2018 Schedule

[ZYanksRule]

Don't think you can have a 38-match season *and* have playoffs. One or the other. Unless you want to sit in Yankee Stadium in February for the season opener, that is.

I guess you'd probably need more midweek games to make it work. But if you care at all about a balanced schedule, the expansion will require a longer regular-season.

I would be in favor of shortening the playoffs. 16 teams, knockouts only. Higher seed gets the home game. My main issue with the current playoff system is that there isn't enough of an advantage to the higher-seeded team. Making it a knockout bracket with higher seeds hosting would solve that issue.

 

[Gotham Gator]

Another issue is going to be whether the playoffs expand. Right now, about half make it. They've historically increased the number of playoff teams once the number would drop to below half.

If the league expands the number of playoff teams, they either have to expand the time allotted for the playoffs (potentially shortening the regular season) or they have to increase the number of single game knockout rounds, making the playoffs more of a crapshoot and the MLS Cup less of a worthy champion.

 

[Seth]

I guess you'd probably need more midweek games to make it work. But if you care at all about a balanced schedule, the expansion will require a longer regular-season.

I would be in favor of shortening the playoffs. 16 teams, knockouts only. Higher seed gets the home game. My main issue with the current playoff system is that there isn't enough of an advantage to the higher-seeded team. Making it a knockout bracket with higher seeds hosting would solve that issue.

And you'll never get a balanced schedule because to do that with a reasonable number of teams (which means a reasonable number of matches per season) you'd need to limit that to maybe 20 teams. Just to steal the EPL as an easy example. But they can "get away" with only having 20 teams (and hence a balanced schedule) because they also have pro/rel. 28 teams in the league with a balanced schedule means you'd have 54 matches per year and that's just not going to work, of course. But if MLS wants to grow the league to a large number of teams the way the other US sports have you can't have a balanced schedule. Not without pro/rel and a secondary league. These two things are incompatible.

 

[adam]

Another issue is going to be whether the playoffs expand. Right now, about half make it. They've historically increased the number of playoff teams once the number would drop to below half.

If the league expands the number of playoff teams, they either have to expand the time allotted for the playoffs (potentially shortening the regular season) or they have to increase the number of single game knockout rounds, making the playoffs more of a crapshoot and the MLS Cup less of a worthy champion.

I'm more in line with ZYanksRule's thinking. By guaranteeing home matches to the higher seed, it's less of a crap shoot. Look at the league's overall road records. It's the 2 leg matches that seem to give an unfair advantage to the lower seeded team. Especially when the higher seed has to travel twice and the lower seed once.

 

[Shwafta]

Another issue is going to be whether the playoffs expand. Right now, about half make it. They've historically increased the number of playoff teams once the number would drop to below half.

If the league expands the number of playoff teams, they either have to expand the time allotted for the playoffs (potentially shortening the regular season) or they have to increase the number of single game knockout rounds, making the playoffs more of a crapshoot and the MLS Cup less of a worthy champion.

Or they could, you know, just not increase the number of playoff teams (it's better if less make it honestly)

 

[Kjbert]

Or they could go to MLS1 and MLS2 and have promotion and relegation between a closed off top 2 divisions

 

[Gotham Gator]

I'm more in line with ZYanksRule's thinking. By guaranteeing home matches to the higher seed, it's less of a crap shoot. Look at the league's overall road records. It's the 2 leg matches that seem to give an unfair advantage to the lower seeded team. Especially when the higher seed has to travel twice and the lower seed once.

I have heard the narrative that higher seeded teams don't benefit in the MLS playoffs, and I think it's wrong. Higher seeded teams do get important benefits in the playoffs - it's just that the benefit isn't the usual home-field advantage benefit that teams get in the NFL or (to a lesser degree) MLB and NBA.

The top-two seeds in each conference get a bye from the first knockout round. That's a huge advantage, given that the knockout round is a one-game affair, and in soccer, one-game leads to a lot of upsets. Among the four teams that play in the opening round, the higher seeded teams draw an easier opponent, and the two higher seeded teams get the one game at home.

