MLS to Revamp Playoffs?
Yes, MLS fans’ dreams might be about to come true: Pitch Invasion has learned that the MLS Board of Governors are seriously considering a complete overhaul of the MLS playoff structure, that would both enliven the playoffs and ensure the regular season beomes a meaningful contest for first place with serious advantages gained for the post-season.
Here’s the new proposal:
- The top four teams in each conference would qualify for the playoffs, with the first stage now a round robin setup in two groups of four
- Each match in the group stage would be played at the home venue of the highest seeded team based on regular season performance — so the regular season winner would have three home games and no away games
- The top two from each group would qualify for the semi-finals
- Semi-finals would be one match, with again the highest seeded team from the regular season hosting
- The final would be hosted not at a neutral venue as in the past, but at the home of the highest seeded team
At a stroke, this ensures winning the Supporters Shield for the best regular season record would give a far greater advantage than the present convoluted set-up, which does not give any real home advantage at the first round two-legged stage. Winning the regular would mean the possibility of playing every playoff game at home, a huge reward on and off the field. Suddenly, every regular season match would really matter, and the final would be something to saviour with a partisan crowd.
Does this sound familiar? Perhaps MLS has been a sneaking a peak at WPS, which has an even more favourable set-up for the regular season winner, who advances directly to host the WPS final in the playoffs.
From what I understand, the proposal on the table is being taken extremely seriously. At worst, it’s good to know MLS is committed to finding a way to make the regular season matter more. Every regular season game should feel like it really counts, and this proposal would go a long way to ensuring that.
About the Author
Tom Dunmore is the founder and editor of Pitch Invasion. Follow him @pitchinvasion on Twitter.
Email this author | All posts by Tom Dunmore
You might also like:
|
|
|
|
|
31 Comments
Trackbacks
- Playoffs? Are You Kidding Me? PLAYOFFS?!? | Pitch Invasion
- A Losing Team Wins MLS Cup…Does it Matter? | Pitch Invasion
- A Losing Team Wins MLS Cup…Does it Matter? | Pitch Invasion
- The Footy Blog - The Score
Wow. I’m flabbergasted. If this goes through, do we have to start thinking that the league actually understands what the fans want?
Lets not get crazy, Jason….
Seriously, I think the league is realising — especially with the decline in attendance this year — that there needs to be more competitive urgency throughout the regular season. I’m sure they knew this before to a degree, but the wheels move oh-so-slowly. Lets hope this gets approved.
Interesting note on numbers — the finalists would now play 5 games in the playoffs instead of 4, and there would be 15 total games instead of the current 11. More revenue, though in a way, also even more convoluted.
First off, I think it’s silly to assume that all fans want a change and that there is even a consensus among those that do want a change. Any system will have complaints.
Secondly, this will require an extra week or at least a midweek game in that group stage since the opening round now has each team playing twice and now they would have to play three times each. So while people are calling to respect FIFA dates, an extra week is going to be added to the season? And in a WC year when people will want the league to shut down for a month?
I don’t have problems with the style of the proposal, per se, but it won’t solve many problems and might even create other ones.
I’m glad they recognize the need for change, but I think they’re over complicating it again. It just seems to me they may be trying to be different for the sake of being different again.
The A-League has a nice playoff system. The top four qualify (the regular season champion gets an Asian CL spot). The first round consists of two semi-finals, a major semi-final and a minor semi-final, both ties are two-legged affairs where the higher seed at home in the second match. The major semi-final features the “premiers” and the runners-up. The winner of this major semi-final advances on to the “grand final” while the loser stays alive and hosts something called a “preliminary final” against the winner of the minor semi-final, which features teams 3 and 4. The winner of the prelim. final goes on to the grand final, which is hosted by the winner of the major semi-final.
That rewards a team for doing well in the regular season.
The A League allow the highest placed of their Grand Finalists to choose the venue of the final. Their system, while different to this, also gives home advantage to the higher placed teams.
Oops. Sorry. I’ve had this page in my browser for about an hour before reading and didn’t see Bobby’s comment.
I would love this. I hate neutral site finals, and since Dallas and the MetroDrinks don’t have a chance of ever advancing to the playoffs, you don’t have to worry about low attendance.
The A-League has a playoff system that is understood only by Australians. Just as, for a long time, we had a playoff system that was largely the way we did things: a straight knockout system, until a few years ago when the first round went home-and-away.
I do find it intriguing to have a “group stage” format.
I like it. There needs to be more incentive to win the supporter’s shield. This would certainly do that. Also, it would be worth it for top teams to continue to fight for 2nd, 3rd, and 4th etc. because they would still wind up hosting playoff games and possibly the final. As it stands, once a team has secured a playoff spot, there isn’t a whole lot of incentive to keep pushing for wins every game.
This proposal also makes a move to a more unbalanced Conference driven schedule meaningful. The nearly balanced schedule at this time means that there MUST be WildCards, where as the more unbalanced a schedule becomes the more necessary and meaningful Conference play becomes.
This also provides strong incentive to finish second in a Conference because two extra home games makes money.
I would like two Wild Cards to stay, because I strongly dislike that a team with 45 points could miss the playoffs while a team with 40 gets to continue play. Having two Wild Cards that play all of the group stage on the road would mean still some cash (gate split) and the opportunity for a fun little underdog run.
The only change I would make is that rather than the top 4 in each conference making the playoffs, have the top 8 in MLS make the playoffs, and then assign teams 1, 4, 6 & 7 to Pool A, and teams 2, 3, 5 & 8 to Pool B.
