Clean Sheet Playoff Format: discuss how

[Viking64]

Two groups of four, so suppose it's

1 San Jose and 1 Chicago
2 Dallas
3 Los Angeles
4 Kansas City
5 Columbus
6 Colorado
7 New York

Now what? I guess the conference winner gets the anchor. The Supporters Shield winner gets the 4th in their group.

San Jose
Los Angeles
Columbus
New York

Chicago
Dallas
City
Colorado

They schedule 3 games, but where?
LA at SJ
NY at Crew

Crew at SJ
NY at LA

Crew at LA
NY at SJ

Each team gets 3, 2, 1, and 0 home games?

Bracket 2
Burn at Fire
Colo at City

City at Fire
Colo at Burn

Colo at Fire
City at Burn

Round 2, Higher Regular season record gets home away home
Bracket 1 A vs Brack 2B
Bracket 2 A vs Brack 1B

Might be fun...but the whole problem is that they don't control the dates, so the schedule is always going to have problems until they control the venues. THEN it will be worth it.

[HalaMadrid]

This playoff format would be DYNAMITE...

...if it were two groups of 3. A great resolution and inovative way to handle playoffs with a modicum of fluke control to keep people happy.

So, like this:

Group A: 1, 4, 6
Group B: 2, 3, 5
HOME TEAM LISTED FIRST

Playoff Round One
1 v 6
2 v 5

Playoff Round Two
4 v 6
3 v 5

Playoff Round Three
1 v 4
2 v 3

Semifinal Round
A1 v B2B1 v A2

MLS Cup Final
Semifinal Winners
That's 5 weeks, with the early dates locked in to promote ticket sales. Semifinal as one match at the higher seed in the playoff grouping provides aexcitement...I think this is a winner.

However, it needs to be 6 teams...at least until we expand again, then 8 would be alright again. You can easily adapt it to league size without wholly changing the format.
I also like the idea of 6 teams for a 10 team leage with the 1 and 2 getting a bye to the semis and the other 4 seeds having single play-in games to match up with the high seeds in Best-of-Three Semifinals...but this is not as likely a proposition.

Creative thinking, at least.

[mr.acorn]

Eliminating the game 3's will make getting Tv time alittle easier.

All in all, I like the concept...though, I'd go one step further and eliminate the divisions and make the Supporters Shield "official".

[BWMcTell]

Originally posted by mr.acorn
Eliminating the game 3's will make getting Tv time alittle easier.

All in all, I like the concept...though, I'd go one step further and eliminate the divisions and make the Supporters Shield "official".

I like this idea, although it will be difficult to pull that off 'a la European leagues' since the USA is so large that regional matchup-heavy schedules make more sense than a full balanced schedule. But I am all for creating one division for MLS. Enough of this East v. West crap. No matter how the teams are put together, rivalries will develop and remain if the play is good.

[mlsrevs]

I hope this could somehow work.

[jmeissen0]

we need to get more teams in mls :(

[Wizardscharter]

Originally posted by Viking64
I too am guessing, but it looks to be this:

8 seeds, Div. champs are 1 and 2. 1-4-5-8 in a pool. The other 4 in another. Higher seed gets home game always. No second round, group winners to pre-set final.

It may well have the advantages that TCS mentioned. You do have a built in advantage of seeding being earned by the regular season. You hopefully "upgrade" quarterfinal games into "semi-final" type games, maybe that helps sales. You have an interesting but complicated set-up, and maybe even a clear winner (maybe not). Last you have three playoff dates instead of possibly 6. Maybe MLS can squeeze out a better TV contract for this set up. Lots of maybes.

That said, the disadvantages are numerous, glaring, and not in doubt:

You might not have a clear winner:
hello? These are supposed to be playoffs. You might have someone go through on goal difference or some convoluted thing like head-to-head in the regular season. At the very least it increases the need for a tie-breaker heirarchy. Is that what we want? It's not what I want. Pool play? C'mon, stick with playoffs. If pool play was the way to do it, the second round of the World Cup would be 4 pools of 4, where the winners make up the final Group.

Two teams make the playoffs and get a total of zero home games:
wow, that's a tough sell. The problem is easily solved by having the #1 seed in the pool go to the #4 seed (again within the pool - 7 or 8 seed in reality), and keed the rest the same. Top two seeds get 2 home games and the low two get one home game of three. Still, it's more complicated. Pundits say people apparently can't grasp a simple-by-comparison first-to-5 system and you are going to ask those same people to swallow this? Please.

