[pc4th]

It's safe to assume that MLS will have 8 teams in the playoff for many years to come.

1996: 8 out of 10 teams (80%)
1997: 8 out of 10 teams (80%)
1998: 8 out of 12 teams (66.7%)
1999: 8 out of 12 teams (66.7%)
2000: 8 out of 12 teams (66.7%)
2001: 8 out of 12 teams (66.7%)
2002: 8 out of 10 teams (80%)
2003: 8 out of 10 teams (80%)
2004: 8 out of 10 teams (80%)
2005: 8 out of 12 teams (66.7%)--Chivas ans RSL
2006: 8 out of 12 teams (66.7%)
2007: 8 out of 13 teams (61.5%)--Toronto
2008: 8 out of 14 teams (57.1%)--San Jose
2009: 8 out of 15 teams (53.3%)--Seattle
2010: 8 out of 16 teams (50%) --Philly
2011: 8 out of 18 teams (44.4%)--Portland and Vancouver
201X: 8 out of 20 teams (40%) --Montreal and _________
201X: 8 out of 22 teams (36.4%) ________ and ________

MLS might change to 12 teams playoff when the league reach 26 teams. Assume that MLS will have 8 teams in the playoff for the next 10 years or so, how should MLS reward regular season's best teams during the 1st round 8-teams playoff?

Play the first leg away and the second leg at home

The current format. Advantage: if the game heads to overtime, higher seed will be at home. Disadvantage: the higher seed has to travel twice as many miles before the second game took place. Using Houston (#1 seed) vs. New York (#4 seed) as an example in the 1st round playoff last year. Houston has to travel to New York (1421 miles) and play the first game. Return home (1421 miles) and play the second game. New York only travel to Houston (1421 miles) and play. Travel wise, NY has the advantage.


Play a single elimination game at home A true home field advantage to the higher seed. Two drawbacks from MLS perspective:

1. MLS wants each team to have at least one playoff game in front of their home fans.
2. The loss in revenue from 4 playoff games.


Higher seed advance if aggregate score is tied after 2 legs(similar to FMF)

If the series is tied after 180 minutes, then the team with the better regular season records get the tiebreaker.



#1 seed play 3 home games, 0 away game in a round robin group

http://pitchinvasion.net/blog/2009/0...vamp-playoffs/

Yes, MLS fans’ dreams might be about to come true: Pitch Invasion has learned that the MLS Board of Governors are seriously considering a complete overhaul of the MLS playoff structure, that would both enliven the playoffs and ensure the regular season beomes a meaningful contest for first place with serious advantages gained for the post-season.

Here’s the new proposal:

* The top four teams in each conference would qualify for the playoffs, with the first stage now a round robin setup in two groups of four
* Each match in the group stage would be played at the home venue of the highest seeded team based on regular season performance — so the regular season winner would have three home games and no away games
* The top two from each group would qualify for the semi-finals
* Semi-finals would be one match, with again the highest seeded team from the regular season hosting
* The final would be hosted not at a neutral venue as in the past, but at the home of the highest seeded team

At a stroke, this ensures winning the Supporters Shield for the best regular season record would give a far greater advantage than the present convoluted set-up, which does not give any real home advantage at the first round two-legged stage. Winning the regular would mean the possibility of playing every playoff game at home, a huge reward on and off the field. Suddenly, every regular season match would really matter, and the final would be something to saviour with a partisan crowd.

Each of the 4 teams will play 3 games. Top 2 in the group advance to second round (semi).

#4 seed travel to #3, #2, #1
#3 seed get 1 home game, 2 away games
#2 seed get 2 home games, 1 away games
#1 seed get 3 home games, 0 away games

So, it's 1 week longer than the current 2 legs series. But it give serious advantages to teams that finish higher in the standing.

Best of 3 series (MLS 1st round playoff from 1996 to 1999)

Higher seeds get to play 1st and 3rd game (if necessary) at home.






