MLS owners will go with what works in other leagues in North America, not with what works in Europe. Following the model of four leagues at the pinnacle of their sports in the world can't be wrong, can they?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Forbes'_list_of_the_most_valuable_sports_teams Only 8 of the top 50 sports teams are not American: Real Madrid (#2), Barcelona (#3), Man U (#5), Bayern Munich (#12), Arsenal (#23), Man City (#28), Chelsea (#35), and Liverpool (#41). Over half are NFL clubs (27 of 50) and the rest are a mix of NBA and MLB teams. There are no NHL teams in the top 50.
I think that it's important to note that the reason why the NFL and MLB have non-regional conferences or leagues is because their unified leagues came about as the merger of separate leagues. The NHL and NBA went with a regional conference and division set-up because they weren't burdened by history and tradition.
And what is your point? That MLS teams should copy NFL teams ? I don't see the connection. The original question was which league design soccer fans prefer. Can you say the NFL model and then provide evidence for that answer? Please respond with survey data that backs up your answer.
I'm don't have any particular model to back up any claims, but I'm merely pointing out that North American leagues must be doing something right. Whether that is due to the league structure or marketing or TV contracts or some other factor, I don't know, but it probably requires further investigation. However if you are looking at a structure, I get the feeling the 32-team NFL structure will be the final form of the league (since it nicely fits the 34-game season while allowing every team to play every other team at least once and their 3 closest geographical rivals twice). But for a 28-team MLS, they will probably structure it like the NHL or pre-1994 strike era MLB, just because that is the format that the casual North American sports consumer is familiar with.
A soccer league with 8 divisions for 32 teams would be too much for a league in which half the teams make the playoffs. The smart move would be to consolidate teams into four divisions because expanded playoffs make the regular season meaningless except for determining the first two rounds of playoff action. If you're going to limit playoffs to a third of the teams or less, you've got a better argument for more divisions to enhance geographic representation (and fan interest) in the playoffs.
I think this is going to see the point where we expand to... and maybe hold off future expansion, although 40 teams would bring in most of the best markets. 24. Miami 25. Sacramento 26. Carolina (Charlotte or Raleigh) 27. San Antonio 28. Saint Louis 29. San Diego 30. Detroit 31. Austin 32. Phoenix ---- 33. Indianapolis 34. Nashville 35. Tampa Bay 36. Oklahoma (Tulsa or OKC) 37. Cincinnati/Cleveland 38. Las Vegas 39. ??? 40. ??? ....??? = Rochester, Pittsburgh, Jacksonville, Ottawa, Albuquerque, Omaha, Milwaukee, El Paso, Louisville, New Orleans, Buffalo, NY, LA, Chicago, Dallas-FW, Baltimore, Virginia Beach, Richmond, Charleston, Providence, Jersey
Playoffs get wonky with 3 divisions. You end up having to seed the entire field and the result is playoff matches against teams from opposite coasts. I prefer to see teams battle their conference rivals on the way to the title.
I would totally disagree on this... Well, almost totally. Three divisions does lead to a little wonkiness. However, the less conferences play against each other in the regular season, the more they should play each other in the playoff, IMO. For example, if you have an East and a West that *never* meet in the regular season, every match of the first round should be East vs West. In contrast, if you had what MLS did several years ago with a complete home-and-away double-round-robin regular season, then totally fine to have a pure-East bracket and a pure-West bracket. But if conference play literally defines the regular season, then I see no reason why the East and West "champions" should be decided in the playoffs.
Mixing it up in the playoffs certainly has some benefits, especially regarding attracting viewers in different parts of the country to post season matches but I think there is something to be said about the added value that fierce regional rivalries bring to a league. Look at the AFC North in football. In any given year two of the following three are playoff contenders: the Bengals, Steelers, and Ravens. They meet twice in the regular season and when they meet again in the playoffs people pay attention. Throw in the nearby perennial playoff participant Indianapolis Colts and you have another highly contested regional battle. 4 divisions 8 seems just right to me.