Another disadvantage is that you probably get meaningless games on the third matchday of Round 1:
you will definitely get at least one game in each pool where one team has nothing at stake. With the current system you might get a "meaningless" game, but it's never known that it was meaningless (a Gm 1 or 2 tie) until it was over. That's a horrible system in that regard. Just plain horrible. It is a sure way to guarantee at least one Matchday 3 crowd of 6,000 in colder October.

Yet another disadvantage: It's more accurate to call this a negative similarity to the current system. MLS plays in NFL stadia mostly, and will for some time. Dates will be as difficult to iron out for one system as the other. The difference being 3 preset dates versus up to four where only one is pre-set currently. If the league can reserve 3 dates in advance for a system like the one proposed, why can't they reserve four dates (two home dates over two rounds) for the current system. Where is the ease of scheduling that is supposed to lead to MLS being able to "pre-sell" the dates. I think this is a fallacy. The system shouldn't matter when reserving October dates in February. MLS either can or MLS can't. Don't be fooled by spin doctoring. Can MLS really say that the difference in reserving MLS stadia for 3 dates instead of 4 warrants the changing of an ingrained playoff system? Hmmm, there is a value in consistency.

Is 3 games to determine a finalist better than 4 and possibly 6? I believe the goal of playoffs is to determine the best team. "Best team" to me goes beyond the first 11 and all the way down the bench to your last guy. I think it's better to have the possibility of more games to test that bench, if need be. To me the attrition inherant to playoff hockey is one reason the TV numbers are greater. The average sports fan that only tunes in to the playoffs wants to see some of that "Bhutan Death March" aspect on ABC/ESPN and hear about it from Gary Thorne. I don't think MLS can capture what NHL does, but why throw it away?

Still, there is no possible way this system is "easier" to understand or less complex than the current one. The system is unique and different, but so is the current system. At least under the current one you get a clear decision and maybe more games. As a fan that would seem to be a signifigant positive.

I'd love to meet the marketer that was able to sell this idea to the decision makers. That person has a brilliant future ahead of him/her.

Obviously the pitch was about money increasing or something like that. I'd like to read the proposal to find out how exactly the proposed would translate to more dollars. Unless those numbers were phenominal, and true, it's a mistake.

[due time]

Originally posted by wizardscharter
You might not have a clear winner:
hello? These are supposed to be playoffs. You might have someone go through on goal difference or some convoluted thing like head-to-head in the regular season. At the very least it increases the need for a tie-breaker heirarchy.

Yes, a clear tie-breaker system would be needed which did not include 'coin flip' as the last tie-breaker. The great minds at MLS surely could think of something better than FIFA did.

Originally posted by wizardscharter

Pool play? C'mon, stick with playoffs. If pool play was the way to do it, the second round of the World Cup would be 4 pools of 4, where the winners make up the final Group.

I think most people in the US who would even consider watching an MLS play-off game will be familiar with the WC system after Kore/Japan.

BTW, why do you think FIFA does pool play in the first round? I myself don't know, but if it is as repugnant as you suggest, they could easily devise a pure single elimination tournament. I think the answer is this:
It takes too long to do pool play to the end. It also deprives the fans of a 1v1 matchup of the two best teams with the cup on the line. Otherwise, I could argue that pool play is inherently more fair than a single elimination tournament (ability to recover from one bad referee's decision, etc..).

[due time]

Originally posted by wizardscharter

Two teams make the playoffs and get a total of zero home games:
wow, that's a tough sell.


It's done all the time in the NFL, remember the '81 Raiders? Next point....

Originally posted by wizardscharter

Another disadvantage is that you probably get meaningless games on the third matchday of Round 1:
you will definitely get at least one game in each pool where one team has nothing at stake. With the current system you might get a "meaningless" game, but it's never known that it was meaningless (a Gm 1 or 2 tie) until it was over. That's a horrible system in that regard. Just plain horrible. It is a sure way to guarantee at least one Matchday 3 crowd of 6,000 in colder October.

Mathematically, there is only one combination of wins/losese/ties 3/1/0 that results in a meaningless game, i.e. Team1 6, Team2 6, Team3 0, Team4 0. It didn't occur in this WC, and would be rather rare, not a yearly occurance for sure.

