General MLS Discussion

[adam]

I always get this response when I say what I just said.

You saying you set a trap, and I walked into it?

And I agree with you. But no matter how random baseball is. If you have someone on the mound who doesn’t let the bats get to the ball, that negates a lot of that randomness and gives the other team a decided advantage if they can get those random 5-8 hits a game and only need 1-2 runs to win. That’s why short series (or 1 offs) for baseball are inherently flawed. You can use 2 pitchers 3 times in a 5 game series. Even if the rest of your team is mediocre, if those guys are studs (and performing well, sorry Mets fans) you’re going to win that series most of the time. Though over 162 games with only 2 great pitchers and the rest of the team average at best, you’ll probably lose most your games Since they can only pitch every 5 times around in this modern era. A team where that comes to mind is the 2001 Diamondbacks. Wow were they mediocre, but Randy Johnson and Curt Shilling carried them all the way to beating the great Yankee dynasty.

Also, Hockey. When there’s 25-50 shots a game and someone is standing on their head with a 99% save percentage, the team with that guy will usually win the series. I can cite numerous examples of playoff runs & Olympic runs where without the goalie that team would not have had the success they achieved. Dominik Hasek is the first name that comes to mind when you look at his teams over his career. But it also could me an average goalie who just gets hot at the right time. Jean Sebastian Giguere is another who carried teams like the 7th seed Ducks to the finals in 2003.

The reason you hear those arguments is because they are true. Not saying you don’t have valid points as well. But don’t discount how those sports lend themselves to individual performances from specific positions that can counteract much of what the other team is trying to and otherwise capable of accomplishing.

 

[adam]

Mark's analysis is spot on.

For every sport, the outcome is affected to some degree by luck, but some much more than others. This can roughly be defined as - How often does the better team win a given game? In other words, how likely is an upset to occur?

The Big 5 team sports can basically be ranked as follows (from least to most influenced by luck): Football, Basketball, Hockey, Soccer, Baseball.

Upsets happen in football, but they are comparatively rare. The best teams in the NFL will win 85% to 90% of their games - some have gone undefeated. And this is in a league with a lot of parity.

The other extreme is baseball. It's a very random game. In a league with very little parity, the best teams win a lot less often - around 65%. Long stretches of good play and bad play are a lot more common, and you don't really have a good sense of the quality of your team until 30 or so games into the season. Unfortunately, as Mark points out, this makes playoffs incredibly random and essentially worthless. A one-month version of a penalty shootout.

Soccer is more like baseball than football, but for slightly different reasons. Lucky bounces make a big difference in both sports, but soccer is also very low scoring. This means a team can outplay its opponent, only to have the opponent put in a cheap goal and win or tie. In soccer, more than any other sport, there are constant discussions around which team played better notwithstanding the actual result.

Basketball is the opposite of soccer. The outcome of any particular trip down the floor can be greatly influenced by luck. But, there are so many of those trips, and so much scoring, that it tends to even out. You see lots of streaks during a game, but fewer upsets by game's end. There are maybe 110-120 baskets (FG+FT) in the average NBA game vs. 2-3 goals in soccer.

All I read from your argument is no one cares about hockey

 

[Gotham Gator]

All I read from your argument is no one cares about hockey

Or that I know almost nothing about it.

Being a Florida Man.

 

[CCMore]

RSL declines Bobby Wood’s contract option. Would you take him for NYC?

 

[moogoo]

RSL declines Bobby Wood’s contract option. Would you take him for NYC?

nah. he barely played for RSL .. he wouldn't see the field for us and maybe even fall behind academy/II squad players in the pecking order.

 

[KevinJRogers]

MLS is pretty much right on the edge of making its regular season close to meaningless.

I'm not sure I can agree with this. Seeding matters for the playoffs in the current system, which means every regular season game already counts. And look how exciting Decision Day can be.

But let's leave aside the competitive case for a minute and look at the business case instead. This may be just a little long, so bear with me.

First, we have to keep in mind the fact MLS, unlike the other major sports -- or association football, for that matter -- is essentially a single-entity league:

MLS has, to say the least, a unique structure, even for a sports league. MLS retains significant centralized control over both league and individual team operations. MLS owns all of the teams that play in the league (a total of 12 prior to the start of 2002), as well as all intellectual property rights, tickets, supplied equipment, and broadcast rights. MLS sets the teams' schedules;  negotiates all stadium leases and assumes all related liabilities;  pays the salaries of referees and other league personnel;  and supplies certain equipment. [Fraser v. Major League Soccer, 284 F.3d 47 (1st Cir. 2002)]

Since that case, the league has changed its managerial protocols somewhat and given the franchises a little more autonomy. Or even a lot. But the basic business structure is the same. Everything needs to be seen in that light: It's all one operation. All of the teams are generating revenue for the league first rather than themselves.

