3 conferences would stink . . .

I think they should do two “divisions,” instead — put the teams with the worst records from 2010 in “Division 2,” put the new teams and the others in “Division 1″ and start relegation! Only Division 1 teams can make the play offs, plus the top team in Division 2.

I would hate the 3-Conference system. But here’s one way to get o to 30 games.

Play 3 teams from each of the other 2 conferences twice and 3 teams once.

Play 3 teams from your conference twice and play 2 teams three times.

Example with Dallas in central:

Play KC, COL, RSL twice. Play CHI and HOU 3 times. (12 games)

Play 3 teams from West one time and 3 teams twice. (9 games)

Same for East. (9 games)

Total = 30 games.

Wow… hutchtx has got it right! That is the best take I’ve ever heard on having relegation/promotion but still letting MLS have “their” playoffs silliness… it really is the best WIN-WIN answer I’ve come across and I’ve been following FCD since… well since they were the Dallas Burn and had huge crowds in the Cotton Bowl with a gigantic walk-up crowd factor… it was awesome. It was loud. It was football passion. Those were some good times in the general admin side. Oh well…

hutch,
When I first started following the sport and posting on BS, I concocted and posted a similar “pseudo relegation” scheme. I’m still fond off the idea, but it would require the owners to be as enamored of relegation fights as many fans are. The only way it would ever happen is as a half-measure to be used if the fans ever started demanding promotion-relegation in an attendance-affecting way.

Buzz,
Do you think a change to the division structure or # of playoff teams would give us a hint at the league’s mid-to-long-term plans for the number of teams?

Rich,
I think Buzz’s 32 is the more likely scenario for a three-division league. It allows balanced schedules within a division, cuts travel costs, and gives each team with a good-drawing rivalry two home games in that rivalry. If they do three divisions and keep the playoffs at 8 teams, I think you’d see top two in each, plus two wildcards.

Hell, I actually kind of like the idea, if straight-up H and A isn’t on the table.

Cowtown,

Right. As I said, my suggestion is “one way” to get to 30 games. There are many ways to structure the schedule. I was only presenting one of them.

Also, the league may not want to go to 32 games now that 8 MLS teams participate in secondary competitions (4 in CCL and 4 in SuperLiga). Add the LHUSOC and the Gold Cup to the mix. That’s a lot of games for these players in an already busy soccer calendar.

Single table is the only way to go, and it may just grab the attention of those Eurosnobs that MLS is trying to attract. Is Garber smart enough to see that this is what everyone wants?

I don’t think Buzz was putting forth 4-in-conference, 1-out-of-conference as a good solution. Playing other teams 4 times a season would be rediculous. I really hope they take the single table, 34 games approach.

If they have to do 3 conferences approach, I’d hope we get:
2 games against conference teams (10 games)
1 against non-conference (12 games)
remaining 8 games filled by 2nd games against non-conference opponents, based on strength-of-schedule from the previous season.

Or just call it 3 conferences and still go to a 2 games against everyone 34 game schedule.

It was a joke. I know they’ll never do it.

I do wish they’d just do a single table, though.

Single table is traditional European & teams are closer in relatively small countries.

The US is all about rivalries and playing rare games against non divisional opponents so they seem special.

Plus as mentioned MLS needs to keep travel costs down.

Three divisions is the American way (like it or not). They might go with 10 or even 12 playoff teams to keep more races going, heck they had 8 a few years ago in a 10 team league. They will probably go to homefield advantage single elimination games, with some teams getting byes. Think NFL.

As for number of games played. Every division opponent 3 times for 15, everyone else once for 27 total. Then play as many ‘extra’ games against non division opponents as you want, to reach the final number of games you want.

I’d definitely go for a single table, and eight teams in the playoffs. Then they could setup a pure power protect bracket: 1v8, 2v7, and so on. East vs West in MLS Cup is meaningless, whereas 1v2 would be the dream matchup. That would allow for the mathematical possibility of rivalries in the final – Dallas and Houston, LA and Chivas USA, and so on.

