20-team League Format

Discussion in 'MLS: Commissioner - You be The Don' started by Jntg4, Aug 19, 2012.

  1. dinamo_zagreb

    dinamo_zagreb Member+

    Jun 27, 2010
    San Jose, CA / Zagreb, Croatia
    Club:
    --other--
    Nat'l Team:
    Croatia

    [​IMG]

    Exactly, these sports are uncomparable with soccer so are their schedules.
     
  2. CoconutMonkey

    CoconutMonkey Member

    Aug 3, 2010
    Japan
    Club:
    Chicago
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    Tha
    Hell, I'm a fan of cutting the number of fixtures back to 32 for a few years.

    It fits nice with a 20 or a 22 team league, and it could free up a weekend for... something. Maybe dedicate a weekend to the third round of the USOC, or just to cut down on weekday matches.
     
  3. hasselbrad

    hasselbrad Member

    Jul 25, 2006
    Sugar Hill, GA
    Club:
    Atlanta
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    [sarcasm] Hundreds of thousands, if not millions of fans! And tens of millions of new, excited fans if you institute promotion and relegation. I mean seriously... have you even been paying attention? [/sarcasm]
     
    JasonMa repped this.
  4. JasonMa

    JasonMa Member+

    Mar 20, 2000
    Arvada, CO
    Club:
    Colorado Rapids
    Nat'l Team:
    United States

     
  5. canammj

    canammj Member+

    Aug 25, 2004
    CHINO, CA
    Club:
    Los Angeles Galaxy
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    I would prefer Single Table and the top 8 playoffs, highest seed right to the final.
    So if you were the Supporters Shield winner, your reward is all 3 games at home including final.
    THAT would be a good reward. Playoffs of a QF-SF-F means only 3 weeks, a little shorter than now and all games on Saturday/Sunday, no weeknights.
    =
    While that is what I would love, I know the league won't do that. SO instead, my second choice is 2 conferences of 10 East/West . 18 games (9h/9a) within and 5 h/5 a against the other conf.
    I know this is only 28 games, but with out schedule congestion (WCQ, CCL,USOC, MLS Playoffs, Summer friendlies, Gold Cups) I don't think this should be a problem and may in fact improve the league play.
    -As we add 2 more teams to 22 , you league schedules goes to 31
    and when we reach he 'magic" 24 (as per Don) the schedule goes back to 34.
    =
    The bottom line problem in my opinion is the league doesn't really know what it wants to be or it wants to be everything. Our squads are not big enough to do all of the league, cups , friendlies and playoffs, This is why tradition really does work some times, like the German League. A few less league games, no playoffs, no mid season friendlies, just the league and the cup.
    And then your truly best teams to the Champions Leagues. Oh well.
     
  6. nlsanand

    nlsanand Member+

    May 31, 2007
    Toronto
    Club:
    Toronto FC
    Nat'l Team:
    Canada
    Assuming 38 games is a non-starter. Let's try the 32 game schedule with 4 divisions in two conferences (intra-division 3 times, intra-conference twice, others once)

    Even though I generally hate arbitrary divisions, but this makes the most sense for a 20 team league in my view and ensures balanced schedules which won't happen with a bare east and west.

    For playoffs with ten teams, do something like the NBA, where division winners get in automatically and can't be ranked worse than third.

    As usual, I'll insert my usual comment that the semi finals should be crossed so that it's possible that the best teams can be able to play each other in the final as it is a more competitive format (obviously league won't do it, but gotta throw it out there).

    Also, I'll re-iterate my preference for some type of wildcard (again league won't do) so we don't get a shitty team like the 2012 Whitecaps making it in ahead of a much better team in the East (or vice versa).

    Not sure how to split divisions but I'm assuming Houston goes to Western Conference. Atlantic division are the five NE teams. The other division in East are the remaining. Teams in the west I'm going to guess will be the Cascadia teams together plus RSL and SJE. But this will always be hard to be done efficiently (either need to split up Cascadia or California teams).
     