So, the question for the board of governors, in the light of the Apple deal and the expansion to 30 teams, is whether to keep the current system of seven teams from each conference qualifying for the playoffs and leave two more teams out or change it to eight and bring two new teams in, given the fact all of the teams are league assets.

Being clever businesspeople, they're apparently electing to go with the latter. Which is not at all unreasonable. As the owner of the teams, it only makes sense for the league to want to have more playoff teams rather than fewer, on a relative basis, especially since it will now be a bigger league.

And from a competitive standpoint, it would still leave seven teams in each conference out of the playoffs, same as now. The top two or three of those seven teams are almost certainly going to be in the same late-season situation with eight playoff spots as they would have been with seven -- looking to win their last couple games and get in.

Decision Day lives on.

So, then the question becomes how to structure the playoffs themselves. With even numbers of teams in each conference, you either keep the single elimination format and give byes to the top two teams rather than the top team, or you eliminate the bye altogether and have everyone play in the first round.

In terms of revenue, especially with an entirely new way of presenting the games to the viewership (and a huge pile of money available if you do it right), you certainly don't want to cut playoff games. They're your biggest moneymaker, and your partner wants the content. That means eliminating the bye.

And that's where I think the league saw the opportunity. By increasing the number of playoff games significantly, but only adding one more team to each conference playoff -- and leaving the same number of teams out, which keeps the competitive incentives essentially the same -- they can generate a lot more revenue than they would with the current system.

It's actually a pretty clever proposal. Of course, there are still big questions. The biggest one of all is player health, in my opinion. That's potentially a lot of games. Everyone has the 34-game regular season, playoff teams would then have a minimum of three more games instead of one, teams which advance would have at least one more after that.

And that's not even factoring in preseason, any friendlies, whatever tournaments anyone finds themselves in, etc. It's not hard to envision top teams verging on 50 competitive matches in a calendar year (as we are this year). But I'm sure that's being looked at carefully.

The good news is, we're not going to have games scattered all over the place, scheduled for different days and times. We don't have to be anyone's filler content on broadcast. So, it's within Major League Soccer's control to spread the season out a little and make sure the players get adequate rest and recovery time -- it's in the league's own interest, after all.

Now, there's an obvious drawback: Teams which have been eliminated in group but still have to play a competitive match. It's going to happen. There isn't anything to be done about it, either; it's a matter of the play on the field.

But how different is that from a team which has to play its last few games knowing they're not making the playoffs? To my mind, it's better to get in and get a shot than go home after 34 games. At least you're there; maybe you'll even get a chance to play spoiler for a rival. And for the fans of a team which barely scraped in, or fans in general, think how exciting it would be to see a mid-tier squad catch fire in group.

What a narrative. Everyone loves the Cinderella story. And I think that's one of the things the league is trying to create. (Obviously, this entire screed is based on the idea they're going to go ahead with this -- which I think they will. LOL)

 

[mgarbowski]

I'm not sure I can agree with this. Seeding matters for the playoffs in the current system, which means every regular season game already counts. And look how exciting Decision Day can be.

But let's leave aside the competitive case for a minute and look at the business case instead. This may be just a little long, so bear with me.

First, we have to keep in mind the fact MLS, unlike the other major sports -- or association football, for that matter -- is essentially a single-entity league:

MLS has, to say the least, a unique structure, even for a sports league. MLS retains significant centralized control over both league and individual team operations. MLS owns all of the teams that play in the league (a total of 12 prior to the start of 2002), as well as all intellectual property rights, tickets, supplied equipment, and broadcast rights. MLS sets the teams' schedules;  negotiates all stadium leases and assumes all related liabilities;  pays the salaries of referees and other league personnel;  and supplies certain equipment. [Fraser v. Major League Soccer, 284 F.3d 47 (1st Cir. 2002)]

Since that case, the league has changed its managerial protocols somewhat and given the franchises a little more autonomy. Or even a lot. But the basic business structure is the same. Everything needs to be seen in that light: It's all one operation. All of the teams are generating revenue for the league first rather than themselves.

So, the question for the board of governors, in the light of the Apple deal and the expansion to 30 teams, is whether to keep the current system of seven teams from each conference qualifying for the playoffs and leave two more teams out or change it to eight and bring two new teams in, given the fact all of the teams are league assets.

