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

Well, to be fair Texas A&M has historical rivalries with some SEC teams, as well as intertwined history with others (Arkansas, LSU, Alabama, Miss St, Auburn)

http://www.secdigitalnetwork.com/NE...28218/texas-am-sec-connections-a-history.aspx <---- some of the more significant connections. Believe it or not, but some of the institutions did actually think about more than just the bottom line.

 

The current playoff system is a joke because it renders the regular season meaningless. I'm a die hard Galaxy fan going back to Rose Bowl days, but part of me wanted San Jose to win the series because after their season, the fact that they aren't playing in the Cup is a travesty. Yes, this is the US where we love playoffs. Yes, we now have a generation of that was raised on Wild Cards, 64 team "Championship" tournaments, 6-6 teams in bowl games and an "everyone makes the playoffs" AYSO mentality. No, a single table doesn't work without relegation. No, we won't have relegation in the MLS for years, if ever.

So here is a compomise that keeps the integrity of the regular season, including maintaining competition down to the final games, and also allows for playoffs:

20 teams organized into two 10 team conferences with two 5 team divisions within each conference. Maintain traditional rivalries within each division. Play a 32 game season: each team plays their divison rivals 3 times, the non-division conference teams twice, and the non-conference teams once.
The division winners play for the conference title (format doesn't matter- 2 or 3 games series, weighted away goals or not, one off, whatever). And the conference winners play in the MLS Cup at the home of the team with the most regular season points.

Simple, Fair, everyone is happy.

 

All contingent on the 20th team being realized.

 

and by everyone do you mean hardly anyone?

i'll never understand why some people think conferences are necessary.

its very simple. With 20 teams you go to a single table. You have 38 games home and away and whoever finishes on top of the league is the league winner.

Then you take the top 8 and have a post-season tournament (MLS Cup).

Over time the fans of the league will decide which trophy is more important. If I had to guess the league winner would end up being a more important trophy.

 

Where are you going to find room for 4 more games without killing attendance?

 

Or the time to fit a 38-game season PLUS a post-season tournament?

 

Or think that anyone would care more about the Shield than the Cup even with single table?

I believe (some) college basketball conferences now call the team with the best regular season conference record the champion. No one cares as far as I can tell and all anyone thinks about is the team that wins the conference tournament. That is what would happen to the first place team in your single table MLS.

Now if there were demand for a 38 game season with playoffs, I would say that a single table 20 team league might work. I'm not sure there is either the time or the demand for that. I also think that having at least two divisional races rather than a straight race for the top 8 makes for a better chance of the end of the regular season meaning something.

But then I originally came back to this thread to post that I wouldn't mind the four division plan or waiting till 24 teams (assuming that is near term) and just having baseball's playoff format; presumably with shorter series.

 

This is soccer. Most fans would readily accept the overall points leader as being the champion because that's what we are used to, following the big Euro leagues. Many did during the balanced schedule years especially, in spite of the Cup winner being the Official champion. It's all what the league says is official.

That's only because the tournament winner gets the automatic NCAA tournament berth, and that big conferences like the ACC have done it that way for decades. The Pac-10 for years named the regular season leader as its champion and automatic tourney berth receiver. Since other conferences were cashing in on end of season tournaments, the Pac-10 went to a conference tournament to determine the champion. Most fans preferred it the old way, and the tournament has been slow to catch on. It was even scrapped for awhile.

What a concept: American basketball fans preferring a single-table balanced schedule and no playoff.

Of course, now that it's the Pac-12 and has divisions and an unbalanced schedule, there's no choice but to have a tournament determine the overall winner, so now you don't get the yearly "the regular season winner is the true champion" talk.

 

Speak for yourself.

Go Dawgs!

 

There are two options I would go with..one traditional and one odd one
1) NFL style six team playoff (the bracket for one conference, so only 6 teams not twelve)
3 v 6----1 v lowest seed-------Championship
4 v 5 ---2 v highest seed------ Game

2) 4 team group (two conference champs and two wild card teams)
Play each team once, team with most points wins the Cup.
Catch: higher seed is always home, so supporter shield winner would be home all three games, second for two, third for one, fourth for none. No one would ever coast into the playoffs again.
Tiebreakers: Head-to-Head, GD, GS, Higher seed
Would allow MLS to have playoffs that it wants, but create a mini table that rewards teams that perform in the regular season. Last round of playoff games would be played at the same time to create final prem day suspense. Only issue is that there is no "final" unless top two teams in table play in final after the three games.

