A 16 team MLS

[GoHawks4]

My ideal size for MLS would be 16 teams. 2 conferences with 2 divisions in each.

Eastern Conference:
____________________
Atlantic Division:

MetroStars
D.C. United
New England Revolution
An expansion team (take your pick)

Midwest/Central Division:

Chicago Fire
Columbus Crew
Kansas City Wizards
Expansion team (St. Louis? Pennsylvania?)

Weastern Conference:
_____________________________
Southwestern Division:

Expansion (Whoever)
Dallas Burn
Colorado Rapids
Expansion (OKLAHOMA, where the wind comes sweeping down the pitch)

Pacific Division:

San Jose Earthquakes
Los Angeles Galaxy
Expansion
Expansion









What do you guys think?

[UncleSam527]

Expansion teams:
East
Rochester Raging Rhinos
Milwaukee Rampage (IF they get their stadium)

West
Oklahoma SC
Seattle Sounders
"There are future rumors" to fill this void

[JG_Revs]

Moved from News/Analysis to MLS Expansion forum

[JMU Soccer!]

This is neither current news or analysis. Moved to the MLS Expansions and Stadiums forum.

All the best.

[JMU Soccer!]

Heh heh, look like we found this at the same time JG Revs

[JG_Revs]

Originally posted by JMU Soccer!
This is neither current news or analysis. Moved to the MLS Expansions and Stadiums forum.

All the best. Step back sir, there's nothing to see here.




I like the 16-team format, by the way. Let's hope it happens.

[BWMcTell]

Originally posted by GoHawks4
My ideal size for MLS would be 16 teams. 2 conferences with 2 divisions in each.

Eastern Conference:
____________________
Atlantic Division:

MetroStars
D.C. United
New England Revolution
An expansion team (take your pick)

Midwest/Central Division:

Chicago Fire
Columbus Crew
Kansas City Wizards
Expansion team (St. Louis? Pennsylvania?)

Weastern Conference:
_____________________________
Southwestern Division:

Expansion (Whoever)
Dallas Burn
Colorado Rapids
Expansion (OKLAHOMA, where the wind comes sweeping down the pitch)

Pacific Division:

San Jose Earthquakes
Los Angeles Galaxy
Expansion
Expansion









What do you guys think?


Truthfully, for one I dont like splitting the teams up into all those divisions. I almost prefer a single division over an East/West thing. Also, I dont know if well be seeing expansion in the near future. But there are plenty of good A-league teams out there I would like to see become part of MLS. It would be cool if we could develop some sort of relegation system but I dont think we're ready for that.

[Khansingh]

Originally posted by UncleSam527
Expansion teams:
East
Rochester Raging Rhinos


Not until they change that name. Raging Rhinos? This is MLS, not Independent League Baseball. Lancers or Royals, take your pick.

[Rocket]

Originally posted by Khansingh

Not until they change that name. Raging Rhinos? This is MLS, not Independent League Baseball. Lancers or Royals, take your pick.
Raging Rhinos is better than most of the names we already have in MLS -- it's better than Burn, Crew, Revolution, MetroStars, Rapids and United.

[Shredder]

Originally posted by vw

Raging Rhinos is better than most of the names we already have in MLS -- it's better than Burn, Crew, Revolution, MetroStars, Rapids and United.

DC United is the only name in MLS that is actually classy. However, I do agree that most of the other names are terrible.

[crestuden]

Splitting teams into 4 divisions might not mean anything other than helping for seeding in playoffs. In the NBA teams in the same division dont play each other any more than they play teams in the same conference.

Atlantic
DC United
NE Revolution
Metrostars
Philly (Expansion)

Central
Chicago Fire
Columbus Crew
Kansas City Wizards
St. Louis (Expansion)

West
LA Galaxy
San Jose Earthquakes
Seattle (Expansion)
Anahiem (Expansion)

Dirty Dirty
Dallas Burn
Atlanta (Expansion)
NC Triangle (Expansion)
OKC (Expansion)

[Rocket]

Originally posted by Shredder


DC United is the only name in MLS that is actually classy.
I happen to like the name myself as well.

It seems to me, though, that non-soccer types who are unfamiliar with Man United, Leeds United, etc might find the name odd.

And weren't the various "United" clubs in Europe formed by merging two or more previously existing clubs?

[kb]

Originally posted by crestuden
Splitting teams into 4 divisions might not mean anything other than helping for seeding in playoffs. In the NBA teams in the same division dont play each other any more than they play teams in the same conference.

Atlantic
DC United
NE Revolution
Metrostars
Philly (Expansion)

Central
Chicago Fire
Columbus Crew
Kansas City Wizards
St. Louis (Expansion)

West
LA Galaxy
San Jose Earthquakes
Seattle (Expansion)
Anahiem (Expansion)

Dirty Dirty
Dallas Burn
Atlanta (Expansion)
NC Triangle (Expansion)
OKC (Expansion)

Somebody better tell Colorado the bad news about the 16 team league

[kasai]

Originally posted by crestuden
Splitting teams into 4 divisions might not mean anything other than helping for seeding in playoffs. In the NBA teams in the same division dont play each other any more than they play teams in the same conference.

Atlantic
DC United
NE Revolution
Metrostars
Philly (Expansion)

Central
Chicago Fire
Columbus Crew
Kansas City Wizards
St. Louis (Expansion)

West
LA Galaxy
San Jose Earthquakes
Seattle (Expansion)
Anahiem (Expansion)

Dirty Dirty
Dallas Burn
Atlanta (Expansion)
NC Triangle (Expansion)
OKC (Expansion)

LOL it makes a lot of sense to put two teams in the LA market, but nothing in San Diego..... This philosophy seems to be working really well for the NHL.....

