Template talk:2009 Major League Soccer season table

Coloring

What do you think about adding coloring to this table to indicate positioning for the MLS playoffs as well as US Open Cup, Champions League, and SuperLiga placement similar to 2009_Major_League_Soccer_season#Overall_standings. In fact, I wonder if this template should replace that table altogether in that page as well. Thoughts? --Skotywa^Talk 03:20, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

If you know how, give it a shot and we'll see what it looks like.Morry32 (talk) 01:55, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Alright, I gave it a shot. It's now pretty much identical to the one on the MLS season page except the columns are sortable (thanks Bobblehead!). Thoughts? --Skotywa^Talk 07:10, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Love it. I suggest everyone mark it "watch" though.Morry32 (talk) 01:03, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

I believe the colors are a little off. Right now Green 2-5 says SuperLiga, but thats not given. Perhaps it's best just to include the guaranteed spots: Supporters Shield and CONCACAF for #1, MLS Cup for 1-6. Other than that, the playoffs decide other tournaments, and this only reverts back to the standings if needed. Grsz¹¹ 05:43, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

How come SuperLiga is not given for 2-5? Do you mean they haven't defined who qualifies for SuperLiga in 2009? That may be true, but until they define it, I think it's fair to assume that it'll be the same as last season. Maybe I'm misunderstanding your point though.--SkotyWA^Talk|_Contribs 05:47, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

SuperLiga is determined by the standings, but not until after the CONCACAF teams are out. Meaning any team besides the #1 finished can be SuperLiga, but 2-5 aren't specifically those teams. Grsz¹¹ 05:54, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Last year for example, it was 3 to 6. Grsz¹¹ 05:57, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Hmm... you make a good point. The current coloring makes certain assumptions that just aren't necessarily true. I think we should remove SuperLiga as well actually. That said, can we wait on this for a few days? I'd hate for an edit such as this to continue to cloud the discussion around the inclusion of these templates in the MLS 2009 season page. I'd really appreciate it. --SkotyWA^Talk|_Contribs 06:20, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

We can change the coloring after the fact. It is a reasonable assumption to say that the berths will be awarded in the same way until we know for sure that they won't be. This is what they do at the European articles even when things might change (due to cup qualificatio for exaample). The whole table is designed to say "if the season ended today," anyway. -- Grant.Alpaugh 06:51, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

WP:CRYSTAL. The only thing we know is that #1 won't be in SuperLiga. And even if the season ended today, it wouldn't necessarily be that way. #2-4 could get into CONCACAF leaving 5-8 in SuperLiga. All we know for sure is that of #1 through #7, 3 or 4 (if MLS wins the US Open) go to CONCACAF, and 4 to SuperLiga. Which is where, we do not know, because it's the playoffs and the US Open that determines it. That's why a playoff line is good, and the template can link to the Competition format section of the MLS 09 article. Grsz¹¹ 13:47, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

This is done in every league. We show the berths as they would be distributed if the season ended today. We can always change them later if the announced format changes. Going into last year Champions League teams could also play in SuperLiga. That changed due to fixture congestion, and we made the change when it was announced. There is nothing wrong with assuming that things will be the same this year, and applying the berths accordingly. -- Grant.Alpaugh 16:58, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

But it's wrong. The table now says that the #2 through 4 teams will play in SuperLiga. That is flat out, bottom line, WRONG. Grsz¹¹ 21:20, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

If the season ended today, that would happen. Until the playoffs happen, there is no need to change this, whatsoever. -- Grant.Alpaugh 21:29, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

No. If the season ended today they would have playoffs, and then we would know who is in what competition. If #8 wins MLS Cup they are in CONCACAF, if #1 wins MLS Cup, then #2 is in CONCACAF. "If the season ended now" still doesn't make a difference. Grsz¹¹ 21:35, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Oh for the love of Christ. We don't indicate the MLS Cup berths on the table anyway. This was decided when someone wanted to use the table to indicate that D.C. United won the U.S. Open Cup last year, and it was decided not to indicate that on the standings table. We can deal with this in 5 months when we have to. There is no reason not to indicate where the potential berths would go right now. It provides information about what teams are in the hunt for international competition. -- Grant.Alpaugh 21:41, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Seriously, go look at last season's article. There is nothing indicated in the standings that says New York is in CONCACAF. It is just a footnote from Columbus's berth. This is an article about the MLS regular season. Columbus and Houston have their berths shown because they qualified via MLS regular season performance. -- Grant.Alpaugh 21:43, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Don't indicate MLS Cup berths on the table? What is 2009 MLS Cup Playoffs with every single color then? Grsz¹¹ 21:44, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

