Kaizero

Fuck is that sig, thomas? Bit early to campaign for that tbh, you'll fizzle out like Trump eventually will and see Jeb! (Mike) take the throne.

This thread has shades of NUFC54's horrible questions.

I'd personally take Mourinho over McClaren tbh. Dunno about you guys.

Will donate after the weekend

Norwich 1 v 2 Liverpool Crystal Palace 0 v 2 Spurs Leicester 3 v 1 Stoke Man Utd 2 v 0 Southampton Sunderland 1 v 2 Bournemouth Watford 0 v 2 Newcastle West Brom 1 v 1 Aston Villa West Ham 1 v 3 Man City Everton 2 v 0 Swansea Arsenal 2 v 0 Chelsea

Oh, don't get me wrong, I hate any "serial" play-offs. And I can't watch hockey or basketball (even though I want to) because there are so many games and they clearly don't matter at all. I quite liked oldtypes (I think it was him) draft proposal though. The way football is broken with regards to rich clubs fucking shit up is a global phenomenon though, and I don't think it will ever be fixed and we're more likely to see a global "super league" than economic restrictions.

Why not give an argument against play-offs rather than snide comments. Would be a lot more interesting. Too many reasons to go over, but first of all it's not as fair as having the team that wins the league being champions. It also makes league games less important and less interesting as they don't really matter that much. The league is also more interesting as it is, with it's many tiers of trying to reach CL, EL, avoiding relegation (EL not being a priority is UEFA's fault, not the PL) than it would be with a play off. Finally, play offs doesn't even solve the problem it sets out to do unless you start implementing a whole other bunch of rules, the rich teams would still win it most of the time. A better way to "fix" the PL is for UEFA to make the EL actually matter financially and give CL places to the FA cup. To be perfectly honest, I just really enjoy play-offs I'm aware they won't singlehandedly fix the issues within the sport. I think a compromise could be made though, with a play-off system in place for the 4th (and possibly 3rd) CL spot. Something to give the middle part of the league something more to play for in the last third of the season.

I'm not at all saying the champion has to be the best team. The playoffs are great in the sports that already have them. I'm just trying to get some to admit that the champion isn't necessarily the best team. That all depends on how you define "the best team" though. I have no issues with you defining the best team over a season as the one with the best seasonal record. For me, when in a play-off sport, the "best" team is the one who can deal the best with the play-offs (after having gotten there through their seasonal record) as that's how I define it. Could that mean you could get an undeserved winner? Sure. But they did it when it mattered.

Man City 34 - 0 - 4 | 90 - 15 | 102 Man Utd 33 - 2 - 3 | 90 - 15 | 102 Both teams won one of their matches against the other 1-0 at home. Who deserves to win the league the most? The team with the fewest losses or the team with the most wins?

Not one bit, imo. Seen too many top seeds get wiped off the floor in US sports to think that it does. I missed this. This is crazy talk. The Warriors and Spurs are without question the two best teams in the NBA this season. If they both lost in Round 1 of the playoffs you would take that to mean they weren't actually the best teams? Of course. We both know that isn't going to happen though, there's more chance of Shelvey actually being Messi tbh. Fine, the Spurs lose to the Thunder and the Warriors lose in the finals to the Cavs. That doesn't change who the two best teams were in the 2015-16 season. True, it doesn't. The Cavs would be the best team in the 2015-16 season. Wrong, the Cavs would be the champions and it would be well earned but that doesn't make them the best team. Were the Giants the best team when they beat the 18-0 Patriots? Please don't say yes. They won the game that mattered, and had gotten as far as the Patriots had. So yes. Yes, they are the champions and we can all laugh about 18-1 for the rest of time. Wonderful, but that Patriots team is one of the best teams in the history of the NFL and quite obviously the best team that season. You must be trolling me at this point. The "best" team will be the champions. The NFL plays through play-offs, so regardless of how good a seasonal record you have, if you can't perform when it counts you don't deserve to win it all. The Patriots had the best seasonal record that year, yes, I'm not arguing against that point. But given that there's play-offs, I do not think they deserved to win it all though since they couldn't pull it off. Which is why play-offs are more interesting. Why not give an argument against play-offs rather than snide comments. Would be a lot more interesting.

Not one bit, imo. Seen too many top seeds get wiped off the floor in US sports to think that it does. I missed this. This is crazy talk. The Warriors and Spurs are without question the two best teams in the NBA this season. If they both lost in Round 1 of the playoffs you would take that to mean they weren't actually the best teams? Of course. We both know that isn't going to happen though, there's more chance of Shelvey actually being Messi tbh. Fine, the Spurs lose to the Thunder and the Warriors lose in the finals to the Cavs. That doesn't change who the two best teams were in the 2015-16 season. True, it doesn't. The Cavs would be the best team in the 2015-16 season. Wrong, the Cavs would be the champions and it would be well earned but that doesn't make them the best team. Were the Giants the best team when they beat the 18-0 Patriots? Please don't say yes. They won the game that mattered, and had gotten as far as the Patriots had. So yes.

