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

It seems to work for the NFL, NBA, NHL and MLB.

 

It worked best in Major League Baseball when the playoffs included only the four division winners. That format preserved the importance of the regular season; whereas the introduction of the wild card undercut the season's meaning, just as the bloated playoff systems of the NBA, NFL, and NHL do.

Playoffs restricted to first-place finishers would be the best of both worlds: a meaningful regular season, followed by a post-season tournament. All leagues would benefit from such a format. Toward that end, I'd love to see MLS aligned into four divisions, two per conference, and with a playoff system that involved only the four division winners.

Of course, we know that the integrity of the competition is not the sole (or even the main) standard by which a playoff format is chosen. So there is no chance for a format in which only first-place teams qualify. The best we can hope for is a format in which the higher seeds are appropriately rewarded. This is why I advocate a six-team playoff field, three teams per conference, in which team no. 3 visits team no. 2 for one game, and the winner visits team no. 1 for one game for the conference championship. This would create drastically different rewards for finishing in first place, second place, and third place.

Still, the current system is not the worst that MLS has ever had. A good quality is the fact that the first-place and second-place teams get to sit out while the teams ranking third through sixth compete for conference semifinal berths. But the use of two-legged ties in the conference semifinals and conference finals constitutes a major flaw, as that essentially wipes out the advantage that the higher seed ought to enjoy in those rounds. Thanks to this policy, there is no difference between finishing first and finishing second.

Here is where we see the influence of standards other than the integrity of the competition, as the league has made a financial decision to give every semifinal team a home game. But, as I alluded to earlier, it used to be worse: formerly every playoff team got a home game.

If I could request one improvement over the current system, it would be getting rid of the two-legged ties, and thereby creating a true reward for the higher seeds in the conference semi and conference final rounds.

 

Currently, the teams within the Eastern (and Western) Conference do not play the same schedule during the regular so wouldn't that also be unfair?

 

Not to mention most of the soccer leagues in the Americas (outside the Caribbean).

 

Argentina/Brazil??? #justsaying

 

Playoffs keep seasons relevant, especially in leagues without relegation. 8 teams already have irrelevant seasons; why would we want to make that issue worse?

 

I like that, and would compensate greatly if we adopted UEFA-style away goals. I like it cuz it eliminates PKs. Also, I've always said, the idea of a team that's losing being able to score and win the game in extra time is a great feature of away goals. And as always, it encourages keepers to come up at corners which is my definition of excitement.

 

At different times over the almost constantly changing format in Argentina the Apertura/Clasura champions have had a one off championship game to decide the ultimate champion. The current format does not have that but they'll probably change it again in a couple of years.

Brazil uses a playoff game in the case of a tie for the championship, though that's not exactly the same thing.

 

I imagine well end up with 16 teams in the playoffs once the league expands to 28

 

Your post to which I was responding dismissively said it's used throughout the Americas ex. Caribbean. By any contextual reading, you were not alluding to historical treatments.

Overall, I guess what I'm saying is if you're to make that point the way you did and then ignore the two biggest, most relevant leagues, .

Also, if we're gonna use the "What they do in the rest of Americas" line of argument to blow stuff off, isn't Apertura/Clausura a ke part of all those leagues too?

#justsaying

It's definitely not akin to what we're talking about here. In that case, you could argue that England uses one too.

They tend to also use playoffs in state championships for what it's worth though.

 

Largely because until your response I want aware that Argentina had yet again changed formats. I was aware that Brazil didn't use it however.

That said pretty much every other non-Caribbean league this side of the Atlantic has at least a playoff between their Apatura and Clasura champions and the most popular league in the US has a full playoff system (Liga MX).

 

The trick with playoff design is to make it inclusive enough to make the late regular season games matter for most of the league. Right now that's pretty maximized for MLS; toast notwithstanding, most fans of below average teams can convince themselves their team still has a chance.

At the same time, finishing higher than other playoff teams needs to matter, too. Right now, that matters most for the opening round; the best pair get a bye, the next play at home, and the last pair play on the road.

Switching to single elimination throughout would be a step forward here, helping the better teams advance without shutting the door on underdogs. (A ~70% chance for the higher seed sounds right.) It would put MLS Cup before the international break, too.

 

I'd be okay with a single game playoff series, But I don't see them getting rid of the Home-and-Away format once the league splits into 4 divisions, unless the team with the most points in the Conference wins the home field advantage. That would save two weeks of time and the MLS Cup could be held on the weekend following the November international break (giving time to sell/distribute tickets and hype the game up). Soccer is still playable in Mid-November, but the longer you wait, the colder it gets up north. I was at the Impact-TFC playoff game last year and there was half a foot of snow on the ground in Montreal on Nov 22nd.

 

I don't mind divisions so much as MLS ramps up to a 24 team league so long as the league keeps the two conference setup and simply divides each conference into two divisions with 7 teams each.

Playoffs could consist of the two division winners who get a first round bye. The next four best teams could, like now, play a wild card round pitting the team with the third best record in the division against the team with the sixth best record. The teams with the fourth and fifth records in each conference would go at it in the other wild card game.

