How are the MLS schedule makers going to handle this uneven number of teams next season? More mid-week games? Longer season? And how about unbalanced schedules? Might I suggest a single table, where you play every other team three times for a 30 game season.
Keep the 2 conferences. 4 games versus teams in your conference equals 16 games. 2 games versus teams in the other conference equals 10 games. Then play 4 home games against the travelling Chivas circus. You know, to get all the Mexicans to come out! Yeah! 16 + 10 + 4 = 30. Unfortunately, Chivas will have to play 40 away games. Just play them all on Wednesday, the Mexicans will come out anyways! How's that for an unbalanced schedule? - Paul
the league would be soooooooo much better to follow if it went to a single table with 11 teams. otherwise, it'll be totally unfair to the conference playing with 6 teams.
Life isn't fair. There will never be a single table for MLS as long as I have anything to say about it.
Why is single table bad? Assuming that for 2004, you still have over half the league making the playoffs regardless of the number of divisions.
The question is why is single table so great? What makes conferences so bad that they have to be done away with?
SIngle teams seem to make sense to me. The question is, why divide up into conferences? Single table is so much simpler. Plus, why should Dallas get to say "we finished 5th this year." No, you suck, you deserve to be as low as possible, i.e. 10th.
A single-table goes hand-in-hand with a balanced schedule. We can't do that right now. Your idea of playing each team 3 times is still unbalanced, even if they did it in the SPL. However, I like single-tables, too. I hope we have it like that one day. - Paul
With 11 teams, you play everyone 3 times, and that doesn't count the Open Cup or playoffs. How many matches against each team do we need? 3 each is plenty. And yes, I realize that with 10 teams and a 30 game schedule that wasn't possible this year, but it will be next year so there you go. We can play a balanced schedule in the sense that you play each team 3 times (10 opponents * 3 games = 30 games total, same as this year). Not totally balanced because you place twice at one place and only one at the other, but with 8 (I'd much rather prefer 6 going on 1, but so be it) teams in the playoffs, I don't think that's a big deal.
Single table would be nice, but it would also cost a heckuva lot of $$. The reason almost EVERY sport in the US is split into conferences is to cut back on travel costs. England, Spain, Germany, even the teams farthest apart geographically have less travel costs than Metros going to DC. Conferences are much more financially viable, and that's why they should stay as is.
Single table is the way to go but i doubt it will ever see it. This format of 2 div. of 5 and he best 4 of each division making it sucks.
Will it really be that much more expensive? I posted this two weeks ago in the last "Single Table" thread: Adding Chivas makes for a net change of zero games and if scheduled right you will replace the 4 in conference games from above (2H, 2A) with either: 2H v Chivas, 1A v Chivas & 1A v Current missing out of Conference or 2A v Chivas, 1H v Chivas & 1H v missing OC). As a hypothetical, if the Metros replace home games against NE & DC and road trips to Chi & Clb with 2 home games against Chivas and road trips to San Jose and either Houston or SD (depending where Chivas ends up) or replace them with home games against Chivas and the Quakes and make two trips to SD/Houston would it really be that much more expensive? Sure it would be somewhat more expensive, and it's not my money, but I'm just not convinced that it would be a heckuva lot of $$. Plus this was we'll be able to go back to top 8 out of 11 for the playoffs instead of top 4 of 5 from the East and top 4 of 6 from the West.
I imagine that they'll put the San Diego Goats in the Western Conference, and do the schedule something like this: For Western Conference teams: 4 games apiece vs. Western Conference teams (20) + 2 games apiece vs. Eastern Conference teams (10) = 30 games Eastern Conference teams: 5 games apiece vs. two Eastern Conference teams (10) + 4 games apiece vs. other two Eastern Conference teams (8) + 2 games apiece vs. Western Conference teams (12) = 30 games
Ok I'm persuaded. Forget everything I said before. Care to expand on this? Maybe a reason why they suck?
sry, i overreacted. anyway... just as a personal preference, i think a conference or table is too big once it gets to 8 teams. For example, in the mlb, they used to have one table for each conference, no divisions. but once they expanded some more, they split into divisions. you just cant have more than 8 per division or conference. i dont know why, i just dont like it like that. now if the mls had only 8 teams, im all for a single table, but right now, theres too many teams for only one.
5 games vs one team? That's way too many. With an Open Cup game and a 2 leg playoff, that's a possible 8 games against the same team! I think 3 is plenty. As to 11 teams being too many, I can't buy that. The simpler something is, the better. MLS has no reason to split into conferences, so it shouldn't, regardless of the number of teams (which will max out at 16-18 anyway). MLB split into divisions as an excuse to add a playoff round, not because it's too complicated. MLS won't be adding a playoff round anytime soon if ever, so that's not the issue. Simple is good, and a single table is nothing if not simple.
MLB and the NFL have a lot of divisions so that they can have a lot of 1st place teams. Is so the masses can say, "gee wiz, my home team is in first!" even when their team is mediocre. The worst thing about multiple divisions is that the league is bound to have a weak division giving an unfair advantage to whichever decent team is in it. Single table, balanced schedule is the fairest way to go.
The way to go here is 5 divisions of 2 teams , and ONLY the top two teams from each div.to make the playoffs , eventulay we should have 10 divisions