As expected, Major League Soccer altered its competition format for next season, with the league announcing those changes hours prior to the 2011 MLS Cup — the last one to be held at a predetermined site.
The 2012 MLS Cup will be held at the home of the finalist with the most regular-season points, and the road to getting to the final has changed as well.
The top five teams in each conference will make the playoffs, with the fourth and fifth seeds in the respective conferences playing a one-off elimination game to determine who advances to the conference semifinals. From there, the conference semifinals and finals will both be two-leg, home-and-home series as opposed to the past in which the conference final was just a one-game round.
The new format eliminates the possibility of a team from the Western Conference crossing over into the Eastern Conference playoff bracket and vice versa.
Here are the other changes on tap for the 2012 MLS season:
UNBALANCED 34-GAME SCHEDULE
As MLS commissioner Don Garber announced a couple of weeks ago, there will be an unbalanced schedule with the addition of the Montreal Impact to the Eastern Conference.
Teams in the 10-team East will play seven conference opponents three times each, and two other opponents two times each. They'll play each Western Conference team once, and those that they play at home in 2012 they will face on the road in 2013.
Teams in the nine-team West will play each conference foe three times apiece and each Eastern Conference team one time each. The teams they play at home in 2012 they will face on the road in 2013.
"We have established a fair and compelling format for the 2012 season," MLS Executive Vice President Nelson Rodriguez said in a league statement. "This regular season will include more games between regional rivals and less total travel than we have seen in recent years. Because of the wide geographic distribution of MLS clubs, this structure should improve the quality of play, while continuing to give every club an equal chance of qualifying for the MLS Cup playoffs."
—————–
What do you make of the competition changes?
Share your thoughts below.
I always felt like the San Jose/LAG died after they went to Houston, so I’d be fine with them being in a different division. Also I’m an RSL fan so I have that bias as well 🙂
If the schedule is divided into conferences — and I’m assuming it would be for lots of reasons, most of them economic — then, the playoffs should be, as well.
ALL STAR GAME! Slightly off topic but I’d like to see a change to the all star game. My proposal: Ditch the all-star game in favor of a week of mini-tournaments with two MLS teams and 2 foreign teams in a bunch of little one-off groups. Might look something like this…
2 MLS teams in a weekend game that counts in MLS standings and World Challenge standings (or whatever it’s called) followed at the same site by the two foreign teams playing. Then a couple games mid week and the following weekend with the MLS teams hosting the foreign teams. After all four teams have played each other the top of the table wins.
The league needs to do something to address all of the teams coming to MLS for friendlies during the summer…why not incorporate it better?
That can also be done with 3 conferences 8 teams each
West, central, east
Home and away within your own conference then play another conference home and the other one away or half home half away within those 2 other conferences.
Some fans, including myself, are getting upset because for years, 8 out of 10, 12, 10 (again), 12 (again), 13, 14, 15 etc… teams were making the play-offs. Finally with the most recent expansion, there was going to be less than 50% of teams to make the playoffs. Then the Don made the playoff changes to admit more teams in the post season.
I would love to see 8 teams total (4 from the East and 4 from the West). My theory is 8 out of 19 would make the regular season more meaningful.
I think the league will surprise you. They aren’t ready to go to 36 games yet, and they don’t want a schedule where some teams might not play against each other every year. When they go to 20 teams, you’ll probably see something along the lines I’ve outlined. If they don’t go to divisions. they could still stick with what they’ve got, and just move up to 36 games, going from 2x series with two team to 3x series with all teams in the conference. That has its own kind of balance…and maybe avoids playing too may home games against the same teams (that way you’d have 3 home games against each of the teams in your conference over 2 years, instead of 4). We’d get used to that, too.
Ultimately — 4 divisions with 6 teams:
New England, Montreal, Toronto, Chicago, KC, Columbus/Minneapolis
New York, New York, Philly, DC, Atl, Orl/Mia
Vancouver, Portland, Seattle, Real Salt Lake, Colorado, San Jose
LAG, Chivas, San Diego, Houston, FC Dallas, Phoenix/Las Vegas
You could do home-and-home in the conference, and one game apiece outside, for 34 games, or 18 outside your division (1x against all teams), and 20 in the division (4x) for 38 games — all depending on where the league is at and how many games they could support.
