As expected, Major League Soccer altered its competition format for next season, with the league announcing those changes hours prior to the 2011 MLS Cup — the last one to be held at a predetermined site.
The 2012 MLS Cup will be held at the home of the finalist with the most regular-season points, and the road to getting to the final has changed as well.
The top five teams in each conference will make the playoffs, with the fourth and fifth seeds in the respective conferences playing a one-off elimination game to determine who advances to the conference semifinals. From there, the conference semifinals and finals will both be two-leg, home-and-home series as opposed to the past in which the conference final was just a one-game round.
The new format eliminates the possibility of a team from the Western Conference crossing over into the Eastern Conference playoff bracket and vice versa.
Here are the other changes on tap for the 2012 MLS season:
UNBALANCED 34-GAME SCHEDULE
As MLS commissioner Don Garber announced a couple of weeks ago, there will be an unbalanced schedule with the addition of the Montreal Impact to the Eastern Conference.
Teams in the 10-team East will play seven conference opponents three times each, and two other opponents two times each. They'll play each Western Conference team once, and those that they play at home in 2012 they will face on the road in 2013.
Teams in the nine-team West will play each conference foe three times apiece and each Eastern Conference team one time each. The teams they play at home in 2012 they will face on the road in 2013.
"We have established a fair and compelling format for the 2012 season," MLS Executive Vice President Nelson Rodriguez said in a league statement. "This regular season will include more games between regional rivals and less total travel than we have seen in recent years. Because of the wide geographic distribution of MLS clubs, this structure should improve the quality of play, while continuing to give every club an equal chance of qualifying for the MLS Cup playoffs."
—————–
What do you make of the competition changes?
Share your thoughts below.
A lot of fans may not like it, but this is a hell of a lot better for the players.
I really like the format. It will build rivalries within the conferences. Yes, there will be some teams that are good that won’t make it to the playoffs, but that happens in every major sports league in America.
so does this kill the supporters summit?
The changes from the final being at a predetermined site and towards more 2-game series are positive, but on the whole, it’s still putting lipstick on a pig. Or to use another apt metaphor, the whole system is still like a horse designed by committee.
Very good, love seeing our league make moves, even the small ones.
It’s much better for the players, and thus the product over all. The “We have to play like the EPL crowd” will hate it. But they’ll hate everything MLS does, right or wrong. I think it’s a fairer system for all teams. And it eliminates the farce of Western teams crossing over, beating up on the East, and getting into the Final, thus doubly punishing teams for being more consistent over the season just because of their conference.
Awkward. Are you sure about this?
Teams in the East will play 38 games, and teams in the West will play 34 games? I think you may have this wrong — that teams in the East will play three times each, and the Western teams will play two conference opponents four times — either that, or the East teams will play tow of their conference rivals twice.
I like that the Supporters Shield winner gets to host the Final, its only fair, being the best all year, should mean more than it does in MLS. Hopefully, it will be my LA Galaxy again, next season. I still have a problem with the playoffs though, there are too many teams in it. Should just be the top 4 from each conference. None of this wildcard, playoff bull
The Supporters Sheild doesn’t mean anything anymore. And to MLS players complaining about travel: cry about it. You’re a pro athlete. It’s all you do. How hard is it to fly every other week. And this doesn’t make rivalries any better, it just waters them down. How hard is it to have a balanced schedule with top 8 teams making the playoffs? Garber is stifling this leagues growth. He was great at first, but it’s time for him to go. A lot of loyal fans (who Garber doesn’t care about) are going to question their loyalty to this league. #GarberOut
a balanced schedule could have been achieved.
link to docs.google.com
Just to be clear — to reach 34 games, the Eastern teams would have to play seven of their conference opponents 3 times and two of their conference opponents only twice…not four times.
This makes the Supporter’s Shield worthless. Teams play each other three times, how is that fair? Either you have the advantage of playing two times at home, or the disadvantage of going there twice. What if Vancouver plays at New York and home against Kansas and Colorado plays at Kansas and home against New York, how is that fair? Playoff now also a joke (although I guess that isn’t a change_, what is the point of being the higher seed if both teams get a single home game? The only improvement is the higher seed team gets the championship game, but how can you be sure which is the higher seeded team when the leagues are unbalanced.
