Z4CH3B99
Borracho Aficionado
This had me cracking up for a solid 5-10 minutes!
Are they going to steal the Sheffield's logo as well and then just stick Minnesota underneath it?
Expansion Rumors Megathread
- Thread starter MagnusPax
- Start date
Are they going to steal the Sheffield's logo as well and then just stick Minnesota underneath it?
ferrarinycfc
Registered
Add another city to the expansion list.
Nashville business leaders form group to bring MLS to the Music City
http://www.mlssoccer.com/post/2016/08/09/nashville-business-leaders-form-group-bring-mls-music-city
Nashville business leaders form group to bring MLS to the Music City
http://www.mlssoccer.com/post/2016/08/09/nashville-business-leaders-form-group-bring-mls-music-city
I went to anchorage this summer, they mostly just dog sled and if they really thought anything about soccer they are timbers fans.
Nashville is a pretty damn awesome place. No idea how soccer would do, but the city itself is spectacular. I went to school there. It's about 3000 times as cool as DC (spent almost 2 years of my life in that fake ass city) or Minny (a combined 6-8 weeks maybe). Or KC (a week, not a lot). Or Dallas (it's okay but blah, ft. Worth is better). Or Houston (3 months as a resident, many trips on biz). Or SJ (i would suspect at least). Or Columbus (their chili is sweet, but seemed decent, not cool).
Just saying, don't count them out. It's a bumping place with something going on all the time. Always something to do, but not so much that it becomes overwhelming. Demographics for soccer are probably pretty good.
Last edited:
On 21-24, I agree. Basically in stone at this point.
To 28, I think Sacramento is ready and a shoe-in. St. Louis is wanted by the league, and the city appears to actually want to build a downtown stadium, which is unique. Detroit is the largest market remaining, has one of the most robust ownership groups, and as a ripe real estate market for a stadium, though it may take slightly longer. Finally, I'm picking San Antonio over Cincinnati for the 28th spot. Both slightly smaller markets with ready stadiums. Just a gut feeling on this one.
However, I think Cincinnati gets in over Nashville, Carolina, and other eastern candidates like Indy, for spot 29. All those other eastern candidates will need to pay the still rising expansion fee and tack on a couple hundred million more for a stadium. Cincinnati already has Nippert, which is actually a really awesome situation and a good reason why they'll be able to outbid their competition. And I'll pick San Diego over Phoenix and Las Vegas for their western partner.
I think 30 is the first extremely realistic stopping point for the league. Provided MLS retains the two-conference structure and 34-game schedule, I mocked up a sample league table once they reach 30 with the teams I outlined above. This structure borrows from NBA, where divisions are essentially just for scheduling purposes. Division winners earn automatic playoff berths, but because 30 of 34 games on everyone's schedule are the same, division winners don't get any other advantages as conference playoff qualifiers are straight ranked by points.
Here it is. Thoughts?
ugh i hate this division stuff....i get it its for scheduling but leave it at that dont even have a table for it....there will be times where a good team will get screwed out of a playoff spot and another lesser team will get in because they were in a weaker division. Just use the conference table to find your best teams. so this is ok i guess
still, cool tables...and well see how far this expansion will go.....so for 2017 are we also getting Minnesota as well as Atlanta?
Yeah, I think the way I set it up minimizes the potential for quirky divisional results. 95% of the time all you care about is the conference table. And 4% of the time you're watching the supporters shield race. But I feel that if you have even a slightly unbalanced schedule (4 of 34 games in my scenario) you have to acknowledge it. So I tacked on the divisional standings and just said the top in each division will automatically quality even if they're not top 8 (extremely rare scenario). Because that's all they get, it almost never matters and people won't care about the divisions except for bragging rights against their rivals. It's also just a good visualization for scheduling groupings.
NBA standings by default are conference standings now. It would be the same here.
Last edited:
Actually, divisions may be a temporary feature as the league grows into them and then back out of them. It depends on whether the league wants to retain an everybody-plays-everybody schedule or move to more insular divisions where some non-divisional opponents don't play each other every year.
