SBN Editors Roundtable Discussion on New MLS Playoff Structure

Denz: I looked at what the new format would have done last year and in 2009, last year it would have given KC a spot in the east with 39 points and forced Seattle (48), San Jose and Colorado (both 46 points) to be wild cards. 2009 it wasn't as bad, the gap between teams was less. But I think this will put worse teams in the playoffs.

Dave: One thing I like, is that the wild card round could really affect a team's ability to advance. It gives NFL like incentive to be an automatic qualifier. That makes the regular season more meaningful for more teams, later in the season. Being 3rd in the West is MUCH better than 1, 2, 3, 4 wild card and that's a good thing.

UZ: My biggest problem with the old system was that it was hard to support anything that gave not just one, but TWO teams a chance to win the conference championship they don't belong to. This new system at the least removes the oversight, although I think that they might as well just bite the bullet and stick two wild card teams from each conference as the wild cards as opposed to just the four best from each conference. Or, you know, just kill the whole conference thing in general.

Dave: Conferences are going to be much more important as the league continues to grow. The balanced schedule is a short term thing and if conferences exist do we really want an NBA type format where teams sub 500 qualify and teams over 500 don't? I'd hate that. This format can work now, and for the future. But it certainly isn't perfect.

Denz: It may not work now Dave, what is to say that the 3rd best team in the East won't have a worse record than teams 4-6 in the West? That was reality last year. I think tying the conferences to location is part of the problem just put all the teams in one group for regular season and then divide them for playoffs into a "founders conference" and a "commissioners conference."

Scott: The playoff system laid out by MLS is perfect... if the league had not chosen to have a balanced schedule. There is no point in keeping the conference structure if every team has the exact same strength of schedule. There's no need for a separation of the conferences when there are no divisions in which teams are most focused when it comes to percentage of games played against a group of opponents. Nor is the balance of games within the schedule tilted towards a team's conference. The single table would make a playoff system in the 2011 MLS world make sense. No debates over NYRB in the West or RSL in the East. Simply the 10 (or 8 last season) teams should make the playoffs. Any argument that a single table isn't "American" forgets that the current system is inherently against the American playoff system and is against the whole point of conferences in the first place. If conferences, and the new playoff system, was to make any sense it should have taken hints from pre-divisional play MLB. The top two teams faced off for the pennant and then faced the opposing conference's champion in the World Series. When Don Garber thinks he's being innovative in reality he's about 30 years behind on things.

Ryan: Okay, Scott. The question then becomes is it better to have the best playoff format for 2011 or a format they can use for the next handful of years as more teams join the league and have some continuity?

Dave: We complain about lack of tradition in MLS all the time, and then MLS bloggers bitch about the continuation of tradition.

Denz: I am convinced that we are heading to unbalanced schedule next year, and I bet back to fewer matches as well. For sure when there are 20 teams they will not be able to do both balanced schedule and playoffs of this format

UZ: Well, they could. Again, lower leagues in the English football pyramid play about as many games and still have a playoff.

Dave: I don't care how they do it England, or Mexico, or Brazil or Scotland. I want a system that works HERE.

Denz: Leon, not with the geographic and climate issues. That would mean a lot of midweek matches and teams are opposed to midweek matches as harder to sell.

UZ: Unless it's RSL vs. Colorado, they can have those on Wednesdays all they want apparently.

Ryan: Whatever the issues are with conference I think we can all pretty much agree that they're here to stay and it doesn't matter if we like them or not. So how about this question, is the bigger issue that they expanded the playoffs to 10 teams or the format they decided to go with?

Dave: I think it was too soon to shift to 10 teams

Scott: I agree with Dave.

Dave: i prefer 40% or so in playoffs.

UZ: I would have preferred they wait until we had a 20 team league. Right now this is starting to turn into an NBA "Everyone makes the playoffs!" joke.

Denz: I think that 8 is a perfect number for playoffs even with a 20 team league. It rewards the regular season with the post season.

Scott: 50% is bad enough but 50%+2 is just terrible.

Dave: 10 when at 24 would have been great.

Ryan: So eight is everyone's preferred number, but 10 is what we're getting. If you could make one change to the format announced today, what would it be?

UZ: I'd keep the wild cards in conference rather than just "the best four other than the automatic seeds", regardless of whether or not they're better. They already don't seem to care about the conferences THAT much.

Scott: That the four wild cards be split into two for each league, not four wild cards that could all come from one or the other.

Dave: I'd like to see either all home/home or all rounds played as a one-off with the higher seed hosting.

Denz: Top 10 teams get in, bottom 4 play off and then 1v8, 2v7, 3v6, 4v5, and home/away for all rounds.

UZ: I'd love for all the series to be home/home, excepting the wild card round which could just be one game at the higher wild card's home.