--------------------------------

In all cases, the second round (semis) and third round (MLS Cup) would be the same as it is before.

[metros11]

So ummm, how is this first to 4 points thing going to work?

[arkjayback]

Congratulations, you now have 6 of the first 11 threads on the front page of MLS: General.

Now that you have reached your goal, you could slow down on the thread starting . . .

I thought woodlands' 10% of total posts as thread starters was friggin. high, but you're 22% blows that out of the water.

[MuD life]

i say leave but... #1 vs #8just make both games at the #1

it would make the fight for #1 good (more $)
it would make the fight for #7 good (more $) or even playoffs

[ChefJim27]

I think it should be awarded in regards to each club's standing versus total revenues and how far they are under the salary cap.

[pc4th]

http://tvsportsdaily.com/article.php...71004202926998

1996-1999: Best of 3 series
2000-2002: First to five points
2003 till now: 2 legs series

In MLS’s first four years of existence, the two playoff rounds leading to the MLS Cup final were best-of-three series within the Eastern and Western Conferences. Soccer purists complained, preferring the traditional home-and-away, total-goals format that is prevalent all over the soccer world. In those early days, MLS was always tinkering with the game to make it more appealing to mainstream sports fans. Concepts like in-game rock music, cheerleaders and the loathsome shootout littered the MLS landscape. Fortunately, MLS finally realized that it needs to serve committed soccer fans first and those ill-advised ideas were eventually phased out. The best-of-three format would have worked just fine if only the schedule didn’t have to be compressed to allow the games to fit into a reasonable time frame. Series that went the full three games typically resulted in teams having to play three matches in ten days. In the end, MLS was forcing its teams to play on short rest in the games that mattered the most.

Ideally, teams have one week of rest between games. If this format allowed that much time between games, it would have taken six weeks to determine the two finalists. The absurdity of the compressed schedule was never more evident than in 1998. In one semifinal, the Chicago Fire eliminated the Los Angeles Galaxy in two straight games and had eight days of rest before the final. In the other bracket, DC United needed three games to get rid of the Columbus Crew in a series that ended on a Wednesday night. DC then had to fly cross-country to Los Angeles and played in the final with only three days of rest.

In 2000, MLS made several changes to its structure. The twelve teams were grouped into three divisions and the eight playoff teams were the eight teams with the highest point totals. The playoff bracket ranked the teams 1-8, where #1 played #8, #2 played #7, etc. The logical format whittled the eight teams down to two in the final.

But the logic stopped there. MLS innovators came up with a first-to-five-points format. Because MLS finally dropped overtime and the shootout, matches were allowed to end as draws after 90 minutes. Draws were also allowed in playoff matches, and MLS got things wrong yet again by declaring that the winner of the series would be the first team to reach five points. This meant that a team could win the series by winning twice, or by earning a win and two draws.

This also meant that if the first game of a series ended in a draw, the series was guaranteed to last three games, thus taking much of the steam out of the second game. A team could lose the second game, knowing that glory could still be rescued in the third game. The format also wrongly rewarded playoff ineptitude. A team could lose the first game, get a draw in the second game, and then squeeze out a win in the third game to advance. If a team can’t post a win in two games played home and away, it does not deserve a third opportunity to come back. This format would have worked much better if a team needed just four points to eliminate their opponent.

It took MLS three years to realize what a folly first-to-five was. By 2003, the ten teams were back in two conferences. The playoff format was switched to the eminently reasonable two-leg, total goals structure that all soccer fans recognize. The quarterfinals were played over two legs, while the semifinals and final were one-game, winner-take-all matches. This format provided scheduling certainty, allowed proper rest between games and permitted MLS to schedule all playoff games on Saturday or Sunday, which would maximize attendance. The switch allowed die-hard soccer fans to relax and enjoy the competition in a manner that made more sense than any previous playoff format.

[Bonus_Game]

I like best of 3 the best.

