Let's Figure Out This 30 Team Schedule...

Discussion in 'MLS: Commissioner - You be The Don' started by DannyTRadio, Apr 30, 2019.

  1. EvanJ

    EvanJ Member+

    Manchester United
    United States
    Mar 30, 2004
    Club:
    Manchester United FC
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    I agree. The schedule should be done based on what is known, not guesses about how clubs will be and what clubs will have the biggest differences between home and road performance. As long as the Red Bulls and NYCFC play each opponent the same amount of times, have half of their games at home, and have relatively equal total travel distance, I won't complain about which clubs the Red Bulls hosted and which clubs NYCFC hosted. You brought up injuries. What would be a bigger deal is if another club in the division had a star get injured, return from injury, join the club, or leave the club, and NYCFC got both games while the opponent was worse and the Red Bulls got both games while the opponent was better. If a star is traded from Club A to Club B that made the Red Bulls face the star before and after the trade and NYCFC never have to face the star, that would also make NYCFC's schedule easier.
     
  2. mschofield

    mschofield Member+

    May 16, 2000
    Berlin
    Club:
    Union Berlin
    Nat'l Team:
    Germany
    For scheduling purposes, wouldn't it be better to have both LA teams and both NY teams play in the same place over two (back to back) weekends? Or even a Saturday Wednesday setup? Call it something idiotic, but it would cut down on at least one cross country trip
    You are correct, nothing is ever like for like. But I'm not sure the way to deal with that is by building inequity in the schedule, and in MLS home > away.
    As I've said, I favor a two league, with home and away intra league and limited interleague play, setup, as with baseball. Club play everyone within their league twice, so the standings are the fairest reflection of quality within the groups, cuts down quite a bit on travel. gives the league both the european league flavor, and increases the tension for the US style playoff champions.
    But if the league is not heading that way at 30 sides and beyond, adjustments have to be made to maintain structural parity. Not talking about talent or coaches, but just the way the league is setup. It has to look like a level playing field. This is the beauty of a Euro system, every club faces the exact same schedule. From there inequity reigns, of course.
     
  3. EvanJ

    EvanJ Member+

    Manchester United
    United States
    Mar 30, 2004
    Club:
    Manchester United FC
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    If both LA clubs went to both NY clubs (or vice-versa), that would make sense, and NCAA conferences do that with travel partners. The clubs would probably prefer Saturday and Wednesday so they didn't have to be away and pay for hotels for over a week, although it could be tough to play Saturday and Wednesday away, fly home, and play Saturday or Sunday, so it could be useful to give the clubs the weekend off after that.
     
    mschofield repped this.
  4. KCbus

    KCbus Moderator
    Staff Member

    United States
    Nov 26, 2000
    Reynoldsburg, OH
    Club:
    Columbus Crew
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    This is something I've advocated for for a while.

    Hell, you could do it for a three-game setup as well. Teams occasionally play Saturday-Wednesday-Saturday(or Sunday) as it is. Making only one cross-country flight would be beneficial for everyone involved. A team from the East could do LA-LA-SJ, or the Cascadia three-step. A team from the West could do NY-NY-NE, or Chicago-Cincinnati-Columbus.
     
    JasonMa repped this.
  5. Initial B

    Initial B Member

    Jan 29, 2014
    Club:
    Ottawa Fury
    I think we need to get over this every team has to play every other. From the looks of this year's schedule, it looks like MLS is planning on sticking to a 34-game schedule without all the teams playing each other every year. I foresee a NBA-style 3-division, 2-Conference format with 5-6 teams per division and following NFL-style scheduling format:

    *Play two of three opposing Conference Division teams once per season, switching the fallow division every season (3 Season Cycle) for a total of 10-12 games per season.
    *Play in-Conference teams once per season, for a total of 10-12 games per season
    *Play remaining games against in-division teams (10-14 games), for 34 games total per season.
    *Play-offs still the same format.

