PDA

View Full Version : NEW MLS Rules



kodiakTFC
11-20-2011, 02:45 PM
1. Unbalanced Schedule

Each club’s total matches will remain the same, at 34 regular-season matches, and the regular season will run from mid-March through October, as it has in recent years.

Here is how the conference-based schedule will work:

Western Conference clubs will play each other three times, totaling 24 matches. They will play four conference opponents twice at home and once away, and play the other four conference opponents twice away and once at home. The location arrangement will be reversed in 2013.

West clubs will complete their schedule by playing each of the 10 Eastern Conference clubs once. Five of matches will be at home and five will be on the road. Again, the arrangement will be reversed in 2013.

Due to the higher number of clubs in the Eastern Conference, things are a little different on that side. Each club will play a total of 25 conference matches.

Each East club will play seven of their conference opponents three times each (21 total games) and the remaining two conference opponents twice each (4 games).

To complete their full slate, East teams will then play the nine West teams once each. Those nine games will be split either five at home and four away or vice versa. The locations will be reversed in 2013.

The league says it plans to announce the full schedule earlier than they have in previous years.

2. MLS Cup goes to the highest seed

The MLS Cup final will no longer be a neutral-site game, according to a plan approved on Saturday by the league’s Board of Governors. Instead, the league’s championship match will be played at the home venue of the participating team with a higher regular-season point total.

That effectively brings an end to the system of rotating the MLS Cup final to different venues around the league, as MLS has done since its inaugural 1996 season.

3. New Playoff Structure

The playoff format itself will also get a tweak. As in 2011, the playoff field will remain 10 teams. However, the top five teams in each conference will qualify for the postseason without wild card spots.

The No. 4 team in each conference will then host the No. 5 team in its conference in a single-elimination game for the right to face its respective conference’s top seed in the Conference Semifinals.

The Conference Championships will shift to two-leg series instead of a single game, as they have been since 2003.

Flipityflu
11-20-2011, 03:13 PM
I like both 2 and 3, especially the home field advantage for the cup.

nfitz
11-20-2011, 03:23 PM
The schedule is so fudged up. With only 17 home games, and 18 teams to play, I felt it was unfortunate that there was 1 team we wouldn't be seeing in Toronto. But now there's up to 5 Western Conference teams we won't see in Toronto? Good grief, I'd much rather be seeing Portland, Seattle, Vancouver, and Galaxy in Toronto than the likes of some Eastern teams like New England or Houston.

And to make it worse, we'll see four of the Eastern teams here in Toronto twice?? WTF??? We might see New England here twice, but not Vancouver at all? That's horrific.

Yohan
11-20-2011, 03:34 PM
All this shenanigans could have been avoided if the league goes with a shorter play offs and use that extra week for 2 games for balanced schedule. But nope. Can't have it.

Actually, I think there are still bye weeks in the schedule. (week off for the team)

Yohan
11-20-2011, 03:36 PM
also, the West is much stronger than the East. a bit unfair to award the MLS Cup site to supporter's shield winner, if it comes from the East, who gets it based upon playing more weaker teams. home and away Cup final would have been more fair under new format I think

kous
11-20-2011, 03:42 PM
2 and 3 make sense but is it really that hard to to add 2 games to the schedule? in the west the Unbalanced Schedule is not that bad but in the east if you miss the playoffs by a point and the differences in the schedule had you play all the top teams 3 times and the last place teams only twice while the other team only played the top teams twice. :facepalm:

prizby
11-20-2011, 04:24 PM
3 only makes sense cuz of 1. if you have a balanced schedule (see: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1H_0N9a8au-JUovPbFlSwM84jqWoiOqBEwJA5DhHcysg/edit?pli=1 with a 30% reduction in travel miles) and a single table, then 3 becomes irrelevant

don't like 1 (see link)

2 - my only concern is what happens to future supporter summits, mls cup events, travel costs for fans with so little prep time etc...

ArmenJBX
11-20-2011, 04:27 PM
We play each time 3 times, except conference opponents, which we play 4 times.

Is that Montreal or Columbus for us?

PopePouri
11-20-2011, 04:40 PM
Looks a mess but I like it. Travel time reduces and therefore the quality of the
on-field product goes up. They really need a 20th team to even things out though.

ManUtd4ever
11-20-2011, 04:44 PM
Is that Montreal or Columbus for us?

Most likely...

mowe
11-20-2011, 04:57 PM
We play each time 3 times, except conference opponents, which we play 4 times.

Is that Montreal or Columbus for us?

