2024 Audi MLS Cup Playoffs

[SoupInNYC]

It fits the space between season end and the next FIFA break.
Because of MLS competitiveness and HFA, most series go 3 games and fill the entire time period.
The game format in which every tie goes straight to kicks to choose winner/loser is identical to Leagues Cup, yet it seems many people love it in LC and hate it here.
Almost nobody plays for a low scoring draw draw in Game 1.
No matter how bad a blowout in G1, G2 starts even and therefore interesting.

The major negative is nobody else does this in soccer. Fine. I like tradition. But the reasons for 2-game series do not apply here. [Almost] nobody else in soccer has playoffs after a full season. The 180 minute split-contest was invented for tournaments as a way to derive a fair result, and give both teams home gate receipts, while getting done as efficiently as possible. Absent some justification to give 1 team HFA, 2 games make sense. The other alternative is play just one game and to let chance decide who plays at home, which some competitions use at least in some rounds. But both of those options have obvious flaws. Giving 1 team HFA in a single game is basically accepted because of time and schedule constraints and what else you gonna do? But at least it yields a clear winner.*
But 2 game series are absurdly prone to lacking a clear winner, so first they went by goal differential, then they invented the Away Goal Rule, and contests and federations could never agree whether to have Extra Time, or apply the AGR to Extra Time, and then some federations got rid of AGR because it causes arguably as many problems as it solves. In the end, a 2 game series is so inherently flawed that you should never use it except when in a knockout where you both (1) want everyone to get a home game, and (2) nobody deserves HFA. That just does not apply to MLS playoffs.

* Except for those contests where they play the do-over which is ridiculously disruptive and I think I just read the FA is getting rid of it.

I dislike the 2-game series as I feel like it generally leads to boring soccer in the first game.

Additionally as you pointed out, it's much more balanced which would further make the regular season less meaningful.

I don't mind the 3-game series.

 

[ZYanksRule]

I do find it a little weird to have 3-game series for the first round, then 1-game knockouts for the rest of the playoffs.

 

[moogoo]

I do find it a little weird to have 3-game series for the first round, then 1-game knockouts for the rest of the playoffs.

just worked best given that LC took up a month, the international break, and ending the full season at a reasonable time.

 

[Seth]

I do find it a little weird to have 3-game series for the first round, then 1-game knockouts for the rest of the playoffs.

It's not weird, it's just your regular ol' round robin tournament except with only two teams. Totally normal!

 

[CCMore]

It's not weird, it's just your regular ol' round robin tournament except with only two teams. Totally normal!

I’ve never thought of it that way. That makes me feel allot better about the format haha. Now I wish they made it a 4 team tournament style.

 

[Gotham Gator]

It fits the space between season end and the next FIFA break.
Because of MLS competitiveness and HFA, most series go 3 games and fill the entire time period.
The game format in which every tie goes straight to kicks to choose winner/loser is identical to Leagues Cup, yet it seems many people love it in LC and hate it here.
Almost nobody plays for a low scoring draw draw in Game 1.
No matter how bad a blowout in G1, G2 starts even and therefore interesting.

The major negative is nobody else does this in soccer. Fine. I like tradition. But the reasons for 2-game series do not apply here. [Almost] nobody else in soccer has playoffs after a full season. The 180 minute split-contest was invented for tournaments as a way to derive a fair result, and give both teams home gate receipts, while getting done as efficiently as possible. Absent some justification to give 1 team HFA, 2 games make sense. The other alternative is play just one game and to let chance decide who plays at home, which some competitions use at least in some rounds. But both of those options have obvious flaws. Giving 1 team HFA in a single game is basically accepted because of time and schedule constraints and what else you gonna do? But at least it yields a clear winner.*
But 2 game series are absurdly prone to lacking a clear winner, so first they went by goal differential, then they invented the Away Goal Rule, and contests and federations could never agree whether to have Extra Time, or apply the AGR to Extra Time, and then some federations got rid of AGR because it causes arguably as many problems as it solves. In the end, a 2 game series is so inherently flawed that you should never use it except when in a knockout where you both (1) want everyone to get a home game, and (2) nobody deserves HFA. That just does not apply to MLS playoffs.

