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

[undrafted]

Byes may be a disadvantage in soccer. Players are match fit and in a routine of playing weekly.

6 teams would be better NOW. But with expansion, it'll probably end up being 8 anyways. So keep it at 8.

[Super Metro]

It should be as easy as first team to get 4 points advance on a two-game series and go for the mini game if not decided by points after the two games. Why not 5 points like the old system? com on, after a win and a tie, one team is obviously better; why give life to a team that has 1 point after two games (remember LA vs. Metros series).
Note: that mini game should be a totally new game; more subs, clean yellow cards etc.

[PH]

dc1819, tommymcb, and I have proposed pretty much the same thing (6 teams, first-round bye for #1 and #2). Are you listening, Don Garber?

[Ross]

I like a lot of these ideas, I like 6 teams making the playoffs. But to me the single most important thing is this: HOME AND HOME SERIES MUST GO. They were designed for competitions where there should be no home field advantage. Personally I loved the different variations of the 3-game series and didn't really care that much about the midweek game not drawing that well. I think it's OK to make your regular season schedule with attendance being the top priority, but when the playoffs roll around the focus should switch (at least a little) to competitive integrity. Plus, if you are so upset about lower seeded teams getting a bad deal, there is always the option of not sucking.

[Joamiq]

Ives, while I agree with your reasoning, I'm afraid that 3 games against the same team over 15 or so days would end up taking as much juice out a series as the current format does.

Guys, single table just isn't happening. I also don't think MLS could ever reduce the number of playoff teams. The owners would never agree to that. Of the plans that actually sound realistic, I really like Josh's idea, although to preserve the East/West split, I would split the two groups by conference (and I would keep the current system of 2 top seeds per conference plus 4 wild cards). I agree that the top two teams should get 2 home games, though to preserve the importance of the regular season, I would have the final matchday feature the 1st seed hosting the 2nd seed. Alternatively, you could give the 1st seed 3 home games, the 2nd seed 2 home games, the 3rd seed 1 home game, and the 4th seed no home games. Top two teams on points advance to single elimination league semifinals (winner of one group hosts runner-up of the other group), winners advance to MLS Cup final.

To me, this accomplishes the objective of making the games more exciting by making the results matter, so you don't have teams playing defensively for differential. You also switch up the opponents to keep things interesting. Having a 4 team tournament to determine who represents the conference adds a little more juice. The potential problem with this kind of format is that the 3rd group game can sometimes lack juice if two teams that are playing each other just need a draw to advance, but the reward for winning the group under this format would be a home game in the single elimination round, which is no small reward. I also think this idea is realistic, because owners will always agree to an extra playoff game.

I really like this idea. Feel free to let me know if there's some negative aspect of it that I'm missing. Props to Josh for the original idea.

[gerry]

No matter what format you use, the MLS Cup will always just be a Cup competition. The regular season champion should be considered the league champion.

[northzax]

I agree with Joamiq, single table isn't going to happen, for good reason. it only works with relegation systems that give the lower teams something to fight for that last weeks of the season. (as well as the financial difference in climbing or dropping a spot in the final rankings.) since neither or those is relevant here, let's not obsess about being Euro-acceptable and do our own thing.

and think about it, we had what, six teams with something to play for in the final weekend? that's not bad.

I don't think we are ready for the round robin yet, but it's not a bad idea, it increases regional rivalries, you get teams, and fans, that know each other, and the reward for winning the group is sufficient to encourage attacking play on the final weekend. Do the first round over ten days, and I like the idea of the top seed getting all three at home, with the bottom seed getting none. let's be honest, (and not because I am a DCU season ticket holder) where would we rather have games, RFK or Arrowhead?

for those who want a tru champions league style in season playoff: ain't gonna happen. Teams simply don't have the depth to play (since we're talking about top teams) the CONCACAF Champions Cup, Lamar Hunt, Superliga and another playoff during the season. Imagine playing Sunday-Wednesday-Sunday-Thursday. yes, you might go on a Galaxy-type hot streak, but you are more likely to end up hurting your players or driving them to exhaustion. the level of play simply isn't high enough, and benches aren't deep enough, to sit four or five starters in a meaningful game.

[dc1819]

I'm in agreement that a format based on single table is a pipe dream. But I really believe, a bye for 1 & 2 (Conf Champs) is just reward for posting the best records over the course of the regular season. When you start to get to teams 3 thru 6, I think there isn't much to separate those teams. Those teams are usually pretty evenly matched, so I'm not sure a true home field advantage is warranted. PH- I'm with you, but logic doesn't usually play a part when it comes to MLS decision making. I will agree that after the 6 team format, the current format is probably the next best thing.

[Mr. Baker]

I can't wait to see the top 25!

[Jeff]

I do not agree that the games this weekend were overly defensive.

DC attacked most of that game, but could not break through a tough Fire defence. Soccer is a game with both offense and defense, and I appreciated how organized the Fire D was. To attack somebody playing good defense as a reason to change a playoff format is to criticize good defense.

Wizards/Chivas was not defensive either to me. I thought both clubs brought an attacking philosophy.

I also wouldn't call the Dallas/Houston contest a defensive one.

Hell, only the Revs really played overly defensive in my eyes, and I'm use to that seeing them play in the last two MLS Cups.

More goals would have been nice, but this weekend entertained me.

Way too early to start talking about changing the format, especially based on these games.

