Houston makes sense for NHL since they are a top 20 market with no hockey that geographically fits into the division that only has 7 teams. The trouble with Houston is that the Rockets' ownership fiercely hates hockey and doesn't want it in their town to compete with the NBA.
Houston and Atlanta are by far the largest cities without the NHL. Atlanta has tried it and it didn't work out. (Whether that's more because of the city or team ownership is debated, of course.) No surprise that some would want to try Houston. Honestly though, warm-weather cities still don't support hockey well, while smaller Canadian cities like Winnipeg have no trouble. Quebec City is a better prospect than Houston, but we'll see how it works out.
That's funny because it's the Rockets owner that have been mentioned as the ownership group behind the Houston bid. Sent from my LG-H740 using Tapatalk
Right. As a fan of the former Houston Aeros AHL team that Les Alexander, owner of the Rockets, drove out of the Toyota Center I can tell you that Alexander doesn't hate hockey. He hates a hockey team that he doesn't own playing in "his" building. If he can get an NHL team that he owns into Houston he will do it but it would probably have to be a team that moves as opposed to an expansion franchise.
I agree that true Pro/Rel will never fly, that's why I said psuedo-Pro/Rel. The teams already in MLS will never get relegated, but in the future (10-12 years from now?) MLS might keep two spots open for the the top two Div2 league teams from the previous season to play with the big boys for the new season. Then those teams would go back down at the end of the new season and the Div 2 champions from the new season would take their place. Wash, rinse, and repeat each season.
When there are 24 teams 12 in each division with balanced schedule. top four from each division make the playoff stage playoff stage would emulate the group stage used in international tournaments like the CL with two groups of four with a round robin home and away and the top two advancing. the second round of the playoffs would be home and away aggregate the final would be held at home of the team with the best regular season record.
^That format would add too many weeks to the season for playoff teams and not enough weeks for the non playoff-teams. At a game per week, that would be 6 weeks for the the group stage and 4 more weeks for the second round. In the current format, MLS playoffs could be completed within 5-1/2 weeks barring international dates. Personally, I wouldn't mind seeing all the conference playoffs reduced to one game at the home field of the higher seeded team, with the final being a home and away aggregate stage.
To your point @tallguy AAA baseball (yes, the teams are Reserve MLS teams) averages what 7500 per game. That is what MLS2 would average, at best.
I agree with you. Playing week to week does keep the "Might Mo" on track. Though from time to time every team could use a week off. If you've not won your conference or division (in American sports) there is at least one team that proved they're better than you. Byes are fine on that account (say, MLS west/east conference champs get a bye). But the bye needs to hurt/hinder the the teams that don't receive them. If you're seeded #3-6 in MLS now you play on Wednesday in a one game playoff. If you win you turn around and play another game at the weekend, while your opponent had a week off. That is when byes work. You force a team to play Saturday/Sunday (last game of regular season), Wednesday (MLS first round), then Saturday/Sunday and Saturday/Sunday (two-leg conference semifinal)
When MLS gets to 28 teams, you'll see more than 12 teams in the playoffs. It could stay at 12 (6/conference) through 24 teams, but after that, the teams will need the extra revenue (as minuscule it is) from the playoffs. If you want to give a team a reward for finishing 1st or 2nd in the conference, they get to host BOTH games in the conference semifinals (in the 2016 format). You can adjust for when the league gets past 24 teams. The lower seeded teams don't deserve as they had a season to prove they suck.
Your working under the assumption that you need conference playoffs. Finish 1st, 2nd, or 3rd (depending on how many teams in a conference/division) and you're in. Fill out the field with the next best records regardless of conference/division.
At 30 teams you could have three conferences of ten teams each. As a team in Conference A, why must you play every team (once) in Conference B or C? Your point about market saturation is more valid. You could have 36 teams in MLS (three 12 team conferences) and play 34 games. Two against your conference (Conference A) foes and then one against six teams in Conference B and six against teams in Conference C. The playoffs are designed to find the "best" team in a league. It should be a national playoff and not a stupid conference/division playoff (e.g. NHL). A regular season has variables, regardless if it's single-table or MLS' set-up. International call-ups (lets see how much depth you have), injuries, suspensions all create those variables. The regular season is designed to see who as the best roster. Not the best XI (otherwise why have a 28-player squad). And you don't have to play every team in the league. These are reasons why I don't mind playoffs. Why not give the conference winners the #1-3 seeds and if need need be the conference runner-ups seeds #4-6. Then let the chips fall where they want.
MLS has a 34 game schedule. If you're going to have conferences what is the point of playing more games outside of the conference?
And there aren't enough weeks in a March to November (early December) season to accommodate 38 games. There isn't enough to really fit 34 games.
Germany. IIRC, FIFA wanted leagues to get down to 18 teams. Not the 20 that you find in England, Italy, Spain, or France.
Has he said they won't go past this number? He hasn't said they will, but 28 is the "next round" not the final round. Many thought 20 would be the final resting spot, then 24. I think 30-32 is the number.
MLS has a 34 game schedule with 20 teams. How did that math work out? Your assuming every team has to play each other. I agree 32 games works better, but that won't happen. For 32 you play five conference opponents twice (10 games) and four conference opponents three times (12 games) for 22 conference games. Play one game against five teams from the other two conferences (10 games) and you have 32 game season. Regular seasons schedules don't need to be balanced when you have multiple conferences and playoffs.
When MLS gets to 24 teams the schedule will not be balanced. There will be two conferences of 12 teams. Teams will play 22 conference games (two vs each conference member) and one game vs each of the teams in the other conference (12 games). I think you'll still six teams from each conference make the playoffs and the playoffs will be run at the conference (as it stands now) until MLS Cup Final.
Almost as if the local federation and the pro leagues are the real powers within the relevant nation, not FIFA.
More to the point, however, the valuation of a team that is relegated would be devastated. And, that's the ultimate issue - whether for good or bad - as I see it. When you buy a team, the owner really cashes in when he sells his franchise. It's sort of like buying a home in the sense that -- if you buy a home in a good location -- it's like a piggy bank. That is, the value of the home ought to appreciate greatly over 20 or 30 years. But, if you're relegated, it's as if your home has been moved from a good location to the railroad stockyards. That's the real reason why pro/rel will never happen in North America even though the concept in interesting and would provide for intense competition up and down the table in the closing weeks of a regular season.
Agreed. And loss of equity happens in countries where there is pro/rel. The Premier League hands out the parachute payment, thus the clubs are still profitable their first year of Championship football. If they DON'T go straight back they're in trouble. More often than not they have financial difficulties because they were chasing Premier League glory. Excuse me, profits. Meaning their value will go down. Pro/Rel from a D2 to a D3 league really won't devalue a club as much. Simply because those clubs don't have much value to them. To put it bluntly only the fans that attend games care about those teams.