    This would allow for expansion to continue up to 36 clubs in a 34-game season. Anything larger than that size feels unwieldy to me. The one problem I can see with this format is that if they put the two LA teams in the same division and mirror that in the east with the two NY teams, then every 3 years there will be no games between the two largest media markets. They could solve this by splitting one of these two pairs of teams between two different conferences, but that takes away from the local rivalries MLS wishes to encourage.
     
    xtomx and footballfantatic repped this.
  6. Eleven Bravo

    Eleven Bravo Member+

    Atlanta United
    United States
    Jul 3, 2004
    SC
    Club:
    Atlanta Silverbacks
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    Again this is the best way to do the 30 team schedule

    EAST
    -South- Atlanta United, Inter Miami, Orlando City, Nashville SC, Charlotte

    -Central- Toronto FC, Montreal Impact, FC Cincinnati, Columbus Crew, Minnesota United

    -North- DC United, Philadelphia Union, New York City FC, New York Red Bull, New England Revolution

    WEST
    -North- San Jose Earthquakes, Sacramento Republic, Seattle Sounders, Portland Timbers, Vancouver Whitecaps

    -Central- Sporting Kansas City, Chicago Fire, Saint Louis, Real Salt Lake, Colorado Rapids

    -South- LA Galaxy, Los Angeles FC, FC Dallas, Houston Dynamo, Austin FC

    ...This keeps all the natural rivals together.
     
  7. TrueCrew

    TrueCrew Member+

    Dec 22, 2003
    Columbus, OH
    Club:
    Columbus Crew
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    For me, this is fairly straightforward. MLS has already crossed the Rubicon on (not) playing everyone every year. I would love this to happen, but it is likely gone forever.

    And one can certainly quibble about my choices for which teams in which divisions. But I think the framework is sound and works for a larger league.

    Two 15 team Conferences with 2 Divisions in each conference, of 8 and 7 teams, respectively.

    Schedule.

    Plan A. Division foes once (14 or 12 games) + conference foes once (7 or 8 games) + one entire non-conference division once (7 or 8 games) = 28 games. 6 games left vs teams in the other non-conf division and/or 2nd games vs conference foes. Or a couple games could be determined by previous year's finish, like the NFL does (division winners have to play each other, etc).

    Plan B. Go to 36 games. Play the other conference once (15 games) + your division twice (14 or 12) plus the other division in conference once (7 or 8) = 36/35 games. The teams with 35 get and 2nd game vs a non-div conf foe or a non-conf foe.

    West:
    Pacific: LAG, LAFC, SJ, Sac, Sea, Port, Van
    Midwest: COL, RSL, SKC, STL, FCD, Hou, Austin, Minny.

    East:
    Atlantic: DC, NE, NYRB, NYFC, Philly, Orlando, Miami.

    Central: CLB, Cincy, Chicago, TFC, MTL, ATL, Nash, Cha.

    When you hit 32, just add teams/rearrange the divisions so each Div has 8.

    Even at 36 teams, you can keep playing the same basic schedule (Div×2 = 16, Other Div in Conf = 9, + 1 entire non-conf div = 9) while keeping the schedule at 34.
    The extra/2nd games vs non-divisional or non-conference teams just go away as you expand.

    If you go to 36+, then you need six divisions. 6+ teams each.
     
  8. TrueCrew

    TrueCrew Member+

    Dec 22, 2003
    Columbus, OH
    Club:
    Columbus Crew
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    Well, most of them. SJ/LA & Chicago/Columbus bite the dust. FCD/SKC.

    You don't really need 6 divisions until you get to 36 teams.

    And I would not get too hung up on optimal set ups for a 30 team league, they are not stopping at 30. That makes zero sense. 3-4 year pause, tops. When WC fever strikes again, they will cash in.
     