Not sure what you're asking but TFC's schedule looks like this:

We play seven of the nine other East teams 3 times. We play the other two East teams twice (7x3 + 2x2 = 25 total games vs East teams). We play the nine West teams once (either 4 home 5 away or vice versa for 9 total games against the West).

No team will be played 4 times. Also, we will have home games against only 4 or 5 West teams. The reason the format is weirder for East teams (some played against 3 times, some twice) is because there is going to be one extra team in the East next year. The West on the other hand, all play against each other 3 times.

kodiakTFC
11-20-2011, 05:18 PM
3 only makes sense cuz of 1. if you have a balanced schedule (see: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1H_0N9a8au-JUovPbFlSwM84jqWoiOqBEwJA5DhHcysg/edit?pli=1 with a 30% reduction in travel miles) and a single table, then 3 becomes irrelevant

don't like 1 (see link)

2 - my only concern is what happens to future supporter summits, mls cup events, travel costs for fans with so little prep time etc...

MLS mentioned this proposal, they said it doesn't take into account the availability of venues.

Gazza_55
11-20-2011, 06:02 PM
The schedule is so fudged up. With only 17 home games, and 18 teams to play, I felt it was unfortunate that there was 1 team we wouldn't be seeing in Toronto. But now there's up to 5 Western Conference teams we won't see in Toronto? Good grief, I'd much rather be seeing Portland, Seattle, Vancouver, and Galaxy in Toronto than the likes of some Eastern teams like New England or Houston.

And to make it worse, we'll see four of the Eastern teams here in Toronto twice?? WTF??? We might see New England here twice, but not Vancouver at all? That's horrific.

The schedule reverses in 2013 so all you have to do is wait a year.

zeelaw
11-20-2011, 07:04 PM
Yea, guys, its just because of hte odd number... It'll balance it out

ArmenJBX
11-20-2011, 07:24 PM
I'm asking if it's Montreal or if it's Columbus?
MLS history indicates it would be Columbus but at the same time...Montreal is Montreal, and who would be their rivals anyway?

If we play one team four times, which team is it? :D

habstfc
11-20-2011, 07:45 PM
I'm asking if it's Montreal or if it's Columbus?
MLS history indicates it would be Columbus but at the same time...Montreal is Montreal, and who would be their rivals anyway?

If we play one team four times, which team is it? :D

The most times we play one team is 3 times in league play.

denime
11-20-2011, 08:07 PM
1. Unbalanced Schedule

Each club’s total matches will remain the same, at 34 regular-season matches, and the regular season will run from mid-March through October, as it has in recent years.

Here is how the conference-based schedule will work:

Western Conference clubs will play each other three times, totaling 24 matches. They will play four conference opponents twice at home and once away, and play the other four conference opponents twice away and once at home. The location arrangement will be reversed in 2013.

West clubs will complete their schedule by playing each of the 10 Eastern Conference clubs once. Five of matches will be at home and five will be on the road. Again, the arrangement will be reversed in 2013.

Due to the higher number of clubs in the Eastern Conference, things are a little different on that side. Each club will play a total of 25 conference matches.

Each East club will play seven of their conference opponents three times each (21 total games) and the remaining two conference opponents twice each (4 games).

To complete their full slate, East teams will then play the nine West teams once each. Those nine games will be split either five at home and four away or vice versa. The locations will be reversed in 2013.

The league says it plans to announce the full schedule earlier than they have in previous years.

2. MLS Cup goes to the highest seed

The MLS Cup final will no longer be a neutral-site game, according to a plan approved on Saturday by the league’s Board of Governors. Instead, the league’s championship match will be played at the home venue of the participating team with a higher regular-season point total.

That effectively brings an end to the system of rotating the MLS Cup final to different venues around the league, as MLS has done since its inaugural 1996 season.

3. New Playoff Structure

The playoff format itself will also get a tweak. As in 2011, the playoff field will remain 10 teams. However, the top five teams in each conference will qualify for the postseason without wild card spots.

The No. 4 team in each conference will then host the No. 5 team in its conference in a single-elimination game for the right to face its respective conference’s top seed in the Conference Semifinals.

The Conference Championships will shift to two-leg series instead of a single game, as they have been since 2003.


Can you please provide the link too?
Thanks

ensco
11-20-2011, 08:24 PM
Can you please provide the link too?
Thanks

These two together have essentially the same info.....
http://www.mlssoccer.com/news/article/2011/11/20/mls-reveals-2012-conference-based-schedule-format
http://www.mlssoccer.com/news/article/2011/11/20/big-changes-mls-cup-playoffs-format-2012

boban
11-20-2011, 09:08 PM
The schedule is so fudged up. With only 17 home games, and 18 teams to play, I felt it was unfortunate that there was 1 team we wouldn't be seeing in Toronto. But now there's up to 5 Western Conference teams we won't see in Toronto? Good grief, I'd much rather be seeing Portland, Seattle, Vancouver, and Galaxy in Toronto than the likes of some Eastern teams like New England or Houston.