Being clever businesspeople, they're apparently electing to go with the latter. Which is not at all unreasonable. As the owner of the teams, it only makes sense for the league to want to have more playoff teams rather than fewer, on a relative basis, especially since it will now be a bigger league.

And from a competitive standpoint, it would still leave seven teams in each conference out of the playoffs, same as now. The top two or three of those seven teams are almost certainly going to be in the same late-season situation with eight playoff spots as they would have been with seven -- looking to win their last couple games and get in.

Decision Day lives on.

So, then the question becomes how to structure the playoffs themselves. With even numbers of teams in each conference, you either keep the single elimination format and give byes to the top two teams rather than the top team, or you eliminate the bye altogether and have everyone play in the first round.

In terms of revenue, especially with an entirely new way of presenting the games to the viewership (and a huge pile of money available if you do it right), you certainly don't want to cut playoff games. They're your biggest moneymaker, and your partner wants the content. That means eliminating the bye.

And that's where I think the league saw the opportunity. By increasing the number of playoff games significantly, but only adding one more team to each conference playoff -- and leaving the same number of teams out, which keeps the competitive incentives essentially the same -- they can generate a lot more revenue than they would with the current system.

It's actually a pretty clever proposal. Of course, there are still big questions. The biggest one of all is player health, in my opinion. That's potentially a lot of games. Everyone has the 34-game regular season, playoff teams would then have a minimum of three more games instead of one, teams which advance would have at least one more after that.

And that's not even factoring in preseason, any friendlies, whatever tournaments anyone finds themselves in, etc. It's not hard to envision top teams verging on 50 competitive matches in a calendar year (as we are this year). But I'm sure that's being looked at carefully.

The good news is, we're not going to have games scattered all over the place, scheduled for different days and times. We don't have to be anyone's filler content on broadcast. So, it's within Major League Soccer's control to spread the season out a little and make sure the players get adequate rest and recovery time -- it's in the league's own interest, after all.

Now, there's an obvious drawback: Teams which have been eliminated in group but still have to play a competitive match. It's going to happen. There isn't anything to be done about it, either; it's a matter of the play on the field.

But how different is that from a team which has to play its last few games knowing they're not making the playoffs? To my mind, it's better to get in and get a shot than go home after 34 games. At least you're there; maybe you'll even get a chance to play spoiler for a rival. And for the fans of a team which barely scraped in, or fans in general, think how exciting it would be to see a mid-tier squad catch fire in group.

What a narrative. Everyone loves the Cinderella story. And I think that's one of the things the league is trying to create. (Obviously, this entire screed is based on the idea they're going to go ahead with this -- which I think they will. LOL)

If you set forth a limiting principle on adding more playoff teams I missed it. Mine is clear, the other way. As long as the final 2 routinely but not always are drawn from the best 3-4 teams I approve. But your argument is that it is better to have more teams in the playoffs to keep interest spread out and that everyone loves a Cinderella story. If they expand the playoffs by 2 teams next year you could still write the same thing. And then again, and again, and again, until nobody is eliminated and the regular season is just for seeding. The closest I see to a limit is you want to keep 7 teams out of the playoffs regardless of how big the league gets or who gets in. But that's sort of random. I mean, if we currently kept 5, or 9, teams out of the playoffs would you say we need 7, or would you want to maintain the current amounts? You don't ever explain why 7 is the key number so I still see no limiting principle.

Which is fine and you can believe what you want on something inconsequential, but I'm not sure why anyone should be convinced.

 

[adam]

If you set forth a limiting principle on adding more playoff teams I missed it. Mine is clear, the other way. As long as the final 2 routinely but not always are drawn from the best 3-4 teams I approve. But your argument is that it is better to have more teams in the playoffs to keep interest spread out and that everyone loves a Cinderella story. If they expand the playoffs by 2 teams next year you could still write the same thing. And then again, and again, and again, until nobody is eliminated and the regular season is just for seeding. The closest I see to a limit is you want to keep 7 teams out of the playoffs regardless of how big the league gets or who gets in. But that's sort of random. I mean, if we currently kept 5, or 9, teams out of the playoffs would you say we need 7, or would you want to maintain the current amounts? You don't ever explain why 7 is the key number so I still see no limiting principle.

Which is fine and you can believe what you want on something inconsequential, but I'm not sure why anyone should be convinced.

 

[SoupInNYC]

RSL declines Bobby Wood’s contract option. Would you take him for NYC?

