Ideas for MLS League Design [Superthread] III

If this were the case there would be no place in America that didn't have soccer, which probably is a good thing

We should all do teams from our home states (Unless you are from out of the USA)

 

Ooooh, put it somewhere else, too! Put it somewhere else, too!

 

Are you, personally, ponying up the money for a second shield? Or, I guess, another two (since New York and Los Angeles are both engraved into the salver itself and it would be ridiculous to call the old trophy either the "West" or "East" shield.)

 

Nice write up. Probably not too far off the mark as far as expansion goes as well.

Likee: Division winners get a bye.

Conference point leaders get the CCL berth.

I like the idea of shrinking back to 32 matches to ease up congestion, but it can be expanded to 34 pretty easily.

No likee: Intraconference only season combined with an East v West playoff.

 

If the next round of expansion after MLS reaches 24 teams by 2020 were to be limited to 3 teams, MLS could subdivide into three conferences of 9 teams and have a balanced schedule of 34 games. Each team would play conference opponents twice and all the other teams once.

Somehow, I don't see MLS dividing itself into divisions as well as conferences. When MLS reaches 24 teams, the league will probably have two conferences of 12 teams each.

 

I'm sorry but I hate that alignment. Atlanta in the Midwest with Columbus as the next closest team? That would never fly if the schedule was unbalanced and you played more against division opponents. That's why I don't see any need for divisions. The Braves and Falcons played in Western divisions way too long for us to survive that mess again.

 

Pretty.

I think Orlando/Miami/Atlanta should be in the same division. Maybe simply swap Toronto/Montreal with Orlando/Miami. Or maybe build a South division with these 3 teams + the 4 Texas teams.

Also, while I'm ok with this conference-only regular season idea, I don't think it's realistic. Imagine, Ronaldo joins Miami in 2020, and he never gets to play in LA, never gets to play in Seattle in front of a 70k sell out crowd.
2 games vs. division, 1 game vs. everyone else, 33 games in total, that might be more likely.

 

I started thinking big picture the other day, and tried to think of a league structure that 1) allowed for a bunch of new teams 2) kept all the clubs at the same level (i.e. no 2nd division) 3) solved the issue of in some parts of the country it is more pleasant to play in January than July and vice-versa. I took inspiration from NCAA football, the NFL, The State championship of Rio de Janeiro, and Uruguayan playoffs. This is what I came up with:

48 team league. Split into 4 conferences of 12 (East, Mid-West, South, West), Conferences are split into two divisions of 6. All done regionally.

League season starts in Summer with intra-conference play of East and Mid-West Conferences. Play every team in division home and away (10 games) + 2 cross divisional games (on 3 year rotation). Most points in each division plays in Conference Title Game. Three ways to go with the venue for that match (1. same traditional venue every year (FA Cup) 2. rotating prearranged venue (super bowl) 3. team with more points hosts (MLS Cup)), haven't decided, maybe each conference does its own thing.

The Fall brings on inter-conference play. Two conferences are matched-up and everybody plays everybody in the other conference. But table is not combined, you are measured against your own conference in how you both fared against common opposition.

Winter is the same as summer, but with South and West getting their turn while East and Mid-West have their off-season.

Spring is the same as fall, but with a different conference match-up.

Playoffs exist in the space between Spring and Summer. All 4 Conference title winners earn a first round bye. top of the table of each conference from the Spring and Fall seasons, also earn playoff bid. This adds up to 12 spots. However, its possible for a team to qualify multiple times, in which case the team earns multiple bids. Then, on the 36 game combined table of all 4 conferences, the 16 highest placed teams without a bid are given wild card bids. Playoff teams could be as few as 20 and as many as 28. Playoffs are seeded based first by separating season winners from wild card winners. Season winners are ranked on their on the combined table position and the play the lowest ranked of the Wild Card teams at home. Remaining Wild Card teams are matched-up based on table position as well and the higher placed teams host in single leg format. The exception is if a team has multiple spots in the same round, this automatically advances the team into the next round (the team is drawn against itself and eliminates one of its spots). In the extreme case of a team earning 3 bids, the team would earn a double bye. First round is 12 games. then 4 conference title winners are added. These 4 teams are given top 4 seeds (again ranked among them by their combine table position), season seeding protection no longer applies—all first round winners are ranked by their combined table position. 1/4 finals and rest of tournament proceed with re-seeding after each round. Final is played at a pre-determined neutral location.



