Why no playoffs?

[Mike]

It's deadly speak, but would that be so bad?

 

I mean, the relatively level playing field in the NFL is one of ( "One of") the only reasons you or I even think about The Williams.

 

tl:dr version of what I mean in here: Giving more than four ultra rich teams a shot at the trophy could only be a good thing.

[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.

 

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?

 

 

I want great performances from a team standpoint. In the playoffs are usually either great players performing about as you would expect and just given the opportunity to do so (such is the case of Rivera) or lesser players going on an unsustainable hot streak that are usually percentage-driven (in hockey Fernando Pisani for the Edmonton Oilers in the 2005-06 playoffs comes to mind.  Also David Eckstein in the 2006 World series with his "grit" and .380 BABIP).

 

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)

 

Since I went down the analytics rabbit hole when following baseball and then even more so with hockey .  I've become much more interested in how and why outcomes happen rather than just watching them happen.

 

The thing is, I think soccer has more drama than the four major North American sports and it's because it's such a low-scoring game.  The flow of the sport with only having a complete stoppage at half-time (Rather than for regular commercial breaks) also ups the drama and tension for me in the match.  Every goal in a given match is so important and there's not much interrupting the flow of the match.  There are also a lot more important games in non-north American soccer throughout the season than the North American sports because you have two or three Cup competitions, plus the league, plus fighting to avoid relegation.

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Mike]

imo, Giving West Brom a 1 goal lead vs Man U at 50 minutes in the first round of a playoffs of one and dones is as dramatic as anything we're going to get right now. Guaranteed either another goal or an immortal upset and a fuuuuurious Fergie spitting on refs. Pure spectacle and entertainment.

[Guest ItalianMagpie]

If West Brom win the title, they were the best team.

Maybe just in May though.

Or maybe they got incredibly lucky in the first leg, then helped by disgraceful refereeing in the second leg. Maybe they had less injuries than all the others.

A bit too many "maybes" to claim they were the best team.

Which they clearly aren't, by the way

[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.

 

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?

 

Maybe that's not perfect but there has gotta be something along those lines. The Financial Fair Play thing seems like it's just being laughed at by all the rich clubs.

[Deuce]

I mean, I think the NFL is the best league from top to bottom in the world. Quality of play, entertainment value, etc. A tad expensive, but there are only 16 regular season games a year. It's a real testament that a league and sport that virtually no one cares about outside the U.S. has become the most lucrative sporting venture in the world. Even the Bills are one of the most valuable sports organizations worldwide.

 

But I like the exclusivity of American-style sports. Which is why I think MLS needs to be more like the NFL/MLB/NHL than the PL.

 

And I honestly wouldn't like to see the PL become more Americanized, even though I think there's a lot the league can learn from the American model. European football has its quirks and I love the game because of them.

[Mike]

If West Brom win the title, they were the best team.

Maybe just in May though.

Or maybe they got incredibly lucky in the first leg, then helped by disgraceful refereeing in the second leg. Maybe they had less injuries than all the others.

A bit too many "maybes" to claim they were the best team.

Which they clearly aren't, by the way

 

In my mind there wouldn't be legs. One and done. One game. Multiple games favor the big teams and we're right back where we started.

 

Injuries are injuries, imo. When can they be used as an excuse and when are they not allowed to be mentioned? How many more points would we have if we had our first eleven consistently available to us? If we were a better team, we'd play hard despite those injuries.

 

I don't know why I keep mentioning West Brom, tbh.

[Decky]

7 pages. I gotta admit, I saw this locked before 7 posts. You've done well here Mike.

[Kaizero]

Why no playoffs?

 

BECAUSE THEY'RE GAY

[Taylor Swift]

No.

[Mole_Toonfan]

I do know one thing though..... Even if there were to bring a play offs idea in we still wouldn't win the thing

[Guest ItalianMagpie]

If West Brom win the title, they were the best team.

Maybe just in May though.

Or maybe they got incredibly lucky in the first leg, then helped by disgraceful refereeing in the second leg. Maybe they had less injuries than all the others.

A bit too many "maybes" to claim they were the best team.

Which they clearly aren't, by the way

 

In my mind there wouldn't be legs. One and done. One game. Multiple games favor the big teams and we're right back where we started.

