Ideas for MLS League Design [Superthread] III

And we can throw out 99% of the BS in the original post, but hear me out.

There's no stability every coming to D2 because the best teams will always move up? I will concede this because it is obviously true. But teams can move up while there being some sort of stability. If MLS reserve teams played in NASL (without the whole "force teams to move up and down or some sort of USL/NASL merger" bullshit), there would be more stability for the lower divisions.

NASL as a league wins from such a setup because it guarantees to meet all those strict requirements the USSF wrote for them. The individual teams win by having enough teams to form regional divisions, and therefore lowering traveling costs, which is their biggest fixed (rather, non-discretionary) cost. The league as a whole also wins from this because lower costs means more owners, whether they be of current USL teams or of potential new teams, will be more receptive to joining the 2nd division. More teams beget more teams. Lower costs beget lower costs. This is proven true by the A-League of old, which had as many as 24 professional teams in regional divisions in its heyday. Then they split into USL First and Second divisions, which were entirely arbitrarily made, and things started falling apart.

MLS as a league wins in two ways. First, their reserve teams get more games in a meaningful environment, even more so than the MLS Reserve League since they are playing against independent teams as well as their MLS counterparts. The league also gets their name in non-MLS markets, increasing the league's notoriety in places like Atlanta, Miami, etc. This, as well as the lowering of barriers to entry into the league due to lower costs, means more teams for MLS to potentially pick from as their new expansion targets, meaning less risk for MLS.

American soccer as a whole wins because more serious professional teams means more exposure of the game to potential new fans.

Someone posted earlier that this setup is flawed because it assumes NASL teams and MLS reserve teams are at the same level. If we are to say that the MLS reserves are better, it certainly isn't by some insurmountable margin. And with the lower costs I mentioned before, NASL teams would be able to afford better talent, which would help close the gap (again, if there is a meaningful one).

This really is a win-win for everyone involved and for fans as a whole. The only loser would be USL, because their teams would be better served in a setup such as this. They can't really do anything about that, since this is, as you say, just capitalism doing its thing while providing stability for the lower divisions. It's certainly a worthwhile low risk, potentially high reward investment for MLS to do this.

 

You ignore the fact Orlando is being talked about not because MLS wants Orlando as a market, but because the owners in Orlando want to move their club to MLS.

MLS could care less about markets. What the owners in Vancouver, Portland and Montréal had was the money to join MLS and a viable stadium plan. Portland almost didn't have a viable stadium plan and Montréal almost didn't have enough money (well, they always had money, but Saputo tried to bargain) - MLS wouldn't have expanded there otherwise.

You also ignore the fact that in divisions two and three last year, untechnically, not a single team folded (technically the NASL Impact did, and FC New York self-relegated). How is that not stability?

 

MLS certainly does care about markets. They turned down Ottawa, who had money and a stadium plan, before going for Vancouver (who, by the way, is not in a SSS). Why? Because Vancouver has 3-4x the population of Ottawa, and therefore adds value to the league that Ottawa does not: a larger fanbase and potential for a Canadian national TV contract (both of which happened).

Also, how does your explanation account for the whole NY2 800 pound gorilla in the room? How does MLS not care about markets, but pursue a team in the biggest market with no owner or stadium plan or anything whatsoever over Orlando, who even you say is a good market and has an owner and stadium plan?

 

Hate to break it to you but the last year of the A-League was 2004. Four teams folded over that offseason. The teams which played in the USL Divisions One and Two in 2005?

Montréal Impact (MLS)
Rochester Raging Rhinos (now Rhinos, USL-Pro)
Vancouver Whitecaps (MLS)
Seattle Sounders (MLS)
Portland Timbers (MLS)
Richmond Kickers (USL-Pro)
Puerto Rico Islanders (NASL)
Atlanta Silverbacks (NASL)
Charleston Battery (USL-Pro)
Minnesota Thunder (folded, immediately replaced with Stars, NASL)
Virginia Beach Mariners (folded 2006)
Toronto Lynx (self-relegated to PDL when Toronto FC entered MLS)
Richmond Kickers (USL-Pro)
Charlotte Eagles (USL-Pro)
Pittsburgh Riverhounds (USL-Pro)
Cincinnati Kings (PDL)
New Hampshire Phantoms (PDL)
Western Mass Pioneers (PDL)
Harrisburg City Islanders (USL-Pro)
Wilmington Hammerheads (USL-Pro)
Long Island Rough Riders (PDL)
Northern Virginia Royals (PDL)

Of all the teams which played in the USL Divisions 1 and 2 in 2005, only two have folded, and one of those teams was immediately restarted.

