Why no playoffs?

[Mike]

Playoffs would be pretty pointless without a draft and a draft is basically impossible in football

 

Baseball has a draft, but the players are generally absolutely years away from being serviceable. It's not like bad teams make the leap on the back of some superstar kid year after year.  If you're out of the playoffs, you aim to make the playoffs. It gives teams on the outside looking in something realistic to aim for.

 

 

Funny thing about all this is despite the fact i agree with Mike we probably wouldn't even qualify.

 

Nothing will save Newcastle. I accept that.

[54]

So how exactly would this work, like the NFL only has a select amount of teams, there are 7000 teams in the top 10 parts of the english football Pyramid, so do them clubs just get told to fuck off for the elite of the Premier league, with no hope of promotion?

[triggs]

So how exactly would this work, like the NFL only has a select amount of teams, there are 7000 teams in the top 10 parts of the english football Pyramid, so do them clubs just get told to fuck off for the elite of the Premier league, with no hope of promotion?

Presume relegation would stay the same

[Mike]

So how exactly would this work, like the NFL only has a select amount of teams, there are 7000 teams in the top 10 parts of the english football Pyramid, so do them clubs just get told to fuck off for the elite of the Premier league, with no hope of promotion?

 

No, of course not, ffs.

 

You scrap the League Cup. No one will miss it because now everyone has something bigger to play for.

 

You move League fixtures into what used to be LC fixtures. This opens up some space at the end of the season.

 

The top 8 teams qualify for the playoffs in an NBA style tree (1v8, 2v7, etc) single elimination match.

 

You play the games and crown a champ. For the sake of the following season cup comps, you reorder the table to reflect the events of the postseason. For example, if the 6th seeded team wins the title, they're in first place in the final standings and so on and so forth.

 

Essentially, the teams that make the semi finals would be the top 4 next year, with all the benefits that come with that.

 

You'd only add three fixtures to the season.

[timeEd32]

There's a lot to like about it if you ignore the 100+ years of history and the fact it's a solution to a problem that could be solved in other (off field) ways that maintain the current format.

 

But while we're creating formats, I think I'd prefer a six team playoff with the top two getting a 'bye' to better reward the full season performance.

 

Also, if we're getting rid of the LC then let's add more fixtures (because really that just equals more money and that would be the reason this would happen - nothing to do with improving competition) ... each round should be two legs with both legs at the higher seed (no away goals). Limits the randomness a bit.

[Mike]

The divide between have and have not persists with two leg matches. There's nothing random about you showing up and getting beat.

 

I'm on the fence re: a bye. I don't know how I feel about them in sports with no cap.

[Hughesy]

Only play off I'd like to bring in is one between the winners of the FA Cup and the team that is fourth in the league to see who qualifies for the CL.  It will force teams to take the FA Cup more seriously, possibly break up the domination of the CL by the normal teams and they can even take that as the stupid 39th game and hold it in China or something.

[Guest]

Nah.

[thomas]

I'm not anti-mike or a yank turncoat but I don't think I'm fully sold on it. Probably 60-40 in favor of keeping it the way it is.

 

For one I like the idea that you win the league by being the best over the long haul. I wouldn't take the top 8 finishers of a marathon then put them through sprint playoffs to decide a real winner.

 

On the other hand I do like knockout competitions and I think they add more excitement overall. And this would have a chance at breaking up the top 4.

 

But you already have the FA cup for knockout purposes. Just need a way of breaking up the entrenched top clubs. 

 

I can see pluses and minuses but I'd leave it as is tbh.

[timeEd32]

I don't know why random is necessarily seen as a good thing. The NBA and NHL playoffs are fun, but the regular seasons are largely meaningless.

 

What you really want is revenue sharing or a salary cap. The huge influx of TV money to the PL clubs is leveling the playing field a bit and you're seeing a really interesting season. Also, in all of the American sports the only thing that matters is who wins the championship (and who will get the #1 pick). In the Premier League, you have the title race, the top 4 race, the other European places, relegation (which is often times just as interesting as anything else), plus the cups.

 

 

[Guest]

You'd get the top clubs winding down by February knowing they could take it easy. Stupid idea.

[Mike]

I'm not anti-mike or a yank turncoat but I don't think I'm fully sold on it. Probably 60-40 in favor of keeping it the way it is.

