I'd like to extend a welcome to a new soccer blog called Gameday.  Its creator is a guy called Chris who intends to focus on the American game in general and MLS in particular.  In the blog's initial post, Chris spoke with Houston journalist Glenn Davis about the contrast between the Dynamo staff's personal touch and the more glitzy, big-name style that is found in LA.  It extends in everything from Kinnear's coaching style to the the club's marketing efforts.  I also enjoyed the inside look at the Seattle soccer scene in his latest post, which featured an interview with (USL) Sounders owner Adrian Hanauer.  You can sense Hanauer's excitement with the process of transitioning Seattle soccer to major league status.  (I think being the owner and/or general manager of a soccer club would be my dream career.  It beats the dismal science any day)!  There are plenty of issues to keep the front office busy until the team takes the field in 2009, not the least of which is the decision about the new club's name.  Should it stay with Sounders or "rebrand," as the marketing people say?  Head over to Gameday to read more. 

At one time I was a regular lurker on a Manchester United forum called Redcafe.  Ah, what an innocent I was!  For the cost of a few hours of my time, I received a top-notch cultural education.  I learned a new vocabulary term:  glory-hunter.  I learned that United's wild popularity around the globe didn't give every fan the warm fuzzies.  And I learned that there was an unwritten rule that only the support of one's local team was appropriate.  Ouch!  To this naive little dismal scientist, that last one smacked of sports protectionism.

The most recent era of glorious football at Old Trafford began in the 1990's.  Thanks to their Champions League success and the broadcasting largesse of ESPN, I had seen more Red Devils games than those of any other team--including our very own Chicago Fire, who came to town in 1998.   Until this household tuned into Fox Sports World, Champions League telecasts were the only way to see soccer, aside from the World Cup.  Man United was the team that I had happened to see most frequently.  It was natural that it would be my favorite, right?  Not exactly.  According to the vocal denizens of Redcafe, I had committed some sort of faux pas.  People like me, apparently, were ruining English football.

Much of what I read on that forum made my jaw drop.  Many posters would introduce themselves by reciting a sort of pedigree:  "I've been going to games since 1970...my dad used to take me...I'm from ______, suburb of Manchester...."  In other words, these people didn't want to be mistaken for the glory hunters who had latched on to United as their favorite team during the trophy-laden, high-flying days of late.  In their eyes, people like me weren't true supporters.  We would evaporate as soon as the team hit a rough patch.  (Thanks to Sir Alex' genius, I haven't been tested yet, nine years on).  And worse, our presence was the source of all kinds of nasty externalities (unintended side effects):  bigger crowds, ticket scarcity, higher ticket prices, and...not enough singing at the games.  These pseudo fans showed up at Old Trafford because, apparently, football had become fashionable.  They didn't know the songs and, besides, they were too busy stuffing themselves with prawn sandwiches to carry a tune.  The nouveau fans drove up the demand for shirts and other United gear.  Everything was more expensive for those pedigreed supporters who had been there for generations. 

To summarize the Redcafe attitude:  If you're not from Manchester, why would you care about United?

To summarize my attitude:  It's easy-peasy for you guys to "support" United.  They play in your own back yard!  You were sitting on your grand-dad's knee at every home match.  No one looks at you and says "huh?" when you tell them your favorite sports team is Manchester United.  I would love to sing at Old Trafford every other weekend, but it's a bit pricey to get there from Chicago.  In other words, I really have to work at supporting the team.

I was "gobsmacked" (love that word) at how different my American attitude was from theirs.  While most of us do favor our local sports teams, we tend to move around a lot, so those ties are weaker.  We think nothing of identifying with a team that may be several time zones away.  We definitely aren't insulted by out of towners who love our favorite teams, either--what could be more complimentary?  No doubt there are guys in Texas who still have a soft spot for the Red Sox because Roger Clemens starred for them two decades ago.  So what?  The more the merrier!