* Except for those contests where they play the do-over which is ridiculously disruptive and I think I just read the FA is getting rid of it.

MLS has long had a real issue figuring out its end of year schedule given the international breaks in October and November. They tried ending the season the weekend before the October window and then squeezing the playoffs into that 3-week window. That kind of killed the momentum after the regular season. It also led to way too much time off for the #1 seed, which received a draw at the time. They'd sit for 3 weeks and then be rusty and get eliminated.

This hurt NYCFC in 2019, when we finished first and got knocked out after sitting for 17 days. It helped us in 2021, when we finished fourth and knocked out New England, who had sat for 23 days.*

With the Apple contract, MLS wanted more playoff games to throw into the mix, so the league expanded the first round and changed the calendar. The season now ends on the first weekend after the October break, with the 3-game playoff filling the time to the November break. Then the teams return for the last 3 rounds.

None of this seems terribly consistent or ideal, but unless the league adopts the European calendar and ends in May/June, the fall FIFA breaks will continue to complicate things.

If it were me, I would try and cram the 3-game first round into two weeks and then play the second round the week before the FIFA break. As it stands now, if we win and host the Red Bulls, the game will be the weekend before Thanksgiving. The Jersey Boys would have sat for three weeks and perhaps lost all their momentum from their wins over Columbus.

I would also change the scoring in the first round to eliminate the shootouts at the end of the first two games. Only have a shootout at the end of Game 3 if the teams are tied in the series. The advantage is that allowing ties in the first two games maximizes the chances that a series will go to 3 games, and more soccer is better than less soccer.


---
* - The 2021 post-season actually started after the November window because Covid led to a late start to the season, but the dynamic was the same.

 

[gbservis]

MLS has long had a real issue figuring out its end of year schedule given the international breaks in October and November. They tried ending the season the weekend before the October window and then squeezing the playoffs into that 3-week window. That kind of killed the momentum after the regular season. It also led to way too much time off for the #1 seed, which received a draw at the time. They'd sit for 3 weeks and then be rusty and get eliminated.

This hurt NYCFC in 2019, when we finished first and got knocked out after sitting for 17 days. It helped us in 2021, when we finished fourth and knocked out New England, who had sat for 23 days.*

With the Apple contract, MLS wanted more playoff games to throw into the mix, so the league expanded the first round and changed the calendar. The season now ends on the first weekend after the October break, with the 3-game playoff filling the time to the November break. Then the teams return for the last 3 rounds.

None of this seems terribly consistent or ideal, but unless the league adopts the European calendar and ends in May/June, the fall FIFA breaks will continue to complicate things.

If it were me, I would try and cram the 3-game first round into two weeks and then play the second round the week before the FIFA break. As it stands now, if we win and host the Red Bulls, the game will be the weekend before Thanksgiving. The Jersey Boys would have sat for three weeks and perhaps lost all their momentum from their wins over Columbus.

I would also change the scoring in the first round to eliminate the shootouts at the end of the first two games. Only have a shootout at the end of Game 3 if the teams are tied in the series. The advantage is that allowing ties in the first two games maximizes the chances that a series will go to 3 games, and more soccer is better than less soccer.


---
* - The 2021 post-season actually started after the November window because Covid led to a late start to the season, but the dynamic was the same.

Apologies if this was already talked about but if we are going to have 3 games in round 1, why not just go with a group stage model like other tournaments? Seed the groups based on the reg season record. 4 teams per group. Play each team, with no OT, no shoot-outs, and just typical group stage point structures. I'd much rather see 3 interesting games with teams attempting to get out of a group than 2 teams playing each other 3 times in a row.

 

[mgarbowski]

The advantage is that allowing ties in the first two games maximizes the chances that a series will go to 3 games, and more soccer is better than less soccer.

Does it? It makes 2 draws possible which would force G3, but it also allows for a draw and a natural W/L which would end the series after 2 games. I don't even have a guess how that changes the odds of going to 3 games. Maybe I'm missing something: why do you believe it makes a G3 more likely?