But this is where I'd change things -- the conference semi-finals and finals ought to be single elimination games played at the home field of the team with the best regular season record. I'd just throw the surviving wild card teams into the conference semi-finals with the two surviving teams with the best records hosting the conference semi-finals in a single elimination game. The conference final would again be hosted by the surviving team with the best regular season record in a single elimination game.

Right now, the only thing that matters is to be the hot team going into the playoffs because, with the two-legged conference semi-finals and finals format, the team with the better regular season record has no better odds than a team that just slipped into the playoffs in the final game of the season.

 

Single-elimination exposes the better regular season team to fluke upsets. A playoff series (even a short one) gives the better team a chance to make up for a bad one-time performance with a good one.

I realize the Supporters Shield winner has only claimed the MLS Cup less than 1/3rd of the time. But that may still be a higher percentage than single-elimination sports like the NFL or NCAA basketball. Meanwhile, in the NBA, the better regular season team usually prevails in the playoffs because its a series.

If finishing first in the standings is really that important, then go to a single table and get rid of the playoffs like most other countries. But do that in a 22-28 team league with no promotion or relegation rules, and no truly meaningful international competition on the line, and 80% of the fans will tune-out late in the season.

By the way, there are ways to increase the importance of the Supporters Shield. Give that team a double-bye or even a free pass all the way to the MLS Cup final. Supporters Shield winner is automatically in while everyone else battles for the right to face them. That also means the two teams in the final could come from the same conference, which I'd argue is more fair too.

 

Just playing Devil's Advocate, but wouldn't the lack of a knockout round and 2-leg format help protect a dominant regular season team like TFC from a flukish upset? Under the current format, they don't really get a home field advantage, but they avoid single-elimination which means they can make up for a bad performance with a good one.

I know the actual results don't seem to bear that out as the winner of the Supporters Shield has only won the MLS Cup about 1/3rd of the time. But that may still be a higher ratio than just about any sport with a single elimination playoff. How often does the team with the best NFL record win the Super Bowl? How often does the NCAA basketball team with the #1 overall national seed win the NCAA tournament? It seems like it's the sports that have a playoff series where the better regular season team has the higher chance to prevail. So, even if the series is just 2 games, it should help the better team.

All of that said, I don't like the away goals tie-breaker. That needs to go. Settle aggregate ties with OT and penalty kicks.

 

I wish there were no playoffs and a simple emphasis on the Shield for regular season 1st Division Champion and an even greater emphasis on USOC as the true national champion. And for that matter, why can't we have "Shields" in D2, D3 etc. ?

But that ship has sailed, so I would simply wish for only the top 8 teams with single elimination up to and including the final. We need to shorten the playoffs to either allow for later start to the year, an earlier end to the year or real off weeks during FIFA dates. 8 might be too small for a league going to 22-24-26 whatever, so you may have to go to 16, but for goodness sakes, keep single elimination. Make home field throughout the reward for the Shield.

 

After the 1st leg of the Seattle-Vancouver series, I think it's time to bump this thread.

Bruce Arena once said, "You can't win a series in the first leg but you sure can lose it." Both teams were acutely aware of that statement last night. Seattle didn't want to have to dig out of a deficit in Leg 2 and Vancouver didn't want to have to overcome any away goals. Basically, both teams wanted to have a clean slate in the second leg. I'd want the same thing if I was playing the game, too.

Now, perversely, Vancouver will be rewarded for the not attacking at home by being able to go all-out in a bizarro soccer game where their goals count double. This is as a lower seed.

Sure looks like home-and-home with away goals is doing the exact opposite of encouraging entertaining, attacking soccer.

 

Brilliant strategy from Vancouver! The fact that it makes it a chore to watch on tv is not their problem. Commissioner Don Goldstein has gotten exactly what he asked for. Lawsuit anyone?

 

Lawsuit? I don't know if you can sue over defensive tactics in a pro soccer game. Also Don Garber isn't the person responsible for the playoff format. Perhaps he's partially responsible for the fiasco with the Crew by letting an incompetent owner trash the league's reputation and burn bridges with the great fans in Columbus.

Adding to my previous post, I actually think that Seattle made the correct tactical approach too. I remember back in 2014 when my beloved DC United was on the wrong side of the lower seed having all the advantages in the current home-and-home with away goals format. They were the higher seed in 2014 and went on the road to play at the Red Bulls for the first leg. They went for it and lost 2-0. Series over. Won the return leg but by a score of 2-1. Higher seed eliminated by winning on its home field. Goes against the entire point of seeded playoffs, which is that the team that had a worse regular season has to win on the road. To make it worse, the one Red Bull goal was off a counterattack in the first half because DC United was exposed because they had to take risks they wouldn't have had to take if the score started 0-0. They were then down effectively 4-0 because of that away goal.

Why play 90 minute soccer games for eight months then decide a champion in a completely different competition format? Why can't there be a format that forces the lower seed to win on the road?

 

-----------
Single elimination would help a little. Road team could still pay defense for 120 and aim for PK's. But try to do that 4 rounds to win the cup.....

 

The other possible answer is for two-leg ties to go to the higher seed. I like single elimination better, but it would be a strong incentive to be higher seeded.

 

My hot take....within conference should only be single elimination. One team has clearly earned the advantage. But final should be 2 legs since the 2 teams schedules aren't comparable. MLS seems to have reversed the logic.