If we progress to 32 under the system I proposed above, divisions would have to shrink to four teams each to keep a 34-game schedule (6 against division, 28 against everyone else). Definitely at that point, it doesn't make sense to track such small groupings separately.
However, if we go to four divisions at 28 teams and then stay at four divisions up to 32 teams, you could do four divisions of 8 and just have each team miss four nonconference opponents each year on a rotating basis. This system, however, sucks legitimacy out of the Supporters Shield because now up to 11 games on the schedule will be different between two teams in different divisions. We would need to create conference championships rather than an overall trophy.
If we progress to 32 under the system I proposed above, divisions would have to shrink to four teams each to keep a 34-game schedule (6 against division, 28 against everyone else). Definitely at that point, it doesn't make sense to track such small groupings separately.
However, if we go to four divisions at 28 teams and then stay at four divisions up to 32 teams, you could do four divisions of 8 and just have each team miss four nonconference opponents each year on a rotating basis. This system, however, sucks legitimacy out of the Supporters Shield because now up to 11 games on the schedule will be different between two teams in different divisions. We would need to create conference championships rather than an overall trophy.
The other option is to increase the number of games in the season. Once we are at 24 teams, we have a home and home with each team in your conference and then one game against each non conference opponent for 34. 26 teams we could do the same thing with a 37 game season and 28 teams would go to 40 games. Not really too crazy considering 20 team leagues already play 38 games.
40 game season
5 potential MLS Cup Games
5 potential US Open Cup Games
9 potential CCL
41 min total games across all competitions
59 max total games across all competitions
To put this in perspective Man City played 59 games last season and could have played 63 games if they made the FA Cup and UCL final.
40 game season
5 potential MLS Cup Games
5 potential US Open Cup Games
9 potential CCL
41 min total games across all competitions
59 max total games across all competitions
To put this in perspective Man City played 59 games last season and could have played 63 games if they made the FA Cup and UCL final.
The season plus the playoffs currently run 9 months, from the first week in March to the first week in December. I do not think they can add 6 weeks of games to the season, leaving a 1.5 month off-season.
Would have. Could suggests they were physically capable.
Last edited:
How is Minnesota ahead of LA when the Minnesota team is not on the MLS site banner but LA is:
Again, the issue with the length of the MLS season is that the league has playoffs after the end of the season. The playoffs take up 6 weeks that could be used to extend the regular season. That may be good or bad, depending on your view, but that's the tradeoff.
As the league expands there will be pressure to divide into more segments (i.e. conferences or divisions). Personally, I would be happy with a 34-team league where everyone plays everyone else one time. I don't think the league will go with that, however, as it would require more travel (since divisions mean more games against teams close to you at the expense of games against teams farther away). It would also limit the number of derby games.
A 28-team league with 4 divisions could play a 33-game season with 2 games within the division and 1 game each outside it. A 30-team league with 3 divisions and a 32-team league with 4 divisions could each play a 38-game season with a similar setup.
I do think the league could extend the calendar a little. I think starting play in early February in the warm weather cities would work well. Most of the league will have stopped playing by early November anyway.
As the league expands there will be pressure to divide into more segments (i.e. conferences or divisions). Personally, I would be happy with a 34-team league where everyone plays everyone else one time. I don't think the league will go with that, however, as it would require more travel (since divisions mean more games against teams close to you at the expense of games against teams farther away). It would also limit the number of derby games.
A 28-team league with 4 divisions could play a 33-game season with 2 games within the division and 1 game each outside it. A 30-team league with 3 divisions and a 32-team league with 4 divisions could each play a 38-game season with a similar setup.
I do think the league could extend the calendar a little. I think starting play in early February in the warm weather cities would work well. Most of the league will have stopped playing by early November anyway.
Perhaps because Minnesota is currently playing in another league?
That's probably it, but it's weird to treat them as a non-entity as well.
we also dont know if they keep their logo and name....maybe we wait till they have their new one before they put it there.
It would probably be more Wednesday games not a longer season.
Minnesota will be officially announced next Friday.
Similar threads