    DCW531 and Eleven Bravo repped this.
  9. mschofield

    mschofield Member+

    May 16, 2000
    Berlin
    Club:
    Union Berlin
    Nat'l Team:
    Germany
    What we've seen is that MLS is trying to protect the home and away within conference scheduling, while it is sacrificing the notion of playing everyone out of conference, and certainly not playing home and away outside of conference. This year, you miss four clubs. That number is going to increase as the league grows. unless they abandon the idea of home and away (which they have shown no inclination to do). They've also passed the 24 mark and shown no inclination to move towards divisions within conferences. TrueCrew's idea of 8 and 7 divisions would work, but the league knows this expansion is coming and didn't set up four six teams at 24, or two 6 and two 7 at 26. It seems unlikely they'll go to four 7s next year. That's a massive change in the season competition and it would have made sense to have started that process last year (adding teams to existing divisions is simpler than creating them anew. My guess, if they are going to divisions within conferences, that will happen in 2021 at 28, and it will be announced at the All Star game halftime.
    But it seems they have been telegraphing their intent for a while now. They're pushing the supporter's shield narrative at the same time they're trying to increase playoff drama.
    Playing everyone is now gone, and won't be returning. I believe they showed their hand by not moving to divisions already, but will have made it crystal clear if they don't this season for 2021.
    Most likely, they're going towards the system I've been advocating since the league started growing towards the numbers we now see. Two conferences, home and away, limited intraleague play. Each conference will have a supporter's shield at stake, and they will be named for league luminaries, maybe Garber, Uncle Phil, Hunt, or Beckham or someone with a high profile.
    Now, the option for intra-league play could be x games against the other conference, or it could be x games against LigaMx clubs. If that is the case, they can set the league up in what is in effect a 3 conference manner, with the playoffs featuring four or five or six clubs from each of the east, west and Mexican conferences.
    Or they could keep the system as is, but not move off the 34 game MLS schedule so that they can building in more Liga Mx play.
    This increases the trophy haul, which owners love. This allows the league to gorw, which owners love. This raises the profile of the league in the region, which owners love.
    On the number of games, I have no clue if 34 is built into the new CBA or not, anyone know?
     
  10. AlbertCamus

    AlbertCamus Member+

    Colorado Rapids
    Sep 2, 2005
    Colorado, USA
    Club:
    Colorado Rapids
    What if Sporting KC,or the new St. Louis, is in the west and Chicago is in the east; Chicago would play clubs from Mexico but not St. Louis? I don't think so. Plus, you bring up an interesting point about the CBA, which complicates incorporating Mexico (not to mention if they want to be incorporated). MLS needs to limit the number of teams you don't play, and keep inter conference play for games like Chicago vs St. Louis, etc... and Vancouver vs Toronto/Montreal. Perhaps 3 divisions/conferences would work, with a single bracket play-offs. I want to see a Colorado vs. Dallas MLS Cup final again, but this time not in Toronto! (Though a Seattle v Portland final at one of their stadiums would also be fun for neutrals).
     
    mschofield repped this.
  11. mschofield

    mschofield Member+

    May 16, 2000
    Berlin
    Club:
    Union Berlin
    Nat'l Team:
    Germany
    As I said, i think sny shift away from an East West alignment will have to be announced this July, in anticipation of 2021 when they'll have 28 clubs. I haven't seen any evidence of their heading in that direction in the years building to this point, so i suspect they will stick with two conferences, and to date, they've stuck with home and away in conference. This year was the first shoe to drop on not playing everyone, next year will either bring a new division setup, or be a bit worse (6) on teams not played, and with 30 that would fall to 8.
    The LigaMx stuff is guesswork based on what they keep saying and seem to be working towards. But I'd agree that it makes sense to play non conference clubs rather than LigaMx clubs.
     
    AlbertCamus repped this.
  12. TrueCrew

    TrueCrew Member+

    Dec 22, 2003
    Columbus, OH
    Club:
    Columbus Crew
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    What you are advocating is essentially baseball. Not in terms of divisions, but AL/NL setup with very limited/non-existant (20 years ago) interleague scheduling.

    I think that is a very real possibility. And works well from a scheduling standpoint. It is the simplist. And it limits travel somewhat (though Van to Hou or Miami to Chicago is still a long way). And it works if they want to go REALLY big. 40 teams. 19×2 = 38. Done.

    But it is not the ONLY way to do it. The division models work, be it NFL (32: 8 of 4), NBA & MLB (30: 6 of 5), NHL (31: 4 of 8/7), or the 3 of 10 models floated here.

    I just think there are a lot of NFL types in MLS ownership (Hunt, Kraft, Blank, etc) and that seems to me to be the deciding factor in which model they will choose.

    I do not think going to divisions is that much of a big deal. It is mostly a scheduling thing. And the division winner has to make the POs. That is it. I mean, we already have them, they are just called conferences instead.

    I do think MLS wants to maintain home & home each year with close rivals. I think they want to play each conference foe at least once. And I think they want to maintain SOME level of inter conference games (they will want Beckham vs Henri type games to show).

    Beyond that, everything is on the table. We have already had unbalanced conferences. And will again next year (odd # of teams). We already do not play every team.

    Playing every conference foe twice is not happening this year. Exceptional circumstances, sure.

    Next year, they are going to either drop a bunch of games vs non-conference foes (which means no divisions 2x v conf) or stop playing every conf team twice (likely divisions).