I mean berths that come from being in MLS Cup. Obviously the berths into the MLS Cup Playoffs are indicated here because they are based on regular season performance. -- Grant.Alpaugh 21:47, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

I didn't say anything about berths from the playoffs being here. All I'm saying is that based on these standings alone, we cannot determine which teams will play in CONCACAF and which teams will play in SuperLiga, other than #1. I don't know how many different ways I have to explain it, but this template right now says #2-5 are SuperLiga, and that is just wrong. Grsz¹¹ 21:49, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

I honestly have no idea what you're talking about. I'm not trying to be cute, I seriously can't tell what your point is. Can you try to explain it again, please? -- Grant.Alpaugh 21:57, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Again, my point is that saying that #2-5 play in SuperLiga is wrong. There are various qualifications - US Open, MLS Cup. If those teams win the US Open, MLS Cup or runner-up, then they play in CONCACAF, and SuperLiga goes to the next highest teams. Last year it was #3-6 because 1 Columbus won the Cup, 8 New York was runner-up, #10 DC won the US Open, and #2 Houston got to go because Columbus won the Shield too, and took away another qualifier. That means #2 wasnt in SuperLiga, so those berths started at #3. I dont know how to explain it more clearly. For example, if #2 wins MLS Cup, #3 is the runner-up, and #4 wins US Open, the SuperLiga teams are #5-8. My main point is, these standings exactly do not determine any international competition, other than that #1 is CONCACAF, and I think it would be more appropriate to just color playoff teams and link to the competition format section. Grsz¹¹ 22:04, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Okay, that's what I thought you were trying to say. Thank you for explaining it again. First, I would say that the practice of showing the preliminary berths from the start of the season is well established. Go look at the Premier League article history, and you will see that the 5th place team is the only team that starts in the Europa League berths, but as the other competitions were completed, the places drop down as required. This happens in Spain, Italy, everywhere. Second, there's no reason to say that the berths should be set in stone. Third, it is important to show that the 2nd-5th place team in the Overall standings is guarenteed to play in the SuperLiga, at least, which is not a trivial thing. If things work out the 6th, 7th, and 8th place teams might sneak in as well. Qualification for continental competition is a huge part of soccer, and showing who is in the hunt for those berths throughout the season is an established part of WP standings tables. It is important to note that if you finish in the top 5 in MLS overall, you are guatanteed to play international football next season. So for all of those reasons, I don't think there is anything wrong with showing SuperLiga berths. We can deal with alterations if/when they are needed. -- Grant.Alpaugh 22:19, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

But it's factually inaccurate, and that's good enough reason to remove it without discussion. All the coloring is fine except for SuperLiga, and I think it would be sufficient to indicate in the bottom notes that additional berths to CONCACAF and all to SuperLiga are determined by other means. Grsz¹¹ 22:23, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

So the people who finish 2nd-5th aren't guaranteed to play in at least the SuperLiga? You are making this argument purely because you don't understand the element of international competition that exists in soccer. It is a different animal from American sports in this regard, and so it should be treated differently in this regard. The 2nd-5th place teams are guaranteed to play international football next season. What don't you understand about this? -- Grant.Alpaugh 22:32, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

I never once said they weren't guaranteed atleast SuperLiga, I'm saying it's wrong to say they will play in SuperLiga, like the table implies now. You obviously can't grasp the argument I'm making, and I won't push it any longer. Grsz¹¹ 22:38, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