Anyway, the point is that it really ain’t rocket surgery: we’ve already presented different systems here that would keep the divisions/conferences, increase regional rivalries, reduce travel time & cost, and furthermore be more logical and balanced in general than what the league is presenting. The league just needs to think better.
Um, well, I think you’re the one doing that, actually. I’m presenting a simpler structure as compared to yours, without that additional conference distinction and different weighting of schedules that comes with it.
An additional advantage is that avoiding that additional conference you have only helps increase the odds that the 2 best teams will meet in the final. For example, your structure would have LA v Houston, like the system this year, while mine would have presented LA v RSL in the final today, as they could not have been the best 2 still standing and nevertheless met before the final.
You’re making the playoffs too complicated, just to be cute. Keep the conference structure, with two divisions in each conference. Get a conference champion. East and West meet in MLS Cup.
I think 36 is the max possible. It’s tough, though. On the other hand, the owners won’t want to cut the schedule down too much. Revenue thing. They’re at 34 now. 2 more is doable, in the future — especially if the league adds a team in New York City. As revenues go up, the league could maybe afford a 32-man roster, which would help, and the USSF could put out more refs.
As for the divisions, if you love the Colorado-RSL rivalry, and playing 2x a year isn’t enough for you, you could swap Colorado and San Jose. Even though SJE are closer to the Northwest teams, I could see this might make more sense. So:
Vancouver, Portland, Seattle, Real Salt Lake and Colorado would be one division. San Jose, LAG, Chivas, FC Dallas and Houston in the other.
Oh, I hadn’t spotted the splitting of Colorado and RSL. Not good, especially if the league is intent on encouraging such rivalries.
Is there really a rivalry between LA & SJ? Haven’t seen much to really support that idea of late. But I agree that here again, the divisions would have to be drawn with some care in those ways…
Personally I don’t really need the sort of double tiering that comes with conferences as well as divisions (about the only difference from what I described above, dividing into 3). I mean I’m happy to have it if it leads to a logical balance in schedule, but simply having 4 divisions could work fine. With 4 of 5 teams, and a system of playing 4 games against each division rival plus 1 against everyone else, that’s 16 division plus 15 non-division = 31 total games. So I’d think you’re just done there, with sufficient total games and everybody playing everybody else in the same way (even if not balanced in the “universal” sense). Fischy’s system appears to involve 36 total games (16 division + 10 conference + 10 non-conference), at a time when people are saying 34 may have been too many.
Then you just take the top 2 finishers of each division, who play each other for their respective division championships. After that, the Supporters Shield winner plays the weakest division winner and the other 2 play each other in 2-game series. The highest record remaining hosts the final.
It was ten teams this year too. I liked 8 better also, but at least next year there will be one more team. If they keep it at ten as MLS adds a 20th team, then I’ll be okay with it.
Thank you!
destroyed
More than half the teams make the playoffs in NHL and NBA as well. MLB is adding two playoff teams. MLS will go from 10 of 18 last year to 10 of 19 this year and in the future, and eventually 10 of 20, so half. Why is this something to get upset over? It made the final two weeks of the MLS regular season quite exciting this time (especially the Portland vs DC game).
I like the idea, but it hampers the RSL/Colorado and LAG/SJ rivalries. Then again, to make it even one of those rivalries will have to go.
Tony,
I was look for your comments because they’re usually more well-thought out than the ‘this sucks’ comments.
I too am more bothered by an increase in the number of teams in the playoffs! The unbalanced schedule bothers me somewhat, but the fact that 10 teams make the playoffs in 2012 means that more than 50% of the teams are in! Ridiculous!
My frustration with this is that in Soccer, unlike other American sports is that there are many more ties. With that known going in, it is tough to explain to potential fans how a Rapids, a NYRB, a SCL a couple of years ago are the best team in the league!
6 teams MAX, and preferably it would be 4.
