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

Keep the first two rounds intra-conference. This way when you get down to the final four, you will always have 2 teams from each conference. You wouldn't want the possibility of one conference being overwhelmed by the other in the tournament. Then you have a crossover, with the higher seed from the West playing the lower seed from the East, and the lower seed from the West facing the higher seed from the East. If the final ends up being two teams from the West, so be it. They were better than the best the East had to offer.

It's not complicated, and it doesn't add or take away any current matchdays. It keeps intra-conference rivalries in the early rounds. It keeps open the possibility of regional rivals meeting in the final.

 

So don't call it a conference championship, just call it the semi finals. Problem solved. If Garber is obsessed with that label (and that's what it is, a label), then it's just a stupid exercise in semantics.

 

Garber appears to believe that there is something special about "winning trophies" even if they are made up (like the rivalry cups) or pointless (like the Conference trophies), but even he knows you can't give out a trophy for winning a semi-final.

 

Knocking your rivals out of the playoffs is much more fun than playing some random team from the other side of the continent. I would much rather see DC play the NYRB in the playoffs than some Western team I don't care about.

I mean, other than my basic joy at seeing others suffer, I don't really have a desire to see Colorado or FC Dallas fans crying.

 

Okay, but why is it better to knock your rival out in the semi than in the final? Because the current system doesn't allow you to meet them in the final.

 

That's why this league sometimes gets labelled as mickey mouse.

 

I'm not sure why "Mickey Mouse" became an insult. Mickey Mouse is a bigger brand, and is likely worth more, than any sports team in the world. He's been around since 1928. Most teams would kill to have that type of longetivity and value.

Why does it matter when you knock them out? It's actually sweeter to send a team packing in the first round.

 

Exactly! When it comes to dealing with your hated rival, a wise man once said it best:

 

Okay, since we need to re-explain this every time. Last year, Seattle and LA had to meet earlier than the final though they were clearly the two best teams in the league. Generally, most normal people would consider that unfair and hurting the competitiveness of the league. And it's all for the sake of having these stupid "trophies".

 

Separating the playoffs by conference means that all but one playoff matchup are intra-conference, which means a greater likelihood of rivalry matchups as well as matchups that repeat in multiple years, which is seen as a way to build new rivalries. It's not just about the trophies.

 

I'd rather see something fresh and new, plus then when rivals do meet up it is something special because it is rare. One thing that is great about the champions leagues (CONCACAF or UEFA versions) is seeing teams that don't normally play each other.

 

Yes, so instead of DC facing New York 3 times (which happens anyways), they can meet 5 times. And by doing this, we sacrifice some element of competitiveness and fairness.

I get the "logic", it just seems weak and kind of mickey mouse. It's not like rivalries don't exist in leagues that do simple home and away. It's almost like they'll occur organically anyways.

And again, I'll point out, many NBA fans are literally complaining about the same issue in the NBA as well.

 

Why even bother having playoffs, then? If your goal is to see the two best teams in the league play in the final, why not just propose a system where the two teams that get the most votes from soccer journalists (or whatever) play each other in a championship game?

 

"We sacrifice competitiveness and fairness" is not something we're just going to take your word for. Back that up with evidence please

Oh, so your only evidence is "I, personally, don't like it"? I almost can't believe the Board of Governors didn't ask your opinion

This is a straw man. The league doesn't have an unbalanced schedule in an attempt to create rivalries. I honestly don't know where this idea came from, but it's simply not true.

And again, I'll point out, those NBA fans still watch the playoffs.

 

Holy shit, that is a strawman if I ever saw one. What people are proposing here is some way to make the playoffs more fair and all you're doing is obfuscating by saying that's not playoffs are supposed to do. I assume this is in some form of deference to American sporting tradition.

But the thing is, this league has playoffs and could also aim not to have some of the limitations other American sporting leagues have. And that is a fairly reasonable context from which to debate this.

 

LA met Seattle in the semis instead of the finals last year, as I've explained five times above. There are tons of other examples.

See above and try not to be intellectually dishonest. If you're going to make a dismissive point like that as well, maybe a forum called "You Be The Don" isn't the best place for you to hang out since you hate the idea of people questioning the status quo.

The league specifically said when it went to 3 and 1 unbalanced schedule in 2012 that one of the ideas was to have more rivalry matchups (I understand travel was also a concern).

Okay, just cause you watch doesn't mean you can improve it. That's like saying no one should vote unless they perfectly agree with the voting system in a country.

 

http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/to-make-the-playoffs-hockey-teams-play-not-to-win/

Also, is wrong for NHL fans to question the mickey mouse point system in their league, since they aren't on the league board of directors?

