Template talk:2010 Major League Soccer season table
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the 2010 Major League Soccer season table template. |
|
 | This template does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
| |||||||||||
Template vandalism[edit]
I saw that Seattle was placed at the top of the overall standings, when they shouldn't be. I have made the changes to reflect the current standings.Hachiko (talk) 05:03, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
Templet vandalism II ?[edit]
In the current tmeplet version 2nd place is coloured blue --> MLS Supporters' Shield , 2010 MLS Cup Playoffs, 2011 U.S. Open Cup, 2011–12 CONCACAF Champions League 92.248.29.86 (talk) 06:33, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
MLS Tiebreak Procedures[edit]
Because it seems to come up often, here is a link to the MLS tiebreaking procedures. Tiebreaks are head-to-head first, then GD, then GS, then it gets silly. Chapka (talk) 13:19, 20 July 2010 (UTC) But it is not explaind what is a better win/loss record. Is 2-1 better then 1 -0 .Is 10-9 better them 9-7?Two teams 1-1 ,use 2nd rule or GD? (1.The highest position shall be awarded to the team with the better win/loss record in current regular season games against all other teams equal in points. (head-to-head competition)) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.248.29.86 (talk) 06:48, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
Elimination of Houston, Philly and New England[edit]
http://www.bigsoccer.com/forum/showthread.php?t=1541979&page=8
I've posted the above link to show the calc that Houston and New England are eliminated. I know it's not the best backup, but I believe it is accurate. Nlsanand (talk) 21:47, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
RSL has not clinched playoff spot[edit]
http://www.bigsoccer.com/forum/showthread.php?t=1541979&page=7
See the above, RSL does have the tiebreak on KC, but could lose a four way tiebreak between RSL and other teams. Nlsanand (talk) 03:56, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
Conference leaders' seeds[edit]
Are the conference leaders not guaranteed the top two seeds? Khan_singh (talk) 02:50, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
Hey man, no. The conference leaders seeds are just to set the conference playoffs, but for league wide titles are settled without reference to divisions ie: superliga positions, ccl positions, usoc...division plays no part in these. Nlsanand (talk) 06:39, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
- I won't get into a revert war with you. For one thing, MLS has the final say on its standings. To suggest that they 'screwed up' is a bit much. Based on their rules, Columbus is fourth place overall. If the two teams meet in MLS Cup, Columbus will be designated the home team. If there were anything of value for finishing fourth overall, it would go to Columbus. But there isn't. As it is, both Dallas and Columbus qualified for Open Cup. Anything else will be determined by the playoffs. We can't interpret their rules in a way contrary to their interpretation. The standings on Wikipedia must reflect the official standings or what's the point? Khan_singh (talk) 03:06, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
- But that's not how the rules on the MLS website say the tiebreaker goes. And the rules do not state any tiebreaker based on divisional standing. If Columbus was on 49, would you still rank them ahead? Because in our 2009 article we rank Chicago as 5th, not 4th, despite being 2nd in the East? Nlsanand (talk) 05:51, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
- The standings on MLS site do not use the rank, they simply indicate that the teams were conference winners and runners up. Therefore, it doesn't prove that MLS treats the Columbus as the fourth place team, just proves they were second in the conference.[1] Nlsanand (talk) 06:34, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
- I'm in favor of this table showing actual overall placement rather than accounting for conference 1st and 2nd place. USOC qualifacation, SuperLiga, and even the Supporters Sheild do not take into account conference placement. I understand that the MLS website does reorder, but they're very clear about saying that they're showing "playoff standings" which I think is fundamentally different than what we're trying to show in this table.--SkotyWATC 15:58, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
- Both teams already qualified for Open Cup. Champions League or SuperLiga will be determined by their playoff finishes, not the regular season. And in the playoffs, Columbus is the higher seed. I just think the standings here should reflect the official standings. Khan_singh (talk) 23:00, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
- See post above, the League has not ranked Columbus fourth, therefore there is no official reason to rank Columbus higher. If you look at the page on MLS's website, it was in no way implied that Columbus is ranked fourth, there's no rankings in the left hand column. Also, please note that Chicago was ranked 5th in 2009, when they were second in the East.Nlsanand (talk) 03:18, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