And to make it worse, we'll see four of the Eastern teams here in Toronto twice?? WTF??? We might see New England here twice, but not Vancouver at all? That's horrific.
It's shit like this that will make me abandon the league.
Unbalanced schedules in previous years was ago because you at least saw every team at least once. Now you see some teams twice while other never. This is turning the league into a joke.

Bluenose13
11-20-2011, 10:33 PM
Doesn't every professional league in North America have unbalanced schedules ?

TFC/Everton
11-20-2011, 10:42 PM
So, in theory the MLS cup could be played in Toronto next year :cheers:

boban
11-20-2011, 10:45 PM
Doesn't every professional league in North America have unbalanced schedules ?
What does that have to do with anything?

Beach_Red
11-20-2011, 10:49 PM
It's shit like this that will make me abandon the league.
Unbalanced schedules in previous years was ago because you at least saw every team at least once. Now you see some teams twice while other never. This is turning the league into a joke.

This league will copy the NFL as much as it can.

AL-MO
11-20-2011, 11:27 PM
It's shit like this that will make me abandon the league.
Unbalanced schedules in previous years was ago because you at least saw every team at least once. Now you see some teams twice while other never. This is turning the league into a joke.

1 step forward, 2 steps back.

Waggy
11-20-2011, 11:35 PM
What does that have to do with anything?

because they are mls' closest comparison in everything except rules of play, What does hockey have to do with football? what does basketball have to do with baseball? territory, industry, business plan, customers, partners (tv/radio/newspapers, advertisers). Theres a reason no north american league has a balanced schedule. The distance from Toronto to LA is 3489km. London to Demascus is 3535km.

Edit: forgot montreal next year. Montreal to LA is 3962km. London to Baghdad is 4089km.

boban
11-20-2011, 11:44 PM
because they are mls' closest comparison in everything except rules of play, What does hockey have to do with football? what does basketball have to do with baseball? territory, industry, business plan, customers, partners (tv/radio/newspapers, advertisers). Theres a reason no north american league has a balanced schedule. The distance from Toronto to LA is 3489km. London to Demascus is 3535km.
in those leagues (except NFL) you have an unheard amount of games : 82-162 played per season. You still each team come to town at least once.
I had no issues when we were 13 teams. Now if the issue was to keep it at 34 games and sacrifice 1 team then i would kind of understand and accept that. but now they are sacrificing 4,5,6 teams from coming here?!! Kinda fucked if you asked me.
Soccer around the world for the better part is played by playing a team both home and away at least once a year. Thats my point about the other leagues in NA. Who cares about them.

Waggy
11-20-2011, 11:50 PM
in those leagues (except NFL) you have an unheard amount of games : 82-162 played per season. You still each team come to town at least once.
I had no issues when we were 13 teams. Now if the issue was to keep it at 34 games and sacrifice 1 team then i would kind of understand and accept that. but now they are sacrificing 4,5,6 teams from coming here?!! Kinda fucked if you asked me.
Soccer around the world for the better part is played by playing a team both home and away at least once a year. Thats my point about the other leagues in NA. Who cares about them.

If you're going to make it unbalanced it has to also be as fair as possible. Having just 1 team from a conference missing a potentially tough away game is really unfair. Imagine if say, we happen to not play at seattle next year and wind up make the playoffs by 1 or 2 points. If we were fans of any other team, we'd be fucking PISSED. At least if half the conference don't play at Seattle it's a little more fair. Esp if the other half don't play at Portland.


edit: besides this is obviously a temporarily situation until there's a 20th club. Can't imagine it'll be any more than 2 or 3 years. Hell, they could also look at potentially folding a club (sadly, like DC United)*

*not to say they should. I like DC. I'd prefer to see a team like Dallas fold. But given their stadium, I can't really see them folding. It'd have to be a DC or a Boston. Maybe even a San Jose. Teams who just don't have MLS viable buildings.

Whoop
11-20-2011, 11:57 PM
I wasn't so up in arms about the unbalanced schedule when it was first mentioned but this is stupid.

boban
11-21-2011, 12:06 AM
I wasn't so up in arms about the unbalanced schedule when it was first mentioned but this is stupid.
Exactly.

