Hey, I'm going to #Starbucks to type on my #iMac about how the #USOpenCup is a #RealTrophy and not some #SecondaryTitle no one cares about, since I need to do something to keep the #SeasonalAffectiveDisorder from destroying my #Brain; especially given that we haven't produced anything of #CulturalSignificance since #Nirvana.
This thread is almost 7 years old and not relevant. 8th best team in the regular season crowned champion? How ever shall we go on? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Primera_División_de_México_Apertura_2004
It's very relevant because 7 years later we still don't have a good playoff format. And by "good" I don't mean a playoff that prevents 7th or 8th seeded teams from reaching the final. If an 8th seed makes a run like that, good for them. The problem here is that the current format seems to have no logic to it, when you've got a set-up that has the top 2 or 3 teams on one side of the bracket eliminating each other, while the bottom 2 are on the other side getting an easier path to the final than they deserve. A good playoff format should have clear advantages for performing well in the regular season and clear disadvantages for barely sneaking in. The MLS playoffs does not provide that. It really might as well be a random draw, because that's what it felt like last year, and the new format isn't much of an improvement. I'm sure this proposal has been brought up before somewhere, but I'll throw it out here anyway. Seed all the teams 1-10 and throw out the conference brackets. Give higher seeds double-elimination protection in the quarterfinals and semifinals. If they win their match, they advance and the loser is eliminated. However, if the lower seed wins, then a 2nd match will be played at the home of the lower seed. The winner of that advances and the loser is eliminated. No draws in the playoffs, and the higher seed has a real advantage over lower seeds. This will apply only to the QF and SF rounds. The first round is basically a play-in round, and the final will remain a single winner-takes-all match. Scheduling will be an issue, as you'll probably need mid-week games for the rematches, and you'll have to add an extra week in between the SF and the final to allow for possible SF rematches. Don't want a team entering the final with only 3 days to prepare.
MLS needs to stop rewarding mediocrity. Way too many teams make the playoffs now. No one who follows the MLS would argue that RSL was the best team in '09 nor Colorado last year. They were just decent teams that got hot at the right moment. Make it short and sweet, cut it down to a 4 team format. It would make the regular season mean a whole lot more and would create great, high-pressure situations late in the season. Ideally, it would be best for the top 4 teams overall to make it in, but I realize two divisions is what we have and it isn't going away anytime soon. Have the two division winners make it as auto-bids and the other two slots are given based off of highest point total. Reseed the teams based on point total and have the first round be a 2-game aggregate format. For instance, if the playoffs started today it would look like this: (1) LA Galaxy vs. (4) Columbus Crew (2) FC Dallas vs. (3) Seattle Sounders disregarding divisions it would look like this: (1) LA Galaxy vs. (4) Colorado Rapids (2) FC Dallas vs. (3) Seattle Sounders Not bad matchups either way. In all likelihood it sets up either an LA-Seattle final, which we'd all like to see, or an LA-Dallas match which would be very entertaining. Higher seed gets to choose whether it wants to play the first leg or second leg at home. The best teams get rewarded with this format and it forces teams outside that top 4 to try harder. With more teams it can be tweaked to a 6-team format with first round byes, but overall I prefer a short, but drama filled playoffs involving the best teams.
Yeah, that DC - Toronto match on Saturday would have been even better if both teams had been completely out of the playoff running already. And don't forget Philly and Houston, that would have been a barn burner with nothing on the line. 4 out of 18 teams makes more games less meaningful because teams are eliminated much sooner and have nothing to play for.
Yes the DC-TFC and the PU-HD games were great, but they were exceptions. The fact is over 40% of MLS games result in a draw (link). Why is this? Because there's no incentive for teams to be great, they can just settle for mediocrity, sneak into the playoffs and then start trying. You're a Rapids fan, you should know that. Want to reward mediocrity? Thats what the US Open Cup is for. Want to reward the best teams? Shorten the playoffs. Teams outside the top 4 still have CCL and US Open Cup slots to compete for. The MLS isn't under-6, not everyone gets a trophy. It's the exact same problem the NBA has. Over half the teams in the NBA make it to the playoffs (16 out of 30) and as a result their regular season games stink and under .500 teams end up making the playoffs. You give the MLS a 4-team playoff and all of sudden more teams start going for the win over the draw. The potential matchups between the top ~8 teams vying for those 4 spots end up becoming more intense.
If this were the reason then why are draws up this season compared to the past MLS seasons, all of which (except lat year) had less restricive playoffs? Its harder to make the playoffs this year than ever year in MLS history excpet last year, so why would the draws go up this year if it was because of how easy it is to make the playoffs? Wait, do you want to change the playoffs because you want regular-season games to be more meaningful, or do you want to change the playoffs because you want to reward the top teams? Because those are two different arguments with two different goals. Then why isn't that happening this year, where its harder to make the playoffs than it was between 1996 and 2009?