[falvo]

Originally Posted by pc4th

It's safe to assume that MLS will have 8 teams in the playoff for many years to come.

1996: 8 out of 10 teams (80%)
1997: 8 out of 10 teams (80%)
1998: 8 out of 12 teams (66.7%)
1999: 8 out of 12 teams (66.7%)
2000: 8 out of 12 teams (66.7%)
2001: 8 out of 12 teams (66.7%)
2002: 8 out of 10 teams (80%)
2003: 8 out of 10 teams (80%)
2004: 8 out of 10 teams (80%)
2005: 8 out of 12 teams (66.7%)--Chivas ans RSL
2006: 8 out of 12 teams (66.7%)
2007: 8 out of 13 teams (61.5%)--Toronto
2008: 8 out of 14 teams (57.1%)--San Jose
2009: 8 out of 15 teams (53.3%)--Seattle
2010: 8 out of 16 teams (50%) --Philly
2011: 8 out of 18 teams (44.4%)--Portland and Vancouver
201X: 8 out of 20 teams (40%) --Montreal and _________
201X: 8 out of 22 teams (36.4%) ________ and ________

MLS might change to 12 teams playoff when the league reach 26 teams. Assume that MLS will have 8 teams in the playoff for the next 10 years or so, how should MLS reward regular season's best teams during the 1st round 8-teams playoff?

Play the first leg away and the second leg at home

The current format. Advantage: if the game heads to overtime, higher seed will be at home. Disadvantage: the higher seed has to travel twice as many miles before the second game took place. Using Houston (#1 seed) vs. New York (#4 seed) as an example in the 1st round playoff last year. Houston has to travel to New York (1421 miles) and play the first game. Return home (1421 miles) and play the second game. New York only travel to Houston (1421 miles) and play. Travel wise, NY has the advantage.


Play a single elimination game at home A true home field advantage to the higher seed. Two drawbacks from MLS perspective:

1. MLS wants each team to have at least one playoff game in front of their home fans.
2. The loss in revenue from 4 playoff games.


Higher seed advance if aggregate score is tied after 2 legs(similar to FMF)

If the series is tied after 180 minutes, then the team with the better regular season records get the tiebreaker.


#1 seed play 3 home games, 0 away game in a round robin group

http://pitchinvasion.net/blog/2009/0...vamp-playoffs/


Each of the 4 teams will play 3 games. Top 2 in the group advance to second round (semi).

#4 seed travel to #3, #2, #1
#3 seed get 1 home game, 2 away games
#2 seed get 2 home games, 1 away games
#1 seed get 3 home games, 0 away games

So, it's 1 week longer than the current 2 legs series. But it give serious advantages to teams that finish higher in the standing.

Best of 3 series (MLS 1st round playoff from 1996 to 1999)

Higher seeds get to play 1st and 3rd game (if necessary) at home.


--------------------------------

In all cases, the second round (semis) and third round (MLS Cup) would be the same as it is before.

None of the above. The supporters Shield is really just a farce that is made up by the fans. Teams get nothing for winning it and possibly do not even get a high draft pick (although draft picks do not mean much). As it is the team with the best record can be eliminated from the playoffs in the first round and then their great season was all for not. I think they should all be rewarded with an extra DP or more allocation money or some other reward like that.

[REALFOREVER]

Once they get to 20 teams, I think it might be a decent idea to let 12 teams make the playoffs. Let the top 4 clubs get a bye in the first round and let teams 5-12 duke it out. So the top 4 would go straight to the quarter-finals. Considering the parity in the league, a round between the 5-12 ranked teams could be quite entertaining. Plus it would keep teams ranked 13-16 or so still intrigued of a shot at the playoffs late in the season.

I assume once you get to 30 teams you could make it 16 playoff teams but that is such a way off that I think a 12 team playoff could be viable option until then.

[00Kevin]

that round robin option sounds very interesting, i already voted for the FMF option, but i think i might like this better