 

I wouldn't mind this system--but only as the bracket within each of the two conferences when the league adds a few more teams. Though I suppose I could live 6 teams from each conference now since it could make things a little more interesting. Overall, I am generally not a fan of playoff contraction except to erase a mistake. I would listen to an argument that going from 8 to 10 teams wasn't the league's finest moment, but I can't really see anyone wanting fewer playoff teams than the league has ever had.

Wow. Just wow.

And not in a good way.

Six fewer playoff teams plus only six playoff games (two of them simultaneously), plus no final game, plus no playoff game even if two teams tie for first, plus dead rubber playoffs equals one of the worst playoff formats I have seen here that do not allow the winner of USL a road to the MLS Cup final.

 

It's a tricky problem. I remember the Don explaining at one point that the reason for the two legs is so that all teams would get at least one home playoff game for the fans. In terms of rewarding higher seeds with a competitive advantage, it sucks, as we've all seen.

The NFL playoffs are exciting, a straight bracket, higher seed gets home field, win or go home.

If we did that in MLS, teams would only play 3 games (4 if wildcard playoff), and that, I think, is too few for the league office.

At first, I thought I liked the idea of the group stage playoff--it does solve some of the issues, rewarding higher seeds with a competitive advantage, then you go straight to single game winner takes all semi-final & final.

But, the season is really the group stage for the playoffs, so it seems odd & redundant to redo a mini-group stage to kick off the playoffs.

I don't have a full answer to this knotty problem, but two tentative suggestions.

If we went to a group stage, no draws. Tied games go extra time & then penalty shootout if necessary. This eliminates the possibility of teams just playing for a draw, knowing that one point is enough to advance, etc. This ups the excitement, since every team will be motivated to play for the win, and every game will have a winner. Then you go to the single-game elimination bracket.

Another possibility I thought of, which I don't necessarily like, but does also solve some of the main issues--competitive advantages for higher seeds, and having enough games:

Have the first round be a best of three series. 1 v. 4, 2 v. 3, with the higher seed getting the first and 3rd games at home. Again, no draws, see above, game 3 only if necessary. Then, the single-game elimination bracket, with the higher seed hosting. This creates a 5 game playoff (6 for wildcard), in line with what MLS wants. Teams obviously have an incentive to win, and a split first two games would be high drama on the return leg.

I find it a little unwieldly to have a 3 game series, then a single game bracket. Also, you're playing 1/2 of your games against just 1 team, in the first round, no less. Then you only face the other teams once. Not sure that really best selects the champion.

Essentially, the group stage with wins/losses, no draws, is still better, since you play 3 different teams which results in a better judgment of the best team(s) of the group. Then single bracket. This might work best, actually.

1. Rewards higher seeds with competitive advantage -- more home games in group.
2. 5-6 playoff games to make final.
3. Teams have incentive to play to win -- no draws -- it makes the group stage more like the knockout rounds.

 

For starters I don't see the point of forcing a winner unless one needs to be forced. One game of a round robin between four teams does not need to have a winner.

Secondly, with only three games and no draws and (I assume) extra time and PK wins equally a proper win, it is just too easy to have three teams at 2-1 or 1-2. Allowing only four possible finishes after three games (between zero and three wins) almost certainly will create frequent ties. Do you really want to watch a thirty minute extra time between a team that has already been eliminated (or has already advanced) and a team that needs to win and hope it gets help from the other game?

I have no problems with three game series in and of themselves. I also have no problem with two game series that go to a third game or a thirty minute tiebreaker if the teams split the two games. I do, however, totally fail to understand the point of having a three game series followed by two one game win or go home rounds. As I see it, doing that is telling people that you are much more interested in having the better teams advance out of the first round and then just having exciting finishes in the second round. As you even said, if a team plays one opponent for half of its playoff games, is it really proving itself the best of the ten playoff teams?