 

SSS is not a good term anymore. How about "revenue-controlled stadium"? That's what MLS cares about.

Remember the bidding process for 2011 expansion? Five cities bid for two spots (Vancouver, Portland, St. Louis, Ottawa, Montréal). MLS picked the "best two", which happened to be Vancouver and Portland. The difference is MLS didn't say, we think Vancouver and Portland will be the best markets to expand to - they allowed anyone to bid, and then picked the best two. I agree with your stipulation as I'm not sure MLS wants to be in Ottawa, but my point has been MLS doesn't care what markets it expands to as long as MLS thinks the market is large enough to support it.

First, where's Orlando's owner? Where's Orlando's stadium plan? And I don't mean their NASL owner, I mean an owner who will plunk down the $50m entrance fee, and either a SSS or a renovation of the Citrus Bowl to bring it up to MLS standards.

MLS is pursuing New York because MLS thinks a second New York team will be a profitable asset to the league. That's different than any other expansion up to this point.

 

Yeah, but self-relegating to PDL is directly because they couldn't handle being a professional team anymore due to the rise in travel costs (again, by separating teams into two totally arbitrary divisions). We must include them, since they became amateur teams. And that's not even including teams which joined after. The fail rate for lower division pro teams according to Inside MN Soccer is over 70%, and travel costs are the biggest non-discretionary expense and therefore the biggest cause of this.

 

MLS reserve sides will contribute no revenue to NASL b/c reserves draw no fans. NASL needs revenue first and for that they need their own clubs. If we get to a situation with 5-6 NASL sides plus reserve squads then the league will need mass cash infusions or it will fold. What'll the crowd be for a Rowdies road game @ RSL reserves? Maybe 100? This is not a business plan. You need teams with FANS.

 

Only one team which played in the USL who is now in the PDL played in the A-League, the Toronto Lynx, and their movement to PDL is completely justified by the creation of Toronto FC.

Teams which played USL D1 or USSF league and folded (not including teams which moved MLS): California Victory; Virginia Beach Mariners; Minnesota Thunder (immediately restarted); Cleveland City Stars; AC St. Louis; Crystal Palace Baltimore. Considering Cleveland and Crystal Palace probably should not have moved up to the D1, and that AC St. Louis was vaporware that actually existed, that's not a huge list.

Teams aren't dropping like flies because of travel costs, though I concede that is one of the biggest expenses a team faces.

 

More existing teams = geographic divisions = cutting costs = adding to the bottom line = more viable teams = more new teams. That's what my original post was meant to say.

 

MLS clubs don't even have to open their reserve games to the public if they don't want to. I'd venture to guess the vast majority of teams don't play their games in the main stadium. Portland figured out they could make money on it so they do. MLS would also lose flexibility, I know they cancelled the reserve league playoffs last season. I also know the USSF league had to stream all their games which I can see MLS clubs being reluctant to do for reserve games, especially because there is the cost involved. Finally, would a FC Tampa Bay fan ever say great, we get to cheer on our team against the DC United reserves today, after we beat the Philly reserves last week?

 

Toronto, yes. Not including them, that's 6 out of 15 teams from 2005-2010 folding. Is that stability? Add in the teams that folded or self-relegated in the winter before the first season the new system was implemented (these teams certainly knew what they could've gotten into get into before decided not to) and the figure looks even worse.

And what about the second division, which is supposedly for the teams with smaller budgets? I'll quote wikipedia directly: a total of 102 teams competed in USL Second Division (well, if we want to count from 2005-2010, then we get a little less than 20 teams). Of these, only 5 are still professional teams, while the rest are in PDL or nonexistant.

Combined, that's a fail rate of almost 80%. That is not stability by any stretch of the word.

Don't you think that a combined A-League would've at the least helped these teams' bottom line? That's my argument. I don't know if it would've helped save the clubs out of their specific situations, but it certainly is better than two arbitrarily made national single table leagues, where travel costs are much higher.

