Guest ObiChrisKenobi Posted April 24, 2013 Share Posted April 24, 2013 I've presented the reasons it wouldn't work and none of you have replied to them outside of snide remarks and accusations of 'fishing'. Come on, man. You said it's always the same teams, we showed you it wasn't. But it is - Philly, Lakers, Celtic, Bulls, Lakers again and now possibly the Heat/OKC, they pretty much dominated the NBA finals. Sure you get your one off scabby team appearing and sometimes winning, but often due to a dynasty collapsing/rebuilding - they never had a prolonged period of success. Would it change the makeup of the Premier League? No. You'd still get the same teams now (Man U, Man City, Chelsea, etc) appearing in these Playoffs, and gaining extra financial award for doing so, thus creating an even bigger gap between the top and the bottom. Why? Because we don't have a salary cap, we don't have the draft system and we don't have Free Agency (as such) and more than likely never will. So in the end you'll get the same 6 teams every year with 2 random outsiders. It's pointless. and too American. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mike Posted April 24, 2013 Share Posted April 24, 2013 Pardew wouldn't want the extra games. Pardew making them defend a 1-0 lead for 70 minutes would outstanding in a postseason setting. The Shola for Gouffran sub, all of it would hurt so much more with elimination on the table. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
SEMTEX Posted April 24, 2013 Share Posted April 24, 2013 The last game of the season last year was far better than any playoff game ever. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest ethangl Posted April 24, 2013 Share Posted April 24, 2013 The last game of the season last year was far better than any playoff game ever. ...says the Atlanta Falcons fan. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
SEMTEX Posted April 24, 2013 Share Posted April 24, 2013 More irrelevance. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deuce Posted April 24, 2013 Share Posted April 24, 2013 The last game of the season last year was far better than any playoff game ever. Now now. Last game of the season was far better than the average playoff finish for sure. But how often does an ending like that occur in the PL? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
B-more Mag Posted April 24, 2013 Share Posted April 24, 2013 I don't even really like the idea of playoffs in the PL, but the NBA/American sports argument is just flat out wrong. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mike Posted April 24, 2013 Share Posted April 24, 2013 But it is - Philly, Lakers, Celtic, Bulls, Lakers again and now possibly the Heat/OKC, they pretty much dominated the NBA finals. Sure you get your one off scabby team appearing and sometimes winning, but often due to a dynasty collapsing/rebuilding - they never had a prolonged period of success. So Dallas Mavericks fans should feel like shit because they only won one NBA title? Would it change the makeup of the Premier League? No. You'd still get the same teams now (Man U, Man City, Chelsea, etc) appearing in these Playoffs, and gaining extra financial award for doing so, thus creating an even bigger gap between the top and the bottom. Why? Because we don't have a salary cap, we don't have the draft system and we don't have Free Agency (as such) and more than likely never will. Baseball has no cap, the draft means nothing for years unless you get a phenom, and your transfer system is better for building a team than anything we have over here. Every year, Boston, New York (x2) and the LA Dodgers lose to teams that make and spend less money than them in the playoffs. So in the end you'll get the same 6 teams every year with 2 random outsiders. It's pointless. Opening the door for two random teams, hell, two of those six that will never ever win isn't better than watching a month of meaningless Premier League football? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aphrodite Posted April 24, 2013 Share Posted April 24, 2013 If it isn't fridges with Mike, it's fucking playoffs. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest ObiChrisKenobi Posted April 24, 2013 Share Posted April 24, 2013 Yes, sorry, I missed out Spurs and Lakers trading Final wins, before which Bulls kept winning (outside of the period where Jordan 'retired' only to come back to for the Bulls to win it again), and then before that Lakers and Celtic trading it between themselves and then before that Celtic basically keeping the title 10 years straight. Aye. A few years you had a random team winning it, but ultimately it changed very little. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mike Posted April 24, 2013 Share Posted April 24, 2013 If it isn't fridges with Mike, it's fucking playoffs. I was answering a question, man. I was a bit smug about it, yeah. But all I did was answer. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest ObiChrisKenobi Posted April 24, 2013 Share Posted April 24, 2013 Of course not, but that short lived euphora is what the FA Cup/League Cup are for. And those two random teams a year are pointless as they'll very rarely, if ever, get to the final such is the state of the Premier League. It's pointless, but for some reason you're persisting with this suggestion. I honestly can only assume you're doing so because it's your nation's 'way' of doing stuff. Do you understand any of the reasons we're suggesting it wouldn't work or that it would be pointless? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mike Posted April 24, 2013 Share Posted April 24, 2013 Yes, sorry, I missed out Spurs and Lakers trading Final wins, before which Bulls kept winning (outside of the period where Jordan 'retired' only to come back to for the Bulls to win it again), and then before that Lakers and Celtic trading it between themselves and then before that Celtic basically keeping the title 10 years straight. Aye. A few years you had a random team winning it, but ultimately it changed very little. 