It's almost 2019,... and lo, the playoffs remain flawed; the defense of the regular ssn continues...

I'm not going to deal with the idea of throwing out the entire current playoff system to change to a group stage system. I just don't think that will happen. I do like a shorter playoff period so let's see if the compressed regular season works.

This year there are 12 available weekends in that time span if you keep the FIFA break clean. 15 league games is probably possible. Even with the CCL you could have one mid-week game day each month. As long as teams play every game day. That hasn't happened in the past but it could.

That is going to be tough this year. There are only 4 weekends if you block out the entire World Cup period from June 14-July 16. If MLS only shuts down for the Group Stage and plays through both the player call-up period before the World Cup and the Knockouts then it might work. The potential mid-week dates are also very limited since this is also the prime-time for the most MLS teams to be involved in the U.S. Open Cup. Basically this all depends on how much of a break MLS takes but it will be tight either way. Even in non-World Cup years this would be hard.

There are 8 available weekends in that period this year. The Open Cup is not a huge obstacle since very few MLS teams are still playing in that period. Typically the tournament is down to 4 teams by then. But there is also a FIFA break in early September that takes away a weekend. Again, it is probably doable if every team plays on every league matchday.

The FIFA break is October 8-16. That means the MLS season would have to end on October 7. There are a total of 32 weekends from March 3 to October 7. Regular FIFA breaks take away 2 of those this year. The World Cup takes away a minimum of 3 weekends and as many as 6. Not every year is a World Cup but there are always interruptions in the summer. That leaves 24 to 27 weekends. To get in a minimum of 34 match-days that means a lot of mid-week games even if every team plays on every available weekend. Which we know can't happen this year with 23 teams.

Assuming an even number of teams in the future still means that is a very short window to get in all the games. The first step will be getting every team playing every matchday.

 

Even last year with an even number of teams, there were still a number of clubs getting byes during some weeks, so I believe there is some float in the schedule to compress things further. TFC showed that a team with depth could still deliver wins with their 6 games in 19 days winning streak.

 

I think this is an assumption not backed up by the facts (or at least, not backed up by the facts for a majority of the league).

 

I don't think that's borne out by facts. New England is the classic example. Ignoring early weather affected home games (March 25 and April 8), their weekend attendances are very roughly 80% above mid-week and that doesn't take into account that season ticket holders who don't show up are still counted.

Too early unless you arrange for the northern teams to play in warmer climes.

 

Um, that's when this season starts and if not for CCL the Rapids would be hosting opening weekend.

 

Whoops! I could have sworn it was mid-March.

 

First...what is the purpose of playoffs? To crown the best team in the league? Well if a #8 wins the playoffs were they really the best team in the league given they were 16 pts behind #1?

 

Liverpool won the Champions League despite finishing 30 points behind Arsenal. Were they the best team in Europe that season?

 

The champions league is a stand alone tournament. As a competition it is from start to finish a tournament. The goal of a tournament is not to crown the best team.

I'm not against a tournament in mls to decide mls cup champ. But once you decide who qualifies I wouldnt use regular season results for anything

I'd have a regular season and then a post season tournament with two groups of four playing home and away all the way to final which would be one game at neutral site.

 

Yes. Because pretty much every GM and coach in the league will tell you at the beginning of the season than the goal is to win MLS Cup. Not to get a #1 seed or qualify for CCL or win the Shield. So the team that accomplishes that goal is the best at achieving the goal of the season.

(I swear to god MLS fans are the only fans who even have a discussion like this. Literally every other league in any sport its pretty much accepted that the team that wins the ultimate prize is the best tam int he league that season.)

 

Let's stick to soccer considering what American football or baseball do is irrelevant.

In a balanced schedule is a soccer team that finishes with 70 pts better than a team that finishes with 56 pts?

 

No, its not particularly, considering where MLS is played but...

Depends, what was the goal of the season? Was it most points? If so, yes. If not, then I'd need to know how well they did in achieving their goal.