    My money is on divisions:
    Pacific: LAG, LAFC, SJ, SEA, POR, VAN
    Midwest: COL, RSL, FCD, Hou, Aus, SKC, Minny.
    Central: CLB, Cin, Chi, Nash, ATL, TFC, MTL
    Atlantic: DC, NYRB, NYC, NE, Phi, Orl, Mia.

    Though they may wait. If Sac was coming in next, it would work better. The Pacific is too small otherwise. When Cha comes in, Nash or Chicago moves West.

    When Sac & STL come in, that's when you get your divisions.
     
    mschofield repped this.
  13. SteveUSSF_ref8

    United States
    Oct 25, 2010
    Menifee, CA
    Club:
    Los Angeles Galaxy
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    I actually believe they will keep it simple. First of all I don't ever see the league breaking down into sub-divisions of conferences. They haven't shown this in the past and it is my believe they wish to keep MLS soccer as transitional as possible. However, this is a big a country unlike other countries around the world with a very few exceptions. This lead to the need to split into conferences. Back in 2000 to 2001 the league had split into three conferences with plans for future growth. However, everything when sideways and Florida clubs where contracted and league moved back to two conferences. But now with the league growing to 30 clubs, this would make prefect sense to move back to three conferences. In fact with the additional of Austin next season would make the perfect opportunity with 3 conferences of 9 clubs each and ultimately 10 clubs each conference. This alignment would allow for clubs to play each club within the conference twice for 18 matches and each club from the other conferences once each for 20 matches and a total of 38 matches per season.

    Eastern: Atlanta, DC United, Miami, Montreal, New England, NY Red Bulls, NYCFC, Orlando, Philadelphia
    Central: Austin, Chicago, Cincinnati, Columbus, Dallas, Houston, Minnesota, Nashville, Toronto
    Western: Colorado, LA Galaxy, LAFC, Portland, RSL, San Jose, Seattle, SKC, Vancouver

    As to the reminder expansion clubs Charlotte goes to the East, St. Louis to the Central and Sacramento to the West.
     
  14. wingman2468

    wingman2468 Member

    Austin FC
    United States
    May 25, 2018
    Putting SKC in the west is so odd but a necessity at 30 teams. Obviously they want to have all three Texas teams in the same conference but they are all farther west than Kansas City is, and probably more economical to fly west from Houston/ Dallas hubs.

    The three additional expansions teams obviously go Charlotte (East), St. Louis (Central), and Sacramento (West)
     
  15. AlbertCamus

    AlbertCamus Member+

    Colorado Rapids
    Sep 2, 2005
    Colorado, USA
    Club:
    Colorado Rapids
    Unfortunate to split up Missouri's teams (St. Louis and Sporting Kansas City), maybe Minnesota would have to go to the west.
     
    wingman2468 repped this.
  16. Renzi

    Renzi Member

    Arsenal
    United States
    Aug 4, 2019
    #66 Renzi, Sep 21, 2020
    Last edited: Sep 21, 2020
    I think this is the ideal schedule but the problem would be the number of games. MLS still has playoffs, in addition to US Open, and whatever new tournaments with Mexican teams they will think up. I think it can be kept to 34 games by simply splitting the 3 groups into 6. Every group team home/away and every other team home one year away the next. This also leaves room to play a second game against one team outside of your division, for rivalry or TV purposes.

    Pacific: LA Galaxy, Los Angeles FC, San Jose Earthquakes, Sacramento Republic, Real Salt Lake
    Central: Houston Dynamo, Austin FC, FC Dallas, Sporting Kansas City, Saint Louis
    Northwest: Seattle Sounders, Portland Timbers, Vancouver Whitecaps, Colorado Rapids, Minnesota United
    Atlantic: DC United, Philadelphia Union, New York Red Bulls, New York City FC, New England Revolution
    North: Chicago Fire, Columbus Crew, FC Cincinnati, Toronto FC, Montreal Impact
    South: Atlanta United, Nashville SC, Inter Miami, Orlando City SC, Charlotte FC

    Schedule:
    Play every team once, alternating home/away each season (29 games). Plus, play every conference game again, alternating home/away, (+4 games).
    33 games. You could also add an additional out of conference rivalry game to bring total to 34. You would have conference winners and Supporters Shield based on overall table during reg season.

    10 team playoff (1/3 of teams, the season matters). All group winners go and have first round by, then next 4 teams at the top of the table. 4 extra game weeks, Wildcard between non-group winners, then quarters, semis, finals all single elimination.

