Why no playoffs?

[Guest ItalianMagpie]

In your opinion, are the playoffs in the lower leagues a bad thing?

 

No, but that's because with 20 odd teams competing if you make only the first three spots count more than half the games of the tournament mean nothing.

But in EPL there are european competitions spots that have the same function, and only few teams, and pretty late in the season, have nothing to play for.

[Mike]

Yes, but that's because in US sports the values of the teams change completely and pretty often, and you can be the champion one year and finish rock bottom the next one. Many different winners, but they were most probably the best in the league when they won, no matter how crap they were the previous or the following season.

The system is different and that doesn't happen in football, and certainly not because there are no playoffs.

 

Then the sport culture is different, I have the impression that american fans don't care that much about the results of their team as long as the game is entertaining. They begin to care about the results too when the playoffs start.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but if I'm not in Europe such a perspective would never work.

 

Even if you added playoffs, you wouldn't see the tectonic shifts you get in our leagues. At least not every year. That's a number of things working in unison. Playoffs, drafts, salary caps, trades, etc.

 

I think you underestimate our devotion to our teams. We feel just as bad as you when our team loses, no matter when it is. Generally our sports have many, many more games than this sport, but that doesn't dull the disappointment of a loss (This does not apply to baseball. Baseball is a sport of trends and individual losses are genuinely meaningless. The Yankees lost yesterday and I genuinely did not care.) for the fans of the losing team.

 

The entertaining thing you said is exactly like what people say about this team. The whole would rather lose 4-3 than win 1-0. You recognize that as bullshit when it applies to Newcastle, and I'll tell you now it's completely wrong for US sports fans as well.

[Deuce]

I like the idea in isolation, but I just wouldn't swap total fairness for entertainment.

 

The entertainment would drop instead, imho.

38 games that count more or less as much as a league cup first round.

Boring as f*** for 9 months, tbh.

 

In other sports the best team wins in 99% of the cases, in football this percentage is already much lower and there's no need to add an extra factor to make it drop further.

 

That's not at all true though. There have been 5 different champions of the PL in 21 years. Sorry for keeping this U.S.-centric, but over that same time frame, 11 different teams have won the World Series, 13 teams have won the Super Bowl, 8 teams have won the NBA Championship, and 13 different teams have won the Stanley Cup (NHL). And very seldom do the teams with the best regular season records win the championship, as Mike will attest to (being the scumbag Yankees fan that he is).

 

 

Yes, but that's because in US sports the values of the teams change completely and pretty often, and you can be the champion one year and finish rock bottom the next one. Many different winners, but they were most probably the best in the league when they won, no matter how crap they were the previous or the following season.

The system is different and that doesn't happen in football, and certainly not because there are no playoffs.

 

Then the sport culture is different, I have the impression that american fans don't care that much about the results of their team as long as the game is entertaining. They begin to care about the results too when the playoffs start.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but if I'm not in Europe such a perspective would never work.

 

To be fair, there is a big difference between European football and American sports in that we don't have cup competitions outside the league or relegation systems. Which changes how football clubs approach the league.

 

I wouldn't say Americans don't care about results. Though some fans (myself) are resigned to their teams being complete crap year-in and year-out. Though due to a lack of relegation, I know the Buffalo Bills will be back again next season playing at the highest level (though maybe not in Buffalo).

[Superior Acuña]

Why are we that bothered about settling who's the best team in the league anyway? It's not as if they're only the best team in the league because they've essentially cheated with money. Being against the play offs because it doesnt rightly justify who's best suggests some kind of 'sporting morality' as opposed to excitement. Some kind of need to decipher who's truely the best because thats what its all about at the end of the day. Why bother? All of that left the game when money started to decide who's best.

 

Whether it's money or not, they are the best team. Surely the whole point of sport is to find out who's the best. You make leagues when you're a kid, you make them with pro evo, sunday leagues have them. We have sideshows of cups but the point of the season is find out who's best in all the league, not to be a preliminary round for an 8 team cup.