4 is too little for a soon-to-be 19-20 team league. 10 is too much. 8 was just right. The NBA and NHL allow too many teams in after too long of a season. MLB lets too few teams in and you end up leaving out a couple worthy contenders. The NFL has a good ratio but its seeding process can lead to some undesirable results, like Seattle getting a home game with a 7-9 record last year. MLS has a chance to do things right, but they ******** it up every chance they get. They take the worst aspects of the other leagues' playoffs and combine them into what we have today.
I really wanted to rip into Silverback-reddevil, but it looks like I'm a little late. In RE: 8 teams: I, for the record, am in favor of the play-in game for the Wild Card teams. Especially with the tiered qualification system, having more teams in the hunt later is a good thing. The question I pose to you is "What value do the Conferences have, both in a balanced schedule of 18 teams and a potentially unbalanced schedule of 24 teams?" Would you just look at the Top 8 teams by points gained and potentially exclude every single team from one Conference or take the Top X per Conference and Wild-Cards and potentially have a Seahawks-like situation: a better team golfing so that a worse team can host a playoff game?
That problem is solved by doing away with conference-based playoffs. You can keep the current qualification format (top 3 from each conference + 4 best wild cards), but the seeding will work out a lot better if you forget about dividing the brackets into East and West. This way, you can have a reasonable format where the highest seed plays the lowest seed, 2nd highest vs 2nd lowest, etc., in every round. Make it so that only the conference champions get the top 2 seeds; everyone else is seeded based on record. Wild card: #7 vs #10 #8 vs #9 QF: #1 vs lowest wild card #2 vs highest wild card #3 vs #6 #4 vs #5 SF: highest remaining seed vs lowest remaining seed 2nd highest vs 2nd lowest But it makes too much sense for MLS to use it.
fwiw, I'm of the opinion that MLS is keeping conferences because we are eventually going to expand out to 24 teams and have an unbalanced schedule again (and MLS will be just fine with emphasizing the burgeoning regional rivalry games). That's why you're seeing format changes structured around the conferences. I do think that what's really key is finding and establishing a fairly consistent playoff format without changing it too often. Let's see how this one works out. I don't hate it. I don't like the idea of expanding from 8 playoff teams to 10, but the play-in round idea doesn't bother me, and provides extra incentive for teams to get into the top six.
I agree with everything in this post. I like the play-in games too, and would add them into my group-stage playoff plan. As you say, as the league expands, conferences will be the way to go (although I can still see keeping the groups based on overall record, since the playoffs will tend to answer any questions regarding relative strength of the conferences). Using the single-table standings found here, this is how the playoffs would be seeded if the season ended today (Adjusted to 25 games either adding points based on points per game, or subtracting the last result for those who have played 26): Play-in games: Chivas USA at Colorado Kansas City at DC United Group A: Los Angeles Real Salt Lake Philadelphia Lowest remaining seed from play-in games Group B: Dallas Seattle Columbus Highest remaining seed from play-in games. At this point in the season, only the bottom four teams are out of realistic playoff contention, and no team is mathematically eliminated. Or, we could choose to keep the groups and play-in games within the conferences. If we do, it would look like this (Again, adjusted to 25 games using points per game): East: Columbus Philadelphia DC United Winner, NYRB at Kansas City play-in game West: Los Angeles Dallas Seattle Winner, Colorado at RSL play-in game At this point in the season, I would judge Toronto, New England and Chicago to be out of the race in the East, and only Vancouver in the West, so about the same number in the conference seeding as the overall seeding. After all these years, I still think that this is the best possible format.
Great point. I think that is an improvement. The only downside that I could think of is that it adds length to the playoffs, and when I wrote this back in 2004, scheduling such a thing was an issue. Not so much any more.
I'm not against conferences. I'm just saying forget about conferences when it comes to the playoffs. You don't need an "Eastern Conf Playoffs" and a "Western Conf Playoffs" especially when you've got crossover teams. Just give the regular season conference leaders the title of "Conference Champion" and seed them #1 and #2. Then seed the remaining 8 teams based on record, not based on "Team X finished with a better record than Team Y, but Team Y finished 3rd in their conference while Team X had to settle for 4th in their tougher conference." This format also allows for 2 teams from the same conference to face each other in the final, but without the stupidity of having the best teams from a given conference eliminating each other on one side of the bracket while the 2 lower teams got the advantage of crossing over to the weaker conference bracket. Last year you had the 2 lowest seeded teams on one side of the bracket while the 3 best teams had to face each other on the other side. There is no sense in that no matter how you try to spin the format.
