VEVO5 catch-all thread on how to improve MLS

QFT

 

A while back the NHL decided to add more games against a supposed rival/division rival and it tanked. Most fans want to watch the whole league and not just their division.

 

Yeah, I'd tend to agree with this.

The other point to consider, though it is somewhat outside the lens of MLS, is that regional rivals might meet a third time in a given season due to US Open Cup (especially if the organizers continue with a similar format).

 

I don't disagree with you. But the other way isn't that complicated either. Three games against teams in your division is 18, 1 game each against all 7 teams in two other divisions. Total of 32 games, which is plenty.

You'd miss out on one other division a year. I know that's what some people are objecting too, and I get that, but to me it seems possible in a league I think that is bound to base it's structure largely on the NFL and where travel costs eat up money the smaller clubs could be spending on players.

As far as forced rivalries goes, yeah, I think people in Salt Lake might wonder why they have to play Chicago three times a year and may not play LA at all - which probably wouldn't go over too well with RSL's investor/operator.

 

I think using the NHL as your only evidence to make this point might be a problem, MLB has adjusted its schedule to dramatically increase divisional games (18-19 games vs. each divisional opponent) and it hasn't tanked. If anything the gimmick of interleague play has worn out its welcome to many fans of MLB. The NFL and NBA have always and continue to weight their schedules more heavily towards conference/division play as well.

 

Count me as another of those who feel that additional "rivalry" matches at the expense of other matches against the rest of the league are a bad, boring idea. There are interesting teams and interesting players all across the country. Let's see them all. If your club particularly hates that other club in your region, well, then it just makes those matches a bit more interesting. You don't have to face them three times (or more) per season PLUS in Open Cup for that to be the case.

There is one tangible benefit to Conference-based scheduling which is the decrease in travel, which is good for reducing both costs and player fatigue. So as I see it, one simply has to balance the benefits of one vs the other. I do not think, however, that playing your regional rival three times a year and hosting an interesting team on the other side of the country only once every other year is an ideal arrangement.

 

Do you feel the same way about American football? That is, assuming you watch American football.
I mean there is no expectation in either collegiate or professional American football that you get to see your team play every other team each year.

And before people say "don't compare MLS to American football" I'll just preemptively respond with "don't compare MLS with leagues whose league travel takes places in country the size of North Carolina."

 

Maybe not in pro football since there are 16 games and most divisional rivalries have been long established, but that issue is taking place in college football. Conference realignment and expansion has shifted the landscape and forced conferences into a rotating schedule that can provide schedule imbalance.

For instance, I'm a Virginia Tech grad - because of the ACC's two divisions, you rotate through the teams in the opposite division over a number of years. This year, VT doesn't play either FSU or Clemson, two powers in the ACC. That works out favorably for VT, but other teams in our division might have to play one or both of them this year, which inevitably will lead to complaints of a soft schedule.

I'd prefer if MLS avoided a similar pitfall, which is why 4 divisions of seven teams (split between 2 conferences) would work out well as stated earlier by CoconutMonkey. 12 games a year against division opponents, 21 games against the rest of the league, plus one extra game. I like his suggestion, where it can be based on the record of the previous year's standings from the opposite division of your conference. It's not perfect, but I think it's relatively fair for scheduling purposes. Alternatively, that 1 extra game could be the "rivalry" game that MLS likes to push right now.

 

One thing you ignore with this is that any time you don't play a home and home vs. every team you are still creating significant imbalance within the schedule.

To use your college football example, my school (Oregon State) hasn't beaten USC in LA since 1960 but has won 4 of the last 6 times they've played in Corvallis. And examples like that are quite common.

If you want it to be balanced you have to make sure that everyone plays the same schedules. 3 divisions (or conferences) makes this work. Lets say you are in the Western division, you'd play everyone in your division twice, everyone in the Central division on the road, and everyone in the Eastern division at home. As long as playoff spots are determined within divisions you'd have balance. And it works perfect with a 27 team 34 game league.

 

Well sure. But the line of discussion was more about avoiding extra "rivalry games" on the schedule at the expense of playing every team in the league at least once. I know it's not a balanced schedule, but it's pretty close on a 2 year basis.

- Division foes twice (one home, one away)
- Every other team once (21 teams, so you'd have an 11/10 or 10/11 split of home/away games)
- The following year, the home/away team flips
- That extra game on the schedule becomes either a home or away game, depending on what your 11/10 split was among the 21 other MLS teams (this is where it'd probably make the most sense to do a home/away series with someone from another division)

 

Add that to the list of things about gridiron football that I've found either uninteresting or annoying over the past 20 years.

 

College football fans, rightfully so, spend a lot of time bitching about scheadules. Texas and Texas AM don't even play eachother anymore, yet either school would probably go to Hong Kong to play a game if it would earn them a dime. College football, and I really like college football, has very little rational thinking in anything it does.

As for the NFL, teams don't all play eachother, but it is not really an attendance driven sport. Fans watch their team and national coverage, and teams play few enough home games that they sell them out no matter who is scheaduled. In MLS, fans see the league more through who their team is playing, and gate is important since the TV contract is small, so variety is better. I'd rather see Kaka or Lampard or this excellent Columbus team, than see San Jose for the 3rd time this year.

Also, the NFL divsions do not reduce travel; otherwise the Jets and Giants would be in the same division, the conferences would be geographically based, and Dallas would not be in the east. NFL and Baseball divisions, conferences, and leagues, are historically based, not rationally based. We do not have that history weighing us down, so we don't need to copy them.

 

VT also doesn't play Texas, UCLA, Minnesota, etc., etc., etc. every year.
Perhaps if you look at MLS conferences the way you look at college football conferences you'll get more used to the idea that soccer teams in different parts of the country don't have to play each other.

Someday MLS might have 32 teams or more, expecting to play all of them every year is a bridge too far if you ever hit that point. And I think MLS wants to hit that point. That is about the same number of teams that has made sense for all of the other primary professional leagues in the US/Canada. It's the sweet spot that American consumers of sports are used to.

 

I think MLS should play in Nuetral venues in parts of the country that dont have MLS teams. for example the Crew playing in cleveland , fire playing in Milwaukee, SKC playing a game in OKC.

 

yeah, i think it's much more likely they emulate the NFL scheduling - divisions that match up some years and not others and rotating home and away games over years, etc.
They kind-of are already doing that, really. The parts people seem to object to are 3 games against conference rivals - well that's what they do now.

 

No.

 

Why would I want to watch a team I hate play in OKC?

 

In the pre-season? Sure. If only those cities had reasonably-sized stadiums.

 

Or the Miami Dolphins in London!

 

That's not the main parts people object to. Behold:

Sure, other sports have unbalanced schedules, but what about MLS' history? MLS clubs have met at least once every season since the league was founded. This is generally considered to be a good thing; it's not something I'd want to give up unnecessarily.

If and when the league grows past 30 teams, we can worry about it.

 

Calling interleague play gimmicky, while ignoring the fact that it needed to be done for real reasons (to gave equal size divisions and the Astros move) seems a bit of a rhetorical trick.

 

That wouldn't really be neutral venues. That would be home games played in other cities, no?

 

Yeah, the equal divisions thing happened 20 years before the Astros move. Interleague play is a gimmick and they moved the Astros to keep that gimmick going.