Cashcleaner
11-21-2011, 12:31 AM
* sigh*

There's no good need for all this complication and I would wager the majority of MLS fans would agree. It really bothers me that Garber and the MLS brass are basically sticking their nose up at the people who patronize the league and are asking for a fair and balanced schedule.

prizby
11-21-2011, 02:08 AM
MLS mentioned this proposal, they said it doesn't take into account the availability of venues.

how many of the facilities have availability issues...Seattle, Vancouver, New England; San Jose; all the other teams don't share their own stadium

JuliquE
11-21-2011, 02:10 AM
Don't have much time, so I don't know if it's been mentioned already.

I've heard of the changes and still feel the SS winner for the regular season should be awarded the final, whether or not they're in the final.

I'm sure they won't ever struggle for attendance and, if anything, this should offer more assurances (planning a trip would be easier).

Brooker
11-21-2011, 03:45 AM
I thought we'd finally get a break from the finals being in LA for a while.

No dice. Too much to ask.

Oldtimer
11-21-2011, 07:54 AM
Don't have much time, so I don't know if it's been mentioned already.

I've heard of the changes and still feel the SS winner for the regular season should be awarded the final, whether or not they're in the final.

I'm sure they won't ever struggle for attendance and, if anything, this should offer more assurances (planning a trip would be easier).

Totally agree with this. Home field advantage is a worthwhile reward for the Supporters' Shield winner, and will make the race to the top that much more compelling.

Fort York Redcoat
11-21-2011, 08:07 AM
Don't have much time, so I don't know if it's been mentioned already.

I've heard of the changes and still feel the SS winner for the regular season should be awarded the final, whether or not they're in the final.

I'm sure they won't ever struggle for attendance and, if anything, this should offer more assurances (planning a trip would be easier).

Great idea. Stress the accomplishment of winning the regular season!

ensco
11-21-2011, 08:27 AM
Giving the Supporters Shield winner the final, is a fantastic idea in every way but one: it makes no business sense.

Right now you have a neutral site game, and months to sell tickets. If you gave the game to the SS winner, you'd only have weeks to sell tickets, and the uncertainty around whether the "home" team makes it means you would have a disaster on your hand, if they didn't and you have two weeks to go.

KGH
11-21-2011, 08:50 AM
Giving the Supporters Shield winner the final, is a fantastic idea in every way but one: it makes no business sense.

Right now you have a neutral site game, and months to sell tickets. If you gave the game to the SS winner, you'd only have weeks to sell tickets, and the uncertainty around whether the "home" team makes it means you would have a disaster on your hand, if they didn't and you have two weeks to go.

I read the rule as the highest seed in the final game gets the home field advantage not the SS winner.

But regardless I disagree. All other NA leagues run this way. It's as easy as pre-selling tickets and then refunding if your team doesn't make it. Gives a team 3-4 weeks to market the hell out of it. Plus if you're team is in the runnning during the playoffs there is generally hype building up.

rdroze
11-21-2011, 10:41 AM
Giving the Supporters Shield winner the final, is a fantastic idea in every way but one: it makes no business sense.

Right now you have a neutral site game, and months to sell tickets. If you gave the game to the SS winner, you'd only have weeks to sell tickets, and the uncertainty around whether the "home" team makes it means you would have a disaster on your hand, if they didn't and you have two weeks to go.
IMHO, this only makes it easier to sell tickets, not harder. You have a guaranteed home team and home fans. Despite the issues some teams face with attendance, it's inconceivable to me that a team would not be able to sell out its own stadium when playing in the championship final match. For example, if you can sell out BMO field in late November for a final between Colorado and Dallas, surely it would only be easier to sell tickets if the game had been held in either of those two cities.

Yohan
11-21-2011, 10:45 AM
IMHO, this only makes it easier to sell tickets, not harder. You have a guaranteed home team and home fans. Despite the issues some teams face with attendance, it's inconceivable to me that a team would not be able to sell out its own stadium when playing in the championship final match. For example, if you can sell out BMO field in late November for a final between Colorado and Dallas, surely it would only be easier to sell tickets if the game had been held in either of those two cities.
MLS Cup in Toronto wasn't a sell out, and it was part of season ticket package. I think that's one of the reason why DG went with highest seeding for home in MLS Cup final

Detroit_TFC
11-21-2011, 12:04 PM
The 2012 schedule format won't last for more than 2012, just a hunch. I just don't think it will do what they think it will do. The playoff changes are welcome though. Two leg conf semi and finals is the way to go.

jabbronies
11-21-2011, 12:47 PM
New playoff rules are good. I don't see a problem with that. Glad the wildcard bullshit is gone.

Unbalanced schedule is such a cluster fuck.

