The Unbalanced Schedule and the Playoffs

by Dave Clark on Mar 24, 2009 6:39 PM PDT in Sounders: MLS Regular Season

There is a slight imbalance to the schedule, with each team facing two others within their own Conference an extra time during the regular season. For Seattle these two opponents are the San Jose Earthquakes and CD Chivas USA. Much of the talk around MLS media and blog circles is about how the Eastern Conference is so much better than the Western and that might mean 5 or even 6 Eastern teams in the MLS Cup Playoffs. That talk tends to ignore that the best team in the league is still in the East and a few teams will face it more than twice.

What is intriguing is that last season there were only three teams that passed the 46 point margin, which is significant as it meant that they were basically locks (the magic number is 39/40) and no teams that missed by more than two well placed wins. The league is really that balanced. Parity has its place and in league play that parity is rather obvious for Major League Soccer.

But when a team like Toronto is going to have to face Columbus and New York (48 pt avg in '08) three times each, that changes their playoff chances a lot more than the Quakes and Goats (38 pt avg in '08), that would be most apparent for a league without parity. But in MLS you can't use last year's numbers to show the disparity, so instead I'm going to use Ives' preseason rankings to judge the overall strength of schedule. Again, its only two games, but very few teams finish more than 6 points away from the playoff cut-off line.

By that example Toronto face the #1 and #5 teams
Sounders FC only face the #11 and #14.

Let's look at the whole league.

EASTERN
Chicago – Columbus #1 and D.C. #13 - avg. 7
Columbus – Chicago #2 and Toronto #4 - avg. 3
D.C. – Chicago #2 and Kansas City #7 - avg 4.5
Kansas City – D.C. #13 and New England #8 - avg. 10.5
New York – New England #8 and Toronto #4 - avg. 6
New England – Kansas City #7 and New York #5 - avg. 6
Toronto – Columbus #1 and New York #5 - avg. 3

WESTERN
Chivas – L.A. #15 and Seattle #9 - avg. 12
Colorado – Dallas #10 and Salt Lake #3 - avg. 6.5
Dallas – Colorado #12 and Houston #6 - avg. 9
Houston – Dallas #10 and Salt Lake #3 - avg. 6.5
Los Angeles – Chivas #11 and San Jose #14 - avg. 12.5
Salt Lake – Colorado #12 and Houston #6 - avg. 9
San Jose – Los Angeles #15 and Seattle #9 - avg. 12
Seattle – Chivas #11 and San Jose #14 - avg. 12.5

Now, of course this is a very ROUGH way to do strength of schedule. But there the level of turnover on the rosters is such that parity is key, so to judge the schedules early in the year, one must use assumptions. I could have used other sites, but at this point I'm going to stick with the granddaddy of soccer blogs in America.

But what is readily apparent is that the Western Conference has the easier schedule in general. Seattle, LA and San Jose all have the weakest schedules, by any measure and that makes it much easier for them to sneak into the playoffs as the final seed than a club like TFC or DC United.

As the season goes on, what we will all likely find is that because of the unbalanced schedule the West and East will be evenly represented within the playoffs, because any club that has to face the Quakes and Goats stands a better chance than a club that faces the Fire and Wizards.

There can be quibbles about the initial rankings, but if EVERYONE knows that the East is stronger, doesn't facing the East in two extra matches slightly negate their playoff chances?

I would be remiss in not thanking Prost Amerika for their aid in research and editing this piece. All errors though are my own.

Tweet Comment 10 comments | 0 recs |

Do you like this story?

Comments

I’m not a fan of the unbalanced schedule, exactly because it gives teams who have weaker “extra” opponents an advantage. If there are going to be wild cards, then I feel the competition should be the same.

I know the NFL does just a little non-conference play (or at least they did, but they don’t have points, so the effect is a little different. In MLB it can make a difference to have a rivalry series like KC-StL. That’s six games or so against an inferior opponent.

I like the parity of the MLS. It helps avoid long strings of losing seasons and misery. With a balanced schedule it seems like there would be even more parity.

However, I certainly won’t complain if we play an extra game or two against Van/Pdx. Makes for easier away support.

by Cornchops on Mar 24, 2009 7:52 PM PDT reply actions

The schedule will only get more unbalanced as more teams are announced. Plus, the Playoffs make more sense with unbalanced than balanced schedule.

by Dave Clark on Mar 24, 2009 8:01 PM PDT reply actions

Dave,

Can you tell me why the MLS does not want to go with a single table. I understand the playoff aspect. East-West. I don’t quite get the holdup.

by TL on Mar 24, 2009 9:46 PM PDT reply actions

The schedule will only get more unbalanced as more teams are announced.

