13 teams in 2007: okay, realign the conferences

i can see mls going back to a 3 conference set-up circa 2000-2001.

east
dc united
metrostars
revs
toronto

central
columbus
chicago
kansas city
dallas
houston

west
colorado
salt lake
chivas
galaxy

haven't thought about how they would balance the schedule, as it was a spur of the moment thought.

otherwise, 2 conferences is working fine.

Re: 13 teams in 2007: okay, re-aline the conferences

I like that, though I would move Columbus to the east and then have the top 3 from each conference qualify for playoffs and then the wild card a'la MLB.

Re: 13 teams in 2007: okay, re-aline the conferences

The three divison set-up would be easier to make an as closed-to-symetrical schedule as possible, as the Central teams could play each other four times and everyone else twice for a total of 32 matches (4 x 5 =20 + 2 x 8 =16). Teams in the other two divisions have two extra matches to schedule, which then throws strength of schedule aspects into the mix, about which we would see a few whiny posts come this time next year. Going with two divisions, one six team and one seven team, would have schedules that were a lot more lopsided.

Re: 13 teams in 2007: okay, re-aline the conferences

I really like the idea of only four team qualifying for the playoffs. It would make games more meaningful and most teams would be in the chase for the playoffs with the wildcard. The three divisions gives more games against rivals which could boost attendance.

Re: 13 teams in 2007: okay, re-aline the conferences

The league has already indicated it would be maintaining the 2 conferences setup.

And I also hope that Kansas City return to the West when Toronto enters, so it can compete in the same division with Dallas, Colorado, and Houston. I'm sick and tired of these KC vs New England matchups...

Re: 13 teams in 2007: okay, re-aline the conferences

I hate the idea of three conferences/divisions. I hate it in baseball, etc.

I'm not a single table guy. But, you can't have three. When you have three, you have a "division" champion that gets screwed. What is the point of having a "division champ" if you are going to screw them. You either have 2 or 4. You don't have three.

And, it's align, not aline.

Re: 13 teams in 2007: okay, re-aline the conferences

This would make sense if they anticipate cleveland or philly in '06.

A 32 team schedule can be done. I was proven wrong on this. (last two games, a four team group and a three team group; teams play two games against teams with the groups). However, there will be a lot more screwy scheduling involved because all teams can't be playing in the same weekend.

I hope they have the sense to start the season a few weeks earlier to account for this.

Re: 13 teams in 2007: okay, re-aline the conferences

realign

Re: 13 teams in 2007: okay, re-aline the conferences

you know, that is what i was originally going to spell it as before i second guessed myself...

i think columbus makes sense in the east.

listen, i don't think there will be a second 2007 expansion team. it might not be pretty having 3 conferences. but as eric b pointed out, re-alining the conferences to east-central-west would make for a more balanced schedule.

Re: 13 teams in 2007: okay, re-aline the conferences

I disagree.

If anything, the division champs are rewarded more than they otherwise deserve if teams are seeded for the playoffs in the standard manner:

i.e. the division champs are seeded 1 thru 3, the remaining 5 playoff spots are filled based on regular season record.

#1 plays #8; #2 plays #7; etc, etc


How in the world does that screw a division champ who finished with, say, the 5th overall best record, but is seeded #3 because they won their division?

Re: 13 teams in 2007: okay, re-aline the conferences

I think realigning to three conferences for 2007 is a terrible idea. If for no other reason than that it would only last for a year. Once a 14th team in 2008 joins, we'd have to realign the whole damn thing again!

Take a look at the theoretical realignment mentioned in the first post. What if Cleveland joins in 2008? Where are you going to put them? In a different division than the Crew? Ridiculous.

I think this affected by a bunch of issues like--does an existing MLS team move? Is there any chance that one of the rumored expansion teams for 2008 decides to accelerate things by a year (for instance, if Seattle's experience with the Real Madrid-DCU match and MLS TV ratings attracts some interest to act NOW rather than in a year).

I recommended this as well a while back, with a schedule.

See: http://www.bigsoccer.com/forum/showpost.php?p=8092509&postcount=8

There's no point to this.

Why, exactly? I haven't seen anybody actually produce an elegant 2-conference schedule. Plus, I have seen Garber say there'd be conferences. I haven't, however, seen him say there'd be 2 of them.

I don't agree. I think they should stick to two conferences. There's no reason to go back to three divisions. Have six teams in one conference and seven teams in the other conference. That way when you get to 16 teams you won't have to realign again --- you just add two teams to one conference and one team to the other conference.

Yeah, but . . design a schedule for that. Especially with the proviso that it be a 32 game schedule. I haven't seen one that wasn't so awkward that it became the ultimate argument for 3 conferences.

