isn’t that a direct contradiction to their stated goal of reducing travel and fatigue?
So beyond, a midseason trip to the UK for some matches, beyond a pre or post season overseas tour of matches, and the addition of additional friendly matches (just for $$), we want to reduce travel and fatigue by sending the poster child of the league for the last 5 years overseas once again to play a majority of the CBA mandated off season. OK, that makes perfect sense to me. Yes I am being sarcastic, I am fine with players wanting to go overseas and train, trial, or go on loan during the off season, just find it funny that someone would use player fatigue as a reason given that it seems some players want to play more.
Traveling overseas for extended training periods is very different that flying across 4 time zones for 1 game before turning around and flying back. Apples to apples please.
correct
which is why MLS should never schedule a team to play on the East coast on Saturday, at home on Wednesday, then again on the East coast on Saturday. Something they regularly did with the old system, and that there is no insurance they won’t do again.
If the issue is player fatigue, wouldn’t the league want their players to take a break in the off season to rest and recover for the rigors of the MLS season? Which by the way even with Champions League, US Open Cup, and friendlies, is less total matches than the top teams in Europe play. If the issue is player fatigue, why did they allow a team to travel overseas in the middle of the season to take part in a friendly tournament?
It is the double standard that makes me question the reasons they stated for changing the schedule in such a way. Is it easier for Chivas USA to travel to Vancouver, than Houston? Yes I know there are travel issues, but most of them could have been dealt with by better planning, as opposed to creating an abomination of a schedule.
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
Related FanPosts on RSL Soapbox
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
