Expansion Rumors Megathread

I disagree for two reasons. The first reason is that England has solved this problem by having 44 teams in their top two leagues. They don't normally play each other but they do allow for cross-mixing between the two groups thanks to pro/rel, and they also have the FA Cup which allows different leagues to play each other.

But the real reason I disagree is that the playoffs don't exist because they're fun or because there's too many teams. The playoffs exist because they're supposed to make money. Extra games and extra TV time are the real reasons.

As a separate issue I think playoffs are somewhat uniquely American because we have two separate and competing baseball leagues who eventually started to play each other for the championship. Playoffs didn't start even then as that was a result of splitting each league into divisions. Might have to do a little research to see if there were playoffs before there were two leagues. Same with the NFL. Anyone know before I head off for google and wikipedia?
You're completely wrong on all accounts.

So there's that.

1) Why are you comparing two seperate leagues with two seperate championships to a single league/single championship.

2) This is exactly what I'm talking about. The playoffs have become perversed in modern times baseball and basketball don't really require playoffs because all teams could play all other teams in the regular season. But you look at the NFL, a sport too brutal to play more than 20 games a season and how would they crown a legitimate champion if not for playoffs? Or a state championship? Or UEFA Champions League?

3) Brazilians, Mexicans, Australians and several other countries feature or have featured playoff systems in their leagues. The belief that its only America is a total myth.
 
Last edited:
You're completely wrong on all accounts.

So there's that.

1) Why are you comparing two seperate leagues with two seperate championships to a single league/single championship.

2) This is exactly what I'm talking about. The playoffs have become perversed in modern times baseball and basketball don't really require playoffs because all teams could play all other teams in the regular season. But you look at the NFL, a sport too brutal to play more than 20 games a season and how would they crown a legitimate champion if not for playoffs? Or a state championship? Or UEFA Champions League?

3) Brazilians, Mexicans, Australians and several other countries feature or have featured playoff systems in their leagues. The belief that its only America is a total myth.
Well first off, I said I disagreed and gave a few examples of why. I didn't jump in and just say you were flat out wrong as if I was some kind of incredible asshole.

So there's that.

1) I'm comparing the leagues precisely because they are different, and one has playoffs while the other doesn't. Seems like a reasonable way to look at it, no?

2) I'm not against tournaments, I just think it's a stupid way to find out who the best team is. All a tournament does is find the team that happens to get lucky enough (and is also good enough, of course) to win four or five games in a row at a particular time. I'm also not in favor of interleague play, at least not in baseball. I don't mind the way it started out, as two series of three games each and was a special event, but now it's a sizable portion of the season. I don't even love divisional play and the extended playoff system in baseball. You can have a barely half-decent team win a one game wildcard playoff and then go on to win the Series. Interesting, sure, but in no way indicative of who the best team is. So yeah, tournaments are fine but I think they're a crappy way to determine a champion.

3) I never said playoffs were exclusively American and did not exist anywhere else. What I plainly said was that I wondered if the fact there were two separate and competing leagues in the early days of baseball were contributing factors to why we love playoff systems so much.
 
2) I'm not against tournaments, I just think it's a stupid way to find out who the best team is. All a tournament does is find the team that happens to get lucky enough (and is also good enough, of course) to win four or five games in a row at a particular time. I'm also not in favor of interleague play, at least not in baseball. I don't mind the way it started out, as two series of three games each and was a special event, but now it's a sizable portion of the season. I don't even love divisional play and the extended playoff system in baseball. You can have a barely half-decent team win a one game wildcard playoff and then go on to win the Series. Interesting, sure, but in no way indicative of who the best team is. So yeah, tournaments are fine but I think they're a crappy way to determine a champion.
You and I have occasionally agreed and sometimes disagreed but on this issue you're like my non-evil twin.
But the real reason I disagree is that the playoffs don't exist because they're fun or because there's too many teams. The playoffs exist because they're supposed to make money. Extra games and extra TV time are the real reasons.