Roogsy
11-21-2011, 12:53 PM
IMHO, this only makes it easier to sell tickets, not harder. You have a guaranteed home team and home fans. Despite the issues some teams face with attendance, it's inconceivable to me that a team would not be able to sell out its own stadium when playing in the championship final match. For example, if you can sell out BMO field in late November for a final between Colorado and Dallas, surely it would only be easier to sell tickets if the game had been held in either of those two cities.


Yes and no. Currently the MLS Cup is an almost week-long event with marketing meetings, supporters clubs meetings, press announcements etc. The MLS Cup itself is almost like a mini Superbowl with artist performances, after-event parties etc.

It you make it a variable location like this, it will eliminate much of what makes MLS Week what it is. You likely will not be able to plan a supporters clubs meeting. Definitely have to strip down the press and media events. And you will not have the broad league-wide attendance that you currently have now, such as Toronto FC fans that have made the trip to this year's event for example. It is difficult to make all those preparations in a 2 week period. That is in addition to marketing and selling tickets to the game as well, like Ensco pointed out.

There have been some serious trade-offs in this new format for the Cup game. Let's hope it pays off for the league.

DichioTFC
11-21-2011, 12:59 PM
1. Correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't the Unbalanced Schedule favour TFC? We're playing teams with a weaker 2011 regular season record (including more games with expansion Montreal) and avoiding the stronger West Coast teams PLUS avoiding lengthy travel as well. Sure we might miss out on playing SJ or Chivas in Cali, but doesn't that work to our favour?

2. I agree with this in principle, but I think it should be done after Montreal is admitted to the league and they have their MLS Cup. Its an opportunity to showcase the city on a continental level, and its a shame that a great Canadian city will not be prominently featured in the United States.

3. This favours us as well. Fifth in the East in 2011 had 43 points, in the West had 46 points. I get the impression that the West will continue to dominate, at least into 2012.

DichioTFC
11-21-2011, 01:01 PM
Giving the Supporters Shield winner the final, is a fantastic idea in every way but one: it makes no business sense.

Right now you have a neutral site game, and months to sell tickets. If you gave the game to the SS winner, you'd only have weeks to sell tickets, and the uncertainty around whether the "home" team makes it means you would have a disaster on your hand, if they didn't and you have two weeks to go.

I disagree. The excitement of winning the Supporters Shield will capture wishy-washy casuals and corporate types. I think a team that's been dominant all season will have no problem selling tickets to a captive fanbase.

TFCin110
11-21-2011, 01:15 PM
I can't keep up with the changes in this league. MLS it what it is. It's mickey mouse. I've stopped trying to legitimize this league to my friends who don't follow it. Instead, I just support TFC. My dad and I stopped caring and just go to each game on a week by week basis. Just enjoy each game as a new week every Saturday. Trust me, if you stop paying attention to the MLS and just enjoy being able to go watch a game with a loved one it'll make the viewing experience that much better.

Dunkers
11-21-2011, 01:25 PM
So given the new unbalanced schedule and Nurtralite Playoff format, it is completly possible for TFC and VanCity to not meet for an entire year...shiiiite.

bones
11-21-2011, 01:35 PM
* sigh*

There's no good need for all this complication and I would wager the majority of MLS fans would agree. It really bothers me that Garber and the MLS brass are basically sticking their nose up at the people who patronize the league and are asking for a fair and balanced schedule.

I think it may be possible here that Garber may be listening to the owners/GM's/Coaches here and asking for MUCH less travel for the team itself. I had heard that the owners were pushing for either a shorter travel schedule or larger rosters (aka mo-money mo-money mo-money). The league won't cough up $$$ for expanded rosters without looking into cutting travel.

Just a thought.

Bones...

Auzzy
11-21-2011, 01:52 PM
So given the new unbalanced schedule and Nurtralite Playoff format, it is completly possible for TFC and VanCity to not meet for an entire year...shiiiite.

No, that's not true. TFC plays each Western team once during the league schedule. That league game vs. Vancouver will either be in Toronto or in Vancouver.

Cashcleaner
11-21-2011, 01:52 PM
I think it may be possible here that Garber may be listening to the owners/GM's/Coaches here and asking for MUCH less travel for the team itself. I had heard that the owners were pushing for either a shorter travel schedule or larger rosters (aka mo-money mo-money mo-money). The league won't cough up $$$ for expanded rosters without looking into cutting travel.

Just a thought.

Bones...

