Why no playoffs?

[Dave]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wH_ihfDnohI

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k89Q18oJ92Q

[Deuce]

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.

 

http://media.tumblr.com/tumblr_lltodrDLw41qcjzcm.gif

 

 

[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.

 

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.

It devalues it because it's infinitely more difficult to win the league over the course of 38 games than just finishing 8th and fluking the play offs. I mean the sole purpose of introducing it seems to be "so more teams have a chance" so of course the achievement is of less value

[Mike]

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. 

 

This doesn't happen as often as you would think. Teams dropping points to play the matchups could happen, but they've still got to win the games.

[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.

 

http://media.tumblr.com/tumblr_lltodrDLw41qcjzcm.gif

 

 

 

I don't agree with him, but he's surprisingly holding his own in what was essentially a kamikaze mission.

[Roke]

 

Playoffs are great for drama, a boon for sportswriters crafting narratives, and tremendous for mythmaking about clutch performances and rising to the occasion but they don't get the job done when deciding who the best team in a league.  You also devalue the "regular season" tremendously. 

 

Is it wrong to think that if the team from the reg season flames out in the playoffs, they were nowhere near the best? The best team is the one that's left standing when the playoffs are done.

 

Given the large role randomness plays in sports outcomes (North American sports specifically) I would say that yes it is wrong to think that way.  Even going with the intuition that a team recently in great form heading into the playoffs is going to carry that form is generally incorrect (http://www.arcticicehockey.com/2011/2/10/1978386/feel-the-playoff-momentum).

 

I also disagree that the reg season gets devalued, especially one as tight at the EPL season. It's not as solid as the NFL, but it's not as bad as the MLB. It's in that Goldilocks Zone. In your opinion, are the playoffs in the lower leagues a bad thing?

 

I'm Canadian and I generally don't follow the  lower leagues all that much.  I followed Newcastle in the Championship when we went down and there are a couple teams I check up on because friends support them but I basically have no emotional investment in the lower leagues. So keep that in mind.

 

I don't see the playoffs in the lower leagues as a good thing (but the drama they provide is admittedly fantastic).  What it comes down to is that when I watch sports where I'm not supporting a side I want to see greatness.  Great teams, great bits of skill, coaches making astute adjustments.  Playoffs aren't about celebrating greatness, they're about creating drama and masquerading that drama as greatness. 

 

Fundamentally the playoff system, like so much about sports in North America is about arbitrarily creating "parity".  Whether it's the leagues acting like a cartel and limiting new entrants,  having a draft for new talent (cheering for your team to lose to get a better draft pick when the playoffs are gone is the worst), the salary caps and floors, and restrictions on the free agency of players it's all about making everyone more equal than they would be.  My distaste for the playoffs is as much an ideological blind hate of that structure (and the frequent work stoppages that come about with it) as it is the playoffs themselves.  I want greatness, not parity.

[Hanshithispantz]

Not that I disagree with other leagues/sports taking the play-off approach, it definitely has it's positives, you just don't butcher the oldest and most watched league in the world with it

 

EDIT: Or oldest top league or whatever it is.

[Deuce]

Added time extra balls would be a fantastic addition tbh. Should also put up cages and have the players bludgeon each other in Royal Rumble madness. No cards issued, no fouls or stoppages until a goal is scored.

[Deuce]

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.

 

http://media.tumblr.com/tumblr_lltodrDLw41qcjzcm.gif

 

 

 

I don't agree with him, but he's surprisingly holding his own in what was essentially a kamikaze mission.

 

That wasn't my point.

[Deuce]

Not that I disagree with other leagues/sports taking the play-off approach, it definitely has it's positives, you just don't butcher the oldest and most watched league in the world with it

 

But the PL isn't the old First Division anymore. Like it or not, the PL has more in common with the NFL than it does the Championship, in terms of them being businesses first.

[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.

It devalues it because it's infinitely more difficult to win the league over the course of 38 games than just finishing 8th and fluking the play offs. I mean the sole purpose of introducing it seems to be "so more teams have a chance" so of course the achievement is of less value

 

It's harder because you've got a handful of teams spending more money than most teams combined. The title of your signature league shouldn't be the plaything of a handful of barely concerned billionaires. Opening the door for a Cinderella from time to time adds value to the sport. Are we talking title next year? Are we talking anything? We're just going to spin our wheels while we wait for the manager to get fired, then we'll just spin them some more while that same handful of teams poach our best players.

[Hanshithispantz]

Not that I disagree with other leagues/sports taking the play-off approach, it definitely has it's positives, you just don't butcher the oldest and most watched league in the world with it

 

But the PL isn't the old First Division anymore. Like it or not, the PL has more in common with the NFL than it does the Championship, in terms of them being businesses first.

It was re-branded in 92 but it still dates back to the late 1800s. It's part of the oldest football league system in the world as far as I know.

[Deuce]

I want greatness, not parity.

 

I think that's everyone's goal. But a dynasty in the NFL is so much more rewarding than one in the PL, simply because it's that much more difficult to sustain greatness in the NFL.