Not one bit, imo. Seen too many top seeds get wiped off the floor in US sports to think that it does. I missed this. This is crazy talk. The Warriors and Spurs are without question the two best teams in the NBA this season. If they both lost in Round 1 of the playoffs you would take that to mean they weren't actually the best teams? Of course. We both know that isn't going to happen though, there's more chance of Shelvey actually being Messi tbh. Fine, the Spurs lose to the Thunder and the Warriors lose in the finals to the Cavs. That doesn't change who the two best teams were in the 2015-16 season. True, it doesn't. The Cavs would be the best team in the 2015-16 season.

That's an absolutely horrible comparison, Wimbledon already is a play-off based fucking competition

Marathon analogy doesn't fly because the Kenyans running in the EPL are on fucking horses and no one cares. Teams choose when to care about the FA Cup. We choose to never care about it. It's nowhere near the same as a playoff, imo. This breaks up the entrenched top clubs. No it doesn't, you'll have Arsenal, Man City, Man Utd, Liverpool, Chelsea, Spurs in it every year and two others that will maybe once in 50 years win it outside that group unless they spend enough to catch up So encouraging billionaires to spend some cash on their plaything and compete is bad? Playoffs make the buy in for success significantly cheaper, and the more teams vying for playoff glory means more talent on each team. I feel like it's like this in every sport we have. God damn you Kaizero. God damn you to hell, bumping this shit. He knew what he was doing when he bumped it like You mean talking about how there was an actual vote and decision in the Norwegian FA about the proposed play-off system they wanted to implement in the Norwegian league?

To be perfectly honest, there's a lot that can be done to avoid the big hits. Kick off returns should be scrapped, for one.

On its current trajectory, MLS will be on par quality-wise with the PL in 20 years. Easy. Playoffs, mascots, hokey logos and team names n' all. And NFL's gonna have a permanent team in London within the next few years. We're coming. You taking the piss with the first paragraph? As someone who follows both the PL and MLS intently, nope. It's fact. You need loads of domestic players of decent quality to have a good domestic league. You'll also have to change the rules on only allowing teams to have 3 designated players. Also the draft system will have to move into academies for different teams rather than drafts which would be a big change in America I would imagine. That's without even getting into loads of other stuff like trying to coax ambitious European players in their prime into moving to America Ah yes, like the whopping 35% domestic talent in the Premier League, known for their fantastic escapades and world cup wins for their national team. You can't just buy hundreds of quality players in one season, you need a decent American player base. Let's say someone like Wijnaldum, gets approached to play for New York City, he's not going to go there if he looks at the rest of the squad and they're all shite. What you have to do is to get loads of good or at least decent American players there first and then foreign players might go. For example, I wasn't alive at the time but I've heard of guys like Ossie Ardiles going to Spurs back years ago when that wasn't the norm in England. Would be have stayed there if there wasn't English players like Glenn Hoddle there at the same time with similar quality? They're clearly improving though. I have no issues with thinking the US will be a powerhouse within football by 2035. The quality of the homegrown MLS players have increased massively in just the past five years.

On its current trajectory, MLS will be on par quality-wise with the PL in 20 years. Easy. Playoffs, mascots, hokey logos and team names n' all. And NFL's gonna have a permanent team in London within the next few years. We're coming. You taking the piss with the first paragraph? As someone who follows both the PL and MLS intently, nope. It's fact. You need loads of domestic players of decent quality to have a good domestic league. You'll also have to change the rules on only allowing teams to have 3 designated players. Also the draft system will have to move into academies for different teams rather than drafts which would be a big change in America I would imagine. That's without even getting into loads of other stuff like trying to coax ambitious European players in their prime into moving to America Ah yes, like the whopping 35% domestic talent in the Premier League, known for their fantastic escapades and world cup wins for their national team.

Yeah, hate it when teams go up by one goal. No chance of getting back into it. Down 2-1 with about two minutes to go in a sport that only has in or around an average of 3 goals per game is about as good of a finish as you can get in any sport NHL Baseball Both low scoring sports, both have incredible, tremendous playoffs. I always forget how fucking incredible hockey playoffs are. No sport in the world tops Hockey during the playoffs. Seven fucking games tho. No.

We were working simultaneously. I was wondering how someone had already voted right after I submitted it. You da man!

Wasn't even the Yanks pushing it along at first. We've got converts, man. Mole, fucking IP!

Fucking Mike changing "Mike is the man!" into something antagonistic, as always (his is better though)

Nah, playoffs are an equalizer. Any given team can win it all at the beginning of the season (except the Browns) and winning comes down to team cohesion and coaching rather than the team having the deepest pockets. Football is my favorite sport, more than American football, baseball, etc., but it's the worst-run, most corrupt, and least fair of any major world sport. The PL is a complete scam. I used to be like this, then NUFC broke me.

Yeah, hate it when teams go up by one goal. No chance of getting back into it.

Throwing a tuddy, Mike. :