Why MLS feels the need to mess with the playoff format is beyond me. When they announced over the off-season that they went with top four overall and then the next four regardless of conference, I felt that was indeed the way to go.

But of course they had to go and screw it all up again. Instead of simply going #1 vs #8, #2 vs #7, etc. They had to do this moronic new idea that actually gives a possible fifth place finishing team in the East a higher overall playoff seed?

How can that not be viewed anything but idiotic?

I like the system as it is played right now, with the exception of a lone Conference final game. It should be two legs with the higher seed advancing should the teams remain tied on aggregate (thus ensuring their higher finish during the season).

I think most of the sort of fans who read this blog are going to be in favor of single table. I think it actually can and probably will happen, we just need a couple more teams. Once we get to sixteen (only two more than '08's 14 teams) a single table balanced schedule will be the same length as the current season.

I'm disappointed. I thought the top 8 teams were being thrown together (with some seeding) and we'd have an interesting playoff picture. While I've enjoyed some of the DCU/NER playoff games, I wouldn't mind seeing something different, too. On the other hand, a chance to kick the Red Bulls out of the playoffs would be a pleasure, too.

I would love to see a single table format in MLS. I think I'd love even more seeing an MLS/USL relegation-type format, but I know that's not happening anytime soon.

My biggest complaint, and I know I'm not the first one to mention this, is that the regular season needs to have more importance. The new playoff lineup improves that situation a little, but not enough.

On Goff's other point, I do think MLS will eventually balance the schedule. They won't necessarily have a single table per se, but we will see every team playing every other team home and away and that's it. It you want to have a true league champion, that is the way to do it.

When this league gets to 16 teams, that would be a perfect fit. 15 home games, 15 away to every team in the league. That leaves plenty of dates open for international play amongst the top teams who qualified the season prior and also leaves open potential Open Cup dates as well without overcrowding the schedule. Those teams (let's just call it the RSL Rule) who don't or won't ever qualify for int'l competition will be left on their own to bring in international teams in for friendlies, not unlike what they do already.

Additionally, by the time the league does get to 16 teams (my guess is by 2010 at the latest), most, if not all MLS teams will be in their own stadiums and controlling their own schedules and then we can talk about only playing on weekends with Cup matches/Intl' friendlies played midweek from time to time.

The new playoff format is a major improvement. It's not quite a single table but the top 8 teams should make the playoffs.

Under the old format, if one conference was weak, a team could halfstep it's way through the year leading to a 32-game regular season that could be almost meaningless. This is exactly what happened 2 years ago when the LA Galaxy were mediocre (and that's being polite) all year long knowing they only had to finish ahead of the 2 new expansion teams - Chivas USA and Real Salt Lake.

Then the underwhelming Galaxy played well in the playoffs and wound up winning the Cup.

Under this year's format that could not happen. It may still mean we get 4 teams from the West and 4 from the East. But the fact that the teams fighting for the last spots have to worry about teams in both conferences makes for many more meaningful games in the stretch run to the playoffs.

The Columbus v Colorado game yesterday was meaningful for Chicago and Kansas City, too.

And, if MLS were a single table, here would be the first round match ups if the season ended today:

DC-Colorado
NE-KC
Houston-Dallas
Chivas-RB

IMO, Those look a little more interesting than the conference based matchups.

My guess is next year when the league goes to 14 teams, they will have 32 games, thirteen home and away ties with every other team for a total of 26 games plus 6 games within each seven team conference.

But when this league goes to 16 teams, why would conferences make sense? You would have a balanced schedule with fifteen home and away ties for a total of 30 games. A single table would be perfect. Fans would know how their team stacks up in the league, owners would hate to see their team at the bottom, the Supporters' Shield would be more meaningful, almost like a regular season championship, and we wouldn't get the same tired playoff matchups every year. I would be shocked if there would be two conferences of eight teams each. What would be the point if the schedule is balanced?

Like everyone else, I would like to go to a single table. I want 18 or 20 teams, though - 30 games is not enough for me! If this SuperLiga sticks around or evolves into some sort of Western Hemisphere Champions League, you could have the top 2 teams qualify automatically and some sort of playoff between teams placing 3-6 for the other spots. This would satisfy Americans' appetite for playoff games, while still giving a lot of teams something to play for at the end of the season. If the US Open Cup ever is taken seriously, you could have mid-table teams playing for automatic qualification in that tournament while bottom tier teams would need to enter earlier rounds. That would give even mid to lower table teams something to play for at the end of the season and keep things interesting. Please, let's not be the NBA and have 12 of 16 teams in the playoffs!