It's been said multiple times in this thread now - "A 3 conference alignment makes for a more balanced schedule." But unless the total number of teams is a multiple of 3, I don't see it. It would be no more balanced than keeping 2 conferences, and as someone pointed out, it would likely last for only 1 year.

Unless Garber said at some point that the schedule would remain at 32 games, I think sticking with the current format, but with with a 7/6 alignment, makes the most sense. You'd continue to have each team play intra-conference rivals 4 times apiece, and inter-conference rivals twice. In the 7 team conference this would result in 6x4 + 6x2 = 36 games, and in the 6 team conference it would result in 5x4 + 7.2 = 34 games. That's only a difference of two games.

The only issue you'd have to deal with is figuring out how to award the Supporter's Shield, but you'd probably just have a multiplicative factor or something for winner of the 6 team conference. It's a bit arbitrary, but just as arbitrary as having each team play the same number of games and having the frequencey of matchups different for each club.

As I said, the only reason I don't see this way happening is if Garber and the league didn't want to increase the number of games teams are playing (albeit, it would only be 2-4). No matter how you look at it, a 13 team league will result in some arbitrary decisions being made for next year's schedule - might as well go with one that will allow the easiest transition from '06 to '07 to '08.

Re: 13 teams in 2007: okay, re-aline the conferences

I haven't noticed Philly or Cleveland in the league this year.????

It's very simple. We're going to get to 14 and then 16 teams in the next 4 or so years. Neither of those would work with 3 divisions, because you would have an uneven number of teams in each one. In addition, you would have to move teams around every year. It's much better to leave it the way it is.

As for the schedule, it's easy. You do exactly the same thing as now, but with a minor change. Right now, you play conference opponents 4 times and non-conference 2 times. Next year, that would be 36 and 34 games for unbalanced conferences. So for the East, you only play 2 of your 6 conference rivals 4 times, and the others 3 times, getting you down to 32. For the West, only 3 of 5.

You're thinking way too much. No league will ever have teams playing different amounts of games. And those two things are on a completely different level of arbitrary-ness.

Well, the easiest way would be to play every team 3 times for the one year with a 13 team league .... that would give you thirty-six games. You could stick to a 36 game schedule when the league expanded to 16 teams. You play each conference opponent four times --- that's 28 games in conference and each non-conference opponent once. That's 36 games. 36 games would also give you two additional home dates where you could extra 30-40,000 tickets per team. If you go to 36 games, you'll have to make tem meaningful by reducing the number of playoff teams.

If you insist on keeping it a 32 game schedule then the smaller conference would just play more games against conference foes.

The seven team conference would play each team four times. That would be 24 conference games. Then you'd play 8 out of conference games.

The six team conference would still play 24 games in the conference but would play four teams in the conference a fifth time.

I don't particularly like this format but it would be so odd seeing three divisions.

Realignment is easy.

Toronto joins the East conference and KC moves to Philly and stays in the East. Chicago goes back to the West.
Eventhough we don't have many SSS out here in the East, we make up for it in lower travel expenses.

What happens if Cleveland joins 12 months later? Realign again? And what about the year after that, if 2 more teams join?

Garber said there was going to be an unbalanced schedule next year, didn't he?

a 7 team East division and a 6 team West division=

East plays 4 times against their top two rivals for 8 games,
and 3 times against the other 4 teams in conference for 12 games,
and twice against teams from west for 12 games, for a total of 32.

West plays 4 times against three big rival teams for 12 games,
and 3 times against the other 2 west teams for 6 games,
and twice against teams from the east for 14 games, for a total of 32.



There, simple as that. Everybody gets 32 games. Any questions?
Of course, there's no guarantee that MLS will stick with a 32 game schedule, is there?

Okay, I'll agree with this part to some extent. It hasn't been done before that I know of, but that doesn't make it a reason to avoid trying it - unless MLS is afraid of getting criticized for "not being like everyone else."

Sorry, but's that asinine. Either solution is just as arbitrary. Plus, remember that the Supporters Shield has counted for approximately di*k up until this year, and there's really no getting around having an odd number of teams left out of the playoffs in this situation. And even now, deciding the Supporters Shield winner only matters in terms of figuring out who gets the second Champion's Cup spot. Until MLS does away with the playoffs altogether and goes to a single table, this honor will always be second fiddle the MLS Cup champion. Besides, if a team ends up dominating next year like DC has this year, then it will be a rather moot point anyhow.

I like the idea of playing each team 3x okay, but once again this will result in the arbitrary conclusion of playing certain teams on the road twice, and others on the road once. I could see a team claiming they got hosed if they ended up having to play DC, Dallas, Houston, and NE twice on the road. So, someone would have to decide a power-ranking for teams to make the schedules "fair." And, of course, you can never entirely predict how good a given team will be next year in MLS. So unless you play those 3rd games at a neutral site, this way has some drawbacks as well.