I think that our league needs to celebrate the Supporter's Shield winner more than the MLS Cup champion. to do this I suggest that the playoffs are all to see who will get a chance to play the Shield winner for the MLS Cup. it would make it so that where ever the MLS Cup is held, it would get the supporters shield team's fans a chance to buy tickets ahead of time so that they would have more supporters giving them a bit more home field advantage. This also gives three separate levels of successful seasons in our league: winning the Supporters Shield, making it to the MLS Cup Final, and making the playoffs. and the ultimate season would be to win MLS Cup and the Supporters Shield. I think that any change to the playoffs has to keep the Supporter's Shield as the top honor rather than a consolation prize on the way to the playoffs.
When the league goes back to unbalanced schedules, the Supporters Shield won't really mean what it means now. And are you suggesting that the SS winner be idle for 3 or 4 weeks waiting for an opponent in the Final?
I realize that the SS winner would be put aside for 3-4 weeks, but that break could go either way. they could be more rested or more rusty which could lead to a more enticing MLS Cup. I think just the fact that the league champions get to sit back and wait for an opponent would only add to the fact that they were the best team all year. I just think that the SS is too much of an afterthought in our league. maybe in their weeks off they could throw in some meaningless friendlies with teams that didn't make the playoffs. haha.
Why do you care so much that other people have the same opinion as you do about the SS? Nobody is stopping you from thinking that winning the SS is better than winning the MLS Cup.
1. The MLS Cup Champion is our Champion. 2. The SS Winners enter the CCL in the same round as our League Champions, and have home field throughout the playoffs, and play the lowest advancing Play-in team; we value it enough. 3. The MLS Cup Champion is our Champion. 4. The MLS Cup Champion is our Champion.
I have to admit I've come to the point where, for me, i would rather my team qualify for and perform well in CCL than win MLS Cup. (Before recently I was of the opposite view.) Call me stupid or whatever, but that's just how I feel nowadays.
I 100% agree with the 4 team playoffs. This is considered by many to be far too small and would knock too many teams out of the playoff race too early, but for me if we could move to 4 conferences starting when we hit 24 then we really could feel the benefits of having both a single table and playoffs. Right now there is no 'race', so many teams get in and because of the wild card almost no one is ever out. Games do mean less. If all the west coast teams were in one conference, it would mean games between conference rivals would be far more important. Each game could drastically change the race since only one team gets to go to the playoffs out of that conference. And also we can't compare MLS playoffs to any other US league (NFL, MLB, NBA, NHL) because they are not a part of additional competitions in season. The USOC/Canadian Championship/CCL gives teams who are out of the playoff race still something to built for. In other leagues, if you went to a 4 team playoff in lets say the NBA then sure you would have an incredible amount of teams/fans who would give up 1/2 way through the season, but that is because their playoffs is the only competition they have. That isn't the case for us, so I think it gives us room to shorten the playoffs and make our MLS Cup more special and coveted by fans.
In this system, what meaning would last week's San Jose - Colorado or last night's DC-Chicago game have? How is they more meaningful in this system than in the current season, because I'm not seeing it.
Please tell me the "benefit" of a single table, especially when they do go to 24 teams, and every team can't play every other team the same number of times. Also, please elaborate on the "benefit" of not having the relegation battles that make games in everybody else's single table not rendered completely worthless for the majority of the teams for the majority of the season. That's not true. There is still a race, it just isn't at the very top of the table. And, that only becomes true if better playoff position isn't worth playing for after a playoff spot is clinched, and if the Supporters' Shield doesn't grant an automatic berth in the CCL. The first is an issue (one that my group-stage proposal rectifies), but the second is not. Not just "less." With only four playoff spots, most league games every year would mean ABSOLUTELY NOTHING. As in, a complete waste of time. As in, a real turn-off for most potential season-ticket buyers. Sure, as long as both teams are still in the running for one of those spots. After that, i.e., for most of the season for most of the teams, not so much. That's great, for those teams who give a rat's ass about the USOC. That number is not a large one, and it won't magically get bigger just by making most of the league games every year completely irrelevant. Which would also hold true for another one of the three other competitions you mentioned, the CCL. The race for your four playoff spots would be roughly the same as those for the CCL spots, so every bit of irrelevance you would create for MLS Cup, you'd also create for the CCL. I doubt that any fan of any team who has won the MLS Cup, under whatever playoff format it was won, could feel any more "special" than winning it makes them already. And how "coveted" could a trophy be for those fans of teams who spend half or more of their season completely unable to win it? Those who advocate a strict single table or a limited playoff field for MLS seem wholly unable to grasp that, even while it may be the best and purest way to determine a league champion, without relegation it's an absolutely idiotic way to run a league. It would create major problems where none now exist, just to solve a "problem" that also does not exist.
The same meaning every Crew game for the rest of the season has. They are out of SS and a lock for the playoffs. Fans just don't really need to care for another month. It works both ways.