And I'm not entirely sure everyone knows what it means.
A couple of ESPN columnists have stated that seedings in MLS playoffs are "irrelevant" because none of the higher seeds won the first game in the two leg series.
To which I have to ask: for higher seeds to be meaningful, must they win the road game? No-- why on earth would anyone expect teams, even very good teams, to win on the road in MLS? United, the best team in the regular season, was barely .500 on the road at 6-5-4. Chivas USA, the next best team was below .500 and was outscored 20 to 18.
So, the only way to judge if the seeds are meaningful is to wait and see who actually advances. In the past, the higher seed has advanted 75% of the time, despite frequently losing or tying the first game. So, why exactly Jen Chang and Steve Davis at ESPN are calling seeding irrelevant, I don't know.
There is, of course, a more subtle point to be made: you expect the higher seeds to do well-- they're higher seeds becuase they're better teams. So it would be a shock if they didn't win most of the time.
But precisely how often do you need your higher seeds to win? I took a look at the regular season records of the higher seeds to try and set a baseline. From 2003-2006 (the period during which the current playoff setup has been in effect), the higher seeds earned 1.58 points a game during the regular season (which equates to a solid, 50 point regular season). During the first round of the playoffs, the higher seeds earned 1.69 points a game. So, the higher seeds are getting more points (off of better opposition) than they got during the regular season. So the best guess is that, yes, seeding means something.
But is 1/10th of a goal enough for teams to want to be a 2 seed instead of a 3 seed? That's a tougher call.
I thought I'd take a quick look at a league where home field advantage is indeed supposed to mean something: MLB over the past five years. But the results weren't quite what I expected. Overall, only half of the higher seeds advanced from the first round of the playoffs. And the higher seeds, which had combined for a .594 winning percentage during the regular season, combined for only .519 during the first round of the postseason. Against this backdrop, I'm starting to wonder why MLS's playoffs aren't even more random.
So... what does it all mean? I'm still not sure. I know that seeding is worth something, but I don't think players or fans believe it. Until more people start to believe, like the Polar Express, the playoff system isn't going to be viewed as attractive.
Tuesday, October 30, 2007
Thursday, October 25, 2007
Danny Dichio: The Beautiful Game Embodied?
Toronto FC has received great coverage in the local press to go along with stellar support in the stands. Along with great coverage, however, they also have columnist Cathal Kelly, who seems genetically predisposed to nonsense.
In this latest article http://www.thestar.com/Sports/article/270316, Kelly writes:
"[Beckham] was here to lend [soccer] glamour, to attract coverage and to serve as its spokesmodel.
It was the job of other, hungrier, more-reasonably-paid players to prove the game's worth with the ball at their feet.
Witness what Danny Dichio's done in Toronto. The English journeyman is already a cult hero because he is exactly the sort of player Beckham never could be – hard-charging, camera shy and occasionally brutal. The powerful striker arrived an unknown, but made his name through his play."
There are a couple of ideas here that are just completely wrong. First, while Dichio deserves his cult hero status in Toronto, does he really get the adulation because he's "camera shy"? Or is it because he scored the club's first ever goal and led them in scoring? Second, the idea that Beckham could never be "hard charging... and occasionally brutal" shows that Kelly hasn't watched much Beckham. Becks is a workhorse midfielder, relying on an impressive workrate. No, he can't tackle to save a baby seal, but that doesn't stop him from trying. Becks isn't a dirty player but he earns his red cards.
But finally, and most importantly, if guys like Dichio are our best hope to "prove the game's worth", then we're sunk. Surely guys like Cuahtemoc Blanco, Landon Donovan or even Canuck midfield De Rosario are better suited to that task-- I just get the sense that Kelly hasn't really watched enough of the league to know that they-- the real purveyors of the beautiful game-- rather than hard-worker scrappers like Dichio are what make the game wonderful.
In any event, I'd like to propose a cage match between Paul Gardner, whose motto is "If it ain't latin, then it's shit", and Kelly, whose motto is "If it's not Toronto, I don't know about it." That should be more entertaining than a season of Toronto FC games.
In this latest article http://www.thestar.com/Sports/article/270316, Kelly writes:
"[Beckham] was here to lend [soccer] glamour, to attract coverage and to serve as its spokesmodel.
It was the job of other, hungrier, more-reasonably-paid players to prove the game's worth with the ball at their feet.
Witness what Danny Dichio's done in Toronto. The English journeyman is already a cult hero because he is exactly the sort of player Beckham never could be – hard-charging, camera shy and occasionally brutal. The powerful striker arrived an unknown, but made his name through his play."
There are a couple of ideas here that are just completely wrong. First, while Dichio deserves his cult hero status in Toronto, does he really get the adulation because he's "camera shy"? Or is it because he scored the club's first ever goal and led them in scoring? Second, the idea that Beckham could never be "hard charging... and occasionally brutal" shows that Kelly hasn't watched much Beckham. Becks is a workhorse midfielder, relying on an impressive workrate. No, he can't tackle to save a baby seal, but that doesn't stop him from trying. Becks isn't a dirty player but he earns his red cards.
But finally, and most importantly, if guys like Dichio are our best hope to "prove the game's worth", then we're sunk. Surely guys like Cuahtemoc Blanco, Landon Donovan or even Canuck midfield De Rosario are better suited to that task-- I just get the sense that Kelly hasn't really watched enough of the league to know that they-- the real purveyors of the beautiful game-- rather than hard-worker scrappers like Dichio are what make the game wonderful.
In any event, I'd like to propose a cage match between Paul Gardner, whose motto is "If it ain't latin, then it's shit", and Kelly, whose motto is "If it's not Toronto, I don't know about it." That should be more entertaining than a season of Toronto FC games.
Monday, October 22, 2007
Fare thee well
And so David Beckham's Galaxy exit before the MLS playoffs begin.
The Fire-Galaxy game put an exclamation point on what many were saying all along: the Fire have turned into a great team, whose level of play is not reflected by their 7th place finish. The Galaxy, on the other hand, played just about well enough to sneak into the playoffs. There would have been no injustice had the Galaxy been the 8 seed-- they are no worse than many 8 seeds in years past. The true injustice would have been that they needed to knock off a vastly superior Fire team. The Fire created and created chance upon chance. The Gals were really on their heels.
