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

This is the sad part of soccer in the US, and why when this league started it was so ASS backwards, with the backwards clock, and silly rules to appease to this market. Open up your minds, You don't have to agree with my or this thread, but at least give it reasonable criticism as to why you don't like it, and not a simple "nO, iTs CoMpLiCaTeD" answer

Really?! You just contradicted yourself bro, exactly why I like this proposed format, Colorado lost at HOME, Seattle Lost at HOME, my dude, with the format proposed they might be able to still be alive and have two games in hand at home to advance. plus Im sure you guys watch Champions league and see that yes in a round robin format which is 6 GAMES you will have big separation between teams, however in my supposed format with 3 games only things will be tight till last day.

So yea, open up your closed minds and think a little, if you honestly have no smart opinion or intel or any valuable information, don't say nothing at all.

Yea but having a mini league (group stage playoff) will put you up against the best teams in the top 8, really showing who is the best team. Look US Open Cup is already the playoffs y'all like, just enjoy it there. LOL.

 

Tisk tisk SKC, they should do the group stage playoff lol

 

Tisk tisk New England Revs out, they should do the group stage playoff lol

 

Ngl that NycFc vs Revs game was wild, but group stage be fire, im currently watching Colombian league playoffs, which had group stage, I don't know if y'all be interested but so you can atleast see what it has to offer ‍♂️



My team is Junior de Barranquilla, 2 out of 6 have been played, still anyone's group. Here they play everyone home and away, top spot in each group play two legged final

 

I really wish MLS would go to an 8-team playoff. The playoffs are just way too watered down for my liking, and the single-game format really throws a lot of random chance into the results. (Side note - I don't have a strong rooting interest for any particular team. I follow SKC since that's the closest team to me, Philly and Dallas because of their academy pipelines. So I'm not writing this because I'm mad my favorite team lost.

MAYBE I'd do a play-in game between 4 and 5 in each conference to give the 1 seed an advantage, but that's it. Quarters and semis are both two-legged matchups. I'd use away goals as a tiebreaker only for 180 minutes. If you go to extra time, the away goals rule is done. That gives the higher seed the home-field advantage in extra time.

My setup would have 11 games compared to 13 in the current setup. You would also have the top 4-5 teams, so that should have more quality in the playoffs. Plus, you'll have the drama of a two-legged playoff, which I really enjoy.

 

But 5 games for the MLS Cup qualifiers compared to 3 or 4 now. So that actually extends the playoffs in regards to time, or forces games on short rest.

 

MLS play offs are good but they need to give the #1 seeds less time off. Maybe increasing playoffs to 8 teams that way everyone plays right off the bat. The advantage for the higher seed will be playing at home.

What I would like to see but I know it won't happen is to see play offs with East vs West
#1 East vs #8 West, #2 East vs #7 West, etc. Only problem with that is that MLS won't like to have an MLS Cup final where both finalist are from the West or both are from the East.

 

Time off wasn't the reason the Rapids were eliminated. At halftime everyone was talking about how the Rapids didn't look rusty. We just didn't convert our chances.

See MLS Cup 2010

 

In 2008, 3 teams from the West and 5 from the East went of to the play offs. In 2010, 6 from the West and 2 from the East went to the play offs. The way MLS used to determine play offs in those years is not what I was suggesting.

 

Yeah, but it was frustrating not to be able to see the team play in the 1st round. We had a great team, I wanted to see them play, not wait till 2nd round.

I think this would be great. And now that we have hosted finals, as opposed to neutral site, the atmosphere of a local derby in the final would be great. I just don't think it takes away to have the final from two teams from the same half of the country. This can and does happen in three other major North American sports, NFL, college football and baseball; and I don't think it is a bad thing.

And in that first round, when all the lower seeds have to travel across the country to play, it would give real incentive to earn a higher seed. Plus, fans get to see new opponents.

 

We shouldn't need a degree in higher math for playoff scenarios.
Personally, I just like the Shield and the Open Cup, but for the sake of discussion here are a couple ideas..
-
Once to 32, you play 30 game schedule within your conference.
The "Shield" becomes a single game of #1 west vs. #1 east. Neutral site?
(or a home and away). This would be if you don't want to award an
"West" Shield and "East shield"

The MLS Cup becomes what it really is, a league cup (of course MLS only- English style league cup should include USL-C & USL-1)
I would make it like an east-west challenge.
#1 west hosts #16 east
#2 west hosts #15 east
#3 west hosts #14 east
etc.

All 32 teams are in, single elimination, ties right to PK, save the overtime for the finals, highest seed all the way to the end
Gives the fans a chance to see team from the other conference
which if you add games in the US Open Cup & preseason, you will get chances to play teams in the other conferences. Thus, I find it ok to play the regular season entirely within conference to cut travel expense and build rivals.

The World Cup style groups (8 groups of 4 ) is interesting, but not really sure there is fair way to seed the groups. At least with my Shield game and the MLS Cup, highest seeds should be the rewards of having a good regular season.
-

 

I'm not in favor of any ideas where East never plays West during the season. I think, Vancouver, for instance, should get at least one game each against Toronto and Montreal. Same for teams along the "border", if it Chicago and Minnesota, for instance, or St. Louis and Nashville.

The goal wasn't to create that type of final, it was just a feature. The primary reason was to reward higher seeds to a greater degree, and let fans see new opponents. Rather than play Dallas, or even RSL, for the 3rd time; I'd rather the Rapids host someone new.

Fair, that one minus is it makes travel harder for away fans in the first round.

 

BUMP.... group stage playoff coming to an MLS 2023 near you

how we feeling fellas?

 

That's dumb! They are saying 4 groups of 4. So 16 teams go to the play offs. That will be more than half the league in the play offs. Plus it will add more games to the season on top of Leagues Cup, CCL and USOC.

Are they planning on reducing the regular season games to pull this of?

My guess is that the group stage games would be played in the home of the top 4 teams from each Confrence so the regular season has some merit and the top 4 get rewarded.

 

Well we have 14 now what's another two teams? 7 west and 7 east, Not sure if your clear on the fact that it's top 8 in each conference and not 16 in each conference.

Yes, very true, I do think they will have to make regular season a bit shorter, not by much though, as this only adds on 3 games minimum to post season teams, if they do a balanced schedule In your conference, be 28 games to the current 34, or maybe add and extra 2 games against other conference every season by rotation? 30 games perhaps? And then plus 3 postseason games if you qualify? Not sure on this either, just my guess...

Yea definitely, higher seeds get all home games, 2nd seed gets 2 home games and one away (against higher seed), 3rd seed gets one home game (against lowest seed) and two away games against higher seeds and 4th and lowest seed has to play all games away

 

TV and getting more playoff games on it. That's another driving factor here.