This probably needs its own thread: https://theathletic.com/664327/2018/11/19/ (paywall, but in general I've heard very good things about the work done at The Athletic, so consider checking it out) https://www.sounderatheart.com/2018/11/19/18103595/mls-playoff-changes (no paywall) * 7 teams per conference in playoffs, only one seed gets bye * Single elimination * Cup Final by early November
One thing to get out of the way: not that I'm happy about more teams in the playoffs, but the correlation between a better regular season and a long run in the playoffs would get stronger, not weaker, with these changes. There is a huge difference between the home-and-home and a single-elimination at the higher seed. See: https://www.reddit.com/r/MLS/comments/9yogcq/oc_single_or_home_home_which_provides_more_of_an/ The home-and-home is a virtual coin flip, whereas the higher seed is going to win a home game more than two thirds of the time. One thing this means is, kind of like the NBA, some mediocre teams are going to the playoffs, but don't expect them to contend (only one team out of the 300+ who have entered the playoffs in the bottom half of the bracket has ever won an NBA title). The odds (and this is record-agnostic odds, even before you consider they might be a weaker team than the opposition) of a team winning four consecutive road games is about 1%. I've often said about the NBA that it's not that the regular season is meaningless (though an individual game doesn't mean much because they play twice as many as it takes to figure out who's worthy of the playoffs and who isn't, it's still the case that you pretty much need a good regular season record to have any real shot at a title), it's that a chunk of the playoffs is a waste of time, because it features teams with so little chance. MLS probably won't be quite that bad, but that 4v5 game in the first round is going to prompt some thinking from time to time about whether either of those teams is good enough to go anywhere. Those same two seeds play in the play-in round now, but the difference will be that in the future, you'll know that's usually the last home game the 4 seed will get.
It makes sense to finish the season before the October international break to give teams time to sell tickets to their games. The four weeks between the October and November international breaks would work well for a 16-team elimination tournament. However, I'm not sure if they shorten the season whether or not they will be able to have all the teams play each other. But if they start the weekend after Valentine's day, they could probably squeeze in 34 games. The most games any team would have to play in a MLS season would be 38, which is less than the 40 game maximum it is now. But I'm not sure about adding an extra team to the playoffs. And I still like the idea of having a Conference Group stage playoff format - the three teams that win the knockout round then play 3 games against the 4 remaining conference teams with the home games at the higher seed. The winner of the group stage play in the MLS Cup the following week.
I think MLS could get away from the mid-week knockouts. The schedule could look like this: Sunday (10/6/19): Final MLS regular season match day Monday (10/7/1) - Tuesday (10/15/18): FIFA Break Saturday (10/19/19) - Sunday (10/20/19): MLS Conference Quarterfinals Saturday (10/26/19) - Sunday (10/27/19): MLS Conference Semifinals Saturday (11/2/19) - Sunday (11/3/19) : MLS Conference Finals Saturday (11/9/19) - Sunday (11/10/19) - MLS Cup Monday (11/11/19) - Tuesday (11/19/119): FIFA Break It is only a week before MLS Cup but this year there is only a 9 day break.
In a single elimination they would have to get rid of road goal tie breaker. It only works if both teams have a road game.
If they are going single elimination then you need to add teams to the play-offs just to add a few games for TV. I know people don't like that sort of excuse but the TV partners love playoff games and they pay quite a bit for the rights so you need to do something to appease them somewhat if you want to change the format. Currently you get 17 games (2 play-in games, 4 conference semis, and 2 conference finals per conference plus MLS Cup) to put on TV. Drop the current format down to single elimination and you get 11 games (2 play in, 2 conference semis, and 1 conference final plus MLS Cup). Ignore MLS Cup since that rotates and you go from 8 games per English channel to 5. The 7 team format gives you 6 games (3 play-in games, 2 conference semis, and 1 conference final per conference). So I think it is a good compromise between giving the TV partners as many games as you can while preserving some of the competitive nature that the regular season needs by giving the top seed a bye. They could have gone for a straight 8 team knockout tourney and that would have given them the same number of game days with more TV games (7 instead of 6).
An interesting point. My main objection is that given the league's history, I really think the 14 is a setup for never having less than 50% playoff teams, meaning that when we hit 30 total (I think this is a when, not if), you can bet 16 of them will qualify. And getting rid of the bye would be a real step backward, I think. Partially because that would set up a total 'banana peel' game between the Shield winner and a mediocre team, and partially because the bye is something that adds intrigue to Decision Day and the final regular season sprint. Now, 14 out of 30, I believe, would be a very good number, in that it would keep the vast majority of the teams playoff-alive for the vast majority of the season, but without many teams qualifying with losing records (this year, with 12 of 23, every team that made the playoffs won more than they lost, and one team, the LA Galaxy, was eliminated despite doing that, which is a rarity in MLS history that came from a recent reduction in parity). It would also keep the last couple weeks of the regular season interesting, which was one of the things the league had been doing real well with recently. If they really went with 14 of 30, I'd be digging it. I'm just real skeptical that would happen.