Depends on salary. We don't have another CF on this team and I think we mostly agree here that we'd rather have Talles on the wing.

I think Bobby would be great depth behind Heber, or even a fair split. But also not sure if the club has other targets elsewhere.

This club also doesn't often target regular contributors within the league. Sean is really the only exception to this. Other signings within MLS include the likes of Stertzer, Pelligrini (though technically he wasn't in MLS at the time), Rocha, Eric Miller, Stuver, Abdul-Salaam, Wallace, Ethan White. (excluding the first two rosters since the club had to rely on adding MLS players just to build out the initial roster).

 

[Shwafta]

If you set forth a limiting principle on adding more playoff teams I missed it. Mine is clear, the other way. As long as the final 2 routinely but not always are drawn from the best 3-4 teams I approve. But your argument is that it is better to have more teams in the playoffs to keep interest spread out and that everyone loves a Cinderella story. If they expand the playoffs by 2 teams next year you could still write the same thing. And then again, and again, and again, until nobody is eliminated and the regular season is just for seeding. The closest I see to a limit is you want to keep 7 teams out of the playoffs regardless of how big the league gets or who gets in. But that's sort of random. I mean, if we currently kept 5, or 9, teams out of the playoffs would you say we need 7, or would you want to maintain the current amounts? You don't ever explain why 7 is the key number so I still see no limiting principle.

Which is fine and you can believe what you want on something inconsequential, but I'm not sure why anyone should be convinced.

Historically iirc, hasn't the number of playoff teams hovered just around half per conference? I'd like to see it stay around that, and right now we're on 14 (next season 15 per conference) members, so it makes sense for 7 out. I think the league should scale it like that as the league grows. Keeps a nice amount of teams still vying for playoffs while also not making "making the playoffs" a meaningless thing. Kinda like NBA where 7-10 have a play-in round... so basically 10/15 have a chance.

 

[Gotham Gator]

Depends on salary. We don't have another CF on this team and I think we mostly agree here that we'd rather have Talles on the wing.

I think Bobby would be great depth behind Heber, or even a fair split. But also not sure if the club has other targets elsewhere.

This club also doesn't often target regular contributors within the league. Sean is really the only exception to this. Other signings within MLS include the likes of Stertzer, Pelligrini (though technically he wasn't in MLS at the time), Rocha, Eric Miller, Stuver, Abdul-Salaam, Wallace, Ethan White. (excluding the first two rosters since the club had to rely on adding MLS players just to build out the initial roster).

Wood had adductor surgery in the summer, which is why he hasn't been playing. Tended to start before that and had 5g, 2a in 31 games. Not a DP, but a good pickup at something around the max salary. He was making $1 million in Salt Lake.

 

[KevinJRogers]

If you set forth a limiting principle on adding more playoff teams I missed it. Mine is clear, the other way. As long as the final 2 routinely but not always are drawn from the best 3-4 teams I approve. But your argument is that it is better to have more teams in the playoffs to keep interest spread out and that everyone loves a Cinderella story. If they expand the playoffs by 2 teams next year you could still write the same thing. And then again, and again, and again, until nobody is eliminated and the regular season is just for seeding. The closest I see to a limit is you want to keep 7 teams out of the playoffs regardless of how big the league gets or who gets in. But that's sort of random. I mean, if we currently kept 5, or 9, teams out of the playoffs would you say we need 7, or would you want to maintain the current amounts? You don't ever explain why 7 is the key number so I still see no limiting principle.

Which is fine and you can believe what you want on something inconsequential, but I'm not sure why anyone should be convinced.

I actually haven't made any of those arguments, and I haven't set any limiting principles, either. I was making the business case for the (potential) new format and simply pointing out the qualification line for the playoffs doesn't actually change much. What really changes is what happens after the playoffs start.

So, if we want to look at it from a sporting perspective, the regular season situation is about the same. You have to finish above seventh from the bottom in your conference to make it into the postseason. If you're in that position, or one lower, or one or two higher, you're in the same circumstances on Decision Day as you are now.

What the league is planning to do is expand the playoffs. Which, from a business perspective, makes all the sense in the world. The Apple contract is the breakthrough. Leveraging it as much as possible is the way to go, and that means adding two new teams into the playoffs rather than adding them into the regular season schedule and leaving them out.

The playoffs are the moneymaker. That's a lesson learned by all the other major sports.