You would end up with games on the third date where one team is eliminated (i.e. Poland) and only playing a spoiler role. If that is the home team, then yes, it could affect attendance, but it definately is not 'meaningless', at least at the start of the game (US v Poland turned out to be meaningless, but my gut wasn't saying that thru most of the match!).

[due time]

Originally posted by wizardscharter

Is 3 games to determine a finalist better than 4 and possibly 6?

The concept is group play to determine the top two teams in each group and THEN, have a four team single elimination play-off. Very similar to a mini WC format. I think maybe you missed that point. So the # of 'playoff' games is 5 for the winner and runner-up.

Originally posted by wizardscharter

Still, there is no possible way this system is "easier" to understand or less complex than the current one. The system is unique and different, but so is the current system.

Maybe it is more complex than I was imagining since a die-hard fan like yourself is having trouble with it! j/k...

Seriously, I think having a system that is even a bit complicated is OK, if it's modeled after something everyone is now pretty familiar with, i.e. world cup. A unique system is the most complex because fans and media don't have a reference point.

[sydtheeagle]

Quite apart from the fact that playoffs are, by definition, a farce since the "regular" season determines in every sense the best team in a league, why does the MSL have to have them? Why should fans be expected to pay to watch games week in and week out that are all too oftent essentially meaningless, and even openly insulted by the administrators of the game itself by being called "regular" as if to denote that only what comes next is special.

Before anyone says "because in America, playoffs are the way it's done", well, why not football buck the trend? Instead of carving out its own identity and drawing new followers by imitating the worst traits of the other major sports in the States (clue: playoffs are nothing more than a way to squeeze a few extra bucks out of the fans the TV networks), why doesn't the MSL stand proudly apart and say "here, we've got a league system that actually counts".

No doubt a stupid idea.

[The REVerend]

Originally posted by sydtheeagle
Quite apart from the fact that playoffs are, by definition, a farce since the "regular" season determines in every sense the best team in a league, why does the MSL have to have them? Why should fans be expected to pay to watch games week in and week out that are all too oftent essentially meaningless, and even openly insulted by the administrators of the game itself by being called "regular" as if to denote that only what comes next is special.

Before anyone says "because in America, playoffs are the way it's done", well, why not football buck the trend? Instead of carving out its own identity and drawing new followers by imitating the worst traits of the other major sports in the States (clue: playoffs are nothing more than a way to squeeze a few extra bucks out of the fans the TV networks), why doesn't the MSL stand proudly apart and say "here, we've got a league system that actually counts".

No doubt a stupid idea.

I agree that this would be ideal. Having one table and declaring the team with the most points champion is the best way to do it. It makes "regular" season games meaningful. It is also the fairest way to do things, because injuries and bad referee decisions even out over the course of the year.

However I don't think this system would work in MLS right now because

1) MLS needs the money that the playoffs generate. You could argue that the one table system would bring in extra revenue for regular season games, but I don't think it would bring in as much as having 4 or 5 extra dates does. Also, having a higher profile game like MLS Cup is important for getting MLS media exposure.

2) Most teams would have little to play for at the end of the season. In Europe the table system works because there is promotion/relegation and because teams can attempt to earn places in the Champions League and UEFA Cup. We don't have any of those things here, and so there would only be one meaningful position in the league: #1. In the English Premier League, for example, a team that is out of the title race might still have to fight to avoid relegation or attempt to qualify for the next season's CL. If this weren't the case, there would be a ton of relatively meaningless games in the last few months of the season.

I would love to see the table system in MLS. However I don't think it will work until MLS starts making money, implements some sort of promotion/relegation system, and finds a way to get its teams into a meaningful club competition (the copa libertadores?)...

[galaxyfan03]

ANYTHING would be better than that PATHETIC "First to 5 points" system we have right now.

However, I do have MY own proposal.

Make the Q-finals & Semis a "true" best-of-three series. In other words, instead of "First to 5 points," make it "First to win 2 games." If there is a tie in Game 1 or Game 2, play a 30-minute OT (Golden Goal). If still even, then go to PKs. It may not be the most popular choice, but at least we'll have a winner. If the teams are still even after two games & regulation time in the third game, then play the 30-minute OT followed by PKs, if necessary.

ELIMINATE that stupid "mini-game" stuff.

