Monday Morning Center Back: The MLS Playoff Format

Good morning folks. It is a CHILLY day on the East Coast and it should be a busy day on SBI. I wanted to start the day off talking about the MLS playoffs, specifically the format, which needs to change.

The first round of playoff matches were played last weekend and not a single higher seed was able to win on the road. The higher seeds, most confident in their home form for the second leg and defensive capabilities, played uninspired overly defensive soccer reminiscent of what Glasgow Rangers just did against Barcelona (only none of the lower seeds have Barca-like talent to show the disparity). Actually, Rangers attacked more than all of the MLS higher seeds.

Do I blame the higher seeds for playing this way? Not really. Not when the current format has no away goals factor to promote attacking soccer from the visitors and not when a multi-goal defeat can leave a higher seed facing major pressure and feeling in serious trouble of being eliminated.

You might ask why is there a problem with the format now when it has led to exciting soccer the past four years. Is it really the format that led to just three goals in four playoff games last weekend, or does it have to do with unique circumstances?

Consider the higher seeds in the East. New England had lost the first match of its past two first-round playoff series, leaving the Revs with plenty to do in the second legs. They managed on each occasion but they were fully aware that this version of the Red Bulls had the attacking strength to put New England in a major hole heading into game two. Steve Nicol laid out the gameplan simply. Defend and counter and 0-0 would be a great result, though not for anyone who had to endure that 90 minutes of soccer.

DC United isn't normally the type of team to try and play a defensive match but injuries to top forward Luciano Emilio and Jaime Moreno forced Tom Soehn's hand, leaving him with a 4-5-1 formation and desire to keep game one close so DC could have a better chance a week later, presumably with Emilio and Moreno closer to full strength. The result was a one-goal game where the goal came courtesy of a defensive blunder rather than attacking buildup.

So does there really need to be a change in format, or are we just enduring a year where circumstances will hand us four ultra-defensive series'? There were eight goals scored in the first round of games in 2006, just five in 2005 (with two 0-0 games), six in 2004 and eight in 2003, the first year of the home-and-home first round format.

Aside from seeing overly-defensive soccer, there is also the issue of making the regular season relevant. The fact that Chicago, which finished the regular season 10-10-10, is halfway to a series upset over the best team in the league during the regular season doesn't exactly send the message that the regular season matters. The same applies in the Chivas USA-KC series, where the Wizards stumbled its way into the playoffs and now stands 90 minutes away from the Western Conference final.

Would away goals help? It might, but it could also lead to even more defensive soccer as lower seeds focus on protecting their home shutouts.

What would I suggest? The three-game series where the winner is determined by points gained from wins and ties is the best solution from a competition standpoint. That format not only rewarded higher seeds with two home games in a three-game series, it also promoted wide-open soccer. Teams didn't bunker much because there was no reward for it since goal totals didn't matter, only results and points gained from wins and tied did. This is why there was just ONE scoreless tie and THREE one-goal games in 31 matches played using this format from 2000 to 2002. In the four years under the current home-and-home format there have been three scoreless ties and five one-goal games in 32 matches played.

So why did the three-game format die? Lower seeds complained about not having a weekend playoff game (since game two was usually played at mid-week at the lower seed's stadium), which often led to small attendances (The last year of the three-game format, in 2002, saw three of the four game twos draw fewer than 10,000). The formula to determine a winner in a three-game series  was also more difficult to explain to the casual sports fan (two wins or a win and two ties clinched a series, any other splitting of points resulted in a 30-minute "mini-game" immediately after game three).

So how do you fix the attendance issue for lower seeds? Spread the playoffs out another weekend. End the already too-long regular season a week early and hold the three-game series over three weekends. If a team is good enough to win the first two games and win the series, then a week off is the reward. This is something that has to be considered because the current home-and-home format makes defensive soccer too tempting an alternative and scoreless games and 1-0 games aren't going to ever help make MLS playoff tickets a hot property.

What do you think of the current MLS format? Would you like to see it changed or do you like it as it is now? Share your thoughts below.

Comments

[Felix]

I agree with you that the regular season is somewhat irrevelant when all you have to do is make the top 8 in a 13 team league to get into the playoffs. Just look at how pathetic Chicago and LA were for large parts of the season, and Chicago still got in, and LA barely missed out. MLS seems hell-bent on keeping the playoffs, so at the very least, institute the away goals rule to promote offensive soccer.