Yeah, that sounds like the likeliest reason. I'm actually starting to think if travel really is that big a problem for some teams, perhaps the league should look at seperating all completion between East and West team and just bring them together in the post season sorta like how baseball does it.

habstfc
11-21-2011, 02:40 PM
Hate the new set-up except for 5 from each conference making playoffs and team with higher points hosting the final. you have to wonder though if TFC was a powerhouse if that would have been brought in. Don't think fans in america would like it too much if the mls cup final was in T.O. every year.

rocker
11-21-2011, 03:13 PM
I don't mind unbalanced schedules, but this one seems weird. It took me awhile to wrap my head around it, which means it's convoluted. Oh well. Get that 20th team and we'll be OK. If we do well next year, I sure won't be thinking of the schedule. It is good that travel will be cut down significantly -- TFC needs that with all the games they have to play.

I do like the playoff system though. None of this crossover stuff like the CFL.

I wouldn't worry about the elimination of the neutral site. yes, you have more time to sell tickets for a dedicated site, but at the same time, the vibe just isn't the same. Fans don't know until two weeks before the match if their team is in it, and then they have to make travel plans. At least now, for one half of the equation, fans have no excuses not to travel and can buy tickets with a 2-week window no problem. Also, since the top 10 of 19 teams make it (well, 5 in one, 5 in the other conference), it means that teams with relatively successful seasons are the ones having to sell tickets... meaning they've already generated season interest (hopefully). They've also made it to the final, meaning they've generated interest through winning in the playoffs. I don't think it's a stretch from there to get people to buy tickets to the final in their own city. Most of the stadia around the league are 18-25K, which isn't tough to fill. Picking dates may be a prob for teams that share stadia with other teams, although that's a problem for only a few teams, and surely they won't have both a Saturday and a Sunday in the fall booked by other teams (they can also book off those days in their stadiums each year just in case).

Shway
11-21-2011, 04:15 PM
"Each East club will play seven of their conference opponents three times each (21 total games) and the remaining two conference opponents twice each (4 games).

To complete their full slate, East teams will then play the nine West teams once each. Those nine games will be split either five at home and four away or vice versa. The locations will be reversed in 2013."

*Sorry if this was said*

But does this mean toronto can play montreal 4 times in league play...
two times in ncc
for a total of 6 times per yer?

...and the possibility of playing them in the preseaon

Auzzy
11-21-2011, 04:20 PM
"Each East club will play seven of their conference opponents three times each (21 total games) and the remaining two conference opponents twice each (4 games).

To complete their full slate, East teams will then play the nine West teams once each. Those nine games will be split either five at home and four away or vice versa. The locations will be reversed in 2013."

*Sorry if this was said*

But does this mean toronto can play montreal 4 times in league play...
two times in ncc
for a total of 6 times per yer?

...and the possibility of playing them in the preseaon

Max 3 times in league play (plus playoffs, possibly).

Max 2 times in NCC.

= max total 5 times (before MLS playoffs).

Plus in the Disney pre-season tournament.

Shway
11-21-2011, 05:08 PM
Max 3 times in league play (plus playoffs, possibly).

Max 2 times in NCC.

= max total 5 times (before MLS playoffs).

Plus in the Disney pre-season tournament.

thnx

max=5
min=4

Auzzy
11-21-2011, 05:12 PM
thnx

max=5
min=4

No problem!

Although, isn't there a chance we don't see them at all in NCC? If TFC is seeded 1st, we play Edmonton 1st round NCC; Van plays Mtl 1st round. If Van wins vs Mtl, then we don't meet Mtl at all the NCC. So then it would be just 2-3 times in MLS league play, i.e., min = 2.

I think. I don't know if the NCC rules are being changed for next year...

Cheers!

JuliquE
11-21-2011, 07:24 PM
Giving the Supporters Shield winner the final, is a fantastic idea in every way but one: it makes no business sense.

Right now you have a neutral site game, and months to sell tickets. If you gave the game to the SS winner, you'd only have weeks to sell tickets, and the uncertainty around whether the "home" team makes it means you would have a disaster on your hand, if they didn't and you have two weeks to go.
Firstly, I was more or less saying that such a solution would, at least, be preferred over what's been decided upon (most reg. season points, between the finalists).

Second: I agree

It's a tough call; as a fan, you want to lend more significance to the SS winner.. but we all can appreciate the importance of smart business-sense in a relatively young league.

Perhaps awarding the MLS Cup final to the SS winner in the previous season can be looked at (again, haven't yet read through the thread; just getting back, now.. so, I'm sorry).

Alonso
11-21-2011, 08:09 PM
The 2012 schedule format won't last for more than 2012, just a hunch. I just don't think it will do what they think it will do. The playoff changes are welcome though. Two leg conf semi and finals is the way to go.

