MLS Realignment

[IncaEnclave]

Just was wondering but when Chivas USA and Salt Lake come into MLS will they both be in the Western Conference? It makes sense due to geographical reasons. So which existing western conference team moves to the west? I would say either KC or Dallas. Most likely Dallas because they have a good rivalry with the Chicago Fire who are already in the East. would still make for a 32 game season if you play your conference opponents 4 times each and the non-conference opponents 2 times each.

[Rocket]

My guess is that KC might be moved to the East since Dallas has more rivalries with the Western Conference teams than KC.

[Chowda]

Dallas would get more fans to their games against Chivas. I've spotted Chivas fans at some of the Dallas games on TV. So they should stay.

KC is closer to Chicago and Columbus to develope rivalries with them.

[prk166]

Makes sense that KC or Dallas would move given their geographical locations. Of course single table would get around this issue. :p

[SportBoy333]

I dont like single table when you have more western teams than eastern teams in a large geographical country. Why should Chivas USA play LA the same amount of times as they play New England. Doesnt make sense to me in a country so large with different geographical regions spread out.

[AndyMead]

My guess is that KC might be moved to the East since Dallas has more rivalries with the Western Conference teams than KC.

Do they? Dallas's "big rival" is Chicago. Kansas City has 9 years of hate built up with Los Angeles, and the last couple of years has seen KC/SJ become rather heated.

There is no "easy" solution. If SJ moves to Texas, and MLS stays 2 divisions, then KC has to move. If SJ stays in SJ, then it's basically a toss-up.

I'd prefer a return to 3 divisions.

[SportBoy333]

3 Divisions. Each division winner makes the playoffs plus 1 wild card team(team with most points thats not a division winner). 4 total playoff teams. Division winner with the most points plays the wildcard team(even if they're from the same division) other two teams play each other, winners advance to final.

[Rocket]

3 Divisions.
Doesn't it look now like the Quakes will be staying in San Jose in 2005?

If so, then it's hard to see MLS splitting up Colorado and Salt Lake and putting them in separate divisions.

[Sundevil9]

3 Divisions. Each division winner makes the playoffs plus 1 wild card team(team with most points thats not a division winner). 4 total playoff teams. Division winner with the most points plays the wildcard team(even if they're from the same division) other two teams play each other, winners advance to final.

Nah, 2, 1, or 12. No 3 division nightmare replay.

With an E/W lineup:
East:
NE
Metro
DC
CLB
CHI
KC

West:
LAG
LAC
SJ/?
Col
SLC
Dal

30 game season:
Play every team in coference twice home, twice away -- 20 games
Play the four of the opposite conference home and way -- 8 games
One opposite conference home -- 1 game
One opposite conference away -- 1 game

Or make it a 32 game season (like before) and the play the opposite coference home and away for 12 games.

[tonyh01]

I can't figure out which is best. Dallas seems the logical choice to stay in the west, but their rivalry with Chicago makes me think Dallas would be a good fit in the East. Additionally, the SJ/KC thing is heating up, SJ/LA x 2 is pretty big, and LA/KC is always a good match...etc.

I sure as hell hope they don't go to 3 divs again though.

[Onionsack]

3 Divisions. Each division winner makes the playoffs plus 1 wild card team(team with most points thats not a division winner). 4 total playoff teams. Division winner with the most points plays the wildcard team(even if they're from the same division) other two teams play each other, winners advance to final.

How about 3 division winners and the runner-up in each division or "group". The best 2 recieve a bye and the remaining 4 play the 1st round home & away, 2nd round home and away...final is MLS cup neutral site.

This way its 6 in and 6 out with a 4-5 week post season, ( which is average for a US post season)

If we cannot work out a single table then this would make me happy.

[partycentral]

3 Divisions. Each division winner makes the playoffs plus 1 wild card team(team with most points thats not a division winner). 4 total playoff teams. Division winner with the most points plays the wildcard team(even if they're from the same division) other two teams play each other, winners advance to final.

I like the idea of 3 divisions, never mind the geography. But I'd prefer (and of course the MLS powers hang on every word I say) top 2 teams from each division, plus next 2 teams based on points as wild cards. Could make for some really wild playoffs. Theoretically, all 4 teams from one division could make it into the playoffs. Yes, that would still be an 8 team playoff, but it could be goofy.

[KCWiz]

Our country is huge; a single table would NEVER work. NEVER. NEVER.

[10 fan]

Long-term I think the best scenario is two conferences, east and west, but for 2005, one of the bigger rivalries will get broken up if this stays.

Maybe single table is the way to go, but with unbalanced scheduling. For example, San Jose may only play New England twice, but will play LA Galaxy four times. But then I'm sure some people would say that isn't fair.

[billward]

NO MESSING WITH THE PLAYOFF FORMAT!! A little consistency is a good thing. No three conferences, please! Put Dallas in the East, and despite the name change, let the Brimstone Cup go on. KISS.

Oh, and San Jose ain't going anywhere.

[sch2383]

It would make sense for Dallas or KC to move to the East, but since when has MLS made sense?

[Sempuukyaku]

A modified single table for next season works near flawlessly...


DO IT

[The Artist]

Obviously expansion candidates change all the times, but rather than worry about KC/LA or DAL/CHI I'd think the league would consider whether Houston or San Antonio or Oklahoma City was going to get a team. I'd want any (or all) of these teams in the same conference as Dallas. If St. Louis had any chance to get a team I'd want them in the same conference as Chicago and KC, but St. Louis isn't on the list (though one rich guy can change that in two minutes). Teams like Seattle and Portland and San Diego would have to be in the west. Rochester and Philadelphia would have to be in the east. Of course MLS can't plan too far ahead, but I do hope that they at least don't have to realign every time there is an expansion.

[352gialloblu]

A modified single table for next season works near flawlessly...
How, exactly? I don't think you should have a single table without a balenced schedule. If we balence the schedule for next year we're looking at either 22 or 44 games. I say keep things the way they are (i.e. two conferences, 8 team playoffs), and just put Dallas in the East. I can't see how they could argue, because it'll just make it easier for them to make the playoffs... ;)

I'm not against single table in principle, and I don't see why it couldn't work despite the fact that the USA are huge,* but it doesn't make sense yet.

*Look, we're probably doing more travelling now (some teams cross the country twice right now) than we would with single table, home-and-away schedules. It's not like a flight to NE from Colorado is much worse than a flight to LA from Colorado: you're still flying. And rivalry games could be made more intense by the fact that you only get 2 shots at that team.

[Aljarov]

I dont see the point of getting all hot under the collar for 2005, given the talk is that there will be more expansions in 2006. Something just to tide the league over (i.e as little change as possible), until this second wave of expansions are complete.

Then sort it out.

I like one table, but I'm British. Anything but the 3 divisions and I'm happy. Personally, I'd like more than 2 clubs not making the play-offs, it's a bit of a joke when 80% of the league makes the playoffs. Look at baseball...only 8 clubs make it in that sport and there 3 times as many teams.