[doug]

This story may not seem big to anyone but Valencia fans like me, but they fired Quique Sanchez Flores this morning. If you saw the game vs Sevilla, Rosenberg in CL, he had to go. Bottom line, if your team holds 6 Spanish internationals (Joaquin, Villa, Albelda, Marchena, Vicente, David Silva) you need to do better. I know it probably wont happen, but i would like to see Mourinho come and do something. Or maybe Vicente Del Bosque

[doug]

looks like Marcelo Lippi is th front runner to take over Valencia

http://tribalfootball.com/article.php?id=62547

[josh]

what about a two group format, similar to the champions league. seed the groups (1, 4, 5, 8) and (2, 3, 6, 7) on point totals regardless of conference. this years playoffs would look like this:

Group 1:
DC United
New England
FC Dallas
Kansas City

Group 2:
Chivas
Houston
New York
Chicago

everybody plays three games, higher seeds get two home games. advance by finishing top two in the group, then go to single elimination.

[Braden]

Although I agree with Ives that this weekend's games were rather miserable, I'm not a big fan of configuring play-offs so that teams score goals. Let's just switch to the away goal rule and if some games end up being overly defensive, so what? I think it is the fairest system to judge which team is better, and defensive games can be pretty exciting (Rangers/Barcelona certainly was).

[Derek (Brooklyn)]

I personally would prefer to see the top 4 teams in MLS get a one-off home playoff game in the first round. It gives teams who have proved to be stronger over the year a real advantage (and should make competition between the 4-5 seeds very interesting some years).

Conference finals could be home-and-home with the higher seed getting the second game on home turf.

MLS Cup remains as is.

[Justin]

I've always thought the previous play-off system was better. But boy, did I think (and i probably still think) i was in the minority there.

And why the "mini game" terminology? This was something I remember people ridiculing. It was just the standard extra time, like you'd see anywhere.

[Nate]

Why not just play the first of the three games at the underdog seed's home on the weekend...then play the next two games at the home of the higher seed? Saturday, Wednesday, Saturday...or something like that.

Expanding it over three weeks would be a little much.

[Justin]

I also like Josh's suggestion, though the idea of having 1 or 2 meaningless "post season" games (an inevitable result) would probably not go over well at MLS HQ.

[Hincha Tim]

Single table format. Then end of year home/away playoffs with ALL teams involved (with away goals tie breaker). The winner of the regular season plays winner of year end playoff for league champion. It would bring meaning to regular season and it would bring excitement to end of year playoff (like college basketball) where everyone gets clean start. If nothing else, in current format go to away goals tiebreaker.

[Whitescandal]

I'm not sure what needs to be done about the playoffs, but the higher seeds definitely need more of an advantage.

@Doug - Getting rid of Quique was probably the right move, although I feel kind of sorry for him. He said after getting fired "I lost a team, but got my life back." Maybe guy needs to manage in the second division where there's less pressure.

I'm glad Sevilla put together a strong effort for Manolo Jimenez, I think he'll be a strong manager.
Juande y sus millones nos lo pasamos por los cojones.

[Jeff]

So the regular season winner sits around for weeks waiting for its next game? Doesn't necessarily sound like a good thing. How would they keep in form?

[PH]

Having more playoff games is not the answer. Give the conference winner (or the top one or two teams in a single table) a bye. How about limiting playoffs to six teams, with #1 and #2 getting a bye, and a first round featuring #3 vs. #6 and #4 vs. #5 in a two-leg series with the away-goals rule? Non-playoff teams also don't get the bye that the playoff teams get in the next year's Open Cup competition.

[DCAustinite]

No, no, no three game series, no. That was terrible before and enough soccer to bore to tears. Wanna make it competitive? do it like the FA cup. Start midseason, have every team compete, have home and aways all the way to the final. which will come the week after the season ends. Makes the regualr season trophy more important and will get rid of defensive soccer.

[Ric]

Here's something I was thinking of, especially with Bruce Arena's comments regarding putting everyone or fewer people in the playoffs.

1) Teams 5-8 play a round. The winners of that round play seeds 3 and 4. Winners of those games play seeds 1 and 2. Winners of those games play in the finals. Benefits the best regular season champs by essentially putting them in the conference finals. If a lower seed wants the cup, they have to go through up to four other teams, which would be very difficult.

I guess the biggest problem would be the time it would take (if all rounds but the finals are home/away, it becomes a nine-week playoff). A possible solution could be to make either the first round a one-off game, or make the conference finals a one-off game at the higher seed's venue, thus making regular season finish even more important.

[dwbpnm]

PH your proposal would lead to the top seeds having 3 weeks between games and then a one off game to get into MLS Cup. This seems like a disadvantage to me. The only solution to that would be compressing the first round into a Sat-Wed setup. But this brings up the incredibly low turnouts Ives mentioned. Overall I think the best system is the lowest seeds get no home playoff games and we go to single games like the NFL.

[Jeff M]

I like playoff systems that:

1) Keep most teams in the hunt for most of the year;
2) Reward teams that have excellent regular seasons; and
3) Keep bad and mediocre teams out of the playoffs.