Ah, but there's the rub.  You can't just drop by Fenway Park to take in a Red Sox game any more.  After two World Series victories in three years, you'll pay a hefty price for tickets, assuming you can lay your hands on any.  This got me to thinking about what would happen if soccer ever did become as popular in the US as it is nearly everywhere else...

The Fire would probably insist that I purchase the full season ticket package, instead of the half-season.  The price would be a lot higher than the $30 or so per seat that I've been paying (for very nice seats, too).  It is true that the atmosphere at the games would be more intense if every game sold out.  But we've been drawing pretty well this year and most of the people sitting around me are very much into the games.  It's cool to go to Fire games because you know that you're there with the other true believers, people who don't mind standing up to the tiresome soccer-bashers in the media who try to tell us what we should and shouldn't like. I began to sympathize with the long-time supporters in Manchester.  When Beckham came to town our little stadium was overrun by tons of little kids.  I don't mind having kids at the matches--I want them to be there, believe me.  But their parents kept getting up every five minutes to buy them snacks.  Didn't they know that they were missing large chunks of the match?  Were they the Chicago equivalent of prawn-sandwich eaters?

Another benefit to soccer's lower profile here is that we haven't been overrun by ultra-type fans.  Have we had any casualties among supporters?  Didn't think so. 

Do I really suffer because soccer is the red-headed stepchild among American sports?  Er, no.  With Fox Soccer Channel and Champions League on ESPN I am treated to a banquet of world football coverage.  (It would be even better if my neighborhood allowed satellite dishes and then I could get Setanta).  And, dare I say this, soccer-mad Americans are better off than their Euro counterparts.  We have MLS in the summer months, which gives us twelve full months of footy.  No sneering about MLS quality either, Euro friends, as I know that many of you follow lower-division clubs.  Moreover, I predict that MLS is on its way to bigger and better things.  I am a very finicky consumer, and this is the first year that I've been really drawn into the league.  It's not because of that guy they brought to LA either.  MLS is definitely not the same quality as the EPL, Serie A, or La Liga, but it does have some talented players and plenty of drama to tide me over from May to August.

I'm not arguing that life is perfectly sweet for Yank soccer fans.  It's a struggle for those who don't live close to an MLS city, have no cable or the internet.  But those of us who want to experience the beautiful game can do so quite beautifully, thanks very much. 

It's settled, then.  The Fire will travel to Foxboro to face the New England Revolution--again--in the Eastern Conference finals.  Irony is irresistible, so I'm going to suggest that 2007 is the year that the Fire will reverse the curse.* 

Just a minute...what curse?  Whispers in the soccersphere suggest that New England has Chicago's number in the playoffs.  Hmmm...have the Revs laid waste to the Fire's playoff hopes every single time that the two teams have met in the post-season?  Not exactly.  That sounds more like the Fire-DC United situation.  Chicago truly is United's playoff nemesis, as DC has never snatched a playoff victory from the Fire.  The streak stretches back to 1998 when Chicago beat United 2-0 to claim the MLS Cup in its inaugural season. 

It is true that the Revolution knocked the Fire out of the playoffs in 2002, 2005 and 2006.  But the Revolution went down to the Fire in 2000 and 2003.  The three times that New England ended the Fire's season were hardly upsets, either.  In 2002, the Revs finished the season with 38 points to Chicago's 37.  The playoff format was different back then, with the conference semifinals determined by a best of three game series.  New England took that series, two games to one.  The teams were evenly matched, someone had to win, and the series wasn't a blowout.  That's life.

In 2005 the two sides met in the conference finals.  In that case New England had a significantly better season than Chicago--59 points to 49--yet the Revs won narrowly in Foxboro, 1-0.  I would say that the Fire performed above expectations.  Last year was indeed heartbreaking for the Fire and its fans.  Chicago won the first game 1-0 at home.  The match in Foxboro ended with New England ahead 2-1.  The Fire then floundered in the decisive penalty shootout.  Yet overall the conference semifinal was a close one, much as would be expected of two teams that once again finished the season separated by a single point. 

