Some thoughts on divisional alignments, playoff teams, stadium lineups over the next few seasons. Please feel free to shred, ignore, praise, abort, retry, delete... 2005 East Columbus DC United MetroStars New England Central Chicago Colorado Dallas Kansas City West Chivas USA (new) LA Galaxy San Jose Seattle (new) '05 Playoffs: Division Winners + 1 Wild Card: 4 of 12 teams 2006 East Columbus DC United MetroStars New England Rochester (new) Central Chicago Colorado Dallas Houston (new) Kansas City West Chivas USA LA Galaxy San Jose Seattle '06 Playoffs: Division Winners + 2 Wild Cards: 5 of 14 teams 2007 (w/Stadia: *: SSS) Atlantic DC United: RFK MetroStars: MetroCentre* (hee hee) New England: Gilette Philadelphia (new): The Linc Midwest Chicago: Firehouse* Columbus: CCS* Kansas City: Arrowhead Rochester: PaeTec* Central Colorado: Rapids Park* Dallas: Frisco* Houston: Reliant San Antonio (new): Alamodome Pacific Chivas USA: HDC* LA Galaxy: HDC* San Jose: I have no idea Seattle: Seahawks '07 Playoffs: Division winners + 2 wild cards: 6 of 16 teams or 38% Thoughts?
I don't want to see the creation of more divisions with expansion. I would rather see two divisions with the playoffs staying the same so it becomes harder to get into them. Let's give these guys something to play for during the regular season.
Ixnay on the entralcay ivisionday. Add Chivas and SLC or Seattle to Western and move FC Dallas to Eastern. (They're changing name and logo and stadium, why not conference too?) Going forward, add one Western and one Eastern team each year. For 2006, add Rochester and whichever of SLC/Seattle doesn't make it this year.
Seattle and LA are more than likely in next year so hopefully we will see one single table with the top 6 teams playing for the cup. I get the feeling that MLS is trying to add more glory to the League winners since they are the ones playing in the CONCACAF Cup (along with the MLS Cup winners) and the playoffs historically have drawn less fans than the regular season. And with going to a single table they won't have to worry about having an East and West team or two Eastern teams join in in 2006.
I think it will be more like this... 2005 Eastern Conference Columbus (Columbus Crew Stadium) DC United (RFK Stadium) MetroStars (Giants Stadium) New England (Gillette Stadium) Chicago (Soldier Field) FC Dallas (Frisco Stadium) Western Conference Colorado (Invesco Field at Mile High) Kansas City (Arrowhead Stadium) Chivas USA (Home Depot Center) Los Angeles (Home Depot Center) San Jose (Spartan Stadium) Salt Lake City (Rice-Eccles Stadium) '05 Playoffs: Top 4 teams from each conference qualify 2006 Eastern Conference Columbus (Columbus Crew Stadium) DC United (RFK Stadium) MetroStars (Giants Stadium) New England (Gillette Stadium) Chicago (Bridgeview Stadium) FC Dallas (Frisco Stadium) Houston (Reliant Stadium) Western Conference Colorado (Invesco Field at Mile High) Kansas City (Arrowhead Stadium) Chivas USA (Home Depot Center) Los Angeles (Home Depot Center) San Jose (Spartan Stadium) Salt Lake City (Rice-Eccles Stadium) Seattle (Qwest Field) '06 Playoffs: Top 4 teams from each conference qualify 2007 Same as 2006.... no new expansion teams. However, a few teams will get new stadiums. Eastern Conference Columbus (Columbus Crew Stadium) DC United (New SSS Stadium) MetroStars (Harrison Stadium) New England (Gillette Stadium) Chicago (Bridgeview Stadium) FC Dallas (Frisco Stadium) Houston (Reliant Stadium) Western Conference Colorado (New SSS Stadium) Kansas City (Arrowhead Stadium) Chivas USA (Home Depot Center) Los Angeles (Home Depot Center) San Jose (Spartan Stadium) Salt Lake City (Rice-Eccles Stadium) Seattle (Qwest Field) '07 Playoffs: Top 4 teams from each conference qualify
All very good comments & ideas, thanks. In today's pro sports landscape, leagues are moving to more divisions with fewer teams in order to keep fan interest. For example, next season the NBA will shift to six five-team divisions. The NFL now has eight four-team divisions. With more divisions of fewer teams, "the cellar" is only fourth or fifth place rather than seventh or eighth. That way a team is never "too far away" from the top. MLS had a three-division structure in 2000 and 2001. The idea of adding an Eastern and Western team each year is nice, but I think we can all agree that MLS will take the ownership groups (and few are beating down the door) it can take when the opportunity exists. As for expecting teams in the southeast or Florida, I'm not aware of any possible ownership groups that part of the country. If anyone else has, please share.
All of which makes the meaning of the division champion moot. And, with an odd number of divisions, a team that wins the division will not have home field advantage in the semi-finals. Stick with two divisions/conferences.
That looks better (if those teams actually do enter the league). 16 teams, play each other twice. Thats a total of 30 games a season. 8 in the playoffs.
