Questions about the MLS setup

[PRB]

I was talking to my Dad back in the UK this evening and since he doesn't know much about the MLS I was explaining the set-up to him and he found two things pretty strange:

-Why the league leaders do not win the title as the best team/most consistent over a knockout competition for over 50% of the teams at the tail end of a long season?

-Why not promotion and relegation?

I explained that both were because of the North American sports culture with the second especially being because the fan base of a lot of teams is probably not strong enough for them to survive a relegation.

So then I looked at the TFC schedule and noticed that we played each team twice except for NY and Columbus who we played three times. Anyone know why that is?

I like the idea of complete parity in games played against opposition and don't see why the leaders at the end should not be the champions. The playoffs certainly are exciting and give the teams from 7th-10th say, something to go for. But Columbus this year were the best team in the MLS but in the first round against the 8th best Salt Lake they lost two games and are done... They could have had a few injuries and their season of being the best is done in two games?

The promotion and relegation and lack of it is probably understandable but one day it would be a great thing to see. Whether the league expanded enough to become an MLS1 and MLS2 or whether it just linked up with the league below. It would certainly give the fans of teams near the bottom something to be on the edge of their seats about in the final games of the season. Even if it was just one down, one up. I tend to think one of the things that makes soccer great is that fans of any team from any division can aspire to one day see their team go to the top and that any team playing bad can go down the leagues.

Thoughts? Especially regarding the 2 games against all but NY and Columbus!!

[flatpicker]

Well, MLS does have a league champ at the end of the season.
They win the Supporters' Shield... it just doesn't get the exposure that the MLS Cup gets.

As for the scheduling...
Well, the number of teams in the league is constantly fluctuating during these expansion years.
It's tough to keep the schedule balanced... so the odd games get played against what the league considers "rivals".

As for promotion/relegation...
Sure, it would be exciting, but like you said, it would be tough for relegated teams to survive in the North American soccer climate.
I'm sure there is some clever way of making it work, plenty of options have been discussed in this forum in the past.
But obviously MLS has not seen any reason to move away from the typical North American sports setup.

[Cashcleaner]

As far as I know, the league just wanted to squeeze in as many games as they could before the weather was too cold for soccer. More games means more cash, so its strictly a business decision, I suppose.

Once we get up to 18-20 teams in the league, I think we'll stick to a proper home-and-away schedule.

[flatpicker]

^ wasn't there some announcement not long ago that next season was going to be a balanced schedule?
Or did I dream that?

[MUFC_Niagara]

No, you are right flatpicker. The announcement is below.

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/soc...cup_break.html

[flatpicker]

No, you are right flatpicker. The announcement is below.

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/soc...cup_break.html

Which makes me wonder, why the hell are they keeping the conference setup?
I can't think of a single good reason.

[MUFC_Niagara]

Which makes me wonder, why the hell are they keeping the conference setup?
I can't think of a single good reason.

I think the next thing you'll see is the conference setup scrapped. I agree, there is no point anymore. I say go to a single table and put more emphasis on the league winner. You can still have the top 8 teams play for the MLS cup.

[flatpicker]

^ exactly.

[shaggingscot]

Which makes me wonder, why the hell are they keeping the conference setup?
I can't think of a single good reason.

Travel costs more than anything I think, I also think it's to ease the wear and tear on players from all the travel. When you think about the travel our teams put up with compared to teams in Europe it's staggering!

[MUFC_Niagara]

Travel costs more than anything I think, I also think it's to ease the wear and tear on players from all the travel. When you think about the travel our teams put up with compared to teams in Europe it's staggering!

I was thinking about that too, but, we already travel a lot anyway to the west coast. To ease the burden, you can still have TFC play Chivas on a saturday and LA on the wednesday and then play on the sunday of the following week instead of the saturday. Its not ideal but its a way to make things easier.