I think the US is at the present stage, too big for a national league in soccer, and I think the best course of action would be to have regional leagues, to give the football leagues in the USA time to develop and the teams a chance to develop. Personally, I would have a similar setup that was in Brazilian football before the foundation of a National league, take all the USL and MLS teams, and set up three leagues (western, eastern and central, adn have the winners of each take the title and automatic enterance into the CONCACAF Championship, then the top four teams in each league go into the playoffs for the US championship.
Regionalising the US leagues would make the games more competative, it would mean better crowds (more away fans could make the trips to games and more local rivalries) and it would give the league and American teams a chance to consolidate and gain credibility.
Another idea Ive had is the possibility that the winner of the supporters shield gets enterance to the Copa Libertadores. Having the chance to lock horns with the likes of Sao Paulo or River Plate surely would give the teams a huge incentive
Just an awesome idea! Let’s get it done NOW!!!
i like it but the second round of round robin games makes me a bit nervous because there is a chance for meaningless games that would be anticlimatic and played out in empty stadia. And too many teams still make the playoffs. Maybe give the supporters’ shield winner a bye, the way they do in WPS?
“I think the US is at the present stage, too big for a national league in soccer,”
What — you foresee the country shrinking at some point?!
Mr.Baker,
As long as they don’t increase the number of playoffs spots, 8 will be great come 2011. That would mean less than half get out of League play into the playoffs, which would be lower than the group stages of World Cup or UEFA CL.
With the additions of Philadelphia, Portland and Vancouver, the MLS will now have a balance schedule. With 18 teams, or possibly 20, MLS must implement a single table format and at the same time keep the MLS CUP going. Two separate trophies and at the same time, meaningful games. Top 8 teams participate in the MLS CUP. The format could be the one being proposed by MLS or just a single elimination with home and away legs. The final has to be in a neutral site, just as it is today. There are a few teams that share stadiums with the NFL and scheduling a final match will be very complicated.
So, out of the 8 top teams in the single table format, league winner and runner up go to CONCACAF Champions. The MLS Cup winner gets the other spot for CONCACAF Champions (the US Open Cup winner gets the other place). Of course if the league winner also wins the MLS Cup, the runner up gets the spot.
Confused?, I´ll make it simple:
MLS single table standing, 34 or 38 games schedule.
1st Place……League Champion or Supporters Shield– Concacaf Champions League, MLS CUP
2nd—- Concacaf and MLS CUP
3rd—–MLS CUP and SuperLiga
4th—–MLS Cup and SuperLiga
5th—–MLS Cup and SuperLiga
6th—–MLS Cup and SuperLiga if 3rd, 4th or 5th placed teams make it to the MLS Cup Final,or if they win MLS Cup Final, they go to CONCACAF Champions
7th—–Same as 6th
8th—– Same as 6th, and 7th.
——————————————————–
9
10
11, 12, 13…. 18, 20.
IN TWO WORDS:
Single table with the top 8 going to a play off for the MLS Cup.
Top two team, MLS Cup winner and US Open Cup winner qualify to CONCACAF Champions League.
Teams placed 3rd to 8th go to MLS CUP Play offs and go to SuperLiga depending on a number of combinations depending on who goes to the MLS Cup Final and who wins it.
Huh, this is what the WPS does. Yet another reason why WPS is better, hold on while I add that to the list.
Justo, how would MLS have a balanced schedule at less than 34 games? Are you saying you want even more weeknight matches with less than 10k in the stands? Or even more play on FIFA weekends?
So…the current system is “convoluted,” but this one isn’t?
I think it’s pretty easy to understand for anyone who has ever watched a European Championship or World Cup. The complication in the current situation is the inconsistency in one round being home & away, and the other two not being.
I think some of the issue could be solved by only have 6 teams in the playoffs.
1st and 2nd get a week off and home field advantage.
3-6 play each other and 4-5 playeach other, then move on to play 1 and 2
then a final with best regular season team with home field advantage
also, MLS Cup runner-up should not go to the Champions League the 2nd in the supporters shield should as that is a harder task and better judge of a team.
I would love this. I hate neutral site finals, and since Dallas and the MetroDrinks don’t have a chance of ever advancing to the playoffs, you don’t have to worry about low attendance.
The way the 2009 playoffs were explained last night during the Sounders playoff match was that “road Goals” will not count, only Home goals. That being said let’s put a hypothetical out there: Let’s say the Sounders actually won last night 1-0, instead of a 0-0 tie; Sunday in Houston they win again with a score of 3-2. So even though they would have won both games, they had less homes goals so they get eliminated. Even if they won in houston 1-0, they would still have to go to overtime/shootout to determine a winner beings they would be tied for home goals. THAT IS THE BIGGEST B.S. I’ve ever heard and needs to be changed.
Besisdes why do MLS playoffs have to be so completely different than any other sport? I’ve never fully understood the reasoning behind a home goal based format, it is utter stupidity in my opinion and should be based on points standing based on season record like ALL OTHER major sports. Then if a team wins they advanced regardless of how many home goals they did or didn’t have.
Less playoff teams, have a 4 best teams regardless of conference. Have a 2 game aggregate in the semis that are home-and-home, winners go to the MLS Cup. There’s no need for half the league to make the playoffs.
Thank you very much for this useful article and the comments
‘The complication in the current situation is the inconsistency in one round being home & away, and the other two not being.’
Yeah, that never happens in Europe.
Not in, say, the Carling Cup.
The easiest way for the regular season to matter is to keep the current format, but state that the lower-seeded team doesn’t progress unless they actually win the game. Tie goes to the higher seed.