MLS planning big changes for 2012 season?
Yes, the playoffs are still going on, but rumors are flying of a change to Major League Soccer's schedule for 2012 that could have an enormous impact on the Union and its fans.
MLS planning big changes for 2012 season?
Jonathan Tannenwald, Philly.com
With the Union’s season now over, it’s time for us to start looking towards next year. Yes, the playoffs are still going on, but rumors are flying of a change to Major League Soccer’s schedule for 2012 that could have an enormous impact on the Union and its fans.
Peter Schaad, the Vancouver Whitecaps’ radio play-by-play voice and talk show host, has been reporting for a few days now that MLS is considering moving to an unbalanced schedule next year.
Instead of playing each team home and away, the Union would play more matches against teams in the Eastern Conference and fewer against the West.
The MLS Cup Playoffs would also be changed, splitting the bracket clearly by conference instead of by overall seed.
Schaad explains the scenarios rumored to be in the works on the November 1 edition of his radio show, which you can listen to here.
The changes in next year’s competition structure have been floated for two reasons. The first is teams’ complaints about travel costs, especially going to and from the Pacific Northwest.
As Portland Timbers owner Merritt Paulson recently stated in a Q&A conducted on Facebook:
Balanced schedule is great in theory. But how many balanced schedule leagues cover a geographic territory as big as ours? Travel is a huge unique issue for MLS and it doesn’t get talked about enough.
travel for us is a killer. especially for portland timbers. we are as disadvantaged there as any team in mls ... more miles traveled per trip with our required connections.
The potential changes for next year are also partially a result of this year’s playoff seedings. Even though the conference semifinals produced multiple compelling matchups - and even though the conference finals are reasonably chalky - there is a consensus that the bracket wasn’t entirely fair.
In particular, the Western Conference semifinal between Seattle and Real Salt Lake seemed to be a punishment for both clubs instead of a reward. The Sounders and RSL finished the regular season with the second- and third-best overall records in MLS, respectively, but they were forced to face each other at the first possible hurdle.
If the playoffs were to be restructured without unbalancing the schedule, it would clearly render the regular season unfair if the season unfolded the way this year’s did. An unbalanced schedule would make a truly conference-based playoff system more fair.
On top of all these elements, there is an added bonus: more rivalry games between Philadelphia and New York, Seattle and Portland, and so forth.
That part sounds pretty good, right? Especially with a new television partner coming on board next year in NBC Sports, having more rivalry games would allow for both them and ESPN to broadcast their share.
But the supposed gain from that would come at a tremendous cost to MLS and fans across North America. I suspect the soccer-savvy among you have already seen right through the idea, and know the downsides of it.
This is a situation where it’s worth speaking up when given the opportunity. With the Union's season over, I have a bit of time. So allow me to get on my soapbox for a few minutes.
There are three significant reasons why going to an unbalanced schedule is a bad idea.
1. A balanced schedule exposes every bad market in MLS to every good market in MLS.
Let’s face it: there is a big difference between the atmosphere in Dallas and the atmosphere in Portland. Whereas the Seattle Times sends its beat writer to almost every road game on the continent, the Chicago Tribune - one of the nation’s great newspapers - doesn’t even employ a full-time soccer writer.
Even though the Union routinely sell out PPL Park, I don’t think I have to tell you all how much of a struggle it is for soccer to get covered in the local media here in Philadelphia.
But when David Beckham or Thierry Henry come to town, things change. All of a sudden, a columnist shows up (and sometimes a few do).
If you take away the balanced schedule, the first thing you lose is getting Beckham and Henry into every market in the league. You might not like either player, or the teams they play for. But trust me when I tell you they make a serious impact on people who shape messages through the media.
And what about power brokers of other stripes? The growth of soccer-specific stadiums across the country has put even more pressure on teams that don’t have them - specifically New England, San Jose and D.C. United - to improve their situations.
2. Every fan in MLS should have the opportunity to travel to every venue in the league every year if he or she wants to.
The culture of traveling support in soccer isn’t as unique among sports as it used to be. But even though Phillies fans travel to Pittsburgh and Washington by the thousands, it’s still not quite the same as an organized traveling section of 1,200 Union fans at Red Bull Arena.
Even the few dozen Sons of Ben who traveled to Seattle for the Union’s first ever MLS game last year knew they were part of something special. And if you didn’t go last year, or this year, wouldn’t it be nice to know you’ll be able to next year or the year after?
I’ve spoken to many Union fans this year who want to see for themselves what the soccer culture in the Pacific Northwest is really about, but haven’t been able to make it out there yet.