As a separate issue I think playoffs are somewhat uniquely American because we have two separate and competing baseball leagues who eventually started to play each other for the championship. Playoffs didn't start even then as that was a result of splitting each league into divisions. Might have to do a little research to see if there were playoffs before there were two leagues. Same with the NFL. Anyone know before I head off for google and wikipedia?

I can confirm this for baseball without looking it up. In the 19th century the NL had competitors, and never had playoffs. I also think the leagues never had tournaments. The AL started in 1901, those 2 leagues agreed to have a "World Series" in 1903 (except the NY Giants refused in 1904 because they thought they were above it), and the leagues remained functionally separate until a slow merger began I think in the 1980s. Playoffs in addition to the WS were added only in the late 60s after expaansion from 8 teams in each league to first 10 and then 12.

The others I had to look up because that's what I do.

The NFL started without playoffs and added them because in the early 30s it was so disorganized each team made its own schedule. They played different numbers of games and sometimes teams from other leagues. So the league added a single championship game to let the teams with the best claims duke it out. It grew from there.

The NHL used to be one of a few leagues who competed for the Stanley Cup. Each league had separate champions based on their separate league play, and the Cup was a tournament. Eventually the other leagues died, the NHL made a deal to have exclusive rights to the Stanley Cup, and the SC Playoffs were born.

The NBA was born last, and seems to have had at least a 2-team championship round after the season from the start.

I think it was a combination of circumstances which led to the realization that post-season games were a big draw. ALso, none of our sports ever had an independent governing body like the FA, which became a model for soccer around the world except here. So every league was always in competition with other leagues for top status and they dealt with this in different ways, and sometimes that included having a playoff or tournament to let the teams for competing leagues go against one another. Then when one league became dominant, the concept was retained because fans bought tickets
 
Last edited:
2) I'm not against tournaments, I just think it's a stupid way to find out who the best team is. All a tournament does is find the team that happens to get lucky enough (and is also good enough, of course) to win four or five games in a row at a particular time. I'm also not in favor of interleague play, at least not in baseball. I don't mind the way it started out, as two series of three games each and was a special event, but now it's a sizable portion of the season. I don't even love divisional play and the extended playoff system in baseball. You can have a barely half-decent team win a one game wildcard playoff and then go on to win the Series. Interesting, sure, but in no way indicative of who the best team is. So yeah, tournaments are fine but I think they're a crappy way to determine a champion
I have a steadfast belief that any champion, regardless how they are crowned, playoff or not, always need a bit of luck to reach their goal. No champion, regardless of their dominance can claim otherwise.
 
1) No, still seems pointless because pro/rel between two leagues has almost nothing to do with how a league determines its champion?

2) I agree baseball and basketball playoffs exist as money-making ventures but for a 32-team NFL, it really is a necessity. Just like it will be a necessity for a 28 or 32 team MLS league.

3)what you said was: "I think playoffs are somewhat uniquely American because..."
 
This is why playoffs are supposed to exist.

People seem to think playoffs exist just because they're fun. They're supposed to exist when you have too many teams to possibly play each other in a single regular season.

I disagree for two reasons. The first reason is that England has solved this problem by having 44 teams in their top two leagues. They don't normally play each other but they do allow for cross-mixing between the two groups thanks to pro/rel, and they also have the FA Cup which allows different leagues to play each other.

But the real reason I disagree is that the playoffs don't exist because they're fun or because there's too many teams. The playoffs exist because they're supposed to make money. Extra games and extra TV time are the real reasons.

As a separate issue I think playoffs are somewhat uniquely American because we have two separate and competing baseball leagues who eventually started to play each other for the championship. Playoffs didn't start even then as that was a result of splitting each league into divisions. Might have to do a little research to see if there were playoffs before there were two leagues. Same with the NFL. Anyone know before I head off for google and wikipedia?

