Small Things That Would Make Mls Better

[Gentile]

Not talking Promotion/relegation here, but things that are easily do able would make the league better IMO.

The vast disparity in games played by all teams makes looking at the table week to week mean almost nothing. You don't know where you really stand as a supporter of a team each week which is something really important to soccer fans.

Not that hard to fix is it?

And too much teams in the playoffs. Making the playoffs should be a reward for having a good season. Having too many as is, devalues this. Should be 4 teams in each conference max. Would potentially create a lot more dead rubbers at the end of the season with not relegation, but I would take it.

Owners won't change this probably, especially the cheap ones because they want those playoff dollars, not interested in having a playoff achievement mean more from a sporting context.

Lastly own jersey deals. Yes it is single entity but having all teams with the same manufacturer really doesn't allow for much individuality. Let teams negotiate own deals and just have some kind of revenue sharing amongst the league if you must.

I would really like an end to single entity in the future but is not really realistic right now.

Any smaller realistic tweaks you would like to make to improve the league?

 

[Ferdinand Cesarano]

The bit about the playoffs is huge.

While the fact that NYCFC are only 3 points off of a playoff spot can be spun as a good thing, the fact that a team which went winless in 11 is really in no worse shape for the championship than a team which had won all its games would be serves as an indictment of the current system.

I'd prefer to see three teams per conference in the playoffs. In the first week, seed #3 would play at seed #2 while the top seed had a bye. Then the #2-#3 winner would visit the top seed for the conference championship. Such a system would be simple and elegant; more important, it would result in the regular season being more meaningful, as there would be real differences in reward for coming in first versus second versus third versus fourth.

But what that logical system wouldn't do is give each playoff team a home game. And, of course, it wouldn't grant this right to more than half the league. The structure of the bloated MLS playoffs is driven by these sorts of concerns, rather than by anything having to do with the integrity of the competition.

MLS has gotten better in terms of giving teams some degree of independence in their operating. This is why quality ownership groups are now interested in becoming "investor-operators" of MLS teams; and it is why quality fans, such as those of the Sounders and now of NYCFC, can legitimately take to this league which we once rightfully scorned.

But until the playoff situation is tightened up, MLS will have a bit of an aroma to it that will repel many serious football fans who would otherwise be moved to invest their emotions in an MLS team.


P.S. - A more basic thing that I'd love to change would be to get the advertisements off the shirts, a phenomenon which demeans all football leagues, not just MLS. Indeed, for a while MLS refused to participate in that. But, nowadays, MLS is just as infested with shirt advertising as are all other leagues.

Think of Tom Seaver. In your mind's eye you see the word "Mets" that he wore across his chest. Think of George Brett. You will unavoidably see the word "Royals" in your memory.

Now think of David Beckham. What word comes to mind? "Sharp". "Herbalife". And this is why companies buy advertising on team shirts -- so that they can have a presence in our memories. It's a form of pollution.

The only logo that belongs on a team shirt is that of the team itself. But, alas, that ship has sailed; and all our minds have been a bit poisoned by this ugly practice of advertising where it doesn't belong.

 

[FootyLovin]

When considering any changes, first and foremost follow the money.

The vast disparity in games played by all teams makes looking at the table week to week mean almost nothing.

I cannot find a money rationale for this. It should be fixed. MLS, get on that.

And too much teams in the playoffs. Making the playoffs should be a reward for having a good season. Having too many as is, devalues this. Should be 4 teams in each conference max. Would potentially create a lot more dead rubbers at the end of the season with not relegation, but I would take it.

Nope. Not gonna happen. There's money in playoffs. Any ideas for changing the playoffs with even a snowball's chance of success have to include at least as many games played as the current format. That means your more likely to see more teams, not fewer.

I'd prefer to see three teams per conference in the playoffs. In the first week, seed #3 would play at seed #2 while the top seed had a bye. Then the #2-#3 winner would visit the top seed for the conference championship. Such a system would be simple and elegant; more important, it would result in the regular season being more meaningful, as there would be real differences in reward for coming in first versus second versus third versus fourth.

This is a nice idea to differentiate top finishers from others. Kind of like the European system where you either qualify directly into CCL or you have to play yourself in. But it won't go down like this.

