What MLS looks like at 22, 24, 26, etc teams

MAYBE...
- 1 Conference Derby, meaning two clubs playing 4 times (BLACK CIRCLES)
- 1 Interconference Rivalry, meaning two clubs playing 2 times (BLUE LINKS)
- and 1 exception - one club from each conference will playing each other 4 times. (GREEN LINK)

Total: 34 games

Example 1:
LA GALAXY
20 same conference games
+ 2 extra same conference games with San Jose Earthquakes (Conference Derby)
11 Interconference games (one leg)
+ 1 Interconference game with DC United OR Philadelphia Union (second leg)

The Exception:
- Portland Timbers and New England Revolution
- 20 conference games (home and away)
- 11 interconference games (one leg)
+ 3 interconference games between the 2 clubs (second leg and another set of home and away games)

 

If you're system treats the plane ride from Boston to Oregon the same way you treat a cab ride from the Bronx to New Jersey, you have a bad system.

You know that it's not Portland, ME right?

 

1. There could be divisions with unequal numbers of teams. The NHL has 16 teams in 2 divisions of 8 in the Eastern Conference and 14 teams in 2 divisions of 7 in the Western Conference. With 26 MLS clubs there could be 2 divisions of 6 and 2 divisions of 7. Here is a possible schedule:

If you are in a division of 6:
2 games vs. each division opponent = 10
1 game vs. each opponent in both divisions of 7 = 14
2 games vs. 4 opponents in the other division of 6 = 8
1 game vs. 2 opponents in the other division of 6 = 2
34 games

If you are in a division of 7:
2 games vs. each division opponent = 12
1 game vs. each opponent in both divisions of 6 = 12
2 games vs. 3 opponents in the other division of 7 = 6
1 game vs. 4 opponents in the other division of 7 = 4
34 games

2. With 28 teams I would rather play every opponent at least once and have fewer opponents you play twice. I would go along with your second idea plus having a rival club you play 1 more game against to make an even numbre of games.

Just like with interleague play in MLB, some teams have nearby rivals like and others don't. Yankees vs. Mets, Nationals vs. Orioles, and Cardinals vs. Royals fit geographically. The Mariners, Braves, Rockies, and Diamondbacks aren't near a team in the other league.

 

This is what I see, but they'll do like the NFL and play their 34th game against the team in your conference sister-division that finished opposite you in the standings the previous year.

 

PLEASE.JUST.STOP.
In the name of whateverthehell you hold dear, just stop the insanity and/or inanity.

 

WTF?!! Are you joking with me?

WHAT IS THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN MY IDEA AND THE CURRENT MLS FORMAT?

NOW: Teams play 34 games in an unbalanced Schedule, 24 matches against teams within their conference, plus 10 matches against teams from the other conference

MY SUGGESTION: Teams play 34 games in an unbalanced schedule, 22 matches against teams within their conference, plus 12 matches against teams from the other conferences.

Conference 20 home and away
Interconference games: 11 one legged games.
TOTAL: 31 games. Missing 3 games.

I PROPOSED allocating these 3 games as a interconference rivalry and a Conference Derby. VERY SIMPLE.

BECAUSE you have 11 clubs in each conference you need to have 1 exception in each conference.

 

For 22 teams the schedule will be like that we've had for 19 or 20 teams.

24 is very simple, with two same conference games and one interconference game per team. We all know that one.

26 means divisions or sometimes not playing a team in the other conference. I fully expect divisions. I don't think any team wants to completely give up playing against some of the biggest names in a given year.

 

Don't expect an odd number of games in a year. MLS has never had a schedule like that. Other major sports leagues don't have schedules like that. No owner wants to play more on the road than at home. Further, the years with one fewer game at home means less ticket, parking, and concessions revenue, but more travel costs.

Most large college football conferences do not play full round robins each year. Once there are more than ten teams in a conference, it's not really possible, so divisions are created. Some teams in the other division get skipped in 12 team conferences. Most teams in the other conference do in a 14 team conference. Sometimes there will be special provisions for cross-division play; the SEC had a rule in place that always allowed Alabama and Tennessee to play annually. The PAC-12 sees the California teams all play each other. The ACC has rivals separated into different divisions but preserves their annual games. Doing that means skipping other teams in the other division even more often.

