I have campaigned against the playoffs for years. Although they provide excitement with the league-wide parity that exists today, they are an unjust method of determining the league champion. The Portland Timbers were given a trophy with the engraving "Major League Soccer Champions" when all they actually won was a six game post-season knockout tournament. Years ago, when Garber was first pushed about the "unfairness" of the playoffs, he responded with the fact that they are necessary because, without promotion and relegation, teams need an incentive to play their games. At the time, he had a point. But now, they are no longer necessary. We can create a system which rewards regular season excellence and provides incentives for each team in the 20-team league: 1. MLS Cup Final is played between the REGULAR SEASON champions from each conference to determine the league champion. 2. Top four point totals at the end of the regular season, regardless of conference, qualify for the Concacaf Champions League. 3. Point totals 5-8 qualify for Copa Sudamericana (assuming MLS can petition Conmebol with additional TV revenue and possibly a renaming of the tournament to Copa Panamericana). 4. As the season winds down, teams will also fight to avoid mathematical relegation. Instead of relegating teams to a lower league, make them start the following season with a negative point accumulation. The 20th place team will start the next season with negative 9 points, 19th place with negative 6 points, and 18th place with negative 3 points. With this system in place, all teams have an incentive throughout the season, whether trying for the league title, trying for a continental competition position, or trying to avoid mathematical relegation. Most importantly, the regular season has full merit and we will not be handing "championship" trophies to mediocre 3rd place teams who get hot at the end of October with an unjust playoff system. When the league expands to 28 and eventually 32 teams, I would propose eliminating the two conferences and simply having two divisions based on competitive merit alone. Although all teams would still be in the same league and eligible for the same financial rewards, we would have a first division of 14 teams (16 in the 32 team league) and the same for a second division with full promotion and relegation between divisions. Finally, the league would be able to spread the season out further over the calendar year with the absence of playoffs and be able to completely respect all international dates.
What are your thoughts on the World Cup Champion? ... so we ignore that one of them might actually only be the 3rd or 4th or 5th best overall on points then? Wait, so the teams that are better go to the less prestigious tournament? That makes a ton of sense. Somebody call France and make them apologize for being in the '06 WC Final ... then call Spain and tell them they just got hot in the KO round in '10 ... then do the same for German in '14 !!!
Without the playoffs the season would have been over in September. As it was you had 6 Western Conference teams playing for 5 playoff spots on the last day of the season. It's a no-brainer.
It's one thing for the governing body of your region to dictate something, and quite another for the league to set it up that way.
I actually find the negative points for the worst teams interesting. It's outside the box and a disincentive to the oft-feared "dogging to draft Chris Carrieri". An issue I have with the OP's assessment of the league is that he's ignoring the difference in strength between conferences and the unbalanced schedule. The league was very close and the difference in opponents and travel could make the difference between getting a high seeding in the playoffs and missing them altogether. Also seeding is such that the playoffs are theoretically tougher for the worst placed teams. Portland had to beat two teams that finished above them in the west. Full disclosure: I feel that a single table, balanced schedule is better at making the best team champions but playoffs still have merit and make more logistical sense in a nation as vast as the US.
I have to give credit for thinking outside the box with respect to negative points, but I don't really like the idea. I really don't think teams try to lose. I do think there are situations where the season doesn't seem to be going anywhere and they decide to try new players and approaches because the result is less important than progress and I do not think that's a bad thing. I also really think that in a country this size it would be really difficult to know that you were seeing the best team win a balanced double round robin schedule. The travel is not symmetrical. The teams out west will tend to log more miles. Additionally, it appears to be tougher for teams in the east to play out west than vice versa. The schedule could also be unkind as to when different teams play different places too. Playing in Houston in April is a lot better than July, for instance. Another very important thing that the OP missed is the CCL births. One goes to the Open Cup winner so you can't go top four. Additionally, I am not sure teams would really view playing in a tournament in SA where 15-20k mile round trips mid-week would really be something worth "playing" for. Because the timezones are close, I think many lose sight of how far away South America is.
Alternatives to playoffs: Single table season. MLS Cup for conference champions only. Rock-Paper-Scissors. Pistols at ten paces. Each have advantages and disadvantages.
But, let's actually look at your plan. This, right here, is a playoff. It's a smaller playoff, but a playoff none the less. So the conferences are important for the Champion, but not for the CCL. Care to explain that choice? Conmebol is going to look at the CCL numbers and react to Don roughly the way this forum reacted to you. Wha-what!? You actually, truly, want to create a permanent underclass? Like, this is the kind of system a madman would devise who was, personally, trying to piss of Fire and Rapids fans.
I just thought of another huge flaw. MLS can be a fluid league. Going from worst to first isn't impossible. What do you think happens the first season a team that starts on negative points misses out on a title or one of the other "rewards" despite having a better on field performance?
Not to mention -- what player who's out of contract and considering MLS is going to want to sign for a team in a parity league, where the margin of difference is small, and play for the team that's starting in a hole before the season even starts?