True, but that would entail a 36-game schedule. That’s incredibly taxing on the players. This ain’t the EPL with super-deep rosters. Also, the MLS season is calendar-compressed as it is, relative to the lengths of other leagues. That would mean playing in poorer weather.
Perhaps even more important to the league was the declaration from the USSF that they couldn’t cover that many games with their refs.
I don’t agree with all the moves, but bottom line – the league is headed in the right direction. Well done Garber and co.
As a fan of an Eastern team (Columbus) living in a western city (Denver) my objection to the system is completely selfish.
What people aren’t realizing is that they made the supporters shield a joke at the same time they added a league benefit to winning it. The problem is tthat they just made the competition for the supporters shield unfair. Since teams no longer play balanced schedules the teams that play the weakest teams most often will have an advantage. Unbalanced schedules are just not realistic for a fair league.
The play each other three times thing has been coming. I’ve been writing about this for years. It doesn’t make the Shield meaningless, though this system rally does suggest there ought to be 2 Supporters Shields. At least within conferences the schedules will be similar – and, in the West, identical. However, it will no longer be fair to compare teams from the West with teams from the East. That’s a much bigger deal than the extra home games.
An unbalanced schedule and 3 games between the teams? Come on this is amateur hour. And now there is no point in fighting it out for a higher seed at the end of the season.
Expect a lot of home games for LA and NYRB against tougher teams and road games against the cupcakes.
Only fair, huh? Of course, the Galaxy will have to play RSL and Seattle and Dallas 3 times each, whereas NYRB and Columbus will only have to play those teams once, and get to play the Revs two or three times.
This has been coming, and you should get used to it. What happens when and if the league expands beyond 20 teams? In a 22-team league, a home-and-home format would mean a 42 game season. A 24-team league would mean a 46-game season. That’s impossible, short of playing an 11-month schedule. — maybe even year round, with the playoffs. In which case, “seasons” would have no meaning — just an arbitrary stopping point.
does this mean that Houston will only play Dallas once next year???
As the league grows, an unbalanced schedule is impossible to avoid. Either the league plays a ridiculously and impossibly long schedule, or they truly separate the conferences and focus on regional rivalries. 3x within conference and 1x outside conference. It’s the only thing that makes sense.
Now, I agree it does make the home field for the Supporters Shield thing a bit dicey. I could see 2 Supporters Shield winners — one in each conference — and some other method used to determine which team hosts the Cup.
ummmm do you even know how many MLS seasons had a balanced schedule? Ill give you a hint: the answer is close to 1. So to question the value of the supporters shield now is absurd.
How many other leagues in america have balanced schedules? Ill give you another hint: its close to 1 as well. You are not a pro athlete so quick acting like you know what they should be able to handle. Unless you travel like them and go through what they do, criticizing them makes you look a little bit childish dont you think? Not giving a damn about the players health doesnt make you a “loyal fan”
Yes, but this is surely temporary. When the league goes to 20 teams, that will probably mean another team in the East, and Houston will switch back to the West. Then, they’ll play 3 times every year.
Nope, you just go to 3 conferences. Why they’re stuck on the idea of just 2, I don’t know. They could make 3 right now by pretty much just following time zones (combining Central & Mountain), thus emphasizing regional rivalries even more while also reducing travel time/expense even more, and keep things more balanced, too. But this would require them to have some new kind of thought, so…
does the 36 game schedule include US open and Champions league? if not, then that is to many games for such thin rosters
On thing that just occurred to me – this indicates the East will have more teams, yes? And so they are leaving Houston in the East. Which means, as we build these “local rivalries” based on geography, Dallas and Houston will only play once per year?
Am I missing something?
Nope, but team #20 will be in the East eventually, at which point Houston will move back west and all will be right in the world.
Huh? How would that change anything? There would still be the same number of teams.
No matter how you arrange them, if you want a balanced home-and-home schedule, that would mean 36 games now, 38 games when you have 20 teams, 40 games if you have 21 teams, 42 games if you have 22 teams, and 46 games if the league ever reaches it’s stated goal of reaching 24 teams someday.
i totally agree with you and i find it odd how people are saying unbalanced schedule = unfair league. Im 100% sure that they arent complaining on NFL, NBA, NHL blogs about how unfair those leagues cuz they arent balanced. OH yea thats right! Those people want the MLS to be just like europe! aw, that must be it!