 

What the Patriots were able to accomplish under Brady and Belichick, as much as I hate them, is far more impressive than Chelsea or City buying their way to greatness and having no real impediments along the way.

[Deuce]

Not that I disagree with other leagues/sports taking the play-off approach, it definitely has it's positives, you just don't butcher the oldest and most watched league in the world with it

 

But the PL isn't the old First Division anymore. Like it or not, the PL has more in common with the NFL than it does the Championship, in terms of them being businesses first.

It was re-branded in 92 but it still dates back to the late 1800s. It's part of the oldest football league system in the world as far as I know.

 

Yeah I understand that, my point is that the league fundamentally changed when it became the Premier League. The entire business structure was altered.

[Superior Acuña]

Not that I disagree with other leagues/sports taking the play-off approach, it definitely has it's positives, you just don't butcher the oldest and most watched league in the world with it

 

But the PL isn't the old First Division anymore. Like it or not, the PL has more in common with the NFL than it does the Championship, in terms of them being businesses first.

It was re-branded in 92 but it still dates back to the late 1800s. It's part of the oldest football league system in the world as far as I know.

 

Yeah I understand that, my point is that the league fundamentally changed when it became the Premier League. The entire business structure was altered.

 

Yes, but thankfully the actual league, the football, remains fundamentally the same.

[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.

 

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.

It devalues it because it's infinitely more difficult to win the league over the course of 38 games than just finishing 8th and fluking the play offs. I mean the sole purpose of introducing it seems to be "so more teams have a chance" so of course the achievement is of less value

 

It's harder because you've got a handful of teams spending more money than most teams combined. The title of your signature league shouldn't be the plaything of a handful of barely concerned billionaires. Opening the door for a Cinderella from time to time adds value to the sport. Are we talking title next year? Are we talking anything? We're just going to spin our wheels while we wait for the manager to get fired, then we'll just spin them some more while that same handful of teams poach our best players.

I know what you're saying, and the only reason I would prefer to keep things as they are are just because it's "just the way it is" (if it was the other way around I would probably be campaigning to keep the play-offs). People hate change and that would be pretty huge fucking change

 

It goes without saying that there's a massive problem with money in the league, and hopefully it's sorted to some degree, I just wouldn't want it to be that way.

[Mike]

 

Playoffs are great for drama, a boon for sportswriters crafting narratives, and tremendous for mythmaking about clutch performances and rising to the occasion but they don't get the job done when deciding who the best team in a league.  You also devalue the "regular season" tremendously. 

 

Is it wrong to think that if the team from the reg season flames out in the playoffs, they were nowhere near the best? The best team is the one that's left standing when the playoffs are done.

 

Given the large role randomness plays in sports outcomes (North American sports specifically) I would say that yes it is wrong to think that way.  Even going with the intuition that a team recently in great form heading into the playoffs is going to carry that form is generally incorrect (http://www.arcticicehockey.com/2011/2/10/1978386/feel-the-playoff-momentum).

 

I also disagree that the reg season gets devalued, especially one as tight at the EPL season. It's not as solid as the NFL, but it's not as bad as the MLB. It's in that Goldilocks Zone. In your opinion, are the playoffs in the lower leagues a bad thing?

 

I'm Canadian and I generally don't follow the  lower leagues all that much.  I followed Newcastle in the Championship when we went down and there are a couple teams I check up on because friends support them but I basically have no emotional investment in the lower leagues. So keep that in mind.

 

I don't see the playoffs in the lower leagues as a good thing (but the drama they provide is admittedly fantastic).  What it comes down to is that when I watch sports where I'm not supporting a side I want to see greatness.  Great teams, great bits of skill, coaches making astute adjustments.  Playoffs aren't about celebrating greatness, they're about creating drama and masquerading that drama as greatness. 

 

Fundamentally the playoff system, like so much about sports in North America is about arbitrarily creating "parity".  Whether it's the leagues acting like a cartel and limiting new entrants,  having a draft for new talent (cheering for your team to lose to get a better draft pick when the playoffs are gone is the worst), the salary caps and floors, and restrictions on the free agency of players it's all about making everyone more equal than they would be.  My distaste for the playoffs is as much an ideological blind hate of that structure (and the frequent work stoppages that come about with it) as it is the playoffs themselves.  I want greatness, not parity.

 

I can't argue lower league playoffs with you because we smashed that league and didn't have to deal with it. So I guess we have to both claim ignorance on that.

 

You said you want to see greatness more than parity. I get that. Playoffs wouldn't really make the EPL a fair playing field, if anything there would be a Big 8, although those last few spots would always be up for grabs in some way or another. When you mention playoff randomness, I think you look at the result a bit more than you're looking at the reason. imo The reason that the playoffs seem so random (NHL in particular) is because every year  it seems as if someone new steps up and takes over. Do you want team greatness (more likely to be bought than randomly ignited in a Boston 2004 kind of way) or individual greatness (nearly impossible to predict who is going to go nuts when the playoffs start)?