It's way more likely to see the number of teams increased with more single game play-ins for the lower seeds. More teams - more action. More games - more money. Always follow the money.

While the fact that NYCFC are only 3 points off of a playoff spot can be spun as a good thing, the fact that a team which went winless in 11 is really in no worse shape for the championship than a team which had won all its games would be serves as an indictment of the current system.

Yes. An 11 game winless streak should ruin a team's chance for any silverware other than the Cup. The thing that is likely to change this is more teams. In a few years that newcomer with their 11 game winless streak will have 3 or 4 more teams to climb over than we have this season. Not a great solution, but that's what we've got.

A more basic thing that I'd love to change would be to get the advertisements off the shirts

Did I mention that thing about following the money?

Yeah. This ain't happening.

 

[Keith Putnam]

The vast disparity in games played by all teams makes looking at the table week to week mean almost nothing.

This is one of my biggest peeves. It's absurd to have such huge disparities with games-in-hand so far into the season. The MLS schedulers have got to do better.

I'd also like to see more inter-conference play in the regular season, and along with that maybe make the playoff criteria be in standings league-wide, not just within the individual conferences. Maybe the top eight in the whole-league table (basically the Supporters Shield table, or what the rest of the world would just call "the actual standings") go to the playoffs.

 

[FootyLovin]

I'd also like to see more inter-conference play in the regular season, and along with that maybe make the playoff criteria be in standings league-wide, not just within the individual conferences. Maybe the top eight in the whole-league table (basically the Supporters Shield table, or what the rest of the world would just call "the actual standings") go to the playoffs.

Again, this is a money issue. Local rivalries draw bigger crowds. And yes, LA would draw a crowd here. But Colorado, San Jose, Dallas, etc won't. The schedule is structured to promote local rivalry which is good for ratings and good for league wallets.

Same for playoffs. My guess is a playoff schedule that brings in the whole country brings in more money. Also a conference playoff schedule further boosts regional rivalries.

Money. Money. Money.

 

[Midas Mulligan]

Not talking Promotion/relegation here, but things that are easily do able would make the league better IMO.

The vast disparity in games played by all teams makes looking at the table week to week mean almost nothing. You don't know where you really stand as a supporter of a team each week which is something really important to soccer fans.

Not that hard to fix is it?

And too much teams in the playoffs. Making the playoffs should be a reward for having a good season. Having too many as is, devalues this. Should be 4 teams in each conference max. Would potentially create a lot more dead rubbers at the end of the season with not relegation, but I would take it.

Owners won't change this probably, especially the cheap ones because they want those playoff dollars, not interested in having a playoff achievement mean more from a sporting context.

Lastly own jersey deals. Yes it is single entity but having all teams with the same manufacturer really doesn't allow for much individuality. Let teams negotiate own deals and just have some kind of revenue sharing amongst the league if you must.

I would really like an end to single entity in the future but is not really realistic right now.

Any smaller realistic tweaks you would like to make to improve the league?

This thread is going to get moved, no doubt, but I actually don't mind the playoffs structure. It is, after all, a "cup" competition. I think five would be better, but as it is, it makes for more meaningful games. Without relegation and with two distinct divisions and the unbalanced schedules, taking a handful or six teams is likely just about the best way to ensure the most meaningful games and the fairest way to even out the strength of schedule discrepancies.

I kind of dig having a unique league that requires a bit of effort to understand and follow. We shouldn't have to be like every other league. There are at least a handful of great leagues that are all more or less exactly the same in their competitive structure. Ours gives folks something different.
We have a marathon slog to prove you can withstand the grind and not be utter garbage, and then a 5k where you better bring your best.

We award a Supporters Shield and CCL spots based on regular season performance, so it's not as if teams aren't rewarded for a division win.

Personally, I look forward to having enough interest in the league that the MLS Cup final is hosted at a neutral warm-weather site. I completely understand why that has not and is not done now, but I hope that can change within the next 5 years.

I'd like to see more mechanisms like TAM. Having trade-able cap relief mechanisms is a wonderful free market way to inject more capital into on-field quality while not necessarily creating competive imbalance.