 

I don't see what's unfair about our current playoff setup. Sure, sometimes one conference will have stronger teams than the other, but them's the breaks in sports. Winners play through adversity.

LA still had to get through Seattle to win MLS Cup, they just did so one round earlier.

Personally, I think the playoffs are too fair. I'd be in favor of lower-seeded teams not even getting a home game- each stage should just be one game, at the stadium of the higher-seeded team.

 

Fair enough, but that's effectively a subjective viewpoint where you're downplaying the real impact for the sense of having conferences. For many of us, we value the idea of fairness as being more important than the somewhat airy-fairy benefit of having conference champions.

That's a fair point which is somewhat mutually exclusive. I think it's actually unfair in a playoff based system not to offer a bigger home field advantage to a team that has earned it in regular season.

As I said, I'd favour in conference playoffs for the first two rounds. Since, the higher ranked team has earned the advantage, it makes sense only to have 1 game instead of two. For any interconference matchups, aggregate makes sense since those teams' records are based on different opponents, giving a bigger home field advantage makes less sense.

As you can see MLS has kind of reversed it, by having MLS Cup as a one off at the higher seed's home field.

 

I think your idea is a bit "just wanting change for chang'e sake". The example you cite most is that LA/Seattle met in the playoffs last year but not in the final... and?? Strength of a conference in any sport is cyclical. Often in the NFL the NFC or AFC is the stronger conference for a number of years but you don't see the most powerful sports league on the planet tinkering with as a result.

What I think needs to happen is the playoff format needs to be stable for a period of time, 10-20 years (i.e. same playoff format). Settle on one and nurture it.

Absolutely not, but this example goes to the fabric of the game as it has been played for first 75 years until the recent 20 years. However, I will say that the NHL had changed their playoff format many times in the past with varying degrees of success. But if you cite simply that people complain about "something" in their sports league fine. Let's talk DH in baseball, if you are old enough to remember when there wasn't one?

Don't see why he shouldn't hang out here in the "You Be The Don" forum? You as the "Don" want to change the format .... somone else as the "Don" wishes to keep the status quo, why cant both exist here? Do you have to disagree or question everything MLS and Garber to post in this thread? What if I support the "Don?

And this isn't a subjective viewpoint?

I think you are bitter because the Leafs haven't won a Cup since '67 (just kidding... couldnt resist the jab)

 

Okay, but this is a recent format change anyways. So why not settle on something that's better first then nurture it. Hence the debate now. Second of all, the league will continue to expand, necessitating more tinkering.

Okay, but his argument (if you trail back) was (and I paraphras) "You're not on the Board of Directors of MLS so who the ******** cares about your opinion." Seems kinda stupid given the nature of the forum.

I am Habs fan to be honest. Everything is subjective obviously. I'd say supporting something based more on fairness and competition has more merit than notional concepts of "I like it because it feels..." In short form, all the caveats may be excluded.

 

Habs huh, well if Price doesn't win the Veznia and Hart trophies its robbery! I counter with I certainly do support fairness and competition but I'm not convinced that you have proven the "fairness" of this format based on saying the two best teams (at least record wise) are from the same conference. Could be at the time of the playoffs Team X in the "other" conference is more in form than either. And frankly, as much as we would strive to get the "two best" teams in the final, that in itself is subjective... record wise? Who is in form currently? So its a bit of a "Fool's Gold".

Whole heartedly agree! Unfortunately, resorting to name calling and insults are part of some's repertiore when feel threatened or get defensive.

Again I think we agree, until expansion ceases the format will change but ultimately I hope we decide on one.

 

No, we want change for improvement. You want no-change for nurture, I guess. Both are ok reasons for action/in-action.

One thing in our favor is that it is easier to make changes in a young league. It is harder to move the status quo in baseball (dump the DH), or the NFL because stakes are higher and the union, television, and business interests have so much at stake.

 

If I thought it was an improvement I would agree, but again each of our opinions are a bit subjective based on what we think is right. And by "nurturing" I mean that fan becomes educated on the process, knows what to expect and the mechanics of the playoffs. Right now, unless you follow closely its a bit if a jumble (away goals, etc) for the casual and new fan. Those are the ones I think about nurturing. And I didn't say your idea doesn't have merit just cautioning becareful of what you wish for...

I think all that you mention are now applicable to MLS also... TV, union, business, etc. But yes the youth of MLS does make it a bit more ammenable to change when it comes to some things.

 

Inherently no system will be perfect. But I hardly think it's a folly to look into this stuff either and try and meet these goals by standards that are fairly observable. Otherwise, you're kinda throwing the baby out with the bathwater.