Among the top-two seeds, the higher seed is guaranteed to play the lowest-seeded opponent, giving it an advantage over the second seed.

Yes, once the second round starts, there are no more home-field advantages. But, that doesn't mean the higher seeded team didn't get any benefit from its regular season.

 

[Gotham Gator]

Or they could go to MLS1 and MLS2 and have promotion and relegation between a closed off top 2 divisions

I think in the long run, this is a viable option. But, it probably only works in 20-30 years or more, once soccer is a big enough sport here that a second division can get lots of fan support and income.

 

[Kjbert]

I think in the long run, this is a viable option. But, it probably only works in 20-30 years or more, once soccer is a big enough sport here that a second division can get lots of fan support and income.

The easy fix is to give everyone the same amount of TV money regardless of where you finish (1-40) like the NFL does. But provide discretionary spending measures like TAM to higher achievers and promoted clubs. You could even call it parachute payments

 

[adam]

I have heard the narrative that higher seeded teams don't benefit in the MLS playoffs, and I think it's wrong. Higher seeded teams do get important benefits in the playoffs - it's just that the benefit isn't the usual home-field advantage benefit that teams get in the NFL or (to a lesser degree) MLB and NBA.

The top-two seeds in each conference get a bye from the first knockout round. That's a huge advantage, given that the knockout round is a one-game affair, and in soccer, one-game leads to a lot of upsets. Among the four teams that play in the opening round, the higher seeded teams draw an easier opponent, and the two higher seeded teams get the one game at home.

Among the top-two seeds, the higher seed is guaranteed to play the lowest-seeded opponent, giving it an advantage over the second seed.

Yes, once the second round starts, there are no more home-field advantages. But, that doesn't mean the higher seeded team didn't get any benefit from its regular season.

I didn’t say there was zero benefit in the current system. Just there would be more to have only 1 match at home that the lower seed had to travel to. Theoretically the highest seed doesn’t have to travel the whole playoffs. That’s huge.

FYI. NFL home win percentage in reg season 57.1%. NBA 59.9% MLB 54.0% NHL 55.1%. Someone have this year’s MLS #s?

 

[Jon]

Radical idea when it comes to scheduling and I'd love to hear what people think.

Blow up the whole thing and make the league a single table where you play each team 1 time and your "rival" in a home and home. When Cincy enters the league you would then play 24 regular season matches.

Then everyone gets seeded according to regular season record for group stage of a playoff. 4 groups of 6 (home & away matches vs every team in your group = 10 games in group stage)

The top team (or 2 teams) in each group would then face each other in single elimination or 2 leg quater, semi finals and then a final.

 

[Shwafta]

Radical idea when it comes to scheduling and I'd love to hear what people think.

Blow up the whole thing and make the league a single table where you play each team 1 time and your "rival" in a home and home. When Cincy enters the league you would then play 24 regular season matches.

Then everyone gets seeded according to regular season record for group stage of a playoff. 4 groups of 6 (home & away matches vs every team in your group = 10 games in group stage)

The top team in each group would then face each other in single elimination or 2 leg semi finals and then a final.

not sure why, but something about the idea just doesn't work for me. I understand what you mean, but don't know if I like it, but I can't put my finger on what that reason is..

 

[JayH]

Radical idea when it comes to scheduling and I'd love to hear what people think.

Blow up the whole thing and make the league a single table where you play each team 1 time and your "rival" in a home and home. When Cincy enters the league you would then play 24 regular season matches.

Then everyone gets seeded according to regular season record for group stage of a playoff. 4 groups of 6 (home & away matches vs every team in your group = 10 games in group stage)

The top team (or 2 teams) in each group would then face each other in single elimination or 2 leg quater, semi finals and then a final.