2005: East: DC United: RFK Metros: Giants Stadium Revs: Gillette Chicago: soldier field Colubus : Crew stadium KC: Arrowhead West: Dallas-Frisco Galazy-HDC Chivas USA-HDC Seattle-Seahawks Stadium Rapids- Invesco San Jose- Spartan Stadium 2006: No new expansion, but plans are allready made for 2007, and teams move to new stadiums. East DCU-RFK MEtros-meadowlands columbus-crew stadium fire- Bridgeview KC- Arrowhead Revs-Gillette West Dallas-Frisco Galaxy-HDC Chivas-HDC Rapids- whatever the name of their sss is going to be seattle- seahawks stadium san jose- spartan stadium 2007: Big change in the MLS, and increase popularity due to 2006 WC. new homes for teams, and new teams added. East: DCU-new SSS on Anacostia river. Metros- new SSS Rochester- Paetec Park The Hartford Revolution-temporarily at the UConn fball stadium (Rentschler field or something) Columbus-Crew Stadium Fire-Bridgeview KC- Arrowhead (sadly) Philly-THe Linc West America USA- SSS in San Antonio, or alamodome untill its ready. Salt Lake City- whatever stadium they would play in (maybe SSS) Dallas- Frisco, and a new derby with San Antonio based America Galaxy- HDC Chivas- HDC San Fransisco* Earthquakes- quakes move to san fran, and their new SSS. Seattle- Seahawks stadium Rapids-that SSS that i cant name. Well that is my extremely optomistic look on the next few years of MLS. It all depends on the USMNT's success at the 2006 WC. That will hopefully spark more interest. If this comes true then we are looking at 16 teams in 2007 with as many as 13 SSS's possible, and as little as 9 ready. If MLS ever reaches 20 teams, they should scrap the two confrences, and make it one table.
Just by the fact that the 12-team MLS shoe-horned Tampa into the "central" division back in the day leads me to believe we will see some sort of reincarnation of the 3-division format with 12 teams. The good thing about it was that the playoffs were fairer--the 3 division winners, plus the 5 next teams, and opponents were ranked 1-8. I could live with that, although I'd prefer keeping the East-West thing. Geographical divisions only work if you add teams more or less on geographical boundries, which we aren't going to see here. Better to take the 2 best options regardless than to pick Atlanta only because they would fit into the East better than San Antionio. So if are playing fantasy land, let's assume we take Chivas (LA) and Seattle for the next round, and San Antonio and Rochester for the following: This is how I see it shaking out: Next expansion: 2006 EAST: New England Metro DC United Columbus CENTRAL: Chicago Dallas Kansas City Colorado WEST: Los Angeles San Jose Chivas Seattle 30 games: Own division 4x (12), 2x each vs. all other teams (16), 1 extra game vs. team in corresponding position in each division (2) If San Antonio and Rochester join the following roiund, they go into the Central and East. Division winners, plus the next 5 highest point totals go to the playoffs. A team in a 5-team division would play 4x4 in own division (16), 2x4 and 2x5 vs the other divisions (18) total of 34 games. Teams in the 4 team division would play other divisions 2x10 (20) and play their 2 teams in their own division 5x and the other 4x (14) For argument's sake, if the round after that gives us St. Louis and Philadelphia, we'll split to 4x4, with only the division winners and next 4 best point totals going through. The schedule would have teams play their own division 4x (12), two other divisions 2x (16) and the other division once each (4) swapping divisions each year so that it would never be more than 2 years between visits for any team. ATLANTIC: New England Metro DC United Philadelphia GREAT LAKES: Chicago Columbus Rochester St. Louis SOUTHWEST: Dallas Kansas City San Antonio Colorado PACIFIC: Los Angeles San Jose Chivas Seattle Tom
I think that is the most reasonable and likely expansion/league format outlook I've seen on these boards pretty much ever.
I don't like 4 team divisions. Too many divisions just creates artificial first place teams. There should be a minimum of 5 teams in a division. Of course, I prefer a single table but I'm trying to me realistic.
I find it interesting that all of the suggestions include keeping an 8-team playoff, when folks frequently bring up the notion that the current 8-team playoff makes the regular season "meaningless." I guess moving from 80% playoff teams to 66% (8 of 12) to 57% (8 of 14) gives that much more meaning to the regular season for everyone? Personally, I love the exclusivity of the NFL's 40% (12 of 30) and MLB 26% (8 of 30) playoff teams. Those systems (usually) mean that only the cream of the crop make the post-season. It's all about revenue, I guess, but a more exclusive post-season would definitely give regular season matches a little more oomph. What do you think?
Mexico 1. is comprised of 4 groups or conferences, and the arrangement works fine. An even more complicated setup works in the NFL, too. Frankly, I'm all for minimizing cross-continent travel, and maximizing regional match-ups. Again, see the NFL. The less AvGas used by all of us, the better. It's coming to that, and the sooner we get used to it the better for us all. -- and if it hasn't been posted yet, better think SLC instead of Seattle for 2005.
MLS has been moving towards being more like the European leagues. So I think once they get to 16 teams we'll see the single table, but with the top 8 making the playoffs. THe following is purely hypothetical and mentioned just to stimulate debate: There seem to be many other potential markets. Can we see an MLS2 with another 16 teams? It would also bring the possibility of pro/rel which many of us would like to see. Here's a list of candidates mentioned as expansion franchises already: Cleveland Detroit Atlanta Orlando Las Vegas South Florida Oklahoma City New York 2 / Connecticut Indy Sacramento San Diego Portland St. Louis Milwaukee Nashville or Memphis Oakland or San Francisco Birmingham Carolina Minnesota Phoenix
I think it is generally understood that, while there is a minority here would like to see these come to pass, neither pro/rel or single table is within MLS's foreseeable future. I would like to see an MLS2, hopefully incorporating the A-league, but the set up should be similar to what baseball has with it's Triple A leagues.
4 teams of 12 make the playoffs.. best of 3 in the first round with the team with the better record getting homefield.. currently these regular season games have no juice cause there is literally nothng to play for. like 30 exhibition games... This could be the single biggest problem in MLS...
I'd rather see MLS2 work more like the American/National Leagues in baseball. It would allow MLS to reach the team numbers of other U.S. sports, while remaining within FIFA's goal of 16-team leagues. of course, that's a looooong ways off.