The first post is entirely correct from a practical standpoint. If the sole objective of a season is to determine the best team, then you only need playoffs if (1) there is some impediment that prevents teams from playing each other or (2) you don't have enough games for everyone to play each other (or perhaps play each other home and away).

The second post, of course, is correct insofar as there are other reasons people like playoffs and leagues adopt them.

Professional baseball basically created the concept of playoffs that followed the regular season, and that was because there were two leagues whose teams didn't play against each other, so the only way to determine the best team was to have the two champions play a series. The World Series began in 1903, and there were precursor series as far back as the 1880s. But, each league still determined its champion, and thus its representative in the World Series, by single table all the way up to 1969.

In the meantime, the NFL had formed and gained in popularity. For the first dozen years, the NFL used a single table, but in 1932, they instituted a playoff to break a tie between two teams. After that, the league split into two divisions and held a championship game each year between division winners. This was necessary given that football has relatively few regular season games, so at some point of growth, you can't get everyone to play each other. Still, it was a single championship game between two single table winners.

Of course, one thing that happened over time is that playoffs became very popular and quite lucrative. Leagues also like that they kept fans engaged late in seasons as any playoff eligible team could still win a championship. This has led sports like baseball, basketball and hockey (and really even football) to expand them beyond all sense. Using MLB as an example, there is no reason for 10 playoff teams in a sport with 162 games - other than sheer entertainment value.

There are two downsides. The first, and most obvious, is that playoffs are not as good a way as a round robin regular season to determine the best team. Even baseball playoffs - with long 7 game series - are not going to top a 162 game regular season for determining the best team.

The NCAA Tournament is a great example of both the advantages of a playoff, and this first downside. There are 330+ NCAA basketball teams - way too many for everyone to play each other. So, we have this crazy 6 round, single-elimination tournament that is very lucrative and thoroughly entertaining. It also frequently ends up with the top teams losing early and teams that are objectively not the best advancing deep into the tournament and sometimes winning. College coaches have said that if you restarted the NCAA Tournament from scratch several times over, you might not get any single team repeating as Champion.

The second downside to playoffs is that they take time that could be used to play more regular season games. Think about MLS. If we kept the regular season going during the period devoted to playoffs, it would add as many as 6 more games to the schedule for a 40 game regular season. Basically, we are sacrificing 15% of our regular season - 6 games a team or 60 games overall - in exchange for a playoff having fewer games and involving fewer teams.
 
The first post is entirely correct from a practical standpoint. If the sole objective of a season is to determine the best team, then you only need playoffs if (1) there is some impediment that prevents teams from playing each other or (2) you don't have enough games for everyone to play each other (or perhaps play each other home and away).

The second post, of course, is correct insofar as there are other reasons people like playoffs and leagues adopt them.

Professional baseball basically created the concept of playoffs that followed the regular season, and that was because there were two leagues whose teams didn't play against each other, so the only way to determine the best team was to have the two champions play a series. The World Series began in 1903, and there were precursor series as far back as the 1880s. But, each league still determined its champion, and thus its representative in the World Series, by single table all the way up to 1969.

In the meantime, the NFL had formed and gained in popularity. For the first dozen years, the NFL used a single table, but in 1932, they instituted a playoff to break a tie between two teams. After that, the league split into two divisions and held a championship game each year between division winners. This was necessary given that football has relatively few regular season games, so at some point of growth, you can't get everyone to play each other. Still, it was a single championship game between two single table winners.

Of course, one thing that happened over time is that playoffs became very popular and quite lucrative. Leagues also like that they kept fans engaged late in seasons as any playoff eligible team could still win a championship. This has led sports like baseball, basketball and hockey (and really even football) to expand them beyond all sense. Using MLB as an example, there is no reason for 10 playoff teams in a sport with 162 games - other than sheer entertainment value.

