It's almost 2019,... and lo, the playoffs remain flawed; the defense of the regular ssn continues...

The problem with seeding in MLS is that because of call-ups for summer tournaments the schedule is not equal for all teams. Some teams lost keys players for the Copa America/Olympics/Euros, others did not. So giving too much advantage to higher seeded teams based solely on regular season records is not exactly fair.

 

@Ismitje

Please lock this topic or merge it with http://forums.bigsoccer.com/threads...yoff-structure-remains-deeply-flawed.2036497/

 

IIRC this was the format MLS used at one point. It is essentially a 2-legged series based on points and not goal aggregate. I remember in the past something weird about how the overtime was actually a separate game like this though.

 

Ah, that's where I got confused. It was after game 3.

But essentially what you propose is a 2-legged series where its points and not goals that decide the series. If they're tied on points the 3o minutes of extra time would be played.

In your idea would you treat game 3 as a whole new game or a continuation of game 2?

 

Though you would then need to take any yellow or red cards from game 2 into account for who's available in game 3. Obviously a player who got red in game 2 would be out if you treated it as OT of game 2 but if a person picks up their 2nd yellow in game 2 they would be allowed to play OT of game 2 but not in a "new" game 3 due to suspension for caution accumulation.

 

We pretty much agree. I'm not complaining about the format because my favorite team lost. I'm complaining because like you, I don't like the fact that the playoffs aren't decided by 90 minute soccer games. I'm just adding in the point about a how the current format actually gives the lower seed an advantage and that makes no sense.

If you look at how the conditions on the ground evolve over time in an aggregate series and how close together the MLS teams are in talent, playing at home first is an advantage when you add away goals in the mix. Most of the away goals have come off of counterattacks in the second leg. Home field advantage is so strong in MLS that most away teams don't have enough posession on the road when the score is 0-0 to get an away goal in the first leg. You'll notice that the better teams only beat the bottom feeders on the road in the regular season. They rarely beat the other playoff teams on road and even when they do, it's off of counterattacks.

I thought it was equally stupid in 2015 when DC United lost its home leg 1-0 to the Red Bulls but were very much still in the series until the end of the second game when the Red Bulls finally scored again. Even more, if they took at 2-0 lead at the Red Bulls, they would have put the series away. This is as a lower seed who lost their home game. Just stupid. The Red Bulls should have had a home field advantage and they didn't.

 

As a fan of a team who got knocked out of the playoffs on the away goals rule, I'm OK with it. In 2014 Seattle and FCD tied 0-0 in Seattle and 1-1 in Frisco and we were out. Everyone knows the rules of the competition beforehand. Deal with it. To me it's less arbitrary than PKs.
Along with the other flaws previously mentioned in Wahl's World Cup style group playoffs, often one of the last two games in the group are meaningless. I've been to a couple of these games at the World Cup. While it's great to be at a World Cup game, it kind of sucks to be at a meaningless game. Speaking of meaningless games, I get to go to a game Sunday night where my team is already losing 3-0 and has almost no chance of overcoming the deficit.
Say what you will about playoffs in our other American pro sports, but there's never a meaningless playoff game or one where you're losing the game before it starts.

 

Don't know if this is the place to put it, but the Playoffs are going to lose their momentum once the International Break hits.

Does the USSF have any recourse to petition FIFA to permanently change the international dates from the 2nd week in November to the Last week of November/First week of December? Then the playoff momentum would carry through and the season will finish before Thanksgiving, rather than December 10th.

Does anybody else find that date to be ridiculously late? If the game is in Toronto or Denver, there's going to be snow on the field.

 

This.

I'm up for Snow Classico III

 

Considering that 4 out of 12 teams in the playoffs can already be knocked out without hosting a game, would a seeded group stage where higher seeds host all games really be that much of a problem for MLS? That would create the appropriate incentive to play for higher seeds in the regular season, would have 3/4 of the playoff field hosting at least one game, and if used to reduce a 16-team playoff field to four group winners, would have the playoffs completed in the same six matchdays it takes now.