Again, expecting the schedule for a 22 team league to be substantially different than the pattern which has been used for 19 or 20 teams doesn't make sense. This is how it has been done since going to 19: extra games will be played against other teams in the same conference, and local rivalry games never rotate out--the Cascadia clubs always play each other an extra time, same with California, Texas, and the Rockies. KC and Minny will play an extra time next year. Any remaining games will be rotated through the other teams in the conference. Given that there will only be a year at 22 teams, there's absolutely no reason to come up with a new pattern, just to go to the straightforward setup that 24 teams allows.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Major_League_Soccer_seasons lists how many games were played each year. There was one year in which any teams played an odd number of regular season games, but that was because the end of the regular season got cancelled in mid-September for some reason...

 

Why are we arguing about a 22-team league when it's going to be 24 teams a year later? All they're going to do is continue with the current format until they get beyond 24 teams.

It's the 28 team schedule we should be discussing.

 

Sounds complicated. I can see MLS eventually running it's schedule similar to baseball. That's not what I want to see as an American soccer fan, but it's the best option in my opinion given the direction MLS is heading in.

 

In baseball you play one division of the other league and one interleague rival regardless of whether that team is in the division you play or not. 22 clubs don't fit equally into divisions in each conference. With 24 clubs, you could play 11 conference opponents twice and 12 clubs from the other conference once, for 34 games, so I don't see an advantage to using divisions. If there were ever 27 clubs, there could be 3 conferences of 9, with 2 games against each conference opponent and 1 game against the clubs in the other two conferences, for 34 games.

 

I will be very surprised if MLS ever returns to three conferences. It was done for only two seasons, which isn't even half the time the league spent at 12 teams.

It is telling that the league did not return to three conferences when it returned to 12 teams, or at 15, or 18. There was no plan for 21. There is a plan for 28, not 27. Three conferences is just a quirky footnote in league history. There's nothing wrong with it, but there's no big advantage over two conferences with divisions, except for scheduling at certain magic numbers, like 27, but those go away if the league expands again.

 

Does anyone think it could be possible that MLS expands from 24 to 28? There has been enough interest from different cities recently. It is possible that they may make a couple of expansion sides who would be ready to enter at 25 and 26 wait until 27 and 28 are ready to go. The 25th and 26th teams could run their MLS II side in USL and get their Academy up and running before they get their first team off the ground helping them evaluate players stock themselves with homegrowns. That would solve the scheduling issue at 26 with uneven conferences, although there are already solutions out there.

 

The league has been okay with adding single teams before, and has had unbalanced conferences due to an odd number of teams. This suggests going to 26 with unbalanced divisions but balanced conferences won't be an issue. Especially since it looks like the northeast division won't get any of the expansion teams, doing them all in one year is less ideal.

 

I believe the expansion pattern will be 2 teams in 2018, 4 teams in 2020 and 4 teams in 2024.

 

With 32 CLUBS I think an alternative could be:

- 2 Conferences, 16 clubs each conference.
- Regular Season: 30 games per conference, home and away.
- MLS Championship Playoffs: 12 clubs. R8-R8-R4-R2. Total: 4 games.
- MLS League Cup (MLS Cup): Group Stage (8 groups, 4 clubs each)+Knockout tournament (R16-R8-R4-R2). Total: 10 games.

Conference Champion (Supporter's Shield title per Conference) - Regular Season: 1 berth each in CONCACAF Champions League.
MLS Champion - CONCACAF Champions League or runner-up.
MLS CUP Champion - CONCACAF Champions League or runner-up.

With 32 clubs I don't see much interess in US Open Cup, MLS CUP (New format) will replace this competition.

 

Why would USSF want to end MLS participation in the USOC? Participation is required for sanctioned leagues. It has deeply rooted history, in a sport which often feels young and foreign. It serves as the single best opportunity for MLS teams to give meaningful competitive minutes to fringe players.

And if MLS were to somehow get out of it, why would the league turn around and create its own cup competition? Is it that important to have something for Bruce Arena to ignore? If eliminated, it's more likely the regular season is extended a couple games, or nothing is added at all.

 

With this format MLS regular season will be balanced. Other wise you will have only 4 interconference games to makes a 34 games regular season.

MLS Cup with a Group stage allows interconference games during regular season.

Maybe you don't notice but with a 16 club conferences, interconference games will be impossible during regular season.

So a diferentte competition with this key elemento makes sense.

You have 8 groups, with 4 clubs, 2 from each conference. Then you have R16-R8-R4-R2.