[dawgpound2]

I happen to believe that a 16-team MLS could be the place to start some relegation/promotion. NOTE: I am not a fan of pro/rel in correlation with the A-League.

If MLS goes to 16 teams, you could technically have two 8-team tiers of the league.

The teams could play a balanced schedule of 2 home/2 away versus each team (7x4 still equals the 28 game schedule).

The bottom team of MLS1 goes down to MLS2, and the MLS2 champ moves up. MLS1 plays for the MLS Cup, and all teams particpate in the US Open Cup.

If say Dallas and Chicago end up in different divisions, they could still settle their Brimstone Cup rivalry with a couple of scheduled "friendlies".

Plus, I believe that as long as teams weren't relegated to the wasteland that is the A-League, fans would still be as passionate about their MLS2 clubs.

[dawgpound2]

And, to along with my previous post, all 16 teams would still have the same salary cap, and still split revenue equally. This allows everyone in MLS1 and MLS2 to be on a level playing field competitively.

[TIKY]

I like the idea of a 16 team league with NO divisions! Single table PLEASE! If there was any question as to whether there should be a single table format, 2002 should eliminate all questions. The Metros seeded #2 when they'd be LAST in the West?! Gimme a break.

I'd like to see some sort of punishment for the two bottom teams, like not being allowed to participate in tournaments, such as the US Open Cup.

[Khansingh]

Originally posted by TIKY
I like the idea of a 16 team league with NO divisions! Single table PLEASE! If there was any question as to whether there should be a single table format, 2002 should eliminate all questions. The Metros seeded #2 when they'd be LAST in the West?! Gimme a break.

Give me a break. Western superiority isn't a permanent thing, it's a trend. The same thing is happening in the NHL and NBA. And remember when the NFC won 13 consecutive Super Bowls? Before that, the AFL/AFC had won twelve of the first eighteen. Now Baseball has one superior league, the American League. I'm not sure of the number, but I think it's something like 61 to 40. And for what it's worth, the National League won all three World Series against the American Association from 1883-1885.

[kcwizklein]

i think that we should have 2 leagues but top 2 and bottom 2 move not just 1 and i think the mls 2 shouls have a smaller salary cap. To decide who goes where we should have a game againts each team. No ties shootouts for qualifing. And the tiebraker could be games won w/o shootout

[bright]

I don't mind the idea of pro/rel. But I think as a fan, I might get tired of seeing my home team play against only 7 other teams in my "division". I like the idea of a larger league, where each home game is unique and therefore an event unto itself. I don't think it would be wise, though, to have pro/rel between two large divisions, because falling down in divisions could be a lot more permanent and damaging.

I think that MLS should always play with 2 conferences, East and West, no matter how many teams it has (10, 16, 20, 24, whatever). You always play the teams in your conference twice. You play the teams in the other conference once, with half the non-conference games at home and half away. This is where the unbalance comes from, because some teams will have an easier home schedule overall or more difficult away schedule overall. There may also be some non-conference teams you play twice in order to fill out the schedule with more games.

The East and West conference races will be decided by conference games only, the same way it is done in college football. So each conference will have its own single table. The conference winner will be declared champion based on a single table derived from conference games only and will receive a first round bye in the playoffs.

The rest of the playoff spots will be determined by a single table which includes all games played. These standings will be determined by the unbalanced schedule.

With up to 16 teams, I think that only the top 6 teams should make the playoffs: the conference winners plus the next four teams in the overall standings. With 18 teams or more, the top 8 teams can make it, with the two conference winners plus the next 6 in the overall standings.

The playoffs would look like this with 6 teams:
weekend 1:
... #6 at #3
... #5 at #4
weekend 2:
... winner of 6v3 at #1
... winner of 5v4 at #2
weekend 3:
... MLS Cup

The playoffs would look like this with 8 teams:
midweek before weekend 1:
... #8 at #5
... #7 at #6
weekend 1:
... winner of 8v5 at #3
... winner of 7v6 at #4
weekend 2:
... winner of 8v5v3 at #2
... winner of 7v6x4 at #1
weekend 3:
... MLS Cup

This creates two single-table races in each conference. One team wins, and it is a clear winner based on a balance schedule. Fans of the single-table gotta love that. :)

This also allows enough teams into the playoffs so that most of the teams' fans can keep their hopes up throughout the season and there is something to fight for if you can't catch the lead team in your conference.

This rewards teams for finishing high in the standings by granting them huge advantages in the playoffs, such as hosting playoff games and getting a bye to later rounds. And in the 8-team scenario, there is a difference between 3-4 and 5-8.

The three races (two conferences and overall league) will give the fans a lot of exciting things to talk about and cheer for. I also think the later stages of the regular season will be more exciting because winning the conference really means something, and also since only half or less teams make the playoffs (except in the 6 out of 10 scenario, but close enough, right? :)).

This scenario is adapatable for any even number of teams, from 10 up to 24.

I wouldn't really go past 20 though, although 24 might be okay, but the league would have to be very stable econimically so that the worse teams don't decide to fold. A 20-team league would have 18 conference games, and 10 non-conference games, 28 overall (and you could add a few more games if you like). A 24-team league would have 22 conference games, 12 non-conference games, 34 overall. The playoffs are short and to the point, so more than 28 games in the season is doable.

- Paul