Steve,

Way to embrace the stats nerd within you. ;) I think you should design the MLS playoff format.

In some ways I don't mind facing traditional rivals (RBNY or NE or CHI) in the playoffs. The intensity gets turned up to 11.

Having said that, I 100% support moving to a single table structure. Soccer fans will get it and if there are some that are not comfortable with it, they'll learn to like it.

Why try to be different from most of the rest of the world in order to bridge the gap with the average sports fan here in the U.S. I say, play the game the way it is played everywhere else and Joe Sportsfan in the U.S. will respect that.

Single table is the way to go.

I particularly like single tables regarding the effect on mid-table teams. With a mini-winning streak, you get the feeling of passing up several teams. With conferences, you can have that same mini-winning streak and not change any places, because it's compared to so fewer teams (particularly baseball and Am.Football). With the greater place volatility, it makes every league game seem more important.

FWIW, MLS claims that the current playoff format is what they said it would be in the announcement at MLS Cup last year, but that some uninformed intern or something who wrote the media guide and apparently supplied content for the website promulgated the 1v8, 2v7, etc format which is not what the powers that be ever intended. So, they say they aren't really changing the rules in the middle of the season, they're just sloppy.

Just curious Goff, why don't you think we'll ever see a single table? As everyone has pointed out once the league gets to 16 or so teams it will be inevitable that each team plays the other home and away. I don't see what sense it would make to keep conferences at that point. Frankly I don't see why they feel the need to have an unfair schedule now. It makes the supporters' shield and regular season champion designation somewhat meaningless.

how impossible would it be for not only the MLS to move to just a table...but then also combine their table with the mexican league (hello relegated galaxy!!)? just curious.

"Just curious Goff, why don't you think we'll ever see a single table?"
-----

Conferences/divisions are the American way. I'd love to see a single table, but I don't think the league is ready to take that step anytime soon. Maybe someday...

The playoff pairings that Warren posted above certainly look more apealing to me than the matchups we're likely to see, since we've been seeing the same conference-based matchups for years.

I'm not sure we'll ever see a single-table, with 1-8 playoff matchups, as many would like. MLS is a new league, relatively speaking, that is going to require a mutable schedule - both for the regular season and, potentially, for its playoffs - that can be altered and tweaked year-to-year as the league adds more teams. Breaking the league up into two (or more) conferences or divisions allows for many different unbalanced schedules, which will be required in most years to get each team an acceptable number of games.

I can't see the league stopping at any number of teams less than 24 or so, and feel that 30 or 32 (or even 36) is a more likely number. Advertising money is the revenue source that MLS needs to increase many-fold if it desires to move into the upper echelon of soccer leagues world-wide. To earn this money from television, MLS will need to offer a much larger market to potential advertisers. MLS currently has teams in cities representing a little over 20% of the total TV market for the USA and Canada, and will need to increase this coverage to somewhere over 40% to compete with the other US/Canada pro leagues for advertising money.

To get to a league size in this range, many different league schedules and division/conference groupings are going to be required, so we should expect things to change every few years for the next decade or so.

Don't Colorado get in when it's tied with Columbus ion virtue of more wins, not GD?

I'm sure i read that somewhere.

I still fail to see how switching to single table once we've reached 16 teams will be such a huge change. It's more logical, and I'd be willing to bet many, if not most MLS fans are more than familiar with the single tables used in the world's top flight football leagues. If nothing else, it offers a much better visual idea of how a team's doing ("mid-table" and "basement" have whole new meanings).

The distinctive geography of North America may also be relevant. Most other countries are geographically compact. The notable exceptions are Russia and China, and even there, the top-tier clubs are concentrated in the west (in Russia) or the east (in China).

Well, so much for the United vs FC Dallas replay on CSN that is supposed to be showing now according to their website.

Guess I'll never see a replay of this game.

The distinctive geography of North America may also be relevant.

Maybe more relevant when teams rode buses up and down the coasts.

"Don't Colorado get in when it's tied with Columbus ion virtue of more wins, not GD?

I'm sure i read that somewhere."

-----

From the MLS guidelines...

