It Seems To Me . . .

MLS conference setup, playoff system dampen fan interest.

By Robert Wagman
SoccerTimes

WASHINGTON, D.C. (Thursday, October 30, 2003) -- Last week, the college basketball coaches of the Atlantic Coast Conference held their annual preseason media day, and I think that some of their concerns, and what they had to say, has a great deal of relevance to Major League Soccer.

For those who have not been following the happenings in the ACC, the league has admitted three new members -- Miami (Fla.), Virginia Tech and Boston College. For football, the league will break into two six-team divisions with the two first-place finishers meeting in a championship game with the winner getting an automatic berth on the BCS championship bowl series.

The three new teams are football powers. The league expanded precisely to 12 teams, the minimum number required by the NCAA to hold a lucrative postseason title game and then automatically claim a BCS spot worth millions of dollars.

But traditionally, the ACC has been known as a basketball league, and quite rightly some of its most powerful basketball coaches, and schools, are concerned they will now be second-class citizens in a football dominated conference. They are concerned how the conference's basketball system will absorb the newcomers whose basketball programs, at best, are average. These concerns, I believe, have relevance to Major League Soccer.

The ACC basketball coaches do not want to go to a two-division format. Duke coach Mike Krzyzewski told reporters "I think divisions would be bad because it divides the brand. You're in the East or West or North or South. I think the ACC should be looked at as one, as ACC basketball."

MLS currently is wedded to a division system. Even though it has only 10 teams, it has the Eastern Conference amd Western Conference, and competition during the season to qualify for the postseason and the playoffs themselves are entirely within divisions with the East and West winners meeting in the MLS Cup final.

This is different than in most soccer leagues around the world where there are only single "tables" with teams playing all others home and away in a round-robin format. Most leagues in the largest counties have between 18 and 20 teams, with world governing body FIFA pushing 18 as the proper size for all major leagues .

Truthfully, the reason that MLS is so locked into two divisions is because of the number of people running MLS who have a National Football League background -- the Hunts, the Krafts and commissioner Don Garber. The NFL, with 32 teams, is almost absolutely dependent on its conference setup -- currently eight four-team divisions divided evenly into two conferences -- as a way of emphasizing natural and traditional geographic rivalries.

It has worked for the NFL, but I think much less so for MLS. It has boosted some rivalries -- the MetroStars versus the New England Revolution and D.C. United, the Los Angeles versus the San Jose Earthquakes, and the Columbus Crew versus the Chicago Fire -- and it has acted as a cost control measure because it does somewhat cut down on travel expenses. However, the two conferences so small they are too ingrown.

I have heard team marketing people complain of the difficulty of selling tickets against the same opponent seemingly over and over. In one late stretch, United played the MetroStars three times in six days, including a Lamar Hunt U.S. Open Cup match.

This year, MLS has changed both its playoff qualification criteria and playoff system. The top four of five teams in each conference qualified for the postseason, meaning that throughout the season, many fans had no reason to be interested in what half the leagues' teams were doing except when it directly impacted their team or conference. For those in Washington or the New York metropolitan area, many had little concern about what happened between Los Angeles and San Jose. Likewise, West Coast fans might ignore when United played the MetroStars.

With matches between teams from the other conference having no impact on a team's playoff aspirations, the results meant little to many fans. This could not help but negatively affect television ratings and generally newspaper coverage.

Also, with four of five teams qualifying for the post season, the later part of the season was rendered moot in the Western Conference where Dallas was out of it so early. As for playing for home-field advantage, that seemed of little concern for some coaches. Look at Bob Bradley sitting out six MetroStars starters in the final match against New England and all but conceding home-field advantage to the Revolution.

Had there been cross-over qualifying and the teams with the eight best records advanced to the playoffs, Columbus would be in and Los Angeles would be out. The best eight should now be playing.

Last year, the playoff series went two or three games with the complex "first to five points system. This year, even though the regular season stretched from March to November, MLS couldn't find an extra week for the playoffs or start them a week earlier. So while the conference semifinal series will now be in the two-game, aggregate-goal format, the conference title matches -- and the MLS Cup participants -- will be decided by a single match.

The conference semifinal round was made a two-match series so every playoff team would be guaranteed at least one home match, but two of the teams in the conference finals will be at a distinct disadvantage, and that is unfair.

I think the league should go to a single 10-team table. Geographic rivalries would be preserved, simply because they are rivalries. This way every match is potentially important to every fan, no matter his or her allegiance. The top eight teams should go to the playoffs and the first two playoff rounds should be home-and-away affairs.

When MLS goes above 20 teams, then we can talk divisions.

Senior correspondent Robert Wagman can be e-mailed at bobwagman@soccertimes.com.