As I have always said, every round is equally important. Every round should have the same format. I can see exceptions for a play-in round however.

Also, for the record, I have no problem with 10 playoff teams and only nine playoff games. Every game means something and every game produces another piece of the puzzle. Win or go home. It could work if the league wants it.

 

We could just do the straight bracket with only 3 rounds + wc round, and stick it out until the league expands to 24 teams, in which the NFL-style 6 teams per conference format would be feasible. Four playoff rounds. Half the teams would make the playoffs, yes, but that's what we do now, anyway.

 

How is this different from what I just proposed?

As far as I can tell, the only difference between what I said and what you wrote is that you seemed to qualify the wild card round as something different than the playoffs. If all rounds are the same length and all teams qualify and are seeded based on their place in the conference table, how is there any difference at all between 6 teams and 4 wild cards and 10 teams in the playoffs?

I am sorry if I am misinterpreting you, especially if you are just agreeing with what I wrote, but I have a real problem with the vastly over-perpetuated idea that teams playing in a round that almost everyone else has a bye from are somehow less than other playoff teams. I just don't get it. I maintain that I have no problem with having the lesser seeds treated as less than equals, I do rather enjoy baseball's wild card games. But I still say that 10 teams make the playoffs, not 6+4 and that 68 teams make the NCAA tournament, not 60+8, nor 63+2 as it was.

Sorry for the rant, I just don't get it.

 

I am just agreeing with you. Straight bracket, high seed at home, winner takes all is the most exciting and best reward for regular season finish. We could do that, but I think MLS wants more games than just 9 in two brackets, hence all the discussion on this board. I would bet the wildcard play-in and the NCAA play-ins, etc. draw much less audience, so from MLS perspective, not as valuable as the rounds in which all remaining teams are playing. As the league adds more teams, we can add more rounds, and maybe that'll be our permanent playoff format.

 

Oh. Sorry for the rant then. Sometimes my mouth just spits out whatever it wants.

 

Although these folks aren't talking about MLS, I think their arguments make clear that they would all believe that too many teams qualify for the playoffs under the current MLS format:

http://espn.go.com/blog/nflnation/post/_/id/68373/expanded-nfl-playoffs-yay-or-nay

 

Here's a version I came up with:

Once we get to 20 teams it would be easy to have home and away within each conference (no need for teams to cross conference play until the playoffs). That is only 18 regular season games during the season for each team. It would make each game mean more. Top 4 teams from each conference make it in.

The playoffs could then go into “Champions League” format with two 4 team groups. The top two teams from each group move onto the semifinals with higher seeds hosting. Then the Cup Final is hosted by the highest seed.

When you break the season into parts it makes each team really focus on winning in the short term and there is no room for complacency from a team or they will be eliminated.

 

That's too few games for the majority of clubs that miss the playoffs. It also could get confusing for some people when clubs were simultaneously in a group stage in the MLS playoffs and a group stage in the CONCACAF Champions League.

 

While I agree that the biggest problem is the number of regular season games, I am not so sure about group stage confusion. I think the league has and will continue to have fans who can tell the difference and would no more care about teams playing in two group stages than they would if teams were playing a group stage and a regular season. Everyone else will continue not to notice that continental play exists.

I could see it working if everyone played a game against the teams in the opposite conference, driving the regular season to 28 games. Though I could still see an argument about the season being short.

 

How is this simpler or fairer than what we have now?

Every system has pitfalls and the current format is fine. While I favour a single table where possible and practical, I don't believe that you can claim that San Jose are the "true champions" because as I keep saying (and nobody wants to take it in) each team had a significantly different set of games.

Your system would be just as flawed because for example, you could end up with the best four teams being in the same divisison.

San Jose were awarded a title and CCL berth. Their accomplishments have been noted for the impressive achievements they are. I've already listed the advantages they got. They should have been more than capable of getting by the fourth seed in their conference. Two teams reached the MLS Cup by beating strong, high seeds. The regular season made their paths harder.

The higher seeds were given tangible advantages. Just because they didn't make the most of them, doesn't mean the system is broken.

 

Would definitely be an improvement over the status quo. the current long regular season to eliminate half of the teams only means the bulk of the games has a disproportionally small amount of importance.