If two teams are tied on points, the first tiebreaker is head-to-head results, the second tiebreaker is goal differential, and the third is goals scored for the season.

I don't see any problem with keeping two conferences even once the league has a balanced schedule. It wouldn't affect the integrity of the Supporters Shield at all, but it would allow the runner-up to call themselves "2009 Western Conference Regular Season Champions" or some such thing... and if that helps another team sell more tickets, it can only be a good thing.

Studies on MLB attendance have demonstrated that the biggest bumps come the year after a team goes to the World Series, so even just the perception of a winning team makes a difference to American fans. The more champions MLS has, the better.

A playoff is a perverse way to crown an official champion, but it is intractably the American Way, and those of us who feel the Supporters Shield is the "real" championship will just have to keep acting like the Supporters Shield is the "real" championship. As far as I'm concerned, it already is, and it will be even moreso once the schedule is balanced.

I don't think Garber has ever ruled out the single table, although he may be opposed to the regular season leader as the league champions (playoffs = $$). Home and away is fine with we. We really don't need to beat NY more than twice per season.

"The distinctive geography of North America may also be relevant."

Everytime I think of Dallas in the NFC east and Tampa Bay(which was in the old NFC Central with Green Bay and MN) I chuckle at how arbitrarily geography is used. Whenever MLS reorganizes, KC changes its conference.

"Studies on..."

Who let that guy in here with data and facts and stuff?

"Home and away is fine with we.."

...should be fine with me. Why Firefox not check me grammar?

Goff is right, it is the American way. And as long as MLS thinks it needs to market to the general American sports public and not to soccer fans, it will lose on both ends.

I would like to see a single table that determines the league champion in conjunction with a league cup that is geographically based, whether that be east/west or some other division of teams. With a single table, home and away, currently that would make for a 24-game season. Best record and you are MLS champ. But then I would run a league cup (MLS Cup?) that uses group play to determine the 4 semifinalists. If we used the east/west conferences, again with home and away, that would be an additional 12 (east)/10 (west) matches. If that is too many, then you break up into smaller groups. But in the east/west scenario, you get a playoff system with the top 2 of each conference (or the top 4 if you want to expand it) and you get your Americana playoff. You would have two championships within the league, giving teams two bites at the apple. The league cup will also help regional rivalries. Will it be confusing to the general American sports fan? So what. It is not as if the U.S. Open Cup, CONCACAF Champions' Cup, SuperLiga & Copa Nissan Sudamericana does not confuse people as it is. I think this system is appealing to soccer fans while allowing a playoff system to be played as well.

This is unrelated, but I am a DCU fan who just moved to Boston. Can anyone recommend some good soccer friendly bars in the Cambridge area?

Bret -

I've heard good things about Phoenix Landing which is mentioned in this article along with some other places

http://www.boston.com/ae/events/articles/2006/06/06/get_out_red_sox_nation_is_filled_with_soccer_fans/

A single table with playoffs would be great. but to make it really interesting (and no idea if this is feasible) make it a Champions League / UEFA Cup style qualifying. The top 2 or three teams qualify for Copa Sudamercana and the next 3 qualify for SuperLiga. It may devalue the regional championship they are trying to establish, but the financial incentives and exposure in CS would be greater.

MLS Playoff brackets are silly and don't reward the regular season enough. Set up two groups of 4 teams (like the SuperLiga) but give the 1 seed three home games, the 2 seed two home games, and the 3 seed 1 home game. The 4 seed travels to three away group games in the first round of the playoffs.

The group winner hosts the runner-up from the opposite group in the semifinal match. MLS Cup final are the semifinal winners at a neutral venue (or in DC's case this year, at RFK).

Why not do something similar to Australian Rules? In the AFL, the top eight clubs make the playoffs, and are broken down into a qualifying group (seeds #1-4) and an elimination group (seeds #5-8). In the first playoff round #1 hosts #4, #2 hosts #3, #5 hosts #8 and #6 hosts #7. The winners of 1 vs. 4 and 2 vs. 3 matches get a bye the following week and move straight into the semifinals. The loser of those matches move into an elimination game with the winners of the 5-8 and 6-7 matches, with the higher seeds hosting. The losers of the 5-8 and 6-7 matches are eliminated. Then, the winners of the second round matches move into the semifinals against the two clubs that recieved byes. The AFL plays this as a one-off match...but in MLS I'd probably rather see a home and home in the semis, that way the clubs that recieve byes wouldn't necessarily be eliminated with one loss. Obviously, the winners then advance to MLS Cup, which would continue to be a one-match affair.

