WPS Playoff Format - Weigh in Here

UPDATED 1/29/09 - Official Announcement Made Today!

Tonya Antonucci announced the 2009 WPS Playoff format it in her State of the League address at the 2009 WPS Draft. Listen or read the transcript.

Here's the Run Down:
-- The winner of the WPS regular season will automatically advance and host the WPS Championship Game at their home stadium.
-- The No. 4 team will play at the No. 3 team in the first playoff game with the winner advancing to play at No. 2 in the semifinal game.
-- The winner of the game at No. 2’s host venue will advance to the WPS Championships game on the weekend of August 22nd-23rd.

What do you think about the format?

Tags: championship, format, tournament, wps

▶ Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by MLS_WPS_Fan on February 6, 2009 at 5:48pm: IMO...For year 1 this format is fine because there are only (7) teams so over 50% of the teams would qualify. There will be no Olympic or World Cup qualifying to be concerned with in 2009 (I think...) so no teams would be at a disadvantage if they were to have key players out because of a commitment with the USWNT (or Int'l team). So I think the format works fine, this year. It also guarantees the #2 seed and #1 seed both hosting matches. Sounds fair.

But here is what I would have done different, strictly from a true tournament perspective. I would have rather had the #5 and #4 seeds square off to see who makes it into the post-season. (PLAY-IN GAME similar to the 64th and 65th team in the NCAA basketball tournament). Then the #1 seed would host the #4/#5 winner and the #2 seed would host the #3 team. (SUPER SEMIFINALS) The Winners would then face off in the final, hosted by the hightest seeded team.

My approach does have drawbacks - There wouldn't be much time between the matches to promote the Final....not knowing who was going to be in the final until late in the process. Logistically and promotionally it would be tougher for FSC to promote or cover the event. They would probably prefer promoting the "Regular season champ" vs the "Playoff champ" in the Final.

Either way, I think it's going to change each year both as you a) add new teams and b) factor in National/International team commitments. So enjoy it this year and let's debate this again next year.; ▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by Dan Tuskey on February 7, 2009 at 10:47am: Why does soccer continue to have to be different? If your team is the 3 or 4 seed in the playoffs your reward is that you get to play a completely rested 1 seed in the championship? Time for injury healing, time for muscle resting, and most importantly too much time for one superior team to prepare their game plan for a specific opponent. The playoffs with this structure will not be so exciting to those lower seeds.

If the 1 seed wins the first two seasons ... the WPS playoffs will be considered simply a correnation (sp?) of the best team. They will end up being meaningless to all but one city. There will be LESS excitement going into the playoffs and in the regular season.

It would be much better to have had 6 teams with 1 and 2 getting a bye week.

Championship tournaments are the American way ... to mess with that format of truely earning your championship you will end up only slightly less controvercial than college football.; ▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by Raymond Bonnell on February 7, 2009 at 5:29pm: 6 team tournament with #1 and #2 with a first round bye = more games, better opportunity for the underdog/late season hot team to have a chance at the championship.

WEEKEND 1:
#6@#3
#5@#4

WEEKEND 2:
W6/3@#2
W5/4@#1

WEEKEND 3:
W6/3/2@W5/4/1 (Higher finishing team hosts final)

I know its traditional, but more games = more money, and it's a solid format allowing for expansion of the league (to deserving regions like SEATTLE). Though I do appreciate the creativity in the proposed format, there is a reason traditional formats exist; they are tried and true.; ▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by Austin H on February 7, 2009 at 7:42pm: Okay, in defense of this version of the playoffs, I really like how it favors the team who went #1 in the season, since the season winner should be the league winner. This also allows for the city that will host the final to have a couple weeks to prepare and make it a big Event. I know the playoffs will probably never disappear from the American sports landscape, but I think this is a really good compromise.
I think this version will be exciting no matter what seed you are - higher-ranked seeds of course will be excited for being that much closer to the trophy, but lower-ranked seeds that win will make excellent stories.
(Dan: fyi, it's 'coronation')
If a majority of fans really are clamoring for more teams/more games per team, I suggest an extended Page Playoff format:
Game 1: SR2 @ SR1
Game 2: SR3 @ LG1
Game 3: SR5 @ SR4
Game 4: WG3 @ LG2
Game 5: WG4 @ WG2
Game 6: WG5 @ WG1
There are, of course, other ways to modify a Page Playoff system that could also work; I think this would be the most interesting, and it still preserves the final-host-city's couple weeks of planning, though it would require either over a month of playoffs or games midweek as well. (note: this includes five teams; SR# = Season Rank#, LG# = Loser of Game#, WG = Winner of Game#)

I would much prefer WPS keep this four-team ladder system, though. =-); ▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by StarCityFan on February 7, 2009 at 10:00pm: Raymond Bonnell said:
6 team tournament with #1 and #2 with a first round bye = more games, better opportunity for the underdog/late season hot team to have a chance at the championship.

WEEKEND 1:
#6@#3
#5@#4

WEEKEND 2:
W6/3@#2
W5/4@#1

WEEKEND 3:
W6/3/2@W5/4/1 (Higher finishing team hosts final)

I know its traditional, but more games = more money, and it's a solid format allowing for expansion of the league (to deserving regions like SEATTLE). Though I do appreciate the creativity in the proposed format, there is a reason traditional formats exist; they are tried and true.

I have to say I really don't like the idea of a six-team playoff in a seven-team league, or even a ten-team league. That devalues the regular season to the point where all you're playing for is home field advantage in the playoffs.; ▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by chevy on February 7, 2009 at 11:10pm: StarCityFan said:
Raymond Bonnell said:
6 team tournament with #1 and #2 with a first round bye = more games, better opportunity for the underdog/late season hot team to have a chance at the championship.