Nope. It’s just math, man. If you have 19 teams, that means 18 possible opponents. If you want a home-and-home balanced schedule, that would be 36 games…before you add in USOC and CCL play…not to mention that summer thing when European, Mexican and South American giants come to play MLS sides.
Exactly.
It always surprises me to see the negative comments about Garber. When he took over as commissioner the league was on the verge of collapse and in a relatively short amount of time MLS has grown dramatically in to a very good league. I might not like all of the changes, but I love that MLS Cup will be at the higher seed.
OK — It’s now been corrected….so, you can disregard this little string of comments.
Again, just make 3 confs now:
Van, Sea, Ptl, SJ, LA, Chivas = West
RSL, Colorado, FCD, Hou, KC, Chi = Central
Columbus, TFC, Montreal, NE, NYRB, DCU, Phil = East
4 games v each team within conf, 1 v each outside conf = 32 for West & Central teams; East teams can each play just 8 of 12 non-conf opponents
I still want:
Few teams making the play offs
A real advantage to winning in the regular season
Away goals rule in the home and home series
(Away goals give an advantage to the higher seed opening at the away park if they score.)
Otherwise, seems reasonable enough.
+ 1
That was supposed to be “fewer” teams making the playoffs
Not necessarily will it be the supporters shield winner hosting the final. It’s the “finalist” with the most point in the regular season.
That’s true — and I believe the NBA and the NHL do give home field advantage in the seventh game to the team with the best record.
As for the MLS Cup — even this home field arrangement is probably only a ‘temporary’ situation. The league must hope that someday the Cup final is a big national event — a mini-version of the Super Bowl. When and if they can sell out tickets and blocks of hotel rooms months in advance, without knowing which teams are going to be in the game, they will go back to moving the game around each year to predetermined sites..
See below, in which it would allow each team to ave a balanced home-and-home schedule within their conf, and an almost balance schedule outside of their conf, as well, all while maintaining a 32-game schedule.
It just ain’t rocket surgery.
Tht system would also allow for further expansion on any conf. You would only have to sacrifice a couple of non-conf match-ups here and there but within confs, everything would be equal (not even 2 games in 1 place and 1 in the other).
Sorry, math a bit off: it would be 33 games for West & Central teams, totally balanced, and then East teams would play 9 of 12 non-conf teams.
Garber doesn’t stifle the league. What an out-of-touch complaint.
Agreed that the athletes should suck it up and deal with the travel, it’s not all that bad and a good coordination could make it easier. Working people travel on business all the time and much more frequently. I travel on business often and never bitch about it. My paycheck comes because of it.
I didn’t even think if that… Well, it’ll build MOST rivalries
Even then, the teams in each conference will have more of a rivalry in general, since they’ll play each other more often and they will only be competing with each other for the playoff spots.
“Amateur hour”? This is identical to every other major American team sport. The point is to improve the league and get viewers, not to adhere to European norms. Our best, most popular playoffs dominate water cooler talk (NFL, NCAA, MLB) and have little or nothing to do with rewarding the best teams. Ironically, it looks like college football this year will basically have the soccer purists dream match up–the rematch of the top 2 teams from the same league–though everyone else dreads it.
Of course, that’s the whole point. Americanization is anathema to football purists (I recognize “soccer purist” is an oxymoron), as is–apparently–popularity of MLS.
The system is not fair, and right now it will be wildly unfair to Western Conference teams (and later to the NFC…I mean the NL…no, I mean the Eastern Conference), but it is more logical than the current system.
Ahhh, I see your point. — Unbalanced league-wide, but balanced within conferences. That’s doable…sort of…and would work great, if the league goes to 21 teams, at some point…except the problem that it means that some teams won’t meet each year. I think that’s something the league wants to avoid.
Of course, when the league goes to 24 teams, it could do something like that on a two-conference set-up and play 34 games — home-and-home in conference and one game against each team in the other conference.
I think the league is probably thinking down the road to that — and doesn’t want to go to 3 conferences now and eventually back to two.
Umm…wildly unfair?
Let’s say Beckham stays — or, he gets replaced by an almost equally big name. Ya really think the owners in Dallas or Colorado wold complain about the chance to host the Galaxy twice in a year, every other year? You don’t think they’d trade that for the possibility that they might have to play on the road in the MLS Cup final, if they make it that far?
I think you meant rocket science. Or maybe it was brain surgery. I’m all for bringing brain surgery back….rocket science is too cliche now and NASA doesn’t even get funding anymore anyways. Brain surgery is something that’s still relevant.
