Don Garber's Strange Comments on MLS Conference Realignment

EDITOR'S NOTE: I'd been thinking about writing about this very topic and Sidereal basically sums it up well.

We didn't really pick up on this topic, as the Sounders faithful were paying closer attention to the game in El Salvador than to the All Star game festivities in Houston, but at a press conference during the break, this exchange occured:

Q. Considering the two new clubs are located in the west, will there some be some realignment in the league conferences and will Portland, Seattle and Vancouver remain in the Western Conference?

(Garber) Yes, there will be realignment, and those three clubs will stay in the west. We know that two teams from the west will have to be moved to the east, but we don't which ones yet.

Assuming that this wasn't simply a mis-statement on the part of the commissioner, which seems unlikely, what exactly are we to make of it?

Now that teams are playing in balanced schedules, the divisional structure in MLS is mostly just decoration. As far as I'm aware, the only impact it has on the results is in the provision that at least two teams from each division must make the playoffs, as well as the particular organization of the playoff matchups. For the latter, there's still enough parity in MLS that particular playoff matchups don't provide any advantage (after all, the last team to make the playoffs last season won the Cup). And for the former, the 2-teams-per-conference provision only matters if there would only otherwise be 1 team in a conference, which — even with the current dominance of the West — is unthinkable. However, it might be enough to make an argument for keeping balanced conferences. That is, pulling a guaranteed 2 teams out of one pool of 8 and one pool of 10 might seem a little unfair to the pool of 10, even if it's almost certainly never going to matter.

If we revert to an unbalanced schedule with the addition of more teams (which seems likely, as teams are already spread thin with 30 league games), then divisional alignment begins to matter more. But it becomes an even stronger argument for evenly sized divisions. Certainly Midwest and Texan teams might jockey for a particular conference, given the competitive differences in playing one set of teams twice and the other once per season (which is by far the most likely schedule setup), and travel budget becomes a large factor when figuring out which teams you'd have to visit every season versus every other season. But what exactly would an unbalanced schedule look like with one conference of 12 teams and one of 8? If it's even possible, it would be a nightmare in terms of competitive balance.

And why bother with the complexity? Can anyone think of a reason for unbalanced conferences? It could make sense, at least temporarily and as long as we keep a balanced schedule, if it smooths the transition of new teams into the league. So let's take a look at what expansion would do.

We know Portland and Vancouver enter the league next season, and they must be Western Conference teams as they are physically located on the west coast and have a strong regional rivalry with Seattle. The following season, Montreal enters the league and is very much an eastern team. After that, Garber has strongly intimated that he wants a 20th team, though the exact location is very much up in the air. The most likely sites are New York and Miami, and beyond that MLS has a general preference for the southeast, as it's the only region of the country without a team. San Diego is also a possibility, but the most likely destination will be in the East. So we have two certain West teams, followed by an almost certain East team, followed by an undecided but probable East team. So which realignments after the 2010 season might make sense?

Option 1: Move Nobody

With the addition of Portland and Vancouver, next season the West would have 10 teams to the East's 8. The following season, Montreal would join the East. And eventually (let's assume that it's the following season for the sake of argument), another team joins the East. And voila, we're balanced.

• Total Moves: 0
• Seasons with a +1 division: 1
• Seasons with a +2 division: 1

Option 2: Move 1 Team East

Adding 2 to the West and moving 1 East would keep the conferences balanced at 9. Montreal would give the East an additional team. Then, if the 20th team is in the West we do nothing, but if we assume it's in the East, a team must move back to the West.

• Total Moves: 2
• Seasons with a +1 division: 1
• Seasons with a +2 division: 0

Option Garber: Move 2 Teams East

Adding 2 to the West and moving 2 East would give the East a 10-8 advantage. Adding an East team in 2012 would make it 11-8, and require moving at least one team back to the West to get to 10-9. Adding another East team in 2013 would require moving at least one more team back West to get to 10-10.

• Total Moves: 4
• Seasons with a +1 division: 1
• Seasons with a +2 division: 1

So you can understand the confusion. Why would Garber opt for a plan that requires two teams to move east and then have to move back over the next two years to rebalance? If it's the same two teams, it makes almost no sense. It might make sense if the intent is for the teams that move West to be different from the teams that move East. Suppose that the Texas teams want to move East together (as has been rumored) and that they want, say, Chicago and Toronto to go the west. Ignoring for a moment how ridiculous this is geographically, why not just swap them at once next year without all of the season-by-season shifting around?

If the goal is to minimize movement, Option 1 is best. If it's to keep the conferences as balanced as possible, Option 2 is best. What goal could possibly make Option Garber best? Is it politics? Economics? Regardless, it looks like MLS is about to do something wasteful and silly.

(Crossposted at Seattle Soccer Scene)