WEEKEND 1:
#6@#3
#5@#4

WEEKEND 2:
W6/3@#2
W5/4@#1

WEEKEND 3:
W6/3/2@W5/4/1 (Higher finishing team hosts final)

I know its traditional, but more games = more money, and it's a solid format allowing for expansion of the league (to deserving regions like SEATTLE). Though I do appreciate the creativity in the proposed format, there is a reason traditional formats exist; they are tried and true.

I have to say I really don't like the idea of a six-team playoff in a seven-team league, or even a ten-team league. That devalues the regular season to the point where all you're playing for is home field advantage in the playoffs.

I have to agree with StarCityFan on this one. The league would become the NHL of the early 80s when 16 teams got in, in a 20 or 21 team league. The regular season was a joke. The only playoff race was to see who could stay out of last place.

I think as the league expands they can expand the playoffs. Once they get to 14 teams I could see them expand to the 6 team format which would make perfect sense competitive wise at that point. I don't think any league is well served when more than half the teams make the playoffs, it lowers the competitiveness of the regular season games. Also having teams with losing records make the playoffs just plain sucks.; ▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by Christian lfcredusa on February 14, 2009 at 5:02pm: Well I do like the idea. I absolutely do not like nor support any more matches in a "playoff" then there already are. MLS is too long and I think other sports with "playoffs" is a joke. I mean seriously - NY Giants are the best with more loses and inferior record to New England?

The main drawback I see is the 2 week lapse for the #1 Team. Maybe #2 can get by with a week off but you really don't want to be sitting 'round especially in a "playoff" atmosphere while other teams are playing.

It is also interesting how #1 is in the Final at home and the #2 is at home in the prior match.
The only other thing I can think of is like the playoff we had in high school. After the regular season ended the format was as follows:
Game 1: #1 v #3
Game 2: #2 v #4
Game 3: Final

If you wanted you can give the week off between the Season and Finals to prepare.
At this point you can decide if you want one-off matches prior to the Final or aggregate matches.

As far as the names of the rounds go, sticking to the current format I like:
First Round--> Championship Qualifier--> WPS Championship Final or WPS Final; ▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by Mittsfan on February 24, 2009 at 11:36am: Wow! A lot of good ideas. I do like the leagues bracket ~ but also agree with most everyone else. The #1 team is off perhaps to long. I also feel that the winner of the Super Semi's, (especially if it were #3 or 4) might be a bit run down. I like Christian's format but would change match ups some.....

#4 @ #1 -&- #3 @ #2 in the "WPS Play-Offs" on Aug. 15th with the "WPS Final" on the 22nd.

Some mention the ticket sales....? I am sure the winning teams front offices would welcome the challenge.
Participating teams season ticket holders get first rights of course.... ; )

GO PRIDE!!!!; ▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by David Renaud on March 17, 2009 at 10:44am: How will ties be handled? Assuming there will be thirty minutes of OT but after that, will it be golden goal or penalty shoot out or something else? Please avoid shootouts if possible.; ▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by chevy on March 17, 2009 at 2:09pm: David Renaud said:
How will ties be handled? Assuming there will be thirty minutes of OT but after that, will it be golden goal or penalty shoot out or something else? Please avoid shootouts if possible.

I agree that the playoff format in soccer should and could be improved. I know sitting there for the playoff game between the Freedom and Breakers in '03 I was disappointed it went into PKs. The match was a great back and forth the entire match it went into extras then to the PK session. It was good for the players because they were completely spent. If I remember correctly, StarCityFan correct me if I am wrong, I think Mia Hamm collapsed after the game because it was a really steamy hot day when the game was played.

I know FIFA is considering adding in additional subs in matches that go into extra time for the Cup series in Europe. I think WPS should adopt this as well. I think the championship match should be played in primetime so it is cooler for the players. Also I think it should be a golden goal in a 9 v 9 format(explanation to follow.) I think this would allow a playoff game to flow to a natural conclusion that both the fans and players would be satisfied with.

One idea I have been toying with for extra time in soccer is cutting the number of players on the pitch from 11 to 9 for each side. The players to be pulled would be picked by the coach. It would be necessary to allow for an extra sub or 2 because players would reach exhaustion a lot quicker. I think it would open up the pitch and would pretty much force a result before you would get to the time where a PK session would be needed. Also it would also add an extra excitement and unpredictablity about the outcome of the match.; ▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by StarCityFan on March 17, 2009 at 3:28pm: chevy said:
David Renaud said:
How will ties be handled? Assuming there will be thirty minutes of OT but after that, will it be golden goal or penalty shoot out or something else? Please avoid shootouts if possible.

I agree that the playoff format in soccer should and could be improved. I know sitting there for the playoff game between the Freedom and Breakers in '03 I was disappointed it went into PKs. The match was a great back and forth the entire match it went into extras then to the PK session. It was good for the players because they were completely spent. If I remember correctly, StarCityFan correct me if I am wrong, I think Mia Hamm collapsed after the game because it was a really steamy hot day when the game was played.

I'd forgotten about that, but I believe you're right. I wasn't there, but I remember people talking about it afterwards.

The 9v9 idea is interesting.; ▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by Scott W. Fraser on March 27, 2009 at 5:11pm: They should have the championship game in a neutral field like Gillette Stadium in Foxborough Mass. home of the MLS New England Revolutions Soccer.; ▶ Reply to This