  7. nlsanand

    nlsanand Member+

    May 31, 2007
    Toronto
    Club:
    Toronto FC
    Nat'l Team:
    Canada

    Second idea is much less desirable as we're not balanced inside a division (I know the Eastern conference isn't balanced right now, but this seems like a step in the wrong direction).
     
  8. Achowat

    Achowat Member+

    Mar 21, 2011
    Revere, MA
    Club:
    New England Revolution
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    Overall, good points.
    But in the NHL, the division champions are ranked 1,2,3. In the NBA, the division champions and the top non-division champion are seeded 1,2,3,4
     
  9. nlsanand

    nlsanand Member+

    May 31, 2007
    Toronto
    Club:
    Toronto FC
    Nat'l Team:
    Canada
    I meant similar to NBA so in our case, there'd be two divisions, so winners can't be ranked worse than three.
     
  10. Achowat

    Achowat Member+

    Mar 21, 2011
    Revere, MA
    Club:
    New England Revolution
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    No love for the Central Division? No wonder MLS will never return to the glory days of 2001
     
  11. nlsanand

    nlsanand Member+

    May 31, 2007
    Toronto
    Club:
    Toronto FC
    Nat'l Team:
    Canada

    Actually, wouldn't mind it at all on a deeper level. I like it because it created the ability for any two teams to meet in the final. Just seems like Garber thinks that's a non-starter. He loves the American idea of two conferences.
     
  12. AlbertCamus

    AlbertCamus Member+

    Colorado Rapids
    Sep 2, 2005
    Colorado, USA
    Club:
    Colorado Rapids
    I'm also ok with three divisions because we end up with one bracket for the playoffs. I think finals with two teams from the same region are great.
     
  13. EvanJ

    EvanJ Member+

    Manchester United
    United States
    Mar 30, 2004
    Club:
    Manchester United FC
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    A reason not to have three divisions is that with 20 clubs there can be two conference of 10 but there can't be three divisions with equal number of clubs. The only time I would suggest three divisions is if the number of clubs was a multiple of 3 that wasn't a multiple of 2 such as 21.
     
  14. The Green Mushroom

    Oct 19, 2011
    I'd agree that having thee divisions with 20 teams isn't the best of ideas. But only having three divisions with odd numbers divisible by two implies that splitting the league in half is preferable. Why? There is no real need for two conferences/divisions unless scheduling really needs to be imbalanced. I am not saying we need a balanced schedule, especially in a league with playoffs, but does the league really need split playoff brackets for any absolute reason?
     
  15. EvanJ

    EvanJ Member+

    Manchester United
    United States
    Mar 30, 2004
    Club:
    Manchester United FC
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    I wasn't trying to compare two conferences or two playoff brackets to single table. I was just trying to say that it doesn't make sense to divide the clubs into unequal groups if you could divide them into equal groups.
     
  16. The Green Mushroom

    Oct 19, 2011
    I apologize if I misinterpreted what I wrote, I just found it odd that you would be okay with splitting 21 teams into three 7 team divisions but think it better if 24 was split 12 and 12.
     
  17. EvanJ

    EvanJ Member+

    Manchester United
    United States
    Mar 30, 2004
    Club:
    Manchester United FC
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    I don't think 21 clubs works well for scheduling regardless of whether there are two or three conferences/divisions, and I hope MLS never has exactly 21 clubs. One format with 21 clubs would be a very unbalanced schedule of three divisions with 3 games against every other club in your division and 1 game against everybody else for a total of 32. With 24 clubs it would be simple to have two conferences with 2 games against every other club in your conference and 1 game against every club in the other conference for a total of 34.
     
  18. nlsanand

    nlsanand Member+

    May 31, 2007
    Toronto
    Club:
    Toronto FC
    Nat'l Team:
    Canada

    I agree with the single bracket playoffs though MLS doesn't seem to. Either way, doesn't really work that well with 20 teams, so I'd suggest this is not the best means to push a point.
     
  19. nlsanand

    nlsanand Member+

    May 31, 2007
    Toronto
    Club:
    Toronto FC
    Nat'l Team:
    Canada

    Couldn't agree more. The thing here is that the numbers basically provide a roadmap for how the schedule should be. Usually, it should be driven by an attempt to balance the schedule within divisions (which isn't happening currently).
     
