Thursday, November 17, 2005

MLS math: #9 = #1

A grudging congratulations to Los Angeles Galaxy for winning MLS Cup 2005. On Sunday, they beat New England Revolution 1-0 in extra time to win their 2nd Major League Soccer championship. LA's other championship was also a 1-0 extra time win over New England back in 2002. New England's only other major final, in the 2001 US Open Cup (our answer to England's FA Cup), was also a one-goal extra time defeat to Los Angeles. All three of the Galaxy's trophies have come at the expense of the Revolution. It was another disappointing end for Revs fans, despite what was by far the best season in team history.

[For those more familiar with European soccer, MLS' title is decided by three rounds of playoffs following a 32 match (this year) regular season]

The championship-winning goal was scored by Pando Ramirez, who set an MLS record for offensive futility during the regular season: he took 61 shots from the run of play and he scored on 0 of them (he did score on a penalty that hit the post but rebounded in off the goalkeeper's back).

Seemingly every time he opens his mouth, US national team boss Bruce Arena gives headaches to the bureaucrats who run US Soccer. But it's precisely this direct, no-holds-barred style that endears Arena to most fans, or at least earns their respect: he often says what millions of fans think but no one inside the US soccer establishment is willing to say.

Last year, he caused a stir by saying that MLS regular season games aren't meaningful enough. Eventually, the powers that be chastised him for stirring the pot and he half-apologized. I'm glad he didn't fully apologize because he was absolutely right.

MLS plays 32 games only to eliminate the four teams out of 12. And it's not even necessarily the worst four teams. Four teams in each conference (eastern and western) make the playoffs, regardless of the overall league standings. If the eight playoff teams had been determined on a league-wide basis, Los Angeles wouldn't even have made the playoffs in the first place: they finished 9th (tied for 8th with Kansas City, but with a worse goal difference).

So this is the ultimate proof that the MLS regular season is virtually meaningless; some even argue that it's detrimental to the good teams (of the top five regular season teams, four were eliminated in the first round of the playoffs).

The 9th best team in a 12 team league is crowned "champion" and will represent American soccer in the continent-wide CONCACAF Champions Cup. That the higher seeded team has absolutely no home field advantage in the first round is another flaw MLS should fix.

I complain about LA's undeserved championship not out of sour grapes. En route to winning MLS Cup, they defeated the two best teams in the league, San Jose Earthquakes and New England, and won away to Colorado (one of the league's best teams at home). Furthermore, New England, my team, has been a beneficiary of MLS' lax playoff rules in the past. They came within a golden (sudden death) goal of being "champion" in 2002 despite losing more regular season games than they won. They came within another golden goal of playing for the championship last year, despite being tied for having the worst regular season record. Had they won either championship, I would've gladly accepted it. I don't blame LA; they won the championship under the system that was there. But it doesn't make it the right way to decide a champion.

Fixing this problem is long overdue for the league. MLS is trying desperately for credibility, both internationally and in the domestic sporting scene. When the 9th best team out of 12 wins the championship, it can't help the league's reputation. I'm realistic enough to know that MLS won't go to a European-style setup with no playoffs or to a pre-1969 baseball system where the two conference champions play each other in the final (even though either option would be sportingly fair). But the league should limit the playoffs to four teams to ensure that the title is not won by a team that accomplished little during the regular season and to ensure that regular season games are contested vigorously.

On a related note, I was interested to read that New England's owner Bob Kraft has expressed interest in investing in the English club and European champions Liverpool. (Ironically, New England's manager Steve Nicol was a long-time Liverpool player). Many New England fans would encourage Mr. Kraft to build a soccer-specific stadium for the Revolution so that they don't have to play in Gillette Stadium. Such a stadium doesn't have to be huge, maybe 20-25 thousand; but anything would be an improvement on Gillette, which is cavernous for MLS size crowds, atmosphere-free and has a very poor playing surface because use by the NFL New England Patriots. The Revs have long been treated as a burdenous appendage to a football machine, barely an afterthought (which explains the bizarre concurrence of decreasing attendance at Revs' games in recent years just as their fortunes on the field have started to rise). But one can dream, eh?

No comments: