If the objective of MLS was to design a competitive soccer league for the state of California, I’d be standing among the picket lines of single-table thugs demanding our assimilation of the “global” standard. I understand the virtues, the vices and the sustaining myths of the single-table world and, on balance, it’s an attractive vision. But, fortunately, MLS is a bit more ambitious than a Golden State soccer league. The task of MLS is to design a professional soccer league for the entire nation (plus Canada), and in that task lies something that single-table advocates tend to overlook. There is something both unique and essential about the United States (plus Canada) that too many people either partially or fully fail to understand. That something, in a word, is geography. Before I say anything else, indulge me a bit and do the following exercise . Step 1: go to http://maps.google.com/ . Step 2: search for directions from: Portsmouth, UK to: Newcastle upon Tyne, UK. Stare at the resulting map a bit, commit its basic details to your short-term memory, and take note of the estimated distance: about 340 miles. This is a map of the MAXIMUM distance between Premiership clubs. 340 miles, or less. Now, Step 3: with the Portsmouth to Newcastle map still fresh in your mind, perform a new map search for directions from: Los Angeles, CA to: San Jose, CA. Stare at the resulting map a bit, commit its basic details to your short-term memory, and take note of the estimated distance: about 340 miles. Drive the 340 miles from LA to San Jose, and you’ve explored less than half of California; but you could have spanned the entire length of England with the same amount of gas. So, now, let’s get back to that word geography and the debate over single-table in MLS. Ask yourself this question: is it really appropriate to organize a competition in the United States (and Canada) the same way you organize a competition in a country 1/3 the size of California? Hell, the entire UK (which includes 4 separate FAs) is only about 60% the size of California. The most expansive nation in the European Union is France, which is slightly larger than California, but smaller than Texas, even if you include France’s numerous overseas regions. The largest nation on Earth (by far) is Russia. But even Russia is smaller than the geography of MLS (USA + Canada). Moreover, the population distribution of Russia make it a poor geographic and demographic equivalent to the task of organizing MLS. (More than 75% of Russia’s population lives West of the Ural Mountain, while 7 of the 16 Russian Premier League teams are in Moscow, and only 2 of 16 teams are East of the Urals.) Before people go nuts trying to discover a single-table organization that could potentially be a geographic and demographic equivalent to MLS (feel free to try; it can’t be done; don’t get me started on Brazil; and Mexico has THREE “conferences”), let’s return to Google Maps to really put a final bit of perspective on the geography of MLS. If you search Google Maps, you’ll learn that the approximate distance between London and Moscow is 1800 miles. If you drove the 1800 miles from London to Moscow, you would pass through 8 different nations, with 8 independent single-table leagues. So, in a simplified way, you might say that there are 8 tables between London and Moscow. Those “8 tables” organize football for a combined population of about 400 million people. However, if you jumped in your car in Los Angeles and drove the same 1800 miles, you would just about make it to my house in St. Louis. St. Louis! On the banks of the Mighty Mississippi. And then it would only take you 1000 more miles to get to New York, and a population of over 300 million coast to coast (and oh yeah, plus Canada). Yet we can’t have even 2 tables? Far too many people fail to comprehend the vast geography of the US, and how/why Conferences exist in (and enrich) our sports culture. I’ll resist making this rant even longer by foregoing a Frederick-Jackson-Turner-ish discussion of America’s relationship with this vast geography. And I’ll forego a discussion of how advances in communication and transportation might minimize this vast geography - they do not. But, I will say that if you hold out any hope of developing away support and/or the rivalries that make much of world soccer so compelling, a single table with “balanced schedules” spread across the expanse of an entire continent would be a poor way to accomplish it. In the American context, there are clear and defensible reasons why we organize our sports the way we do. It’s not a question of better or worse. It’s a question of appropriate; and a recognition that the same solution isn’t always the right solution. On the pitch, the diversity and creativity of football styles transform sport into the beautiful art we all love. Global hegemonic style would be a disaster. So why do so many insist on global hegemonic organization?
conferences were invented to cut back on travel times now theres no issue with that conferences = the lamez
I understand that. But I think that a single-table without a "balanced schedule" is senseless. Is it really that hard to look at two tables and know what teams are good and what teams are bad? Does a single-table tell us anything more than two conference tables if the schedules remain "unbalanced" and the title is decided by playoff...
Seems to me the main reason for east-west conferences is to give the whole country a reason to care. If you have two teams from the East Coast playing eachother in a final, then half of the country will care less because they are literally thousands of miles away. East v West is an attempt to keep the two big coastal cash cows interested in a game to increase revenue from advertising. that and North v South is extremely un PC in America. In addition as a traveling fan, I'd like to go see my team play without being on a plane for one day. Almost every road match in the MLS is like a CL match in Europe in terms of travel and how long you are idle and inactive. Theres a reason why European teams fly in a day ahead. That and taking a team bus to almost anygame outside your conference(and some in) are unheard of. A plane is a must.
Salt Lake is awful. They should be 13th. But yet they're 6th. That alone is reason to eliminate conferences. Teams in the East or West don't play the exact same schedule anyway. So listing them in a single table is not a big deal.
I love conferences. I would rather watch more games against a team that is located close by. I go to Miller Park to watch the Brewers but try to only go to games against the Cubs, Cardinals, Reds. Don't want to see games against teams from the coasts unless there is a good promotion like a certain bobblehead, hat, or doubleheader.
The way the playoff teams are this season in MLS, the last four are in based on total points regardless of conference, so this fall we could very well have an all Eastern conference or all Western conference MLS Cup. The physical location of a club doesn't mean an entire chunk of the country won't care. A lot of fans support teams that are not necessarily in their own backyard. I'd watch a Dynamo-FCD final just as much as a Revs-RBNY final and I'm not close to any of them (Crew being the closest club to me.)
They're also last in their conference. I don't see why a last place team has to have a big LAST by their name when anybody who knows that 6 is less than 7 can see who is in last place overall.
Actually, I agree with the original poster for this one (oh, and thanks for mentioning Canada, no matter what your tone might have been ). To my mind, I can see the MLS moving further towards geographical segregation when it gets more popular, not away from it. I can forsee a future where the East and the West actually split into their own leagues (though I am sure there would be a nice big tourny at the end to compete for domination). The truth is, there are enough markets to split into two leagues, and splitting it Canada/USA actually makes less sense (even if Canada had half the MLS teams) than splitting it East/West. I would rather play twice the games against teams in the east (once the teams exist to support this) than split the games to play in the west as well. Why? Well, for one, there is a travel concern. Travelling coach in a public airplane sucks, and anyone who has done it knows how absolutely draining it can be. Games played in succession where the team will have to travel across the country(ies) will make the team play much worse. Period. There is also time zones to think about. Our countries are huge, we span what, 6 time zones? (ok, not counting them crazy newfs, we have 5, I think mainland USA has 4?). Traveling across that many time zones and playing soon is a stress on the body, and can have a large effect. How many other countries in the world have to deal with that? There is also traveling support. I want to have the option of going to see every game my team plays. A bus ride with supporters is fun, economical, and a good way to show well for your team on the road. For me, the number of cities I could potentially go to exist in about a 14 hour car/bus ride from Toronto (which is a fairly significant number). Southern and Western teams I have no hope of going to for away support. As the fans of the MLS because more passionate, I think this could be a larger concern. Anyway, I like conferences, and I might like it better if the conferences split more, not come together more. Sure, it might be a first for FIFA (having two counties with two leagues that weren't split on country lines) but frankly, Canada and the USA are unlike pretty much any other two countries in the world.
TFCSteve, I agree with you. With growth, I anticipate the further "separation" of the East and West Conferences. And I think that's a good thing. Besides, East and West teams (the good ones, anyway) will still have the potential to face each other in: MLS Cup (and not just in the Final under the new format), US Open Cup, SuperLiga and Champions Cup. The relative rarity of East v. West matches will increase their value, heightening interest in these matches when they do occur. At the same time, Conferences help to foster regional rivalries and make away-support during the regular season more likely/possible. For me, that is a much more interesting (and unique) soccer landscape.
I like how the other pro sports leagues in America are organized. Check it out: NFL: AFC East - Buffalo, Miami, NY, Boston AFC South - Houston, Indi, Jacksonville, Tennessee AFC North - Baltimore, Cincinnati, Cleveland, Pittsburgh NFC East - Dallas, NY, Philadelphia, DC Buffalo ("AFC East") - located in northeast/midwest, closer to the teams in the "AFC North" than in its own division. Miami ("AFC East") - nowhere near the other teams in "AFC East", closer to the teams in the "AFC South". NY and Boston ("AFC East") - really in what should be called the "Northeast" Indianapolis ("AFC South") - located closer to the teams in the "North", which should really be called the "Midwest" Baltimore ("AFC North") - located closer to northeastern teams like NY, not at all the midwestern cities in its division Dallas ("NFC East") - nowhere near any of the other teams in its division, which are all from northeast NHL: At least the NHL got its conferences together geographically. MLB: Not bad, although the east-west divisions stick Florida teams with NY teams, while separating Pittsburgh and Philadelphia into different divisions. NBA: Not bad, a few problems - like Minnesota being much more "Central" than "Northwest", and Tennessee being much more "Southeast" than "Southwest".
honestly, not that I care either way about the tables, but do we really want to keep conferences for away support? how much away support does the Galaxy get when they play away at Salt Lake or Colorado or Houston or Dallas? Seriously. Now to keep the west coast interested so there's not an all east coast championship... maybe. I really don't think it matters much though. I highly doubt many people in LA would watch MLS Cup to root on Salt Lake or Dallas. Just my two cents.
More than they get when they play away at New England, New York or DC... (Whatever the current number of away fans, it is at least POSSIBLE to drive from LA to Salt Lake in less than a day - and the route runs straight through Vegas!)
True I suppose, I just don't see away support as a big factor for the table dispute because I highly doubt that MLS will ever have huge away support for their teams. There may be exceptions, like Dallas vs. Houston and LA and San Jose (if they come back). Either way, the exception not the rule. But hey, if I ever move to LA, I would totally take a road trip through Vegas! Although, leaving on a Thursday, staying for a night in Vegas, getting to Salt Lake in time for the game, and then driving back for work Monday morning would not be the most wonderful of experiences. But you said VEGAS!
Going to a true single table right now would only require removing games from the schedule, all of the teams play each other twice as it is.
I can't tell whether you're for or against it. From where I sit, removing games from the schedule is a very bad idea, and one that gets worse with every SSS we build.
I don't follow. I guess you mean SSS's for existing clubs. In the case of expansion clubs though, it actually adds games to the schedule. Seeing as how, per Garber, we want to add 3 new teams by 2011 at the latest that means that we'll be adding six more games to the schedule. So, on down the line I can see where we might want to eliminate games. When we get to say, 20 teams, then I don't think we should have more than 40 games being played in the league. If you throw in the Open Cup, FMF-MLS competition, friendlies, and possibly the liberatadores on down the line then we're talking about a very, very congested schedule.
I was referring to the near future. He's saying we can just play each other twice and eliminate all other matches. Well, if we assumed a 14 team league next year, 13*2=26. The four matches lost is revenue lost (especially in an SSS, where opening the stadium is not very costly) to no useful purpose.
Well, most of the NFL's geographic "issues" are mostly rooted in their desire to keep some teams together in the most recent realignment in 2002. So while Dallas' presence in the NFC East might seem wrong, the NFL wanted to keep them in the same division with their longtime rivals in Washington and Philadephia. Ditto for Miami in the AFC East. Given that Memphis is on the very southwestern corner of Tennessee and is about as close to Dallas as it is to Atlanta, I can forgive them.
Actually, they are thirteenth. Past the two top teams in each conference it is (for better or worse) single table