Don’t like the MLS Cup venue change, the final should be hosted in a predetermined rotation.
In two of the four major North America sports leagues, almost half of the teams makes the playoffs (NHL and NBA). So having 5 teams from each conference get in isn’t that crazy of an idea. Plus, the fact that the fifth and forth seeded teams duke it out in a one game play-in system works for me. I think of it as only 8 teams officially makeing it.
Your assumption is that these teams (and the west in general) will always be stronger. I doubt that will be the case.
in a perfect world, where you could count on 10-15,000 people to buy tickets and travel without knowing which team is going to be in the game, and 10-15,000 locals buying tickets even if their team might not be in it.
MLS Cup isn’t that kind of event…yet. Obviously, the NFL can make it work. No other sport in this country even tries, because they know they’ll sell more tickets with home-field/home court/home ice hosts.
Of course — I was answering in the present context, where the Western Conference is better, almost top-to-bottom. And, it won’t necessarily be the Supporters’ Shield winner. You’re correct to point that out — people focusing below on the relationship with MLS Cup ignore that point. However, so long as one conference is stronger than another, the team from the weaker conference is likely to have a better record than it would have had in the other, so it is slightly more likely to host the final.
when was the last MLS cup that wasn’t well attended? even last year in Toronto (that I was at) was technically a sell out even with the ridiculous kick off time for a Sunday night
I wish people would stop posting this make believe schedule link. With the new playoff structure MLS would be playing the Final a week before Xmas.
I dont think that you train your butt off every day trying to keep your spot on the team or trying to raise your game so you will get a better paycheck. You dont have to travel and have to perform in front of people. You dont have to play 90 minutes in the summer heat or in the cold do you?
Sitting in a plane and then going to the office is way different than what Pro Athletes are asked to do.
So the NFL, NBA and NHL are not “fair” but the same teams buying the EPL title every year is?
Where in the article did you read that the SS winner gets to host the final? It says no such thing. It says the finalist with the most points gets to host.
+1
I could be wrong, but the Toronto MLS Cup and the one in LA when the Crew played NY looked poorly attended on TV. They were both sell outs, but if people don’t go to the game it looks pretty bad.
Your body doesn’t break down in the same way a pro athelte’s does b/c of the nature of your work.
Healthy players is long term better for the fans anyways.
I think it largely makes sense. Having 19 teams means a balanced schedule would require 36 games (plus CCL and Open Cup) which MLS teams don’t really have the depth for. Not to mention the odd number of teams means someone would have to have a bye every week.
I think it makes more sense if it’s really a 2 year schedule, split in half. Like how it says the East/West teams will only play each other once each, and the teams on the road for the cross-conference games in 2012 will then be the home teams for 2013, that should apply to everything. So for the teams that play each other 3 times within their conference, one team is going to have 2 road games and 1 home game in that series, so then in 2013, in that same matchup, the other team should be the one with 2 road games and 1 home game.
Not sure how that would work in the East though, since it’s x3 for some teams and x2 for others; would they shuffle it, like DC plays KC twice in 2012 but then plays KC 3x in 2013 while playing Columbus twice instead, of would they’d keep it the same? I’m not sure which way would be better.
That’s where you’re wrong. Of course that will be the case.
Agreed. Garber’s done a very good job for MLS. Its not perfect but it can’t be easy to run a freaking professional sports league.
lol at the people who act like MLS officials are know-nothing incompetents.
Ok but the team with the highest point total in the MLS Cup isnt necessarily the better team that deserves to host the final, right?! With an unbalanced conference schedule you have no ability to compare the schedules and point totals across the two conferences… Doesn’t make any sense. (someone probably wrote this same thing but I dont feel like reading hundreds of comments to check…)
This happens in every major sports league in North America (NBA, NFL, MLB, NHL). The best team usually still ends up with the best record despite not playing every team evenly.
That’s crap.
Then again, this was probably the most expendable rivalry to MLS since Dallas doesn’t have the attendance figures.
“Rocket surgery” is a pretty well established joke, which I guess you didn’t get.
Where in WIcked1′s comment did you read him stating that the SS winner gets to host the final. He wrote exactly what you wrote, except he put “finalist” in quotes.
I wouldn’t mind the changes so much if my favorite rivalry (Houston – Dallas) weren’t getting screwed by it. I hope they hurry up with that 20th team.