While this sounds somewhat complicated, all it is, in effect, is a double-elimination tournament with the 5-8 seeds starting the tournament with the equivalent of one loss. This system accomplishes both keeping the playoff system, which MLS wants, and makes the regular season more important because getting one of the top four seeds gives you a big advantage in that you'd have to lose twice to be eliminated and would have a chance to earn a bye while finishing 5-8 would mean you'd have to play in every round AND would be eliminated with one loss. It also only extends the season by one week from the current playoff system.

Single table playoffs (teams ranked regardless of copnference), but retain the conferences during regular season play. I think it makes great sense due to travel considerations during the season. I think when it comes to playoffs, the best teams should be seeded as such...

The problem with conferences, is that often one conference is stronger than the other, and with an unbalanced schedule, a strong team in a weak conference has quite an advantage.

I love single table, but the geography of the US makes it difficult. MLS would have to ease up on the scheduling, and maybe eliminate mid-week games (although I like the dedicated Thursday evening slot) to accomodate for the extra travel. Remember this isn't Europe where you can traverse a country with a 4 hour train ride or half your league games are in the same city (e.g. London).
So, for the above reason and because MLS often just doesn't get it on many issues, we'll probably never see single table format.

Why would they need to "ease up on scheduling"? Look at DCU's current schedule. Dallas last Saturday, then home, then Chivas in LA Thursday night and then back home for Sunday vs. NE. So the travel is pretty rigorous already. With a balanced home and away schedule it's not like the travel really increases since you play the other conference home and away already anyway.

And I agree with Alec, if you are a good team in the West you get to beat up on RSL and LA so you get free points by having extra games against those teams compared with teams in the East.

I agree with several other posters that the Supporters Shield is the true league championship, and should be treated as such. The regular season should not be a lengthy qualifying tournament for the league cup. It's frustrating. The regular season is its own entity. Saying that, all teams in the league should have a shot at the league cup, though they should be seeded. And of course, single table is the way to go, both in the league cup and the regular season.

I think the geographical concerns mentioned are not that big a deal, however I must admit that the poster who talked about the large number of teams required for a mature sporting league in this country precluding a single table format made a pretty compelling point.

This is my first post here, so be gentle. :) Love the blog, Mr. Goff.

I too support the idea of MLS going to a home-and-away schedule with a single table championship. The best evidence in support of this is how the 2007 MLS standings would look if this was the case. Call me a geek, but I have kept track of the standings, recording just the first home and away games for each team (with each team eventually playing 24 games).

As of this moment, here's how the top 7 would be:

(Games Played / Points / Goal Difference)
1. New England: 21 / 36 / +4
2. D.C. United: 19 / 33 / +12
3. Houston: 21 / 33 / +10
4. New York: 20 / 33 / +7
5. Kansas City: 21 / 32 / +4
6. Chivas: 17 / 30 / +11
7. Dallas: 19 / 30 / -4

So we have over half the league within six points with just a handful of games left to play. How many leagues would kill to have such a close title fight?

True, some years are stinkers, with one team running away with the title. But there are also great years, like La Liga last year, or the Eredivisie last year (three teams tied on the last day of the season), not to mention the greatest title decider of all-time, Arsenal v. Liverpool 1989. With the parity in MLS, if they went to a single table, I believe we would see a lot of close title fights.

Fewer, more important games would also free up schedule space, so teams could put more emphasis on the U.S. Open Cup.

Of course, if we HAVE to have a title-deciding game, why not Eastern Conference champs vs. Western Conference champs at a neutral venue, or even better, a home-and-home series? Imagine RFK for the second leg of the MLS Cup match...

Why do they complicate what could be so simple?

The NHL tried a single table briefly. It really doesn't make a lot of sense, but it would make more sense than a blended system. Why have conferences if they're irrelevant to the playoff pairings? That would just be a pretense -- the only thing it would do is encourage the rivalries among intra-division opponents. However, it would be unfair to play a schedule that is based on divisions or conferences, if the playoff qualification and seeding is blended.

The divisions allow for more local rivalries to develop. I think that's a good thing.