Your Playoff System

This is what I would do:

World Cup stlye group play with 2 groups of four. Using this year's Eastern standings, this is what we would have had:

Week 1:
Columbus-New England
DC-Metro

Week 2:
Columbus-DC
Metro-New England

Week 3:
Columbus-Metro
DC-New England

Or mix it up in a different order based on stadium availability. But the first place team gets 3 home games, 2nd gets 2, third place hosts the fourth place team, and us, well, we should consider ourselves lucky to even have been in the playoffs.

Given the actual results and a couple of hypotheticals for the matches that didn't actually happen, let's say this was the final group standings
----W--D--L--GF--GA---Pts
DC--2--1--0---5---1----7
NE--2--1--0---3---1----7
CLB-0--1--2---1---4----1
MET-0--1--2---1---4----1

And let's say KC and LA were 1-2 in the West after a similar round-robin. The semis would see the Revs playing at Kansas City and DC hosting LA, and the winners advancing to the finals.

It would only take one more week than the current setup and you would need to get results against everyone to make it through. It also gives sufficent advantage to the better teams

Tom

 

For me: Keep it the same.

I appear to be in the minority in thinking no change is the best answer for the near future from reading the other threads. I like at least a little consistency in the league and playoffs, so we do not have to try and explain all these new formats to the casual fan. Lets go for more then 2 years between changes in playoff formats. 8 out of 14 in two or three years is ok with me, unlike the current 8 out of 10 which is too many. I can live with 8 out of 12 for next year, even if that is a little high. Then in a few more years hopefully we can get to a nice 8 out of 18. I am just hopping for the 8 to stay in place as at least that has been consistent from day 1, but not much else about the postseason has.

The home and home does not give a large advantage to the higher seed but it has actually worked fairly well so far. In that 7 of 8 higher seeds have won with some good and memorable games. As long as we have 2 conferences (which we should keep until there are 16 or more likely 18 teams) we should have a conference championship game. Then the two conference champions go at it in the MLS cup game. Lets help keep some people on both sides of the country interested in the final.

I also never liked the bye week for soccer and 2 weeks off will likely cause some lose of game level fitness.

 

Seeing how the current system allowed to Revs to get all the way into the conference final, I think leaving well enough alone is just fine.

However, looking at it in general, here's what I'd consider.

1. Dump the aggregrate goal system. A single game elimination would increase the chance of more exciting games. It would also provide higher seeds with more of a reward for their success over the season. Yes, this would mean the Revs would have gone to Columbus for a winner-take-all match, but in fairness Columbus deserved it.

2. I would reduce the number of teams. Depending on how radical one wants to get, the system could either be the six-team plan some have proposed. If the league considers going back to a three-division format, I'd suggest a five-team system with the division winners and two wild-cards. The wild cards would have a play-off to face the league's top seed.

 

I'd do away with the playoffs altogether.

But if you're going to have them, at least make the final home and away aggregate for the two teams involved.

Neutral site championships are way too UEFA (Mo-ney). Home and away is how we do it in this hemisphere (last refuge of the true fan).

 

I don't think you could realistically have it any other way that a one-off neutral site game. There is a lot more going on than just the game. League meetings, sponsor grip-n-grin sessions, league awards, media freeloading all go on around the MLS Cup final. It would be nearly impossible to organize all that on such short notice. The TV time has to be booked several months in advance, and suppose (God forbid!) the Metros won and it had to be played at Giants Stadium on a Sunday afternoon (because the TV time had been determined months ago). Do you want to be the one to ask the Giants or Jets to step aside? One of them is playing at home every Sunday of the fall.

Keep it as a one-off playoff game, but if you want to make it more festive for away support and have a better chance of a local or nearby team with lots of traveling support, incorporate a Third Place game so that all the semifinalists would be guaranteed a trip. We would be playing LA in the first game of the doubleheader, and some of us might even stick around to see a couple of other crap teams from some other parts of the country.

Tom

 

LOVE this idea. FSW or someone would likely carry it nationally, too. And supporters of all 4 teams would have 2 weeks notice that they have a game to get to.

 

Ideally, I'd do away with the playoff and just have the two conference leaders play for the Cup.

If playoffs must exist, I'd just have the the top 3 in each conference make the playoff, with the second and third place teams playing in the first round (the first place teams would get a by for that round as a reward for coming in first). Each round (except for the final) would be just one game hosted by the team with the most points. The final would be played at a neutral site.

I think this would make the regular season much more meaningful