[shaggingscot]

I was thinking about that too, but, we already travel a lot anyway to the west coast. To ease the burden, you can still have TFC play Chivas on a saturday and LA on the wednesday and then play on the sunday of the following week instead of the saturday. Its not ideal but its a way to make things easier.

You're right, on the surface it would appear to be an easy thing to do so there must be a reason they don't. Maybe the players don't want to do it or the league doesn't like paying hotel costs for that length of time?

They also might think the american sports fans need the conference set up? They're so used to it in the other sports, it might confuse the poor bastards?

[MUFC_Niagara]

You're right, on the surface it would appear to be an easy thing to do so there must be a reason they don't. Maybe the players don't want to do it or the league doesn't like paying hotel costs for that length of time?

They also might think the american sports fans need the conference set up? They're so used to it in the other sports, it might confuse the poor bastards?

LOL....ya, we don't want to confuse them. There must be some reason. I wish they would put more emphasis on the league title though. The champion for me is who can endure the strain of the season. Football is a squad game, the true test is which team can most effectively use their players over the course of the season.

[shaggingscot]

LOL....ya, we don't want to confuse them. There must be some reason. I wish they would put more emphasis on the league title though. The champion for me is who can endure the strain of the season. Football is a squad game, the true test is which team can most effectively use their players over the course of the season.

Preaching to the choir here, single table is the way it should be. I've never been able to come to grips with the whole playoff thing for football. But when in Rome....

[Cashcleaner]

My predictions:

1) Once we're at 16 teams we'll have a regular 1-home, 1-away schedule.

2) When we get 18 teams we'll drop the conferences and play as a single table.

3) League halts expansion at 20 clubs.

Don't know about you guys, but that's a plan I can get behind.

[MUFC_Niagara]

My predictions:

1) Once we're at 16 teams we'll have a regular 1-home, 1-away schedule.

2) When we get 18 teams we'll drop the conferences and play as a single table.

3) League halts expansion at 20 clubs.

I agree, and hope it comes to fruition!

[Smokecell]

My predictions:

1) Once we're at 16 teams we'll have a regular 1-home, 1-away schedule.

2) When we get 18 teams we'll drop the conferences and play as a single table.

3) League halts expansion at 20 clubs.

Don't know about you guys, but that's a plan I can get behind.

1 we already know is true, as for the other 2 i couldn't agree more and the way things are going it's looking like we're in line for exactly that

[flatpicker]

Travel costs more than anything I think, I also think it's to ease the wear and tear on players from all the travel. When you think about the travel our teams put up with compared to teams in Europe it's staggering!

I must be missing something...
What does travel have to do with anything if the league has a balanced schedule?
Conferences are put in place because of geography.
But teams are meant to play conference rivals more than teams from outside the conference.
And in that situation, travel plays a part in a league's schedule and setup.

But if MLS is using a balanced schedule, then none of that applies.
Correct me if I'm wrong...

[james]

I must be missing something...
What does travel have to do with anything if the league has a balanced schedule?
Conferences are put in place because of geography.
But teams are meant to play conference rivals more than teams from outside the conference.
And in that situation, travel plays a part in a league's schedule and setup.

But if MLS is using a balanced schedule, then none of that applies.
Correct me if I'm wrong...

they havent been using balancing schedules in the passed, but like they say next year we will have a balanced schedule. So no your not missing anything there is no reason why we have Eastern conference and a Western conference anymore, we are guessing that MLS just thinks every other sporting event like NFL, NHL, NBA and MLB all use East and West and conference so we need do the same as them or else the casual fan wont understand a single conference table. Which is pretty stupid really.

[Nazzer]

Which makes me wonder, why the hell are they keeping the conference setup?
I can't think of a single good reason.

They keep the conference setup because MLS has expressed a desire to maintain a 30 game schedule. So with conferences it will be easier to pick a way to decide what teams you play more than others.

It's hard enough as it is for the league to fit their schedule around the whether. Adding 8 more regular season games, I don't htink that would work.

