Those links look like in medias res counterpoints of a long-running debate that I can't quite unwind, so rather than going through that, I'll bring up one big one. A round-robin has potentially the biggest minus of all: integrity of result. Sooner or later, a round-robin (all the more likely if it advances only 1 instead of 2) is going to produce a team coming into its last game knowing it is eliminated, they won't give full effort, and it'll skew the result. In the 2009 Canadian Championship, which was decided by a (in this case double) round-robin, Montreal did exactly this, handing a 6-1 freebie to Toronto on the last game having already been eliminated going in. This put Toronto ahead on goal difference in the group by one.
That game wasn't a "freebie" by any stretch of the imagination. Montreal scored first and could have had a couple more on the counterattack if not for the good work of Stefan Frei. @BHTC Mike knows this as well as I do, given that we were both in the stands for that game and (at the 25 minute mark) had been erroneously resigned to the fact that TFC was not going to make up the goal difference. It was nowhere near the walk in the park that many have since made it out to be.
I can believe that Montreal walked into that one intending to give a stiff effort. I can not believe they gave it for the full 90. That result--at home, mind, having lost the road leg only 1-0--is too out of character with everything else that went on.
Sorry for bumping this thread back up, but I just noticed something interesting. In each of the last two seasons, the site of the MLS Cup final (and possibly the winner given how much home field advantage means in this league), was determined by one regular-season game. In 2013, SKC and RSL played once. SKC won the game. In the end, they finished two points ahead of RSL and hosted the final. If RSL had won that game, the final would have been in Rio Tinto and could conceivably have had a very different result. In 2014, New England played LA once, during that nine-game losing streak that has been brought up. LA won. They finished six points ahead of the Revs. Flip that single result, and the two teams are tied in points, with New England ahead in wins. If New England had beat the Galaxy that one time, the final would have been played in Foxboro, and who knows what would have happened? We've had two seasons in a row where the result of the championship very possibly hinged on the result of a single game during the regular season. You could not possibly ask for a more "meaningful" regular season. The playoffs need work, there's no denying. The two-leg rounds give almost no advantage to the higher seed, which is a problem. But the system MLS has set up for playoff qualification, with the high seeds getting to skip the first round altogether, and the highest surviving seed hosting the final, gives teams all the incentive they need to scrap and fight for every last point for all 34 games. ------RM
Couldnt see this mentioned anywhere else here but the playoffs have been expanded to 12 teams as mentioned 2015 Schedule release: "The league also announced that the playoff field will expand to 12 teams in 2015, as the sixth-place teams in both the Eastern and Western Conferences will qualify for the postseason. The Knockout Rounds will now consist of four single-elimination matches on the road to MLS Cup in early December. ... In the postseason, the Knockout Round matches will take place on Wednesday, Oct. 28 and Thursday, Oct. 29. The Conference Semifinals will take place over two consecutive weekends, Oct. 31-Nov. 1 and Nov. 7-8. Following a FIFA break from Nov. 9 – 17, the Conference Championship matches will begin on Nov. 21-22 and close out Nov. 28-29. The Conference Semifinals and Conference Championship matches will again be 2-game aggregate goal series. Of the two clubs that reach MLS Cup, the team with the better regular season record will host the championship game, on Dec. 5-6 or Dec. 12-13. Full playoff schedule details will be announced at a later date."
The future for MLS, 38 interleague friendlies and a single elimination regular season for two months from October to December.
I think you could possibly ask for a more meaningful regular season where the importance of the games in determining a champion is a result of the design, rather than, well, what you've described above is just chance, really. First of all, all that those results determined was home field, not the result of the championship itself. Secondly, last year's regular season game between LA and NE was played in LA, so it's not like NE 'lost' home field in a fair sense, as they would have had to 'steal' a regular season game in LA to have 'won' it. Not saying that it isn't cool that it just so happened to work out that way the past two seasons, but it's not a byproduct of a system that's guaranteed to create meaningful games so much as it is a just a lucky coincidence that a game in July just so happened to have had an impact on home field advantage in the final. FTR, I was in favor of getting rid of the neutral site final and agree that it adds value to the reg season.
I think the MLS should have waited until 2017 to expand the playoffs. Once ATL and LAFC join then it would have been the perfect time. I like playoffs. The more soccer the merrier. But, 60 percent of the clubs getting in is a bit much for most people. That said. If it gives some clubs like Toronto, Philly, Montreal to name a few a chance to gain some playoff history, then that could be good too. All fans, from all clubs, need "hope".
I think the timing of this official announcement of the playoff expansion implies that MLS recognizes that its just a money grab that they are not even trying hard to defend. At least over on ESPN I have read some pieces of writers trying to defend possible expansion of the NFL playoffs as hitting the sweet spot. If MLS were truly proud of this expansion as it relates to improving the quality of their product, then they could have announced this format alteration in its very own press release on one of the slow news days.
[QUOTE="LordRobin, post: 31524267, member: 89341] We've had two seasons in a row where the result of the championship very possibly hinged on the result of a single game during the regular season. You could not possibly ask for a more "meaningful" regular season. ------RM[/QUOTE] Its very easy to ask for a more meaningful regular season - have more of the bulk of the season do more of the eliminating. The most exciting part of a competition format is in the elimination aspect - knowing the possibility of winning the championship is alive or over. I like home field advantage but playing for seeding and playing for home field advantage add to the excitement of a particular regular season match very minimally. To have 80% of the matches do 50% or less of the eliminating, means that there is far less reason to pay attention to those 80% of the matches. If the format is tweaked to keep all of the teams in contention until the very end, there's much less incentive for any fan to show up and watch/attend games in the middle and beginning.
