I don't think this falls under expansion because the teams have been announced, but feel free to move it if it does. Well, we're finally at 16 teams. I know this discussion has been had many times hypothetically about league format. But we're here. Most people say single table or the two conferences like we have now. I just got an idea, I'm sure in the gazillion threads about this before somebody has already come up with it. But it really seems appealing and can build on our great rivalries. We could have four divisions/conferences of four teams that could do a double round robin then a single round robin could be played against everyone else for 36 matches. It's similar to the extra match against rival things they're doing right now. Well, here goes, I hate being one of these guys that starts threads like this, but I feel slightly better because I'm not making up imaginary teams. And I guess I'm trying to save the Philly congrats thread from this kind of thing. This is really just a suggestion on league format for when the 16th team joins. New York New England DC Philadelphia Toronto Columbus Chicago KC Houston Dallas Salt Lake Colorado Los Angeles Chivas San Jose Seattle OK, let the humiliation begin....
I would have expected each team plays each other twice, home and away, for a total of 30 games No single table though, they'll keep the conferences
Well, for playoffs, you can take the top 8 of the single table, or the top four from each conference, the top two from each division, etc. The real question I guess, other than arbitrary regional labeling. Is how many times does each team play the other and how are the playoff teams determined.
And to Ivan Gazidis. Lets hope Don Garber and the board of governors agree. I am sick of this circular argument: "Well you have to have playoffs because there's an unbalanced schedule." Ok so lets make it balanced at 16 teams and go to a single table with playoffs and use the table to award international spots (Champions League, SuperLiga, etc) "Well you cant do that because you have to have playoffs and conferences, cause this is america, the cost of travel too high for that, blah blah blah" But well, USL-1 has a single table and playoffs and they dont have half as much money for travel as MLS. How do you explain how they can do it but MLS can not? (silence) as for 4 conferences, that's lunacy. why make a simple game so much more complicated and turn off more true soccer fans in the process? Only in america.
They are not going to go up to 36 games, particularly with ever-increasing international competition involvement. The longest the MLS season has ever been is 32 games. I think under the current circumstances they aren't going to go over 30. I have posited the 4-division alignment before. I suggested 4 games against division opponents, 2 against the other division in the same conference, and 1 against each team in the other conference. Total of 28 games. Playoff places go to each division winner and 2 wild cards in each conference.
The Mexican league has had group play for decades. The Chilean League has four groups. And the gypsy woman sings for money, la da deee la di daaaa
That would be perfect if we went single table and no playoffs, but since we have playoffs, it makes more sense to stack more games against divisional foes, giving divisions more weight, and intensifying rivalries. We're either going the single table route or the playoffs route, so decide which it is, and then maximize its virtues. Why should Philadelphia and DC United only play each other twice a year? You'd be shortchanging the league that way. This is something you've got to milk for all it's worth, for a league that is starving for atmosphere and electricity. You get bigger home attendances and more away fans for those games, plus louder crowds, and not just because there's more people.
I like it, except... With the various international competitions, I don't know if MLS-sized rosters can play that many matches. Also, that means more Wednesday matches. Probably not a problem since at that point there'll be almost all SSSs. And they could pick up a week by getting rid of that double-legged first round, and going to single elimination the whole way. Still, I MUCH prefer this kind of plan, accentuating the local rivalries. I'm not a Eurosnob.
Some would say those crowds would be even bigger, more travelling away fans and more electric atmosphere if they knew they only meet twice at home per year. Having something more often does not = more interest, it usually equals less. If your bitter rival is in town for only the 2nd time that year on a Wednesday or Thursday do you think you would be more or less likely to blow off the game if you know you have 2 more home meetings?
I really like silentounce's setup for 2010 but 36 games might be too many fixtures unless MLS decides to start the season sooner and finish later with respect given to international dates. If the four division setup goes, I would like to see a playoff format where the four division winners qualify plus the next four teams on points regardless of division (similar to the NHL).
So which division will you be putting Atlanta in for 2011? Since the plan is to have 18 teams by 2011/12 why would MLS change the format for 1 or 2 years? It's a great plan if MLS wasn't going to expand anymore. Fortunately they are.
I don't have a "problem" with divisions, but the announcment refered to a possible 18 teams by 2011. And since FIFA says 18 is the limit, I don't see 4 divisions working.
I think I agree with my lil homie Jade for the moment. A single table that had playoffs as well would work fine. Playoffs aren't the problem, the unsurety of who is best is the problem. One table, then playoffs, international competition would then be awarded the same as in England. Perfect. I think that would be great. Now for those that oppose playoffs altogether, I think you misunderstand England, Spain, and all the other countries. Sure, they love their leagues, and the single table format, but they already have a playoff system (or Tourneyment system) in the Champions League, Euro Cup, World Cup, Carling Cup, FA Cup, etc. They use these all the time. They have too many games to add yet another aspect through playoffs. In other words, the EPL couldn't add playoffs if they wanted to. So, MLS may be imitating American sports through playoffs. But, playoffs are basically the tournament formula used in all the other competitions world football holds to. So, chill out yo, it's pretty exciting. I imagine however, NE Revs fans won't agree, and DCU fans might have some beef as well, especially after last season. Cheers peeps, it's another great day to follow MLS!!! I can't wait to do a summer tour of stadiums on the East Coast!
When Atlanta is official, then I'll answer your question. Right now, we know the teams that will be in 2010, unless someone moves or folds. What does expansion have to do with it? It doesn't prohibit this format. There is no reason they can't do that and then tweak it. The MLS has changed their format several times, as far as who plays who, they've had to because of expansion. Btw: "Expansion conversations continue with approximately 10 markets throughout the United States and Canada. MLS officials will continue those discussions as the League could feature as many as 18 clubs by 2011." That hardly sounds like a written in stone plan. Note, "could feature". I think you're a little biased by hoping for an Atlanta franchise, I don't blame you and I hope you get it. 18 could be two fives and two fours, it's been done before. And as for FIFAs limit, how many leagues are actually listening to it? Plus, circumstances are different in the US. We have 2/3 the population and twice the land mass of the entire European continent.
Doc, this line, plus your quote at the bottom is just brilliant. And the funniest part is, I don't think Jade even got the joke. Classic!
Please visit my 'Long Term Solution' thread under Expansion. https://www.bigsoccer.com/forum/showthread.php?t=664135 It's somewhat related.
Expansion has EVERYTHING to do with it. The Philadelphia press release noted that the league hopes to have 16 teams by 2011. If this ends up happening, and I don't see how it wouldn't happen by 2012 at the latest with the rate things are going at, then why would you make a drastic change to conference and divisional alignment that ultimately effects how the schedule breaks down, only to change it again in two years. Unbalanced divisions aren't conducive to a schedule that says "play everyone in your division x amount of times," because that makes for an unbalanced schedule. The Americanization aspect is already there with two conferences - there is no need for a divisional system. A league that is starting to plant its foot into the ground and establish a long-term legitimacy will not want to change its scheduling format every two years; it just doesn't look good for them. I see the two divisions staying for quite some time. The only possible change that could be feesible is a single table, but that would take away the number of rivalry games between these northeastern teams and these California showdowns. East and West are here to stay for a long time, and not with subdivisions.
I'm thinking once the league is at 20 teams, it may be feasible to do a 1 table. But really 1 table isn't too interesting without the 'relagation' battle. Which I think the number 1 and 2 first round picks shouldn't go to the actual last place teams, but go to the 17th, 16th teams. That way there will actually be a fight between the lower teams (18th, 19th, 20th) for a 'prize'. The last place teams would actually get the 3rd, 4th picks instead. it may work....or not.