 

Injuries are injuries, imo. When can they be used as an excuse and when are they not allowed to be mentioned? How many more points would we have if we had our first eleven consistently available to us? If we were a better team, we'd play hard despite those injuries.

 

I don't know why I keep mentioning West Brom, tbh.

 

One game? You don't even settle for random then, you just want a lottery

In one game even Barnsley could beat Man Utd, you could hardly argue that it would be the best team.

 

At this point I'd take the first 8 teams qualified for the playoffs and just draw the winner from the lot, with a worldwide live coverage of the event. That's as entertaining as it gets

[Deuce]

I do know one thing though..... Even if there were to bring a play offs idea in we still wouldn't win the thing

 

True story.

[Mike]

If West Brom win the title, they were the best team.

Maybe just in May though.

Or maybe they got incredibly lucky in the first leg, then helped by disgraceful refereeing in the second leg. Maybe they had less injuries than all the others.

A bit too many "maybes" to claim they were the best team.

Which they clearly aren't, by the way

 

In my mind there wouldn't be legs. One and done. One game. Multiple games favor the big teams and we're right back where we started.

 

Injuries are injuries, imo. When can they be used as an excuse and when are they not allowed to be mentioned? How many more points would we have if we had our first eleven consistently available to us? If we were a better team, we'd play hard despite those injuries.

 

I don't know why I keep mentioning West Brom, tbh.

 

One game? You don't even settle for random then, you just want a lottery

In one game even Barnsley could beat Man Utd, you could hardly argue that it would be the best team.

 

I don't see what something that's always called the magic of the FA cup would be reprehensible in the league.

 

I do know one thing though..... Even if there were to bring a play offs idea in we still wouldn't win the thing

 

True story.

 

This isn't me trying to see a NUFC title season. I'm not crazy.

[Kanji]

I do know one thing though..... Even if there were to bring a play offs idea in we still wouldn't win the thing

 

True story.

 

So much it isn't even funny. So I'll laugh anyway

 

Saw thread title, saw it was Mike who started; already started laughing before opening.

[Deuce]

I do know one thing though..... Even if there were to bring a play offs idea in we still wouldn't win the thing

 

True story.

 

So much it isn't even funny. So I'll laugh anyway

 

Saw thread title, saw it was Mike who started; already started laughing before opening.

 

A lot more tame than I anticipated. Thought the banhammer was going to fall swiftly.

[Mike]

I feel like I should be insulted here.

[Deuce]

I feel like I should be insulted here.

 

You were pillaged ruthlessly for a harmless, off-hand comment about fridges, I thought for sure a thread about corrupting the purity of their game would've gotten you sent to the dungeons.

[Mike]

I feel like I should be insulted here.

 

You were pillaged ruthlessly for a harmless, off-hand comment about fridges, I thought for sure a thread about corrupting the purity of their game would've gotten you sent to the dungeons.

 

Now I'm nervous.

[Guest neesy111]

Fuck off

[Tachikoma]

I'm all for playoffs, if only because we have something to gain from it. Fuck the top 4.

[Froggy]

I'm all for playoffs, if only because we have something to gain from it. Fuck the top 4.

 

Top 8 mate, not top 16.

 

[Miercoles]

Nah, football leagues have the best possible system. Total points champion, promotion/relegation, and tournaments on the side.

 

However, it is pretty terrible to have the championship regularly determined with 6 weeks left in the season. I'd rather see parity measures than a format change though.

[Shak]

I'd be in favour actually.

 

Top six though, two teams get a bye.

 

Do the same for the last relegation spot too, maybe even the last two.

 

Feel I may have jumped on a sinking ship here like, but it's what I genuinely think.

[MKSC]

I can't believe it, but I'm going to side with Mike on this. With a little tweaking of the parameters I think it could work. They do the same in both codes of Rugby and although their was a moot of uproar initially now everyone understands it, accepts it and enjoy it. The Super League Grand Final and the Premiership Final are the biggest days in both sport over here, and both sports have their traditional cup competitions running alongside.

 

I doubt it would serve us better, and the top teams would still win more often than not. But I can't see how it would damage the game at all.