[Ossington Mental Youth]

I think the next thing you'll see is the conference setup scrapped. I agree, there is no point anymore. I say go to a single table and put more emphasis on the league winner. You can still have the top 8 teams play for the MLS cup.

exactly what id like to see, only makes sense

[Oldtimer]

Keeping conferences for now gives the league more flexibility. If you ended up with, say, 24 teams, you could run each conference independently, with the champions of each conference meeting only in the MLS Cup.

If the league indeed stops at 20 teams, then the conferences can and should be scrapped.

[Mark in Ottawa]

Conferences serve two purposes... they allow for more games to be scheduled within your conference and therefore cut down on travel costs.

Playing the teams in your conference, closer geographic rivals, is supposed to help generate rivalries between teams and make for a battle for fans hearts in your geographic area.

Promotion/relegation will not work in North America because of one simple fact... expansion fees. Who in his right mind is going to cough up big bucks to step into the top flight with a chance they might get relegated in a few years and devalue the franchise??

Unlike european leagues where you join the "association" at a lower level and prove yourself via successive promotions we have the "money talks" promotion scheme.

[flatpicker]

Keeping conferences for now gives the league more flexibility. If you ended up with, say, 24 teams, you could run each conference independently, with the champions of each conference meeting only in the MLS Cup.

If the league indeed stops at 20 teams, then the conferences can and should be scrapped.

that has always been my hope (assuming a single table is out of the question).

I see Conferences as true geographical divides.
A set-up more like MLB would be great.
East champ vs West Champ.

But single table would still be my first choice.

[Beach_Red]

Unlike european leagues where you join the "association" at a lower level and prove yourself via successive promotions we have the "money talks" promotion scheme.

Everyone has the "money talks" promotion scheme - until those top 2-3 richest teams in every league face some realistic chance of relegation I have to say from a North American perpsective it seems like an idea whose time has passed. If ManU or Celtic or (fill in top team here) is never in any real danger of it because they can always simply buy better players, what's the point?

But another reason it isn't in North America is there just simply aren't enough teams nor enough fans who would care. Look at Toronto, if TFC got relegated this city would simply return to the way it was with the Lynx. Other than maybe 4000 people no one else in the city is invested enough in soccer (especially at an even lower level than MLS) to really bother with it.

A few owners are actually spending a lot of money on soccer in North America, but it's still on pretty shaky ground. There's a lot of potential and I hope it works out, but it has a ways to go.

[Mark in Ottawa]

Everyone has the "money talks" promotion scheme - until those top 2-3 richest teams in every league face some realistic chance of relegation I have to say from a North American perpsective it seems like an idea whose time has passed.

True.
I wrote my comments thinking of the NHL selling of franchises and diluting their product as a sample of North American thinking.

And of course of the Toronto Maple Leafs as an example of a rich club that doesn't have to succeed on the field of play as long as they succeed financially because relegation is not a risk.

[Oldtimer]

Everyone has the "money talks" promotion scheme - until those top 2-3 richest teams in every league face some realistic chance of relegation I have to say from a North American perpsective it seems like an idea whose time has passed. If ManU or Celtic or (fill in top team here) is never in any real danger of it because they can always simply buy better players, what's the point?

It's hard to argue against this. Man United, Liverpool, Celtic, Inter, Barcelona, Real Madrid, Bayern Munich etc. are closer to North American "franchises" in reality as there is zero chance that any of these clubs would ever have to fight to keep in top flight. It wasn't always that way, but in the modern world with the disparity between the top clubs and the bottom-feeders these clubs are guaranteed to be in the top league.

[Beach_Red]

True.
I wrote my comments thinking of the NHL selling of franchises and diluting their product as a sample of North American thinking.

And of course of the Toronto Maple Leafs as an example of a rich club that doesn't have to succeed on the field of play as long as they succeed financially because relegation is not a risk.

