Optimistic Nut Posted January 21, 2016 Share Posted January 21, 2016 Can't wait for Wimbledon to start this. You play until the final 2 to see who's the best, then let in all of the quarter-finalists in to a set of Play-Offs to decide the 'real' Wimbledon Champion. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mike Posted January 21, 2016 Share Posted January 21, 2016 Listen, again. You want to eliminate the MLB playoffs, I'm all in. Let's do it! http://i.imgur.com/drY3k95.jpg We haven't won 90 games in three years and refuse to spend money for another year or two. You're 12 years late on that. Once we get the trash off the books we'll be laughing. Dynasty incoming. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
timeEd32 Posted January 21, 2016 Share Posted January 21, 2016 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. I missed this. This is crazy talk. The Warriors and Spurs are without question the two best teams in the NBA this season. If they both lost in Round 1 of the playoffs you would take that to mean they weren't actually the best teams? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deuce Posted January 21, 2016 Share Posted January 21, 2016 reminder that the cool and good solution to all of the worlds problems, the playoff system, is being backed by a man whose team has appeared in no less than 40 world series, winning 27 of them, and he wants to tell you it will bring competition and break up entrenched clubs. I bet if you pull off mike's mask scooby-doo style you'll find donald trump underneath. http://i.imgur.com/0gLtaiv.png 27 titles. Only seven in the....46 years since playoffs have existed. Two of those against the Braves, mind. You realise that in the NFL, the Seahawks have made it to the last two Superbowls (admittedly they didn't this season), and the Bronco's made it two seasons ago and have a chance again this year, the New England Patriots have made it the two of the last 4 and again have a chance of making it again this season, meaning the same team would have been in 3 out of 5 finals, both have one game (against each other) and they will make it to the Superbowl. How is it that this makes it unpredictable? They're successful because they're extraordinarily well-scouted and well-coached teams. Panthers were 7-8-1 last season, 15-1 and in the NFC Championship game this season. Chiefs lost their top RB and biggest weapon early in the season, and despite not having any outstanding players, managed to win 11 straight including the first playoff game. Minnesota was 7-9 last season, Washington 4-12. Seahawks were an average team before hiring their current HC, Broncos had 6 seasons of average results before getting one of the greatest QBs in NFL history. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Optimistic Nut Posted January 21, 2016 Share Posted January 21, 2016 This is hideous. Just link it to the The US & Their Insane Elections/Police/Politicians/PlayOffs thread and get it out of the Football Forum. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
triggs Posted January 21, 2016 Share Posted January 21, 2016 reminder that the cool and good solution to all of the worlds problems, the playoff system, is being backed by a man whose team has appeared in no less than 40 world series, winning 27 of them, and he wants to tell you it will bring competition and break up entrenched clubs. I bet if you pull off mike's mask scooby-doo style you'll find donald trump underneath. http://i.imgur.com/0gLtaiv.png 27 titles. Only seven in the....46 years since playoffs have existed. Two of those against the Braves, mind. You realise that in the NFL, the Seahawks have made it to the last two Superbowls (admittedly they didn't this season), and the Bronco's made it two seasons ago and have a chance again this year, the New England Patriots have made it the two of the last 4 and again have a chance of making it again this season, meaning the same team would have been in 3 out of 5 finals, both have one game (against each other) and they will make it to the Superbowl. How is it that this makes it unpredictable? They're successful because they're extraordinarily well-scouted and well-coached teams. Panthers were 7-8-1 last season, 15-1 and in the NFC Championship game this season. Chiefs lost their top RB and biggest weapon early in the season, and despite not having any outstanding players, managed to win 11 straight including the first playoff game. Minnesota was 7-9 last season, Washington 4-12. Seahawks were an average team before hiring their current HC, Broncos had 6 seasons of average results before getting one of the greatest QBs in NFL history. Extraordinary well scouted and well coached teams can also do well in football in Europe as I said with Atletico, Dortmund and Juventus winning leagues and getting to Champions League finals Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
thomas Posted January 21, 2016 Share Posted January 21, 2016 Is some of this optics? The league is just the league - there's no n/e/s/w divisions within an AFC and NFC, or, more directly analogous to football, no groups of X in a power of 2. So the idea that the winner is anything but the winner seems odd. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kaizero Posted January 21, 2016 Share Posted January 21, 2016 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. He knew what he was doing when he bumped it like You mean talking about how there was an actual vote and decision in the Norwegian FA about the proposed play-off system they wanted to implement in the Norwegian league? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mike Posted January 21, 2016 Share Posted January 21, 2016 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. I missed this. This is crazy talk. The Warriors and Spurs are without question the two best teams in the NBA this season. If they both lost in Round 1 of the playoffs you would take that to mean they weren't actually the best teams? Of course. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