This is the sort of thing I was describing above. I’m glad you like the idea. 🙂
When the league goes to 20 teams, I think I’d like to see it divide into four divisions, with a “balanced” schedule in the division. There would five teams, each playing the other four teams 4 times. Then, they’d play the teams in the other division in their conference 2 times, and play the other conference teams once each year (alternating sites each year). That would shut up all the people complaining that one team would have some advantage based on the extra home game against some other rival, and demanding “balance”. It would REALLY build up division rivalries.
The league could fall back to 8 teams in the playoffs — 1st and 2nd place teams in each division, but I suppose they could also have a wild-card playoff between the second and third place teams in each division.
The divisions?
Northeast: New England, Toronto, Montreal, New York Red Bull, New York (Cosmos?) — unless it goes to another city, in which case Columbus drops in.
Central: DC (or Baltimore) United, Philly, Chicago, KC and Columbus, or whatever expansion team (Atl/Orl/Mia)
Alternatively (I like this better):
East – Northern: New England, Montreal, Toronto, Chicago and Columbus
East – Southern: NYRB, DC, Philly, KC and NY/Atl/Orl/Mia.
Western Conf
Northern: Vancouver, Portland, Seattle, San Jose, Salt Lake
Southern: LAG, Chivas USA, Colorado, Dallas, Houston
Also, having the divisions set up as Northern and Southern would allow schedulemakers to take climate in account, loading up the Northern home games during the summer as much as possible and having those teams travel more early and late in the season.
This is an improvement, I suppose.
I like the fact that a mediocre team can no longer waltz into the playoffs and win the championship with like 3-4 good games. Having to prove it over 6 games makes it slightly more difficult for the 4th and 5th place teams to win it all.
If I understand now TEN teams make the playoffs? More than 50% of the teams? How is that a good idea?
I still favor a home and away schedule and cut the playoffs down to 4 teams. That keeps more games for all teams but doesn’t reward mediocrity who suddenly ‘get hot’ (SLC, Dallas, Red Bulls, Rapids come to mind)
+2
I honestly wouldn’t be surprised if we eventually saw the NFL follow suit. As MLS gets more popular and more exposure, I think eventually people will want to ditch the whole AFC-NFC division and just go by geography; imagine having meaningful 49er/raider match-ups every year! Once AFC-NFC is eliminated, it gets rid of the need for a neutral Superbowl site, and like MLS fans, NFL fans will also call for the higher seeded team to host the Superbowl. It just makes the game so much more epic.
I guarantee you other American sport execs will be watching closely to how this new format pans out for MLS; props to Garber for leading the way.
Bottom line, it’s not perfect but it’s evolving in the right way. There are sure to be more tweaks coming over the next 5 years, but this is another mostly positive step.
And as someone who now lives about 700 miles from his hometeam, the ability to see more games regionally is a plus.
Well what I described above would be completely balanced both within and outside of conferences in the case of all West & Central teams, and would still also be completely balanced within the East conf, as well (which is where you most want it to be balanced if you’re going to have confs and use them to determine playoff spots, etc). Not even any home field advantage issues. You could even schedule the big rivalries in 2 pairs of meetings. That ought to really push that whole thing, like the league says it wants to, and this system would also reduce travel time/costs, like the league also says it wants to.
Even if further growth means (at least at times) some further sacrificing of the non-conference balance, well that’s not a huge price to pay and is part of deciding against a single table / balanced schedule approach in the first place. Those non-conf games would remain a relatively minor part of any given team’s schedule, anyway.
i like it. more montreal vs toronto and portland vs seattle vs vancouver.
I should amend some of my earlier comments. I do expect the league to go to 36 games when it goes to 20 teams, as there would be no reason to have the two teams you only play twice — that’s being done because the West has fewer teams now. 36 games is an awful lot though. I can’t see how the league could go much beyond that. and a fully balanced schedule would mean 38 games when the league goes to 20 teams.
It will extend the schedule a bit, but the’ll probably start a week earlier, Right now, the playoffs would only be one game longer.
It’s not about the athletes and travel, though that might be a factor keeping some big stars from coming over. Still, I don’t think your job requires you to chase professional athletes around a field for 90 minutes.
