Its really time the Playoffs crossed over isn't it?

I like it. I've always liked the idea of the possibility of another San Jose vs LA final. Or Seattle vs Portland. Or any other great regional rivalry.

 

With the final to be hosted by the higher seed nowadays, the disappointment of the 2010 final with western teams at an eastern stadium won't be repeated...

 

I wish we could have regional finals too, like baseball and the NFL, except any two teams could meet.

 

So wait, is the point to create regional rivalries in the finals, like is possible in baseball, or to make playoff matches where the teams haven't played each other all year, like happens in exactly no sports and couldn't possibly happen in MLS?

I just want to know which idea I should argue against

 

Okay. Well, for starters:

1. You have not explained why this proposal is good. Simply put, you haven't met the burden of proof.
2. This is not done literally anywhere outside of college football.
2A. This is done in college football only as a way to handle 120 teams.
3. Two separate leagues, labelled east and west, that never play each other is not something the league wants. The League wants a big LAG/NYC match every year, as a driver of ratings
3A. There is a possibility that such a system would be against FIFA's requirement that there only be a single First Division in each nation.

 

Wait, by your own admission the point of this scheme was to have playoff matches where teams haven't played each other before, but now the teams are playing each other before....I'm lost. It seems like your argument has no internal consistency.

No, it's a really really good reason to not do something. There is a principle in economics called 'opportunity cost', essentially, whenever you're doing something you could be doing something else. A league that's not nearly as popular or economically viable as at-least 6 other sports trying to compete for the same finite set of eyes should not, should not be the one to try fun new flights of fancy.

So, even in that system you still don't succeed in your stated goals? Sounds legit

Were you intending to support this with facts, or should we just take your word for it? You understand that just repeating yourself with different words isn't actually an argument, right?

 

Some type of crossover provides the benefit of allowing the two best teams of meeting in the final irrespective of their geography.

I would also note many NBA fans are complaining right now about how the NBA doesn't do this and the need to move away from insisting an East team make the final.

One of the main arguments put forward by MLS apologists on why we need this system is that you need teams from two different time zones for a final. However, this is not done in most American sports.

Additionally, people say they want regional rivals meeting in the playoffs, but then support a system which disallows regional rivals from meeting in the league's premiere event.

Basically, the beauty with a cross over of some type is that:

a) it inherently avoids issues in playoffs where one division is clearly better than the other. Related to this, it allows the two best teams at the premiere event
b) it avoids contrived playoff possibilities and allows some variety

 

Thanks for at least acknowledging this.

I agree with this point to an extent. Personally, it's a reason I'd prefer a crossover only at the semi final stage.

That being said, soccer's only played once a week. So I don't think the travel would be that bad of an issue.

Keep in mind, baseball does this for all playoff rounds, and plays five games a week (I get it's baseball but still). Similarly, NFL doesn't seem to have an issue with it.

It's not prohibited, it just isn't forced. So DC could still meet New York at some point before the final. There is also a bit of rivalry fatigue if you end playing a team 5 times in a season. The whole intensity thing goes out of it after a while.

 

Well, except the MLS playoffs has midweek games as well.

 

I still don't see the benefit. If we have East and West Conferences, I like the idea of each sending its champion to do battle. If we had interconference playoff games prior to the final, that would just muddy the water for me.

 

Best solution, if a NY Derby Final is preferable. I don't think that has been properly demonstrated

 

It's only midweek in one round, no (the play-in)?

 

That might also make sense. Though, one might argue it might not account for the difference in schedules in some circumstances.

That being said, it would actually randomize the final four more.

 

So "muddying the water" is the bigger issue than the more obvious issues raised above (competitiveness, fairness).

 

Not at all. I simply don't see any benefit in competition and fairness by doing this, and to make matters worse, you introduce weird mixing of conferences. Remember, we did this before, and had stupid things happen like teams from one conference becoming "Champions" of the other conference.

 

The conference champions can be from the regular season, and they can get the CONCACAF champions league places (with the MLS cup winner). I like the possibility of seeing a new opponent in the play-offs instead of Dallas for the third time.

 

I'd be fine with that, but good luck convincing Garber. He loves that Conference Championship game.