Flaws in MLS playoff structure coming into focus
We always knew the flaws in Major League Soccer’s screwy new playoff structure would reveal themselves sooner or later. And sure enough, here they come.
All year, MLS teams have targeted those top three spots in each conference. The aim, of course, is to avoid the new play-in round, where four wild cards square off in a bid to join six automatic qualifiers. So everyone circled “top three” when they scribbled out their goals for the year.
But let’s think our way around this playoff chess board for a minute. If I am FC Dallas and currently sitting fourth in the West, I am exactly where I want to be. And that’s a problem for this new playoff structure.
Los Angeles is the best team in MLS. Bruce Arena’s men have been best all along and they deserve the Supporters Shield (and home field advantage through the playoffs) that’s now en route to the Home Depot Center. Behind the Galaxy, Seattle and Real Salt Lake are jostling for second and third. And in my estimation, those two (RSL and Seattle) are the second and third best sides now – not necessarily in that order.
Given Dallas’ recent fade and some injuries that need to heal, I don’t see the men of Pizza Hut Park moving up. But fret not, ye devotees of FCD: it looks to me like fourth in the West is a better place to be. In fact, it’s a jim-dandy place.
Let me ‘splain: As things are now, Dallas would host a play-in match against the league’s 10th best team. Yes, an extra match is an extra opportunity to lose. On the other hand, it’s a one-off at home against what is statistically the worst team in the playoffs. If Dallas wins, it would remain in the much more forgiving Eastern Conference bracket. (My man Daniel Robertson at BigDSoccer.com can expand on that just a little. Meanwhile, for more on MLS and a flawed system, read on ...)
The point here, while Real Salt Lake and Seattle pound on each other in the second round, Dallas would get a slightly easier time of things in a quarterfinal series. Remember, by my reckoning, Seattle and RSL are the second and third best teams in the league. So, how did we arrive at a place where one gets eliminated so quickly, while lesser lights burn on?
The screwy MLS post-season structure, that’s how.
Bottom line: there should never be a reward for finishing lower in the standings, but that’s what appears to be at work here.
Here’s another looming issue. Let’s say Dallas does go into the East. And let’s say Schellas Hyndman’s boys shake off the taxing summer, rediscover their mojo and win the darn thing. Meanwhile, what if Dynamo and the Red Bulls win the other play-in game? That puts them into the Western bracket. And what if they gain use of The Force or something, shock the Galaxy and win the darn thing?
Now wouldn’t that be a kick in the head? We’d have Western Conference Dallas representing the East in the MLS Cup, while a team from the Eastern Conference represents the West. Got it?
Remember last year when everyone got a chuckle at MLS expense because Colorado represented the Eastern Conference. Commissioner Don Garber, a little chagrinned, insisted that wouldn’t happen again. Only, it might. And it might be even worse this year.
18 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
Dallas playoff road
http://www.bigdsoccer.com/2011/9/12/2420934/fc-dallas-playoff-picture-6-games-to-go
I explain in a little more detail from my post last week
Basically would you rather finish 4th and go
-Home vs #10 seed
-Home vs East #1
-Away vs East #1
-Away vs East #2/3
or
-Home vs RSL/Seattle
-Away vs RSL/Seattle
-Away vs LA
www.bigdsoccer.com
-SB Nation Dallas/Ft. Worth-
-FC Dallas-
by Daniel Robertson on Sep 20, 2011 3:22 PM EDT reply actions
Conferences are a joke
Well, let’s see, Colorado represented the East in 2010, RSL represented the East in 2009 and NYRB represented the West in 2008. We are three for three, what makes Garber think it won’t happen again?
Why bother with conferences, just have a single table. Everyone plays a balanced schedule, why seed the playoffs on anything but overall record regardless of location.
The schedule is/was only balanced in 09/10
would you have eliminated the Conferences for only two seasons and then bring them back?
I am not a Supporter | I am not a Fan | I am a Sounder
Sounder At Heart
Why not?
They could have kept the conferences in place in name only and with the caveat that we would be going unbalanced again in a couple/few years. I always figured Don was afraid that would open the floodgates of people demanding single-table, but seems like in a continually expanding league (as it has been in the past, not the future) you should make the best of your situation as it changes.