  20. owian

    owian Member+

    Liverpool FC, San Diego Loyal
    May 17, 2002
    San Diego
    Club:
    Liverpool FC
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    like the 2 conferences 4 divisions

    Divisions would be (intentionally left names off call them what you will)
    Vacouver, Seattle, Portland, SLC, Colorado
    San Jose, LA G, LA CH, Houston, Dallas
    all one conference then...

    KC, Chicago, Columbus, Toronto, Montreal
    NE, NYRB, NYCFC, Philly, DC

    You keep most of the already existing rivalries together, and have a basic geographic hegemony. Only weird one is KC being in the same division with Montreal but someone isn't going to be happy no matter what you do.

    Playoffs like the idea of 8 teams making the playoffs (but keeping it at 8 even as the league expands). 4 teams per conference division winners in but other two spots per conference are wildcards determined by record not place in division. Also like a 32 game season.
     
  21. nlsanand

    nlsanand Member+

    May 31, 2007
    Toronto
    Club:
    Toronto FC
    Nat'l Team:
    Canada

    Your divisional alignment also works as a possibility (I am actually liking it a bit more than mine). Not sure why you're reverting to 8 team playoffs.

    If we introduce divisions and a less balanced sched (across the league, no in the division), the playoffs need to be expanded or at least maintained. This is because, the season itself does not provide that much comparison between teams of different divisions, so the playoffs is a better way to guage them.

    Also, generally, I think this league still needs at least 50% of the teams making the playoffs. Unlike the KC Chiefs, no team in this league (excluding two Cascadias) is not hit financially having meaningless games in October, so you need to be able to make sure teams have a chance.

    One small query, would you require the division winner to be seeded 1,2. Or could two teams in same division be seeded 1,2 (a la NBA)?
     
  22. Achowat

    Achowat Member+

    Mar 21, 2011
    Revere, MA
    Club:
    New England Revolution
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    I like this idea, I like the divisions (though I'd probably like the divisions less if I were in Denver or Missouri.

    I'd really like to hear the regular season and playoff formats
     
  23. owian

    owian Member+

    Liverpool FC, San Diego Loyal
    May 17, 2002
    San Diego
    Club:
    Liverpool FC
    Nat'l Team:
    United States

    For regular season would favor 32 games. As others have said 3 games against each division opponent, (12 games) 2 against the other division (10) and 1 against the other conference (10). 32 games total.

    As for playoffs I favor all playoffs within your conference develop conference rivalries and conference identities. Rather then seeding 1-8 through the league. But within the conference seed
    1-4 regardless of division winners. But both division winners are guaranteed a playoff spot just not the top 2 seeds. Other two spots are wildcards regardless of division. This will improve the chances that your best teams meet later in the playoffs and also helps to offset any issues with a loaded conference vs. a weak one.

    I like keeping the playoffs less then 50% of the teams. I think you run a real risk of devaluing the regular season if you expand the playoffs to much. I understand the concern about the meaningless games at the end of the season and it is an issue. But everything is a compromise and I fall on the side of protecting the regular season even though it creates more meaningless games. I have an idea of how to increase the meaningful games for the bad teams but really really REALLY don't want to get into that here!

    Those are my thoughts I am sure there are things I haven't thought about.
     
  24. Khkevin

    Khkevin Member

    Sep 16, 2012
    Club:
    New England Revolution
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    Why can't MLS have teams play 40 games per a season? Slightly more games would be good...
     
  25. Achowat

    Achowat Member+

    Mar 21, 2011
    Revere, MA
    Club:
    New England Revolution
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    40 games, then the playoffs? The problem is time and weather. How are you going to fit that in without playing in 3 feet of snow in, I dunno: Montreal, Toronto, New England, New York, New Jersey, Philadelphia, Columbus, Salt Lake, Colorado, Portland, Seattle, and Vancouver?
     
    JasonMa repped this.

Share This Page