People keep forgetting that conferences being used for playoff brackets also helps reduce the amount of last minute travel teams have to do. In both 2000 and 2001, Columbus played San Jose which could not have been cheap. I think its also why the league won't go to three conferences when its at eighteen teams.
In the round robin format, however, only the last two teams in wouldn't have a home game. I think it would have the advantage of a) giving more homefield advantage to higher seeds, which b) makes true upsets and exciting playoff runs more meaningful, and c) would offer potential for an extra game, thus perhaps offering a revenue sharing bone to the two teams without home games... Anyway, I agree that it won't happen now, but I don't think it's too much of a stretch. It's not that big of a change in format, really. I think it would offer a great improvement in terms of competitive structure and could still address the same financial goals.
Don't know if this is true, but I had heard that this was a big deal to the late Lamar Hunt. So it could be that now there's a different attitude on the MLS BoG, especially since the current playoff system has been in place for some 6-7 years and maybe folks are itching to make some improvements. Metro Playoff Fever? Yeah that was classic. I seem to recall that MLS also has supported a conference-based playoff with the goal of having MLS Cup feature teams from different regions of the country in order to attract the interest of more fans. In 2001 when it was LA vs SJ I think MLS and/or TV execs were worried that no one outside of California gave a f***, and that it hurt ratings. This can still happen of course with the wild card element, and last year both finalists were from the eastern conference, but I think this still might be a consideration that MLS looks at when choosing the playoff format.
I'm pretty sure that's not mathematically true. It would be, all other things being equal, but they aren't equal in the event because the 2-leg series has very little HFA, while the 1-leg has a lot of it. HFA usually counts for an extra .4-.5 goals a game by the Jeff Sagarin ratings, whereas the difference between most teams and their nearby neighbors in the Sagarin ratings is usually less than that. In practice, this is how it's worked so far, as far as the percentage of higher seeds winning in each round: Code: [FONT=Arial]1st[/FONT] [FONT=Arial]2nd[/FONT] [FONT=Arial]2003[/FONT] [FONT=Arial]100%[/FONT] [FONT=Arial]100%[/FONT] [FONT=Arial]2004[/FONT] [FONT=Arial]75% 100%[/FONT] [FONT=Arial]2005 25% 50%[/FONT] [FONT=Arial]2006 75% 50%[/FONT] [FONT=Arial]2007 50% 100%[/FONT] [FONT=Arial]2008 50% 50%[/FONT] [FONT=Arial]Total 62.5% 75%[/FONT] [FONT=Arial] (15/24) (9/12)[/FONT] Not a ton of data, mind, but it looks so far like the 1-game with HFA goes according to Hoyle more often than the home-and-home.
If there are groups of four it would make sense for the top team to get three home games, the second team to get two home games, the third team to get one home game, and the fourth team to get no home games. What you proposed with every team getting to host at least one game would require at least one game per group to be played at the worse team.
They could, but if I were a gambling man, I would bet that they next change the playoff format when the league gets big enough to add more teams to the playoffs, which probably won't be next year. (Btw, I think the league will have the perfect ratio of playoff teams either this year at 8/15 or next at 8/16. After that I think they will begin to ponder adding a couple.)
8 out of 20 (40%) is perfect for MLS. By then I'd bag the cross-conf wildcards and just make it top 4 per conf since the number of out of conf games will drop with each expansion. I suspect though that with the salary cap you will still have many teams competing for the final postseason bids each year.
Yes, that is true. It was reported that MLS was going to go to 6 playoff teams after contraction, but Lamar Hunt had a problem with that. He's also the guy who wanted the NFL to add two playoff teams.
10 of 20 is better. It both keeps more teams in the playoff race for longer and puts more weight on placement (because it would have to involve byes).
Yeah, nobody has ever "taken that position seriously," even though no one has ever been able to decently dispute it. They just fire lame one-liner retorts like yours. (It's just a shame, for the sake of the general discussion, that you won't follow through with this boast.) My position has the disadvantage that you have to think a little to understand it. You're not one that strikes me as likely to do that, so it's probably a small loss.
You're too busy trying to enforce your own hegemony to know whether to take someone seriously or not.
No need to reinvent the wheel, folks. If there are going to be 2 leg playoffs (to make sure every team has one home game), why not do it like the MFL: 1st game at lower seed, second game at higher seed, level on aggregate goals and the higher seed advances. THAT's a home field advantage.