I'm not a single table guy, but I did the math and there are about 328 total regular season matches and 15 playoff matches leading to about 343 total matches. Under that ratio the regular season matches make up about 95% of the total matches But in a 12 out of 20 format, those regular season matches only eliminate 40% of the teams. So 95% of the work to do 40% of the elimination. That gives less overall incentive to pay attention to, buy tickets for, and watch on TV the 95% part. Bloated playoffs are like super-sized meals and movie franchises with a lot of sequels. At some point the producers intentions turn from offering a good product to how much can they dupe the customer into buying.
I guess I just don't understand the problem. It seems some people don't consider the regular season meaningful unless it delivers the championship to the team with the best record on a silver platter, so that they can only lose by tripping over their own feet on the way to collect it. That's just not realistic. I consider the regular season meaningful if it incentivizes teams to win games -- no more, no less. If a team doesn't give a crap about winning games, because they know that sneaking into the playoffs in the last spot is as good as winning the Supporters Shield, well then, you've got yourself a meaningless season. But that's simply not the case here. Playoff spots #1 and #6 are worlds apart. Spot #1 gets a bye to the conference semis. Spot #6 plays on the road in the knockout round. That's simply not comparable. If you're sitting in 5th or 6th, you want to win games to move up to 3rd or 4th so you host the knockout game. If you're sitting in 3rd or 4th, you want to move up to 1st or 2nd so you get that bye. And if you're in 1st or 2nd, your gaze should turn to other conference, to rack up more points to improve your chance of hosting MLS Cup if you get there. The only situation where you can take your foot off the gas is the one in which the Galaxy found themselves last year with a few games to go: 2nd in the West, and safely with more points than anyone in the East. The two-leg playoff format meant there wasn't any particular advantage to moving up to 1st. (So, room for improvement.) My example of how the home sites for both the 2014 and 2013 MLS Cups hinged on one regular-season game wasn't meant to say that there was something magical about one random game and that somehow validated the playoff format. It's that a team needs to scrap for every point it can get, or else it could come up just short of the finish line. If the MLS Cup goes to the home side as often as games do in the regular season, I think we can expect 75% of champions to be the home team. That makes home-field advantage something to fight for, and you only get it by winning in the regular season. One more example: In last year's format, Columbus needed to move up to 3rd to secure the first-round bye. As the last matchday approached, there were multiple scenarios, ranging from Columbus finishing 3rd, to dropping to 5th and having to play the knockout game on the road. Both here and on Reddit, Crew fans worked out the various scenarios and which teams we should pull for depending on whether the Crew won, lost, or tied. I didn't see one Crew fan go "Aah, who cares? They're in the playoffs, that's all that matters." That's a meaningful regular season. ------RM
Obviously, because: It's not about helping the top seed, it's about not rewarding mediocrity. Giving adequate rewards for seeding is a separate issue from the expanded playoffs. (If that is all you are talking about, then disregard this post.) Obviously, teams want to win. You could put them out there in friendlies and they would still want to win. However, if it's relatively easy to make the playoffs, the *perception* is there among the fan base that much of the season isn't important. Meh. I just feel apathetic now. I don't even care about arguing the point. Whatever. Do the playoffs however you want.
another alternative which you seem to ignore is to keep playoffs, but reduce the number of teams to qualify for the playoffs. 20% or 30% of teams making the playoffs would be much more compelling than 60% of the teams making the playoffs. of course 25% or 30% would be unique as most pro leagues are moving towards the 50% mark. But at least many of us can recognize the playoff expansion moves for what they are - pure money grabs. That's certainly the owner's prerogative - this is their business. Its also our prerogative as fans to lose interest in the product if the product becomes worse. For many including me, expanding the playoffs makes the overall product worse. (As a sidenote - as a 16 year old I was head-over-heels in love with MLS when it opened in 1996. But I lost almost complete interest in the league for a few years because the 80%-of-teams-qualifying-for-the-playoff-format was so revolting to me.)
But is it really more compelling? 20% would be 4 teams in the playoffs. In the West Portland was in the race until the final weekend. Instead everyone would have been out of it int he final week as Seattle and LA would have the two spots clinched. The East was a bit better as Columbus still could have caught New England in the final week. Either way its more compelling fora few teams, but less meaningful for a number of teams.
it depends on what the discussion point is. It seems like you may be defining "meaningful" as How can we make the last week or the last month of regular season games meaningful for the greatest amount of teams, regardless of any effect altering the format has on the importance of early season matches and middle of the season matches. My defining of compelling is how do we make the entire season - from week 1 of the regular season to the end to be more exciting. From the perspective of my definition, the 20% or 30% is really more compelling.
No, it really isn't. I used the last week as an example but it stretches further back than that. How would, using 2014 as an example, Montreal games be interesting after say June? With only 2-3 playoff spots in the East thy were completely out of it by summer. That doesn't mean that we should set the playoffs at a point where everyone gets in, that also includes a lack of interest, but I think your 20-30% is too drastic a cut as it leaves too many teams out of the running too soon. I think the 50% MLS would have been at this year under the old system was pretty close to the sweet spot.
The key, as I have mentioned a few times since 2004, is combining the number of teams with the number of the playoff matches themselves. In other words, it's OK to have 12-out-of-20 if you have the Best of Three/First-to-Five type of a set up. The NHL and the NBA let in a ton of teams also but then they have a 28-game total potential for the winner and that's a third of their regular season.
of course and percentage wise they went from 1.5% of teams qualifying for the postseason tournament (2/128) to 3% (4/128). I think college football is so extreme in one direction that they could easily move to an 8 team tournament (6%) or 16 team tournament (12%) and still have a very compelling regular season. Especially when there regular season length is so short and all of the teams only play only 10% or so of the other teams in the league (all of D-1) throughout the season.