It’s not about the athletes and travel, though that might be a factor keeping some big stars from coming over. Still, I don’t think your job requires you to chase professional athletes around a field for 90 minutes.
Travel was more of an issue, I think, for some owners, who were ringing up some big bills.
I should amend some of my earlier comments. I do expect the league to go to 36 games when it goes to 20 teams, as there would be no reason to have the two teams you only play twice — that’s being done because the West has fewer teams now. 36 games is an awful lot though. I can’t see how the league could go much beyond that. and a fully balanced schedule would mean 38 games when the league goes to 20 teams.
It will extend the schedule a bit, but the’ll probably start a week earlier, Right now, the playoffs would only be one game longer.
i like it. more montreal vs toronto and portland vs seattle vs vancouver.
Well what I described above would be completely balanced both within and outside of conferences in the case of all West & Central teams, and would still also be completely balanced within the East conf, as well (which is where you most want it to be balanced if you’re going to have confs and use them to determine playoff spots, etc). Not even any home field advantage issues. You could even schedule the big rivalries in 2 pairs of meetings. That ought to really push that whole thing, like the league says it wants to, and this system would also reduce travel time/costs, like the league also says it wants to.
Even if further growth means (at least at times) some further sacrificing of the non-conference balance, well that’s not a huge price to pay and is part of deciding against a single table / balanced schedule approach in the first place. Those non-conf games would remain a relatively minor part of any given team’s schedule, anyway.
Bottom line, it’s not perfect but it’s evolving in the right way. There are sure to be more tweaks coming over the next 5 years, but this is another mostly positive step.
And as someone who now lives about 700 miles from his hometeam, the ability to see more games regionally is a plus.
I honestly wouldn’t be surprised if we eventually saw the NFL follow suit. As MLS gets more popular and more exposure, I think eventually people will want to ditch the whole AFC-NFC division and just go by geography; imagine having meaningful 49er/raider match-ups every year! Once AFC-NFC is eliminated, it gets rid of the need for a neutral Superbowl site, and like MLS fans, NFL fans will also call for the higher seeded team to host the Superbowl. It just makes the game so much more epic.
I guarantee you other American sport execs will be watching closely to how this new format pans out for MLS; props to Garber for leading the way.
+2
If I understand now TEN teams make the playoffs? More than 50% of the teams? How is that a good idea?
I still favor a home and away schedule and cut the playoffs down to 4 teams. That keeps more games for all teams but doesn’t reward mediocrity who suddenly ‘get hot’ (SLC, Dallas, Red Bulls, Rapids come to mind)
This is an improvement, I suppose.
I like the fact that a mediocre team can no longer waltz into the playoffs and win the championship with like 3-4 good games. Having to prove it over 6 games makes it slightly more difficult for the 4th and 5th place teams to win it all.
When the league goes to 20 teams, I think I’d like to see it divide into four divisions, with a “balanced” schedule in the division. There would five teams, each playing the other four teams 4 times. Then, they’d play the teams in the other division in their conference 2 times, and play the other conference teams once each year (alternating sites each year). That would shut up all the people complaining that one team would have some advantage based on the extra home game against some other rival, and demanding “balance”. It would REALLY build up division rivalries.
The league could fall back to 8 teams in the playoffs — 1st and 2nd place teams in each division, but I suppose they could also have a wild-card playoff between the second and third place teams in each division.
The divisions?
Northeast: New England, Toronto, Montreal, New York Red Bull, New York (Cosmos?) — unless it goes to another city, in which case Columbus drops in.
Central: DC (or Baltimore) United, Philly, Chicago, KC and Columbus, or whatever expansion team (Atl/Orl/Mia)
Alternatively (I like this better):
East – Northern: New England, Montreal, Toronto, Chicago and Columbus
East – Southern: NYRB, DC, Philly, KC and NY/Atl/Orl/Mia.
Western Conf
Northern: Vancouver, Portland, Seattle, San Jose, Salt Lake
Southern: LAG, Chivas USA, Colorado, Dallas, Houston
Also, having the divisions set up as Northern and Southern would allow schedulemakers to take climate in account, loading up the Northern home games during the summer as much as possible and having those teams travel more early and late in the season.
This is the sort of thing I was describing above. I’m glad you like the idea.
Tony,
I was look for your comments because they’re usually more well-thought out than the ‘this sucks’ comments.