I admit that this argument is much more sentimental than economic, but there is an economic argument to be made for it. Thanks to social networking and other media, there is a growing rivalry between the fans in Seattle and Philadelphia. And as we’ve seen in this year’s playoffs, there are real sparks starting to fly between New York and Los Angeles.
Reducing the number of matchups between those markets from two to one also reduces the buzz that those matchups can create.
Yes, a balanced schedule increases travel costs for the teams involved; and yes, it annoys players from other countries who aren’t used to spending lots of time on airplanes. But it would be a good gesture from MLS to continue to allow its fans to support their team no matter where they play.
3. Increasing the number of rivalry games decreases the value of each one.
This is the point that I think might resonate most at Major League Soccer headquarters. Don Garber, the league’s commissioner, spent 16 years working for the National Football League in various capacities. So he knows as well as anyone else the importance of keeping rivalry games scarce.
The Cowboys only come to Philadelphia once a year. Same with the Steelers and Ravens or the Packers and Bears. Everyone circles the dates of those big games months in advance. And once those game days come, the buzz is palpable whether you care about the NFL or not.
I saw it first-hand in Portland when I covered the Timbers-Sounders game there back in July. Fans were lined up outside Jeld-Wen Field at 7 a.m. to get prime seats in the Timbers Army supporters’ sections.
And I saw it again more recently, when Union fans started talking about their travel plans for the game at Red Bull Arena weeks in advance. No matter that it was on a Thursday night and many people had work the next morning.
So that’s my case for a balanced schedule. Now, what can be done about fixing the playoffs?
As I mentioned earlier, there’s a certain degree to which this year’s playoffs worked out the way they were supposed to. The Eastern Conference final has the top two seeds, and the Western Conference final has the first and third seeds.
But it’s also perfectly fair to say that the playoffs were flawed in the first place, because of how teams were seeded at the start.
The four best teams in the Western Conference - Los Angeles, Seattle, Real Salt Lake and FC Dallas - all amassed more points in the regular season than Kansas City, which finished atop the Eastern Conference. The fifth-best team in the West, Colorado, would have finished second in the East.
If you unbalance the schedule and fully separate conferences in the playoffs, you fix some of that. But it’s still unfair if one conference is far superior to the other - and it’s a fair bet that the West will be better than the East again next year.
I’ve covered MLS for almost a decade now, and I’ve seen the league wrestle with its playoff format more times than I can count. After watching how this season has unfolded, with all of its twists and turns, I’ve changed my mind on two subjects I never thought I’d come to think this way about.
I’m ready for a single table, and I’m ready for the MLS Cup Final to not be at a neutral site anymore.
A single table is by far the best way to accommodate a balanced schedule. Soccer fans in this country are smart enough to know how the standings would work, and it would put the right teams in the playoffs in the right order.
Hosting the MLS Cup Final at the home of the Supporters’ Shield winner has some serious logistical consequences, primarily regarding stadium availability. MLS would have to be able to ensure that all of its venues - especially the NFL stadiums in Seattle and New England - would be available if needed.
There would also be the possibility that the final would be played at a less-than-ideal site, such as San Jose’s 10,300-seat Buck Shaw Stadium. Fans could be inconvenienced by not knowing the site of the final far in advance, and some of the ancillary activities (such as the Supporters’ Summit) might not be possible anymore.
But there’s a straightforward way to remove some of the uncertainty around who would host the game: award it to the Supporters’ Shield winner. And as an even bigger bonus, qualify that team to the final automatically.
That idea wasn’t mine, I admit. Peter Schaad and the fans in Vancouver had it first.
Schaad proposes that nine teams qualify for the playoffs. The Supporters’ Shield winner hosts the final and the next eight teams are seeded in a knockout competition that is conducted over a Wednesday-Saturday-Wednesday span.
I think I have an even better way to do it: reward the higher seeds with byes in the playoffs. The fifth and fourth seeds get single byes, and the third and second seeds get double byes.
This draws in part from Women’s Professional Soccer and in part from the Big East’s basketball tournament, which use multiple byes in their postseason tournaments.
(Coincidentally, both leagues are under threat of going out of existence. But that’s for another discussion.)