It's already been decided that it will go for both the 2012 and 2013 seasons in order to balance the schedule over two seasons.

ie whoever Toronto only plays once away to in 2012, they will in turn only play those teams once at home in 2013.

Detroit_TFC
11-21-2011, 11:34 PM
^ yes, that is the intention. Lets see if they stick with that plan after doing it in 2012, that's all I'm saying.

Oldtimer
11-22-2011, 08:21 AM
I can't keep up with the changes in this league. MLS it what it is. It's mickey mouse. I've stopped trying to legitimize this league to my friends who don't follow it. Instead, I just support TFC. My dad and I stopped caring and just go to each game on a week by week basis. Just enjoy each game as a new week every Saturday. Trust me, if you stop paying attention to the MLS and just enjoy being able to go watch a game with a loved one it'll make the viewing experience that much better.

If you look at where the game was in England in the 1870's-1890's, they went through all kinds of changes. It's perfectly normal for a young league. You can also look at the history of football in Latin American or even in Germany in the post-war period to see that younger leagues tend to shift things around, they only solidify their format when they get more mature.

We can't pretend that MLS is a mature league, it isn't. However, I believe that the future is bright for the game here in North America.

Huyton
11-22-2011, 08:53 AM
I'd've preferred if the MLS Cup game went to the Supporters Shield winner, regardless of whether the SS Winner actually played in the MLS Cup game or not.

Beach_Red
11-22-2011, 10:40 AM
If you look at where the game was in England in the 1870's-1890's, they went through all kinds of changes. It's perfectly normal for a young league. You can also look at the history of football in Latin American or even in Germany in the post-war period to see that younger leagues tend to shift things around, they only solidify their format when they get more mature.

We can't pretend that MLS is a mature league, it isn't. However, I believe that the future is bright for the game here in North America.

Yes, I agree, the future is bright. But it'll still take some work and a lot of money. Some people talk as if soccer's success is the US is as easy as putting on the games. It's an incredibly competitive market.

You can look at what other sports leagues in North America went through to become successful and see a lot of experimentation and changes before, as you say, they matured. It's hard to picture now, but the NFL was once the one with a shaky future (okay, maybe the AFL, but they were both very far behind baseball) and the NBA and NHL were both regional, practically minor leagues.

PopePouri
11-22-2011, 12:17 PM
They're obviously figuring it out as they go along. As more teams join the league, travel became a factor and that affected the product hence experimentation, changes year over year.

It sounds like a mess but they have 19 teams which complicates things. It would be stupid for them to stop a team from joining the league so that they can even additions. We have no clue what will happen to the new NY franchise.

Yohan
11-22-2011, 12:29 PM
They're obviously figuring it out as they go along. As more teams join the league, travel became a factor and that affected the product hence experimentation, changes year over year.

It sounds like a mess but they have 19 teams which complicates things. It would be stupid for them to stop a team from joining the league so that they can even additions. We have no clue what will happen to the new NY franchise.
I think we won't see a new team for another 3 years. Although I'd prefer to stop at 20 for some breathing room and to reorganize the league before expanding further, no other markets seems to be willing to step up.

Potential market in next 3-5 yrs
-Detroit
-St Louis
-Orlando (avg 6k in attendance this year)
-San Diego (just move Chivas USA there)
-Las Vegas

Redcoe15
11-22-2011, 12:42 PM
I think we won't see a new team for another 3 years. Although I'd prefer to stop at 20 for some breathing room and to reorganize the league before expanding further, no other markets seems to be willing to step up.

Potential market in next 3-5 yrs
-Detroit
-St Louis
-Orlando (avg 6k in attendance this year)
-San Diego (just move Chivas USA there)
-Las Vegas
I'd be very leery of Orlando and Las Vegas as potential markets. Orlando just started up this year after Steve Donner sweet talked the owners of Austin to move their team there. Plus, they'd need a new SSS to play in because the Citrus bowl ain't gonna cut it, and after the city got blackmailed into building another new playpen for the NBA Magic, are they really that interested in putting up money for another stadium in these economic uncertainties? I'd rather South Florida and/or Tampa Bay get another shot.

And Las Vegas is a disaster waiting to happen. Not only are you playing in the brutal desert heat in the summer, but because Las Vegas is set up as a 24 hour working town - a third of the people are working, a third are sleeping, and a third are avaliable to do whatever - they're really limited in the audience they can get.

Yohan
11-22-2011, 12:50 PM
I'd be very leery of Orlando and Las Vegas as potential markets. Orlando just started up this year after Steve Donner sweet talked the owners of Austin to move their team there. Plus, they'd need a new SSS to play in because the Citrus bowl ain't gonna cut it, and after the city got blackmailed into building another new playpen for the NBA Magic, are they really that interested in putting up money for another stadium in these economic uncertainties? I'd rather South Florida and/or Tampa Bay get another shot.