 

Well, the MLB playoffs just recently expanded to 10 out of 30 teams. I remember when 4 out of 28 teams used to make the playoffs, so 12 of 28 is still over 42% of the teams. I'm betting that in a 4-division MLS the playoff format will be the division leader gets a bye, while the second place teams play a play-in round against the two Conference wild-card teams with the best records from either division. I can't see them going to a 14 or 16-team playoff format until they reach 32 teams, but even then the NFL only has 12 teams that make the playoffs. But when you only have to be better than 4 other teams in your division to make the playoffs, the odds aren't too bad.

 

From 1996 to 2009, most teams made the playoffs. The league started with an eight team format, and kept it through 2010, when there were sixteen teams. In 2011 though, rather than having fewer than half the league make the playoffs, the play-in game was added. When the league went to twenty teams in 2015, rather than have only half the teams qualify, the play-in round was expanded.

In 21 seasons, MLS has had half the teams qualify only once, and that was for cutting 16 to 8. Never has the league used a format which would be more restrictive. 20 of 21 seasons have had over half the teams advance. When the league reaches 24, I expect only conference champions to have a bye.

 

But it'll never happen, because stupid people will complain that "it's too random"* and the league wants the playoffs to be long and drawn out, even though the international break kills all the momentum every season.

*It's not. It's a huge advantage compared to the two-legged format. And still avoids the scheduling problems of a multiple game series.

 

Be patient with me. I gave this idea barely any thought whatsoever.

In Rugby League's anglo-French Super League they have a "magic weekend" with all teams playing at the same stadium over a weekend. The original idea was to spread the appeal of the game geographically.

So let's incorporate that into the MLS playoffs by having 4 playoff games, played over the same weekend at a neutral venue in a possible expansion city to gauge interest and promote MLS soccer.

In addition, let's separate out the Conference Championships from the MLS Cup. This increases the importance of the regular season.

And although the top 6 teams from each Conference would qualify for the playoffs, they would be seeded on overall record rather than in-conference record. Bear with me...

This is how it would work

Week 1

Conference Championships at higher placed team's stadium

• Western Conference title (#1 seed Dallas vs #2 Colorado)
• Eastern Conference title (#3 New York Metros vs #4 New York City)

Preliminary playoffs at neutral stadium

• Tie 1: 5th seed vs 12th seed (Toronto vs Philadelphia)
• Tie 2: 6th seed vs 11th seed (LA Galaxy vs Montreal)
• Tie 3: 7th seed vs 10th seed (Seattle vs DC)
• Tie 4: 8th seed vs 9th seed (SKC vs RSL)

Week 2 (two-legged)

• Tie 5: Dallas vs winner game 4
• Tie 6: Colorado seed vs winner game 3
• Tie 7: NYRB seed vs winner game 2
• Tie 8: NYC seed vs winner game 1

Week 3 (two-legged)

• Tie 9: tie 5 vs tie 8
• Tie 10: tie 6 vs tie 7

Week 4

• MLS Cup final

By the way, a don't think having a rest week is an advantage. In fact rested teams seem to go into their next games a bit rusty.

 

So one non-MLS city gets all four of the first round games? How do neutral site games help with anything? Yes, people in that city might pay more attention but what difference would it make overall? And all the fans of a particular team would have to travel.

A straight seeded tournament might make the regular season more important but it probably wouldn't. Teams are either playing to win or they aren't. Their exact place in the tournament isn't going to be known until the very end. You are also seeding by records that were compiled against very different opponents. A straight-seeded tournament also means that you could wind up with 4 finalists all from the same part of the country. That doesn't seem very useful.

Please don't call the rounds "ties". That is not a soccer term. It is a British sports term and it is not used in that way in U.S. (or Canadian, as far as I can tell) English.

I like having the rounds be two-legged in a single week. But that could be done more easily now with geographic semifinals instead of national ones.

 

If they want to play in their own city they should get more points

I was not aware "tie" was not used this way in America and Canada, but as we invented the language and the sport I hope you forgive me.