 

[Gotham Gator]

Does it? It makes 2 draws possible which would force G3, but it also allows for a draw and a natural W/L which would end the series after 2 games. I don't even have a guess how that changes the odds of going to 3 games. Maybe I'm missing something: why do you believe it makes a G3 more likely?

A draw and a win after the first two games would also force a third game, because the losing team could win game 3, tie things up, and force a shootout.

 

[ZYanksRule]

Apologies if this was already talked about but if we are going to have 3 games in round 1, why not just go with a group stage model like other tournaments? Seed the groups based on the reg season record. 4 teams per group. Play each team, with no OT, no shoot-outs, and just typical group stage point structures. I'd much rather see 3 interesting games with teams attempting to get out of a group than 2 teams playing each other 3 times in a row.

I do like this format.

1v8, 4v5 in each conference for one group, then 2v7, 3v6 in the other group. Each team faces the others once, top-2 advance to the conference semifinals. 1-seed gets three home games, 2nd ranked team gets 2 home games, 3rd ranked team gets one home game. So essentially, the 7 and 8 seeds don't get a home game. The 5-6 seeds get 1 home game, the 3-4 seeds get 2 home games, the 1-2 seeds get three home games.

That feels like such a better first-round format than we have now, and would take the same amount of time to finish & no one gets the extra week off.

 

[gbservis]

I do like this format.

1v8, 4v5 in each conference for one group, then 2v7, 3v6 in the other group. Each team faces the others once, top-2 advance to the conference semifinals. 1-seed gets three home games, 2nd ranked team gets 2 home games, 3rd ranked team gets one home game. So essentially, the 7 and 8 seeds don't get a home game. The 5-6 seeds get 1 home game, the 3-4 seeds get 2 home games, the 1-2 seeds get three home games.

That feels like such a better first-round format than we have now, and would take the same amount of time to finish & no one gets the extra week off.

To me, it feels like the MLS overthought it with the best of 3 in a strange attempt to Americanize it when there was a traditional soccer tournament format sitting right there for them to emulate.

 

[mgarbowski]

Counterpoint, did anyone even think about this round robin?
Teams A B C D seeded in order.

Home	Away	Likely Winner
A	C	A
B	D	B
A	D	A
B	C	B
A	B
C	D

3 Home games for A, 2 for B, and 1 for C. You save the most competitive matchups to the end.
Home teams who also are higher seeded win out. Sure, there are bound to be upsets but this is a very likely result. The final 2 games are now meaningless. Fans of teams A and C are forced to pay for meaningless games, unless you cancel, which unsolves one of the problems you claim to have solved. What should be the most fraught game 3 contests are bench scrimmages. Team D fans do not get a playoff home game.
Even without this perfect storm scenario, or a different game order, there is a strong likelihood that at least one of Team A or B will have clinched after 2 games and what is your plan for that playoff-priced Game 3? What will the rating be? How will the empty seats look on TV?
Guys, this took me 5 minutes and I doubt I came up with all the flaws.

 

[gbservis]

Counterpoint, did anyone even think about this round robin?
Teams A B C D seeded in order.

Home	Away	Likely Winner
A	C	A
B	D	B
A	D	A
B	C	B
A	B
C	D

3 Home games for A, 2 for B, and 1 for C. You save the most competitive matchups to the end.
Home teams who also are higher seeded win out. Sure, there are bound to be upsets but this is a very likely result. The final 2 games are now meaningless. Fans of teams A and C are forced to pay for meaningless games, unless you cancel, which unsolves one of the problems you claim to have solved. What should be the most fraught game 3 contests are bench scrimmages. Team D fans do not get a playoff home game.
Even without this perfect storm scenario, or a different game order, there is a strong likelihood that at least one of Team A or B will have clinched after 2 games and what is your plan for that playoff-priced Game 3? What will the rating be? How will the empty seats look on TV?
Guys, this took me 5 minutes and I doubt I came up with all the flaws.