Travel was more of an issue, I think, for some owners, who were ringing up some big bills.
I wouldn’t mind the changes so much if my favorite rivalry (Houston – Dallas) weren’t getting screwed by it. I hope they hurry up with that 20th team.
Where in WIcked1’s comment did you read him stating that the SS winner gets to host the final. He wrote exactly what you wrote, except he put “finalist” in quotes.
“Rocket surgery” is a pretty well established joke, which I guess you didn’t get.
Then again, this was probably the most expendable rivalry to MLS since Dallas doesn’t have the attendance figures.
That’s crap.
This happens in every major sports league in North America (NBA, NFL, MLB, NHL). The best team usually still ends up with the best record despite not playing every team evenly.
Ok but the team with the highest point total in the MLS Cup isnt necessarily the better team that deserves to host the final, right?! With an unbalanced conference schedule you have no ability to compare the schedules and point totals across the two conferences… Doesn’t make any sense. (someone probably wrote this same thing but I dont feel like reading hundreds of comments to check…)
Agreed. Garber’s done a very good job for MLS. Its not perfect but it can’t be easy to run a freaking professional sports league.
lol at the people who act like MLS officials are know-nothing incompetents.
That’s where you’re wrong. Of course that will be the case.
I think it largely makes sense. Having 19 teams means a balanced schedule would require 36 games (plus CCL and Open Cup) which MLS teams don’t really have the depth for. Not to mention the odd number of teams means someone would have to have a bye every week.
I think it makes more sense if it’s really a 2 year schedule, split in half. Like how it says the East/West teams will only play each other once each, and the teams on the road for the cross-conference games in 2012 will then be the home teams for 2013, that should apply to everything. So for the teams that play each other 3 times within their conference, one team is going to have 2 road games and 1 home game in that series, so then in 2013, in that same matchup, the other team should be the one with 2 road games and 1 home game.
Not sure how that would work in the East though, since it’s x3 for some teams and x2 for others; would they shuffle it, like DC plays KC twice in 2012 but then plays KC 3x in 2013 while playing Columbus twice instead, of would they’d keep it the same? I’m not sure which way would be better.
Your body doesn’t break down in the same way a pro athelte’s does b/c of the nature of your work.
Healthy players is long term better for the fans anyways.
I could be wrong, but the Toronto MLS Cup and the one in LA when the Crew played NY looked poorly attended on TV. They were both sell outs, but if people don’t go to the game it looks pretty bad.
+1
Where in the article did you read that the SS winner gets to host the final? It says no such thing. It says the finalist with the most points gets to host.
So the NFL, NBA and NHL are not “fair” but the same teams buying the EPL title every year is?
I dont think that you train your butt off every day trying to keep your spot on the team or trying to raise your game so you will get a better paycheck. You dont have to travel and have to perform in front of people. You dont have to play 90 minutes in the summer heat or in the cold do you?
Sitting in a plane and then going to the office is way different than what Pro Athletes are asked to do.
I wish people would stop posting this make believe schedule link. With the new playoff structure MLS would be playing the Final a week before Xmas.
when was the last MLS cup that wasn’t well attended? even last year in Toronto (that I was at) was technically a sell out even with the ridiculous kick off time for a Sunday night
Of course — I was answering in the present context, where the Western Conference is better, almost top-to-bottom. And, it won’t necessarily be the Supporters’ Shield winner. You’re correct to point that out — people focusing below on the relationship with MLS Cup ignore that point. However, so long as one conference is stronger than another, the team from the weaker conference is likely to have a better record than it would have had in the other, so it is slightly more likely to host the final.
in a perfect world, where you could count on 10-15,000 people to buy tickets and travel without knowing which team is going to be in the game, and 10-15,000 locals buying tickets even if their team might not be in it.
MLS Cup isn’t that kind of event…yet. Obviously, the NFL can make it work. No other sport in this country even tries, because they know they’ll sell more tickets with home-field/home court/home ice hosts.
Your assumption is that these teams (and the west in general) will always be stronger. I doubt that will be the case.