Why? Are they planning on always having a certain number of games, and thus will have to have some imbalance? Enlighten me.

the Playoffs make more sense with unbalanced than balanced schedule

Is this because teams that maybe shouldn’t have made the playoffs would be eliminated through playoff games? Or that strong teams with stronger “extra” opponents will still be able to get into the playoffs, because of the multiple slots available?

It seems like the six extra points we could get from Chivas/Quakes and the possible 0-3 points that an average to above average East team might get from their two extras could certainly be the difference between making the playoffs and not. You say it yourself:

Seattle, LA and San Jose all have the weakest schedules, by any measure and that makes it much easier for them to sneak into the playoffs as the final seed than a club like TFC or DC United.

I guess you’ll have to explain it to me better. I still see that as an unfair advantage for us/LA/SJ, and an unfair disadvantage to TFC/DCU/etc.

by Cornchops on Mar 24, 2009 10:11 PM PDT reply actions

For a single table to make sense in North America the league couldn’t really expand beyond 20 teams. The league already plays on a few FIFA international dates every year, and that would only go up as they add more teams in a single table. An unbalanced schedule helps to correct for a larger league and less than 36 matches (about the max for a Summer league with playoffs). I personally think that there are at least 16 American cities and at least 3 Canadian ones that belong in MLS. The league will get bigger.

I think that the playoffs make more sense, becuase the MLS Cup holder is determined by the playoffs, and with an unbalanced schedule those playoffs slightly correct for a Conference weakness, as the team that sneaks in through a weak schedule is unlikely to win the Final. Even after Red Bulls’ run last year in the playoffs they still didn’t finish with the points that Houston or Chicago obtained.

And, yes, the unbalanced schedule is unfair. This is particularly true when one Conference is dominant. But it will only be a year to year thing. The only thing that will be constant from year to year concerning the schedule is the travel, and unbalancing actually helps the Western teams cut down a bit on travel. Still it certainly isn’t fair that the 3+ point difference that Seattle’s schedule might obtain them over what TFC is likely to do could be the difference.

Why do I keep using TFC and Seattle? Probably because these two teams represent a new era in the league, but also because their overall talent level is similar and both teams should finish between 5th and 10th.

by Dave Clark on Mar 25, 2009 6:00 AM PDT reply actions

Ok, an unbalanced schedule is unfair. So what! Life isn’t fair. All things being equal, the commish should strive to be as fair as possible, but there are some things that will never be 100% fair.

There will be some players that will never want to play in a cold weather city due to the weather. Life isn’t fair.

There will be some cities that will never have as nice facilities and will not be able to make as much in revenues as other cities through no fault of their own. Life isn’t fair.

Someday when the MLS does expand to 18, then 20 and possibly up to 24 teams, it just is not realistic to to play home and away every team.

Dave, I think you make a great point about the schedule. HOF football writer, John Clayton, makes a good point every year in making his season picks to look at the schedule. Those with tough schedules have a harder time making it into the playoff and those with easier schedules increase their playoff chances immensely.

That is why teams come out of nowhere and make a big jump in games won from the previous year.

So, SSFC really does have a chance of making the playoffs. Time will tell.

Keep up the good work Dave.

by Coug1990 on Mar 25, 2009 2:02 PM PDT reply actions

I don’t have a problem with unfairness. Only unfairness when fairness is possible. If MLS is set on a certain number of games, then an unbalanced schedule is necessary, and I’m fine with that.

Will the schedule be balanced next year, with Philly and thus 16 teams? And then back to imbalance the next year with PDX/Van?

What is MLS’s ideal target for number of games? Do they want to stay at 30? 32? 34?

Looking forward to Saturday. Hope we can make our unfair fan advantage even louder!

by Conchops on Mar 25, 2009 4:09 PM PDT reply actions

I don’t think Commish Garber has an answer to that question. I think he will figure that out as expansion goes along. In other words, he is keeping all of his options open.

by Coug1990 on Mar 25, 2009 4:36 PM PDT reply actions

In 2011 either Dallas or KC will move to the East, or 3 conferences will return. I’d hope for a single table, but realize that’ll never happen. Therefore, moving FC Dallnoattendance to the East and reigniting (cough cough) the Brimstone Cup would be the logical move.

by Artesian on Mar 25, 2009 11:09 PM PDT reply actions