What about 2007?  The Revs ended the season ten points ahead of the Fire.  They lost two of the teams' three matches, though, including their last meeting on October 6.  The Fire had to come from behind to win that one, on goals by Chris Rolfe and Chad Barret.  That late season performance was a great leap forward, compared to what we saw during a dry spell in May, June and (pre-Blanco) July.  Only eight goals were scored during one twelve-game stretch.  We've heard a lot about how the Fire haven't lost a game since early September, but actually the tide began to turn in late July.  Since July 29th, they've lost only twice in league play--once to Kansas City and once to New York.  Much of this turnaround has been attributed to Cuauhtemoc Blanco.  He's had a remarkable impact, but don't forget new defender Wilman Conde, or Chris Rolfe's return from a long injury layoff.

Conclusion:  Chicago was only the seventh of eight teams to qualify for the MLS playoffs.  (They were ahead of KC because of the season head-to-head record).  So what?  They picked up 24 of their 40 points in the second half of the season.  Momentum does count for something and, as they say, the third time is the charm.

*My apologies for stealing the Red Sox' 2004 mantra and using it against another New England team.

Well, yes.  With 55 points, United had the best record in MLS.  If Chicago knocks them out of the playoffs tonight, I guess the Supporters' Shield would offer some consolation.  Don't get me wrong.  I'd be delighted if the Fire beat DCU and then went on to win the MLS Cup.  Its 10-10-10 regular season record may define mediocrity, but I would set aside my principles to celebrate Chicago's second MLS Cup.  You'd have to be pretty hard-hearted not to pity United's fans, though.  What was the point of that 30 game season?   

In fact, Martin Rogers of Yahoo Sports argues that MLS' credibility will take a hit if United and the other stronger teams (Chivas, Houston, & New England) are knocked out in the first round.  This isn't just one sportswriter's opinion, either.  Here's a quote from the article:

"There is no reward for busting your ass for half the year," said a high-ranking MLS club executive, who spoke on condition of anonymity. "But the commissioner loves the playoffs and no one is going to take him on over this."

Euro-snob that I am, anything other than a single-table, promotion/relegation system usually makes me turn up my nose in disgust.  Yet I'm resigned to the fact that relegation is not gonna happen in these United States.  With neither relegation nor playoffs, how would MLS drum up attendance at mid- or late-season games for teams that are far out of contention for the top spot in the table?  The answer:  it wouldn't.  What would be at stake for those teams?  The top four qualify for the North American Superliga competition, but only the top two qualify for the CONCACAF Champions Cup--the MLS Cup winner and the Supporters Shield winner.  This contrasts sharply with the EPL, where ten of the twenty places in the table meant something at season's end, between relegation, Champions League and UEFA Cup qualification.  Throw in the teams fighting for that last UEFA spot (like Reading, last year), or trying to dodge relegation (Wigan, Fulham, West Ham), and there are only a handful of clubs slogging through a meaningless season.

That's not too different from the current MLS situation.  Rogers points out that with eight out of thirteen teams qualifying for the playoffs there's little reason to care about league games during the long, hot summer.  He offers a few suggestions, including allowing the top teams to pick their opponents during the first playoff round.  Though it's flattering to imagine that DC United would use this option to dodge the Fire, it doesn't solve the fundamental problem:  MLS needs the playoff gimmick to juice up interest in the league.

What do I think?  No worries, in the long run.  As MLS expands to more cities, a lower percentage of teams will play in the post-season.  Fans will become aware of the prestige of extra-league play--recall that the North American Superliga crowned its first champion just this year), and a finish in the top four will be a consolation for being knocked out of the playoffs.  Much as purists despise the playoff system, missing the post season will serve as de facto relegation.  The loss of revenue and personnel shakeups would seem to concentrate management's mind pretty well.

By the way, a team that finished lower than second in its division has won the MLS Cup only once.  That was the LA Galaxy, who finished 4th in the West before winning the Cup in 2005.  So the odds are against the MLS honchos sweating it out over "undeserving" teams advancing this weekend.