8 comments

1. miguel Says:
   Posted on October 27, 2009 at 11:35 am

2. nothing about montreal in mls !!!!

   (Report comment)

3. c_pdx Says:
   Posted on October 27, 2009 at 3:41 pm

4. Because Montreal has not made a bid for MLS. Portland, Philly, and Vancouver are the next round of expansion. Montreal is just a dream as if now, would love to see them round out a 20 team league though…

   (Report comment)

5. Nick Says:
   Posted on October 27, 2009 at 6:25 pm

6. Like Eric, I was convinced by Garber’s defense of the conference system. The US is just too spread out for a single table right now.

   But, I still think we need to go to the international schedule. We need roofs in the cold regions.

   (Report comment)

7. Parity Pete Says:
   Posted on October 27, 2009 at 9:26 pm

8. I would agree with Garber’s defense of the conference system if all the teams didn’t play each other the same amount of times in 2010. Right now it serves no purpose but to complicate the playoff calculations.

   Scrap the conferences until you intend to use them. They didn’t have divisions in MLB until 1969 and only added the central division in ‘93. A spot check showed the Red Sox played each team in their conference 9 times.

   (Report comment)

9. BellusLudas Says:
   Posted on October 28, 2009 at 12:15 pm

10. Garber is so sharp….really impressed. He has taken time to learn the game, but not be sucked into the ASA (American Soccer Apologists).

    The ROTW (Rest of the World) can learn a lot from us. Unless we are lagging behind on Nat’s level because of league structure NO NEED to change.

    Our league should be about us…not “them”

    (Report comment)

11. Patrick In San Jose Says:
    Posted on October 28, 2009 at 1:16 pm

12. I have respect for Garber as he’s done a decent job. I too was convinced that for now, the 2 divisions are beneficial for MLS till I thought about it further…

    If I were the commish I would go to one table, have every team play each other home and away, and at the end of the season who ever is on top of the table wins the League Trophy and is automatically in the MLS Cup Final. The clubs finishing 2nd through 9th fight it out to meet the League winners in MLS Cup, (which could be held at the League winner’s stadium as further incentive to win the League).

    I am no apologist, but the experiments with the world game by both the NASL and MLS are a mystery, but Mr. Garber is on the right track, (please get rid of the All-Star Game). We got it right with 3 substitutes and player’s names on their backs, just like the Germans with their winter break and the Latin American leagues with their split seasons. For the US and Canada I think a single table adds obvious value that’s been proven all over the world for over 100 years. Sure, there will be season finales just like when my Hammers beat Man U at Old Trafford a few years ago but Man U were awarded the League trophy anyway, but those hiccups are few and far between with the benefits far out weighing them.

    (Report comment)

13. Jeff in South Bend Says:
    Posted on October 28, 2009 at 6:28 pm

14. I found Garber’s answer confusing. We could have a single table without using that to declare the MLS champions. Just have single table with eight top clubs going to playoffs. Right now it’s just silly to have a situation where a RSL could be Eastern Conference Champions, just like New York won the West last year. If the next best four regardless of conference are getting into the playoffs, why have conferences? Yes, we’re a big country. But the Galaxy will still play in New England and vice versa every season WITH the conferences, so why would it be so difficult to do in a single table format with playoffs?

    (Report comment)

15. Mattie Two Fingers Says:
    Posted on October 30, 2009 at 9:25 am

16. Thank you, Jeff in South Bend.

    Did anyone grill Garber for the decision to play the final on plastic?

    (Report comment)