I do realize that at this rate, it would be 25 years before viability, even then its still pretty crazy, but just thought it was an interesting thought experiment. I would have wanted to allow for playing every team in your own conference every year, but that would have meant increasing the regular season to 40 games, which by itself isn't crazy, but when you have US Open Cup, MLS Cup, and CONCACAF CL, then it is crazy to add those 4 extra games. The other downside would be that it would break up the 12/12/12/12 structure. By the way, I would imagine fitting in those 12 'game weeks' into 10 actual weeks. 40 weeks of regular season, 2 weeks for conference titles, 5 weeks for playoffs, leaves 5 extra weeks for FIFA breaks.

The other big weakness is that in a calendar year, you only play 3/4 teams in the league. Which isn't too bad compared to other American sports, but its highly irregular in association football. But that is the price of having so many top flight clubs, and for me that is the better outcome (more top flight academies, more fans, more opportunities, etc.)

Some interesting dynamics of the structure - your team is always in it. Even if you sucked all year, the slate is clean every 3 months. If your team has been having a great season, there is no reason to take your foot off the gas, keep winning, keep earning playoff spots, keep earning a better seeding position. With the Wild Card spots, consistency is rewarded. The other dynamic for the league as a whole is that it would be operating all year long. In the league's eyes, there is no off-season. When the weather is most pleasant, you have all your teams playing. When its 110 in Houston and Las Vegas, there are no games there, when its snowing in Boston and Chicago, there are not games there. The structure encourages local rivalry like you see in college football, with all the games being played against your rivals all around the same time, and you are all competing to play in the title game. But when that is over, you then have this interesting situation where you are still always comparing and measuring yourself against your conference rivals, even though you aren't directly playing them. But at the same time, you have to keep an eye out on the table at large to try and earn a Wild Card spot or to improve seeding.


The cities in the pdf are just an example, wasn't taking current ownership options into example, because as I said, its for something so far down the line.

 

I still would like to see this format implemented:

Pacific:
LA Galaxy, LA (Rebrand), Real Salt Lake, Colorado Rapids, Vancouver Whitecaps, Seattle Sounders, Portland Timbers, San Jose Earthquakes, Sacramento Republic, Las Vegas*

Other options: Riverside, San Diego, Calgary, San Francisco, Fresno

Heartland:
FC Dallas, Houston Dynamo, Sporting Kansas City, Colorado Rapids, Real Salt Lake, San Antonio Scorpions, Oklahoma City FC, Austin*

Other options: Phoenix, El Paso, Albuquerque, Tulsa, Tucson, Omaha

Great Lakes:
Chicago Fire, Columbus Crew, Toronto FC, Indy Eleven, Minnesota United, Ottawa Fury, St. Louis (USL), Detroit*

Other options: Cleveland, Cincinnati, Louisville, Milwaukee, Green Bay, Pittsburgh, Dayton, Grand Rapids

Southeast:
Atlanta (Blank), Orlando City, Miami (Beckham), Carolina Railhawks, Tampa Bay Rowdies, Jacksonville Armada, Virginia Cavalry, Nashville*

Other options: Birmingham, Charlotte, Virginia Beach, Richmond, Charleston Battery, New Orleans, Greenville, Columbia, Memphis, Greensboro, Ft Lauderdale Strikers

Northeast:
New York Red Bulls, New York City, DC United, Philadelpha Union, Montreal Impact, New England Revolution, Rochester Rhinos, Baltimore*

Other options: Hartford, Bridgeport, NY Cosmos, Buffalo, Syracuse

Expansion cities:
Nashville, Detroit, Baltimore, Austin, Las Vegas

Schedule:
-Three phases: Regional, Nationwide, Playoffs
-Regional: Play each team in conference twice... 14 games.
-Nationwide: Premier: Top three from each conference; 2 games, home/away, 28 games; Rest of League continues as is, play again 2x home/away for total of 16 more games + team that wins on aggregate earns home birth for one more round to make it 24 total games.

-Playoffs:
*champion of remainder teams from each conference enter a home/away nationwide table for a total of 8 more games.
* champion of remainder league earns wildcard spot in playoffs. Top 7 teams in nationwide conference earn playoff birth.