Were the league to expand even further, they no doubt would have to make further adjustments. (Personally, as I've said elsewhere, I think going beyond 30 teams starts to get really unwieldy with two conferences.) But we're not there yet.

 

[sbrylski]

I think anyone who says this makes the regular season less meaningful probably already feels the regular season isn't meaningful enough and advocates for a much more extreme change, like single table or having only the top four qualify for the postseason, etc. You won't make those people happy with any changes that aren't severely detrimental to the business.

It's also not objective thinking, it's viewing the structure through some subconscious lens of what a "pure" competition is. It is very easy to argue the proposed structure adds a *ton* of meaningfulness to games in both the regular season and postseason.

First, during the regular season, games are objectively "meaningful" if they materially affect the probability of a team winning the entire competition.[*] The fewer teams that qualify for the postseason, the more games you have against two teams that are practically or mathematically eliminated. Putting the qualifying line in approximately the middle of the table actually maximizes the amount of regular season games that have a materially affects the probability of teams winning the entire competition. There are so few games, and all near the end of the year, where neither team has anything to play for -- qualification nor seeding.

The most persuasive argument against that line of thinking is that seeding isn't important, so I do think it's critical to make sure the order of qualifiers has a material affect on the likelihood of winning the entire competition. To that end, I wish the new playoff proposal let the top seeds host three group stage games and the bottom seeds play all three on the road, rather than guaranteeing each team a home game.

Second, during the postseason, this format obviously adds a ton of meaningful games by having each qualifier play three. In addition, by using a group stage, it adds the multiplier affect (which also exists during the regular season) where each game means something to more than just the two teams playing. In a standard playoff bracket, each game really only matters to the two teams that are playing in it. (It also achieves it very efficiently by adding only two matchdays to the schedule when compared to a standard playoff bracket.)

I find it strange nobody has mentioned the biggest structural flaw to the proposal -- the potential for dead rubber games. Or perhaps worse, a third matchday where one team is alive and the other team is eliminated, which could raise some competitiveness issues.

Finally, all that said, I think people are best served to think about the regular season and the MLS Cup Playoffs as two completely separate competitions. The regular season is a quasi-round robin spread out over many months and has a trophy for the winner of the league -- the team that best managed the marathon of league play that year. The postseason is an end-of-year tournament that has it's own structure and trophy for the winner -- the team that best came together at the end of the year to finish on top. Assign your own value assessment to the two trophies -- culturally, Americans have always revered that team that perhaps overcame hardships during the year to make it count "when it matters," which is "in the end," i.e., the postseason tournament.

[*] To head off a likely counterargument, I think most people erroneously think a game is "meaningful" if the consequences of a loss are significant. I strongly disagree. To take the example of a single table format, only games played prior to some relatively low number of losses have any meaning at all, and games lose all meaning afterwards. The vast majority of teams would be playing for nothing by halfway through the season. Is it a "pure" competition? Maybe. But objectively, it doesn't create meaningful games.

 

[KevinJRogers]

I find it strange nobody has mentioned the biggest structural flaw to the proposal -- the potential for dead rubber games. Or perhaps worse, a third matchday where one team is alive and the other team is eliminated, which could raise some competitiveness issues.

I kind of alluded to this earlier: "Now, there's an obvious drawback: Teams which have been eliminated in group but still have to play a competitive match. It's going to happen. There isn't anything to be done about it, either; it's a matter of the play on the field."

I think that's where you're going, and it's a valid point. But as I said, there's always the possibility of a team which isn't going to make it out of group still getting the chance to play spoiler against a heated rival. That's at least something for the fans.

By the way, my own thinking (pre-Apple) was for the league to split into three divisions when it hit 30 teams. The top half of each division would qualify for the playoffs in single elimination, with the Shield winner getting a first-round bye. The No. 2 seed would then play No. 15, No. 3 would play No. 14, etc. Higher seed would always be the home team (to your point).

Then the Shield winner would come in for Round Two and play the lowest remaining seed. Second-highest would play second-lowest, third highest would play third lowest, etc. until we got to the last two for the Final.

But I have to admit, this proposal strikes me as far superior. It is indeed a full-on tournament, like grafting a mini-World Cup onto the end of the regular season. Very clever.

 

[sbrylski]

I kind of alluded to this earlier: "Now, there's an obvious drawback: Teams which have been eliminated in group but still have to play a competitive match. It's going to happen. There isn't anything to be done about it, either; it's a matter of the play on the field."

I think that's where you're going, and it's a valid point. But as I said, there's always the possibility of a team which isn't going to make it out of group still getting the chance to play spoiler against a heated rival. That's at least something for the fans.