You are assuming the results will strongly correlate with seeding which they often don't in the MLS given the parity levels. If two teams per group go through and you make seeding for the knockout round depending on the finish position in your group, most teams should have 3 games that mean something. Even for teams that have things locked down for game 3, they still have to balance the decision to play their starters to keep them fresh or play some younger guys.

I also don't see an issue with Team D not getting a playoff game. In the old single-elimination format teams could make it multiple rounds without ever getting a game. That just makes the regular season more meaningful.

 

[mgarbowski]

You are assuming the results will strongly correlate with seeding which they often don't in the MLS given the parity levels.

You're assuming that results won't correlate with seeding + home advantage. In the end we agree this will happen at least some of the time, to wit:

Even for teams that have things locked down for game 3, they still have to balance the decision to play their starters to keep them fresh or play some younger guys.

Fans will be happy to pay a 50% premium over regular season tickets for this scrimmage, and the TV ratings will shine. Who would not rather watch this instead of a win or go home knockout contest?*

I also don't see an issue with Team D not getting a playoff game.

Honestly I'm OK with it also, but it's important to the owners - and fans - of those teams who finish 5-9 in the conference. Everyone knows they almost never go anywhere in the playoffs, and are only there for content fodder. The H game revenue and experience is what makes it worthwhile.


Also, I think the whole rest/staleness thing is overhyped. Every time I've seen an analysis they find it goes in cycles in almost every league where it is an issue: for a while the rested teams do better, then it inexplicably flips and those teams lose, but are called stale instead of rested. Then after a while it flips again. It also is prone to a lot of confounding because the rested teams are often also better, and received a bye, or quickly dispatched a barely competent opponent due to seeding. RB next round will be rested, but lower seeded, which is more interesting, but just a single Data Point.

* I almost rewrote this to be less annoyingly sarcastic. I decided instead to admit I'm currently rewatching Elementary and eating up Jonny Lee Miller's brilliant portrayal. It's affecting me. Apologies.

 

[gbservis]

You're assuming that results won't correlate with seeding + home advantage. In the end we agree this will happen at least some of the time, to wit:

Fans will be happy to pay a 50% premium over regular season tickets for this scrimmage, and the TV ratings will shine. Who would not rather watch this instead of a win or go home knockout contest?*

Honestly I'm OK with it also, but it's important to the owners - and fans - of those teams who finish 5-9 in the conference. Everyone knows they almost never go anywhere in the playoffs, and are only there for content fodder. The H game revenue and experience is what makes it worthwhile.


Also, I think the whole rest/staleness thing is overhyped. Every time I've seen an analysis they find it goes in cycles in almost every league where it is an issue: for a while the rested teams do better, then it inexplicably flips and those teams lose, but are called stale instead of rested. Then after a while it flips again. It also is prone to a lot of confounding because the rested teams are often also better, and received a bye, or quickly dispatched a barely competent opponent due to seeding. RB next round will be rested, but lower seeded, which is more interesting, but just a single Data Point.

* I almost rewrote this to be less annoyingly sarcastic. I decided instead to admit I'm currently rewatching Elementary and eating up Jonny Lee Miller's brilliant portrayal. It's affecting me. Apologies.

For what it's worth the sarcasm doesn't bother me. I find 3 games against the same team to be boring and anti-climatic, it feels needlessly drawn out. If we have to have a drawn-out first round like this a group stage at least provides a bit of variety. That said your points about what the owners want are well taken.

 

[SoupInNYC]

For what it's worth the sarcasm doesn't bother me. I find 3 games against the same team to be boring and anti-climatic, it feels needlessly drawn out. If we have to have a drawn-out first round like this a group stage at least provides a bit of variety. That said your points about what the owners want are well taken.

I think I like it being the same opponent. It builds animosity towards the other team and some of the players.

 

[gbservis]

I think I like it being the same opponent. It builds animosity towards the other team and some of the players.

I get the idea of it but I haven't sensed much of this happening with us and FCC, both teams are pretty business-like. On the flip side, I can't imagine 3 games against Orlando, NJRB or Tor. It could be fun in a crazy kind of way but something tells me it would more likely devolve into an ugly, unwatchable whistle every 10 seconds hack fest.