 

What if this entire time, goddamn Bobby Zamora was like Mariano Rivera and we never knew?

 

When did drama and excitement become four letter words in sports, btw? What are in this for if we're not looking to be entertained? (Or bet money)

 

[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.

It devalues it because it's infinitely more difficult to win the league over the course of 38 games than just finishing 8th and fluking the play offs. I mean the sole purpose of introducing it seems to be "so more teams have a chance" so of course the achievement is of less value

 

It's harder because you've got a handful of teams spending more money than most teams combined. The title of your signature league shouldn't be the plaything of a handful of barely concerned billionaires. Opening the door for a Cinderella from time to time adds value to the sport. Are we talking title next year? Are we talking anything? We're just going to spin our wheels while we wait for the manager to get fired, then we'll just spin them some more while that same handful of teams poach our best players.

I know what you're saying, and the only reason I would prefer to keep things as they are are just because it's "just the way it is" (if it was the other way around I would probably be campaigning to keep the play-offs). People hate change and that would be pretty huge fucking change

 

It goes without saying that there's a massive problem with money in the league, and hopefully it's sorted to some degree, I just wouldn't want it to be that way.

 

I say playoffs are less of a change than a cap. A cap would be a massive, massive adjustment. Playoffs probably wouldn't completely rescue us from the same teams winning the trophy one after the other, but it would put upsets on the table.

 

Even if you capped, what would you cap? Salaries? Spending? Would you have a cap, or a floor? Floor and a cap? Is it just England or is it across Europe? You implement high pressure postseason play into your league and you'll see the standard of player produced begin to rise. Now every team in the top league is playing true high pressure matches just trying to get in to the damn playoffs, plus what happens when they get there and finally play the top four at full speed. Better games, better seasons, better players.

[BillClinton]

What if this entire time, goddamn Bobby Zamora was like Mariano Rivera and we never knew?

 

I can't believe a Yanks fan would ever write that sentence 

[Mike]

What if this entire time, goddamn Bobby Zamora was like Mariano Rivera and we never knew?

 

I can't believe a Yanks fan would ever write that sentence 

 

Mo almost got traded back in the day. Before Mo to Wetteland in the 95 and 96 playoffs, we didn't really know what he had. I thought the comparison was decent.

[Hanshithispantz]

It's 2 in the morning like so I'll let someone else take over this cap debate

 

I'm not sure what I would do though but I think there would be a fair way if it was looked into properly and the main motivation for it wasn't just "how much money can the league make/lose out of this". I suppose a transfer cap in some way would be sensible, wages is obviously harder to go about but a team wage cap rather than individual wage cap would be something I would look at if it was my job to

 

Hopefully the rest comes to me in a dream and I'll fucking blow you away with a load of mind boggling shit in the morning

[Mike]

It's 2 in the morning like so I'll let someone else take over this cap debate

 

I'm not sure what I would do though but I think there would be a fair way if it was looked into properly and the main motivation for it wasn't just "how much money can the league make/lose out of this". I suppose a transfer cap in some way would be sensible, wages is obviously harder to go about but a team wage cap rather than individual wage cap would be something I would look at if it was my job to

 

Hopefully the rest comes to me in a dream and I'll fucking blow you away with a load of mind boggling shit in the morning

 

I'm just happy you haven't posted a picture of me being a Scouse playoff wanker in a fridge.

 

Cap is a thorny issue. Lots of talk in that. They can't even figure out how to do it in baseball, and that's the most American shit ever.

[BillClinton]

Just don't let clubs spend more than 10 Million over what they sell. So if you develop and sell a gem like Andy Carroll ( ) you get rewarded, but teams who just stockpile people and never sell anyone for a high fee can't outspend the league.

[Mike]

Just don't let clubs spend more than 10 Million over what they sell. So if you develop and sell a gem like Andy Carroll ( ) you get rewarded, but teams who just stockpile people and never sell anyone for a high fee can't outspend the league.

 

Could you ever get fair value for a guy with that rule in place? I mean how would that work? Chelsea spent 50 on Torres, so that means they have to move 40m of player just to get there? Or would transfer values plummet, and players wouldn't move as much? You'd see a lot of guys Shola a team, right? Trades?

[Deuce]

Just don't let clubs spend more than 10 Million over what they sell. So if you develop and sell a gem like Andy Carroll ( ) you get rewarded, but teams who just stockpile people and never sell anyone for a high fee can't outspend the league.

 

Could you ever get fair value for a guy with that rule in place? I mean how would that work? Chelsea spent 50 on Torres, so that means they have to move 40m of player just to get there? Or would transfer values plummet, and players wouldn't move as much? You'd see a lot of guys Shola a team, right? Trades?

 

To be fair to these guys, we are trying to Americanize a very English game. Playoffs and a salary cap are all well and good, but I don't think you or I would know how to implement them without changing loads of other stuff too, producing an end product PL that looks and operates just like the NFL.