Diary of a Weak Eastern Conference ...

[Editor's note: Here's a well-written FanPost on why people may be too quick to dismiss the East. Good job, front page'd.]

There’s this four-letter word many pundits has linked with the Eastern Conference of MLS …

WEAK.

I'll let that sink in for a minute.

Weak.

But compared to what exactly, the Western Conference?  For a league that is based upon parity and currently utilizes a balanced schedule, there isn’t much of an advantage given to any one particular club.  They’re all forced to play by the same rules, must manage the same salary cap, cannot exceed a certain number of players on the roster, and have the same general restrictions set upon them, so how can one half of the league be considered strong, whereas the other half is looked upon as weak?

Is it based on the recent MLS Cup winners?  Supporters’ Shield?  How about those teams participating in the CONCACAF Champions League?  Points per game?  Total number of wins?

WHAT?!

If we look at the last five MLS Cup winners – Houston in 2006 and 2007, Columbus in 2008, Real Salt Lake in 2009, and Colorado in 2010 – you can say that since four of those teams are/were in the Western Conference then, yes, that conference would be stronger.  BUT, the last two winners actually made it to the final through the Eastern Conference bracket, so that would technically make three of the last five MLS Cup winners from the Eastern Conference.  OK, it’s semantics, and it means a Western team defeated Eastern ones to get to the big show, but it hardly says that the latter is the weaker of the two.  New York made it to the 2008 MLS Cup through the Western Conference bracket (probably the closest they’ll come to sniffing silverware for a while, but I digress), so an Eastern team beat a bunch of Western ones to come face-to-face with a Eastern Conference rival in the final.  Yep, the East sure was weak that year.

The Supporters’ Shield recognizes the team with the best overall record in the league for a given season.  Surely this should be the benchmark of what constitutes strong versus weak, no?  In a twist or irony, four (technically two) of the last five SS winners are Eastern Conference teams, with DCU taking it consecutively in 2006 and 2007, followed by Columbus’ repeats in 2008 and 2009, with the Galaxy being the latest and “greatest” of 2010.  But, the numbers don’t lie; only one team in the last five seasons, and only three in the last ten, can call themselves the best (read, strongest) in the entire league that year.

What about the teams currently participating in the CONCACAF Champions League?  This includes the most recent MLS Cup finalists (Colorado and FC Dallas), the Supporters’ Shield winner (Los Angeles), the US Open Cup winner (Seattle), and the Nutrilite Canadian Championship winner (Toronto).  Not taking into account how Colorado got to the final (ahem, Eastern Conference), four of the five teams reside in the West.  We can discount Toronto for two reasons:  they are (and have been) doing poorly in the league, and they only had to win a four-team tournament against the likes of the Vancouver Whitecaps, the Montreal Impact, and Edmonton FC, hardly intimidating teams to match up against.  What it boils down to is that being a CCL participant is not a real accurate determination of strength or weakness, since it’s based on their previous season’s performance, thereby negating their current form.

If the pundits are looking at a current snapshot of the league standings (as a single table, for argument’s sake), and points per game to-date, then the West would definitely be the better or the two conferences; Los Angeles (1.92), FC Dallas (1.72), Seattle (1.68), and Real Salt Lake (1.64) have more PPG than Columbus (1.54).  That’s all well and good, but it’s not a very accurate view of how the teams actually stack up.  Looking at the points per game is fine, but it should be viewed in relation to the actual number of games played.  Due to different scheduling nuances, teams have played anywhere from 22 to 26 regular season matches so far.  So, to level the playing field, perhaps a better comparison would be PPG after 22 games; again Los Angeles (1.91), FC Dallas (1.77), Seattle (1.73), and Real Salt Lake (1.64) represent the top four teams in the league (all from the West), with both Philadelphia (1.50) and Columbus (1.50) tied for fifth overall in the league (tied for top spot in the East) on PPG after 22 games.  Advantage Western Conference, I suppose.

Maybe it all comes down to the results a respective team puts up against those in the other conference.  Wouldn’t the stronger conference teams have a high win percentage over those inferior teams in the East?  Or, to rephrase the question to focus on “weakness”, wouldn’t the weaker conference teams have a high loss percentage thanks to those superior teams in the West?  DC United boasts the lowest loss percentage against Western Conference foes, a mere 17% of their 12 games played; the Revolution has the “worst” loss percentage of all Eastern teams, exactly 50% of their 14 games against Western opponents have resulted in a loss.  The Union have played 14 games against teams from the West, and have managed to lose only 5 of them (36%).  That’s not necessarily the submissiveness one would expect “weaker” conference teams to have thanks to their Western Conference overlords.

I can really figure out where the Western Conference dominance over the East comes from.  Did someone notice that a Western team or two seems to be running away with it, so naturally coming to the conclusion that ALL teams in that Conference are equally as strong?  Yeah,I guess Vancouver didn’t get the memo.  If anything, there’s more disparity in the West with a 30-point range between the top and bottom teams, whereas the East is a much more closely-fought conference, with only 17 points separating the top and bottom teams.

As we sit on the cusp of one of the biggest games in the Union’s sophomore season, a battle between the first place Columbus Crew and our beloved boys in blue sitting prominently in second place, I can’t get this silly concept of a “weak east” out of my head.  I’m confused to how the pundits have agreed on this notion, while incessantly beating the drum, that one conference is weaker than the other when, frankly, it’s just not the case.