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

I agree with the logic that there should be a significant way to reward regular season play.

My suggestion would be to get rid of the away goals rule and simply say the lower seed begins the home/home with a 1/2 goal advantage.

This advantage applies to all playoff games until the finals.

That way:

• Teams don't play keep away until the second leg
• Teams don't play for the tie and try to win in the shootout
• Reduces risk of injury
• Fewer "tired" teams in later rounds since there's no overtime
• Reward the regular season

 

With two legs it's possible that fewer people will watch the last game if the club hosting that game won 3-0 away. By having playoffs, the last game always matters, unlike the top European leagues. The last game will matter less if the first leg had a big margin of victory. Furthermore, there could be fans who would buy tickets to the second leg only if their club did well in the first leg.

 

I like USL's single leg, simple and straight forward. We might as well get used to it as the MLS goes to 24-26 whatever number of teams. I would accept 16 if it were single elimination because its only 4 games and everything could be on a Saturday or Sunday, no midweek games. You would think attendance would be better as well and maybe a few more traveling fans. Win the Shield- you could get 4 playoff games.

 

It also means more soccer which people like..... it's why we use it in the conference semis and finals. We use series in baseball, hockey, and basketball. Never heard anyone saying NBA needs to go NCAA playoffs when the Warriors were up 3-0 last year.

Also, as my casual friends learned last year during Toronto v. Montreal, aggregate helps keeps the first game relevant when a team goes up 3-0. So in some ways, aggregate makes the TV much more relevant if one team goes up 2-0 in the first of the first leg.

That being said, from a fairness perspective. (And like I always feel I need to mention, fairness matters especially in hypothetical discussions), inside a conference there's pretty bright lines on who's earned the home field. Whereas, in x-conference matches, it's not so clear. That's why I support making conference matches 1 and done.

 

For the NBA at least, it's pretty common for fans of the major contenders to view the playoffs as the real season and everything else as prep time.

 

There's a difference between starting a game down 3-0 in a series and starting a second leg down 3-0. A team that wins Game 4 will celebrate a little even though they know they need to win 3 more without losing. A club that loses an aggregate won't celebrate winning the second leg. You have a good point about how wanting to win by as much as possible keeps the first leg relevant when the winning club is very unlikely to not win.

 

Surprised no one has mentioned this yet in this thread:

Treat the MLS playoffs like the World Cup, says SI.com writer Grant Wahl
( https://www.si.com/soccer/2017/10/31/mls-playoff-format-fix-solution )

 

Anthems in Houston

 

You need someone attacking the near post

 

Wrong thread

 

Wow, I REALLY like this idea. It's just like the WC or other tournaments with play-in games, group stage, then knockout rounds until the champion is crowned. It's a format we all know and understand, yet with this proposed structure it would reward the top seeds with more home games (i.e. bigger advantage), avoid the FIFA break, create even more drama and eliminate the boring soccer we often see in the first leg where it's all about making sure you don't concede rather than trying to score, and it preserves the number of games for ticket sales and TV. And it all happens without extending the season into mid or late December.

I'm in. Get this proposal to Don Garber ASAP. It needs to happen.

 

Looking at the dates he's proposing you're still going to have an arctic finale.

 

That depends on the location of the host team and it's no worse than what we have now in terms of timing. Hard to fix EVERY issue but this proposal addresses quite a few of the biggest ones and is a major upgrade from what we have now.

Also, having just a few teams playing as late as Dec 9th beats the heck out of having a season that would have a dozen games from Dec-Feb for every team in the league.

 

I like the idea, but Wahl is assuming that the East-West Conference structure will remain the same because they'll break the conferences into 2 Divisions each...

Oh, wait a sec, he has an East and West Conference Final prior to the MLS Cup match and after the group stages are completed. That means that you could have up to 16 teams playing in 4 groups, one for each division. There would be *four* Conference Games per game day instead of the two games Wahl is suggesting in the schedule. I assume the Conference Final would be played between the winners of the two group stages per conference.

I'm all for his idea. It would solve a lot of the problems with the cageyness of the 1st legs we've been seeing. It would also be extra home games for a lot of the owners. It would also be a unique NA playoff format that might get casual eyeballs looking.

<Edit: one thing though: in 2018 the November window is Nov 12-20, which means the MLS final under his schedule would be December 15th. That is simply too late in the season. I would be okay moving one of the playoff dates to just before the November international break. Then you could start the 2nd game on the Thursday-Friday immediately following the break and the final Group Stage game on the following Tuesday-Wednesday. Then have the Conference Finals Saturday-Sunday with the MLS Cup the following Saturday. That would move up the last game by a week and lessen the chance of an arctic final.>

 

After so many 0-0 first leg games this season, let's just do away with the first leg altogether. It's clear that the teams have internalized Bruce Arena's quote, "You can't win the series in the first leg but you sure can lose it." Many have played not to lose it so they can live to play another day in the second leg.