[Mike]

In your opinion, are the playoffs in the lower leagues a bad thing?

 

No, but that's because with 20 odd teams competing if you make only the first three spots count more than half the games of the tournament mean nothing.

But in EPL there are european competitions spots that have the same function, and only few teams, and pretty late in the season, have nothing to play for.

 

You've got the four CL spots, the one EL spot and the cup spots. None of that means anything in that season. Teams get those spots and then don't take the cup seriously (I don't think we took it seriously, but that's another argument that's probably going on in another thread.) There's no immediacy to those qualification spots. It's just another form of revenue. I can't see it as a comparison to a berth in a post-season that's starting up a few days after the 38th game.

[Mike]

I know the Buffalo Bills will be back again next season playing at the highest level.

 

We're not going to get anywhere if you're going to come in here and lie, ffs.

[Mike]

I know the Buffalo Bills will be.

 

I've edited the sentence to reflect as much as I can allow myself to agree with.

 

I'm still looking at that "will" though.

[Deuce]

Why are we that bothered about settling who's the best team in the league anyway? It's not as if they're only the best team in the league because they've essentially cheated with money. Being against the play offs because it doesnt rightly justify who's best suggests some kind of 'sporting morality' as opposed to excitement. Some kind of need to decipher who's truely the best because thats what its all about at the end of the day. Why bother? All of that left the game when money started to decide who's best.

 

Whether it's money or not, they are the best team. Surely the whole point of sport is to find out who's the best. You make leagues when you're a kid, you make them with pro evo, sunday leagues have them. We have sideshows of cups but the point of the season is find out who's best in all the league, not to be a preliminary round for an 8 team cup.

 

I honestly think this is a fundamental misunderstanding of how playoff systems work. I really think teams would fight all that much harder if they knew they could make the playoffs and have a chance at winning the title. You'd see better results right up until the last week of the season.

[timeEd32]

I admire your courage Mike. I also enjoy playoffs as much as the next person.

 

But as others have pointed out, your complaint is with financial inequality on the PL and the fact that the team you support hasn't won anything in ages. If the first wasn't true you would have no gripes. It's actually an incredible setup that makes games in August just as important as games in April/May.

 

And it's just flat out wrong to say this format doesn't always declare the best team as champion. That's precisely what it does do.

 

A playoff format, especially single-round knockout accomplishes the opposite of that. It's the definition of randomness. Sure, it works sometimes. The NCAA Tournament has producers back-to-back champions that were the best team for 5 months. But was Villanova better than Georgetown in '85 or Duke better than UNLV in '91? Not even close. Looking at another sport - do you think the Giants were better than the undefeated Pats in '07?

 

There's a reason why baseball sabermetrics and projection systems like PECOTA can be fairly accurate woth regular season records - the best teams rise to the to with a large bough sample size. They're about as accurate as a coin in the playoffs though.

 

What would you have thought if Newcastle had to play the 4th placed  team in a one game playoff during the season in the Championship? 102 points and put in one game. We'd still be down there

[Deuce]

I know the Buffalo Bills will be back again next season playing at the highest level.

 

We're not going to get anywhere if you're going to come in here and lie, ffs.

 

 

"Highest level" meaning NFL/highest tier, not quality of the performance.

[Hanshithispantz]

But it completely devalues the actual title itself. I mean West Brom could win the title this year in that format, which would be an absolute farce.

[Mike]

That's really well said. Courage is being so used to being called an asshole that you can just post any old shit.

 

If we got 102 points and then lost to a 4th place team because we couldn't do it when it really mattered, we'd belong down there.

 

My problem with this league is that I will never ever feel like the stacked teams face lower mid table team playing 100 percent. It rarely ever happens. There's no reason for it to happen. The lesser team is delighted for a draw, and the upper team is happy to wait for the opening to steal all 3. It's barely a game.

 

I want to see what happens when these top teams play an entire season of teams trying to beat them and then go into the playoffs against seven other teams that are really looking to win.

 

It's probably very American, but I don't want to hear "I'd settle for a draw" anymore.