Now, as far as the MLS Cup Final goes, it should be a two-game series, a la Copa Libertadores. The finalists should each host a game, with the higher-seeded team hosting the second game. If the first game ends in a draw after 90 minutes, it stays that way. If the second game ends in a draw after 90 minutes or is even on total goals, then you play 30 minutes of sudden-death OT followed by PKs to decide the MLS Cup Champion.

This would insure each finalist gets an extra home game (which means more $) & would, hopefully, guarantee a large crowd.

I've liked the neutral-site idea for the Cup Final, but after what happened at Crew Stadium last year I feel a change might be in order. This would also move MLS more in line with FIFA standards, in terms of deciding a the league champ.

[Jimbob]

Originally posted by due time

BTW, why do you think FIFA does pool play in the first round? I myself don't know, but if it is as repugnant as you suggest, they could easily devise a pure single elimination tournament. I think the answer is this:
It takes too long to do pool play to the end. It also deprives the fans of a 1v1 matchup of the two best teams with the cup on the line. Otherwise, I could argue that pool play is inherently more fair than a single elimination tournament (ability to recover from one bad referee's decision, etc..).

FIFA organizes the first round of the World Cup as pool play because it means that 16 teams dont come home after one game.

Mathematically, there is only one combination of wins/losese/ties 3/1/0 that results in a meaningless game, i.e. Team1 6, Team2 6, Team3 0, Team4 0. It didn't occur in this WC, and would be rather rare, not a yearly occurance for sure.


Well, it matters if two teams would advance from the four team group or if one team would advance. The more sensible approach, having the group winners play each other in the MLS Cup final, means there are more meaningless games than in the World Cup's First Round. In any case, any playoff system where there is any chance of a meaningless game is not worth it.

It's done all the time in the NFL, remember the '81 Raiders? Next point....

MLS has nowhere near the amount of exposure that the NFL has to make this a relevant argument. Imagine my Quakes winning the MLS Cup last year without a single home match....is there any coverage here locally? Not at all.

Originally posted by sydtheeagle
Quite apart from the fact that playoffs are, by definition, a farce since the "regular" season determines in every sense the best team in a league, why does the MSL have to have them? Why should fans be expected to pay to watch games week in and week out that are all too oftent essentially meaningless, and even openly insulted by the administrators of the game itself by being called "regular" as if to denote that only what comes next is special.

MLS, MLS, MLS.

Before anyone says "because in America, playoffs are the way it's done", well, why not football buck the trend? Instead of carving out its own identity and drawing new followers by imitating the worst traits of the other major sports in the States

Couldn't agree with you more...I really wish the lague would be decided like that, but it ain't never going to happen here. It just wouldn't fly...you don't understand.

(clue: playoffs are nothing more than a way to squeeze a few extra bucks out of the fans the TV networks)

MLS? Make money?

No doubt a stupid idea.

I am assuming you're English. I'd like to point out a certain country quite a ways south of us that is pretty well respected and they too have a playoff format to decide their national championship. They beat you in the Quarters, remember? It may be a stupid idea, but its not like America is the blight on a footballing world that is free of playoff systems. How do you expect Crystal Palace to get to the Premiership, anyway? Automatically?

Originally posted by galaxyfan03
ANYTHING would be better than that PATHETIC "First to 5 points" system we have right now.

What's so pathetic? You play three games unless a team wins the first two. Better team advances. If tied, they play 20 more then PKs. How is that pathetic?

[QUOTE] Make the Q-finals & Semis a "true" best-of-three series. In other words, instead of "First to 5 points," make it "First to win 2 games." If there is a tie in Game 1 or Game 2, play a 30-minute OT (Golden Goal). If still even, then go to PKs. It may not be the most popular choice, but at least we'll have a winner. If the teams are still even after two games & regulation time in the third game, then play the 30-minute OT followed by PKs, if necessary.

a) We have a winner in the current set up,
b) Nothing will beat the sight of a team eliminated after winning game one then "losing" twice in a PK lottery.

ELIMINATE that stupid "mini-game" stuff.

Maybe you like the "stupid mini-game stuff" when its in the European Champions League and its called "Extra Time". It's the same thing.

Now, as far as the MLS Cup Final goes, it should be a two-game series, a la Copa Libertadores.

See the first match of the CONCACAF Champions Cup Semis between Kansas City and Morellia to see why this never should happen. Exactly how many fans do you think the Wizards will attract for the road leg?

