The relatively embarrassing showing by MLS in the second round of the 2000 Lamar Hunt US Open Cup has brought to the lips of many soccer observers the following question
Why isn't our Division I league performing better?
Three MLS sides went out of the second round yesterday, two of them to amateur clubs, and another needed overtime to win, against another amateur club no less. What is wrong with soccer in America if our best professionals are dropping like flies to unpaid fresh-from-college developmental players? Are they really significantly better than the divisions below them? Do they really justify their First-Division rating from USSF? And why are these teams drawing 14,000 per game when (fill in local A-League affiliate) are only drawing 5,000? The world is not fair!
To which I reply, wait just one second. MLS can't be THAT bad, can they? I mean, they've won three of four Open Cup tournaments since they entered the league, and they've got 9 of the last 16 teams in this year's tournament. They routinely enter 67% of their league in the tournament proper (100% this year), and play against other leagues' top third, or even better. The occasional loss isn't quite the end of the world, as some media would have you believe.
How often does MLS lose against lower-tier clubs in Open Cup play? Since they entered the tournament in 1996, by my count, top teams are 16-6-10 (W-L-D) against the against the A-League (and USL's Select League, which at the time was one level above their D3 league), 10-3-0 vs. D3, 2-1-1 against the PDL (0-1-1 on 6/14/2000), and 0-0-1 against the USASA (Wednesday's [6/14/2000] Tampa/Uruguay match). The amateur results are too few to take as a credible sample, but the results against A-League and D3 are quite clear: MLS truly ARE the dominant league. There simply is no questioning a 16-6-10 record, unless you want to say that you expect more.
Good point. Are MLS clubs as dominant as one would expect? That depends. What is a reasonable win percentage against a lower-tier league? If two First Division teams play, you can assume an equal number of points over a large sample. If MLS plays A-League, what do you expect, a 2-to-1 ratio? Let us say this is accurate; a Division One team should beat a Division Two team two out of three times (or earn twice as many points), a D3 team 3 out of 4, and an amateur side 4 out of 5. Perhaps you expect more out of an MLS side, say a 75% win rate (3-to-1) against A-League, 85% against D3, and 90% against amateur clubs. Let's see how the numbers come out.
MLS have gone 16-6-10 against the A-League in the past 5 years of serious play (how serious the MLS clubs have taken these games is another issue entirely). By the true scoring system (I refuse to acknowledge USL's asinine scoring system), that's 58 points for MLS to 28 for the A-League, better than a 3-to-1 ratio. Against D3 you see similar dominance; MLS's 10-3-0 record gives them 30 points to the D3 teams' 9. Conveniently enough, MLS have played A-League teams 32 times, the length of a full MLS season. If you were to go back through the long and storied history of MLS, you'll find that 58 points has been reached a total of twice, by Tampa Bay in 1996 and DC in 1998. Granted, this was when the league was essentially on a 3-0.5-0 system, but regardless, that is a record that clearly asserts dominance.
Now, if you'll indulge me, I'd like to point out a few more mitigating factors for MLS. As I mentioned above, MLS enters a far larger portion of their league than others, meaning MLS's mediocre clubs are forced to play the elite of the A-League and D3, and the super elite amateur clubs (Uruguay SC have frequently been compared to an A-League team, for example). OK, you get your occasional Cape Cod making the tourney, but in general this holds true.
Second is the Pumas factor - MLS sides often don't take these games seriously and field what amounts to a reserve team. The opposite side to this argument is that, hey, that's the team MLS chose to represent them. I don't buy that argument as proving that you can compare the two teams fairly at that point.
The United States National Team are NOT 3 goals better than Mexico, no matter how you slice it, just as the Mid-Michigan Bucks are not one goal better than New England. Full-strength, MLS would be doing even better than 3-to-1 against A-League.
Finally I'd like to point out the Rochester factor. Anybody reading this should know that although Rochester are part of the A-League, they are not a Second Division team. They are more like D1.5, and have proved this with a 4-2-3 record over MLS clubs in Open Cup play (certainly not representative, and I believe they would be only about .400 in a larger sample size). Take away Rochester, and the A-League is only 2-14-7 against MLS, being outclassed by a margin of nearly four-to-one (49 points to 13).
A couple of MLS clubs got embarrassed Wednesday, and we're bemoaning the dearth of a top-flight league in this country. Don't be so quick to judge, however; no team is going to win every game, but MLS have won enough over the A-League to prove that they are far from peers - MLS clearly is the best league in the United States.
