Standings is fine, but table is much shorter and thus easier to type. Does anyone know what countries use a home-away playoff format to determine their league champion (not counting Italy where that would happen in case of a tie)? Mexico is one (with the dumbest playoff system ever in my opinion). Are there any others? Or more to the point, are there enough to qualify as the "world soccer standard"? As for meaningless games, that is a potential problem (why we can have things like a league cup for the top X teams and stuff like that). But look at it this way, if you are a fan of "American" sports, how many of you can tell what position in the regular season your team finished in? Well I can because they all finished first or last, but that's an exception. I bet a huge majority of fans of a single table soccer league could.
Glad you asked. All you had to do was be aware of what has already happened in MLS scheduling over the years, but no problem. I'm happy to review it. The number of games vs teams in an MLS schedule as always forced some teams to play more than twice. In the allotment of those games beyond the second fixture, divisional foes recieved an extra home and away fixure against all others within the division. If there were still remaining games to schedule then one of the main scheduling priorities since '97 has been for the previous year's #1 to play #1 in the other division(s) (and #4 plays #4, etc.) first. In theory, it creates more competitive matchups at every strata of the standings. In '03, everyone played everyone else 3 times except for one team. That team was NE for KC. Following the above, it makes sense as 1st in the East in '02 plays the top 4 in the West 3 times and avoids the third "mismatch in theory" of first bombing last. In '04 (with no added teams) it would follow that dc and KC only play twice and for the Brimstone Cup to be contested over just 2 games. The main reason for MLS doing the schedule in this way is simple. MLS wants parity for all the obvious reasons. One way to accomplish this is to make the stronger teams beat on eachother. It should be more difficult to stay at the top and it should be slightly easier to get off dead bottom. It's only fair to the fans. It's worked nicely for the NFL for 30-some years. Cream still rises. This is also something that should (as much this hurts me to say it) give some perspective to LA's acheivement of always being a playoff team. Every year they have lower draft picks and a harder schedule, yet they are still there. In that vein, it should be noted that dc has been crappy for way too long with the converse benefits. Making the postseason a "League Cup" is just a misguided idea that kills the whole purpose of playoffs. With callups and just a 28 week season, a true Champion should never be determined by just a regular season. The Shield is a nice addition, with it's proper place in MLS. That's good enough.
"In the beginning MLS screw up big time with stupid gimmicks like the shoot out and they are slowly excepting world soccer standards" LOL, this quote is from a poster who disagrees with single table, HA! In case you haven't noticed, single table is more of a "world standard" then home and away playoff ties. But thanks for the laugh anway. Now, to address the original question. I personally keep going back and forth on this point. There are good arguments on both sides of the debate. First of all, I think we should be focusing on a 16 team league and not an 18. We got an outside shot of seeing 16 teams within this decade, no shot at all at 18. So that leaves us with 3 viable options, IMO. Single table, dual table, or 2 conference-2 division. Like I said, each has its ups and downs. When I think of everything I keep coming back to the dual table (call it a conference if that makes you feel better) system. Play your 7 table rivals 4 times for 28 games and the other 8 once that makes 36, two more then an 18 team single table. Top 4 from each table advance to playoffs. No relegation, way to foreign a concept for the US sports fan and an economical impossibility under the current situation.
I think Australia and South africa have play-offs. It tends to be more common in leagues such as MLS where every club that feasibly could be in the big league already is (hence no need for promotion). Only when (and let's face it, it could be a long wait) there are a number of non-MLS teams with MLS sized support is it worth even bothering to consider the un-American blasphemy of pro/rel. Two divisions of 10 would probably work quite well (2 games against eveyone in the same division, 1 game against each team in the other = 28 games). 10 teams would make the divisions big enough for those who like single tables, while making the top 4 of each qualify for the play-offs would keep it interesting for most teams for most of the season.
I am asking seriously. How much money is actually saved in these so-called "save travel expenses" situations? The Galaxy will usually still fly up to San Jose and spend at LEAST one night over. Where is the substantial savings everyone is always talking about?
