The 2012 MLS Season Preview Preview
Did you feel that? That little shiver down your spine as you clicked on this story to read it. Was it too much caffeine this morning? Or was it the sense that the beginning of spring and the MLS season are just around the corner. That’s right, we are less than a month away from First Kick 2012, as well as:
- The “new look” LA Galaxy defending their title
- Montreal Impact making their MLS debut
- Numerous new players taking the pitch for the first time
- New head coaches for Colorado, New England, and Vancouver
As we did last year, MLS Talk will go team by team over the next 20+ days to offer insight, analysis, and predictions for each team heading into the new season. This is in addition to the usual insightful thoughts from the Chris and Chris of U.S. soccer on the MLS Talk podcast. That’s right, we are offering double the amount of preseason coverage. After we examine each team (in alphabetical order) as well as a few of the major plots that will dominate the season, we will close with our preseason predictions including standings, MLS Cup and Supporters Shield winners, and individual award predictions.
Have anything you want to see or hear in our preseason posts? Have any predictions of your own? Leave them in the comments section. Tomorrow, our first team is the Chicago Fire.
No related posts.
38 Responses to The 2012 MLS Season Preview Preview
If the Montreal Impact can recruit a good European player on
offense, (Joey Saputo is in Europe right now) they have a shot in
the playoffs because they are really solid in goal. 2012 will be an
outstanding year for the MLS for their coverage on NBC.
Supporters Shield is dead. MLS should “award” two supporters
shields this year. One, it would get rid of the unfairness of the
award, which would be a joke if awarded this year. Two, it would
make playoffs mandatory.
Get over this ‘Supporters Shield is dead’ nonsense. This is going
to be the 34th season of first division soccer in the US and
Canada, and a balanced schedule has been the exception, not the
norm. It’s for the best record in all the league, period. There
should only be two Shields once the conferences are big enough to
be their own leagues and East/West matchups only happen in the Open
Cup/Playoffs.
I agree with you the Supporters Shield was never
alive……………….but I am guessing that was not what you
were arguing for in saying it has never been a balanced schedule
?……and jjerg, we don’t all love Euro soccer. I think it is the
biggest joke in sports.
I agree that a balanced schedule is very important. How else can a
team be judged if they don’t play the same teams? TV, marketing,
and outside interests have ruined the other American sports, (how
often does the best team win the playoffs in any sport?) it makes
me sick that soccer is leaning towards this. We all love European
soccer and dream one đay MLS may be as great as the EPL or La Liga.
Well it will never get there if they continue to manage it like the
NFL.
NFL Marketing is ruining this sport, NFL used to be really
attractive, MLS should copy the EPL instead of the overhyped NFL.
Yes let’s copy a league where everyone and their mum is neck deep
in debt and not the league that is the most profitable sports
league on the planet.
I don’t care the owners’ profits as much as the entertainment
value; I find the English League much more entertaining. Also, I
resent that the NFL, a profitable business, is government
subsidized (stadiums).
It may be profitable but it is getting more boring every year,
College Footbal is a lot more exciting, EPL also.
Tim, so you want American Cities with the the debt load rather some
silly sports team? Where are you priorities? NFL holds cities
hostage and constantly threaten cities to fork over tax revenue to
build new stadiums that can support a Superbowl or risk losing a
the team.
yeah, the NY RedBulls in Harrisburg was so much different. The city
is on the verge of bankruptcy.
Sounders will continue their defeated record in the playoffs
Has anyone ever sufficiently explained why MLS stuck to a 34-game
schedule and didn’t increase their schedule to 36 games? I
recognize that balanced schedule would be impossible if and when
MLS expands beyond 20 teams or so, but at 19 there is really no
reason why we can’t play a full balanced schedule. It just seems to
me that, while we’re at 20 teams or less, more games just equals
more revenue.
Once we get to 20 teams each team should play each other twice
that’s it. Also the USSF needs to get some better marketing deals
so teams besides Seattle actually try in the competition.
I think the static 34 game schedule, more specifically the desire for intense local rivalries, is a red herring for another problem that is relatively specific to our league: travel costs. A 38 match schedule would be two more flights per team. I think the ultimate goal is to experience some cost savings by getting rid of a few long-distance flights. I believe the whole “rivalry” thing playing local teams more often is a secondary issue, a serendipitous result of the other issue. We will have a couple of general league topics in this series, and the move to the unbalanced schedule may be a good one to examine.
Then we should have two 12 - 14 team leagues east and west that
have no cross overs except in US Open Cup, CCL, and MLS Cup Final.
Why does it always have to be one extreme of the other? I hate the
idea of two leagues because the Rapids are in the middle; and they
will end up never playing some nearby rival (like Kansas City). I
prefer one table, but am OK with two, by why not just have teams
play a 3 or 4 nearby teams 3 times, and a few others distant ones
once. This would still allow LA to play the RedBulls twice; and
Vancouver to play the other Canadian teams twice (and Dallas to
play Houston at least twice, even if they are in different
divisions). ______________ And I hate keeping the play-offs within
divisions. If we play Dallas three times and Philly only once, I
don’t want to then be locked into playing Dallas again in the
play-offs. I understand the need to reduce travel during the
season, but lets let the play-offs play out naturally, and spend a
little more on travel if need be. Have the division winners be
seeds 1 and 2, and then just stuck everyone else according to
record. Sure, the unbalanced schedule might mean the 8th is not
better than 9th, but it will still have the teams more or less
right. Plus, with one bracket, we are finally keep the top 3 teams
or so apart; unlike last year. _______________ And no Charles, the
SS should live. Why not reward a team’s season long excellence?
