"Irrelevant" is such a strong word

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.