timeEd32 Posted January 21, 2016 Share Posted January 21, 2016 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. I missed this. This is crazy talk. The Warriors and Spurs are without question the two best teams in the NBA this season. If they both lost in Round 1 of the playoffs you would take that to mean they weren't actually the best teams? Of course. That's ridiculous. I think I'm done here. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kaizero Posted January 21, 2016 Share Posted January 21, 2016 Can't wait for Wimbledon to start this. You play until the final 2 to see who's the best, then let in all of the quarter-finalists in to a set of Play-Offs to decide the 'real' Wimbledon Champion. That's an absolutely horrible comparison, Wimbledon already is a play-off based fucking competition Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
thomas Posted January 21, 2016 Share Posted January 21, 2016 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. I missed this. This is crazy talk. The Warriors and Spurs are without question the two best teams in the NBA this season. If they both lost in Round 1 of the playoffs you would take that to mean they weren't actually the best teams? Of course. That's ridiculous. I think I'm done here. tbf though that's a best of 7, a mini-season, which you'd expect the better team to win much more often than not. Any team can beat any other team in a one-off, which is fine for cups but I wouldn't like to help determine a league winner. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
timeEd32 Posted January 21, 2016 Share Posted January 21, 2016 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. I missed this. This is crazy talk. The Warriors and Spurs are without question the two best teams in the NBA this season. If they both lost in Round 1 of the playoffs you would take that to mean they weren't actually the best teams? Of course. That's ridiculous. I think I'm done here. tbf though that's a best of 7, a mini-season, which you'd expect the better team to win much more often than not. Any team can beat any other team in a one-off, which is fine for cups but I wouldn't like to help determine a league winner. Yes, but even then it's random. One game only makes it worse. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mole_Toonfan Posted January 21, 2016 Share Posted January 21, 2016 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. I missed this. This is crazy talk. The Warriors and Spurs are without question the two best teams in the NBA this season. If they both lost in Round 1 of the playoffs you would take that to mean they weren't actually the best teams? Of course. We both know that isn't going to happen though, there's more chance of Shelvey actually being Messi tbh. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
timeEd32 Posted January 21, 2016 Share Posted January 21, 2016 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. I missed this. This is crazy talk. The Warriors and Spurs are without question the two best teams in the NBA this season. If they both lost in Round 1 of the playoffs you would take that to mean they weren't actually the best teams? Of course. We both know that isn't going to happen though, there's more chance of Shelvey actually being Messi tbh. Fine, the Spurs lose to the Thunder and the Warriors lose in the finals to the Cavs. That doesn't change who the two best teams were in the 2015-16 season. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kaizero Posted January 21, 2016 Share Posted January 21, 2016 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. I missed this. This is crazy talk. The Warriors and Spurs are without question the two best teams in the NBA this season. If they both lost in Round 1 of the playoffs you would take that to mean they weren't actually the best teams? Of course. We both know that isn't going to happen though, there's more chance of Shelvey actually being Messi tbh. Fine, the Spurs lose to the Thunder and the Warriors lose in the finals to the Cavs. That doesn't change who the two best teams were in the 2015-16 season. True, it doesn't. The Cavs would be the best team in the 2015-16 season. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mole_Toonfan Posted January 21, 2016 Share Posted January 21, 2016 Well i kinda agree but that's not the same as first round seeing as they'll probably be playing Rockets and the Kings. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
timeEd32 Posted January 21, 2016 Share Posted January 21, 2016 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. I missed this. This is crazy talk. The Warriors and Spurs are without question the two best teams in the NBA this season. If they both lost in Round 1 of the playoffs you would take that to mean they weren't actually the best teams? Of course. We both know that isn't going to happen though, there's more chance of Shelvey actually being Messi tbh. Fine, the Spurs lose to the Thunder and the Warriors lose in the finals to the Cavs. That doesn't change who the two best teams were in the 2015-16 season. True, it doesn't. The Cavs would be the best team in the 2015-16 season. Wrong, the Cavs would be the champions and it would be well earned but that doesn't make them the best team. Were the Giants the best team when they beat the 18-0 Patriots? Please don't say yes. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kaizero Posted January 21, 2016 Share Posted January 21, 2016 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. I missed this. This is crazy talk. The Warriors and Spurs are without question the two best teams in the NBA this season. If they both lost in Round 1 of the playoffs you would take that to mean they weren't actually the best teams? Of course. We both know that isn't going to happen though, there's more chance of Shelvey actually being Messi tbh. Fine, the Spurs lose to the Thunder and the Warriors lose in the finals to the Cavs. That doesn't change who the two best teams were in the 2015-16 season. True, it doesn't. The Cavs would be the best team in the 2015-16 season. Wrong, the Cavs would be the champions and it would be well earned but that doesn't make them the best team. Were the Giants the best team when they beat the 18-0 Patriots? Please don't say yes. They won the game that mattered, and had gotten as far as the Patriots had. So yes. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
timeEd32 Posted January 21, 2016 Share Posted January 21, 2016 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. I missed this. This is crazy talk. The Warriors and Spurs are without question the two best teams in the NBA this season. If they both lost in Round 1 of the playoffs you would take that to mean they weren't actually the best teams? Of course. We both know that isn't going to happen though, there's more chance of Shelvey actually being Messi tbh. Fine, the Spurs lose to the Thunder and the Warriors lose in the finals to the Cavs. That doesn't change who the two best teams were in the 2015-16 season. True, it doesn't. The Cavs would be the best team in the 2015-16 season. Wrong, the Cavs would be the champions and it would be well earned but that doesn't make them the best team. Were the Giants the best team when they beat the 18-0 Patriots? Please don't say yes. They won the game that mattered, and had gotten as far as the Patriots had. So yes. Yes, they are the champions and we can all laugh about 18-1 for the rest of time. Wonderful, but that Patriots team is one of the best teams in the history of the NFL and quite obviously the best team that season. You must be trolling me at this point. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nobody Posted January 21, 2016 Share Posted January 21, 2016 Kaizero is so pathetically in love with America and their sports that he cannot see anything wrong with it, no point even debating it with him. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deuce Posted January 21, 2016 Share Posted January 21, 2016 Kaizero is so pathetically in love with America and their sports that he cannot see anything wrong with it, no point even debating it with him. He's reached enlightenment. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kaizero Posted January 21, 2016 Share Posted January 21, 2016 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. I missed this. This is crazy talk. The Warriors and Spurs are without question the two best teams in the NBA this season. If they both lost in Round 1 of the playoffs you would take that to mean they weren't actually the best teams? Of course. We both know that isn't going to happen though, there's more chance of Shelvey actually being Messi tbh. Fine, the Spurs lose to the Thunder and the Warriors lose in the finals to the Cavs. That doesn't change who the two best teams were in the 2015-16 season. True, it doesn't. The Cavs would be the best team in the 2015-16 season. Wrong, the Cavs would be the champions and it would be well earned but that doesn't make them the best team. Were the Giants the best team when they beat the 18-0 Patriots? Please don't say yes. They won the game that mattered, and had gotten as far as the Patriots had. So yes. Yes, they are the champions and we can all laugh about 18-1 for the rest of time. Wonderful, but that Patriots team is one of the best teams in the history of the NFL and quite obviously the best team that season. You must be trolling me at this point. The "best" team will be the champions. The NFL plays through play-offs, so regardless of how good a seasonal record you have, if you can't perform when it counts you don't deserve to win it all. The Patriots had the best seasonal record that year, yes, I'm not arguing against that point. But given that there's play-offs, I do not think they deserved to win it all though since they couldn't pull it off. Which is why play-offs are more interesting. Kaizero is so pathetically in love with America and their sports that he cannot see anything wrong with it, no point even debating it with him. Why not give an argument against play-offs rather than snide comments. Would be a lot more interesting. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
B-more Mag Posted January 21, 2016 Share Posted January 21, 2016 Who says the champion has to be the best team? The champion is the fucking champion. You think you're the better team? Who cares, I'm the champion. It's like people bitching about a PL team that wins more but doesn't play as pretty as a team that wins less. Playing pretty doesn't necessarily get you the championship. Winning in the regular season doesn't necessarily get you the championship. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deuce Posted January 21, 2016 Share Posted January 21, 2016 Who says the champion has to be the best team? The champion is the fucking champion. You think you're the better team? Who cares, I'm the champion. It's like people bitching about a PL team that wins more but doesn't play as pretty as a team that wins less. Playing pretty doesn't necessarily get you the championship. Winning in the regular season doesn't necessarily get you the championship. http://gifrific.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/09/Sean-Connery-Fist-Pump-US-Open.gif 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