This part is addressed to you and the other posters as well:

Let's say (and I'm just using this for example purposes), MLS reserve teams entered into NASL this year. That's 27 teams, split into 3 groups of East Central and West (or, more realistically, Northeast Southeast and West).

Now say you're the owner of LA Blues, a geographically isolated USL team. On top of that, you've barely got a fanbase and need to find a way to cut costs. In the present NASL, you're near equally geographically isolated. In the NASL + MLS reserve teams, the furthest you'll have to travel in the regular season is Colorado and Salt Lake. What do you do? The answer is you join this new NASL, because you've cut your biggest non-discretionary expense by at least half, while moving up one step on the pyramid and getting to play against what you could bill your local rivals, LA Galaxy and Chivas USA, in meaningful games that could help draw crowds and build a fanbase, despite them being reserve teams.

Now say you're the owner of Kitsap Pumas. You've built up a decent fanbase and aspirations of becoming a pro team, but you're not about to make the jump when you've got to travel all across the country just to flame out in a year. Instead, you're waiting for other western teams to make the jump to USL Pro, so that you can join with them. In the mean time, you'll dab your foot into paying your players and playing games against amateur teams (this is actually happening, by the way). Instead, you can join this new NASL, which is not only one step above USL Pro on the pyramid, but also a smaller jump in terms of travel costs, and therefore a smaller threat to your bottom line. Plus, you get games against the reserve teams of Seattle and Portland, which have always been your big money games when you played them in the Open Cup in previous years.

Now you see what I mean by teams begetting more teams.

 

You're still not addressing revenue. You can't have a league whose fanbase declines because the good teams all leave and take their paying customers with them. Reserve sides don't have fans. This means everything to potential sponsors. Why would you put your company name on an NASL shirt when you know their road schedule would be mostly empty reserve venues? Why would you even consider a league-wide sponsorship deal? It makes no business sense because there'd be no advertising potential. The number of actual eyes watching the games would decline. That alone is your deal-buster. You're proposing a reserve league, not a pro league.

 

I certainly give you a lot of credit for bending facts to support your argument. You are correct in saying 102 teams have played in the USL 2nd division. However, at least 80 of those teams folded before 2002. I agree that is not stability, but those teams also folded over a decade ago.

Also, you claim the USL D1 and D2 splitting off were "arbitrary". If you look at the D2, it is a regional, east coast league with weaker markets which played 8 fewer games. If you were to combine that with the USL D1 and make the divisions regional, Minnesota is still the fourth westernmost team, and Puerto Rico still exists. You still have tons of geographic problems, but despite the smaller league, most of the existing teams were able to cope with those geographic problems. Hell, the league actually added teams during that point which are still around despite the travel costs - Carolina, Miami FC (as Ft. Lauderdale). The Pacific Coast League owned the Timbers at the time and didn't fold them because they had to travel to Bayamon. The Islanders managed to fly to Vancouver, one of the longest travel routes in any league in the world, and still survived. Now they're flying to Edmonton. Could they go under? Sure. But they've played eight seasons with some dreadful travel expenses, and they're still chugging. The D1 teams for the most part were able to cope with the travel expenses, and the D2 teams had a smaller league and were still able to cope.

Moving down to PDL doesn't equal folding, either.

Look at the teams which folded, none of them were economically strong in the first place. Four of the six were one-season wonders. It's not like established teams are folding, the difficulty is likely making the team established. The fact there are eight teams able to play despite the travel expenses shows it is economically possible for the NASL to exist, which in turn shows stability.

Do you really think the Portland Timbers reserves will want to go play a game in Bremerton? And if you are Kitsap, you're already building a fan base in the PDL, and you've got a good team because you are paying players and get to go play in the Open Cup - why would you need to move up to play meaningless games against faceless reserve teams with no fans? How many MLS teams would draw fans to watch their reserve team play something called LA Blues? Would MLS teams want to open up their doors so that fans could pay to watch their depth charts play nameless minor league teams?

 

Actually, according to some of the news coming out of NASL recently, travel costs aren't anywhere near the problem they've been portrayed as. Current NASL clubs have around a $2m operating budget per year, and it appears that travel expenses aren't a huge part of that.