Of course, as we go into the playoffs, we should also note that the Fire squandered and squandered. Their finishing was profligate to the extreme. While Chad Barrett has had a career year, the 7 goals he scored this year in nearly 2000 minutes do not compare well to his 5 in 800 minutes last year. This year was not the great leap forward expected of him. In the playoffs, I can't help but think that the Fire will be punished for not actually putting the ball in the net against DC United.
But spare a thought for the Galaxy: their end of season run made for great theater. Sure, they benefitted from more than a few lucky bounces and calls. Still, they played more cohesively in the stretch run. Credit Donovan for making everyone remember that he's still a great player. Credit Chris Klein for finally displaying the veteran savvy that Alexi Lalas brought him in for. Credit Joe Cannon for not completely losing his shit after some of the awful defense he saw played in front of him. And the younger players finally started to get it too. This year's Galaxy were a limited team that never got full use of their superstar signing, but they were no punchline.
The Fire-Galaxy game put an exclamation point on what many were saying all along: the Fire have turned into a great team, whose level of play is not reflected by their 7th place finish. The Galaxy, on the other hand, played just about well enough to sneak into the playoffs. There would have been no injustice had the Galaxy been the 8 seed-- they are no worse than many 8 seeds in years past. The true injustice would have been that they needed to knock off a vastly superior Fire team. The Fire created and created chance upon chance. The Gals were really on their heels.
Of course, as we go into the playoffs, we should also note that the Fire squandered and squandered. Their finishing was profligate to the extreme. While Chad Barrett has had a career year, the 7 goals he scored this year in nearly 2000 minutes do not compare well to his 5 in 800 minutes last year. This year was not the great leap forward expected of him. In the playoffs, I can't help but think that the Fire will be punished for not actually putting the ball in the net against DC United.
But spare a thought for the Galaxy: their end of season run made for great theater. Sure, they benefitted from more than a few lucky bounces and calls. Still, they played more cohesively in the stretch run. Credit Donovan for making everyone remember that he's still a great player. Credit Chris Klein for finally displaying the veteran savvy that Alexi Lalas brought him in for. Credit Joe Cannon for not completely losing his shit after some of the awful defense he saw played in front of him. And the younger players finally started to get it too. This year's Galaxy were a limited team that never got full use of their superstar signing, but they were no punchline.
Friday, October 19, 2007
Fire-Galaxy: the awesomeist game ever?
The LA Galaxy's tie with the New York Red Bulls sets up what many are calling the "awesomeist game ever": a match-up between Fire and Ice, yin and yang, Hall and Oates, Watson and Crick, Blanco and Beckham. Winner take all.
Some might even say that MLS couldn't have scripted it better, but that's clearly not quite right because it looks increasingly unlikely that both Hall and Oates will be going to the playoffs this year (no bonus points for guessing whether Blanco is more like Hall or more like Oates). As I understand (and given the byzantine nature of the tiebreaks, I may not understand at all), the Fire and the Galaxy can still both make the playoffs but they will need some help from the other playoff chasers.
Here's a quick run down, with goal differential (GD):
Chicago 37 points, GD -6, plays LA
Kansas City 37 points GD -2, plays FC Dallas
Colorado 35 points GD -4, plays Real Salt Lake
Los Angeles 34 points, GD -9, plays Chicago
With the possible exception of Chicago (and trust me-- you don't want to get into the tiebreakers) each team needs a win, but a win will not guarantee a spot for LA or Colorado.
Here are the relevant matchups:
Dallas-Wizards (at Pizza Hut Park): it feels like an awfully long time since either side put in a convincing performance. Dallas won the first meeting between the teams and is getting healthier, which means Dallas's all-time best signing ever, Brazilian stepover superstar Denilson probably won't take the field. And Dallas hasn't exactly been unbeatable at the Pizza Box, going 7-4-3, but with only a plus 2 goal differential.
So what's going to happen? Will Eddie Johnson show up? This one's going to come down to which team cares less, which, judging by the way both teams have played recently, suggests that they probably won't bother playing the game and Dallas will give KC a 2-0 decision by forfeit.
Colorado-Salt Lake (at Dick's Sporting Goods Park): despite the fact that Real Salt Lake is now like the kid in 5th grade that tries really hard but still ends up at the bottom of the class, games between the Rapids and RSL have been pretty competitive. In Colorado, the Rapids hold an edge, winning 3 and losing only 1, but most of those games have been tight. In short, this is an honest to goodness rivalry game.
We've been told that RSL is "desperate" to avoid being the last placed team in the league, which is nice, but as far as I know, 12th place in MLS doesn't come with a big bonus. I think RSL will play reasonably hard for the rivalry (and can still win the rivalry trophy, the Rocky Mountain Cup, with a win), but they are a pretty limited team.
The Rapids really aren't so much better and were looking forward to the offseason until they became the first team to beat Chivas USA at home last week.
What do I think will happen? I don't know, but the thought the of the Rapids in the playoffs gives me shivers. And not good shivers. More like shivers after an acute bout of dysentery.
The Awesomeist Game (in Chicago): with MLS's luck, this will be a dull 0-0 draw, eliminating both teams, and Blanco will accidentally decapitate Beckham while hurting his own back in the process. Beckham will, however, continue to run around the field, headless, which is pretty much what he did on Thursday against the Red Bulls.
I really, really hope that results on Saturday go LA's way. I'd rather see them in the playoffs than either the Wizards or the Rapids and, frankly, purely because I like seeing Beckham and Donovan. But LA is not a great team-- Donovan can only do so much by himself. Beckham's probably capable of being that guy too, but we haven't really seen enough from him to judge.
If it really is winner-take-all, I love the Galaxy's luck, but I think the Fire are actually a good team-- maybe one of the better sub-.500 teams in MLS history. Fire 1-0.
Some might even say that MLS couldn't have scripted it better, but that's clearly not quite right because it looks increasingly unlikely that both Hall and Oates will be going to the playoffs this year (no bonus points for guessing whether Blanco is more like Hall or more like Oates). As I understand (and given the byzantine nature of the tiebreaks, I may not understand at all), the Fire and the Galaxy can still both make the playoffs but they will need some help from the other playoff chasers.