This is the fundamental point you seem to be missing (or choosing to ignore). MLS teams are not trying to get the most points. MLS teams are trying to win MLS Cup. Now yes, generally teams that get more points during the season are more likely to win MLS Cup so getting points are good, but that's a byproduct of the primary goal, not the goal itself.

A perfect example of this was in the 2011 season (I might be off a year). Salt Lake was playing in the CCL and chasing LA down for the Shield (aka, having the most points). Since they had a good playoff position assured late in the season they rested their first team players in a rivalry game against Colorado so they would be fresh for their CCL game a couple of days later. If a MLS team's goal was to have the most points do you think a team within striking distance of that goal would take a rivalry game off? But since their goal was to win MLS Cup they felt they could take a game off without hurting their chances.

LA won the Shield that year but do we know they were the best team? No, because teams weren't playing to win the Shield and their strategies would have been different if they were.

 

The US Open is played in the US as well. Has nothing to do with soccer. Same goes for baseball.

I think what you've described is an inherent flaw with a playoff system to crown league champion. It would be much more exciting seeing Rsl try to chase down LA for the league title full strength rather than some playoff games to determine what the actual season exists for.

I do like a post season tournament. But as I've said I would completly separate it from the actual season.

 

The point of the regular season is to position yourself for the playoffs. First of all can you make the playoffs? Can you avoid the knockout round? Can you gain home field advantage?

I thought the final day of last season was incredibly exciting with Atlanta, Chicago and NYC trying to get that second spot in the East while the Cascadia teams battled it out to avoid the knockout round in the West, and San Jose edged out Dallas on games won despite a -21 goal deficit.

I don't see why we have to compare MLS to football leagues in Europe when we have bigger and much more successful leagues in the west.

Didn't the top 10 teams in Scotland propose a closed league before being talked into an open system by the SFA?

 

OK. We'll put you down as 1 vote for separate competitions.

Actually, MLS teams have at least three separate trophies they can try to win. The U.S. Open Cup, the Supporters' Shield for the best record, and MLS Cup. The CCL is also there for the teams that qualify. Most teams (and fans) value the MLS Cup the most but there are different approaches.

That's better than the most popular soccer league in the US, Liga MX. Teams in that league don't have any regular season trophy to compete for. They have two playoff tournaments a year after each short regular season. I guess they do have the Copa MX but that seems even less popular than the U.S. Open Cup.

 

Well you're right. The MLS has decided to copy the NBA &NHL model where the regular season exists to position teams for the playoffs.

I'm saying I don't like that system and would change it.

How many soccer fans like that system? Judging by MLS tv ratings not that many.

 

I would prefer a system with a limited number of teams in the playoffs - no more than 25% or 33%. Otherwise, regular season results risk becoming a farce.

 

The problem there is half the teams will have nothing to play for after July.

 

No, you started off questioning the best team in MLS actually being the best team.

Judging by Liga MX ratings (the highest rated league in the U.S.) a hell of a lot.

 

Real Salt Lake was in the 2010-2011 CCL. They were 3 points behind Los Angeles in 2010. Their last Group Stage game was in between their last two regular season games, which were hosting Dallas and at Colorado. The game at Colorado was after their last Group Stage game.

 

I think it was 2012, though my memory of how close they ended the season in the Shield standings was wrong. At the time though they were fairly close in the race.

Regardless of my specific example though, the general concept is still accurate. Teams play to win MLS Cup, so determining who's best by another metric is invalid because teams aren't trying to optimize that metric.

 

In 2016 FC Dallas won the US Open Cup and the Supporters Shield. We were knocked out in the first round of the MLS Cup playoffs. As an FC Dallas fan, I was disappointed in the way the season finished, though winning the other two trophies was a nice consolation.
If we'd won the MLS Cup and not won the other two trophies, it would have been a great season, and we'd have been proud to be MLS Champions.
As said above in this thread, the object of the game in MLS is to win the Cup.
Arguments about "the best team" happen in all US pro sports when a wild card or other lower seeded team win the championship. JasonMa's last sentence is an excellent argument for who the best team is.

 

Entertainment.