Disagree. I know this is getting a little off-topic but allow me to elaborate. "4th place in the Western Conference" just generally sounds less meaningful. Having played in and followed many leagues organized as a single-table my experience is that you care much more about finishing higher when you're comparing your results to every other team. The more divisions and the smaller the number of teams in each the less you care. Saying you finished "in the top half" means you're better than half the other teams in the entire league. Likewise, a "top five finish" is, in my experience, more meaningful than "second in the East". Regardless of whether or not there's a play-off afterwards - the leagues I play in tend to have a post-season knock-out Cup - single-table's elegance incentivizes each and every position because it's always better to finish second than third than fourth than fifth and so on. People always seem to go all Ricky Bobby, "if you're not first you're last!", on here because they presume that the only thing that matters is who wins the championship. I think auto racing actually provides a worthwhile (and AMERICAN) comparison. In any race, even if the winner is 5 laps ahead, drivers, unless they have specific reasons not to, will continue to race each other for positions further down the standings. Yes, I know they get points towards the overall championship as well but I'd suggest that they'd most often race anyways. The truth is that even when you're in eighth you'd rather stay ahead of the guy who's in ninth and catch the guy in seventh if you can... it's just the competitive nature of people who participate in sports. Wanting to prove who you're better than has been a fundamental motivation since sports began. Now, there's lots of reasons MLS has resisted going to a single-table format in the past and those are probably the same reasons that they aren't doing it now. Namely, the reality that unbalanced schedules will remain a part of MLS into the future once the league moves past 16 teams. However, I sincerely hope that the league doesn't buy into the notion that conferences and divisions make the league more exciting to follow.
Slight Modification on scheduling for 20. 2 conferences and 4 Divisions 3 games against divisional opponents = 12 games (rotating home/away each year) 2 games against out of divisional conference opponents = 10 1 game against out of conference opponents = 10. I think this is what most likely happen for 20 team league.
My thought. Balanced schedule gives you 38 games. It's just too many. Home/Away in conference and 1 game out of conference gives you 28 games which is just a couple of games short. No other logically better alternatives.
You apparently haven't been around very long, they didn't charge money, but I'm sure they made money off concessions... 2002: 2006:
They've pushed it to 30 with "rivalries" before so I don't see why that is off the table now. Plus I don't know why you assume they are going to divisions. They could be, but I don't see why that's a natural assumption since it's been a while since they did that and I haven't seen anyone posit it as an option outside of here.
Hey now, that's the Rapids of 2007 and 2008 you're describing. Trust me, none of the Rapids fans feel much better saying "4th place in the Western Conference",
OK I think they'll definitely keep the 2 conferences. The division thing might be logical division just to make the scheduling and fixtures make sense. So two official visible conferences, but logically divide it in half to make it 32 game clean schedule. it's essentially same thing as regional "rivalries" The division thing is basically setting up the 'regional rivalries'. They might still have playoff berths based on 2 conferences, top 4 from each conference something like that. I think we'll be stuck with 20 clubs for long time, thus need little bit more systematic nicer and cleaner way to schedule.
That was certainly my first thought, but I personally felt it might be better to rotate the division against whom you play two games to give fans an opportunity to see a more diverse array of teams over multiple seasons. That's more my own wish, though. What you suggest would probably be more likely.
IMO The reason is to still keep the two conference structure intact. Just dividing each conference further just to have systematic scheduling and fixture. Playoff berth still based on Conferences such as 4 top from each conference. More like so called 'regional rivaries' but more systematic then random. Eastern Conference: ------------------- Montreal New England New York Philly DC -------- Toronto Columbus Chicago St. Louis Kansas City Western Conference: --------------------- Houston Dallas San Jose Chivas Galaxy ---------- Colorado Salt Lake Vancouver Portland Seattle for example: For the 4 extra games, DCU plays home games against Montreal and New England, away games against NY and Philly. Vice Versa following year.
That is a good point. But as you suggest, I think it would just require a tweak to have four division winners and four wild cards enter the playoffs.
A summer break of some sort also allows most players to heal the common soccer knocks that are picked up in a long season. Just another perk. Kinda, more of the mindset that immigration from dominant association footballing nations will only grow here in the U.S., thus having locals like you and me trying to explain an Opening and Closing type league structure to a new look MLS will not be over their collective heads. It's a pro men's soccer schedule and not the U.S. Tax Code we would be explaining to sports fans. Then, I just found it funny that you underscored having to explain what Clasura and Apertura mean as a some negative for a soccer league when Clasura just sounds a lot like Closing and Apertura is darn near identical to the English language word aperture, or the opening of something.
I agree that the proposed divisional format is not necessarily likely. Personally, I was just throwing it out there as something that I thought would make sense. On the merits, I think it would be better than a two-conference, 28-games-plus-2-rivalries idea because it would ensure that all the teams competing within the same subgroup played the same schedule. If you have two conferences of 10, but the teams in the same conference are not playing the same schedule, that's less than ideal. It makes more sense to me to have five divisions of four, with each team in the division playing the same schedule, and the winner of the division advancing to the playoffs stage.
If you have two confs of 10 you can get your 30 game schedule this way: twice in conf= 18 games once out of conf= 10 games You play two more out of conf games based on last year's finish, matching up with the teams one slot above and below your finish. So if DCU came in 3rd they would play #2 LAG and #4 Chivas the next season another time. If you come in first you get to play the 2nd place finisher and the last place team from the other conf. That way the schedule is based a little on your performance from the year before and you are likely to have new competition each season for those last two games.
I agree. No money bags owner wants to have home dates that don't make money but you are forgetting that once MLS clubs stop renting and have owners that are the main tenant and really own their own home, what else to do over the 345 nights outta the year when the Stadium is not used for the 15 game MLS home sched. and a few other soccer events??? This is where more MLS reg. season matches are at least a chance of making more coin over the stadium just sitting empty. As much as it bothers some people on the boards about X-Games, boxing, LAX, high school games, concerts and the like at our sacred new MLS home grounds, addind dates to a Stadium the owner now owns is only going to open up more revenue streams. Which too me, and I'm a soccer purist, is ok. It means more money for my club and others so hopefully our league is in the black and the cap can raise to buy more talent.
This is good idea, but I would slightly change this, E1 E2 vs W10 W9 E3 E4 vs W 8 W7 E5 E6 vs W5 W6 E7 E8 vs W4 W3 E9 E10 vs W2 W1 For example, if you come in first you get to play the 9th and 10th place finisher from the other conference for the extra two games. This is good systematic way. Actually I like this better, however I think they might go more with the regional rivary thing for 1. reduced travel 2. more away support.
The MLS All-Star game has already been announced for Reliant Stadium in Houston in 2010. No idea why you think this schedule announcement would mean no All-Star game. I don't see the connection.
I had heard that, now that you mention it, my bad. What made me ask was all of the talk of 29 weekends for 30 games, I guess I just assumed that they were consecutive. Again, my bad.
I love this break. I love the balanced schedule. Too bad it won't stay. I couldn't care less about divisions and my teams "rivals".