Just say NO to single table for these reasons 1) The casual fan likes to come to or really pay attention to only the most important games. Playoffs and a championship game give this while regular seasons don't. Just note the attendance of MLS Cup games compared to the hosting cities best attended games of that year. 2) The bottom of the table will be a Zzzzz because those teams will have nothing to play for once the season is 60 percent over. There will (thankfully) never be relegation in the US. Oh wait some people would like to see MLS clubs go under...bring on relegation! 8( 3) Crowning a winner before all the games are played is always bad. And often a team doesn't win by winning a game, but they win as they watch the 2nd place team lose. This is BAD. 4) There is no such thing as a single table without equality in schedule. That is just a joke. Anybody who suggests teams play each other 3 times or that the best team in MLS is currently determined by regular season record is way off base. At 12 teams I like the idea of a 6 team playoff field. Conference champs get a bye and 2nd and 3rd in each conference play off to see who meets the Champ to go to MLS Cup. The only way I can see making MLS a single table is if they go with an "every team makes the playoffs" mentality and the season is its own championship AND it determines playoff seeding.
Is this a serious question? Do you think Americans are going to flock to the world "Rock, Scissors, Paper" championships because they have playoffs? That championship just happened in Canada and I doubt there was much interest at all. Are you trying to say that playoffs are keeping Americans from coming to watch soccer? Maybe you should check the MLS Cup attendance compared to any other game that isn't either a double header or 4th of July game. I think you'll see that championship games get people in seats. Well not USOC finals, but anyway...
It better. The MLS Cup is not a league cup, it is the national championship in the American top division. You can get sarcastic all you want. Whether or not it's a dealbreaker with ratings or attendance and the like, we do things a bit differently here in America. The ball is still round. You still have to send the ball into the other team's net without using your hands. And for whatever God-forsaken reason, the clock counts up. But other than that, we do things differently around here, and I honestly don't understand why this is hard to grasp.
I voted yes. And MLS should stay at 18 teams. And, considering this is all hypothetical, here is my scenario. 201x, 18 teams, single entity structure removed, and single table. Playoffs for the top 8 teams. After 10 or so years of development where MLS has become established with good TV contracts, SSS, and thriving fan bases in the already established cities, owners decide to truly make MLS unique by creating MLS2, where top 3 teams (first team according to table, other 4 of top 5 playoff, top 2 advance) of lower division are promoted, the perfect way to punish owners not willing to spend, and reward smaller market teams. The biggest markets with big wallet owners wouldnt have to worry all that much. This would truly establish a national footprint, present something unique from the other sports, and reward smaller markets (keeping everyone happy). I have a dream! unfortunately, this is 25-30 years down the road, if that, and chances are this does not happen. However, rant aside, once we reach 18 teams, single table plus playoffs (top 8).
Again, my Sun Devil friend, a lower division league in the US will not happen without geographic conferences to cut down on travel costs. You therefore have geographic relegation and geographic promotion.
Because they would have that worry at all is precisely why relegation will never happen. Billionaires don't shell out $15 million immediately for the possibility of having your franchise be worth 1/3 of that or less the following year.
I, too, used to support single-table, no playoffs, pro/rel format, but have since changed my support to a design similar to that introduced by SJJ on page 1. 16 teams; four geographic conferences. For example: East New England Metrostars DC Philadelphia Mideast Columbus Cleveland Pittsburgh Rochester Midwest Chicago Kansas City Colorado Dallas West San Jose Los Angeles San Diego Chivas Seattle FORMAT Play each divisional rival two home-and-home and everyone else one home-and-home for 36 total games. Divisional champions ONLY qualify for playoffs. Seeded one through four, the divisional champions play a two-leg total goal aggregate series, with the two winner advancing to a neutral site for the MLS Cup Final. Sponsorship, TV ratings and non-soccer afficianados' curiousity peak during a one-game, winner-take-all game. They do not in a single-table format. By having only four teams make the playoffs, the regular season is deemed more valuable.
Re: Re: Should MLS use single table to determine its champion when it reaches 18 teams? Which, with the stated play format gives you 16 conference matches and 30 non conference, making for a 46 match season. Bit ambitous, don't you think?