I mean, I agree having established rivalries in the playoffs is nice. But cross-pollinating the first round doesn't preclude those regional rivalries from happening - just from happening in the first round, after which the bracket is set and anything can happen depending on who won. I just hate to see it when a "national" league ends up being two (or four) completely separate leagues that only meet at the last possible moment(s) of the season. I mean, if you *do* keep them separate as much as possible, then you'll never get one of those epic rivalries in the title match. And that kinda sucks.
That's what the MLB did for decades, and they had a 160-game regular season. With just 32-38 regular season matches and 22+ teams, the MLS will need to reduce the number of cross-conference matches in regular season. So keeping the East-West split in the postseason would be excessive.
When the league went past 18, the scheduling method that was adopted was one game against teams from the other conference, alternating home and away each year, and two or three games against teams in the same conference. At 24 teams and 34 games, it will mean exactly two games against conference opponents and one against teams in the other conference. For 25 and beyond, the philosophy will probably change (it could be put off for 25 teams if a couple games are added, but 36 games is a lot, and it can't hold up past that). One option is what you mention--not playing some teams in the other conference each year. I think it's more likely we see divisions introduced, and cut some games against teams in the other division of the same conference. This will hold up to 28 teams before needing either a third division per conference or a new scheduling philosophy. I think the league and the TV partners like broadcasting the LA/NY games too much to cut back on them, and fans like seeing their team play against all the big names each year.
I'd do 3 conferences with no divisions. With 27 teams, conferences would have 9 teams. Each team would play their conference rivals twice (16 matches) and the other teams once (18 matches). That's a total 34 matches.
I was playing around with some league redesigns given the constraints of a 34 game schedule and I keep coming back to the idea of NFL teams not playing every other team each season and how it seems to have no loss in TV revenue. Perhaps MLS teams don't have to play each other every season. If that's the case, then a 32-team league is not a limit. But how big is too big where you hit the laws of diminishing returns? What is the coverage balance between geographical holes and the largest TV Markets? What rivalries do you keep together? Then I came across this configuration that feels just right: A 36-team league that fits all twelve expansion slots, save one. EASTERN CONFERENCE Original Six Division Detroit expansion franchise Chicago Fire Montreal Impact New England Revolution New York City FC Toronto FC Metro Division Cincinnati expansion franchise Columbus Crew SC Indianapolis expansion franchise D.C. United New York Red Bulls Philadelphia Union Southeast Division Atlanta United FC Charlotte or Raleigh expansion franchise Miami expansion franchise Nashville expansion franchise Orlando City SC Tampa Bay expansion franchise WESTERN CONFERENCE Cascadia Division LA Galaxy Portland Timbers Sacramento expansion franchise San Jose Earthquakes Seattle Sounders Vancouver Whitecaps Pacific Division Colorado Rapids Los Angeles FC Las Vegas expansion franchise Phoenix expansion franchise Real Salt Lake San Diego expansion franchise Central Division FC Dallas Houston Dynamo Minnesota United FC San Antonio expansion franchise Sporting Kansas City St. Louis expansion franchise SEASON FORMAT Regular Season Play divisional rivals twice, home and away (10 games) Play sister divisions in-Conference once, alternating home and away each season (12 games) Play opposite Conference divisions on a 3 year cycle: Year 1 - home, Year 2 - away, Year 3 - do not play them. (12 games) 34 Games total Playoffs 16 teams - Top 2 teams from each division plus two conference wild-cards, all games until final are against in-conference opponents. Play-in round: Top team in each division plus the next team with the best record host a one-game knockout round against the other 4 teams. The rest of the playoffs continue as per the current format. Overall I think 6-team divisions just feel a little weightier than 4-team divisions and there shouldn't be too much of a complaint that a weak team made it to the playoffs. Over a 6 year cycle, each team will have played it's divisional rivals 12 times, it's conference rivals 6 times, and the opposite conference teams 4 times. I split up the New York and Los Angeles teams to give those cities a greater exposure to other teams of the league and ensure that every team in the league will play a NY and LA team once per season for TV rating purposes. I tried to optimize fitting teams relatively closer together to minimize travel. I also tried to keep current rivalries together except for the NYRB/NYCFC, Chicago/Dallas and Toronto/Columbus. (Sorry!) I decided to remove one of the Carolina teams in order to fit in Las Vegas, which makes the West divisions work better. And I thought having the original NHL cities all in the same division would be good karma. What do you think? <edit: Hmmm, The Cascadia and Original Six divisions are going to be brutally competitive.>
I gotta say, the setup you just suggested works really well. Really balanced, and a great mix of regional rivalry, yet balancing market size. The schedule balance is great, too, and you dont go too long without playing a team, which is the case of the NFL. I'll also chime in that I don't think it's necessary anymore to try and maximize New York and LA meetings, like it seems so many are wont to do. I just don't think that's important, anymore. Case in point the NBA... probably the most anticipated matchup this year was the first meeting between Golden State and Oklahoma City, a large market matching up with a very small market. I feel that the way the current media environment is now, a good narrative drives ratings more than anything.