 

I had to read that a couple times before I understood what all was going on. I like it, but it seems too incestuous. Half of the teams wont play anybody outside of its 8 team group (by the way your Pacific has too many teams). In a 40 team league, I don't think that is good, you want to see the stars of the league come to your town, or at least see your team play them.

The number of games gets really high for the Premier qualifiers 14+28= 42 + playoffs. I was afraid to even do 40 + playoffs when you consider all the other competitions. In English lower leagues they have more league games, but those teams don't compete in international competition, their players don't play on national teams (mostly), and they don't last long in the domestic cups.

There is very little hope for the non-premier teams. I know you don't want those teams to feel like their season is over after 14 games, but that you also want to reward the deserving teams. Out of 25 teams, only 1 will make it to the playoffs, that is not a lot of hope. I do like how it comes in stages. The non-premier teams fans can say we only have to beat out 4 other teams and we advance, and then beat out another 4 other teams (and thats just to make the playoffs).

My suggestion would be to make it the top 6 from premier plus 2 from that combined nationwide group of 5. When you think about it, those 2 teams will be in very good form. They will have won out over the rest of their region over a 16 game period and then done better than most against other teams that did the same. Whereas the teams you are talking about displacing were most recently playing mediocre soccer (albeit against tougher competition). Maybe a play-in game between the 7th place premier team and 2nd place 'remainder champion mini-league' team.

Also, I would suggest that after the initial stage, the nationwide stage should be true to its name. Not just the premier division. The remainder groups should be reshuffled in order to promote seeing other teams. A few ways to do this, one is like a world cup draw, where you pick at random, or one where you pick one from each region, or some sort of complicated formula that allows for a medium amount of travel but not a group that is 3 teams on one coast and 2 on another.

 

What financial advantage would it be for MLS' investor/owners to expand to a 48 team league? There's a financial reason why the NFL stopped expanding when it reached 32 teams and why the NHL, NBA and MLB have not expanded past 30 teams. I doubt if MLS will prove to be an exception to the size limits the other four major professional sports have imposed upon themselves.

 

Did you read the whole post?

This wasn't meant as a prediction. I am not actually employed by MLS, so I don't need to think about what structure the oligarchs would make the most money from, that is boring to me. This would not even be my #1 ideal league structure, its just a (somewhat, imo) interesting concept.

And to address your point a little more head on, MLS faces unique circumstances that do not apply to the other big leagues. MLS is not a hegemon like the other leagues are in their respective sports. Also, MLS has governing bodies that it has to answer to. Right now, those bodies are giving league carte blanche, and for somewhat good reason. The potential in America is tremendous, other leagues have failed, it makes sense to allow MLS to grow up with training wheels. But its possible to envision a future in which FIFA takes those training wheels away. I wouldn't expect it soon, but its not out of the question to eventually happen, especially as MLS and pro soccer in general grows in the US. The point being that the end game league structure of MLS might not be 100% decided by the owners.

 

My apologies to the extent that they are warranted. Soccer is different and it may well follow a different trajectory than pro football, pro basketball, pro hockey & pro baseball. Hey, if we were living in an alternative reality, I could get down with pro/rel. I remember reading an article a few years ago about an internal NFL research study that projected pro soccer as being the biggest threat to NFL hegemony by mid-century. Of course, I won't be around to check out that prediction and, maybe, you won't either. For Pete's Sake, in another two thirds of a century as much as two thirds of Florida may be underwater. So much for Beckhams's bayfront stadium . . .

Personally, tho, I don't know if I'm all there for a 48 team league. But, who knows? Maybe, in another three quarters of a century the USA may be subdivided into three or five different countries. By the way, if you want to read my paperback of Callenbach's Ecotopia, that I bought nearly 40 years ago, give me a shout-out.

But, based on what has happened in the past, I think that we can safely predict that by 2030, MLS probably will be a 30 oe 32 team league. Of course, who would have predicted 5 years ago that gay marriage would be legalized, by judicial fiat, in an ever increasing number of states. I really think that the only guys who really the future half-right, more or less, were H.G. Wells, Orwell & Alvin Toffler.

Now, back to John Oliver's fantastic new show.

Peace, Love & Misunderstanding.