I would also like to see more mid-day and early afternoon starts during these early and mid summer months when there's very little footy to watch during that window and no CFB. I hate days like yesterday when I'm soccer starved all day and then have too many games to attentively watch come night time. It doesn't have to be at 2 pm in Houston, but throw us a Chicago/MTL/RSL game every weekend that starts around 1-3 EST and another just after that leads into the prime time match ups. That would be great for a junkie like me, and it would also be good for UK/Euro TV audiences.

 

[Midas Mulligan]

When considering any changes, first and foremost follow the money.

I cannot find a money rationale for this. It should be fixed. MLS, get on that.

Here's your rationale: CCL and U.S. OC accommodation, particularly the former. MLS is going to go out of the way to help teams mitigate the burden of CCL competition at least until there is an MLS team who wins it and likely beyond that. I think that's a good thing, as it was not always the case.

Travel for CCL is not an easy thing, with some locations requiring much more than a flight. My company sends employees all over the place in the U.S., and there are many locales right in our country that require at least a full day of travel and multiple plane changes, and that's without any snafus. If you play an MLS match Sunday and have a CCL match in a less developed CA country on Tuesday or Wednesday, you could be lucky just to get there in time for kick. Since I want the competition to be taken seriously, I support MLS's accommodating the teams who make the KO stages.

Edited: I don't think they've done this with league schedules unless it happens prior to the schedule release, but I despise any accommodation of mid-season friendlies. I just despise mid-season friendlies, full stop. However, there's a big money trail for you, because many folks are like me and behave like a total hypocrite, complaining about it and then watching them when they're the only footy on TV.

 

[FootyLovin]

Here's your rationale: CCL and U.S. OC accommodation, particularly the former. MLS is going to go out of the way to help teams mitigate the burden of CCL competition at least until there is an MLS team who wins it and likely beyond that. I think that's a good thing, as it was not always the case.

Travel for CCL is not an easy thing, with some locations requiring much more than a flight. My company sends employees all over the place in the U.S., and there are many locales right in our country that require at least a full day of travel and multiple plane changes, and that's without any snafus. If you play an MLS match Sunday and have a CCL match in a less developed CA country on Tuesday or Wednesday, you could be lucky just to get there in time for kick. Since I want the competition to be taken seriously, I support MLS's accommodating the teams who make the KO stages.

Edited: I don't think they've done this with league schedules unless it happens prior to the schedule release, but I despise any accommodation of mid-season friendlies. I just despise mid-season friendlies, full stop. However, there's a big money trail for you, because many folks are like me and behave like a total hypocrite, complaining about it and then watching them when they're the only footy on TV.

I agree with this except, if that were the case, the only teams that should be affected this year are (games played after today's matches):

Montreal (16)
DC (21)
Vancouver (20)
Seattle (20)
RSL (20)
LA (21)

Makes sense. Montreal has played fewer to free up their early season for their run to the CCL finals. The other 5 have more games to lighten their schedule at end of year for their CCL games.

And every other team should be on, let's say either 18 or 19 games played. But after today's matches you will have the following game disparities:

17 - CHI, TOR, SKC
18 - NJ, SJ
19 - HOU, ORL, COL, NYC, DAL
20 - PHI, POR
21 - NE

I can come up with no explanation for why NE should have played 21 games by now. Same for the teams on 17 and 20. This is just bad scheduling.

 

[mgarbowski]

Further on the scheduling. Our team is right on point: 19 games played through 19 weeks. This is true even though we have probably the toughest, most complicated home game scheduling restrictions in the league due to sharing with the Yankees. If they can keep NYCFC on track, they can keep everyone else on track. I think the rationales for accommodating CCL plays make sense, but everyone else should be on schedule. In fact, I think the limited flexibility that NYCFC has forces the league to keep us more or less on a weekly schedule. The other teams have the flexibility to let the schedule makers do all sorts of non-regularized stuff.

 

[mgarbowski]

We award a Supporters Shield and CCL spots based on regular season performance, so it's not as if teams aren't rewarded for a division win.

I just wish the Supporters Shield got more respect. I see lots of people here diminish it as a way to harass the Red Bulls. That's stupidly negative.