I believe the point Grsz11 is making is that to claim #2-#5 will be in SuperLiga is a bit of crystal balling because eligibility for SuperLiga is not determined solely by where a team is at the end of the regular season, but also excludes those who qualifies for CONCACAF CL. From what I've been able to determine, a team is eligibile for CONCACAF if they win the Supporter's Cup, win or are the runners up for the MLS Cup, or win the US Open. So, depending on who wins what, SuperLiga could technically be any team between second and eighth place in the regular season. --Bobblehead ^(rants) 01:09, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

• Yes, thanks Bobblehead. #1 is guaranteed CONCACAF, #2-7 are guaranteed either CONCACAF or SuperLiga, and #8 can earn CONCACAF if they make the final, but may not make SuperLiga if the US Open winner is a non-MLS club. Grsz¹¹ 01:28, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

These color classifications are not meant to imply that things are set in stone. They simply only say what would happen given the information that is currently avaliable, i.e. U.S. Open Cup hasn't even started yet and obviously MLS Cup hasn't happened either. As I said, this information is not set in stone and table can be updated when the other berths are filled. I will again say that I think that this whole thing is nit-picking and does nothing to clarify or improve the article. Spydy13 (talk) 03:06, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Your argument has completly devolved into nit-picking. The information is completly correct if if everything ended today. For instance, what if seeds 7 and 8 qualified for MLS Cup, i.e. getting to the championship? They would both go to CONCACAF Champions League and the next highest seeds would go to Superliga, i.e. 2-5. So to say that playoffs determine everything is also factually inaccurate. Spydy13 (talk) 22:34, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

I'll only respond to one of these accounts. Grsz¹¹ 22:38, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Why? Nobody is making arguments about "majority rules." Either your arguments have merit or they don't. -- Grant.Alpaugh 22:45, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

You are the only editor who is still making that claim. Every other editor has moved on so that discussion can continue. Neither I nor Grant has attacked you personally, but have only tried to explain the reasons for why the template is a certain way. This tactic of I'm losing the discussion, so I'll say their cheating is ridiculous. Please move on, like everyone else has. Spydy13 (talk) 22:54, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

SuperLiga berths

Due to the length of the above conversation, I felt it would be productive to relaunch on another section. The teams that finish 2nd-5th in the league are guaranteed to play international football. Of course they could qualify for the Champions League, and other teams down the line could qualify because of that, but the fact remains that 2nd-5th, without anything else happening are guranteed to play some form of international football the next season. This is important in soccer. Nothing even close to comprable exists in the other American sports, so I'm not suprised you guys can't seem to wrap your heads around it. Every other league in the world does just this sort of thing. Look at Scottish Premier League 2008–09 for example. As the article is currently listed, the first and second teams are guaranteed to enter some round of the UEFA Champions League next year. That is not our concern. Look now at the second tier competition, the UEFA Europa League. Scotland gets three berths into that competition, all at different levels. The winner of Scottish Cup 2008–09 qualifies for the play-off round, and like every country the cup winner gets the highest possible berth. The 3rd place team in the SPL gets into the third qualifying round and the 4th place team gets into the second qualifying round. Now I haven't looked at the Scottish Cup to see who is still in the competition, but do you see that if Heart of Midlothian or Dundee United won the Scottish Cup, they would no longer need the berths that they currently would receive, and the berths would pass down so that the 5th place team (currently Aberdeen) would get into the second qualifying round? The same would happen if Celtic or Rangers (currently, and perenially 1st and 2nd) won the Scottish FA Cup. That doesn't prevent them from listing these berths. I promise you that if you go to La Liga 2008–09, Serie A 2008–09, Fußball-Bundesliga 2008–09, and any other article, you would find the same situation to be the case, and to have been the case since the beginning of the season. It is clear that none of you are all that familiar with footy, and that is okay, but don't presume to know what the best practices are when you haven't been around WP footy articles very long. I hope my Scottish example was followable, but if it wasn't, please feel free to ask for another explanation. -- Grant.Alpaugh 04:05, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Bad examples. In La Liga and Serie A, the team's that finish in specific positions get specific berths to UEFA Champions or Europa. This is a different issue. Grsz¹¹ 18:05, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

So maybe rather than identifying 2-5 as being specifically SuperLiga we just identify them as being eligible for either CONCACAF or SuperLiga depending on who qualifies for CONCACAF and then 6-8 as being eligible for SuperLiga if the US's four berths are not filled by 2-5? --Bobblehead ^(rants) 20:37, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

