The MLS Cup 2009 Playoffs Look Like This…
By: Daryl | October 26th, 2009
The Major League Soccer regular season is done. Columbus Crew took the Supporters Shield for the second year in a row, and if it was up to some fans (myself included) then that would be that. Crew would be champions of the imaginary MLS single table, Galaxy would be runners up, Houston third and so on.
But that’s not how it works. This is how it works: Eight of the fifteen teams made the playoffs. Seven didn’t. Which at least makes a playoff spot more valuable than in previous seasons, like MLS 2006 for example where all but four teams had a post-season. Next year (with the addition of Philadelphia) half of MLS will have a post-season and half won’t. Maybe it’s just me, but that will finally feel right.
Here’s what the MLS Cup 2009 playoff picture looks like:
We’re supposed to refer to these as Conference semi-finals, because MLS is divided into two conferences. But I’m old school so I’m going to go ahead and call them quarterfinals, and hope Don Garber doesn’t come after me.
Columbus Crew vs Real Salt Lake
Chicago Fire vs New England Revolution
Los Angeles Galaxy vs Chivas USA
Houston Dynamo vs Seattle Sounders
(links are to active Offside blogs)
It’s two legs, home and away. Exact dates haven’t been scheduled yet, but I believe the games are played over the next two weekends(?) Lower seeded team hosts the first game, higher seeded hosts the second game. The games you see above show the higherst seed first. Away goals are not used. The semifinals will be one leg, as will the final.
As an MLS neutral, I’m looking forward to the bottom two games there. LA Galaxy vs Chivas USA is always good value, plus it’s Beckham’s first time in the postseason. Seattle have done incredibly well to make it this far as an expansion team, and their Qwest Field will host the MLS Cup championship game. So all eyes on them for the potential fairy tale win.
Want to blog about Major League Soccer here on The Offside? Then click here to find out how.
 |
Soccer Forums | Team/International Results |  |
 |  |
Category: MLS
Subscribe
|
Print
|
Share
      |
Comments | Add your comment
-
Too many rounds, too many wild cards, too much nonsense. The league plays as a single table and then creates an imaginary two conference playoff system, with the leaders of the imaginary “divisions” on par with the wild card teams. Why call them wild card teams? Why call them conferences? Why doesn’t the league recognize the international calender? Oops, that last one just slipped out, another MLS unfathomable.
Posted from
United States
-
A small correction, Chicago is ranked higher than the Revs. Also, the games in the Eastern Conference should be interesting as well. First round, Fire v Revs is a playoff constant. The two teams have kicked each other out of the playoffs so many times. Then the winner of that will likely play the Crew who are supporters shield winners and top guns of the league. Two bonus SuperClasico games will be awesome and I also want to see the expansion Sounders succeed as well. Being The Offside writer for and huge fan of Chicago, I obviously want them to win but there is quite a ways to go.
Posted from
United States -
The only thing that is single table is the Supporters Shield. The rest of it is divided by conference. You are jockeying for the top two spots of the division to get into the playoffs. However, the last four spots are wild card spots which I think is very effective for the league. Last year, the West was very weak, the two seed in the West had fewer points than the fourth place team East, or something close to that. The playoff would have been so lopsided it would not have even been interesting. With the wild cards, the best teams are getting into the playoffs. It is a little disappointing this year considering if it were done by the best of the conferences, it would not look much different since 7 teams were fighting for 3 spots. I think the system works for such a mall league. As it grows, changes will need to be made, but for now it is a good system and works. This can be seen by the fact that three of the first round games will be incredible and the following rounds should be just as interesting. I am really looking forward to the post-season. As for disregarding the rest of the world’s soccer calendar, I am equally as lost. The only explanation I can come up with is try playing soccer in Chicago or New England in the dead of winter. 10 inches of snow on a surface isn’t really ideal and especially for the teams which are in the south going north for away games.
Posted from
United States -
Thanks Matthew,
Spotted I had Houston and Seattle the wrong way around too. Should all be present and correct now.
