Back to this again. Manchester United's third straight Premier League title has me thinking about parity, and its role in American soccer. United's championship illustrates that a league with no controls will produce predictable and redundant results more often than not; it's simply beyond most clubs to compete for a top four spot in England, much less challenge for the title.
There just doesn't seem to be much intrigue after awhile.
My question then, living in a country where the top flight league dictates parity through salary and roster controls, is whether that parity ensures intrigue; does every club having a (somewhat) equal chance to lift the trophy make the season more interesting overall?
It's a cop out, and for that I apologize, but I simply don't know. My gut tells me it should, but my eyes don't confirm that suspicion. Major League Soccer's rules are so overbearing and heavy-handed, that I wonder sometimes if it's more "forced mediocrity" than anything else.
Without big or dominant clubs in MLS, the league becomes a wash of uninteresting results, with draw on top of draw (running 40% of results this season). Even the best team in any given year is unlikely to finish with an overwhelming record, simply because the level playing field makes them only slightly better than the league's also-rans. Add playoffs to the mix, and you get MLS 2008; a team with what can only be described as an "underwhelming" record makes the final, frustrating those of us who hope to see the best teams compete for the cup.
I'm generally not a dynasty kind of guy. It bugs me when a team (other than my own, of course) runs off a string of titles. I hate the idea that every season's end is a foregone conclusion, with the balance of play only serving to sort out the details. The EPL frustrates me for that very reason.
I realize that I'm arguing both sides here. I seem to be in possession of a very "have my cake and eat it too" attitude; I want great teams without the annoying problem of the same one winning every year. I want the league to rise above the mediocrity and provide class teams at the top, teams capable of winning not only MLS, but the available international competitions.
Is that too much to ask? Is there a balance to be struck, or are we stuck in this rut, with parity holding play back yet ensuring that the same club doesn't take home the title season after season?
The English Premier League season, more often than not, reaches a point sometime in early spring when the club who will be the eventual champion is easily identified. The intrigue at the top of the table is whisked away, and the league becomes truly interesting only at the bottom.
Major League Soccer maintains an up and down, lead-changing dynamic throughout the majority of the season; and again, because of the playoff structure, which team finishes with the most points and wins the Supporters Shield is only part of the story. Is that intrigue? I suppose. But too often, the mediocrity of it all overshadows any excitement built through parity.
I have no answers. In fact, I originally wrote most of this post on Sunday, the day after Manchester United secured their title. I was planning on posting it then, when this idea was fresh in my mind; but I held off in the hopes that I would have some conclusion to draw, rather than a bunch of half-cocked ideas. Oh well. Maybe you guys can work it out for me.
Is parity better than predictability? Does the relegation battle make up for the lack in intrigue at the top of the EPL table? Is MLS "boring" because parity means draw after draw?