Here's a quick run down, with goal differential (GD):
Chicago 37 points, GD -6, plays LA
Kansas City 37 points GD -2, plays FC Dallas
Colorado 35 points GD -4, plays Real Salt Lake
Los Angeles 34 points, GD -9, plays Chicago
With the possible exception of Chicago (and trust me-- you don't want to get into the tiebreakers) each team needs a win, but a win will not guarantee a spot for LA or Colorado.
Here are the relevant matchups:
Dallas-Wizards (at Pizza Hut Park): it feels like an awfully long time since either side put in a convincing performance. Dallas won the first meeting between the teams and is getting healthier, which means Dallas's all-time best signing ever, Brazilian stepover superstar Denilson probably won't take the field. And Dallas hasn't exactly been unbeatable at the Pizza Box, going 7-4-3, but with only a plus 2 goal differential.
So what's going to happen? Will Eddie Johnson show up? This one's going to come down to which team cares less, which, judging by the way both teams have played recently, suggests that they probably won't bother playing the game and Dallas will give KC a 2-0 decision by forfeit.
Colorado-Salt Lake (at Dick's Sporting Goods Park): despite the fact that Real Salt Lake is now like the kid in 5th grade that tries really hard but still ends up at the bottom of the class, games between the Rapids and RSL have been pretty competitive. In Colorado, the Rapids hold an edge, winning 3 and losing only 1, but most of those games have been tight. In short, this is an honest to goodness rivalry game.
We've been told that RSL is "desperate" to avoid being the last placed team in the league, which is nice, but as far as I know, 12th place in MLS doesn't come with a big bonus. I think RSL will play reasonably hard for the rivalry (and can still win the rivalry trophy, the Rocky Mountain Cup, with a win), but they are a pretty limited team.
The Rapids really aren't so much better and were looking forward to the offseason until they became the first team to beat Chivas USA at home last week.
What do I think will happen? I don't know, but the thought the of the Rapids in the playoffs gives me shivers. And not good shivers. More like shivers after an acute bout of dysentery.
The Awesomeist Game (in Chicago): with MLS's luck, this will be a dull 0-0 draw, eliminating both teams, and Blanco will accidentally decapitate Beckham while hurting his own back in the process. Beckham will, however, continue to run around the field, headless, which is pretty much what he did on Thursday against the Red Bulls.
I really, really hope that results on Saturday go LA's way. I'd rather see them in the playoffs than either the Wizards or the Rapids and, frankly, purely because I like seeing Beckham and Donovan. But LA is not a great team-- Donovan can only do so much by himself. Beckham's probably capable of being that guy too, but we haven't really seen enough from him to judge.
If it really is winner-take-all, I love the Galaxy's luck, but I think the Fire are actually a good team-- maybe one of the better sub-.500 teams in MLS history. Fire 1-0.
Tuesday, October 16, 2007
It's not what you say...
I've got a few favorite soccer journos and bloggers-- Ives, Arroyave, Goff spring immediately to mind, but the list could go on.
One of the guys I confess that I just don't get is Jamie Trecker. It's not because he never makes good points-- even a blind squirrel finds a nut once in a while. It's because I just don't like how the guy thinks. He believes that it takes guts to do what he does-- to stand up to the incompetent USSF, to lambast MLS and to generally show US soccer journalists how real independent media really is.
Those are noble goals, but the guy just doesn't have the horses to pull the carriage.
He starts are recent blog with the following observation "We never know as much as we think we do", which pretty much renders most blogs useless, including his and mine.
http://community.foxsports.com/blogs/JamieTrecker/2007/10/10/Unable_to_learn#comments
But what he's going for is to show that US soccer keeps on making bad calls-- but only Trecker is capable of making the right calls. The following list are what he calls "bad calls", coupled with the lesson in basic rhetoric that I wish Jamie would learn:
1. "Top of the list has to be the handling of David Beckham. The only conclusion one can draw from the events of this summer is that MLS grossly mismanaged the handling of the star and turned what had been rapturous mainstream attention into recriminations and the disappearance of too much coverage for the sport."
What hyperbolic crap. Becks came to MLS injured. The only question is "how much worse did MLS make a bad situation?" Even before the mismanagement, MLS was dealing with a public relations nightmare-- Becks wasn't ready to play and people had bought tickets.
So this brings up something that Trecker always fails to do: "consider what else could have been done?" Trecker never does that, because he's a talker and not a doer. Should MLS have told fans Beckham wasn't going to play for the rest of the season when that wasn't true? What if MLS had attempted to capitalize on Becks less and Beckham had gotten healthy? Wouldn't that have been a missed opportunity? Of course.
Lesson 1: Consider the other possibilities.
MLS has brought in millions because of Beckham. The media coverage was good. Galaxy coach Frank Yallop isn't free from blame for playing Beckham, but frankly, the negative coverage was coming regardless of what happened.
2. "MLS insists that its low-cost model is the only way to ensure the sport’s survival and stability. It’s funny how, then, that the teams who have signed big names have experienced upticks in attendance and press coverage while the ones that haven’t continue to wither. It’s also funny how the best American players ditch the league as soon as they can."
Lesson 2: In articles about the limits of knowledge, please display some.
The team that has experienced, by farm the biggest uptick in attendance: the New England Revolution. The teams that have experienced the 3rd and 4th greatest increases? DC United and the Colorado Rapids-- two teams that also don't have any of the big name players.
And one team that did bring in a big name: Dallas, with Denilson, actually has fewer people in the stands than last year.
But, I'm willing to grant that the big names have been good for MLS, but that brings us to Lesson Three and Lesson Four:
Lesson Three: Be Consistent Didn't Trecker just make a big deal about how mismanaged Beckham was? Now he's saying that the teams with big names had better media coverage and better attendance? Either it worked or it didn't, Jamie, which is it?
