The MLS Playoffs: worse than having a franchise in Miami.

Hate this.

Let me preface this with the fact that I do not hate the MLS playoffs as a concept.  I love it actually.  Americans love playoffs, and fans view making the playoffs as a great achievement.  If it's going to help the league, then keep it.  These clowns who call themselves "traditionalists" don't realize how badly eliminating the playoffs would ravage the league.

I do, in fact, hate how the playoffs are set up.  Especially in the wake of the commissioner announcing the allowance of two more teams into the playoff format next season.  It's salt in the wound left from a mid-table team like Colorado going on a convenient winning streak and hoisting the Cup thanks to an own goal.

Look at it this way.  The MLS Cup champion should, in an ideal world, be the best team in the league.  Great, I understand that's not entirely possible on a year-to-year basis.  And that wouldn't even be that fun.  That's why the Supporters' Shield is so great and Garber's plans to reward the winners more are even greater.

The amount of teams in the playoffs is one thing.  Eight is whatever, ten is dreadfully ridiculous.  As much as I love and respect Kansas City and Chicago as franchises, they sure as fuck didn't deserve to compete for the league's most coveted trophy.  However--what's worse is how unfairly the format is set up, in regards to the fact that higher-seeded teams are not nearly as rewarded for their efforts as they should be.

This two-legged round thing obviously isn't working.  Having the latter game at home is NOT home-field advantage.  Two-legged rounds work wonderfully for randomly drawn knockout rounds, not for a seeded tournament.

Those arguing over the conference crossover rule need to listen.  As long as a two-table (East and West) setup coexists with a balanced regular season schedule, the rule needs to be there.  It's the only thing preventing things like Kansas City being this season's three-seed in the East.  Now, if the schedule was unbalanced (more games for intra-conference match-ups), this would eliminate the need for the confusing playoff situation.  However, balanced schedules make for the statistically fairest competition.  Unbalanced schedules cause numbers to be misleading because teams are playing vastly different schedules, especially the way it is now with the Western Conference performing significantly better than its counterpart this season.  I know it's confusing.  It's even more confusing because of the single-elimination format.

A Solution

Forget about a knockout format with questionable home-field advantages.  Eight teams.  Crossover rule if the schedule is balanced, top four in each conference if its unbalanced.  Two single round-robin groups of four.  Higher seed in all round-robin match-ups play at home.  For example, this season, New York and LA would have played three home games,  San Jose and Seattle would have played all three on the road.  Winners of the two groups play in the neutral-site MLS Cup.  Or, I wouldn't mind the top two playing a one-off match to reach the Cup. Everyone pretty much plays the same amount of games as before (three or four before the Cup).  I never said the MLS Cup should be the top teams every year.  I just can't stand seeing teams like Colorado winning it.  I know they're fun to watch with Casey and Cummings up top, but the team didn't put up enough numbers over a long season to justify it happening.

CONCACAF Champions League

I'm absolutely ecstatic that MLS has taken this tournament more seriously.  It's a phenomenal concept, and it's as legitimate and relevant than it's ever been.  I highly recommend you sign up for CONCACAF TV, where you get most of the Champions League games for free, streamed live online.  And CONCACAF, I'll see you in court.

This all said, the USSF has been allotted four spots into the Champions league every year.  They choose to give the spots to the Supporters' Shield winner, the two MLS Cup finalists, and the U.S. Open Cup champion.  This became a huge problem this year, because now the Colorado Rapids and FC Dallas will be representing the league and the federation at next year's tournament.  Real Salt Lake, who finished a point behind LA for the Shield and are in the quarterfinals of this year's tournament, will be conspicuously absent.  The Shield runner-up is the alternate allocation, so if LA or Seattle (USOC champion) had made it to the Cup finals, RSL would be fittingly returning in 2011.  Excuse me, Mr. Garber, but Colorado or Dallas do not deserve to be in the Champions League over Real Salt Lake.  There's no way around it.  And I understand that the messed-up playoff format reared its ugly head last year when RSL won it all as the eighth seed, but they ended up tearing it up this season.  With Colorado's unsure offseason coming up, I don't see that happening next year.

My point is, the playoffs are further trashing the league because of the way the spots are allocated.  Simple solution: let in the teams with the hardware (Shield, Cup, USOC), as well as the Shield runner-up.  RSL busted their collective asses all season (with the Champions League group stage schedule and all), while FC Dallas won three games in a row to earn the spot only to lose one at a neutral site.