[Hanshithispantz]

That's really well said.

Thanks Mike.

[Superior Acuña]

That's really well said. Courage is being so used to being called an asshole that you can just post any old s***.

 

If we got 102 points and then lost to a 4th place team because we couldn't do it when it really mattered, we'd belong down there.

 

My problem with this league is that I will never ever feel like the stacked teams face lower mid table team playing 100 percent. It rarely ever happens. There's no reason for it to happen. The lesser team is delighted for a draw, and the upper team is happy to wait for the opening to steal all 3. It's barely a game.

 

I want to see what happens when these top teams play an entire season of teams trying to beat them and then go into the playoffs against seven other teams that are really looking to win.

 

It's probably very American, but I don't want to hear "I'd settle for a draw" anymore.

 

Sorry if I've missed this in a previous post, but why would these teams play any different? They play that way to maximise their points to finish as high up as possible in the league. That's the same as what they'd do if they wanted to finish high enough for a play-off place/get an easier draw in the play-offs.

[Hanshithispantz]

I agree though, good post timeEd32

[Ameritoon]

This was fun to watch play out I think Mike makes some good points, but I'd be more willing to look into some sort of FFF and a different financial distribution before playoffs. As fun as they can be in American sports, I've always loved the importance of every Premier League game.

[Mike]

But it completely devalues the actual title itself. I mean West Brom could win the title this year in that format, which would be an absolute farce.

 

I don't get this. I feel like this is the wall between us here.

 

Implementing a system that allows every team a shot at the title doesn't devalue it. If West Brom win the title, they were the best team. If we're mad about that, beat West Brom.

 

It would ultimately come down to a head to head matchup, instead of hoping that your strength of schedule is comparable to that of your biggest rival for the title.

 

That's really well said.

Thanks Mike.

 

Get the fuck outta here.

[Dave]

myk stahp

[Ronaldo]

I do hope that a more level financial playing field is promoted. In the last 8 years 2 sides have basically bought 4 titles, and that just isn't right.

 

Playoffs, though? No chance. Ludicrous idea.

[B-more Mag]

Cheerleaders. Has anybody said cheerleaders yet? If not: cheerleaders.

 

Also, big foam we're #1 hands.

[Jack Flash]

West Brom are about 40 points off Man Utd though That's why it's insane.

[Superior Acuña]

But it completely devalues the actual title itself. I mean West Brom could win the title this year in that format, which would be an absolute farce.

 

I don't get this. I feel like this is the wall between us here.

 

Implementing a system that allows every team a shot at the title doesn't devalue it. If West Brom win the title, they were the best team. If we're mad about that, beat West Brom.

 

It would ultimately come down to a head to head matchup, instead of hoping that your strength of schedule is comparable to that of your biggest rival for the title.

 

That's really well said.

Thanks Mike.

 

Get the f*** outta here.

 

No they wouldn't be though, that's only determined by a league. That's what the cups are for, trophies where the best team doesn't (necessarily win).

 

If ManU get 30 more points by playing every team home and away, West Brom cannot then be the better team based on beating them in one match.

 

Could you address my above post too please ^. (Don't mean that in a cheeky way )

[Deuce]

But it completely devalues the actual title itself. I mean West Brom could win the title this year in that format, which would be an absolute farce.

 

Could, but how likely is that. Let's say the season finished now and the top 8 teams made the playoffs (though I think top 6 would be better).

 

How likely is it that West Brom beats ManU at Old Trafford, then the winner of Arsenal/Spurs at either Emirates or Goodison, then wins the championship played at either a neutral location or at the opposition venue (as West Brom wouldn't get to play at home at all)?

 

[ElDiablo]

You'd get teams letting others beat them and shit because they'd rather face this team in the play offs, if they'd already qualified for the play offs. brings in all that unnecessary politics. 

[Mike]

West Brom are about 40 points off Man Utd though That's why it's insane.

 

Well then they'll get beat. 8 doesn't beat 1 very often. But the upset is in play. That's better than now, imo.