Let's just shift to single games at the higher seed's home field. It'll take less time and the league can finish on Black Friday. Four games is an excellent amount of games for the playoffs. It could be done in three weeks without burning out the players: wildcards midweek after "decision day," quarterfinals Saturday, Sunday, Monday, Tuesday of the first weekend of November, FIFA break second weekend, semifinals Thursday and Friday after the FIFA break, MLS Cup on Black Friday.

 

Other articles have stated that MLS owners are not inclined to go with just a single-elimination playoff format because it reduces the number of games which means less revenue (est. $1 million per game which means a lot to many clubs). So, we're discussing formats that could actually get approved vs. whatever our personal preferences may be.

 

He says that if the league wants to stay at 12 playoff spots, just hold single-elimination play-in games before the group stage (just like they do in the WC or UCL - also before the FIFA break). So, no need to expand to 16 playoff teams or shrink to 8. We'd basically still have the knockout round like we have now, but we'd be replacing the 2-leg conference semis and final with a group stage, followed by single elimination conference finals and MLS cup (similar to WC or UCL format).

Doing so actually increases the total number of playoff games by 2, but the MLS Cup is played about the same time as now. Meanwhile, it gives top seeds a better advantage (bye in knockout round plus home field in the group stage), eliminates the tentative, avoid-conceding-at-all-costs nature of 2-leg/road goal tie-breaking format, results in more games and revenue, positions the FIFA break in a less disruptive spot in the playoff calendar, and thereby helps create more drama and a natural build toward the MLS Cup final.

I think it would be a big improvement.

 

The Conference Semifinals had 8 goals in first legs and 8 goals in second legs. I'm not looking at the Conference Finals in between legs. The six aggregates in 2016 had 15 goals in first legs and 18 goals in second legs excluding extra time which can only happen in second legs. That's a total of 46.9% of the goals in first legs. To compare, the Knockout Rounds excluding the Final of the last two UEFA Champions Leagues had 51.2% of the goals in first legs. That's a small difference.

 

In my opinion, MLS Playoffs should be one-game matches, with seeding in the first two rounds, with the highest ranked team playing at home, and the finals two rounds with 3 host cities (neutral venue), one for each final.

MLS Playoffs should't last more than 4 weeks:
First 2 rounds before Men's National Team week in November
Final 2 rounds after Men's National Team week in November

SEEDING
Knockout round
E3 VS E6
E4 VS E5

W3 VS W6
W4 VS W5

Conference Semifinals
E1 VS E3/E6
E2 VS E4/E5

W1 VS W3/W6
W2 VS W4/W5

NEUTRAL VENUE at HOST CITIES
City 1: Western Conference Final
City 2: Eastern Conference Final
City 3: MLS Cup

 

That's a lot to absorb, but I think I follow and agree for the most part.

I happen to like playoffs and think they keep a much larger group of teams interested throughout the season. Without it, all but 3-4 teams would be rendered irrelevant by August each year. So, I'm certainly not a single-table purist that hates the American playoff format.

That said, our playoff structure is dysfunctional. We still try to internationalize our American playoff system by adopting 2-leg stages and away goal tie-breakers like we see in international tournaments, and I don't think either is appropriate for a playoff. Meanwhile, we're not addressing the glaring issue of how our playoffs straddle the November international break. With some modest tweaks in format and schedule, we could have something a lot better.

I also tend to agree that although the top clubs are finding ways to navigate the playoffs, the format itself doesn't appropriately favor the teams that earned the higher seeds in regular season. And to that point, regardless of what modifications are made, I certainly hope we do NOT move to a neutral site MLS Cup final. First of all, it would destroy ticket sales due to the expensive travel involved for each fan base. But it would also further erode the importance of regular season if the top seed didn't gain a home field advantage throughout.

 

Why not a neutral site for MLS Cup final?

I agree with you that MLS Playoffs should be single-games matches and the top seed should have home field advantage.
However, i think in the final all advantages should end, so a neutral site is a good option...

 

Although MLS has an unbalanced schedule, each team plays every other team at least once. So, I'd argue the team with more points has earned an advantage in the playoffs, just like the NBA, NHL, and now even MLB.

Plus, imagine if we held the final someplace like LA, Houston,or Atlanta this year to ensure warm weather. How many Toronto or Seattle fans would actually make that trip?

The NFL is the only pro league that has neutral site final and that's party because they can't possibly know which conference champ is really better with 32 teams and only 16 regular season games. Plus, the league is so popular, they could play the game on the moon and still sell-out. Most other sports don't have that luxury, and even the NFL struggled with Super Bowl attendance in the early years.