    Should be about a 38 game week season including playoffs. 30 is about as big as it can get I think while still playing everyone and having groups. Beyond that I think you need to either sacrifice playing everyone (NFL style) or sacrifice the groups (just play every team once a year). I know everyone likes NFL style but I like a regular season where you play everyone once, plus a playoff month where top 8 play for title (and remaining 24 teams play a similar tournament among 9-16, 17-24 and 25-32). This could actually result in a final table determining the champion (regular season sets your group of 8 and playoffs will set where you fall into those 8). Even without relegation I think there is value in declaring one team the worst of the year, so even bad teams have something to aim for.

    I do think 3 groups works better through if the league is willing to go to a 38 game regular season plus playoffs on top.
     
  17. mschofield

    mschofield Member+

    May 16, 2000
    Berlin
    Club:
    Union Berlin
    Nat'l Team:
    Germany
    If we're going by this season for clues, I think Minnesota and SKC will play 20x a year.
     
  18. AlbertCamus

    AlbertCamus Member+

    Colorado Rapids
    Sep 2, 2005
    Colorado, USA
    Club:
    Colorado Rapids
    13 2-team divisions.
     
  19. mschofield

    mschofield Member+

    May 16, 2000
    Berlin
    Club:
    Union Berlin
    Nat'l Team:
    Germany
    Just looking at the current season schedule, 2022 is heading towards the East/West split, with clubs playing home and away within their geographic division, then making up games out it until they get to 34. the safe money is on MLS to continue this. this year in the west, that means 26 (13 home, 13 away) in division/conference games, 8 random other side of the nation matches, either home or away. At 30 clubs, that would mean 28 and 6. i think it's pretty clear that's where we're heading
     
  20. AlbertCamus

    AlbertCamus Member+

    Colorado Rapids
    Sep 2, 2005
    Colorado, USA
    Club:
    Colorado Rapids
    You may be right, but I hope not. Vancouver should always play Montreal and Toronto. Plus, where ever that "split" is... Minnesota, if in west, should always plays Chicago, for instance. And other attractive match ups should happen, say rematches of the MLS final for instance.
    Better they go to 3 or 4 conferences/divisions in my opinion; and set the play-offs so you can't play a team from your own conference/division in the first round. Fans should get to see something new.
     
  21. fairfax4dc

    fairfax4dc Member+

    Dec 5, 2008
    Fairfax, Va
    Driving home today I had a truly evil idea - why not post in favor of pro/rel? Let's first stipulate that it's not likely to happen. But the recent expansion of MLS into another American mega league creates its own challenges. With 30+ teams most fans can't keep track of who plays for which team. I'm a DC United season ticket holder, and have to admit that the proliferation of matches against Austin, Cincinnati, Nashville and Charlotte don't yet engender much enthusiasm. But even after the new clubs are integrated it's hard to stay excited through a 7 month season while tangled in a 15 team division.

    American sports address this issue by subdividing their leagues into smaller segments, so the casual fan can track their team's progress against just 4-5 other teams. It also disguises the fact that your second place Atlantic Division team may actually be15th best in the league. But that structure seems so unsoccerely, so NASL 1973.

    Let's assume for the sake of argument that MLS has begun to plateau in terms of revenue generation from TV, attendance and other sources. Already the league over-relies on a handful of clubs that draw exceedingly well. How long will their supporters keep coming out to see "no name" opponents?

    Imagine if MLS supporters were given a quality survey that doesn't use the words promotion/ relegation, and instead asks questions like "would you support your club being able to play in an elite MLS division of teams that are serious about competing at a high level, with the caveat that your club would have to earn the right to belong?" It would be interesting to get that feedback.

    My concept of pro/rel is within the MLS single entity structure and only involve MLS teams. The 30+ teams would be in two tiers, perhaps with equal numbers of teams, perhaps not. Teams would play a majority of their games within their tier, but also some with the other. So a team in the second tier might play 24 games against same tier teams and 10 against top tier teams. The 2-4 teams earning promotion would also get spots in the playoffs, so every team in the league could potentially win the MLS Cup, though the route from the lower tier would of course be harder. Such a system would increase the incentive for owners to improve the quality of their teams by offering participation in a smaller elite league, while not shutting off access to games against the top tier teams and to the playoffs.
     