Besides, the playoffs have changed several times already and the current version of the wild-card system is only viable with a balanced schedule anyway. Once MLS goes unbalanced there is no way they can get away with mixing the wild-cards.
Mixing wild cards makes more sense with unbalanced schedules
because it is the only way to correct for the unbalanced schedule.
I am not a Supporter | I am not a Fan | I am a Sounder
Sounder At Heart
That is quite the equalizer
in the event one conference is way better than the other, but it continues the annoying prospect of an inferior team having an easier chance at the cup.
In an unbalanced setup I’d still rather keep the conferences completely separated until the final.
I think it is only better for Dallas to be 4th in West
Because their travel wouldn’t really change.
But for Seattle or RSL it means extra thousands of miles of travel in the Playoffs
I am not a Supporter | I am not a Fan | I am a Sounder
Sounder At Heart
Your SI associate had an interesting playoff proposal recently.
One idea of his I liked was, no matter what happens with the schedule, let the regular schedule define conference championships.
His idea of group stages within the playoffs look promising, too.
http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2011/writers/grant_wahl/09/15/mls.structure/index.html?sct=sc_bf1_a3
Now that, I like
Half the teams making the postseason is still rubbish, but at least it gives teams real, sizable incentives to finish higher up in the table.
"We don't want our people to be preoccupied with seminude, crazy men jumping up and down who are chasing an inflated object," said Sheik Mohamed Osman Arus, head of operations for the Hizbul Islam insurgent group.
get rid of the conferences
These are unneeded with 18 team in the league.
If each team plays each other twice, home and away, that is still 34 games in the season, roughly what they play now. With another team or two, you get more games. No big deal.
Then, if we still think we need a playoff (which I’m not convinced of) you can just take the top 8 teams, 1 v 8, 2 v 7, etc. and go from there. Much more fair IMHO.
So get rid of the playoffs for a single season...
…is what you are suggesting. A season that is already set to have playoffs.
This is the first year, and possibly only year we have played with a balanced schedule. Not saying we couldn’t do it next year with 19 teams, but it’s already been announced we won’t. So it probably won’t ever happen again.
And why have playoffs if you have a balanced schedule? Doesn’t defeat the purpose? What other league can you name has playoffs yet has a balanced schedule?
by SoundersForever on Sep 22, 2011 3:26 AM EDT up reply actions
Baseball for several decades?
I am not a Supporter | I am not a Fan | I am a Sounder
Sounder At Heart
Balanced schedule for baseball?
Explain how that’s possible…
by SoundersForever on Sep 23, 2011 12:32 AM EDT up reply actions
Yes, and that created the occasional idiotic anomaly, too
The 1993 Giants would especially like to have a word on that subject.
"We don't want our people to be preoccupied with seminude, crazy men jumping up and down who are chasing an inflated object," said Sheik Mohamed Osman Arus, head of operations for the Hizbul Islam insurgent group.
Hold on a sec
Lets not be too shortsighted. Would a team really rather be a wild card, play an extra game (that makes 4 games in 10 days), be matched up against the #1 seed of the other conference, and guarantee that there is zero chance to host the conference final? We can play the ifs and buts game all we want. This system is much different than the previous one and for the better. Regular season performance has a significantly greater impact than ever before.
In every playoff system there are always scenarios where teams can do things at the end of the season to help or hurt their playoffs matchups by NOT winning.
Absolutely.
Play 2 of the top 3 teams 3 times, or 3 teams that range from 5th-10th place 4 times? Wild card is much better for FCD if their last regular season game turn out to be meaningless, so they can rest all starters to prep for the wildcard game. No team in the East is all that great.
No way
Being a wild-card basically cuts your chances in half by creating an extra round in which you can lose. There’s no way that a slightly easier schedule in a parity league makes that much difference. And that’s before we talk about the grinding schedule the wildcard has to play.
No, nobody actually wants to be the wildcard.
'Gentlemen' he said,
'I don't need your organization,
I've shined your shoes,
moved your mountains and marked your cards,
but Eden is burning.
Either get ready for elimination,
or else your heart must have the courage,
for the changing of the guards.'
All this nonsense could be avoided by having a single table.
Give out a Best of West and First in East patch or medal, and everyone is happy. Until there are actually enough teams to actually warrant having multiple Conferences, it is pretty idiotic..

by 