If we were to set up the bracket with this year’s teams, it would look like this:
9. Columbus Crew at 6. Colorado Rapids
Winner plays at 4. FC Dallas; subsequent winner plays at 3. Real Salt Lake
8. Philadelphia at 7. Houston Dynamo
Winner plays at 5. Sporting Kansas City; subsequent winner plays at 2. Seattle Sounders
Overall winner plays at 1. Los Angeles Galaxy
This format has two advantages. In addition to properly seeding the teams involved, it guarantees the top seven teams one home game each on a certain date. The set dates would help teams orient all of their sales efforts towards one date instead of multiple dates.
That logic is why Women’s Professional Soccer adopted the format. MLS is in better economic health, so it can afford a little bit more uncertainty, but I guarantee you that PR staffs across the league would like being able to focus on marketing just one playoff game on a date known well in advance.
The first three rounds would be played across a Saturday/Sunday, a Wednesday/Thursday and the subsequent Saturday/Sunday. The final would be the following weekend.
Yes, that would give the Supporters’ Shield winners a lot of time off between games, but I suspect that team wouldn’t mind too much after a long season.
Schaad envisions a Wednesday-Saturday-Wednesday-Saturday format, without a long break between the semifinals and final. I think it would probably be better for the league, and for fans, to have more games on weekends if possible.
According to Brian Straus of the Sporting News, MLS’ competition committee met on Wednesdayin Kansas City to discuss proposed changes to next year’s schedule format. That committee will soon make recommendations to the wider group of league owners.
I suspect, as many people around MLS do, that the decision has already been made to have an unbalanced schedule next year. So all the words I’ve put down in this blog post probably won’t count for anything.
But this is an issue that I care about, and I know that many of you do too. So I thank you for allowing me the time to put my thoughts down, as you have done all season.
Do you think the MLS schedule should be balanced or unbalanced? What changes would you make to the playoff structure? Post your thoughts in the comments. There’s a lot for us to talk about.
Firstly: one table. Only makes sense. It's not fair to anyone when the top team in the East would place 6th or 7th in the overall table. It doesn't exactly push those teams to get better. What's the point of the Union imporoving, if they can just shoot for 3rd in the East every year, which would realistically be 7th or 8th in the league overall. It's ridiculous.— brianveitz- Single table with playoffs absolutely... Makes the most sense, is the fairest approach, and you'd still get exciting matchups throughout the playoffs. I'm sure some would still argue with the unbalanced schedule that it still handicaps West Coast teams because they'd have to play each other more and thus have a "tougher schedule" than East coast teams playing each other more, but I think the complaining from the Westerners would die down considerably with a single table.
And I do agree that giving the top seeded team a bye to the championship may be too much of a layoff for that team. It works in the WPS because there are only 6 teams, so I would imagine that the layoff from the start of the playoffs to the championship game would be a bit longer in the MLS (I admit I didn't compare timing of MLS and WPS playoff schedules, just shooting from the hip here). Everything else mentioned in the article makes sense to me, though losing a big match against LA would certainly hurt a little in terms of interest of the casual fan here in Philly as well as the casual media (not you Jon, but other less-accepting members of your profession). I'm very curious to see what comes out of the MLS competition committee meeting.. and already looking forward to the MLS Superdraft!— JamieJ - I like the balanced schedule as is. I think rivalry games are overrated. The Flyers and Phillies play far too many gamnes with the Rangers, Devils, Braves, Marlins, etc. I really get sick of looking at the same teams over and over during the course of a season. Unfortunately, these ideas look like the MLS is trying to emulate the other US major sports. As much as I would like a single table, that doesn't give you enough "division champions".— egret234
- In a perfect world, the single table would work. But travel is absolutely an issue. remember most MLS teams (incl Union) fly commercial, not charter. And for teams like Portland, Seattle, even LA/Chivas, travel to the east coast is hard, and affects quality of play.
Also, rivalries can still exist with more games per season - think Flyers Rangers/Pittsburgh. MLS and NFL can not be compared due to a 16 game schedule vs 30+.
4 divisions of 5 teams each (understood it may take a year or two for team#20 to appear). Play division opp. 4 times, conf opp 2x, and opposite conf opp 1x (alt home/away per year)=36 matches. Playoff weighting based on division standings. This would be fairest/best for an emerging league and business.
— jpat2411 - Just so they do what's right for MLS. Don't do things the European way just for the sake of propriety. European leagues don't have to deal with the travel, don't have to deal with competition from other sports, and don't have to deal with a media that is indifferent at best and hostile at worst. That model is not right for an American league.
A big problem MLS has is that the ratio of teams to population is way out of whack. Too many western teams and too few Eastern. They have so many teams in Pacific and Mountain time that even if every future expansion team goes Eastern or Central, the league would have to get to 35 teams before it matches population.— Pelti - I had no idea this was being discussed but amazingly I was discussing this with a friend of mine. What I had suggested to my friend was that if teams from the east teams from the west once a year, and every year alternate the location, which would allow teams to play every team while playing two games against eastern teams at home and two away.
If you think rivalry games are overrated, you're entitled to that opinion, however the interest in rivalry games is usually fantastic and generates more people watching. Personally, I enjoy Union games the most when they're playing New York or DC, but we can barely call them rivals if we play them the same amount as Portland or San Jose.
A single tear is a horrible idea for American Soccer because of the size of our country. (and Canada too). This is a great idea if they make it work.
Also lastly, I know comparisons were made to Football with the Dallas coming to Philly once a year, or the Ravens coming to Pittsburgh, but also remember the NFL's season is half as long as the MLS.
Two home games a year against New York, New England, and DC interest me a lot more than games against portland, Vancouver or San Jose.— hellerj - Jon, I'm with you that it would be, from a competitive and interest standpoint, in the best interests of the league, to keep a balanced schedule. That said, I'm with Paulson -- MLS is not in the same financial position that the other leagues are in, and the nature of the sport prevents there being regional "Swings" where a team can play four or five games in two weeks in a specific area before returning home (think of the Phillies playing all the NL West teams in one shot over a two week time period). It might be a necessary evil to unbalance the schedule for a couple of years and then go back when the league is on more stable footing.
As far as the playoffs are concerned, I've been openly campaigning for a 10-team system based on what they use and have used in England and Australia for their playoff systems (for Aussie Rules, Rugby, and Soccer). My idea would be to split the teams into two brackets and then use the five team playoff system in this link:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Top_five_play-offs
This system can be done whether it's single table or two conferences. In either case, you'd end up with the following:
Seeds 1&2 only need to win 3 games; they can lose their first game and still win the MLS Cup.
Seeds 3-6 need to win 4 games; they can lose either of their first two games and still win the MLS Cup.
Seeds 7-10 need to win 5 in a row without a 'safety net', and Seeds 9-10 need to do it all on the road.
I'd favor this sort of system over what the WPS has and the 9-team playoff that was mentioned (although I do like that one), I don't think that the top team should have an automatic berth in the Cup Final. This at least gives them a safety net for the first round or two.— BigBrain61 - I would not be too worried if the Quakes hosted the MLS Cup final, because the ticket at Buckshaw will be hot or the event could be played at O.co Coliseum (Home of the Raiders and Oakland Athletics).— taly
- @taly, actually the Quakes play "big games" at Stanford Stadium in Palo Alto (cap 50k).
If they made the final I'm sure that's what would happen--unless the Cardinal already had a game. That's the real problem. . . what if Seattle won the Shield but the Seahawks had a game?
— joeyT - @Jon T.
I wouldn't worry so much about point #3. A major factor in this is sheer number of games. When you get through with a home-and-home against your own conference (assuming a 20-team league), that's already 18 games. Assuming you play everyone else at lease once, that's already 28. Not too many left after that, 2-6 based on season length in past years, so don't expect to see the Union playing NY and DC 5 times each. Probably not even 4.— joeyT - Here's an idea: 10 teams make the playoffs as happened this season. However, the new playoffs incorporate a group stage, which the top three teams in each conference qualify automatically for. Teams 7-10 will play in a two-leg playoff for the last spot in the group stage. The groups will then be set as follows:
Group A: Supporters' Shield winner, No. 4 in overall table, No. 5 overall, weaker playoff winner
Group B: Other conference champion, No. 3 overall, No. 6 overall, stronger playoff winner
The groups will play three matches, as in the World Cup. The higher seed will always host, giving them an advantage for their regular season. So instead of Union and Dynamo playing two legs, you would have had Union playing at Kansas City and Houston and hosting Colorado. New York would have had to travel to Los Angeles, Seattle and Salt Lake.