Interesting (and not criticizing), but I like the idea of the regular season having dispositive consequences. If you were terrible during the regular season, you should not have the same opportunity at the clean slate of the playoffs/"group stage." The seeding would likely only be significantly beneficial/detrimental to the very top vs. the very bottom teams, with the rest being relatively evenly matched even with the seeding. This would render the regular season essentially meaningless.

ETA: rereading, with the groups there is even less of an advantage/disadvantage based upon seeding.

 

[Shwafta]

Interesting (and not criticizing), but I like the idea of the regular season having dispositive consequences. If you were terrible during the regular season, you should not have the same opportunity at the clean slate of the playoffs/"group stage." The seeding would likely only be significantly beneficial/detrimental to the very top vs. the very bottom teams, with the rest being relatively evenly matched even with the seeding. This would render the regular season essentially meaningless.

ETA: rereading, with the groups there is even less of an advantage/disadvantage based upon seeding.

That is what I was feeling, put into words. Thanks Jay

 

[ZYanksRule]

And you'll never get a balanced schedule because to do that with a reasonable number of teams (which means a reasonable number of matches per season) you'd need to limit that to maybe 20 teams. Just to steal the EPL as an easy example. But they can "get away" with only having 20 teams (and hence a balanced schedule) because they also have pro/rel. 28 teams in the league with a balanced schedule means you'd have 54 matches per year and that's just not going to work, of course. But if MLS wants to grow the league to a large number of teams the way the other US sports have you can't have a balanced schedule. Not without pro/rel and a secondary league. These two things are incompatible.

By balanced schedule I meant keeping the current schedule matrix. (Home/road intraconference, single-game interconference). Obviously this league will never be playing a true double round-robin. For example, when the league is 26 teams, that's 24 games against the division and 13 games against the other conference. Figure you add one more game for your rival to make it an even number, and that equals a 38-game season. At 28 teams, you'd need a 40-game schedule to keep the current schedule matrix.

 

[Joe_Cos]

With Game 5 of the World Series falling on the same day as NYCFC last regular season home game, will the team announce their back up plans the day after the money for the 2019 season tickets ar due or wait until the Yankees make the World Series so not they can’t be accused of jinxing the team.

 

[LionNYC]

Is there is no problem with the MLB postseason schedule until the World Series...https://www.mlb.com/news/mlb-2018-postseason-schedule/c-288538936

We play a home game on Wednesday, September 26 and then Sunday, October 28.

World Series is 2-3-2 and home advantage is based on the better regular season.

The Yankees went to Game 7 of the ALCS last season and even though there wasn’t an overlap, our final home match was moved to Citi Field.

The announcement last year was made the day before the ALCS series. https://www.nycfc.com/post/2017/10/...s-venue-change-final-game-2017-regular-season

114th WORLD SERIES (2018)

Tue., Oct. 23: Game 1 (FOX)
Wed., Oct. 24: Game 2 (FOX)
Thu., Oct. 25: TRAVEL DAY
Fri., Oct. 26: Game 3 (FOX)
Sat., Oct. 27: Game 4 (FOX)
Sun., Oct. 28: Game 5* (FOX)
Mon., Oct. 29: TRAVEL DAY
Tue., Oct. 30: Game 6* (FOX)
Wed., Oct. 31: Game 7* (FOX)

 

[Gotham Gator]

Yankees seem destined for a one-game crapshoot playoff followed by a 5-game series against the Red Sox. Odds they get through those to reach the ALCS are probably around 20%.

 

[Fantazma]

The easy fix is to give everyone the same amount of TV money regardless of where you finish (1-40) like the NFL does. But provide discretionary spending measures like TAM to higher achievers and promoted clubs. You could even call it parachute payments

in theory that works. but who is paying that cash ? i think ESPN already feels they overpaid for NBA and college football rights. I guess Fox can try but its not enough. Its not like in other countries where TV pay good money, and i think even current deal for MLS pales in comparison as well.

 

[The Toe]

Yankees seem destined for a one-game crapshoot playoff followed by a 5-game series against the Red Sox. Odds they get through those to reach the ALCS are probably around 20%.

You're very generous.