 

Which is why I said afterward, counting only teams from 2005-2010, you still get an atrocious fail rate.

USL-1: 6 out of 15 folding/self-relegating
USL-2: 15 out of ~20 folding/self-relegating

So you agree that some of these teams couldn't cope with the barriers to entry into a national league? As I said, I don't know about specific teams and whether it would save them from folding. Some teams have enough money to cope with it, and some don't. I got that. But the lower costs would make it easier for new teams to enter the league, which would then further lower costs. You look at the teams that succeeded, and they because they had enough money to cope with it. For these teams, travel costs are not so significant because they have larger budgets and therefore can worry more about keeping player wages in check. That's my response to HifiRevival. And the teams that didn't? Why didn't they? Would having a regional league help this?

I know that, but I treat it as the same, because why would a team self-relegate to PDL? To cut costs. And what's their biggest cost? The teams that self-relegated tried to survive in a national league and they couldn't, and that includes teams from the A-League. Why is Kitsap Pumas not moving up to USL Pro, despite people in the club having talked about it for years now? Why else are they waiting for other Western teams to move up?

This is the biggest potential problem, I admit.

First, would the Portland Timbers reserves rather play a game in Bremerton or Denver?

Second, you must admit that more (non-reserve) teams joining certainly looks in the eyes of potential sponsors. The USL teams will look at the potential cost savings of NASL and jump ship right away, don't you think? Charleston Rochester and Richmond, for example, could've easily ended up in NASL from the start, but chose USL-2 and then USL Pro (or in the case of Rochester, just USL Pro) almost solely in order to save on travel costs. Teams like Kitsap and LA Blues would at the very least consider it, right? These are owners of small teams that would jump at the chance to save costs while moving up on the pyramid. And we don't know what new teams could pop up as a result. Those are plenty of new eyes for national sponsors, not including the MLS teams.

(As an aside: interestingly enough, as soon as USL-2 was down to 6 teams in a very small region, Western Mass and Bermuda self-relegated to PDL.)

Third, If your concern is that the MLS teams won't get fans to watch these games, one solution I propose is that MLS can double up their home games with reserve team games as much as possible. I'm sure enough fans show up early to catch the game to compare to other NASL attendances. Or they could just open them up to the public for free. The Sounders do this and average a little less than 1000 (no other team publishes their numbers). And that's against other reserve teams. If the Sounders reserves played the Pumas in a more meaningful competition, I think a bit more people would show up.

 

Some teams are better off in a regional league. That is why USL-Pro exists (save LA Blues and Antigua), that is why PDL exists. But there looks to be a market for a national, second division league, which is why NASL exists. The teams that folded like AC St. Louis, Cleveland and Crystal Palace Baltimore were just not set up very well, it didn't have anything to do with the cost of travel. And Minnesota folding was hardly a failure.

And what you are ultimately proposing is turning the national league into a regional league in order to "cut travel costs".

If HiFi is correct, travel costs aren't a huge burden for the NASL teams. They can afford to play in a national league.

Charleston self-relegated to the USL Pro because they wanted to make sure they would be playing in a league in 2010, and it worked out well for them, considering their attendance increased.

The fact Western Mass and Bermuda self-relegated to PDL actually shows travel costs probably were not the reason why they decided to move down a division. If travel costs were already fairly low, there must have been something else at play.

Portland reserves don't play Denver, they play Seattle, Vancouver, San Jose, Chivas and LA Galaxy. And they'd much rather play any one of those teams than have to bus a bunch of players to Bremerton. And teams want to minimize expenses on these as much as is seemly. For instance the LA Galaxy game away is on "Training or University Field".

Furthermore if you look at the Timbers reserves schedule it is already optimized for travel, not completely optimized, but there are a number of games which take place the day after the game between the two MLS teams. By making Chivas send their reserves to Bremerton you introduce more costs to MLS teams without making Kitsap games any more sexy for the fan.

You also assume new teams would want to join this system, but if you don't have enough money or the market to join NASL or USL-Pro, you join the PDL. It's how it works.

To answer your third point, NASL is doing really well attendance-wise, 900 people not paying to go watch a game at Starfire wouldn't help NASL that much. Furthermore, playing a NASL game before a MLS game wouldn't help NASL that much either. There's just no meaning for the reserve teams.

