Jump to content

I don't foresee a cross-conference A-League (2004)


Cooks

Recommended Posts

As I posted on the other forum, the way I see it, it will be strictly East and strictly West this year.

The two-conference/28 game schedule seems to demand it.

In the East, each team will play each other 4 times (7 x 4 = 28).

In the West, each team will play each other at least 4 times, but each team will play at least four of their neighbors 5 times.

An example would be this...

Having played each other 4 times, the Western Conference teams fill out the schedule in the following way:

Calgary v. Edmonton

Seattle v. Portland

Minnesota v. Milwaukee

Calgary v. Vancouver

Portland v. Minnesota

Milwaukee v. Edmonton

Vancouver v. Seattle

Seattle v. Calgary

Edmonton v. Vancouver

Milwaukee v. Seattle

Minnesota v. Calgary

Vancouver v. Portland

Edmonton v. Minnesota

Portland v. Milwaukee

Keep in mind, this is just an example. I'll let the big wigs at USL iron out the bugs (though it looks okay to me).

What will this mean for things like the Voyageurs Cup? Stay tuned.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

quote:Originally posted by Cooks

As I posted on the other forum, the way I see it, it will be strictly East and strictly West this year.

The two-conference/28 game schedule seems to demand it.

In the East, each team will play each other 4 times (7 x 4 = 28).

In the West, each team will play each other at least 4 times, but each team will play at least four of their neighbors 5 times.

An example would be this...

Having played each other 4 times, the Western Conference teams fill out the schedule in the following way:

Calgary v. Edmonton

Seattle v. Portland

Minnesota v. Milwaukee

Calgary v. Vancouver

Portland v. Minnesota

Milwaukee v. Edmonton

Vancouver v. Seattle

Seattle v. Calgary

Edmonton v. Vancouver

Milwaukee v. Seattle

Minnesota v. Calgary

Vancouver v. Portland

Edmonton v. Minnesota

Portland v. Milwaukee

Keep in mind, this is just an example. I'll let the big wigs at USL iron out the bugs (though it looks okay to me).

What will this mean for things like the Voyageurs Cup? Stay tuned.

If this occurs then we find a corporate sponsor and play a cup final between the best of the east and the best of the west.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

C'mon this is the A-League we are talking about. Those guys got in a room together last week and ironed out two schedules. I think the last thing on their mind was a balanced schedule, just travel logistics and stadium availability like every other year. You'll still see the Canadian teams play each other. I doubt that teams like Montreal, Toronto and others in the Northeast region will be asked to make a couple of trips to Puerto Rico. More likely Atlanta and those other Southern teams will get more games against Puerto Rico, leaving extra games for Toronto and Montreal to play against Canadian rivals.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If Montreal or Toronto did a two-game-in-a-weekend trip to Puerto Rico, as was proposed, then they'd only be going down once.

I definitely see where you're coming from, and hope that the Canadian teams will play each other a number of times. It's just that this seemed to be the path of least resistance and that's probably what the USL is looking for.

I hope I'm wrong (luckily, I often am)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well all I'm saying is that the schedule isn't really a well thought up thing as one can tell from some of the schedules in previous years. They get in a room together, each with their own idea of what they want, and then they bang it out the best they can and try to come to some resolution.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

quote:Originally posted by Gordon

If this occurs then we find a corporate sponsor and play a cup final between the best of the east and the best of the west.

Anyone who read my little rant in the "LDV Vans Trophy" thread in the General Discussion section will know how I feel about this idea.

But never mind that, think about it from a practical point of view. There are just too many obstacles to consider.

If we are stuck with a schedule where our eastern and western teams do not play against each other then we can always have co-winners. If we want it to last a long time then the Voyageurs Cup is not always going to be the same every year. We can't always go to the lengths required to make it into what we want. It's a simple, fan-based trophy, that's all.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

quote:Originally posted by Gordon

If this occurs then we find a corporate sponsor and play a cup final between the best of the east and the best of the west.

Anyone who read my little rant in the "LDV Vans Trophy" thread in the General Discussion section will know how I feel about this idea.

But never mind that, think about it from a practical point of view. There are just too many obstacles to consider.

If we are stuck with a schedule where our eastern and western teams do not play against each other then we can always have co-winners. If we want it to last a long time then the Voyageurs Cup is not always going to be the same every year. We can't always go to the lengths required to make it into what we want. It's a simple, fan-based trophy, that's all.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

quote:Originally posted by DJT

Anyone who read my little rant in the "LDV Vans Trophy" thread in the General Discussion section will know how I feel about this idea.

But never mind that, think about it from a practical point of view. There are just too many obstacles to consider.

If we are stuck with a schedule where our eastern and western teams do not play against each other then we can always have co-winners. If we want it to last a long time then the Voyageurs Cup is not always going to be the same every year. We can't always go to the lengths required to make it into what we want. It's a simple, fan-based trophy, that's all.

The only real obstacle is cash. Hence the need for a sponsor. It does not have to be called the Souless Corporation Voyageurs Cup or Souless Corporation Cup simply because a corporation is sponsoring. And a cup final is simply another variation of "not always going to be the same every year". I find the notion of a final the lessor evil compared to co-winners, personally. Particulalry given the possibility of a two team eastern division in which games could be split and result 3 joint winners in a five team competition.

From a practical point of view, I see obstacles as simply barriers to overcome. If the effort is made and it fails, all that is lost a bit of time and effort. And with all due respect, one reason for a lack of vision and progress for soccer generally in this country is a fixation with obstacles. Its thinking small: its the Vancouver Whitecaps wanting to be the best "small market team" in North America, when in fact, any moron can see that Vancouver, for Soccer, is a major market.

Well, there you go, you stumbled across my rant material just as I did yours :). So, I start out with the belief that I can get Cameco to sponsor a final in Saskatoon, that will be seen by 4000+ paying customers, televised on Sportsnet and turning enough profit that the winner can afford to compete in the CONCACAF Cup. Maybe failure will be the result, on the other hand, I been told that many ideas will never fly, and I've seen enough achieved to know that anything is possible.

But in any event, the future of the V-Cup is not mine to decide, and it was offered as a potenial solution to a potential problem. I see it as viable and desirable. The majority may not. C'est la vie.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...