- There's no way, except that Columbus appears above Dallas in the standings. I'm curious. Is this table supposed to be a hypothetical representation of what the league standings would look like if MLS were a single table? Khan_singh (talk) 03:44, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
- But there's no rankings in that table. Furthermore, we have no 2009 table, but we know Chicago got ranked below Seattle for our purposes in 2009. THere's not factual evidence supporting that MLS or any other body believes that a division leadergets an advantage in the league wide ranking. Furthermore, the league's rule state the rules, and they would state that Dallas was ahead in 2010. Nlsanand (talk) 06:08, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
- Once again, Columbus appears above Dallas in the Playoff Standings. Do you really need them to assign a number to each position? Khan_singh (talk) 18:47, 6 November 2010 (UTC)
- Yes, if we're going to say the league has a specific viewpoint on the league wide table, then I'll need to ask you to show me proof that they actually attribute the ranking that way with numbers. They do not call it a league wide table, therefore we can't really say that's true. Furthermore, you never answered the question about Chicago in 2009. They were clearly fifth in the league in points, and were so ranked in the league wide table. Nlsanand (talk) 18:24, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
- And again, this template is not "playoff standings." It is the unified league table which is used to determine USOC and SuperLiga qualification and simple overall performance of each team. The playoff seeding is determined by a combination of this table (for wild cards) and the conference tables. I think it's generally confusing for readers unfamiliar with playoff seeding to see this table and have teams with fewer points (goal differential, etc.) listed above teams with more points. This table shows overall league standings, don't try to repurpose it for "playoff standings" please. --SkotyWATC 00:14, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
- But there's no rankings in that table. Furthermore, we have no 2009 table, but we know Chicago got ranked below Seattle for our purposes in 2009. THere's not factual evidence supporting that MLS or any other body believes that a division leadergets an advantage in the league wide ranking. Furthermore, the league's rule state the rules, and they would state that Dallas was ahead in 2010. Nlsanand (talk) 06:08, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
- There's no way, except that Columbus appears above Dallas in the standings. I'm curious. Is this table supposed to be a hypothetical representation of what the league standings would look like if MLS were a single table? Khan_singh (talk) 03:44, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
- See post above, the League has not ranked Columbus fourth, therefore there is no official reason to rank Columbus higher. If you look at the page on MLS's website, it was in no way implied that Columbus is ranked fourth, there's no rankings in the left hand column. Also, please note that Chicago was ranked 5th in 2009, when they were second in the East.Nlsanand (talk) 03:18, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
- Both teams already qualified for Open Cup. Champions League or SuperLiga will be determined by their playoff finishes, not the regular season. And in the playoffs, Columbus is the higher seed. I just think the standings here should reflect the official standings. Khan_singh (talk) 23:00, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
- I'm in favor of this table showing actual overall placement rather than accounting for conference 1st and 2nd place. USOC qualifacation, SuperLiga, and even the Supporters Sheild do not take into account conference placement. I understand that the MLS website does reorder, but they're very clear about saying that they're showing "playoff standings" which I think is fundamentally different than what we're trying to show in this table.--SkotyWATC 15:58, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
- The standings on MLS site do not use the rank, they simply indicate that the teams were conference winners and runners up. Therefore, it doesn't prove that MLS treats the Columbus as the fourth place team, just proves they were second in the conference.[1] Nlsanand (talk) 06:34, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
- But that's not how the rules on the MLS website say the tiebreaker goes. And the rules do not state any tiebreaker based on divisional standing. If Columbus was on 49, would you still rank them ahead? Because in our 2009 article we rank Chicago as 5th, not 4th, despite being 2nd in the East? Nlsanand (talk) 05:51, 2 November 2010 (UTC)