Anyway, what I'm saying is, it's easier for the 8th seed now than it would be if you invited 10 teams. Because if you invited 10 teams, the 8th seed would have to play one additional round of playoffs--where the 6 seed wouldn't, so it suddenly makes a difference if you come in 6th vs 8th. Look at the tree this way: ------------------Final-------------- ---------------/--------\----------- ------Conf Final-------------Conf. Final -------/-------\--------------/-------\ -Conf Semi-Conf Semi-Conf Semi---Conf Semi --(1e v 4e)--(2e v3e)--(1w v4w)----(2w v 3w) This is what we have currently. With 10 teams, it looks like this: -------------------Final--------------- ---------------/-----------\----------- ------Conf Final-------------Conf. Final -------/-------\--------------/---------\ -Conf Semi--Conf Semi--Conf Semi--Conf Semi -(1e v WC)---(2e v 3e)--(1w v WC)--(2w v 3w) ---------\-------------------------\------------ --------WldCd---------------------WldCd------ --------(7 v 10)-------------------(8 vs 9)---- For simplicity, say the last four are the wildcards and the first three in each conference get automatic berths (and byes). The two differences are: 1) teams 7 and 8 have to play an additional extra game, and therefore 2) it makes a difference whether you get that last automatic berth or not (right now it makes so little difference that it might wind up a slight advantage not to get it, so as to go up against a weaker team in the other conference). A subtle difference is that it may be to the 1-seed's advantage, after the bye, to play a team having already played a game (it's the old rest vs rust debate, but I'm on the side of rest, as long as we're not talking about 3 weeks or something. Plus there's always that chance that the other team will have a guy get suspended for cards by this time.) It works better if all of these are single eliminations @the higher seed. That way there's a real difference between 8 and 9, and between 2 and 3 in each conference.
Except that from the data I saw last time someone checked the results, it isn't. And there's a plausible reason for that, as it's another one of those "it comes into play only if they tie" situations. A home field advantage is derived from spending more time one the home field.
I can't take increasing the number of teams in the playoffs seriously. It's a shockingly bad idea which would undo much of the progress MLS has made in the last decade.
We still need to make the regular season worth more- and we are getting close. Only 8 of 16 make it- good... ACTUALLY, this would have been a good year for all true league cup with all 16, 4 round cup, except for the world cup sitution. - My idea has always been - 3 week playoff , all Saturdays= Quarter final #8 @ #1, #7 @ #2, #6 @ #3, #5 @ #4 Semi finals #4 @ # 1, #3 @ #2 Final #2 @ #1 (on neutral if you have to) -No weak midweek games, as it is, many weekend playoff games have been weak over the years anyway - I would make the ALLSTAR GAME the time for the fan summit and what the league needs to party with its sponsors.. In fact, if you are trying to atract new investors, wouldn't you rather them see all your STARS in one place? - Make the MLS Cup for the fans, specifically, the fans of the home team-IF you wished first in the regular season and the can run 3 cup games in the row at home, you should get a chance for the cup at home. - Traveling fans will get there regardless Business and sponsors all know the dates also.. Otherwise, do your business at the Allstar game...
I'm gonna love watching your meltdown when something like that actually happens, all because you couldn't think about it seriously. (Btw, if you'd taken the time, you might have figured out that 10 of 20 is still a lower proportion of the teams than we send to the playoffs now.)
I don't really get the argument that having less teams in the playoffs results in a less competitive backstretch for the lower-table teams. Seems like the reverse is just as true: including more teams in the playoffs results in a less competitive backstretch for the higher-table teams...and I'd rather watch competitive matches with the best teams than the worst. Am I missing something?
The league wants to produce a final with national appeal. This is the entire reason behind conferences. So having playoffs go inter-conference makes is entirely possible we get an east v east or west v west setup. Then most the country doesn't really care.
Final is final. Geography is not the issue. Regardless of geography, interesting teams making finals has more to do with appealing. What's the difference between Toronto(E) vs DCU(E) and Toronto(E) vs San Jose(W), or LAG(W) vs Seattle(W) and LAG vs NER(E). I don't see much difference as far as national appealing is concerned. If it happens to be final between interesting geographical rivaries, that could be more appealing, too (LA vs CUSA or DCU vs NY). There could be pros and cons, one thing doesn't guarantee more national appeal. I would like to see more inter-conference playoffs, then let final happens to be whatever happens.
I'm just giving you the perspective of every league in the country. Of course, you are also entitled to your own opinion on what makes a compelling final.