What about formatting it like the European templates, with a large qualification column on the right, rather than a key that extends it length-wise? Grsz¹¹ 20:21, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

That sounds like an option to me. I'd like to avoid it myself, but if the league standings template is going to show CONCACAF and SuperLiga eligibility, then the column on the right is definitely an option that could be used. Another thought would be to add an explanation to the legend to avoid repeating yourself in the qualifications column. I'm actually leaning more towards not even including the qualifications in the template because any qualifications we can come up with will be rather long and probably better suited towards a text explanation in the season article than a simple representation in a legend or qualifications column in the standings. As an example, the legend currently says that #1 ranked team is eligible for CONCACAF and the US Open, but this is actually only true for US teams, so if Toronto (or Vancouver after 2011) is #1, then they wouldn't be eligible for CONCACAF or the US Open, but would actually go to SuperLiga if they didn't qualify for CONCACAF as a result of the Canada Championship. --Bobblehead ^(rants) 21:58, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

I tried seeing what it would look like, it's difficult given all the qualifications that need to go in. I would have no problem leaving out CONCACAF or SuperLiga all together (except for #1) because they aren't dependent on these standings. I'd say we could include just MLS playoffs and US Open, and Supporter Shield and CONCACAF for #1 (unless Toronto). The underlying point is, it's completely different from Europe, which Grant said himself, and can't be treated the same. Grsz¹¹ 22:05, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

I just updated this thing with Saturday's results, and I'm at a complete loss as to what color Toronto FC should be. They can't qualify for the US Open cup, so therefore they should be yellow I guess. That would make NE orange. However, if I do that, then I've got a yellow team in between two orange teams which seems wrong. Grant and Spydy's coloring system worked great as long as Toronto FC didn't make the playoffs. Now that they're in the upper half of the table (good job TFC!), this coloring scheme is falling apart. I propose that we dump the 4 colors altogether and just have a single red border indicating which teams would make the playoffs (above the line) and which ones wouldn't (below the line). Trying to mix US Open cup qualification in here seems wrong on many levels. Toronto FC can't qualify for it all. Likewise, as you've explored above, SuperLiga coloring is arbitrary as well and circumstances may vary the actual results in ways which don't match the color scheme. After removing those two, all we would have left is CONCACAF champions league, but that would just be the supporters shield winner since again, we can't predict the other two qualifiers (or three if Toronto FC wins the Canadian championship). Given that, I think the CONCACAF champions league coloring/notes should go as well from this table. That would leave us with the simple (and always accurate) MLS playoffs cutoff line. I propose we get rid of this inaccurate and misleading coloring system. Thoughts? --SkotyWA^Talk|_Contribs 07:54, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Could not agree more- it is over kill and not at all needed- maybe when we know more information (USOC winner) we can add that info like the DC United has already qualified for the CCL and won't be in Superliga or something alike to those situations but as it stands now there are too much variables mixed with too many unknowns. Plus if TFC were to win the Canadian Championship and finish in the top 5-6 they wouldn't go to Superliga either along with the USOC winner so Superliga could potentially go to teams #6-10. INSANE! Scrap the colors and just show who makes the Playoffs. Morry32 (talk) 19:11, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

So maybe just the Supporter Shield and MLS playoff should be colored? --Bobblehead ^(rants) 19:17, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

After watching the edits of some ip address trying to get the coloring all right, I totally agree. I think that SuperLiga needs to be out of the picture. CONCACAF should also probably go since it's not always only #1, so it won't be necessary for awhile, but i guess we could put it on #1. I could go either way on the US Open, but i don't think it needs taken out. It's not too hard to move colors down if Toronto is in the top. And I think three colors would look nice. --Adam (talk) 00:45, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

If you guys don't mind, I think I'll change it since we seem to agree on some things. Further changes can of course be made.--Adam (talk) 00:49, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Optional Legend

I experimented for a while before I gave up for the evening trying to make the legend hidden unless a legend variable was set when including the template. I couldn't get it to work. This seemed like a logical thing to make optional in the template. If anyone can help getting that to work, that would be awesome. --Skotywa^Talk 07:52, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Sortable columns