Sorry, I missed that comment. One solution is to find a way to make third place in group worth something -- I have no idea what, but it would make every game matter enough to at least play it.

By the way, my own thinking (pre-Apple) was for the league to split into three divisions when it hit 30 teams. The top half of each division would qualify for the playoffs in single elimination, with the Shield winner getting a first-round bye. The No. 2 seed would then play No. 15, No. 3 would play No. 14, etc. Higher seed would always be the home team (to your point).

Then the Shield winner would come in for Round Two and play the lowest remaining seed. Second-highest would play second-lowest, third highest would play third lowest, etc. until we got to the last two for the Final.

But I have to admit, this proposal strikes me as far superior. It is indeed a full-on tournament, like grafting a mini-World Cup onto the end of the regular season. Very clever.

Your proposal is intriguing as well -- but the main feature I like about it is that conferences don't matter for the postseason. If I could improve on the format laid out in the Athletic article, I would do the following:

1. Mixed Groups -- Pull two from each conference into each group so the stronger conference can put more teams into the knockout rounds, and we can have a rivalry final.
2. Maximize Home-Field Advantage -- Higher seed always plays at home to increase the value of higher seeds.
3. Re-Seeding -- Use the group stage points to re-seed teams entering the knockout rounds to provide additional motivation for group stage games, which solves for situations where a team is guaranteed to advance after two games and would otherwise have nothing to play for in the third matchday.

 

[KevinJRogers]

Sorry, I missed that comment. One solution is to find a way to make third place in group worth something -- I have no idea what, but it would make every game matter enough to at least play it.



Your proposal is intriguing as well -- but the main feature I like about it is that conferences don't matter for the postseason. If I could improve on the format laid out in the Athletic article, I would do the following:

1. Mixed Groups -- Pull two from each conference into each group so the stronger conference can put more teams into the knockout rounds, and we can have a rivalry final.
2. Maximize Home-Field Advantage -- Higher seed always plays at home to increase the value of higher seeds.
3. Re-Seeding -- Use the group stage points to re-seed teams entering the knockout rounds to provide additional motivation for group stage games, which solves for situations where a team is guaranteed to advance after two games and would otherwise have nothing to play for in the third matchday.

We don't have the full proposal yet, but I like your ideas a lot. Hopefully they're thinking along these lines in the C-suite. On top of the structural parity, it would make for one heck of a competitive league. And we're already fun.

 

[mgarbowski]

What's driving MLS' reported playoff revamp?

MLS is seemingly set to dramatically increase its playoff footprint beginning next year, but that will mean complications on several fronts.

www.espn.com

Roundtable discussion of the proposed playoff format. I think some very solid points and creative ideas are mixed in with some dumb stuff, which makes for an overall interesting read.
The biggest omission is they underplay the issue of schedule congestion even as they do bring it up. They fail to bring up international breaks which are not friendly to the MLS February to December schedule, and though they mention the salary cap in passing, they don't discuss how it limits the ability to engage in squad rotation for a cluttered schedule.
The bottom line is that there are still 52 weeks in a year and time is the least flexible commodity we have. If the offseason is 8 weeks (early December to early February) that leaves 44 weeks
Next year's FIFA schedule, which is typical for a non WC year, sets aside 9 days each in March, June, September, October and November. That's 45 days, and to be generous I'll round down to 6 weeks. That leaves 38 weeks. Now account for the regional summer tournaments (Cup of Nations, Asian Cup, Gold Cup) and those all last 3-4 weeks and are not even perfectly aligned but again I'll be generous and only deduct 3 weeks. That leaves MLS 35 weeks where teams can have full rosters. With the regular season, Leagues Cup, expanded playoff tournament we're expecting to raise game counts to the 45-50 game range for most teams. We've already seen how poorly the best teams in the league fare for 6-8 weeks while juggling CCL and MLS. Now think about how this will affect San Jose, Colorado, Chicago and DC.

Teams will almost certainly have to play through the international breaks (except maybe for the playoffs - see below) and I expect will no longer have the option to schedule around them. That means playing several games a year with depleted rosters, while still needing to juggle a lot of dual game weeks. I expect the entire Leagues Cup tournament will be played without the best players in either league because it almost surely coincides with the FIFA regional confederation tournaments. Without a major increase in salary cap and funny bucks, there will be a lot of second rate soccer in games that count.