This would insure each finalist gets an extra home game (which means more $) & would, hopefully, guarantee a large crowd.

It would also mean scrambling for TV times and stadium openings and the league championship decided on a late Thursday night on ESPN2 with "Spartans" or "Jets" plastered in both end zones.

I've liked the neutral-site idea for the Cup Final, but after what happened at Crew Stadium last year I feel a change might be in order. This would also move MLS more in line with FIFA standards, in terms of deciding a the league champ.

I think the fiasco at Crew Stadium last year proved that the semifinals have to be decided at least a week in advance to attect traveling fans and that Columbus just isnt a soccer town when a game isnt pushed down their throats for months in advance (a la USA-Mexico WCQ) Oh, and FIFA does not have a standard in league formats, nor do they have any right to.

The current system is the best for MLS right now....except I could do with a little less playoff teams.

[sydtheeagle]

Originally posted by Jimbob


How do you expect Crystal Palace to get to the Premiership, anyway? Automatically?



Tomorrow evening is the 33rd anniversary of my first match at Selhurst Park. That means I've seen Palace something in the region of 1,000 times. With that in mind, what on God's green earth makes you think I expect them to get promoted?

You can have the Premiership. I cared about things like "glamour" when I was young, but these days I'm quite happy to watch my football in real grounds packed (or not, as the case may be) by real supporters who follow their local teams and to revel in absence of bandwagon jumpers and prawn sandwiches in the cocktail bar at half time. That's what the "lower divisions" are about, and I love it.

[John Galt]

Personally, I think the World Cup style playoff format is a great idea. It's easier to schedule and market games than the first to five format, is easier to understand, and provides real consequences for the regular season. No playoffs just isn't going to happen and for those who don't want soccer to copy other leagues, this playoff format is unique to soccer. I only wish it could be implemented this year. It's a fantastic idea.

[Rocket]

The main problem I see with the playoff format as its being proposed is the possibility of ending up with meaningless matches during the final stage of the round-robin phase.

A good way to get around that difficulty (proposed by kebzach, I believe) would be to have only 3 teams in each group. Then have the winners of each group meet up in the MLS Cup.

Positives:

1) 6 of 10 teams make the playoffs
2) playoffs could be held over 3 weekends
3) each round-robin match is hosted by the team having the better regular season record
4) the use of PK's to decide a winner would only potentially occur in the MLS Cup

Negative:

1) If teams are tied in points after the end of the round-robin phase, it would be necessary to break the tie by a coin toss/drawing lots if all other tiebreakers (goal differential, total goals scored, etc) were inconclusive

[harttbeat]

what about this... the current league structure, there's really no incentives for conference winners... Let's have a 6 teams playoff (ala the NFL championship conference)...

The two conference winners will get bye... The four wild card teams will play to advanced to the MLS Cup semi-final... I would rather have a single game elimination...the team with more points will get home field advantage... I think this would system will take less than 3 weeks and it would not necessary crash with NFL stadium conflicts... I dunno but the current 5 points system really sux.

I know this system will mean less games for MLS but you can always add from 28 games season to 32 games season...Besides, history shown MLS playoff games don't sell for whatever reason... This system gives more meaning to MLS season and teams will want to win the conference...

what ya think?

[ThreeApples]

Originally posted by harttbeat
what about this... the current league structure, there's really no incentives for conference winners..

The current league structure gives a lot of incentive to conference winners. Having two out of three at home in each round is a big incentive, especially for a team like San Jose, which hasn't dropped a league point at home since last August and hasn't earned a point on the road since June 1. They need to win the Supporters Shield to have a clear path to the final. For the Eastern Conference winner, they get to have the 2nd seed and home field advantage despite being 6th-place in the league.

[harttbeat]

Originally posted by Noah Elliott


The current league structure gives a lot of incentive to conference winners. Having two out of three at home in each round is a big incentive, especially for a team like San Jose, which hasn't dropped a league point at home since last August and hasn't earned a point on the road since June 1. They need to win the Supporters Shield to have a clear path to the final. For the Eastern Conference winner, they get to have the 2nd seed and home field advantage despite being 6th-place in the league.

if the conference winner loses the first match and loses again in the away match, what incentives does they have? You're only GUARANTEE to have one home games... Look at MLB, NBA, and NHL... I know they have a 5 or 7 games type playoff format but the better winning percentage team play at least 2 home games...