The top two in each group advance to the semifinals, which would be a straight knockout. The champion of Group A hosts the runner-up of Group B, and vice-versa, and the winners meet for the MLS Cup at a predetermined site. If you want to make it the Supporters' Shield winner, that's fine with me.— NightHawk2005 - I think MLS should keep a balanced schedule, and add one little tweak. During the long summer, there are certain gaps in the sports calendar that MLS could take advantage of. While we all know that playing 3 matches in 8 days with a weekday game is tough, MLS needs to play a full schedule on one specific day. The Wednesday following the MLB All Star Game. On that day, SportsCenter has NO highlights to show. Put every MLS club in action, and get full coverage from the TV partners. Create a special event that treats MLS like a big deal, and the SportsCenter sheep will believe it is.— ChefJim27
- Firstly, the unbalanced schedule is what they do in minor league hockey to keep the costs down, this is not what a major league soccer seeking to grow does to itself. The EPL should be the model that the MLS uses. My plan: 1) No conferences - all teams are in the same division. 2) Most points wins it- no playoffs. Two game playoff series based on goal differential. Are you kidding? 3)Form a real
Champions League with professional teams from Mexico, South America involved. 4) Add hardware - Add something like the Community Shield to start the season - Prior Year MLS Champion versus Prior Year Champions League Champ. Add an MLS inner season tournament (like the Carling Cup). People like to see teams get trophies 5)Scrap the All Star Game. Does anyone really care about this? 6) Load up on friendlies. EPL, La Liga and Serie A teams are willing if you make the money right. Mexican and South American top level teams would be huge draws as well. Arsenal would assure a sellout in every city it plays. Unbalanced schedules are a sign of regression, if you want to get big, then think big.— syddan26 - so:
1. Do it like England
2. Do it like England
3. Do it like Europe
4. Do it like England
5. No meaningless American-style exhibition games
6. Lots of meaningless European-style exhibition games.
What would we ever do without your fresh approach to the unique challenges MLS faces??? Soccer isn't magic. What works in Europe doesn't here because Europe has major soccer and minor anything else, in North America we have major football, baseball, hockey, and basketball, and college football and basketball. We don't have 200 teams located within a 5 hour drive of one another. MLS has to satisfy both soccer snobs and mainstream audiences, and right now they are striking a good compromise.— Pelti - There's already a tournament called the U.S. Open Cup. There's already a champions league. Plus, you're wrong that England has it right with its lack of playoffs. Actually, we have it right, we just have the wrong playoff system. England should adopt OUR system of playoffs...if we tweak our system correctly and put in a group stage instead of the two-legged ties.
The Premier League is the best league in the world, but that doesn't mean it's set up correctly. England should institute group-stage playoffs, and could just have the top eight advance. The top two teams in the regular season and the two finalists in the playoffs get the bids to the Champions League.
In most cases, MLS can learn from Europe. But on the subject of playoffs, Europe should learn from MLS.— NightHawk2005 - I do agree with scrapping the All-Star Game, that adds nothing. But we don't need more friendlies either.— NightHawk2005
- For next year, keep the format as is (you play everyone twice) but make a few changes:
*No All Star Game
*Single Table
*No aggregate playoffs, but top 8 in league make it.
*MLS Cup goes to SS winner.
Since there are 19 teams, the schedule would be screwy if they go balance. Play everyone home/away but just ditch conferences for next year and go with one league (or have conferences for sake of "beauty" and then award playoff seeds to top 8 without regard to where they place).
When the league goes to 20, have two conferences of 10, within each conference have "rivalry" pods of 5 teams (PHI, NY, NE, DC, plus one other team):
*Play everyone in the other conference once (5 home, 5 away).
*Play everyone in your conference twice for 18 games.
*Play your rivalry pod one additional time a third time (2 home, 2 away).
*Total 32 game schedule
Playoffs are conference based, top 4 per conference in knockout format (single elimination).— Dickie Dunn - I support the balance schedule. Sure, costs for travel are at issue but MLS could get more creative with it schedule. So for example Portland could travel east and play three games, say against DC, Philly and New York in a two-week span while staying in hotels on the East Coast. And vice versa for teams traveling west. This is what baseball does when the Dodgers travel in one trip East to play the Nats, Phillies and nationals. I think the fans want to have the opportunity to see each team once a year so we can say "Fudge you" to Beckham.— albanykey
- Group stage playoffs won't look like such a great idea when one team that's already eliminated on the last match day mails it in and loses so badly it skews the whole result of the group.— joeyT
- Conferences and divisions are overrated (see the Wells Fargo Center rafters). They promote mediocrity in the eyes of us who see anything short of a championship as a losing season. Since MLS tries to emulate the European leagues, why not go to a single-table format? Besides, rivalries are going to happen naturally, they can't be manufactured. I vote for a single table, one-off eliminations (read: no aggregate competition for the playoffs), and the MLS Cup site determined by the team with the best regular season record. I never could accept that San Jose and Dallas play in such small stadiums anyway. JM2C.— Atomic Fury
Reach Jonathan at jtannenwald@phillynews.com or 215-854-2330.