So I've temporarily removed the sortable columns from this template as it's clouding the discussion around the usage of this template in the MLS season article. I am actually in favor of keeping the columns sortable and will pursue that end later. If you agree that there is value in being able to sort this table by a given column, please voice your support. So far the argument against the sortable columns is accessibility which is the first I've heard of such a problem. --SkotyWA^Talk|_Contribs 06:05, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm reluctant to weigh in because of the beating I'll get, but sortable tables are used all over the sports world here. One click and you can tell you scores more or less, etc. "We didn't do it last year" isn't a good enough excuse. Grsz¹¹ 06:12, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

I support sortable tables- I think they offer more information quicker than the tables. Morry32 (talk) 15:18, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

I don't think sortability adds anything to the tables, and it can cause accessability problems when they are not done properly (which is the way most of the changes have been done thus far in these templates). Nevertheless, if sortable columns are used, they should be used in both sets of tables, and should be used at 2007 Major League Soccer season, 2007 MLS Cup Playoffs, 2008 Major League Soccer season, and 2008 MLS Cup Playoffs. I know you guys don't care about consistency between articles, but you should. It makes the whole series look more professional. -- Grant.Alpaugh 18:03, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

We've honestly bent over backwards to consider your claims on this subject, don't worry when we finally get it nailed down we will consider making changes to past articles. I'm just glad to see you joining the conversation instead of vandalizing it.Morry32 (talk) 18:46, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm still not clear on the broken accessibility claim. Can you point me to more information? Making a table sortable is really simple based on the instructions here. Searching for the word "accessible" on that page brings up no results. My curiosity is peaked though. Give me a pointer to some accessibility info and I'll research it further. Anyway, my opinion is that the only table it makes sense to be sortable is the overall table. Making the conference tables sortable allows you to perform comparisons on only half the league which doesn't seem useful. I also don't agree that it matters for this discussion whether or not we go back and fix up all previous seasons. If someone want's to do that in the event that we reach a consensus on making this 2009 table sortable more power to them. --SkotyWA^Talk|_Contribs 04:54, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Both tables should be exactly the same. -- Grant.Alpaugh 04:56, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

I also think that if changes are going to be made on this article they should be made on the other articles in this series for consistency. Why should I have to do all the work in keeping things from looking sloppy? -- Grant.Alpaugh 05:03, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Why should both tables be exactly the same? There are tons of articles all over wikipedia where some tables are sortable and some aren't. It doesn't look sloppy (unless you think all articles that have some tables sortable and others not are sloppy). How about that accessibility info? I'm still very interested in learning more about that. I'm a software developer during waking hours, so accessibility concerns won't fall on deaf ears here. --SkotyWA^Talk|_Contribs 06:19, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

The two tables were exactly the same before you all came along. That wasn't by accident. Why undue that when you don't have to? I also spent a lot of time applying every tweak made to the tables retroactively, and I would appreciate not having to do this all myself, especially when I don't agree with the changes. -- Grant.Alpaugh 06:54, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

So don't do it then. There's no rule that says that you have to manage every article in a series, or indeed one that says that all articles in a series have to look exactly the same. - fchd (talk) 16:44, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Toronto blurbs

The blurbs about Toronto not being eligible for competitions should remain seperate because they will be needed in two years for Vancouver, and Vancouver will be in the Western Conference. They started as seperate blurbs two seasons ago, and should remain in that format. Despite zero discussion about this, Grsz11 has taken it upon himself to make these changes, and I was wondering if for once we might discuss something before it is changed, not after. -- Grant.Alpaugh 13:53, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

So let's discuss the merit of the things remaining without worry about 2011, can we? I don't want to hear about 2007 or 2011 anymore, about how things have been or how they should remain. This article is clearly named 2009 Major League Soccer season table. Morry32 (talk) 14:35, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Jesus, I don't need a discussion for every single edit. This is ridiculous and you know it Grant. My edit was entirely non-controversial and appropriate. Grsz¹¹ 16:14, 20 April 2009 (UTC)