Lesson Four: Talking business is easier than knowing business
Jamie acts like everyone's surprised that David Beckham sold lots of Galaxy jerseys and that Cuahtemoc Blanco is bringing in Mexican and Mexican-American fans everywhere. As far as I was concerned, we knew that would happen based on our experiences with Freddy Adu and Luis Hernandez.
The question instead was: "Is it worth it?" Merely increaing revenue isn't enough, especially if (a) you don't actually receive all of that revenue and (b) you have to spend too much to generate the increase. Buying David Beckham didn't make sense when the Galaxy were in the Rose Bowl because the economics were different. It makes sense now. It would seem that MLS bigwigs actually have learned a lot over the years. So bringing up how MLS decided to try out hiring Big Names doesn't exactly support Jamie's thesis, does it? No. In fact, it was a terrible example.
3. "The truth is that many players are being flat-out exploited by contracts that don’t crack $20,000. New England’s Adam Cristman has toiled away this season for $11,000. Due to some MLS legerdemain, until recently, he was not a “senior” roster player. That allowed New England to pay him even less than the pathethic $17K minimum. What an example this league sets for kids, huh?"
No. Christman actually made $17,700, which is a developmental salary and not, as Jamie indicates, the minimum salary for senior players. The minimum for senior players is still only $30,000, but Trecker's got to get this stuff right.
Lesson Five: Check your facts.
4. "MLS sticks to a summer calendar, making the argument that soccer families are the target audience.
It’s funny how, then, at the games I go to, the crowds are filled with young people on dates and that horrifying “ethnic” crowd. It’s also funny how attendances are awful at the start of the season, increase at the back end of the year… until the playoffs, when things drop off the ledge."
Lesson Six: Don't mistake your local situation for the situation everywhere
The funny thing is, when I attend MLS games, I see plenty of kids. IN fact, that's a complaint of MLS fans everywhere: that there are too many kids. I don't know what games Trecker is going to, but he needs to get out to other MLS cities.
Trecker really ought to note, too, that the reason that attendance increases in the fall is generally because the kids are back from vacation and ready to go to games. From what MLS GMs have said, this is largely due to group sales to youth soccer. Which also explains why attendance plummets in the playoffs: there's no time for group sales (in addition to the fact that marketing time is shorter in general and that playoff tickets aren't included in season ticket packages).
5. "The new women’s league has been pushed back from 2008 to 2009? Why? That’s an excellent question, because it’s a repeat of the same stagger-start that doomed WUSA I. The truth might be that there is no good reason beyond the fact that this league doesn’t have the financial legs."
Lesson Seven: Have a point.
Seriously, what is Trecker's point here? That it's big news that the women's league needs another year to attract investment if it's going to succeed?
An addition bonus point is that Trecker's assertion that the "stagger-start" is what doomed the original league is just moronic. The league failed because it didn't start up in 2000? How about the league failed because it blew through five years of financing in one year, despite meeting attendance projections?
After reading yet anothed botched Trecker article, I just have to ask "Is this guy ever going to learn?"
One of the guys I confess that I just don't get is Jamie Trecker. It's not because he never makes good points-- even a blind squirrel finds a nut once in a while. It's because I just don't like how the guy thinks. He believes that it takes guts to do what he does-- to stand up to the incompetent USSF, to lambast MLS and to generally show US soccer journalists how real independent media really is.
Those are noble goals, but the guy just doesn't have the horses to pull the carriage.
He starts are recent blog with the following observation "We never know as much as we think we do", which pretty much renders most blogs useless, including his and mine.
http://community.foxsports.com/blogs/JamieTrecker/2007/10/10/Unable_to_learn#comments
But what he's going for is to show that US soccer keeps on making bad calls-- but only Trecker is capable of making the right calls. The following list are what he calls "bad calls", coupled with the lesson in basic rhetoric that I wish Jamie would learn:
1. "Top of the list has to be the handling of David Beckham. The only conclusion one can draw from the events of this summer is that MLS grossly mismanaged the handling of the star and turned what had been rapturous mainstream attention into recriminations and the disappearance of too much coverage for the sport."
What hyperbolic crap. Becks came to MLS injured. The only question is "how much worse did MLS make a bad situation?" Even before the mismanagement, MLS was dealing with a public relations nightmare-- Becks wasn't ready to play and people had bought tickets.
So this brings up something that Trecker always fails to do: "consider what else could have been done?" Trecker never does that, because he's a talker and not a doer. Should MLS have told fans Beckham wasn't going to play for the rest of the season when that wasn't true? What if MLS had attempted to capitalize on Becks less and Beckham had gotten healthy? Wouldn't that have been a missed opportunity? Of course.
Lesson 1: Consider the other possibilities.
MLS has brought in millions because of Beckham. The media coverage was good. Galaxy coach Frank Yallop isn't free from blame for playing Beckham, but frankly, the negative coverage was coming regardless of what happened.
2. "MLS insists that its low-cost model is the only way to ensure the sport’s survival and stability. It’s funny how, then, that the teams who have signed big names have experienced upticks in attendance and press coverage while the ones that haven’t continue to wither. It’s also funny how the best American players ditch the league as soon as they can."
Lesson 2: In articles about the limits of knowledge, please display some.
The team that has experienced, by farm the biggest uptick in attendance: the New England Revolution. The teams that have experienced the 3rd and 4th greatest increases? DC United and the Colorado Rapids-- two teams that also don't have any of the big name players.
And one team that did bring in a big name: Dallas, with Denilson, actually has fewer people in the stands than last year.
But, I'm willing to grant that the big names have been good for MLS, but that brings us to Lesson Three and Lesson Four:
Lesson Three: Be Consistent Didn't Trecker just make a big deal about how mismanaged Beckham was? Now he's saying that the teams with big names had better media coverage and better attendance? Either it worked or it didn't, Jamie, which is it?
Lesson Four: Talking business is easier than knowing business
Jamie acts like everyone's surprised that David Beckham sold lots of Galaxy jerseys and that Cuahtemoc Blanco is bringing in Mexican and Mexican-American fans everywhere. As far as I was concerned, we knew that would happen based on our experiences with Freddy Adu and Luis Hernandez.