 

For one I like the idea that you win the league by being the best over the long haul. I wouldn't take the top 8 finishers of a marathon then put them through sprint playoffs to decide a real winner.

 

On the other hand I do like knockout competitions and I think they add more excitement overall. And this would have a chance at breaking up the top 4.

 

But you already have the FA cup for knockout purposes. Just need a way of breaking up the entrenched top clubs. 

 

I can see pluses and minuses but I'd leave it as is tbh.

 

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.

[Parky]

Yanks not happy with fucking up half the threads in GC now have set up camp in the football forum a sport they are clueless about.  

[Mike]

I don't know why random is necessarily seen as a good thing. The NBA and NHL playoffs are fun, but the regular seasons are largely meaningless.

 

What you really want is revenue sharing or a salary cap. The huge influx of TV money to the PL clubs is leveling the playing field a bit and you're seeing a really interesting season. Also, in all of the American sports the only thing that matters is who wins the championship (and who will get the #1 pick). In the Premier League, you have the title race, the top 4 race, the other European places, relegation (which is often times just as interesting as anything else), plus the cups.

 

 

 

Revenue sharing maybe, although Mike Ashley doesn't even want to share revenue with fucking NUFC. They'll never implement a cap, imo.

[triggs]

I'm not anti-mike or a yank turncoat but I don't think I'm fully sold on it. Probably 60-40 in favor of keeping it the way it is.

 

For one I like the idea that you win the league by being the best over the long haul. I wouldn't take the top 8 finishers of a marathon then put them through sprint playoffs to decide a real winner.

 

On the other hand I do like knockout competitions and I think they add more excitement overall. And this would have a chance at breaking up the top 4.

 

But you already have the FA cup for knockout purposes. Just need a way of breaking up the entrenched top clubs. 

 

I can see pluses and minuses but I'd leave it as is tbh.

 

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

[timeEd32]

I don't know why random is necessarily seen as a good thing. The NBA and NHL playoffs are fun, but the regular seasons are largely meaningless.

 

What you really want is revenue sharing or a salary cap. The huge influx of TV money to the PL clubs is leveling the playing field a bit and you're seeing a really interesting season. Also, in all of the American sports the only thing that matters is who wins the championship (and who will get the #1 pick). In the Premier League, you have the title race, the top 4 race, the other European places, relegation (which is often times just as interesting as anything else), plus the cups.

 

 

 

Revenue sharing maybe, although Mike Ashley doesn't even want to share revenue with f***ing NUFC. They'll never implement a cap, imo.

 

Agreed, nor should they. It'd be the quickest way to not be the most high profile league in the world anymore. Some would argue revenue sharing already exists since the TV contract is paid out evenly (with rewards for performance) unlike La Liga. The additional CL money is becoming less important, although the allure of the competition itself is a major recruiting tool.

 

Face it, you're trying to mess with something that is pretty fucking great. You're just sick of supporting shitty teams in every sport.

[Mike]

You'd get the top clubs winding down by February knowing they could take it easy. Stupid idea.

 

If every team is taking the field week in and week out fully aware that it's realistically possible for them to actually win something, do you think the top teams would have as easy a time of things?

 

Does anyone honestly think the top clubs play 38 competitive matches per year? You've got managers saying they'd take a draw days before the match and we're supposed to think the current system tells us in any way which team is best?

[Mike]

I don't know why random is necessarily seen as a good thing. The NBA and NHL playoffs are fun, but the regular seasons are largely meaningless.

 

What you really want is revenue sharing or a salary cap. The huge influx of TV money to the PL clubs is leveling the playing field a bit and you're seeing a really interesting season. Also, in all of the American sports the only thing that matters is who wins the championship (and who will get the #1 pick). In the Premier League, you have the title race, the top 4 race, the other European places, relegation (which is often times just as interesting as anything else), plus the cups.

 

 

 

Revenue sharing maybe, although Mike Ashley doesn't even want to share revenue with f***ing NUFC. They'll never implement a cap, imo.

 

Agreed, nor should they. It'd be the quickest way to not be the most high profile league in the world anymore. Some would argue revenue sharing already exists since the TV contract is paid out evenly (with rewards for performance) unlike La Liga. The additional CL money is becoming less important, although the allure of the competition itself is a major recruiting tool.

