Two divisions of 6 teams each? Easy... Play each team in your own division 4 times (5x4=20) Play the other division's teams twice (6x12=12) Nice and tidy 32-game schedule. And no sticky residue...
I myself would like to see two divisions.. but MLS crapped it up last time we had 12 teams with a three division format. God I hope they don't do that... fi they do.... they should try to keep 30 games... IE... option 5.
When asked about the impact of the two new teams on the league, Garber responded "It's more about finalizing our conferences than anything else. The league schedule and numbers of games will remain the same." "Conferences" seems to indicate that they will stay with the East/West (2 division) setup.
Thirty games seems like the right number. Geographically, three divisions works out well keeping the rivalries in the middle of the country intact (Colorado, KC, Dallas, Chicago). Three division also means that for making the playoffs with 8 teams, they'd need to go to the single table format for making the playoffs and the worst 4 teams would be eliminated - regardless of which division they are in.
another question that should be posed.... Should it be east west... or should it change to a baseball esq league where its american and national. The reason I ask is because... It looks as though there will be two LA teams. That means those teams will play in carson 8 times a year. Kinda silly. It would warp my interest if I lived in LA. I know it works in basketball but not for soccer. I'd like to see a non geographical allignment personally
Huh? They wouldn't play each other 8 times, they would only play each other 4 times--two times at home, and two times away--which happens to be the same place. But they would still only play each other 4 times at Carson.
Distance between cities kills an ungeographic table. Miles = $$$ spent. This is not a rich league, so it can't afford to make things harder on itself. If you have conferences with no geographic ties, you'll be spending some serious money. 1 trip to LA for NY is cheaper that 2 trips. The shortest distance between East cities....NY/NE at 190 miles shortest distance between West cities....LA/SJ at 293 miles The fursthest distance between East cities...NE/Chi at 856 miles furthest distance between West cites....SJ/KC at 1485 miles East cities near each other at a disance less than 293 (LA/SJ) 190..NY/NE 204..NY/DC 277..CHI/COL West Cities further than 856 miles (NE/CHI) from each other 928..KC/SLC 1003..DAL/SLC 1251..DAL/LA 1366..KC/LA 1451..DAL/SJ 1485..KC/SJ Nearest East to West cities KC/CHI at 407 miles Furthest East to West cities SJ/NE at 2686 miles In addition to the cost of flying teams around the nation, the distances between some cities makes it a bit more difficult for supporters to make it out to road games. I don't know how many of you travel for road games. But in LA, going up to SJ is a great trip. I wish I had more teams closer to us or not so far away so we could make more road trips. $$ and time and bookings make it more and more difficult to get in and out at a price you can afford. so yeah keep the east and west as is move dallas or KC to the east
Keeping in mind that the league has also expressed the desire for additional expansion in 2006, it wouldn't make sense to split to a 3-division format...unless, of course you expanded by 3 in 2006.
Not necessarily... Eastern => NE, Metros, DC United, Rochester Central => Columbus, Chicago, Dallas, Kansas City Western => LA Galaxy, Chivas de LA, San Jose, Colorado, SLC, Seattle Eastern and Central => play their own teams 4 times (12), play the Eastern/Central teams twice (8), play the Western teams twice (12) = 32 Western => play Eastern teams twice (8), play Central teams twice (8), play 4 of their own teams 3 times (12) and one team 4 times (4) = 32 You could do it.
But that's a pretty unbalanced schedule. And to have 6 teams in the west while the east and central have 4 each? You don't even have the west teams playing each other in an even amount of games (you play everybody 3 times save for one team that you play 4 times?). What if LA plays SLC 4 times and SLC blows bad? While the other teams LA only plays 3 times. That's like giving points away (and I would take them too, but I wouldn't like the taste it would leave in my mouth). This isn't the NFL where there are too many teams to have them all play each other in one season.
1) Assuming the league gets stuck on 14 teams for a number of years (unlikely), you could rotate the one team you play 4 times each year. Or do a 'natural rivalry' deal where the extra game is against your closest rival (Galaxy/Chivas, Colorado/SLC, San Jose/Seattle...well, close enough) 2) As the league adds more teams, you can modify the # of games and the combinations/permutations. 3) My response was not a moral judgement as to whether it was a good idea or not, just that you could do it.
Two divisions all the way. When more teams are added, MLS should not go to three or four divisions per conference under any circumstances. They need to be a bit more original and not be like every other U.S. pro sports league.
Move Dallas to the east, unless the Quakes move to Houston. If Quakes move to Houston, then it's better to move KC east, and keep Dallas West along with Houston.
Based on the polls options, I would pick No. 3. But... it makes more sense to have a single table, play each other team home and away, then schedule an extra series against three rivalry teams (LA-Chivas, DC-Metro, etc.) 8 teams x 2 games + 3 teams x 4 games = 28 game schedule, which I believe is the current number? Once the league gets past 16 teams, you could take away a rivalry game, which would keep the schedule around 32-36 games a year. And make the playoffs 6 teams! (Until 20+ in the league) Any thoughts? AWM.
Yes! Single table is the way to go. Seems like Jeff Bradley's agreeing with you as well (see suggestion #10). http://www.mlsnet.com/MLS/news/mls_news.jsp?ymd=20040803&content_id=10429&vkey=news_mls&fext=.jsp
#3, when the league goes to 14 you still have two divisons. Each team will play their divison team 3 times for 18 games and the teams in the other div. twice for a total of 32 games.
I'm glad you brought this up. I had been thinking about the issues surrounding the 3 conf. set up. Since they did it last time, I'd say there is a good chance it happens again. The only reason I see them doing it though, is if they know what expansion teams will be ready. As of now it could be guessed that both Seatle and Rochester will be in. Club America is still very interested, perhaps the league gets them to invest in a Houston expansion team? a 15 team MLS in 2006 is my dream
I voted for the single table with 44 matches. Klinsmann has a point when he says that MLS players do not play in enough competitive matches. Scrap the All-Star match, and begin the season in February. The earlier start will be beneficial for the CONCACAF Champion's Cup entrants from MLS to have played in some competitive matches before the start of the tournament.