With those criteria in mind, I like a six team playoff for a league MLS's size. Seeds 3 through 6 could play home-and-home (with away goals, which, as Ives points out, encourages attacking play) to get into the conference finals, which are then hosted by the 1 and 2 seeds. This gives the best teams an (earned) advantage, but keeps most teams in the hunt for most of the year. It's similar to what the English Championship does to determine promotion.

The current MLS system (or any eight team system) makes the regular season close to meaningless, and a single-table system eliminates most teams by mid-year.

[chicago millonario]

What about copying the Mexican league format? Basically:

*Three groups of 18, with top teams seeded and kept apart absed on the previous years standings

*Every team plays each other home and away

*For playoffs, the top 2 teams from each group advance automatically. Then, 4 wild cards regardless of group play a one game playoff.

This seems to me the best way to merge U.S. playoffs with group play seen in Europe. The regular season is always different because the groups change each year, and teams which finish poorly get stuck in tough groups. Not to mention, it's another way for MLS to court Mexican fans.

[Ryan]

I think adding the "Away Goals" rule would be a perfect addition, much like it is in Champ's League.

Unfortunately, MLS will never turn into a European formatted league, so we're out of luck as soccer fans.

[Miguel]

I like Hincha Tim's proposal. Single Table format. The winner of the regular season gets into MLS cup. The next four teams play a home and away series, with the away goals rule on the next wednesday (or Thursday and Saturday (or Sunday). The winners meet in a one game semi final the next Wednesday (or Thursday). MLS Cup then is held the following Sunday. The winner of the regular season has one weekend off only. I foresee no drop in form and and the injured can be rested for the regular season champion. This way the regular season does really mean something.

[K. Bowen]

Hasn't this been considered the best playoff format that we've had until, oh, a couple days ago? And now people want to change again, because upsets might happen?

[dc1819]

I suggest a 6 team playoff format. Top two teams (either w/ most pts, or Conf Champs) get 1 & 2 seed, and a bye to the next round. 3 seed plays 6 seed in a home & home, aggregate goal series, away goals being the tie breaker (seeds 3 thru 6 could determined either by division standings, or overall). Winners go on to face 1 & 2 seeds in another home/ home series to determine who goes to MLS Cup. These series can take place over two weeks (1st leg on a weekend, 2nd leg on a Wed night) and keep the total duration of the playoffs, including MLS Cup, to 3 wks. Critics probably wouldn't like the heavy schedule of games over a short period for 3-6 seeds, but it makes the regular season meaningful by a) having only 6 of 13 teams make the post-season, and b) having the top 6 teams fight for the top 2 positions right through the end of the regular season.

This kind of mirrors the English Championship playoff format, where the top two teams get automatic promotion, and teams 3-6 fight it out for the last promotion spot.

[tommymcb]

I would borrow from an NFL playoff format from yesteryear.

6 teams qualify for the playoffs.

The two conference winners get a first round bye.

Higher seed in each game is the host. Winner advances.

1) It creates competition during the season between the top few teams to get one of those top two seeds, 3 or 4 seeds, and 5 or 6 seeds. One or two big losing streaks during the season can drastically change your playoff hopes.

3) Eliminates four boring, poorly attended first round games that would have been hosted by the lower seeds.

4) With only 5 games for the entire playoffs, each game is a must see event that will attract a big television audience and a sold out stadium.

[John]

How you configure the playoffs depends upon your objectives. Away goals would encourage more attacking on the road but doesn't reward teams for their regular season success. Giving higher-seeds the win in a tie doesn't prevent defensive soccer. Playing 3 games as some pluses but creates some scheduling issues. And while quality should rise to the top, I think the larger issue with this playoff series is that the 4 teams who have arguably been the most consistently good (rather than consistently bad--ie: RSL) are NE, DCU, Chivas and Houston and none of them entered the playoffs playing well. Doing a champions league setup could be interesting but again it doesn't solve the issues of teams playing defensively or a good team being it with untimely injuries.

I do think it would be good if any playoff system would emphasize the regular season performance (so maybe a bye in the first round or 1st place results in award of some playoff points if we're playing a first to five scheme).

The single biggest issue for me is that I don't want the playoffs to make it easy for a bad team (ie: a 7th or 8th seed with a losing record) to win a championship. Getting hot at the right time shouldn't be enough to win the MLS Cup--if so, we should find a way to devalue the MLS Cup and label it for what it is--not a championship but just a cup competition.

[undrafted]

I say change nothing.

The last few years have finally had some stability in the format. Away goals would be ok but I doubt they'd help. Week 1 will always be boring. That's what the lower seeds earned for their fans. The next 3 weeks should be ok.