I'm very curious to see how MLS plans to handle the October and November FIFA breaks with this expanded format. One of the major reasons for switching from the 2 game format to 1 game in every round was to minimize the effect of those 2 breaks on the MLS playoff schedule. I don't see how they can possibly decide to play the playoff tournament without some of the league's best players, which probably means the tournament starts earlier than it does now and possibly gets interrupted possibly twice before crowning a champion. That both diminishes the benefits of a longer playoff story build, and means the regular season is even more congested.

ETA: This is very ambitious. I like ambitious. It can work with a lot more money injected to assuage the effect of squad rotation. But no matter what as long as MLS plays its reverse schedule (and changing that is extremely difficult and unlikely) there is no way to do it without a lot more squad rotation than we are used to. Better rosters can make that more palatable, but you're still making people pay to watch a lot of games where your very best players are elsewhere.

 

[sbrylski]

We don't have the full proposal yet, but I like your ideas a lot. Hopefully they're thinking along these lines in the C-suite. On top of the structural parity, it would make for one heck of a competitive league. And we're already fun.

I've been advocating for something like this for quite a while, so I'm very happy.

Mls 2029

I got a little bored this afternoon and charted out an example of a season in my vision of the future MLS. I know it's rather fruitless and I spent entirely too much time on it, but I thought it might spark some discussion about how we think MLS will or should complete its growth into a top...

nycfcforums.com

I have some weird picks for expansion, like Ottawa, and didn't anticipate a Leagues Cup back then, but some of the thoughts appear to be coming true.

 

[adam]

What's driving MLS' reported playoff revamp?

MLS is seemingly set to dramatically increase its playoff footprint beginning next year, but that will mean complications on several fronts.

www.espn.com

Roundtable discussion of the proposed playoff format. I think some very solid points and creative ideas are mixed in with some dumb stuff, which makes for an overall interesting read.
The biggest omission is they underplay the issue of schedule congestion even as they do bring it up. They fail to bring up international breaks which are not friendly to the MLS February to December schedule, and though they mention the salary cap in passing, they don't discuss how it limits the ability to engage in squad rotation for a cluttered schedule.
The bottom line is that there are still 52 weeks in a year and time is the least flexible commodity we have. If the offseason is 8 weeks (early December to early February) that leaves 44 weeks
Next year's FIFA schedule, which is typical for a non WC year, sets aside 9 days each in March, June, September, October and November. That's 45 days, and to be generous I'll round down to 6 weeks. That leaves 38 weeks. Now account for the regional summer tournaments (Cup of Nations, Asian Cup, Gold Cup) and those all last 3-4 weeks and are not even perfectly aligned but again I'll be generous and only deduct 3 weeks. That leaves MLS 35 weeks where teams can have full rosters. With the regular season, Leagues Cup, expanded playoff tournament we're expecting to raise game counts to the 45-50 game range for most teams. We've already seen how poorly the best teams in the league fare for 6-8 weeks while juggling CCL and MLS. Now think about how this will affect San Jose, Colorado, Chicago and DC.

Teams will almost certainly have to play through the international breaks (except maybe for the playoffs - see below) and I expect will no longer have the option to schedule around them. That means playing several games a year with depleted rosters, while still needing to juggle a lot of dual game weeks. I expect the entire Leagues Cup tournament will be played without the best players in either league because it almost surely coincides with the FIFA regional confederation tournaments. Without a major increase in salary cap and funny bucks, there will be a lot of second rate soccer in games that count.

I'm very curious to see how MLS plans to handle the October and November FIFA breaks with this expanded format. One of the major reasons for switching from the 2 game format to 1 game in every round was to minimize the effect of those 2 breaks on the MLS playoff schedule. I don't see how they can possibly decide to play the playoff tournament without some of the league's best players, which probably means the tournament starts earlier than it does now and possibly gets interrupted possibly twice before crowning a champion. That both diminishes the benefits of a longer playoff story build, and means the regular season is even more congested.

ETA: This is very ambitious. I like ambitious. It can work with a lot more money injected to assuage the effect of squad rotation. But no matter what as long as MLS plays its reverse schedule (and changing that is extremely difficult and unlikely) there is no way to do it without a lot more squad rotation than we are used to. Better rosters can make that more palatable, but you're still making people pay to watch a lot of games where your very best players are elsewhere.

