Discussion in 'MLS: Commissioner - You be The Don' started by deejay, Oct 30, 2012.
Eurosnobs and Mexisnobs are definitely not the majority of the american public.
yes. and everybody laughed at it. In the NFL, or any other american sport, it's ridiculous to have ties. in soccer, it's normal. The NHL added overtime in regular season games and it's been a huge success.
yes. they laughed at the tie last week. but only last week. There is overtime in cup games, why not regular season games, it would just make games for dramatic and interesting. If you wouldn't watch a soccer game because there is overtime then i guess you don't watch the would cup final or the champions league final or any playoff/cup game. And i'll say this again, the point of any competition is to decide which side/player/team is better.
So recognize how ties fit in with the season-long competition. Giving 1 point for a tie and 3 points for a win satisfies your requirement.
If someone says that they don't like MLS because the quality of play on the field, in their opinion, is low, then I'm okay with that.
If someone says that they don't like MLS because they need pro/rel, single table, no salary cap, no streamers, and a whole bunch of other shit that has NOTHING to do with the play on the field, then... you know... f*ck that guy.
Yeah, I want to chain that guy to a water pipe, douse him in gasoline and light him up
Yes, of course it is. But if two teams score the same number of goals during a game or earn the same number of points during the season, is there a better team? Football defines the winner as the team that scores more points in 60 minutes, soccer the team scoring more goals in 90 minutes. By that definition, the team scoring more points in 75 minutes or more goals in 120 is not the better team.
If neither team has proven itself the better team, why not let them both claim a tie. The NFL actually makes a tie worth more than soccer does. An NFL tie is worth half a win. If you think ties shouldn't be rewarded, lobby to ties worth nothing. Most wins gets the higher playoff seed, fewest losses is the tiebreaker. What you are doing now is demanding that every sport reward teams that cannot win in regulation with extra time to pick up a win that they didn't earn.
In competition, a tie is the exact opposite of the intended outcome.
These aren't exhibitions, they are competitive games.
If all regulation-time draws had to be settled in overtime, then three draws would mean adding a whole match to the season. That would add up over the course of the year and just means more fatigue and injuries in October and November. Especially when you consider all the times during the season that a team might play two games in a week, or three games in ten days or whatever. The NFL can allow overtime because teams play once a week, and most overtime games are settled within a few minutes of game play. It's extremely rare to see what we saw in the NFL last week. The NHL overtime period is sudden death. The NBA overtime is only 5 minutes long, and most games are settled before an overtime or 2nd overtime period is needed. And again, none of the teams in those leagues play in multiple competitions during the season. Ties are much more common in soccer, and considering the nature of the game and congestion of schedules, going to overtime to settle every draw would be detrimental to the league and its teams.
I thought you keep saying that the goal of a competition was to find out who the better team was. Are you absolutely incapable of conceiving that two teams may be equally good (or in some cases equally inept)?
If you were judging a tallest person contest, would you have a tiebreaker there?
If you were judging a marathon and two runners crossed the finish line hand in hand, would you make them run another 10 miles to settle on the winner?
The best team in a soccer match is the team that scores more goals. If neither team can claim that status, then neither team is the best team.
Actually, that isn't me that keeps ringing it in the thread but I do agree with it .... it also happens to be the entire point of competition, you know, to find out "better"
Really ? Tallest person contest compared to a game ? Oh dear.
The marathon runners would have their true intent questioned, that's for sure. I mean if you enter a race (which, by definition is to see who/what is faster) only to trot hand in hand with someone across the finish line ...... yeah.
I see what you're doing here, but either you're missing the point, or ignoring it all together just ... because
So then at the end of the season if ManU/ManCity are tied on points, they are crowned CO-Champions yeah ?
Oh, wait ... you say they aren't ? Well I'll be ... why not ? I mean, they just might be equally good or inept, right ?
From the competition rules of the EPL: If there is a tie for the championship, for relegation, or for qualification to other competitions, a play-off match at a neutral venue decides rank.
Yet the same competition allows ties.
Clearly they can differentiate between a match and a championship. Only one needs to have a winner.