I understand, but thanks for the explanation anyway. You're reasoning includes a big assumption, that the good teams are relatively static from one season to the next. This may well be true, but no guarentee. If it isn't, your system can artifically reduce the number of top-tier games. I hate NFL-style parity, but that's just me. I think you should still have a college draft for players that go through that system, and that will create some parity, as will equal splitting of TV revenue. No need to do it artificially. Yup, that's the idea. 28 weeks is what, 7 months? That's plenty of time to crown a fair champion. Make it 8 if you like. I think under a single table system, you have to make sure you don't have games on FIFA dates, which eliminates the callup problem (they shouldn't have games on FIFA dates under any system anyway). Plus, a 18 team single table is 34 league games. I think 34 is plenty enough to determine a true champion.
I understand, but thanks for the explaination anyway. You're reasoning includes a big assumption, that the good teams are relatively static from one season to the next. This may well be true, but no guarentee. If it isn't, your system can artifically reduce the number of top-tier games. I hate NFL-style parity, but that's just me. I think you should still have a college draft for players that go through that system, and that will create some parity, as will equal splitting of TV revenue. No need to do it artificially. Yup, that's the idea. 28 weeks is what, 7 months? That's plenty of time to crown a fair champion. Make it 8 if you like. I think under a single table system, you have to make sure you don't have games on FIFA dates, which eliminates the callup problem (they shouldn't have games on FIFA dates under any system anyway). Plus, a 18 team single table is 34 league games. I think 34 is plenty enough to determine a true champion. Playoffs are an inherently unfair system, as they only prove who is better at that given time. So they should be kept to a minimum. A single table does this best of all, so we should go with it. texgator: Relegation is too foreign a concept for the U.S.? I think many people in the country are pretty smart and can figure it out. Is it feasible now? No, of course not. But in a few years, it very well may be. Just because it's not feasible now doesn't mean it never will be. Roehl: Just because we are Americans doesn't mean we should do things differently. Just because we are Americans doesn't mean everyone else knows better in soccer and we should follow them either. So evaluate everything on its merits. MLS Cup right now is the league championship. But that's not to say you can't convert it to a league cup. No need to be different from everyone else just for the sake of it.
MLS has a salary cap.. Notice in the NFL where any team can beat any other team.. that is due to salary cap. Baseball has no salary cap, that is where big / small market teams come into play. Big nor small market teams matter when you have a salary cap in place because X big market team cant go and spend 20 million X 11 to get a super squad. They have to balance there budget, if they go and spend tons and tons of money on one player, they are going to lack in another area. That is the whole purpose of a salary cap. So all teams regardless of the size of their market have the chance to compete. As for tables.. Im against it. We are not in Europe, playoffs and the system we have now is how we do it here in the states, and that is what makes the playoffs that much more interesting. you might have started off a little slow, but went on a tear the end of the season and can end up winning it all. Playoffs / champions ships are all about who is hot at the time, ala Marlins : ) great thing about playoff's / championships.
just curious, what is the point of franchise fees exactly? For a league that needs clubs and isn't exactly beating off investors with a big stick, doesn't making them pay $15 million for the right to own a franchise that will probably cost them money not seem exactly the most attractive proposition? The thing about a fully national pro/rel system (not that I'm advocating bringing one in) is that there are no franchise fees, and therefore no drop in franchise value as such. Bearing in mind TV money isn't exactly a huge % of turnover for MLS teams, would a losing team in MLS really pull in that many more fans than they would if they were a winning team battling to go up?
I'd like to see an 18 team league with a single table format from which only the top 4 teams make the playoffs. The semi-finals would be a 2 game series and the final would be played at the home of the highest remaining seed. The home final would be a reward for earning the most points. Plus, if the home team wins most of the finals, it would sort of be like saying the reg. season winner is the league champ anyway.
Like Klecko I am for a single table format, but would like to see 8-12 teams to keep more fans coming to games.
I like the Cup, and I like the Shield, so I do not any reason to change. And it gives this country the only treble in US pro sports.