The question instead was: "Is it worth it?" Merely increaing revenue isn't enough, especially if (a) you don't actually receive all of that revenue and (b) you have to spend too much to generate the increase. Buying David Beckham didn't make sense when the Galaxy were in the Rose Bowl because the economics were different. It makes sense now. It would seem that MLS bigwigs actually have learned a lot over the years. So bringing up how MLS decided to try out hiring Big Names doesn't exactly support Jamie's thesis, does it? No. In fact, it was a terrible example.
3. "The truth is that many players are being flat-out exploited by contracts that don’t crack $20,000. New England’s Adam Cristman has toiled away this season for $11,000. Due to some MLS legerdemain, until recently, he was not a “senior” roster player. That allowed New England to pay him even less than the pathethic $17K minimum. What an example this league sets for kids, huh?"
No. Christman actually made $17,700, which is a developmental salary and not, as Jamie indicates, the minimum salary for senior players. The minimum for senior players is still only $30,000, but Trecker's got to get this stuff right.
Lesson Five: Check your facts.
4. "MLS sticks to a summer calendar, making the argument that soccer families are the target audience.
It’s funny how, then, at the games I go to, the crowds are filled with young people on dates and that horrifying “ethnic” crowd. It’s also funny how attendances are awful at the start of the season, increase at the back end of the year… until the playoffs, when things drop off the ledge."
Lesson Six: Don't mistake your local situation for the situation everywhere
The funny thing is, when I attend MLS games, I see plenty of kids. IN fact, that's a complaint of MLS fans everywhere: that there are too many kids. I don't know what games Trecker is going to, but he needs to get out to other MLS cities.
Trecker really ought to note, too, that the reason that attendance increases in the fall is generally because the kids are back from vacation and ready to go to games. From what MLS GMs have said, this is largely due to group sales to youth soccer. Which also explains why attendance plummets in the playoffs: there's no time for group sales (in addition to the fact that marketing time is shorter in general and that playoff tickets aren't included in season ticket packages).
5. "The new women’s league has been pushed back from 2008 to 2009? Why? That’s an excellent question, because it’s a repeat of the same stagger-start that doomed WUSA I. The truth might be that there is no good reason beyond the fact that this league doesn’t have the financial legs."
Lesson Seven: Have a point.
Seriously, what is Trecker's point here? That it's big news that the women's league needs another year to attract investment if it's going to succeed?
An addition bonus point is that Trecker's assertion that the "stagger-start" is what doomed the original league is just moronic. The league failed because it didn't start up in 2000? How about the league failed because it blew through five years of financing in one year, despite meeting attendance projections?
After reading yet anothed botched Trecker article, I just have to ask "Is this guy ever going to learn?"
Monday, October 15, 2007
Westward Hos
I'm embarrased to admit that I get awfully tired of fans in MLS expansion cities.
Yes, I know-- I should be happy they care. But they just seem to think that nothing that's gone before in MLS has anything to do with what their city is doing now. We saw it this year with Toronto: best atmosphere in MLS? Almost without a doubt. Unprecedented fan support? Erm... no.
That said, Toronto appeared to have set the standard for MLS expansion by selling out nearly every game this year and by having a true soccer-knowledgeable public. The recipe for success appeared pretty clear: open up the team in a soccer-specific stadium, sell the game to true soccer supporters and get them to build a solid season ticket base.
But now MLS is contemplating expansion to Seattle, and the model, so far, can't be any more different. Seattle MLS will be playing in Qwest Field, a "cavernous" NFL stadium (note: the use of the adjective "cavernous" is required in any post about MLS in NFL stadiums).
Seattle fans like to point out that Qwest was designed for soccer and approved by Seattle taxpayers on that basis. Let's unpack that a little.
First, Seattle is not the first NFL stadium "designed" with soccer in mind. I'm reminded that some described Gillette Stadium the same way, so let's not pretend that "designed for soccer" means anything in the abstract. I'm perfectly willing to defer to fans who have been to Qwest and say that it's actually pretty good for soccer-- but no combination of curtains, tarps and sightlines will be able to make every fan forget that the upper deck is empty for MLS matches.
As for the "approved by taxpayers" bit-- I'm not quite sure it's relevant. Besides, if Seattle taxpayers were swayed by the "also designed for soccer" bit, it's because they were already 90% convinced by the "NFL stadium" bit.
Even accepting, as I do, Seattle fans' contention that Qwest has a great atmosphere for games of the lower division soccer team, the Seattle Sounders, even when there are only 10,000 in the stadium, is the game day experience as good as it would be in a soccer-specific stadium (SSS)? Seattle fans might point to games at Crew Stadium, where a somnolent crowd chews on brats and engages in drinking games revolving around how many crosses Frankie Hejduk will mishit. That's a great point: an SSS is no guarantee of a great crowd. From what I've heard, Seattle fans will put Columbus to shame. But all things being equal, wouldn't the same crowd of Seattle fans be better in an SSS than in Qwest? Of course it would.
And then there's the economic side of things. Seattle fans are quick to point out that gazillionaire Paul Allen is involved in the ownership group-- and may be allowing MLS Seattle to play rent-free in Qwest. Their logic goes something like this: Paul Allen has made lots of money. Therefore, he doesn't make any mistakes, and this team will make money.
Frankly, that's an idiotic argument made only by people who don't understand business. Rich men make "mistakes" all of the time-- they underestimate the importance of certain factors or over-emphasize others. You don't think rich guys were buying subprime mortgages? Frequently, the rich will take huge, but calculated, risks precisely because they are rich. Investing in soccer in the US certainly falls into that category.
So, while I'll defer to any guy as successful as Allen, that doesn't mean his actions shouldn't be scrutinized. It is harder for MLS teams to make money in an NFL stadium than a soccer-specific stadium. Even rent free, an MLS team will forego certain revenue streams, like concessions, parking and merchandising. Even if the Qwest contract gives MLS Seattle 100% of those revenue streams, certain other revenue streams simply won't be available, like stadium naming rights. It's conceivable that playing rent free in Seattle will actually cost MLS more in terms of lost revenue. And it's certainly going to be harder to build a season ticket base when capacity in Qwest won't be meaningfully limited. This summer, you couldn't score a ticket to Toronto's BMO Field, even though the team stopped scoring sometime in March. For all but the highest demand games, anyone in Seattle will be able to walk up to Qwest on game day and buy a ticket. I'm sure they'll sell a decent number of season tickets because Seattle is a good market, but will they sell as many as they would have in an SSS? Of course not.