I agree anyone wanting to start up a team on the west coast won't have the same regional advantage the teams in the mid-Atlantic have but Puerto Rico and Edmonton seem to be surviving in spite of the travel.

 

Travel costs are such a non factor that NASL stayed at 8 teams this offseason, adding a longer trip in San Antonio to replace Montreal, and now is getting ready to announce 2 new teams by the end of May with one of them being "out West." They've also said they expect to add 2 more teams for the 2013 season before the end of this season. They've got Ottawa lined up for the 2014 season. The NASL is growing and that's with a requirement that they get to at least 3 time zones very soon. There are bound to be a couple of failures along the way, but it's got nothing to do with travel expenses.

2nd division football is now stable due to the horrid USL organization being bumped down to 3rd division.

 

USL as a second division wasn't too bad actually but it was really hard to start up a franchise. NASL seemed arbitrary when it launched but if they have a good model set up to grow franchises that is better than USL, which would take your franchise fee and let you sink or swim on your own. We'll see if that's the case in a couple years.

 

Actually, the A-League had as many as 30 teams at its apex.

And the USL First/USL Second division "split" wasn't arbitrary at all, if you go by the actual definition of "arbitrary," which is "Based on random choice or personal whim, rather than any reason or system."

The A-League had 16 teams in 2004. All 12 of the teams that didn't fold in the offseason made up the USL First Division in 2005. Syracuse, Milwaukee, Edmonton and Calgary went bye-bye.

What was the Pro Soccer League (one of a multitude of names for the third division) in 2004 had 12 teams. All nine of the teams that didn't drop down to the PDL made up the USL Second Division in 2005. California, San Diego and Westchester dropped.

It was more a renaming than a split, and as nobody changed divisions at that point (some did later), it's hard to say there weren't criteria. Of course there were criteria: can you afford this? Answer yes or no. Teams made the choice that they felt was best for them. Eventually, Richmond and Charleston dropped down a level, Toronto dropped down two, Virginia Beach and Minnesota folded, Atlanta took some time off, and Montreal, Portland, Vancouver and Seattle eventually went to MLS. Those with the ambition remained in USL-1 in 2005. Those who couldn't afford the cost of doing business at the higher level didn't go there. I fail to see how that's "entirely arbitrary."

And I wouldn't say "things started falling apart" at that point. What started to take hold around the turn of the century was Soccer Darwinism. Was it painful? You bet. Was it necessary? I'd say so. I'd sure as hell rather have an eight-team second division planning its next move carefully and having the impetus of USSF standards nudging it towards careful growth than the 30-team league we had in 1999, even if it was more convenient and cost-effective for New Orleans to travel to Nashville and Jacksonville than it is for Edmonton to get to Bayamon today.

(BTW, on that? If anyone thinks travel costs are "insignificant," they haven't tried to get 20+ people from Point A to Point B 14 times in the course of six months lately. Just because they have agreed that it's the cost of doing business doesn't mean it's inexpensive. And if you're drawing 3k a game, I'm sorry, it puts a dent in your P&L, no matter what anonymous people on the internet think.)

 

Thanks for the history lesson.

Re: Charleston
"We believe that the level of competition in the USL Second Division will be very similar to that of the USL First Division (USL-1)," Bell said. "Playing in this division will also substantially reduce our travel costs as we won't be flying all over the country."

This is closer to what I mean when I wrongly used the word "arbitrary." Yes there was a money requirement, but the difference in quality of play between USL1 and USL2 was not so substantial so as to warrant two separate national divisions (instead of two regional ones, or one national one and one regional one). While the USL2 happening to have teams in the same area was not a coincidence, it probably explains why Bermuda and West Mass dropped to PDL.

If what everyone is saying is true about the NASL expanding and not having any serious financial problems (I knew about Ottawa but not the other two teams HiFiRevival mentioned), then there's no reason to ponder "building a solid/stable 2nd tier league" since they already are. I will concede that the reserve teams in NASL idea is not the best way to go for this reason alone.

 

Yeah, except I believe Andrew Bell said that in 2010, not 2005.

A lot of that is spin, and USL2 became more of an Eastern seaboard league, not a true "national" division.