I too am more bothered by an increase in the number of teams in the playoffs! The unbalanced schedule bothers me somewhat, but the fact that 10 teams make the playoffs in 2012 means that more than 50% of the teams are in! Ridiculous!
My frustration with this is that in Soccer, unlike other American sports is that there are many more ties. With that known going in, it is tough to explain to potential fans how a Rapids, a NYRB, a SCL a couple of years ago are the best team in the league!
6 teams MAX, and preferably it would be 4.
I like the idea, but it hampers the RSL/Colorado and LAG/SJ rivalries. Then again, to make it even one of those rivalries will have to go.
More than half the teams make the playoffs in NHL and NBA as well. MLB is adding two playoff teams. MLS will go from 10 of 18 last year to 10 of 19 this year and in the future, and eventually 10 of 20, so half. Why is this something to get upset over? It made the final two weeks of the MLS regular season quite exciting this time (especially the Portland vs DC game).
destroyed
Thank you!
It was ten teams this year too. I liked 8 better also, but at least next year there will be one more team. If they keep it at ten as MLS adds a 20th team, then I’ll be okay with it.
Oh, I hadn’t spotted the splitting of Colorado and RSL. Not good, especially if the league is intent on encouraging such rivalries.
Is there really a rivalry between LA & SJ? Haven’t seen much to really support that idea of late. But I agree that here again, the divisions would have to be drawn with some care in those ways…
Personally I don’t really need the sort of double tiering that comes with conferences as well as divisions (about the only difference from what I described above, dividing into 3). I mean I’m happy to have it if it leads to a logical balance in schedule, but simply having 4 divisions could work fine. With 4 of 5 teams, and a system of playing 4 games against each division rival plus 1 against everyone else, that’s 16 division plus 15 non-division = 31 total games. So I’d think you’re just done there, with sufficient total games and everybody playing everybody else in the same way (even if not balanced in the “universal” sense). Fischy’s system appears to involve 36 total games (16 division + 10 conference + 10 non-conference), at a time when people are saying 34 may have been too many.
Then you just take the top 2 finishers of each division, who play each other for their respective division championships. After that, the Supporters Shield winner plays the weakest division winner and the other 2 play each other in 2-game series. The highest record remaining hosts the final.
I think 36 is the max possible. It’s tough, though. On the other hand, the owners won’t want to cut the schedule down too much. Revenue thing. They’re at 34 now. 2 more is doable, in the future — especially if the league adds a team in New York City. As revenues go up, the league could maybe afford a 32-man roster, which would help, and the USSF could put out more refs.
As for the divisions, if you love the Colorado-RSL rivalry, and playing 2x a year isn’t enough for you, you could swap Colorado and San Jose. Even though SJE are closer to the Northwest teams, I could see this might make more sense. So:
Vancouver, Portland, Seattle, Real Salt Lake and Colorado would be one division. San Jose, LAG, Chivas, FC Dallas and Houston in the other.
You’re making the playoffs too complicated, just to be cute. Keep the conference structure, with two divisions in each conference. Get a conference champion. East and West meet in MLS Cup.
Um, well, I think you’re the one doing that, actually. I’m presenting a simpler structure as compared to yours, without that additional conference distinction and different weighting of schedules that comes with it.
An additional advantage is that avoiding that additional conference you have only helps increase the odds that the 2 best teams will meet in the final. For example, your structure would have LA v Houston, like the system this year, while mine would have presented LA v RSL in the final today, as they could not have been the best 2 still standing and nevertheless met before the final.
Anyway, the point is that it really ain’t rocket surgery: we’ve already presented different systems here that would keep the divisions/conferences, increase regional rivalries, reduce travel time & cost, and furthermore be more logical and balanced in general than what the league is presenting. The league just needs to think better.
Ultimately — 4 divisions with 6 teams:
New England, Montreal, Toronto, Chicago, KC, Columbus/Minneapolis
New York, New York, Philly, DC, Atl, Orl/Mia
Vancouver, Portland, Seattle, Real Salt Lake, Colorado, San Jose
LAG, Chivas, San Diego, Houston, FC Dallas, Phoenix/Las Vegas
You could do home-and-home in the conference, and one game apiece outside, for 34 games, or 18 outside your division (1x against all teams), and 20 in the division (4x) for 38 games — all depending on where the league is at and how many games they could support.