Steve

 

My apologies to the extent that they are warranted. Soccer is different and it may well follow a different trajectory than pro football, pro basketball, pro hockey & pro baseball. Hey, if we were living in an alternative reality, I could get down with pro/rel. I remember reading an article a few years ago about an internal NFL research study that projected pro soccer as being the biggest threat to MLS hegemony by mid-century. Of course, I won't be around to check out that prediction and, maybe, you won't either. For Pete's Sake, in another two thirds of a century as much as two thirds of Florida may be underwater. So much for Beckhams's bayfront stadium . . .

Personally, tho, I don't know if I'm all there for a 48 team league. But, who knows? Maybe, in another three quarters of a century the USA may be subdivided into three or five different countries. By the way, if you want to read my paperback of Callenbach's Ecotopia, that I bought nearly 40 years ago, give me a shout-out.

But, based on what has happened in the past, I think that we can safely predict that by 2030, MLS probably will be a 30 oe 32 team league. Of course, who would have predicted 5 years ago that gay marriage would be legalized, by judicial fiat, in an ever increasing number of states. I really think that the only guys who really the future half-right, more or less, were H.G. Wells, Orwell & Alvin Toffler.

Now, back to John Oliver's fantastic new show.

Peace, Love & Misunderstanding.

Steve

 

yeah Fox and ESPN is going to pay 90 million to have the charleston battery in MLS. All NASL and USL pro teams are own by billionaires with million dollar budgets.

 

I would hope there would be something differentiating MLS from all the other north american leagues. I really think that is not the way to go long term for a sport in which you are up against a lot of global competition. Plus, to me, that would be boring. What I don't get from many posters on boards about MLS is how quick they are to defend owners, to protect the oligopoly. 'How would you feel if you put up a $100 million franchise fee?' Who gives a shit, you don't put up a $100 million on a sports team unless you don't need it. There are no guarantees in business. Yes, I understand why they wouldn't voluntarily decide to give up power, but that doesn't mean that it cannot be taken from them or at least have people try to challenge them. I don't get this prevailing attitude of acceptance of our soccer overlords.

 

Maybe it's because those soccer overlords have created the GREATEST SINGLE THING FOR SOCCER IN AMERICA, EVER. PERIOD. FULL STOP. END OF SENTENCE. And that they are billionaires and have a prima facie better understanding of how to make a business work then some guy on his computer.

 

So what? thats not exactly saying much. Who is to say that a different system could have produced even better results? In human history we don't get to run experiments ceteris paribus. This is exactly the Stockholm Syndrome attitude I'm talking about. I never said that I understand business better. But this is sport!!! We are not talking about a hedge fund company. The purpose is greater than simply generating profit. Look how quickly and passionately you defend these billionaires. They don't give a ******** about you, why do you care so much about them?

 

That's saying more than any other soccer system ever.

[/quote]Who is to say that a different system could have produced even better results?[/quote]
We tried. For about 100 years, off and on, since soccer was created. Stopping only in the 70s and then in the last two decades. Y'know, for the only period of times when soccer was even a little relevant in the United States.

In business, you don't abandon something that's working without a damn good reason.

The business of sports is business, it's about maximizing profits. And y'know what happened in the 80s when soccer stopped maximizing profits? It disappeared. Tell me, how did the USMNT do in the World Cup, pre-MLS? When I said that MLS is the greatest thing for American Soccer, I mean on whole. Best thing for Youth Soccer, for Intermural High School Soccer, for NCAA Soccer, for the National Team, for developmental academies, for the USL, for USASA, for CYO Soccer, for a Shalke fan trying to watch his team on Sundays. Period. As a soccer fan, I'm willing to recognize that the decisions made by Uncle Phil, Krafty Bob, Lamar Hunt, and Alan Rothenberg have made my life as a soccer fan better than it would have been in 1988.

That's not Stockholm Syndrome. My soccer fandom is objectively better because of MLS.

 

Right, and the highest the system reached was the NASL, which in some ways reached a level that MLS still has yet to reach. But I don't feel like arguing that point, the point is that NASL wasn't a great standard bearer, so eclipsing that league is no great shakes.

but its not your business. I never called for or expect the owners to give away power for no reason.

You cannot say objectively better because you don't know what your soccer fandom would look like had a different system been implemented from the start. And like I said before, comparisons to a time when there was no league is not much of a standard. My point is that while I can see an argument for training wheels during infancy, that they will ultimately hold you back. The country's long term growth in the game will be stunted if this closed shop continues, and nobody seems to care, nobody is angry about it. Your fate as a potential top flight city rests on rooting for your local billionaire to git his shit together in time before other billionaires in other cities do the same. To me, that sounds preposterous.