It was more about ambition and budget. Look at the owners of those who have chosen to be Division II (and did in 2005) and those who have chosen to be Division III. With a few exceptions (Charleston being one, and Rochester - for the moment - being another), the people in third division ownership positions are either people who don't quite have the means of the people who have traditionally owned second division clubs, or they're in markets out of which they can't hope to realistically extract sufficient revenue to be a second division outfit.

I don't care what some people say, it is substantially cheaper to be in the third division versus the second division and the quality of play is lessened. But - at least in Charleston's case - it hasn't seemed to matter to their fan base. If you've been to Charleston, you have some idea why, but being able to play Richmond and Wilmington and Charlotte has some impact as well.

Also, Bermuda was drawing 200 people a game in a country whose national team program ain't the best and which wasn't going to prop up the local pro side, and Western Mass' people reached a financial moment of clarity, let's say.

I will say that if there's a lower-level soccer league in this country that is on easy street financially, it's the first time ever. Kudos to the NASL for being able to stabilize their operations and for not having any glaring California Victory-Sacramento Geckos type organizations, but you do have to do this for more than 14 months before you can say definitively the patient is out of the woods.

Edmonton's owner said he's spending more than a million a year - over $400k in travel alone - and losing hundreds of thousands of dollars. That's significant, isn't it?

The guy has money, obviously. But just because people have lots of money doesn't mean they'll throw it into something indefinitely (and Fath's other business interests are more or less picking up the tab for his soccer team - and thankfully for him he doesn't have stockholders to answer to).

Minnesota can't be taking in much money (though they did for the first game), and while their expenses are probably less than most, losing money is still a concern when you have no owner.

On the plus side, Puerto Rico's stadium is going to be sweet when it's finished, looks like. If San Antonio is really this decade's Rochester circa 1999, that's a huge positive. Ft. Lauderdale is miles ahead of where Miami FC was, but still a ways behind what the nostalgists would have you believe that brand should be doing. Atlanta sold out its first game, which is great for them. There are a lot of positives.

But there's no way they've taken the second division from The Worst Thing Ever (as the TOA folks would have you believe it was in 2009) to No Worries At All, Mate three years later.

Signs are encouraging. It may yet happen. But those of us with long memories should be forgiven if we're constantly expecting the other shoe to drop.

 

Here is my dream for MLS in 2032:

2 completely separate 18 team-leagues; MLS West and MLS East with 0 inter-league regular season games. The Mississippi River will serve as the dividing line which designates which league you play in. Each team plays home and away against every other team within their league adding up to 34 games. I feel like this will build excitement and an english style feel that some are looking for in the regular season. This will build regional rivalries as well as cut down on travel expenses/miles.

Top 5 teams qualify for playoffs in each conference, and the one game wildcard is still between the 4th and 5th place teams in your designated conference. Now shuffle the teams. Here is what the quarters should look like:

1st East vs. 4th West 1st West vs. 4th East
2nd West vs. 3rd East 2nd East vs. 3rd West

Weve spent about 8 months deciding who are the strongest on each side of the Mississippi, now instead of rehashing those battles, we get a melee for dominance in the country. 2 games for quarters, 2 games for semis and 2 game final. Give the team with the higher rank the 2nd match. If ranks are the same go to highest regular season point total.

As for the lower end of the table, I know it will never happen, but I dream of promotion/relegation and with 36 teams in the top flight I think we can pull it off. It would be incredibly messy to sort out and American teams would have to restructure their lower tiers but this is what I like: Bottom 3 teams go down and the top 3 fom MLS East 2 or West 2 come up. Here is a mock 18-team MLS east with a MLS 2nd division:

MLS Premier League East

DC United
New York Red Bull
New York Comos
Baltimore FC
Philadelphia Union
Charleston Battery
Miami Fusion
Tampa Bay Mutiny
Orlando S.C.
New England Revolution
Columbus Crew
Montreal Impact
Detroit
Toronto FC
Nashville
Columbus Crew
Chicago Fire
Kansas City

MLS Championship East

Cleveland
Richmond Kickers
Tampa Bay
Miami
Puerto Rico Islanders
New Orleans FC
St. Louis FC
Ft. Lauterdale Strikers
Carolina Railhawks
Pittsburgh Riverhounds
Atlanta
Charlotte Eagles
Harrison City Islanders
Wilmington Hammerheads

If there is a little bit of growth and some cooperation between MLS, USL and other we can get the whole country under and umbrella system that makes sense. Some major clubs like Columbus, DC and NYRB may not be happy about promotion relegation but 1. it will get new owners in new markets injecting money into the league 2. If NYRB can't beat out the wilmington hammerheads and harrison city islanders in a 8 month season maybe they need to clean house and join MLS again in 2 years.

