GO Indoor

MISL CASTS ASIDE MULTI-POINT SCORING by Sydney Nusinov T he Major Indoor Soccer League has expanded to St. Louis and Monterrey, but the biggest story of the off-season broke on May 19 when the MISL own- ers voted to change the league's scoring system to the tradi- tional, and practically universal, single-point format. For the last 15 seasons, the MISL, the American Indoor Soccer Association and National Professional Soccer League had used variations of a multi-point scoring system that, at times, awarded either 1, 2, or 3 points for each goal depending upon the circumstances. The move signals an end, perhaps, to what has been a very controversial and emotional issue. Commissioner Steve Paxos and the American Indoor Soccer Association intro- duced multi-point scoring for the 1988-89 season as a way to distinguish itself from the original MISL. While the Continental Indoor Soccer League and World Indoor Soccer League continued to plug away with the steady single- point system, the AISA, NPSL, and new MISL went through several incarnations of multi-point scoring. The three-point line became a closer three-point arc. Power-play goal values were changed to equal goals scored in even strength situations. A goal scored from past midfield changed in value from 2 to 3 points. Last year, the MISL did away with one-point shootouts, and all goals were worth either 2 or 3 points. Now entering its third season, the MISL, citing a desire to align itself with the rest of the soccer world, may finally put the issue to bed. At the same time, the move was met with a surprising backlash on Internet forums and a certain weari- ness. "I think the larger issue here is the constant rule changes that occur every year," said longtime fan Matt Cuber. "The MISL needs to come up with a system, and stick with it." One fan, David Flax, has even gone so far as to start a peti- tion demanding that the MISL reinstate multi-point scoring. "I think the scoring rules changes are bad for the game," said Flax, who has considered not renewing his season tickets. "The league having been through numerous changes over the years had one consistency, multi-point scoring. It was a gim- mick and gave the fans something to get excited about." Others think the MISL has missed the boat. The league brought back the MISL name, teams in Baltimore, Kansas City, and Cleveland discarded their NPSL nicknames in favor of the names of their MISL predecessors, and the famil- iar Rocket Red ball made a comeback last year, but the MISL has done this over a three-year period. So when the MISL resurfaced in 2001, it was clearly still carrying the stig- ma of the sinking NPSL. Fans who held high hopes of an MISL resurgence have already written the new MISL off as same kick, different day. The move also creates some logistical challenges. The MISL record books already include seasons with single-point scor- ing (1984-1988) and 15 seasons of multi-point scoring. This creates an obvious number of statistical inconsistencies, some- thing that also could have been headed off had the league reintroduced single-point scoring and a clean slate in 2001 with the renaming of the league. Another problem is an aes- thetic one. Several teams bought new playing surfaces. First, the MISL changed the shape of their penalty area, and now all of the teams have to remove their three-point lines. Showing that old allegiances die hard, some longtime MISL fans blame the owners of former WISL clubs Dallas and San Diego for forcing the MISL to adopt the rules used by the old WISL. This isn't the case said Sidekicks GM Jim Tolbert. "Obviously, Dallas and San Diego have played under a single-point system since day one," said Tolbert, whose Sidekicks got their first, and apparently only, dose of multi-point scoring last year. "We've never been in support of a multi-point scoring system, [but] I can assure you that the league did not cave into our demands to switch back. The league office and all the teams voted in a very diplomatic manner. The decision to go with a single-point system was unanimous among previous WISL teams and NPSL teams." St. Louis Steamers player/coach Daryl Doran has spent sever- al seasons under both scoring systems in the MISL, NPSL, and WISL. "When we went to multi-point in the NPSL it was kind of tough to get used to," said Doran, who also serves as one of the owners of the expansion Steamers that will debut in the MISL this year. "I didn't really like it in the beginning. After four or five years I started kind of liking it, but I think the fans never really caught on to it." The opponents of multi-point scoring argued that the system disproportionately awarded point values when you could only get two points for scoring a tremendously skillful goal, but get three points for an empty-net goal tapped in from 45 feet out. This isn't an 18" cylinder like in basketball. An indoor soccer goal is 8' x 14' feet, making distance and accu- racy nearly irrelevant. The multi-point rules also forced refer- ees to make tough judgment calls on point values and 20• August/September 2003 • GOAL Indoor shootout scenar- ios depending on whichever factors were applicable at the time, since rules varied from year to year. Many didn't like the fact that you could score more goals than your opponent and still lose. Multi-point detractors also felt those rules stripped credibility from the league, made it look like a marginal "novelty sport," and also made the sport hard to pick up for new fans. Many fans also wondered why it was necessary to artificially inflate scores in what has always been a high-scoring sport. Fans of multi-point scoring thought the rules added excite- ment and they liked the fact that you could turn a deficit into a lead with just one goal. They also asserted that you were never out of a game with multi-point scoring. Multi-point scoring never gained widespread acceptance. The short-lived Eastern Indoor Soccer League and I-League both used different versions of multi-point scoring, and the new Arena Indoor Soccer League used a multi-point system last year. But 99% of the roughly 400 indoor soccer facilities in the country used traditional scoring, as did every other pro soccer league – indoor and outdoor – in the world. Despite the MISL's decision, AISL President Paul Lapointe said his league would maintain its multi-point scoring system. "High scoring games are what the fans want," said Lapointe, "so let's give it to them!" "When everyone plays outdoor and indoor soccer to a one- point situation, why would you be out on a limb, being the only league that has a different system?" asked former WISL President and Sidekicks coach Gordon Jago, who always shunned the multi-point system. "If a rule is to the benefit of the game, fine. Consider it. Experiment with it first and if it's successful change it, but don't just make changes for the sake of it as we've so often seen. Over the years the old MISL had a pretty good set of rules, indeed." USIndoor, which advocates single-point scoring in it's Official Rules of Indoor Soccer, doesn't take an official stance on rules used by professional leagues, but President Don Shapero is glad the pro and amateur factions are again in sync. "Both point systems have their advantages and disad- vantages," said Shapero. "Until the pros ask us to get (Nusinov, continued on page 21)

• Cover
• In this Issue
• History: Speaking with Ron Newman