My biggest complaint with tie-breakers such as extra time and penalties is that they give rise to negative play. Underdogs have a habit of playing for penalties, which is bad enough, but it can also lead to cagey play from the other side too. I always find the football in the knock out stages of major tournaments far less interesting than the group phase because of it.
You saw a similar thing when the golden goal came in. People said it would lead to attacking football, with teams going for the goal that would win the match. Instead, teams became more defensive, knowing one mistake and you could be knocked out with a counter attack goal.
yes, but then they carry a penalty of wearing out their players by having them run for 120 minutes.
And, in either case, aside of soccer, most US sports have their "golden goal" or facsimile thereof. The NFL has gone to the "silver goal" type of a setup.
In the NHL, the "golden goal" occasionally meant 2-3 extra periods --- some of the most exciting soccer ever played.
PS. I suppose this is going against the grain but I'd much prefer an old NASL/MLS style shoot-out as the means of settling a playoff/knockout game to the PK's. At least, the shootouts require some soccer skills.
... how is that different than half of the table playing "for a point" against the big clubs ?
the favoured sides don't settle for a point as well.
Penalties reward cowardice. They give a chance to win without taking any risks, with the upshot being that often both sides will settle for penalties long before the final whistle. You very rarely, on the other hand, get a favoured side sitting back and settling for a point.
Uh, where's the neg rep when you need it?
This are the Internets. Spilling dozen cow'nt.
Happens more than you'll probably admit.
The likes of Arsenal, Chelsea, etc often go into the Stoke's of the world aiming to not "get trapped" in a result. They don't play the way they normally do ... or when Stoke or Sunderland come visit the Emirates or Stamford Bridge. That absolutely happens. They'll take a swing or to, but then settle into a match just trying not to get caught out.
Not really. They don't play for a draw.
Sometimes they'll get bullied out of it against physical opponents because they aren't up for it, and sort of give in psychologically, but that's hardly the same thing. It's not deliberate negative play of the kind that blights the latter stages of most tournaments.
Perhaps it isn't as drastic as what the lower end teams do, but often there is an evident change in approach because they know that as long as they don't drop all 3pts, they'll be ok.
Maybe what you are saying has more impact in a league with play-offs, as a top side dropping two points isn't so much of a setback there.
On the ties, many here view a regular season sport as either/or...either one team wins or the other team wins.
In soccer (MLS), it needs to be viewed like this: Each team in the league is trying to earn as many points out of 102 (34 games x 3 pts. max per game) as they can through the course of a season, not necessarily to get the most wins -- although typically the Shield winner does have the most wins.
In 2008, Houston won the Western Conference and finished second overall (13-12-5) with four fewer wins than the Shield winner that season, Columbus (17-6-7). Those 12 ties for Houston are what put them ahead of three other teams in the overall table who had the same number of wins or one fewer win.
You have to view it as a manager does: "How many points can I get out of this game?" If they're on the road or on short rest with injuries, they may be just trying to grab a point, knowing if they over-extend they could earn nothing. It's the chess match over a long season.
The thing that actually really bugs me about ties, is that they take the point (no pun intended) out of the competition to an extent. The entire reason to contest a game or whatever else is to see who is better.
Take the Bundesliga last year. Wolfsburg finished just behind Hannover (4pts) despite actually winning one more game on the season. Significance ? The difference between Euro competition and not.
Or, even more drastic situation last year in the Premier League. Bolton finishes 2pts behind Villa but gets relegated while Villa escapes. Bolton won 3 more matches on the season. Villa won a whopping 7 matches all year but gets to stay ?
Given what a lottery penalty shoot outs are, I don't see a penalty win as in any way being the equivalent of a real win.
An overtime win in the NFL or NHL is still a genuine win. A win on spot-kicks just isn't the same as scoring an extra-time winner or winning in the 90, and should never be worth the same in a league.
Wolfsburg lost 6 more matches than Hanover.
Bolton lost 8 more matches than Villa did.
Are you saying that you want to reward teams who lose more than teams that do not lose more?
Separate names with a comma.