There are two downsides. The first, and most obvious, is that playoffs are not as good a way as a round robin regular season to determine the best team. Even baseball playoffs - with long 7 game series - are not going to top a 162 game regular season for determining the best team.

The NCAA Tournament is a great example of both the advantages of a playoff, and this first downside. There are 330+ NCAA basketball teams - way too many for everyone to play each other. So, we have this crazy 6 round, single-elimination tournament that is very lucrative and thoroughly entertaining. It also frequently ends up with the top teams losing early and teams that are objectively not the best advancing deep into the tournament and sometimes winning. College coaches have said that if you restarted the NCAA Tournament from scratch several times over, you might not get any single team repeating as Champion.

The second downside to playoffs is that they take time that could be used to play more regular season games. Think about MLS. If we kept the regular season going during the period devoted to playoffs, it would add as many as 6 more games to the schedule for a 40 game regular season. Basically, we are sacrificing 15% of our regular season - 6 games a team or 60 games overall - in exchange for a playoff having fewer games and involving fewer teams.
I would love for MLS to drop the playoffs, add those extra games to the season for everybody, and have a single point total to decide the League Champ/Supporter Shield. Concurrent with the season, have every MLS team play in an MLS League Cup that starts earlier on and plays through to the end. There's no reason why the US Open cup is the only Cup outside of the CONCACAF Champions League.

Plus, if managed like in Europe, the League Cup could provide valuable minutes to bench players.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Paul and mgarbowski
Here's an article on the Detroit news: http://www.freep.com/story/sports/2016/04/26/major-league-soccer-mls-detroit/83546930/

They're eyeing a stadium site in the heart of downtown.

-----

More news out today as well that says the Chinese Evergrande group is looking at pulling a CFG and buying teams in England and America: http://en.as.com/en/2016/04/26/football/1461622072_213315.html

For this kind of investment and investment group, it's hard to see them eyeing anything other than a major international city. Options:
  1. New York - MLS is pretty unlikely to plop down a third team here, but Evergrande could potentially purchase the Red Bulls.
  2. Miami - Invest in Beckham's club? Does he need more major investors? He just got a commitment from a Qatari group, no?
  3. Chicago - A second team is about to go up here, albeit an NASL team. This city doesn't seem the best fit for a Chinese investment group.
  4. San Francisco - If they want to go big, this would be the location. Expensive, but they have deep pockets. They could also purchase the Earthquakes?
  5. Los Angeles - Like NY, I don't think MLS will want a third team. Unlikely to be able to buy either existing club either.
I'll also add a purchase of the Whitecaps as a dark horse option. Extremely high Cantonese population there.
 
  • Like
Reactions: FootyLovin
Some serious money people are looking to invest in MLS today which is always a good sign.

Ive always figured soccer would get big in the states, if you could show you could make money from it.
 
  • Like
Reactions: FootyLovin and joe
More news out today as well that says the Chinese Evergrande group is looking at pulling a CFG and buying teams in England and America: http://en.as.com/en/2016/04/26/football/1461622072_213315.html

For this kind of investment and investment group, it's hard to see them eyeing anything other than a major international city. Options:
  1. New York - MLS is pretty unlikely to plop down a third team here, but Evergrande could potentially purchase the Red Bulls.
  2. Miami - Invest in Beckham's club? Does he need more major investors? He just got a commitment from a Qatari group, no?
  3. Chicago - A second team is about to go up here, albeit an NASL team. This city doesn't seem the best fit for a Chinese investment group.
  4. San Francisco - If they want to go big, this would be the location. Expensive, but they have deep pockets. They could also purchase the Earthquakes?
  5. Los Angeles - Like NY, I don't think MLS will want a third team. Unlikely to be able to buy either existing club either.
I'll also add a purchase of the Whitecaps as a dark horse option. Extremely high Cantonese population there.

I think Vancouver makes a lot of sense for the reason you mentioned. Miami might be in play as well as I read that Beckham's discussions with the Qatari's have stalled.