Re: the international calendar and the teams located in areas with harsh winters, does anyone think we’ll see indoor or at least covered pitches/fields in the future?
Posted from
United States -
The Seattle-Houston game is scheduled for this Thursday in Seattle. (And the scheduling has nothing whatsoever to do with the fact that Seattle is the only team that can sell out on short notice on a weeknight.)
Posted from
United States -
And yes, weather is the reason for the schedule. Last time I visited Denver in the winter, my flight was four days late because the airports were shut down, and when I got there there wer twenty inches of snow on the ground. My husband’s flight out was delayed two more days because there was another blizzard. Imagine the fun of playing soccer in this!
Okay, so it also has something to do with not conflicting with the bigger sports. But mostly weather. Pretty sure.
And yes, there have been rumors of covered fields in cold areas. But just imagine trying to get the funding passed in areas that struggled to get their original soccer specific stadia!
Posted from
United States -
In terms of pure soccer, the Seattle v. Houston games pit two of my favorite possession-based-attack teams against one another.
In terms of drama, Chivas USA v. Galaxy has some simmering potential. Maybe a loss could reignite my favorite summer feud….
Posted from
United States -
I’m biased as a Utahn, but Crew vs. Real Salt Lake could be interesting, by being best (#1 seed) vs. worst (#8 seed) match up of the lot. RSL have started clicking at the right time and could pull an upset over the Supporter’s Shield winner. Of course, it would just further devalue the competition format of the MLS…
Posted from
United States -
I have to agree with Matthew, the Fire v. Revs match-up is always a thriller; the teams are de facto rivals due to the amount of times they’ve collided in the play-offs in the hunt for the title.
And while I agree that the table based Champion theory is probably a better gauge of the who the best over all team is, the play-off system adds some extra excitement that serves the MLS well. European spectators don’t approve? Oh well. The MLS wants to do things different, and I will watch and enjoy.
Posted from
United States -
European spectators don’t approve? Oh well. The MLS wants to do things different, and I will watch and enjoy.
john, even though I’d prefer a single table and no playoffs, I kind of like your attitude. I always feel like MLS fans should get behind their league and not worry too much about what Europeans think.
Posted from
United States -
Playoffs are a staple of the American Sporting culture, if MLS were not to have playoffs the validity of the league would be questioned by all the casual fans that MLS is trying to garner.
Posted from
United States -
Daryl, the way I figure, plenty of other leagues do summer scheduling too, in the face of weather realities. Why should the US be any different? Honestly, I think it is a happy coincidence that it also gives the league less competition from other sports, and I’ll take that coincidence. What the league does need to do is do a better job of accommodating international breaks. Several times this year MLS teams played simultaneously with the US national team. Not ok.
As far as the playoff are concerned, I explained it to an English guy here in Belfast like this: playoffs aren’t just a US thing, they do it all over North and South America. If you must, think of the Supporter’s Shield as winning the league, the US Open as the Carling Cup (face it, it isn’t as prestigious for MLS teams), and MLS Cup as the FA Cup. Otherwise, just acknowledge that US sports, and US soccer is a little different. Not worse, just different.
Now, I COULD see the league going to an Apertura/Clasura type of schedule, but I still think that the summer schedule serves the league best.
Posted from
United Kingdom -
I think the Supporter’s Shield is nice in how it serves as a “wink” to the winner of the league under “non-America” rules.
The summer rules are in place mostly for stadium purposes, no? There are conflicts with American football in some places, especially when the league started. Besides, the current calendar prevents competition with basketball and American football. (So summers are nice because I get to watch the only two sports that matter to me, baseball and soccer.)
Still, I agree that MLS needs to do better with the FIFA breaks. And eventually, it needs to move to a more traditional schedule, even if it means a long-ish winter break for the colder season (or at least until the Super Bowl is done). That would help MLS clubs compete internationally too, which I think would definitely help the MLS exposure here.
Posted from
United States
Leave a Reply
If you have not commented here before, please take a moment to peruse ourCommenting Guidelines.
Home 
