Now we know. http://www.mlssoccer.com/news/article/2011/11/20/big-changes-mls-cup-playoffs-format-2012 and http://www.mlssoccer.com/news/article/2011/11/20/mls-reveals-2012-conference-based-schedule-format.
I'd much rather have two rounds of home/away than the way it was now. I think it helps ensure the best teams make it to the final. I'll be upset if the final goes to the seed number and not point total. I have a feeling it'll go seed number, then tie breaker as head to head, *then* overall points.
The other article linked says that it will be roughly the same as this past year: http://www.mlssoccer.com/news/article/2011/11/20/mls-reveals-2012-conference-based-schedule-format
I like how there is no wild-card next two years. Each conference has playoff among top 5 times in each conference to determine MLS Cup teams. #4 and 5 play to determine who plays against #1 seed within each conference.
SS winner with a bye to the cup is not a great reward for having the most points. Taking 3-4 weeks off and then be expected to play against a team that has probably hit it's stride in the playoffs is a recipe for disaster.
I like this part as well If you are going to have conferences, go all the way with them. Don't bend it so that more of one conference can get in. Especially with the unbalanced schedule
The news today clarified this. The Supporters Shield does NOT have a bye and hosting rights to the Cup. They could, IF they win their conference final. Basically what they said today was that the highest surviving seed hosts the final. At least thats what I got out of it.
So next year LA will have two home games against Seattle, Dallas, RSL and Colorado, due purely to a random draw. Then the year, when they'd have to reverse it, MLS will change the schedule plan again. I'm expecting this.
I wonder if SJE are set to host the final if they'd play at the Coliseum or Candlestick instead of Buck Shaw. Not sure the Don would want to have a 10k seat stadium host the marquee event of the year.
Yeah I think that might be the worse fear of the MLS committee, but besides Giants and Raiders/A's home they also have Stanford nearby. It will be interesting to see if the Quakes could schedule one of those venues in a 2 week window. Personally, I'm still not big on a northern place hosting, even if its RSL. But if most fans thinks its good, then thats the way it is. I'm just glad the Supporters Shield winner doesn't have a free ride (I say that and next year RSL will win it!).
Forgot about Stanford and I think Cal's stadium renovation is done by next fall. That gives SJE 2 venues that should be available on a Sunday. I know the Giants stadium hosts football games, so I'm sure it could host a soccer game as well, but I'm not sure how good that would look as a tv product. I'm sure it would still be better than 10k fans at Buck Shaw.
15 your probably to young to remember but we used to be able to watch the Irish every week when I was a kid. who says money can't buy you love? L.A. just got the first goal, hope Houston can come back.
so when did logic and common sense hit Garber and the MLS exec committee. This is an April Fool's joke, right?
They were required to be submitted to the league by 3pm - just a few moments ago. When they will become public, I'm not sure.
the RSL twitter made it sound like they were submitted earlier today and that they were supposed to go public at 5ET (3MT) It's MLS, so no matter what they'll be later than the time they announce
I'm sure many, if not all, submitted them earlier in the day, but the deadline was 5pm ET. In the past it seems like it took half hour to an hour to make the league website, but many of the lists had leaked out in the meantime.
They probably like to confirm that the lists are correct on the press releases. They've had some misstatements on past protect lists that had to be corrected.
. . . and I've decided this whole "Andy is gone" thing is a smoke screen to keep Montreal from pulling a Toronto-and-Kreis gambit, taking someone we're sure they won't and then trading him back to us.