Finally, we have the old cannard that Seattle is going to be a great MLS market because the NASL was popular in Seattle. Can't we put this one to rest yet? There simply isn't any correlation between NASL success and MLS success. Times have changed, the product has changed, and, even if that weren't true, the metrics of success have changed.
None of the above means Seattle MLS won't be successful. There are a number of factors that point to success: I like the ownership group, I like the downtown location of Qwest and I like the fans' obvious, if shrill, passion for the sport. I am conscious of the quote from Voltaire: "Le mieux est l'ennemi du bien"... the best is the enemy of the good. In other words, striving for perfection can undermine real progress. So, let's not oppose Seattle on the basis that there are, theoretically, better approaches to building a team. But, at the same time, let's not sweep 12 years of experience under the rug.
Yes, I know-- I should be happy they care. But they just seem to think that nothing that's gone before in MLS has anything to do with what their city is doing now. We saw it this year with Toronto: best atmosphere in MLS? Almost without a doubt. Unprecedented fan support? Erm... no.
That said, Toronto appeared to have set the standard for MLS expansion by selling out nearly every game this year and by having a true soccer-knowledgeable public. The recipe for success appeared pretty clear: open up the team in a soccer-specific stadium, sell the game to true soccer supporters and get them to build a solid season ticket base.
But now MLS is contemplating expansion to Seattle, and the model, so far, can't be any more different. Seattle MLS will be playing in Qwest Field, a "cavernous" NFL stadium (note: the use of the adjective "cavernous" is required in any post about MLS in NFL stadiums).
Seattle fans like to point out that Qwest was designed for soccer and approved by Seattle taxpayers on that basis. Let's unpack that a little.
First, Seattle is not the first NFL stadium "designed" with soccer in mind. I'm reminded that some described Gillette Stadium the same way, so let's not pretend that "designed for soccer" means anything in the abstract. I'm perfectly willing to defer to fans who have been to Qwest and say that it's actually pretty good for soccer-- but no combination of curtains, tarps and sightlines will be able to make every fan forget that the upper deck is empty for MLS matches.
As for the "approved by taxpayers" bit-- I'm not quite sure it's relevant. Besides, if Seattle taxpayers were swayed by the "also designed for soccer" bit, it's because they were already 90% convinced by the "NFL stadium" bit.
Even accepting, as I do, Seattle fans' contention that Qwest has a great atmosphere for games of the lower division soccer team, the Seattle Sounders, even when there are only 10,000 in the stadium, is the game day experience as good as it would be in a soccer-specific stadium (SSS)? Seattle fans might point to games at Crew Stadium, where a somnolent crowd chews on brats and engages in drinking games revolving around how many crosses Frankie Hejduk will mishit. That's a great point: an SSS is no guarantee of a great crowd. From what I've heard, Seattle fans will put Columbus to shame. But all things being equal, wouldn't the same crowd of Seattle fans be better in an SSS than in Qwest? Of course it would.
And then there's the economic side of things. Seattle fans are quick to point out that gazillionaire Paul Allen is involved in the ownership group-- and may be allowing MLS Seattle to play rent-free in Qwest. Their logic goes something like this: Paul Allen has made lots of money. Therefore, he doesn't make any mistakes, and this team will make money.
Frankly, that's an idiotic argument made only by people who don't understand business. Rich men make "mistakes" all of the time-- they underestimate the importance of certain factors or over-emphasize others. You don't think rich guys were buying subprime mortgages? Frequently, the rich will take huge, but calculated, risks precisely because they are rich. Investing in soccer in the US certainly falls into that category.
So, while I'll defer to any guy as successful as Allen, that doesn't mean his actions shouldn't be scrutinized. It is harder for MLS teams to make money in an NFL stadium than a soccer-specific stadium. Even rent free, an MLS team will forego certain revenue streams, like concessions, parking and merchandising. Even if the Qwest contract gives MLS Seattle 100% of those revenue streams, certain other revenue streams simply won't be available, like stadium naming rights. It's conceivable that playing rent free in Seattle will actually cost MLS more in terms of lost revenue. And it's certainly going to be harder to build a season ticket base when capacity in Qwest won't be meaningfully limited. This summer, you couldn't score a ticket to Toronto's BMO Field, even though the team stopped scoring sometime in March. For all but the highest demand games, anyone in Seattle will be able to walk up to Qwest on game day and buy a ticket. I'm sure they'll sell a decent number of season tickets because Seattle is a good market, but will they sell as many as they would have in an SSS? Of course not.
Finally, we have the old cannard that Seattle is going to be a great MLS market because the NASL was popular in Seattle. Can't we put this one to rest yet? There simply isn't any correlation between NASL success and MLS success. Times have changed, the product has changed, and, even if that weren't true, the metrics of success have changed.
None of the above means Seattle MLS won't be successful. There are a number of factors that point to success: I like the ownership group, I like the downtown location of Qwest and I like the fans' obvious, if shrill, passion for the sport. I am conscious of the quote from Voltaire: "Le mieux est l'ennemi du bien"... the best is the enemy of the good. In other words, striving for perfection can undermine real progress. So, let's not oppose Seattle on the basis that there are, theoretically, better approaches to building a team. But, at the same time, let's not sweep 12 years of experience under the rug.
Saturday, October 13, 2007
Stupid Conspiracy Theories
Some folks would have you believe that the Freemasons, the Knights Templar and Don Garber are fixing MLS to make sure that David Beckham makes it into the playoffs.
In Saturday's MLS nightcap, a red card and penalty against the Galaxy's opponent, Toronto, would seem to provde some evidence for this. But Marco Reda's grab on Gavin Glinton on a breakaway seemed pretty clear (at least on the replay). It looked like a good call. But LA, despite a man advantage, continued to look bad and let Toronto tie up the game. Only a late surge by LA got them a barely earned victory.