I like this setup. Keeping the NY and LA teams in separate divisions works as long as they have other nearby cities to maintain a natural rivalry with. Based on this alignment, we'd get New York-Boston, New York-Philadelphia, Los Angeles-Bay Area and Los Angeles-San Diego all anchoring different divisions (I feel the NFL missed the boat on this by moving the Chargers to LA instead of the Raiders). Maybe NYCFC-Red Bulls and LAFC-Galaxy matches will have a livelier crowd atmosphere if the single meeting per season leads to visiting fans showing up in larger numbers.
After some more analysis and a realization that Las Vegas isn't probably going to bid for a team, I rejigged the divisions so that all the bidding teams get a spot. Chicago moves west and Nashville moves to the Metro. The Regular Season and Playoff formats are as per my previous post. I call it the Oprah solution. "You get a team! And you get a team! Everybody gets a team!!!" EASTERN CONFERENCE Northeast Division Detroit expansion franchise Montreal Impact New England Revolution New York City FC Philadelphia Union Toronto FC Metro Division Cincinnati expansion franchise Columbus Crew SC D.C. United Indianapolis expansion franchise Nashville expansion franchise New York Red Bulls Southeast Division Atlanta United FC Charlotte expansion franchise Miami expansion franchise Orlando City SC Raleigh expansion franchise Tampa Bay expansion franchise WESTERN CONFERENCE Cascadia Division LA Galaxy Portland Timbers Sacramento expansion franchise San Jose Earthquakes Seattle Sounders Vancouver Whitecaps Central Division Chicago Fire Colorado Rapids Minnesota United FC Real Salt Lake Sporting Kansas City St. Louis expansion franchise Southwest Division FC Dallas Los Angeles FC Houston Dynamo Phoenix expansion franchise San Antonio expansion franchise San Diego expansion franchise These 36 teams pretty much cover every geographical region and TV market MLS could want and still have a meaningful season with rivalries and feature match-ups galore. If any team fails in an area, I'm sure there are other cities that would covet the spot. The sheer size and parity of the league would make it spectacle viewing even in Europe, I think, and I can easily see it being the League of Choice in about 30 years when players want a real challenge week in and week out (assuming the Salary Cap would be around $100 million by that point).
Not a bad guesstimate, but I think you are about years off. I think that MLS will expand up to 28 teams and then take a few years off before expanding up to 32. If MLS expands beyond the NFL current standard of a 32 team league, something will have to change about the dollar value of television & cablecast income.
I don't see MLS expanding beyond 28 until at least 2028. But once they get to 30 teams, they could configure each conference into a 5-team, 3-division structure with the competition format described in my previous posts and add extra teams to each division as they come on line. However, TOX brings up a good point about the changes happening in media distribution methods. What will happen to the major leagues' salaries when the TV money dries up and streaming revenues can't take up the slack? At least MLS salaries right now are not too expensive. Just think what an implosion of TV revenue would do to European leagues.
I'm not entirely sure it will result in a big decrease in revenue as much as it'll localize revenue to where the teams are potentially increasing or decreasing the amount of viable teams for all sports.