8 NBA Champions since 1992. 4 Premier League champions. One of which was Blackburn, for some reason. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Super Duper Branko Strupar Posted April 24, 2013 Share Posted April 24, 2013 Yes, sorry, I missed out Spurs and Lakers trading Final wins, before which Bulls kept winning (outside of the period where Jordan 'retired' only to come back to for the Bulls to win it again), and then before that Lakers and Celtic trading it between themselves and then before that Celtic basically keeping the title 10 years straight. Aye. A few years you had a random team winning it, but ultimately it changed very little. 8 NBA Champions since 1992. 4 Premier League champions. One of which was Blackburn, for some reason. Erm, is it not 5? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
SEMTEX Posted April 24, 2013 Share Posted April 24, 2013 5? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Disco Posted April 24, 2013 Share Posted April 24, 2013 Yes, sorry, I missed out Spurs and Lakers trading Final wins, before which Bulls kept winning (outside of the period where Jordan 'retired' only to come back to for the Bulls to win it again), and then before that Lakers and Celtic trading it between themselves and then before that Celtic basically keeping the title 10 years straight. Aye. A few years you had a random team winning it, but ultimately it changed very little. 8 NBA Champions since 1992. 4 Premier League champions. One of which was Blackburn, for some reason. Erm, is it not 5? Facts schmacts. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest ObiChrisKenobi Posted April 24, 2013 Share Posted April 24, 2013 Yes, sorry, I missed out Spurs and Lakers trading Final wins, before which Bulls kept winning (outside of the period where Jordan 'retired' only to come back to for the Bulls to win it again), and then before that Lakers and Celtic trading it between themselves and then before that Celtic basically keeping the title 10 years straight. Aye. A few years you had a random team winning it, but ultimately it changed very little. 8 NBA Champions since 1992. 4 Premier League champions. One of which was Blackburn, for some reason. So in a system with 30 teams, separated into 2 groups of 15, only 8 teams have ever won it since 1992 (in comparison to the 5 teams that have won the Premier League)? Even though these teams have a better chance of winning the Title due to the playoffs? You're not selling it to me here. And of those who won these playoffs, how many of them weren't #1 or #2 seed within their division? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mike Posted April 24, 2013 Share Posted April 24, 2013 Yes, sorry, I missed out Spurs and Lakers trading Final wins, before which Bulls kept winning (outside of the period where Jordan 'retired' only to come back to for the Bulls to win it again), and then before that Lakers and Celtic trading it between themselves and then before that Celtic basically keeping the title 10 years straight. Aye. A few years you had a random team winning it, but ultimately it changed very little. 8 NBA Champions since 1992. 4 Premier League champions. One of which was Blackburn, for some reason. Erm, is it not 5? I was skimming. 5. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Super Duper Branko Strupar Posted April 24, 2013 Share Posted April 24, 2013 5? Manchester 1 & 2, posh London, c*** London reds, and Blackburn. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest ObiChrisKenobi Posted April 24, 2013 Share Posted April 24, 2013 You're doing yourself no favours here, Mike. Delete this thread and hope everyone forgets about it, otherwise SEMTEX is favourite to win Best Foreigner 2013. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
SEMTEX Posted April 24, 2013 Share Posted April 24, 2013 I was questioning mike. And driving. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mike Posted April 24, 2013 Share Posted April 24, 2013 Yes, sorry, I missed out Spurs and Lakers trading Final wins, before which Bulls kept winning (outside of the period where Jordan 'retired' only to come back to for the Bulls to win it again), and then before that Lakers and Celtic trading it between themselves and then before that Celtic basically keeping the title 10 years straight. Aye. A few years you had a random team winning it, but ultimately it changed very little. 8 NBA Champions since 1992. 4 Premier League champions. One of which was Blackburn, for some reason. So in a system with 30 teams, separated into 2 groups of 15, only 8 teams have ever won it? Even though they've got a better chance of winning it due to the playoffs? You're not selling it to me here. And of those who won these playoffs, how many of them weren't #1 or #2 seed within their division? Just looking at the last two years, Miami were #2 in the East and had the 4th best record overall when they won, and Dallas were tied for fourth best overall with LA. You have to go back to 2009 to find a season where the best overall team won the title. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mike Posted April 24, 2013 Share Posted April 24, 2013 You're doing yourself no favours here, Mike. Delete this thread and hope everyone forgets about it, otherwise SEMTEX is favourite to win Best Foreigner 2013. It's not that serious. It's a discussion, ffs. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest ethangl Posted April 24, 2013 Share Posted April 24, 2013 The athletes in American sports make virtually no money for the playoffs (compared to their salaries), while the owners/networks continue to rake it in -- and that's why we have playoffs. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest ObiChrisKenobi Posted April 24, 2013 Share Posted April 24, 2013 But you are serious, or at least it's how you've presented yourself. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now