I'm not one of those who will bag on LA if they make the playoffs after being terrible for so long. But these wins are, by and large, not particularly convincing. The Galaxy's unbeaten streak has featured 3 ejections and 3 penalty kicks. I mention this not because I think the league is rigged but because it suggests to me that LA still hasn't really righted the ship.
This is what an 8 seed looks like in 13 team MLS. They're really not that good. Compare them to Chicago, which is the odds on favorite to be the 8 seed, but are an example of a team that has turned the tide. They had a bad middle of the season, but, as they're playing right now, they can hang with the best. I can see them pulling an upset in the playoffs. The Gals, should they make the playoffs, look like odd's on favorites to bow out in the first round.
Their roster still looks like Lalas was attempting to build a First XI out of the most disappointing players in the league. Between Buddle, Martino, Gordon, Glinton and, good lord, Carlos Pavon, the Gals have more reclamation projects than the EPA. How bad is Carlos Pavon? I get that the guy's not as mobile as he used to be. But why does his touch suck so bad? In the first few minutes of the Toronto-LA game, we watched him fail to win a corner by accidentally nutmegging the Toronto defender when he needed to smack the Red in the legs with the ball and then lose balls in ever more creative ways, such as trapping it by kicking it into his face and then watching it bounce out of bounds.
One final thought on FSC's presentation of the LA-Toronto game: I liked how they were talking about how rookie Josh Tudela's play was going to make things really difficult for coach Frank Yallop in deciding the starting lineup, which has got to be the stupidest of many odd comments during the broadcast. Josh Tudela's "backup" is David Beckham-- somehow I don't think the rookie for Evansville is going to keep an England international on the bench.
In Saturday's MLS nightcap, a red card and penalty against the Galaxy's opponent, Toronto, would seem to provde some evidence for this. But Marco Reda's grab on Gavin Glinton on a breakaway seemed pretty clear (at least on the replay). It looked like a good call. But LA, despite a man advantage, continued to look bad and let Toronto tie up the game. Only a late surge by LA got them a barely earned victory.
I'm not one of those who will bag on LA if they make the playoffs after being terrible for so long. But these wins are, by and large, not particularly convincing. The Galaxy's unbeaten streak has featured 3 ejections and 3 penalty kicks. I mention this not because I think the league is rigged but because it suggests to me that LA still hasn't really righted the ship.
This is what an 8 seed looks like in 13 team MLS. They're really not that good. Compare them to Chicago, which is the odds on favorite to be the 8 seed, but are an example of a team that has turned the tide. They had a bad middle of the season, but, as they're playing right now, they can hang with the best. I can see them pulling an upset in the playoffs. The Gals, should they make the playoffs, look like odd's on favorites to bow out in the first round.
Their roster still looks like Lalas was attempting to build a First XI out of the most disappointing players in the league. Between Buddle, Martino, Gordon, Glinton and, good lord, Carlos Pavon, the Gals have more reclamation projects than the EPA. How bad is Carlos Pavon? I get that the guy's not as mobile as he used to be. But why does his touch suck so bad? In the first few minutes of the Toronto-LA game, we watched him fail to win a corner by accidentally nutmegging the Toronto defender when he needed to smack the Red in the legs with the ball and then lose balls in ever more creative ways, such as trapping it by kicking it into his face and then watching it bounce out of bounds.
One final thought on FSC's presentation of the LA-Toronto game: I liked how they were talking about how rookie Josh Tudela's play was going to make things really difficult for coach Frank Yallop in deciding the starting lineup, which has got to be the stupidest of many odd comments during the broadcast. Josh Tudela's "backup" is David Beckham-- somehow I don't think the rookie for Evansville is going to keep an England international on the bench.
Problem Solved!
When Jeff Cunningham joined Toronto, he had scored 93 goals in his MLS career. Because Jeff likes to remind people of this fact, he chose the number 93 for his jersey.
At the start of the season, Cunny noted that, next year, he was going to need to ask the league for special permission to to wear a number greater than 100.
It now looks certain that Cunningham won't need to ask the league's permission after all. That's the good news.
The bad news is that it's because Cunningham has scored only 3 goals since joining the offense-challenged Red Brigade. Unless he explodes for 4 more goals, Cunny will be stuck on 96...
Other Thoughts
1. Cuahtemoc Blanco is the most exciting player in MLS. Even when he messes up, like against DC United. As two United defenders closed in, Blanco attempted his signature move: trapping the ball between his feet and bunnyhopping between the two defenders. This time, however, his momentum carried him backwards and he fell on his rear and the ball trickled away. But as if you needed an example of how, even when he's bad, he's good, the ball still made it to the Fire's Wilman Conde in the box.
2. Sadly, the Fire's finishing is not on par with Blanco's creation. Wanchope has been a disappointment, but he's still a useful player. Chris Rolfe is a badass. Even Chad Barrett should be lauded for his awarenesxs and work effort. But the Fire needs a finisher. That said, I think they can now play with any of the league's best teams.
3. We have a race. DC's Emilio is stuck on league-leading 20 goals. NY's Juan Pablo Angel hit two against Kansas City for 19. The scoring race will go down to the last game.
At the start of the season, Cunny noted that, next year, he was going to need to ask the league for special permission to to wear a number greater than 100.
It now looks certain that Cunningham won't need to ask the league's permission after all. That's the good news.
The bad news is that it's because Cunningham has scored only 3 goals since joining the offense-challenged Red Brigade. Unless he explodes for 4 more goals, Cunny will be stuck on 96...
Other Thoughts
1. Cuahtemoc Blanco is the most exciting player in MLS. Even when he messes up, like against DC United. As two United defenders closed in, Blanco attempted his signature move: trapping the ball between his feet and bunnyhopping between the two defenders. This time, however, his momentum carried him backwards and he fell on his rear and the ball trickled away. But as if you needed an example of how, even when he's bad, he's good, the ball still made it to the Fire's Wilman Conde in the box.
2. Sadly, the Fire's finishing is not on par with Blanco's creation. Wanchope has been a disappointment, but he's still a useful player. Chris Rolfe is a badass. Even Chad Barrett should be lauded for his awarenesxs and work effort. But the Fire needs a finisher. That said, I think they can now play with any of the league's best teams.
