8 of 10 teams qualify. 2 groups - 4 from each conference. Winners of each group play for MLS Cup. 1st Round - Home-Home series 2nd Round - 1 match played at home of higher-seeded club 3rd Round - MLS Cup
The MLS is divided into two 5 team conferences, the "East" and the "West". All teams play 30 games, with an unbalanced schedule skewed towards the teams in your conference. Wins equal 3 points, ties 1 point, losses 0 points. Teams are tabled based on points, and seeded 1 through 5 in each conference. For the playoffs, the #1 seed plays the #4 seed and #2 plays #3. This is done concurrently in both conferences. This is the first round, the teams play home and away and winners are based on aggerate. The winners of the first round meet in the conference "finals", which is a one game affair. The winners of each division final meet in a one game "MLS Cup". The regular season point leader is virtually unrecognized, the "Champion", for all intents and purposes is the winner of MLS Cup. Lee
I promise, after the dropping of overtime and the weird substitution rule, that this will be the last thing I ask for in a long time. OK, so this really bugged me last time. Why is the more important match, the conference final, only a single match? Why is the lower-level matchup home-home? Shouldn't that be the other way around? Single elimination in the first round, then home-home to decide who goes to the final? My guess is that it has something to do with more revenue for the league, but that would be cynical, no?
Why would that be cynical? Afterall, we know its all about the $$$. I think the play-offs were set up the way they are now because typically playoff attendance would actually decline compared to the regular season, so that the powers that be felt they needed to create a sense of urgency in regards to playoff games. Lee
My understanding (note that I am usually disabused of these things pretty promptly) is that Hunt believes each team that makes the playoffs ought be rewarded with at least one home match.
I guess I can see that. Not just from a revenue standpoint, but also from a fan interest one. You could also argue that only the higher-seeded team should be rewarded with a home game. That might add a little more incentive not to limp in. However, I still don't like the next round being cut down to a single winner-take-all match. Changing that to a series would probably depend upon the calendar of available dates, though.
I hadn't, good catch. Seriously, I think he was referring to the play-off portion, not the final. Lee
I was, but it was funny anyway. I have no problem with a final match being a single match. It's easier to market, televise, etc. The playoff to get there should get harder as you get closer to the final, and I think a home-home series identifies the better team more often than a single game does.
I don't deny that teams like Monaco, DLC and Porto are not likely to be better than Real, AC Milan, and Man Utd, but they need to prove it. A home-home series gives them the opportunity to do it. In a single match, anything can happen. A bad call, an untimely injury, an own goal, whatever. If the 'better team' gives up four shocking goals to lose in a home-home series, I'd argue that maybe they are not the better team. At least, for that stretch.
Really? The regular season champion is awarded the "Supporters Shield" and earns one of MLS's two spots in the following year's CONCACAF Champions Cup.
Part of it is Hunt's demand that all teams get a chance to host a playoff game. Wasn't the rumor that the league wanted single elimination playoffs all the way through and possibly only have 6 teams qualify, but Hunt said that no city should have to wait for a team to play in/host a playoff game like the Chiefs did? Don't agree with him, but I thought that was the story. Second, I think the system that baseball uses (well the wild card sucks to begin with) is backward. By only having a 5 game first round, you increase the chances of a weaker team advancing. The idea that I think Champions League uses is that you want to weed out the weaker teams by forcing them to play more games early. Then, in theory, you have the top teams playing each other so a weeding out process isn't necessary. Plus, in MLS, you do have that whole home field advantage thing going in the conference final.
I just ask for one thing from the MLS playoffs: Make the regular season worth more by forcing the lower-seeded team to outscore the higher seed over the two-leg playoffs. If it's a tie, don't go to OT, just have it go to the higher seed. I thoroughly agree with NOT taking away goals into consideration--those are idiotic.
Glib, but wrong. What other recognition is there? If you ask 50 folks on the street in Durham, NC who the MLS Cup Champion is and ask another 50 folks who the MLS Supporters Shield holder is, I'm guessing you'll probably get as many right answers for the latter. Not because folks know, but that there'd more more -guesses- for the Chicago Fire either way. Let's face it, the MLS Cup champion is "VIRTUALLY unrecognized".
The old "first round" (the ALCS and NLCS) were best-of-five when they were first created, but went to best-of-seven in 1985. When they added the Division Series in 1994 (which were never played until 1995), it was not feasible to have that be best-of-seven, as well. I've read that those who have studied the issue have concluded that you'd even need a much bigger sample (even as high as best-of-22, I've seen) to get a true idea of who the stronger team is. But seven is what we have time for, so we just have to go with that. And I've never understood this strange aversion to "increasing the chances of a weaker team advancing." We had a huge debate about this last year when MLS went to this format - OMG! The Galaxy, a fourth-place team, might actually win MLS Cup! So freaking what? If your team can't get it done when everyone knows it's do or die, regardless of format, oh, well. Sorry about your luck. And, oh, by the way, the Galaxy didn't win the Cup. If you want to absolutely insulate yourself from the terrible psychic repercussions and nightsweats that would follow your team losing to a lower-seeded team, I suggest you get out of following sports. Because sometimes that happens. And to try to unduly legislate away any chance of an upset (or to reduce those chances to such a low level that there's no point in watching) is, IMHO, ridiculous. At some point, you may as well do away with playoffs. Or playing at all. And just play rock-paper-scissors or drop trou or something.
But I thought that they play in neutral ground, neither home nor away. FA cup has the wiredest structure ever!!! The match is first played at the higher-seeded team's home, and if a winner is determined in 90min they advances. If there is a tie at the end of 90min, they play a second match at the lower-seeded team's home. At this point the rule is simular to the MLS conference semi-finals (aggregate goals, and overtime and PK if needed). But what I still don't understand is why does the MLS conference final one match? Doesn't that give too much advantage to the home team?