I know this is a pipe dream, just my .02.

 

24 teams, 2 conferences, 6 divisions

Eastern Conference
Northeast Division
Toronto FC
Ottawa (1867)
Montreal Impact
NE Revs

Atlantic Division
NYC cosmos
NYRB
Philidelphia Union
Columbus Crew

East Division
Miami
Orlando
Chicago Fire
DC United


Western Conference

Central Division
Minnesota
SKC
RSL
Colorado Rapids

South Division
Houston Dynamo
FC Dallas
Chivas USA (hopefully new stadium and new name)
LA Galaxy

Northwest Divison
SJ earthquakes
Seattle Sounders
Portland Timbers
Vancouver Whitecaps

36 game season. 12 division, 12 conference (1 division once, one division twice, rotating), 12 non-conference

12 team play off. division winners get top seeds. two game series except MLS Cup

 

East
Montreal
Toronto
Columbus
Chicago
Kansas City
New England
New York
New York 2
Philadelphia
DC United
Orlando
Miami

West
Dallas
Houston
San Antonio
Minnesota
Colorado
Salt Lake
Vancouver
Seattle
Portland
San Jose
LA Galaxy
Chivas

24 teams - 2 home/away games each year in conference - 1 alternating home/away every year out of conference = 34 games total.

Playoff format remains as is. Top 5 in each conference.

 

I like the division setup, but I'll tweak your lineup for purely selfish reasons:
East
Montreal
Toronto
Columbus
Chicago
Detroit
New England
New York
New York 2
Philadelphia
DC United
Orlando
Miami

West
Dallas
Houston
Kansas City
Minnesota
Colorado
Salt Lake
Vancouver
Seattle
Portland
San Jose
LA Galaxy
Chivas

I also don't think that five playoff teams per conference is enough. Remember, there is no relegation (and won't be any time soon), and I don't think that the league is established enough for the bottom 3-5 teams in each conference to have half of their schedule be rendered meaningless.

I've posted a version of this playoff format before, but for the overall league. In this version, there are two groups of four in each conference, rather than in the whole league. I'm still convinced that it does more to satisfy all of the competing purposes of a playoff system than any other I've seen. I'm posting it here again in case it was lost in the recent site upgrade:

Eight teams in each conference qualify for the playoffs.
Two groups of four teams in each conference, seeded by regular-season finish.

Group A: Seeds 1,4,6,8.
Group B: Seeds 2,3,5,7.

The higher seed hosts each game, and the only tiebreaker within the group is higher seed.

The two top teams in each group advance to the conference semifinal round, single games between the winner of one group and the runners-up of the other, hosted by the group winners.

So, the top team in each group gets all of their playoff games at home, second seed gets all but one, third seed gets one home game, and the last seed plays all of their playoff games away (something that I have no problem with, since the seventh- and eighth-best teams in each conference are just happy to be in the playoffs at all).

There are many advantages to this system, but the main one, IMHO, is that every regular-season game means something, since playoff seeding is everything. Every higher seed has a distinct advantage over every lower one, so that even after a team clinches a playoff spot, it will want to win more games, to get more home playoff games.

In the playoffs themselves, the result of each game is huge, but there is less of a chance of one fluky result bouncing out a better team. If a lower-seeded team gets hot, they have a chance to advance, but they have to earn it, since they didn't win enough in the regular season.

Each conference champion gets a big advantage by having to play no higher than the fourth-best finisher.

Three playoff games can be played in a week, and venues can be scheduled in advance.

Round-robin play is something that even casual soccer fans can understand, since it's the same format as the World Cup.

If you have to have playoffs, and it's pretty obvious that, for a variety of reasons at this point in the league's history, you do, this is still by far the best way of doing it.