By the way, none of us will live to see promotion / relegation in US soccer. The continued hope for it is an expression of a detachment from the realities of sports economics in this celebrity-worshiping country. I, for one, couldn’t be more “over the moon” about that.

It is time for this league to do what is necessary to compete in the region. It is time to emulate Mexico and most South American countries. 2 seasons a year, the Spring and Fall. Spring starts in February and runs thru late May. Fall starts in early August and goes to early November. Then the playoffs could be at the end of those, pitting winners from each Season against each other for a “Super Cup”. That way summer months are left for World Cup, Gold Cup, and money making exhibitions with Euro powers. I have brought this up to Hitch. It iw the way to the future. With SSC’s, this can easily be done.

Steve,

I never meant to imply that Buzz liked his idea. I, however, like it a lot more than most people do and think it works as a regionalized format that:

1. creates a balanced schedule within a division
2. means that 6/8 playoff spots are solely determined amongst teams playing identical schedules
3. minimizes travel costs
4. increases opportunities for travelling support)

I don’t think it’s really workable long term, because of course, it only really works for 18 teams, though a similar setup (7&7 in division, 16 out of division) works for 24. I would expect to see it only if MLS plans to settle in at 24 teams for the long haul.

I actually like Hutch’s idea. Kind of the way SPL did the second half of the season, but with modifications – a lower and an upper tier, but all within MLS. I don’t think you could start it this year without warning, but it definitely has merits.

A “super cup” between two short season winners in the same year would be a first. Mexico plays seventeen-game short seasons (one per each opponent), then takes the top two finishers in each of their six-team “groups” (they change every season) plus the two best third-place teams into the playoffs, and the playoff winner is the champion for that short season, the end – there is no “apertura-clausura super cup” winner.

I don’t see U.S. fans going for any kind of tiered system.

A split season strikes me as weird, but, I’m trying to keep an open mind.

But the way it was presented seems to need work. Soccer in Toronto in February…
And the fall season would entirely overlap the NFL.

i can’t understand for the life of me why people get so worked up over single table. who gives a damn if they have divisions or not? the game is still the same. divisions make more sense in a country as big as USA-Canada which is 100x bigger than little European states…

Why is it that you think a single table will help? I know that’s the way it’s done in the rest of the world but that isn’t necessarily a reason to think it’s best for MLS. In Europe and most other places it works well because the teams in the top half are competing for either the championship. qualification for European compeition like the Europa League or Champions League, or going for a promotion play-off spot, whereas the teams at the bottom are fighting against relegation. This means that almost all teams have something to play for right up until the end of the season. In MLS there would be no relegation so the teams in the bottom half would have nothing to play for, and it would seems almost pointless to have the top 8 teams competing for ‘play-off’ spots. I mean what would be the point of a post-season if there’s one simple table that clearly shows who’s best? To try and claim that a team is ‘MLS Champion’ because the one an 8 team tournament after finishing 6th in the league stretches credibility beyond breaking point.

As a newcomer to these shores it’s pretty obvious that regional conferences and play-offs are part of sporting culture and would make most sense to the majority of US sports fans, and surely the success of MLS is dependant on attracting this majority. Existing US soccer fans (the minority) are always going to love the game and watch the game whether it’s one division, two conferences or three. And having play-offs where the top two teams in each of the 3 conferences plus 2 other best qualifiers compete makes more sense and creates a ‘best against best’ feel that you wouldn’t get out of a one division set-up.

I’d go with Steve’s suggeson of 3 conferences, 2 games against conference teams, 1 against non-conference, remaining 8 games filled by 2nd games against non-conference opponents, based on strength-of-schedule from the previous season.

Single table is for purists. I happen to be a purist. It doesn’t make as much sense economically, but it would help the reputation of MLS to have a stable calendar/schedule.

I also like a pseudo-relegation scheme, but it mustn’t be implemented until the max number of league teams is established.

“Too obvious” is not the reason by a 34-game schedule would be unlikely.

It’s because 34 matches is too many, given the time of year we play, other competitions and the finite number of decent playing dates from the end of March to mid-October.

THAT’S why. Not because everybody else is smarter than the people who are actually in charge.