  22. mschofield

    mschofield Member+

    May 16, 2000
    Berlin
    Club:
    Union Berlin
    Nat'l Team:
    Germany
    As it stands, the bottom five clubs in MLS are Vancouver (made the playoffs last year), Sporting KC ( among the winningest MLS sides during the past decade), San Jose (I got nothing, but they do have great history), Chicago (kind of making your case) and Seattle (which says goodbye to your case).
    MLS has a pretty fluid leader board. Clubs rise and fall, trying to figure out the rules and failing, or succeeding, for a while).
    The only way that your proposal differs from an old school baseball style two conference or division model (Play everyone in division home and away, limited interleague play) is that you've increased travel costs and decreased revenue for half the teams.
    If MLS went with this system, right now, cutting the league in half, the lower division would have:
    Nashville, Minnesota, DC, Portland, charlotte, Columbus, New England, Toronto, Miami, Seattle, Chicago, San Jose, SKC, Vancouver.
    I would argue that at least 10 of those clubs argue against your that the bottom league isn't doing as much to improve their rosters as the top half. The fact that Miami has struggled, for instance, isn't about a lack of trying, it's a lack of doing things well while spending a lot of money. Put them in a second tier, and they will fear the financial consequences more and won't take the risks they've taken.
    Beyond that, if you take the 2021 standings, the bottom 14 league for this year would have included, NYRB, LAG, Montreal, LAFC, Dallas, Austin, Houston and Cinci, who are, in this year's elite 14 league, 1,2,3,4,7,8,9 and 13.
    There area couple teams that habitually suck, but for the most part your system solves a problem that does not exist.
    I do think they'll want to limit interleague play, but the division will be mostly geographical, which means you'll only have to concern yourself with knowing 14 other clubs.
    This is probably all out the window when they figure out how to incorporate LigaMX, however.
     
    JasonMa repped this.
  23. wantmlsphilly

    wantmlsphilly Member+

    Aug 2, 2006
    Philadelphia, Pa.
    Club:
    Philadelphia Union
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    A Pig with lipstick is still a Pig. Does Toronto spend money on a DP that won't play for the team until the summer window if they... Go down? Do teams give young players game time or just rely on older veterans to stay up? What's the point of being Las Vegas trying to get into a league if you don't get all the benefits?
     
  24. fairfax4dc

    fairfax4dc Member+

    Dec 5, 2008
    Fairfax, Va
    Those are good points all. I won't argue because they are valid. I'll just throw out a couple of points for the sake of discussion.
    First, you're correct, MLS has much much more parity than most Euro leagues. Salary caps. limited roster sizes, etc. support parity. But is it too much parity? Year in and year out the best MLS teams get beat by the best Mexican teams. Assuming we value rules that prevent teams just spending their way to dominance, another route may be to stiffen the competition for clubs that are most seriously committed to competing. With all due respect to my own club, DC United, I don't think the Atlanta's and LAFCs of the league get much except points from their matchups with us.

    The second is more of a question. Is the MLS business model sustainable? TV revenue remains abysmal. COVID messed up attendance stats, but my impression is that aggregate attendance has been increasingly driven by a few (maybe two) amazingly well drawing clubs, and the annual bump from new teams entering. The former is fragile - it hasn't yet been tested how long Seattle and Atlanta will keep drawing if they aren't winning. And pretty soon MLS will run out of new markets.

    Then comes the unknown question of how how well mega league status suites MLS. Will fans continue to support clubs that settle into competitive limbo, unable to break through? In the last 10 seasons the MLS Cup has been won by 3 non-high spending clubs - and Columbus won theirs in a strange COVID year. American sports leagues ease the pain by offering a host of little prizes in the form of conference and divisional titles. Assuming MLS doesn't go that way (and it might), an innovative pro/rel scheme that allows limited access to the playoffs and the occasional matchups with elite MLS clubs might work.
     
  25. wantmlsphilly

    wantmlsphilly Member+

    Aug 2, 2006
    Philadelphia, Pa.
    Club:
    Philadelphia Union
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    Well let's start off with Seattle breaking though the glass ceiling and beating a Mexican team. MLS TV ratings aren't much different than all soccer in the US. Clearly the fifth sport in the US still but slowly moving up. I don't see the point of pro/rel because if it doesn't include everyone it will never please those who want it most and probably just open a new can of worms. Playoffs are pretty much the alternative in this league.
     

Share This Page