Yes, I was confused why the sounderatheart article suggested starting with a midweek round. It seems like this format is specifically designed to fit in the four weekends between the two international breaks. Also the October break will include national team games as late as October 15, so starting the playoffs on October 16 would be problematic. There still could be some midweek playoff games forced by stadium conflicts, but they could still keep it to one round per week.
And the first one is the real killer, because there's no lead time. If you were going to have a mid-week game, better to have it after a bye.
The sounderatheart article did put the midweek round after a de-facto bye (the international break), but it would be horrible for the players coming back from national teams, and there's no need for it with four consecutive weekends available.
Good summary and surprised by this year with the number of teams with winning records qualifying for the playoffs. Still, while I'm sure that I'm the minority, I would prefer to have only a third of the team making the playoffs (10-12 teams).
They most definitely will have 34 season games next year. With 24 teams it is just too perfect. Play 11 conference opponents twice = 22 Play other 12 non conference opponents once = 12 total 34 When they go to 25+ teams it becomes very hard to still play everyone and have a balanced schedule. Either have to have more than 34 games or not play all your conference opponents twice. I would assume they will elect to stay at 34 games (or less) with playing each conference opponent twice and not play every team from the other conference.
I won't like 14 until we get to 28 teams, but I can live with it. They get another team a guaranteed home game, which might have been a necessary concession. I could not possibly be more in favor of the other 2 changes. I hate first legs because they're inconclusive. They're necessary in the CL, but not in MLS. More drama, more impact for the regular season. I've been clamoring for this forever. The current format legitimately undermines my interest. And ending the season a bit earlier avoids the dead time we're going through right now. This is probably easier whenever there are an even number of teams; odd numbers mean there's always someone on a bye.
I agree completely. I have followed MLS since the beginning. The first legs are brutal for me and I have to make myself watch. Very very uninteresting. If I have that hard of a time I can't even imagine those that aren't as interested/invested in MLS as me.
Or they split into four divisions and play every divisional opponent twice and everybody else once. With 28 teams that would be 12 divisional matches and 21 out of division, leaving an extra match which could be the third match against a rival or a second match against a team in the other division in the same conference, perhaps based on the previous year's standings. Of course with four divisions in two conferences, one division winner gets a bye in the 7 team playoff format and the other doesn't, but it is done elsewhere (NFL).
If MLS starts on March 2 and ends the regular season on October 6 that is a total of 32 weekends. There are three FIFA windows in there and the Gold Cup to complicate things. In 2017 MLS shut down mostly for the Gold Cup group stage. I think that there were 3 league games played during that two weeks. The 2019 Gold Cup starts on June 15. So there would be 27 clear weekends. The league would probably again let individual teams make decisions on playing during the FIFA breaks. Especially the March and June ones. The June break runs right up to the start of the Gold Cup so I'm guessing most teams would play the weekend of June 8/9. The September break might be World Cup qualifiers so the league might try to keep that clean. The even number of teams means that every team could play on all those clear weekends barring facility issues and the inevitable weather conflicts that arise. It would really help if the league could get all the teams at least scheduled every one of those clear weekends. Even at 34 games the number of mid-week games wouldn't be terrible.
After sitting in the stands for the coldest competitive game on record (not in MLS, anywhere) I have no interest in the season starting any earlier than it currently does...
I said this last time and I will say it next time but constant tweaking of the systems makes it hard for us to adopt it. Get used to this after a couple of seasons and then bam they come up with something else.
This one addresses the bigger complaints that people have with the playoffs. By going to single elimination, they have resolved the issue with higher seeds not being rewarded enough for their work in the regular season. By fitting the playoffs between the October and November international breaks, they’ve resolved the issue of momentum of the playoffs stalling due to the break created by the November international break...
Everyone's response to the legit concerns of the fans of cold weather teams is always, just start the season with a 6 game road trip! I always thought that was kind of stupid. It hurts those teams financially because guess what, that just means a couple of 4 game home stands when the weather is warm, and cannibalized attendance. So I have a question...what is the longest season-beginning road trip for cold teams that would work for MLS? My answer is 3...the schedule should not start any earlier than would allow New England, Minnesota, etc., to host on matchday 4.