I would also like to see more mid-day and early afternoon starts during these early and mid summer months when there's very little footy to watch during that window and no CFB.

I agree for the rationale given (spreading league games throughout the day instead of bunching them up) and also because afternoon sports on TV fits into my schedule better than Saturday and Sunday night games. I realize I'm in the minority on that but there's enough content that the afternoon watchers could be accommodated somewhat. It's one reason I enjoy watching EPL: daytime content. The problem with Midas's suggestion is that any given afternoon game will likely get lower ratings than a night game even against the competition of other MLS games because the audience is mostly local. Lower ratings means lower TV rights fees and lower ad revenues. The counter to this is that having games on that are not competing with other MLS games helps build the league's national presence. In addition, the unitary structure makes MLS especially suited to this type of burden shifting and sharing.

It is, after all, a "cup" competition. I think five would be better, but as it is, it makes for more meaningful games. Without relegation and with two distinct divisions and the unbalanced schedules, taking a handful or six teams is likely just about the best way to ensure the most meaningful games and the fairest way to even out the strength of schedule discrepancies.

I kind of dig having a unique league that requires a bit of effort to understand and follow. We shouldn't have to be like every other league. There are at least a handful of great leagues that are all more or less exactly the same in their competitive structure. Ours gives folks something different.
We have a marathon slog to prove you can withstand the grind and not be utter garbage, and then a 5k where you better bring your best.

Finally, this is hardly an original observation but the continental United States is larger, much larger, than any European country, and not much smaller than the entirety of Europe as a whole, with major population centers concentrated on the coasts. Balancing the East/West schedule would be very tough. It would affect game play and it would make supporter travel, which is already difficult here, even less convenient.

 

[Keith Putnam]

I just wish the Supporters Shield got more respect.

As do I. For me, highest total points in MLS should be the supreme achievement, not the MLS Cup.

 

[Midas Mulligan]

I agree with this except, if that were the case, the only teams that should be affected this year are (games played after today's matches):

Montreal (16)
DC (21)
Vancouver (20)
Seattle (20)
RSL (20)
LA (21)

Makes sense. Montreal has played fewer to free up their early season for their run to the CCL finals. The other 5 have more games to lighten their schedule at end of year for their CCL games.

And every other team should be on, let's say either 18 or 19 games played. But after today's matches you will have the following game disparities:

17 - CHI, TOR, SKC
18 - NJ, SJ
19 - HOU, ORL, COL, NYC, DAL
20 - PHI, POR
21 - NE

I can come up with no explanation for why NE should have played 21 games by now. Same for the teams on 17 and 20. This is just bad scheduling.

I bet at least 3 of the teams with 17-18 games lost one or more games with MTL. Then, you have the Canadian cup, so that's another consideration. It should be better, for sure. But there are a lot factors going into it.

 

[Paul]

As do I. For me, highest total points in MLS should be the supreme achievement, not the MLS Cup.

The Supporters Shield means more to me than to most other MLS fans, but it'll never be the supreme achievement until there's a balanced schedule.

 

[Traction Engine]

Force RSL to change their name. Also ban baseless 'Uniteds'.

Not small, but drop single-owner.

Also agree with Keith(and Paul) about the SS.

 

[LionNYC]

Richer owners across all team. MLS should have a minimum wealth requirement, at least $5 billion, for any owner of a franchise. Get rid of most of the salary restrictions, so teams can pay superstars $20-40 million/year.

No pyro, no party.

 

[Ferdinand Cesarano]

I would also like to see more mid-day and early afternoon starts during these early and mid summer months when there's very little footy to watch during that window and no CFB. I hate days like yesterday when I'm soccer starved all day and then have too many games to attentively watch come night time. It doesn't have to be at 2 pm in Houston, but throw us a Chicago/MTL/RSL game every weekend that starts around 1-3 EST and another just after that leads into the prime time match ups. That would be great for a junkie like me, and it would also be good for UK/Euro TV audiences.

I agree for the rationale given (spreading league games throughout the day instead of bunching them up) and also because afternoon sports on TV fits into my schedule better than Saturday and Sunday night games. I realize I'm in the minority on that but there's enough content that the afternoon watchers could be accommodated somewhat.