Good to great defensive performances are not a bad thing to me. Changing a format because teams did this is absurd.

[Jake Wright]

Going back to a three game series? Terrible idea. The MLS gets better as it de-Americanizes itself.

Clock counts down - FAILURE
Clock stops for out of bounds - FAILURE
Weird penalty shoot out thing - FAILURE

No need to reinvent the wheel here.

Home & Home until MLS Cup. Away goals tiebreaker. When MLS gets to 20 teams, don't expand the playoffs. If you really want to get crazy, go to a single table 1 vs. 8, 2 vs. 7, etc.

The regular season doesn't matter because too many teams qualify, not because the lower seeds aren't punished enough.

[tommymcb]

My question is: why have two games for the first round? It seems like the league is just trying to add another home game for the bottom 4 teams.

[undrafted]

tommymcb - you answered your own question

the other added bonus is it gives the 2nd leg and extra week to sell tickets

They could just take the week off and play single elimination. I'm not sure if the players would want the layoff?

[Tom in GA]

Borrow an idea from Australian Rules football:

1 v 4
2 v 3

5 v 8
6 v 7

The top 4 play for a bye, the bottom 4 play to stay in. The losers of the top 4 host the winners of the bottom 4. This gives extra rewards for finishing higher up.

How could this be translated into MLS?

Each conference has seeds 1,2,3,4.

Weekend 1: Seed 1 hosts seed 2 in game A and seed 3 hosts seed 4 in game B.

Weekend 2: Game A loser hosts game B winner in game C on either Thursday or Friday. Game A winner hosts game C winner on Saturday or Sunday.

Weekend 3: Conference champions meet for title.

Features: 4th seed doesn't get a home game - punishment for barely getting in. 3rd seed gets a weekend 1 home game but then has to win 2 games on weekend 2. 2nd seed is guaranteed a weekend 2 home game and the chance to play for an advantage. 1st seed is guaranteed 2 home games which provides a greater advantage. Winner of game between seeds 1 and 2 have a big advantage in 2nd weekend. Regardless of outcome of game A, both seeds 1 and 2 can sell tickets for 2nd weekend in advance.

Just an idea.

[JB]

There's no easy answer to the question of play-off format because there's no good way to do it.

a single game of soccer takes more out of the players than any sport other than Football. Yet while football is the most predictable of the major team sports on a game by game basis soccer is the least. This means we can't afford enough games to really allow the better teams to profit from the edge the showed over the MLS season. We end every season with a lottery. So, since there is no good play-off format, what's our next best alternative?

[Lloyd Heilbrunn]

"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..."

As opposed to the format this year which has no weekend games for the highest seed unless it makes the final???

[robsmith]

Not that anyone will ever really support this idea... but what about a mini-clausura... but keep the conference and the seeding the way they are doing it right now. Now here's the idea. A one leg round robin for each conference. The first seed plays all their matches at home. The 2nd seed plays all their matches but the one against the first seed at home.. and so on. The only down side I see to this is zero home matches for the fourth seed. But hey, they should just feel lucky to be there. Total points in the three matches advances to the MLS Cup. Now we can talk about the tie breaker. Why not have Goals scored be the first one if we're that concerned about defensive soccer. Then again we could always make it Goal Dif-- and then goals for.

Thoughts?

[Fuegofan]

Too long regular season? I get really tired of reading that. Our season was only 30 games long this year, compared to something like 38 in Spain and England. Even if you include playoffs, the season is only 34 games long for the winner of the MLS Cup. As for duration, it goes from end of March/beginning of April, through October/November for playoffs. Meanwhile those on the "international calendar" go from what, August to May? MLS gets four months off (not including preseason). The international calendar leagues get two months off. How is the regular season too long again?

[Ives]

Fuegofan, the regular season isn't too long in terms of days, but it is when you consider the number of games played during that time and the importance or lack of importance of most of those games.

The league doesn't recognize the international calendar and therefore doesn't take weeks off, where in Europe a league can take as many as four or five different weeks/weekends off for international matches.

When MLS is motoring uninterrupted from the start of April until the end of October with no breaks it makes the season feel long. That and the fact that the playoff system makes the regular season obsolete gives the MLS regular season a long and drawn out feel. There is no drama from week to week to make things interesting on a constant basis. That is what makes the MLS regular season feel long when it is only something like 27 weeks long.

That is why I don't see a problem with making the regular season shorter by a week and the playoffs longer by a week.

If fewer teams qualified and if expansion helps create more natural rivalries and makes a longer schedule in terms of games then these things could help the regular season be more exciting and not give off that too-long feel.

[socmin]

I don't think the regular season champion is the best thing always, either. Last year we had a team that dominated the first half and not-so-much the second. Therefore, no excitement. This year that same team did not-so-much in the first half, but strung along a good run in the second half. Again, this does not promote attendance, excitement, or ratings. Baseball people make the same complaints about their playoff system. Hockey and Basketball people do the same. There is no one way- European method included- that will satisfy everyone. Whether the purists like it or not, the most successful format here is the NFL type playoff system, with soccer modifications. You can't have bye weeks in soccer. More than home& home series on the Baseball type model dilute other economic considerations at this time. I LOVE the playoffs! Some games are defensive, some are offensive- and some are just wild affairs. At any rate- everyone can find at least one game that suited their 'tastes.'