It would depend on what teams got added. If teams got added in NYC,
Atlanta, Florida, Minneapolis, Charlotte, Oklahoma, Phoenix. Have
the East be made up of NYC, NYRB, NE, DC, Philly, Charlotte,
Toronto, Montreal, Atlanta, Detroit , Chicago, Minneapolis,
Florida, and Columbus. The West made up of LA, Chivas, Seattle,
Portland, Vancouver, Salt Lake, Colorado, KC, Dallas, Houston,
Phoenix, Oklahoma, San Jose, and San Diego.
CTBlues- You’ll never win with this, now you have KC never playing
their nearest rivals, Chicago and Minnesota. If you had St. Louis
in one of those scenarios it gets even worse. Plus, Vancouver still
never plays Toronto and Montreal. Baseball realized this years ago-
having a set up that has certain teams never playing each other is
a mistake. I’d be disappointed if I was a supporter of one of the
teams that doesn’t get a home game against LA this year, but at
least I’d know that my team will get one the next year. As I said,
I’m persuaded that some regional scheduling is worthwhile in order
to reduce travel; but every team should play each other at least
once, play-offs should go to one bracket, and divisions shouldn’t
determine everything.
I don’t like what the MLB did with interleague play. I liked it
when they first implemented it with local rivals playing each other
one series a year. It made it special, but now they have ruined it
by making it basically the NFL. Also the Canadian teams get to play
each other every year to see who will represent Canada in the CCL.
Interleague play is better because otherwise a fan could go to
Colorado Rockies games for years and never see the Yankees play, or
some player they like - Ichiro, for instance. Now that the umpires
and infrustructure are all the same, I don’t know why they don’t
get rid of the leagues and just have 6 divisions. Then the Red Sox
and Yankees could meet in the World Series- why not, if they the
best 2 teams? It is weird that St. Louis plays Chicago 18 times,
but only plays Kansas City 3 times. I get baseball history- they
started with two separate leagues- but, why should soccer hang
itself with historical peculiarities that it doesn’t have?
Tom, I imagine you’re the kind of fan who thinks New York Red Bulls
is a really cool name or thought that shootouts in the early days
of MLS were really great because ties were boring. Certain things
appeal to sportsfans because they are traditional. Doesn’t mean we
should keep every tradition but we should be careful about the ones
that we throw out. When you throw out too many, you fundamentally
dilute your product. Balanced schedule makes rivalries special and
gives every player on every squad national exposure (minus the
Southeast, of course). While I will be the first to call the new
playoff format a huge improvement, this is a terrible development
on the regular season schedule front. Again, I’ll say that more
games ought to, in theory, lead to more revenue. If more games
would not lead to more revenue, MLS has some deeper problems that
we need to be talking about.
BamaMan- You have misunderstood me. I’d rather have a balanced
schedule and one table (with 1-8 seeds in play-offs), but I’ve come
to accept that the league wants/needs the cost saving of a regional
schedule. I’m OK with that, but I’m against scenerios where you
don’t see a team in your stadium at least every other year. And I
don’t see why we have to play every team in our division 3 times
(and, subsequently, every team in the other division once). I don’t
want to copy what I think are mistakes in other other North
American sports, among which is play-off formats that prevent two
particular teams from meeting each other in a final. And, by the
way, I’m fine with ties, I even think college football should bring
back the tie during the regular season.
Throwing my 2 cents 2 12 team leagues 22 in league (home and away)
6 home other league 6 away other league Other league games
alternate each year 34 games
@Tim I think that is basically what is going to end up happening if
we go past 20 teams, but then the league is going to want to see LA
and NY play each other twice a year.
Doesnt matter IF it should live or not. It IS dead. An Eastern team
winning it this year would most likely be a joke.
@Charles That is the big question though is fifa going to let us
have more than 20 first division franchises? MLS would be the only
first division league in the world with more than 20 teams.
I hear ya, but MLS would also be the only first division
representing $310 million people. There are WAY more first division
teams per $300 million. IF FIFA says no, and I doubt they would.
Screw them.
Charles- An eastern team winning the Supporters Shield would not be
a joke, it would just be something we’d all argue about. Perfect.
It is not like even a balanced schedule is a perfect measure, luck
is always a factor. I think there were teams that played De Rosario
5 times last season, there are other teams that didn’t play him at
all.
One word for Earl. RUSSIA
One team is more than 1500 miles away from Moscow.
Is that the max distance ? 1,500 ? That is nothing. That is
actually close, Seattle to Denver-ish Sea to NY 2853 Sea to Col
2419 Sea to Philly 2822 Even KC is 1889 Vancouver and Portland all
have similar and everyone has to visit them.
To be fair, transportation infrastructure in Russia is so terrible
for both ground and air travel that that distance probably is a lot
more difficult to travel than a flight in the US.
Potentially you can have teams that our further apart (pro/rel).
Russia, coast to coast, is greater than the US (excluding Alaska).
Is the MLS that cheap/poor? Seriously? MLB, NHL, and NBA all make
dozens of cross-country trips per year. It’s hard for me to believe
it would be that hard to pull off a balanced schedule financially.
If they are that concerned with cutting costs, it makes me
seriously question the financial future of the league.
The MLS is very low cost. Tickets are cheap, players fly
commercial, sponsorships are growing, but still not high. I think
the cost savings matter, plus the attendances are higher against
nearby opponents, and the physical toll on the players is less.
Hence, and I’m not saying I like it, regional scheduling will be
around for awhile.
I might add the NHL, NBA, and MLB all have regional scheduling, in
part, to save costs; although baseball’s schedule is determined by
culture as much as costs (historical league is as a big a factor as
geography).
Bam, All those leagues do MORE regional scheduling than MLS and all
those leagues have MORE money than MLS. Regional scheduling is here
to stay, it is just the details to be worked out.