I would not like midday games. There's no way that I could see them live, as I am out enjoying the weather during our short summer. I ride my bike for pleasure during the day on every weekend day, barring rain; this, combined with my year-round bike commuting, keeps me in shape. As much as I like watching football and specifically NYCFC, nothing comes before my bike-riding. I think that many New Yorkers are like that, using summer days as a fleeting chance to enjoy being outdoors.

Today's 3pm start was way too early, especially for a day that was so beautiful. The ideal start time would be 7pm; but 5pm is OK.

Also, I don't care about multiple games starting at the same time. If I can watch City, I'll happily blow off the other matches.

It's one reason I enjoy watching EPL: daytime content.

Right, but the Premier League runs through the shit part of the year, when going outdoors is unpleasant. After riding to and from work during a non-summer week, I am only too happy to stay at home and groove on Premier League matches on Saturday and Sunday mornings into the afternoon.

But it's totally different in the summer. In fact, I wind up just about missing the first month of the Premier League season, because it takes place during the summer. I mean, I'll record the Chelsea game and watch it that night; but I simply concede on the other games. Then when the weather turns, and the pleasure-riding season ends, I can start watching multiple games during daytime.

As long as MLS plays a summer schedule (which I like, as it gives me football year-round), it should endeavour to avoid daytime kickoffs.

 

[SayWhat44]

Make homegrowns second contract one count 50% towards the cap if they stay with their original team.

 

[Falastur]

Moved this to the MLS forum as this really isn't an NYCFC discussion. However, as it's been getting a fair bit of traffic I've left a redirect up for 7 days, so people should still see the link back in the other forum for a while.

Yes. An 11 game winless streak should ruin a team's chance for any silverware other than the Cup. The thing that is likely to change this is more teams. In a few years that newcomer with their 11 game winless streak will have 3 or 4 more teams to climb over than we have this season. Not a great solution, but that's what we've got.

I have to disagree. If a team with an 11-game winless streak can get back into the playoffs it's an indictment of one of two things (or possibly both): how many teams can qualify for the playoffs, and how poor the other teams have been themselves to not put enough distance on that team.

If a PL team went on an 11-game winless streak they would struggle to finish in the top 12, and certainly wouldn't be close to achieving it only four or five games after securing the long-awaited win, but the PL has the same number of teams as MLS. Heck, an 11-game winless streak in the Scottish Premier League, of 12 teams, would make you struggle to finish in the top half.

The simple fact is that, in the Eastern Conference at least, one team is running away with all of the points and the rest are all languishing on mid-table mediocrity form. In that position, it's not a huge surprise that one team has suddenly managed to come back from nowhere with relative ease.

 

[NYCFCFan10]

And too much teams in the playoffs. Making the playoffs should be a reward for having a good season. Having too many as is, devalues this. Should be 4 teams in each conference max. Would potentially create a lot more dead rubbers at the end of the season with not relegation, but I would take it.

4 teams/conference playoffs? No way.

I have no problem with ~50% of the league making the playoffs. The upsides of allowing the top 50% in far outweigh the downsides, to me.

You'll still get an elite 8 round. You just have to wait/survive one more round. Big deal.

-Playoffs generate bigger ratings which turn into bigger TV money, which means better players and a better league

-The top 6 in the West, right now, would all finish above 2nd place in the East. You're telling me two of them shouldn't be allowed in the playoffs for no particular reason? They're quality, let them in.

-The East's playoff chase is shaping up to be a barnburner down the stretch thanks to the enlarged playoff picture. Even Chicago in 1oth is right in the thick of it with their two games in hand. Meanwhile, in the comparatively lopsided West, Colorado is only 3 games back from 6th place with 13 games to go. They're still very much alive. If you make it 4 teams a conference, they might as well pack it in already.

I really believe that part of the reason for the wild game today is both teams are starting to feel the heat. They're looking at the standings and they know every game counts so much at this point. Aside for DC United, no team is even remotely close to being out of the playoffs or locked into the playoffs. Essentially, every team is feeling the same pressure still and the season is 60% over. That, to me, is fascinating.

 

[ferrarinycfc]

scheduling definitely needs improving.