 

Maybe we have a different idea of 'successful', because MLS has had a longer period of more successful clubs than NASL did.

So, if you're not asking MLS to change, then what are you talking about?

Yes I can. I 100%, objectively can. We tried, we tried that local-clubs, non-franchise system. We started as early as soccer was a thing. We tried for 100 year, and it failed. I cannot, for any reason, see why you'd want to spend more time and money on a system that has proven to fail.

There was an open shop. From the beginning of time until 1968 and from 1984 until 1996. How'd we do with that "Open Shop" over either of those time periods? (In fact, one could even argue that NASL failed because their closed-shop was too open)

It is an objective, provable fact that my way works and your way fails. I don't see why we'd throw away the system that works for the system that doesn't. And neither do the people in charge of US Soccer or MLS.

 

that is one measure of success. and overall I did concede that MLS is more successful. NASL was able to bring in 3 top 25 all time players to the league. Yes, it wasn't at their peak, but it wasn't when they were 40 either. Look at the FIFA 100 list. Almost all the players born between 1945-1950 played in NASL at one point. And it was some of the all time, top 10 or top 20 greats. MLS has Henry and Beckham.

I am talking about people's attitudes. I am talking about fans being happy to accept the status quo. I am talking about seeing sport as more than a billionare's club. I am talking about putting pressure on the oligopoly, calling for change, nobody is even thinking about this. Pressure the governing bodies to force their hand. 'if you don't cooperate, you wont be sanctioned'

who is we? And again, how hard did they try? None of those other attempts occurred after the US hosted a World Cup. The appetite for the sport has grown by leaps and bounds since those days.

its not 'your way' its their way. And like I said before, of course the people at MLS think its great, they have all the power. And what do you mean by works? Is not folding the only standard of 'works'?

 

So, here's why this is an unfair comparison. You say "NASL had more great players". Cool. You make a list of all the capital-G Great Players that played in NASL. And when MLS folds, I'll make a similar list and we'll see which is bigger.

Wait, so now you want them to change what they're doing? Are you just going to say whichever one helps your current argument?

Who are we? "Americans". How hard did they try? Exactly as hard as they tried. When you ask for community-built, bottoms-up soccer clubs, you don't get to decide how hard or when those communities try to do that. The only way you can demand a certain effort from clubs is by doing it the MLS way. First football club in America was founded in 1867. 101 pre-NASL years, and nothing to show for it.

Also, it's worth noting that the "leaps and bounds" the sport has grown since '94 is because of MLS, not in spite of it.

It's my way; it's the way I would like to see it happen. If I were in charge of developing a Team Handball League in the US, it's the method I'd choose.

What do I mean 'works'? I mean there are stable, strong teams that compete against the established leagues. The "Open Shop" method had over a century, how many stable, strong teams did they build? Was it as many as 10? MLS has had 1/5 the time and has 19. The "Closed Shop, billionaires' club" works.

 

MLS has already existed for more time than NASL, and it doesn't compare. NASL was top down just like MLS, it was just poorly run, I am not calling to bring back NASL, all I was saying is that while MLS is most successful overall, its has not surpassed NASL IN ALL CATEGORIES, I don't even see how that can be a contested issue.

the them is the fans. I have not changed my stance. I know full well that owners will not voluntarily give up their oligopoly. My issue the entire time was how their position goes unquestioned and unchallenged. And I never even said that MLS structure was the wrong way to go given the time when it came up. My point is that in the long term, it is a system that will hold the country back, and nobody else sees that, nobody else cares.

somehow the bottom up system worked in practically every other country. There is not a fundamental flaw in the system, it was just not managed correctly. Just like how NASL was not managed correctly.

its hard to say how much of it is BECAUSE of MLS, and thats not even a point that would hurt my argument. I have said that training wheels to start the league are OK.

Yes MLS is stable. But is that enough? I would hope not. Does it have strong teams that compete against the established leagues, I'm not so sure. Does it provide for the proper structure to allow the growth of the sport and the talent of the USMNT to be all that it can be looking 20, 30, 50 years down the line? I certainly do not think so.