You're right about the NHL and what happened to them should be a good warning to MLS. The NHL had a good product but, as you say, they diluted it too much and tried to enter markets where there was no grassroots at all.

Lately MLS seems to be doing a better job of expanding at the right rate and only into markets where it looks good like Toronto, Seattle, Philly etc. If they keep going in the right way and increase the salary cap at the right rate MLS will pass the NHL and be a major sport in Norh America soon.

Let's face it, if there was a good 60,000 seat stadium in New York and the owners of say (just for this hypothetical discussion) Liverpool moved the team there, it would sell out every game. The question is how to build up to that level?

[Globetrotter]

I think Im one of the few that hope that we don't go to the European style single table (no playoff system). We're north american, and I think we need to keep it our style. Just because England (and others) is doing it single table doesn't make it "the right way" or "proper". Keep it in line with all other N.A. sports leagues. This is our soccer league.

I like the East/West (north/south) divide. It adds 2 more (useless) cups or championships to the mix. They don't mean anything, but it's fun and has bragging rights. It's not like we need to have conferences, but that's how we do things HERE and im in favor of keeping it like that.

There's a lot associate to winning the Supporters shield, but it's not glamorous, and there's no hype, but it's still important...and it can still be played for whether we have conferences or not. As far as the playoff system... it's great. It's what we do here. If people would open their eyes, it's also what "they do over there". Name the 3 biggest soccer showcases... world cup, euro, champions league? All playoff style knock out. They could do a single table world cup. They could do a single table euro. but they dont!!!! They could, but it just can't compare to a knockout style playoff system.

It's up to Europe and the world to wake up and realize that what we have here, a playoff system, is great, and MLS is doing it right. They can keep your single table "thrills", I prefer my knockout playoff system.

[flatpicker]

I think Im one of the few that hope that we don't go to the European style single table (no playoff system). We're north american, and I think we need to keep it our style. Just because England (and others) is doing it single table doesn't make it "the right way" or "proper". Keep it in line with all other N.A. sports leagues. This is our soccer league.

I like the East/West (north/south) divide. It adds 2 more (useless) cups or championships to the mix. They don't mean anything, but it's fun and has bragging rights. It's not like we need to have conferences, but that's how we do things HERE and im in favor of keeping it like that.

There's a lot associate to winning the Supporters shield, but it's not glamorous, and there's no hype, but it's still important...and it can still be played for whether we have conferences or not. As far as the playoff system... it's great. It's what we do here. If people would open their eyes, it's also what "they do over there". Name the 3 biggest soccer showcases... world cup, euro, champions league? All playoff style knock out. They could do a single table world cup. They could do a single table euro. but they dont!!!! They could, but it just can't compare to a knockout style playoff system.

It's up to Europe and the world to wake up and realize that what we have here, a playoff system, is great, and MLS is doing it right. They can keep your single table "thrills", I prefer my knockout playoff system.

I've used the examples of World Cup etc. to show why conferences and divisions are ok.
But the problem I have is when you use a conference system, yet have a balanced, or near balanced, schedule.
It should be one way or the other.
Conferences should mean that teams play the majority of their games within their own conference.
Right now, that isn't happening.

I'd be happy with either setup... but it needs to be done right... no "in between".

[Super]

It's up to Europe and the world to wake up and realize that what we have here, a playoff system, is great, and MLS is doing it right. They can keep your single table "thrills", I prefer my knockout playoff system.

I disagree completely. The world is not going to wake up to anything. Football is the biggest sport in the world, and our little league is not going to change their minds any more than a 1% political party is going to grab power in the next election. If we want the MLS to be more respected internationally then we should conform to the way the game is played, managed and run internationally. Far too many people choose to ignore the MLS because they simply don't understand our system - nor do they care to invest time in learning it. It's seen as an inferior league, and we should make steps towards earning the respect of the world - which would benefit us not just in TV money and such, but also help us in bringing better players to the MLS.