3. We have a race. DC's Emilio is stuck on league-leading 20 goals. NY's Juan Pablo Angel hit two against Kansas City for 19. The scoring race will go down to the last game.
Monday, October 8, 2007
Why hate on KC?
It seems like more than a few people are excited about the still remote possibility that LA will make it to the playoffs. I admit-- I am too. Especially the prospect of a Blanco-Becks showdown at Toyota Park to close out the season with a playoff berth on the line. MLS really couldn't script a better ending. There's just one problem-- it means that either the Fire or LA (i.e. Blanco or Becks) won't be in the postseason.
But, just as Obi-Wan says in Return of the Jedi, there is another. Creative commentators, like Ives Galarcep (http://njmg.typepad.com/sbi/2007/10/monday-mornin-1.html) picks KC to crash out of the playoffs, which opens up dream matchups between Team Beckham and Chivas, as well as DC United and Team Blanco.
And I get it: the Wizards are in free fall and apparently had to resort to (http://blog.washingtonpost.com/soccerinsider/2007/10/kc_aftermath_and_the_weekend.html ) putting iocane powder
in United's breakfast in order to try to get something out of their Friday night showdown. But after years of equalling the Colorado Rapids in sleep-inducing futbol, this year's Wizards are actually pretty decent to watch. And they need a playoff spot. Really really need one.
So while the Galaxy have stitched together a winning streak using nothing more than heart and an improbable run of form by Gavin Glinton, who's now been released from a Thai prison, KC's probably the more entertaining team... It's just that they're not very good...
But, just as Obi-Wan says in Return of the Jedi, there is another. Creative commentators, like Ives Galarcep (http://njmg.typepad.com/sbi/2007/10/monday-mornin-1.html) picks KC to crash out of the playoffs, which opens up dream matchups between Team Beckham and Chivas, as well as DC United and Team Blanco.
And I get it: the Wizards are in free fall and apparently had to resort to (http://blog.washingtonpost.com/soccerinsider/2007/10/kc_aftermath_and_the_weekend.html ) putting iocane powder
in United's breakfast in order to try to get something out of their Friday night showdown. But after years of equalling the Colorado Rapids in sleep-inducing futbol, this year's Wizards are actually pretty decent to watch. And they need a playoff spot. Really really need one.
So while the Galaxy have stitched together a winning streak using nothing more than heart and an improbable run of form by Gavin Glinton, who's now been released from a Thai prison, KC's probably the more entertaining team... It's just that they're not very good...
Friday, October 5, 2007
Rico Duro-- Clark gets NINE games of suspension...
And a fine of $10,000...
Some folks are calling this suspension "unjust", "cruel" and "absurd", which makes me wonder whether those words mean the same thing in different parts of the country.
Personally, I expected six games, like the suspensions of Sala and Herron. Personally, I think Sala, who had a few moments to cool down before doing his best Bruce Lee imitation with three Rapids players, did the worst thing. But I can see how Rico's Danny Bonaduce act might seem even more out of control. Reasonable minds can differ, and I don't think the league is being unreasonable here.
I do wonder, however, how suspensions and fines stop people from losing their heads. If someone goes nuts, they're clearly not acting or thinking rationally and wondering how a potential fine might cut into their spending cash...
Some folks are calling this suspension "unjust", "cruel" and "absurd", which makes me wonder whether those words mean the same thing in different parts of the country.
Personally, I expected six games, like the suspensions of Sala and Herron. Personally, I think Sala, who had a few moments to cool down before doing his best Bruce Lee imitation with three Rapids players, did the worst thing. But I can see how Rico's Danny Bonaduce act might seem even more out of control. Reasonable minds can differ, and I don't think the league is being unreasonable here.
I do wonder, however, how suspensions and fines stop people from losing their heads. If someone goes nuts, they're clearly not acting or thinking rationally and wondering how a potential fine might cut into their spending cash...
Thursday, October 4, 2007
Crime, Punishment and the Little Fish
It was like in Face/Off where evil Nicholas Cage stole good John Travolta's face, implanted it on his own, and started doing really bad deeds to Ms. Travolta.
But this was just as much science fiction. I couldn't believe my eyes: Houston d-mid Rico Clark, about as nice a midfield destroyer as you could ever hope to meet, was kicking Dallas cheapshot and scoring machine Carlos Ruiz on the ground late in the game in 3-0 Houston victory... While we shouldn't go overboard on the St. Rico stuff (he has been ejected before), it was the kind of ugly scene that you expect Ruiz-- and not Clark-- to be involved in. It was even more mysterious because Houston was absolutely dominating the match-- why would Clark go nuts when he's on the winning side of a rout?
Most commentators have wondered what punishment Clark would get for Fish abuse. I think that's actually an easy question: six games. That's the mark that's been set for really bad behavior, like going after a ref (like Andy Herron) or clocking Hunter Freeman (like Dario Sala). By my count, that means Clark misses the rest of the season unless Houston makes it to MLS Cup.
The more interesting question, in my mind, is what to do with Carlos Ruiz. A few more details emerged about Clark's kick: it turns out that Ruiz had punched Clark in the back almost immediately before Rico's reaction. We shouldn't equate the two actions though- Rico Suave kicking a guy while he's down is pretty awful. A punch in the back while going for a ball is not as serious.
But I still think Ruiz needs to sit out the rest of the season (and for Dallas, a five game suspension should do it). Why? Because the guy's got a history. For some, you shouldn't take a player's history into account when meting out suspensions and fines. Why not?? As a society, we implicitly take bad behavior into account because it shows that people just aren't learning. This is the idea behind Three Strikes and You're Out. I'm not suggesting that MLS adhere to such rigid standards and send Jean Valjean to prison for stealing bread. And I'm not suggesting that hardnosed defenders be suspended for multiple games because it's their job to foul... a lot. But if you've got a history of smacking people around, then yes, the league needs to keep giving longer and longer suspensions for that kind of behavior.
And Carlos Ruiz's record ain't great-- he racks up cards and fouls as if he were paid to defend instead of score goals. His bad deed isn't as bad a Rico's, but given his history, perhaps his punishment should be.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)