And Las Vegas is a disaster waiting to happen. Not only are you playing in the brutal desert heat in the summer, but because Las Vegas is set up as a 24 hour working town - a third of the people are working, a third are sleeping, and a third are avaliable to do whatever - they're really limited in the audience they can get.
yeah, but what 3rd tier team draws 6k on avg?

SSS would be nice, but not a deal breaker. Esp if an investor who's willing to pitch in for a stadium in the future

What makes you think South Florida and Tampa Bay would be better? They had their chance, and haven't shown anything to be worthy of a team.

Vegas doesn't have any major pro teams. With good marketing, surely 15k attendance is possible

Redcoe15
11-22-2011, 01:02 PM
yeah, but what 3rd tier team draws 6k on avg?

SSS would be nice, but not a deal breaker. Esp if an investor who's willing to pitch in for a stadium in the future

What makes you think South Florida and Tampa Bay would be better? They had their chance, and haven't shown anything to be worthy of a team.
But Orlando does? Based on their attendance from a tier 3 perspective in year one? Is Steve Donner papering some parts here and there?

Let's face it, all of Florida is a practical graveyard for sports. I just threw in South Florida and Tampa Bay because they have a large background in professional soccer, which Orlando doesn't.

Vegas doesn't have any major pro teams. With good marketing, surely 15k attendance is possible
And, from my reason stated, that's problably why there's no major league teams in Vegas.

habstfc
11-22-2011, 02:25 PM
I think we won't see a new team for another 3 years. Although I'd prefer to stop at 20 for some breathing room and to reorganize the league before expanding further, no other markets seems to be willing to step up.

Potential market in next 3-5 yrs
-Detroit
-St Louis
-Orlando (avg 6k in attendance this year)
-San Diego (just move Chivas USA there)
-Las Vegas

San Diego would work if chivas moved there. St. Louis is another possibility, but the rest, no way.

Huyton
11-22-2011, 03:13 PM
I would think that you'd add Phoenix in there. With a very large metropolitan population (and a large hispanic element), I'd be surprised if the Valley of the Sun was not considered).

Yohan
11-22-2011, 04:20 PM
But Orlando does? Based on their attendance from a tier 3 perspective in year one? Is Steve Donner papering some parts here and there?

Let's face it, all of Florida is a practical graveyard for sports. I just threw in South Florida and Tampa Bay because they have a large background in professional soccer, which Orlando doesn't.
I dunno. Floridans love hype just as much as Torontonians do


And, from my reason stated, that's problably why there's no major league teams in Vegas.
vegas can't be that much hotter than playing in dallas or houston mid summer

ensco
11-22-2011, 04:41 PM
If I were czar I would have a second NY team, relocate Columbus to St Louis, and stop for 5 years.

MLS have a lot to digest. They need to focus on stability and market development.

scooter
11-23-2011, 10:53 AM
So, in theory the MLS cup could be played in Toronto next year :cheers:

and at the next mls cup in toronto our boys should be playing

boban
11-23-2011, 11:46 AM
I would think that you'd add Phoenix in there. With a very large metropolitan population (and a large hispanic element), I'd be surprised if the Valley of the Sun was not considered).
What does mean? It's not as if by default just because they are hispanic they will support a Phoenix team.
Look at LA and Chivas. They are trying everything there and can't get good crowds out there.

boban
11-23-2011, 11:47 AM
and at the next mls cup in toronto our boys should be playing
Me thinks is that is what he meant when he said next MLS Cup in Toronto.

TOBOR !
11-23-2011, 12:17 PM
I'd be very leery of Orlando and Las Vegas as potential markets. Orlando just started up this year after Steve Donner sweet talked the owners of Austin to move their team there. Plus, they'd need a new SSS to play in because the Citrus bowl ain't gonna cut it, and after the city got blackmailed into building another new playpen for the NBA Magic, are they really that interested in putting up money for another stadium in these economic uncertainties? I'd rather South Florida and/or Tampa Bay get another shot.

And Las Vegas is a disaster waiting to happen. Not only are you playing in the brutal desert heat in the summer, but because Las Vegas is set up as a 24 hour working town - a third of the people are working, a third are sleeping, and a third are avaliable to do whatever - they're really limited in the audience they can get.

You are Bob McCown, and I claim my £5.

Redcoe15
11-23-2011, 01:16 PM
You are Bob McCown, and I claim my £5.
I like soccer. You lose that bet. :p