You got me thinking about schedule congestion. And TV ratings. Are we moving to a point where we scrap the regular season all together & are a tournament only league with some local “friendlies/derbies” mixed in? Just as you mentioned; Leagues Cup, CCL, Playoffs, USOC, & who knows what else could be in store. It’s crazy but I’d be willing to take the national team approach & have local club teams play only those tournaments, and some local derbies (like NYCFC vs NJ, Philly, maybe even LA as a big city rivalry, Texas teams play each other, Cascadia Cup, etc..). Maybe create a few other cool mixed tournaments vs teams in other leagues in South America (finally join Copa Liberatos?) or even combine with some 2nd tier Euro leagues like Eredivise or Scoltish Premier league on a rotating basis we cold test our metal against, who would appreciate the extra American eyeballs and $. It sounds crazy, but I’d be really into it over 30 odd games vs MNUs & Chicago Fires of the league. There’s also no “bad“ years for teams, because each tournament is a fresh start and chance at a trophy. It also fits Apple TVs goal to reach broader audiences and increase interest, as no regular season matches bring in as much interest or ratings as a cup match. The MLS Champ will be determined by the new World Cup Format playoff structure for only MLS teams playing for the MLS Cup, no more shield (But mini shields for the derby champs). Am I crazy? Or is this where we are headed? And if we are, hate me if you wish, but I kind of like it.

Edit: It also allows us to move to the FIFA Schedule, because we don‘t have to play a league schedule of consecutive weekly matches anymore, and can move tournaments around to match the rest of the world and the FIFA breaks where our players are called away for international duty. We could also play South American teams during our winter and in Europe in our winter, where it’s more mild. Plenty of ways to get creative with this system.

 

[mgarbowski]

You got me thinking about schedule congestion. And TV ratings. Are we moving to a point where we scrap the regular season all together & are a tournament only league with some local “friendlies/derbies” mixed in? Just as you mentioned; Leagues Cup, CCL, Playoffs, USOC, & who knows what else could be in store. It’s crazy but I’d be willing to take the national team approach & have local club teams play only those tournaments, and some local derbies (like NYCFC vs NJ, Philly, maybe even LA as a big city rivalry, Texas teams play each other, Cascadia Cup, etc..). Maybe create a few other cool mixed tournaments vs teams in other leagues in South America (finally join Copa Liberatos?) or even combine with some 2nd tier Euro leagues like Eredivise or Scoltish Premier league on a rotating basis we cold test our metal against, who would appreciate the extra American eyeballs and $. It sounds crazy, but I’d be really into it over 30 odd games vs MNUs & Chicago Fires of the league. There’s also no “bad“ years for teams, because each tournament is a fresh start and chance at a trophy. It also fits Apple TVs goal to reach broader audiences and increase interest, as no regular season matches bring in as much interest or ratings as a cup match. The MLS Champ will be determined by the new World Cup Format playoff structure for only MLS teams playing for the MLS Cup, no more shield (But mini shields for the derby champs). Am I crazy? Or is this where we are headed? And if we are, hate me if you wish, but I kind of like it.

Edit: It also allows us to move to the FIFA Schedule, because we don‘t have to play a league schedule of consecutive weekly matches anymore, and can move tournaments around to match the rest of the world and the FIFA breaks where our players are called away for international duty. We could also play South American teams during our winter and in Europe in our winter, where it’s more mild. Plenty of ways to get creative with this system.

Putting aside the part of me that thinks this is insane, maybe it's the way to go.

Maybe the solution to the dilution of the regular season is to get rid of it, or at least transform it into something currently unrecognizable.
The biggest issue in doing that is that teams need the cash flow certainty of STH attendance and you have to cobble together some set of 15-20 home games for every team that you entice/compel people to subscribe.

Maybe copy the Mexican Apertura/Clausura and fully convert the season into 2 separate group stages. 32 teams, groups of 4. You play everyone in your group plus all 4 teams from another regionally nearby group twice in the winter/spring. That's 14 games, 7 at home. Then late summer fall you again play your group 2x plus a different second group, another 14 games, 7 at home. That gives everyone a guaranteed pre-scheduled 28 games, 14 at home for STHs. Make Leagues Cup part of the STH package and you're back in the 15+ game range and that problem is solved, while you still shortened the season by 6 games to reduce schedule congestion, and this format greatly reduces travel.

Teams that finish first both halves get a bye to the second knockout round. Teams who do so once enter the play in round. Depending on how those numbers fall out, add some second place teams with the best records to round out the field. Does this mean nobody knows how many second place teams qualify until the second season ends? Yes! Let Soccer Chaos rule! Imagine all the articles, tables and spreadsheets you can create analyzing the possibilities.

I'm not joking or being facetious. If you're really going to upend the normal long season, limited playoffs format - go all in.