I think the league will surprise you. They aren’t ready to go to 36 games yet, and they don’t want a schedule where some teams might not play against each other every year. When they go to 20 teams, you’ll probably see something along the lines I’ve outlined. If they don’t go to divisions. they could still stick with what they’ve got, and just move up to 36 games, going from 2x series with two team to 3x series with all teams in the conference. That has its own kind of balance…and maybe avoids playing too may home games against the same teams (that way you’d have 3 home games against each of the teams in your conference over 2 years, instead of 4). We’d get used to that, too.
Some fans, including myself, are getting upset because for years, 8 out of 10, 12, 10 (again), 12 (again), 13, 14, 15 etc… teams were making the play-offs. Finally with the most recent expansion, there was going to be less than 50% of teams to make the playoffs. Then the Don made the playoff changes to admit more teams in the post season.
I would love to see 8 teams total (4 from the East and 4 from the West). My theory is 8 out of 19 would make the regular season more meaningful.
That can also be done with 3 conferences 8 teams each
West, central, east
Home and away within your own conference then play another conference home and the other one away or half home half away within those 2 other conferences.
ALL STAR GAME! Slightly off topic but I’d like to see a change to the all star game. My proposal: Ditch the all-star game in favor of a week of mini-tournaments with two MLS teams and 2 foreign teams in a bunch of little one-off groups. Might look something like this…
2 MLS teams in a weekend game that counts in MLS standings and World Challenge standings (or whatever it’s called) followed at the same site by the two foreign teams playing. Then a couple games mid week and the following weekend with the MLS teams hosting the foreign teams. After all four teams have played each other the top of the table wins.
The league needs to do something to address all of the teams coming to MLS for friendlies during the summer…why not incorporate it better?
If the schedule is divided into conferences — and I’m assuming it would be for lots of reasons, most of them economic — then, the playoffs should be, as well.
I always felt like the San Jose/LAG died after they went to Houston, so I’d be fine with them being in a different division. Also I’m an RSL fan so I have that bias as well
Portland, Salt Lake, and Seattle used to have rivalries in basketball in the 90′s. I’d love to see them renewed in soccer.
in the first sentence when he said “I like that the Supporters Shield winner gets to host the Final.”
I’ll have to think some more about the other details, but I’m happy without reservation that the Cup will be at the home of the team with the most points.
I like that the Supporters Shield winner gets to host the Final, its only fair, being the best all year, should mean more than it does in MLS.-Wicked1
There?
If your gonna be snarky, at least get your facts straight. Like me.
There is no chance at all that the NFL is going to get rid of it’s conferences or neutral site Super Bowls any time soon. Like as in decades. The Super Bowl is at a neutral site because it’s about a lot more than just the game. It’s a showcase for the advertisers and the sponsors. Those people want (indeed need) to know ahead of time where the game is going to be played. You can’t have 50,000 people all looking to make last minute travel plans to get to a place like Green Bay, Wisconsin.
A home site game for the MLS will work because the vast majority of the fans at the game will be the home team fans. At the Super Bowl the two participating teams get something like 17.5% of the tickets each. That means that 82.5% of the 70,000-ish fans at the game are coming in from somewhere else. It’s not realistic to expect that to happen in less than two weeks.
This info is just what i was looking for. It would be excellent to see more of your writing on this topic…I earned good knowledge from reading this one.. Its helpful to us..
Last night’s game was precisely why the MLS Cup should not automatically be staged at the higher ranked finalist. You’ll see one-sided games with the visitors holding on for a break away or penalties. It’s also unfair on the visiting supporters who, with the new play-off structure, will inevitably traveling to a city in the other conference.
It’ll probably be moved to the all-star weekend.
But the better team on the year EARNED that right to have those advantages.
I’m with you. My ideal would actually be six — 2 v 3 for each conference’s semi-final, then the winner of that against the 1-seed…both home-and-home.
That’ll never happen, though. I could live with 8. And I like the idea of doing a group stage — one game against each team; higher seed gets home-field advantage. Top two teams from each group play in the conference final (home-and-home), then the one-off final.
With more then half the teams in the league making the playoffs the regular season continues to be a lot more meaningless then every other league in the world. There should be 8 teams max in the playoffs and even that is generous. The more importance that every MLS match has on it, the more the fans will come out. It’s like we have 34 exhibition matches and then the season comes down to a few crucial games. Silly.