With those 28 locations I think both methods are poor. I hope MLS doesn't have 28 clubs in those places.
San Diego won't be one of them: I have a feeling that the MLS Front Office definitely has it's preferences (based on prior promises, geographic hole, and TV market), so I wouldn't be surprised if the final 4 spots go to Sacramento, Detroit, Phoenix, and one of St Louis/Charlotte/Raleigh/Nashville. They also will want a divisional mix of northern and southern cities that will be pleasant to play in for at least part of the year. So I see the following groupings: PACIFIC: Vancouver, Seattle, Portland, Sacramento, San Jose, San Diego, LAFC, LA Galaxy MOUNTAIN: Phoenix, Salt Lake, Colorado, Houston, Dallas, Kansas City, Minnesota CENTRAL: Chicago, Columbus, Detroit, Toronto, Montreal, New England, St Louis/Nashville/NYCFC ATLANTIC: NYCFC/Charlotte/Raleigh, RedBulls, Philadelphia, DC United, Miami, Orlando & Atlanta.
24: Sacramento (I dont think Miami is happening) 25: Detroit 26: Charlotte 27: Tampa 28: St Louis ATLANTIC: Atlanta, Orlando, Tampa, Charlotte, DC U, Columbus, Philly METRO: Chicago, NYRB, NYCFC, Toronto, Montreal, New England, Detroit CENTRAL: RSL, Colorado, Kansas City, Dallas, Houston, Minnesota, St Louis PACIFIC: Vancouver, Seattle, Portland, San Jose, Sacramento, Galaxy, LAFC
UCFWayne, I don't see the Atlantic and Metro conferences panning out that way because you are breaking up established rivalries between DCU-NYRB and Columbus-TFC.
I think divisions will matter in the future for scheduling purposes. I dont think it will mater for scheduling for within the eastern conference. I think the divisions will matter for when scheduling East vs West games. I think all eastern teams will play each other at least twice, maybe within the division 3 times. Then every other year they will switch between playing one of the divisions.
Personally, I hope that that's all that divisions count for. In reality, I would hope that MLS would just stick to two conferences playing all conference opponents and then opposing conference teams based on strength of schedule vs previous season results in a manner which keeps it more or less on the up and satisfying the manufactured parity that the league likes without totally ruining the competition with increasing fragmentation of the league. MLS could really stand out as the one US-based league that resists the urge to fragment it's league into 4 to 6 mini-divisions. I've accepted it in other sports, but I would truly hate to see it here.
Here's an idea with two 14 team conferences and 34 games: 1 game against every opponent: 27 games 1 game against an adjacent opponent in the previous season's conference standings (1 vs. 2, 3 vs. 4, 5 vs. 6, 7 vs. 8, 9 vs. 10, 11 vs. 12, and 13 vs. 14): 1 game 6 games against one of the opponents in every other pair in your conference: 6 games. In odd years, Club 1 would play Clubs 3, 5, 7, 9, 11, and 13. Club 2 would play Clubs 4, 6, 8, 10, 12, and 14. In even years, Club 1 and Club 2 would switch. If this was done based on the previous season's standings, some clubs in the same conference would play a second game in more years than others. Alternatively, each club could be given a number if MLS reaches 28 clubs with the number staying the same every year. If that was done, rivals could be guaranteed two games a season such as making the Red Bulls 1 and NYCFC 2. Other than one rival, you would play every conference opponent 3 times every 2 years.
Garber said that they were not interested in reducing games because it would lower the potential revenue from teams.
Thanks. The only real issues are Toronto, which could just as easily be in the "Heartland", and Colorado and Salt Lake, which are in no man's land in terms of the population of this country. I imagine Salt Lake people would more readily identify with the West, but there aren't enough people in the mountain west for them not to have to travel somewhere, and the West Coast is practically soccer central in this country, what with the mix of lefty liberals, hipsters, and latinos. (That last comment is made with love, by the way, as I've spent the majority of my life on the Left Coast).
SKC will push hard that to be paired with Stl. It is their only shot at a regional rivalry. Home and away each year would be a boost to both clubs. I'd prefer to see them meld the single table world with the US division world, essentially two 7 team divisions combined into a single unit for a season, home and away, with the remaining 8 games scheduled so that teams that want to play each other, but don't make geographic sense, play each other, at least every two years. However, as the league grows, it would be interesting to see them break the mold. At 28 team, two nine team divisions, one 10, would be interesting (works better at 30 or 27). The reality, with playoffs to determine a single champ, you can mix and match: West: Vancouver, Seattle, Portland, Sacramento, San Jose, Galaxy, LAFC, Salt Lake, Colorado (later. vegas or Phoenix) Central: Dallas, San Antonio, Houston, Kansas City, Minnesota, St. Louis, Chicago, Columbus, Cincinnati (later, Pittsburgh or someone) East: Atlanta, Orlando, Miami, Montreal, Toronto, New England, NYCFC, Red Bulls, Philly, DC United
Two 14-team single table divisions based SOLELY ON COMPETITIVE ACHIEVEMENT. The team with the most points at the end of the season in the first division is the league champion. Case closed. To provide incentives at the end of the season, have the 11th, 12th, and 13th place teams in the first division play a two leg promotion/relegation playoff against the 2nd, 3rd, and 4th place teams in the second division. Last place team in the first division is automatically relegated and the first place team in the second division is automatically promoted. Simple and fair.
This. From a scheduling perspective, I would do something like the NFL does: 4 divisions of 7 teams each, for argument. Preten call them North South Central and West. Then, rotate the divisions that face each other every 4 years lik=e the NFL does, play home and home in 34your division (12 games).
I don't understand how many games you want each club to play. A rotation would be every 3 years, not every 4 years. In the NFL, teams have a 4 year rotation for the divisions in the other conference. With your proposal, each club would have three divisions that the club isn't in. With 28 clubs in 4 divisions of 7, playing your divisions opponents twice, the 21 clubs not in your division once, and an additional rivalry game would make 34 games. For at least 4 clubs, the rivalry game would have to be against a club in another division because all 7 clubs in a division can't be made into pairs. There's no guarantee that there will ever be a season with a specific amount of clubs. Hypothetically MLS could never reach 28 clubs or go from 27 clubs to 30 clubs.
The unbalanced schedule allows for fluidity in the number of teams in each division. Regardless of the number of teams, simply have 2 divisions per conference, with each team playing 2 games against all divisional opponents and 1 game against everyone else, with any remaining games played against teams in the sister division in the conference. That configuration will be able to accommodate league match requirements as it grows from 25 to 28 teams.
I agree about the first pair but not the second pair. In the NHL Columbus is in the Eastern Conference and Chicago is in the Western Conference. Furthermore Columbus, Detroit, and Chicago are in different divisions.
Note: Chicago started in 1998, and spent two years in the Western Conference, so there were four years that the two weren't in the same conference.