 

Face it, you're trying to mess with something that is pretty fucking great. You're just sick of supporting shitty teams in every sport.

 

It's not great at all, though.

 

Again, playoffs have been the source of every bit of my sports misery. If someone wanted to remove playoffs from Baseball tomorrow I'd be 100 percent in because the Yankees print money and it would be like the fucking 20's again. But playoffs are the reason the Yankees are fucking shit and if I step away from how bemused it makes me it's outstanding that the fucking Royals are the champs.

[triggs]

You'd get the top clubs winding down by February knowing they could take it easy. Stupid idea.

 

If every team is taking the field week in and week out fully aware that it's realistically possible for them to actually win something, do you think the top teams would have as easy a time of things?

 

Does anyone honestly think the top clubs play 38 competitive matches per year? You've got managers saying they'd take a draw days before the match and we're supposed to think the current system tells us in any way which team is best?

That's exactly what it does

[timeEd32]

You'd get the top clubs winding down by February knowing they could take it easy. Stupid idea.

 

If every team is taking the field week in and week out fully aware that it's realistically possible for them to actually win something, do you think the top teams would have as easy a time of things?

 

Does anyone honestly think the top clubs play 38 competitive matches per year? You've got managers saying they'd take a draw days before the match and we're supposed to think the current system tells us in any way which team is best?

 

It tells us which team is best better than any other format I can think of and the threat of relegation ensures that teams try to win far more than bad teams in US sports.

[WarrenBartonCentrePartin]

Finishing top after a 38-game season doesn't give a clear indication of who the best team is?!

[Mike]

I'm not anti-mike or a yank turncoat but I don't think I'm fully sold on it. Probably 60-40 in favor of keeping it the way it is.

 

For one I like the idea that you win the league by being the best over the long haul. I wouldn't take the top 8 finishers of a marathon then put them through sprint playoffs to decide a real winner.

 

On the other hand I do like knockout competitions and I think they add more excitement overall. And this would have a chance at breaking up the top 4.

 

But you already have the FA cup for knockout purposes. Just need a way of breaking up the entrenched top clubs. 

 

I can see pluses and minuses but I'd leave it as is tbh.

 

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.

[Deuce]

Finishing top after a 38-game season doesn't give a clear indication of who the best team is?!

 

I think it gives a better indication of who the richest teams are.

[timeEd32]

I don't know why random is necessarily seen as a good thing. The NBA and NHL playoffs are fun, but the regular seasons are largely meaningless.

 

What you really want is revenue sharing or a salary cap. The huge influx of TV money to the PL clubs is leveling the playing field a bit and you're seeing a really interesting season. Also, in all of the American sports the only thing that matters is who wins the championship (and who will get the #1 pick). In the Premier League, you have the title race, the top 4 race, the other European places, relegation (which is often times just as interesting as anything else), plus the cups.

 

 

 

Revenue sharing maybe, although Mike Ashley doesn't even want to share revenue with f***ing NUFC. They'll never implement a cap, imo.

 

Agreed, nor should they. It'd be the quickest way to not be the most high profile league in the world anymore. Some would argue revenue sharing already exists since the TV contract is paid out evenly (with rewards for performance) unlike La Liga. The additional CL money is becoming less important, although the allure of the competition itself is a major recruiting tool.

 

Face it, you're trying to mess with something that is pretty f***ing great. You're just sick of supporting shitty teams in every sport.

 

It's not great at all, though.

 

Again, playoffs have been the source of every bit of my sports misery. If someone wanted to remove playoffs from Baseball tomorrow I'd be 100 percent in because the Yankees print money and it would be like the f***ing 20's again. But playoffs are the reason the Yankees are f***ing s*** and if I step away from how bemused it makes me it's outstanding that the f***ing Royals are the champs.

 

The Royals had the best record in American League. The three teams with a better record were all in the NL and all had their seasons ruined in a 2 week stretch by each other and a freak performance by an above average player (total randomness). The Royals ended up playing none of them. How is that better?

[Mike]

Finishing top after a 38-game season doesn't give a clear indication of who the best team is?!

 

Not one bit, imo. Seen too many top seeds get wiped off the floor in US sports to think that it does.