After all these recent threads, I guess the Group Stage playoff format is the best option

This has been proposed numerous times, and one problem, among others, that is always brought up is the television scheduling. 17 games squeezed into the tight window MLS has right now wouldn't work. Plus, the third group games being played at the same time is an issue. I understand why it's necessary, but would ESPN want to broadcast an MLS match on both 1 and 2 at the same time? You'd be splitting the already meager ratings.

And then there's the issue of the possibility of meaningless group games between teams whose fates have already been determined.

 

I like the group stage playoff format for its simplicity and its duration. Personally, I like a longer playoff. I also think over time the best team will come out just like in the other major sports. We can't have a best of 7 game series so group stage is the best soccer form of that.

I am not all that worried about meaningless games because we have meaningless games already in the current playoff format (second game after a first game blowout). I also think we think too much about the television schedule. We had an MLS Cup at 9pm (ET) on a Sunday. The tv schedule is going to be where space is available.

Saying all that, MLS seems pretty set on this current format.

 

NO!!

 

I like this much better than what we have now.

As for the Final, if the site is to be neutral, I would prefer a single, warm weather city where there is no current MLS team, but is within easy driving distance of many MLS fans and would be an attractive holiday spot: San Diego.

 

Las Vegas.

 

Obviously, I'd love for it to be in my current backyard, but Sam Boyd has artificial turf and I think for a permanent location in warm weather, there's no reason not to choose a natural grass venue. Plus, I think it's a little bit more risky attendance-wise to have it in Vegas because I don't know if locals would care about MLS and it's a four hour drive from LA as opposed to a two hour drive. It might be worth a try though.

 

Any...Intelligent reasoning behind this big No?

I like this format, though I would just drop the wildcards, semis, and swap that game to 1@WC/4. Having 3 games at home is just too much of a home advantage. Feel that teams would also be happy with at most 4 games and guaranteed 3 games at playoff.

At least, let the away team sell more tickets, if enough fans would bother turn up...

 

It wouldn't be the worst idea to look at what the NHL is doing. 4 Conferences of 5 teams (when we hit 20). Play everyone home/away, but your conference rivals another time home/away. 31 games in the regular season. Playoffs start with #1 and #2 in each Conference, and then the Conference Champions play one another

 

YEAH RIGHT! More like hell NO regarding the last part! I am not against rotational/neutral Finals but there are neutral sites and then there are "neutral" sites. Really just those 3 sites?

 

That would be a 46 game regular season, wouldn't it?

 

Yes, because I can't do math, and the idea is no longer anything close to good. Carry on without my suggestion

 

I really like the idea of having a "group" playoff system. The only problem (as mentioned) is the travel and how you would handle home vs. away games.

Have 8 teams make the playoffs. 2 groups of 4. Top 2 in each advance to semi finals.....etc...

OR, maybe just have the one group after some playoffs and the team with the most points in the group wins the championship. This is how the USA won the olympic gold in 1980. There wasn't a playoff, but a round robin tourney. Most likely, even the last game would always be significant. That would be 6 games for a 4 team RR. Have a game a night for 2 games, take one day break. The whole thing would take 9 days.

Crazy idea, but why not try something new/different. If it blows, change it back the next year.

 

I'm not in this forum much -- does the modified Page playoff system get any support? That's basically what they use in Aussie rules football.

Benefits per seed:

1 and 2. Must lose twice to be knocked out before the final. With a win in first round, can skip second round. Home games in first and second games. (With MLS Cup now at a home ground, #1 may have extra benefit of guaranteed home field if it makes final.)

3 and 4. Must lose twice to be knocked out before the final. With a win in first round, can skip second round. Home game in second game.

5 and 6. Home games in first round.

7 and 8. You're in, and that's the only advantage you get.

 

Why complicate things so much when a round robin (and better still, a balanced schedule) can satisfactorily solve the majority of them?

 

Yes, your proposed Final location idea would be worse than what we had and what is proposed by the league so the WORST IDEA EVER! So ALMOST ALL teams would never be able to bid or win (the SS) to host the Final. GREAT IDEA, again.

 

We're not the AFL, just to let you know.

 

Screw travel costs .... why wouldn't the WC be playing @ the 1 seed ? Hell, you don't have the "worst" qualifying team going to the 1 seed at all.

What ?

 

I don't know of any country with postseason playoffs that include a group stage, but I wouldn't have a problem with that format. One thing I wouldn't like is if the 1 seed didn't do well and 3 seed at 2 seed played consecutive games, one to end the group and one in the Semifinals. Considering you're willing to mix conferences, after the wild card games why not seed all the clubs from 1 to 8 and:

1, 4, 5, and 8 in one group
2, 3, 6, and 7 in one group

 

Too much of an advantage ? We do a thing called "home field advantage" here in the US. Along with that, it certainly isn't the "too much of an advantage" as one might think. The point though, is that the team that finished best deserves any and all advantages. The reward for finishing first is having to play away to the team that has nothing to lose because they're glad just to be there ? That's something called "setting them up for failure" in regards to the top seed.

He who finishes last and is lucky to even be in the picture should have the hardest road and least convenience.