A Crazy Idea for Better Playoffs

You are certainly right on the lack of importance for the regular season, and how the best teams eliminate each other much earlier than they should. I really actually like this idea. But, since playoff ideas are being tossed around now that it’s playoff time, I would like to put in my own 2 cents.
12 teams get into playoffs. There will be 2 automatic berths, one for each conference, and the rest is dictated by seeding. The winners of each conference, as well as the next two best teams, automatically bypassing the first round of the playoffs. The rest of the 8 are divided into 2 groups of 4, based on seeding and conference. These teams then play games against other members of their groups. The higher seeds get home advantage. So seeds 5 and 6 would have all 3 games at home, seeds 7 and 8, 3 games, 9 +10, 1, and 11 + 12, none. This rewards good season records, while also preventing a team who really isn’t good, from advancing (NY 2008). The top 2 teams from each group advance to play the teams who automatically advanced. This method also leaves weaker teams much more tired, giving the better teams a slightly better shot (the whole seeding thing again). The 2nd place teams from the group stage play the conference winners of their respective conference/ or SS winner plays lower seed, which ever works better. These will be game 1 and 2. Games 3 and 4 will be played between the winners of the group stage and seeds 3 and 4. All will be 2 legged. The winner of Game 1 plays Winner of game 3 or 4 (depending on which is better, conference or seed) and winner of Game 2 plays the other one. (These games can be two legged, depending on how well it fits the schedule). So, winner of 1 v 4 plays the winner of 2 v 3 in the cup. What this system does is, 12 teams technically make the playoffs, but 8 teams only really get in to compete. Of those 8 teams, the 4 best hold a significant advantage. They would have a week off (this should only add 1 week). Now, how would this look in the current system? Well, LA and SKC automatically advance, as do RSL and the Sounders. These teams really are the 4 best teams, since FCD has had a total tail spin, and SKC had the awful 10 game away start. The groups would then look like this (teams are seeded in their respective order, 1-4) – group 1 (west group) FCD, Rapids, NY, Timbers. Group 2 (east) – Dynamo, Union, Crew, Fire. This way, the best two teams can’t eliminate each other until at least the semi’s of the whole tournament.
Pros
More games = more fun!, more money from games for the league
Seeding matters much more
harder to see the best teams knock each other out before at least the semi’s
More teams play more game (if you think like Klinsmann)
This looks more like other soccer tournaments (World Cup, Continental Cups, Confed Cup, Champions League (UEFA and CONCACAF)
For at least this season, there is a much larger chance for a conference to actually be won by a member.
Cons
Longer season- Winter problems
more not-so-good teams get in

I would especially like to see this as the league expands. I find it hard to believe that there won’t be quite more than 20 teams considering that the midwest has 2 teams, the south (excluding Texas) has only DC, and Canada will have a grand total of 3.

with an uneven number of teams (as will be the case next year).
How about top 5 teams from each conference make the playoffs. The bottom two in each conference play a “play-in” match against each other. From there, it’s 1 plays winner of play in, 2 plays 3. Winners play each other in conference championship. Conference champs play each other in mls cup.
This gives more importance to doing well in the regular season to make the playoffs and more incentive to do well for those that are already in.

Less teams not more. I do not like a high percentage of teams in playoffs. In my world the best playoff system we have seen in the US is the old MLB playoffs back when there were 4 divisions and 4 teams making it.

To completly counter my own point… I do like NCAA basketball tournement but I am also opposed to the slow expansion in number of teams they are allowing in that as well.

I want the playoffs to be Epic, right now they are an after thought. Lets play 3-4 games after the season. That is what causes them to seem like the worst teams have an equal shot.

3 games series the whole way through. IF you were NOT looking the way Europe does it, or other places, or other sports, etc. I think this is what you would come up with for soccer. I really do.
Homefield, making reg season meaningful, better teams more likely to win, very epic, very exciting, plus money making, which eventually will be a factor when someone outside of Seattle draws.

Not sure how it would work with 10 teams, but with 8 teams it would be pretty straightforward. With a couple of mid-week games (in the losers’ bracket), you could do it in four weeks. I think that double elimination is a little more practical than having a bunch of three-game series and it has the same benefit that you’re not done in by one bad day.

Is based off an idea I’m pretty sure first got planted in my brain from a comment here, but: ten teams get in. Let’s call it top five from each conference to give conferences some legitimacy (also, by the time you’re that far down, even a dominant conference should start to even out a bit). Have the 5th placers play a mid-week play-in round, single slim at the higher seed based on reg season pts, to cut the matches down to an even number, give the marketers in borderline markets another shot, and penalize the lowest teams with a bit of exhaustion. Once you’re at eight, the top team picks who they WANT to play. If it’s the 8th seed, so be it – but maybe they’re dangerous and in form after running into the playoffs. Maybe they choose #2 – they were dominant all season but tossed aside the SS when a key player was injured or it all just went to hell so your #1 side sneaked into a win and wants to knock them off. Keep going down the seeding until it’s all set, and then it’s two-leg fixtures, higher seed 2nd leg, all the way through the cup final. This also means teams at the top keep fighting until the end, not just the bottom, and gives us all something to yell about online and with friends (“I can’t believe Sigi picked Houston! We woulda rolled the Union this year!”, etc.).

Top 4 from each conference in groups of four. Home field goes by record, so top seed plays all games at home, next seed gets all but one at home, bottom seed gets none at home.

Either group winners play home and home, with higher seed having last game at home. Could do one more round of group winner vs runner up from other conference and then the final, but that would be a total of 8 games, which seems like too many.

I think this has multiple benefits, it takes away the crapshoot one game system.
It gives the better records an advantage.
If the group winner v runner up was implemented, then a year like this would allow 2 western teams a chance at the title.