Why no playoffs?

[Kaizero]

Man City 34 - 0 - 4 | 90 - 15 | 102

Man Utd 33 - 2 - 3 | 90 - 15 | 102

 

Both teams won one of their matches against the other 1-0 at home.

 

Who deserves to win the league the most? The team with the fewest losses or the team with the most wins?

[thomas]

The team that's not Man United

 

[timeEd32]

Who says the champion has to be the best team? The champion is the f***ing 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.

 

I'm not at all saying the champion has to be the best team. The playoffs are great in the sports that already have them. I'm just trying to get some to admit that the champion isn't necessarily the best team.

 

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.

 

They lost because of one of the most miraculous plays in the history of sports that couldn't be replicated if you tried it 500 times. I'm not arguing that they "deserved" to win it all either. The NFL has playoffs and they lost. That still doesn't mean they weren't the best of the 32 teams that participated in the sport that year.

[Kaizero]

Who says the champion has to be the best team? The champion is the f***ing 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.

 

I'm not at all saying the champion has to be the best team. The playoffs are great in the sports that already have them. I'm just trying to get some to admit that the champion isn't necessarily the best team.

 

That all depends on how you define "the best team" though. I have no issues with you defining the best team over a season as the one with the best seasonal record. For me, when in a play-off sport, the "best" team is the one who can deal the best with the play-offs (after having gotten there through their seasonal record) as that's how I define it. Could that mean you could get an undeserved winner? Sure. But they did it when it mattered.

[Nobody]

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.

Too many reasons to go over, but first of all it's not as fair as having the team that wins the league being champions. It also makes league games less important and less interesting as they don't really matter that much. The league is also more interesting as it is, with it's many tiers of trying to reach CL, EL, avoiding relegation (EL not being a priority is UEFA's fault, not the PL) than it would be with a play off. Finally, play offs doesn't even solve the problem it sets out to do unless you start implementing a whole other bunch of rules, the rich teams would still win it most of the time.

A better way to "fix" the PL is for UEFA to make the EL actually matter financially and give CL places to the FA cup.

[Kaizero]

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.

Too many reasons to go over, but first of all it's not as fair as having the team that wins the league being champions. It also makes league games less important and less interesting as they don't really matter that much. The league is also more interesting as it is, with it's many tiers of trying to reach CL, EL, avoiding relegation (EL not being a priority is UEFA's fault, not the PL) than it would be with a play off. Finally, play offs doesn't even solve the problem it sets out to do unless you start implementing a whole other bunch of rules, the rich teams would still win it most of the time.

A better way to "fix" the PL is for UEFA to make the EL actually matter financially and give CL places to the FA cup.

 

To be perfectly honest, I just really enjoy play-offs I'm aware they won't singlehandedly fix the issues within the sport. I think a compromise could be made though, with a play-off system in place for the 4th (and possibly 3rd) CL spot. Something to give the middle part of the league something more to play for in the last third of the season.

[Nobody]

I look at the play offs and what they've done to Swedish hockey (mind, that's 7 ties after a league that's almost 60 odd games, so not quite what we're taking about here) and it's completely ruined. No one cares about what happens in that one game in December.

I think there are better ways of "saving" the league, and the simple answer is make the EL matter. As it is, it takes an awful lot to finish fourth to have a chance to get into the CL (Leicester this year doesn't count, it's a fluke), but finishing 7th or 8th or whatever gets you into Europe isn't that hard, anyone can do it really as long as they invest well.

Oh, and as the knock out competition clearly is an enticing format, the FA cup winners should have the fourth CL spot, how that hasn't happened yet is beyond me.

[Kaizero]

Oh, don't get me wrong, I hate any "serial" play-offs. And I can't watch hockey or basketball (even though I want to) because there are so many games and they clearly don't matter at all.

 

I quite liked oldtypes (I think it was him) draft proposal though. The way football is broken with regards to rich clubs fucking shit up is a global phenomenon though, and I don't think it will ever be fixed and we're more likely to see a global "super league" than economic restrictions.

[henke]

Jesus, thirty pages discussing why we don't have playoffs. I'll tell you in four words - cause they're fucking pointless!

 

Let's play all year to see who's the best, then when we know who's the best we'll play some more games. Nah.

[Incognito]

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

Ok, try this one for size. The top 4 in the marathon do an extra three miles to decide the real winner.

 

Absolute fucking nonsense.

[loki679]

Man City 34 - 0 - 4 | 90 - 15 | 102

Man Utd 33 - 2 - 3 | 90 - 15 | 102

 

Both teams won one of their matches against the other 1-0 at home.

 

Who deserves to win the league the most? The team with the fewest losses or the team with the most wins?

 

Man City since Man Utd only have 101 points

[Chrisjraby]

Trust Mike to start this shit

[Beren]

Playoffs in football are interesting in theory, but can you imagine the actual play-off games in England? They'd be so conservative. Both teams set up not to lose.

 

Also, Sky's advertising for it would make me barf. Imagine a play-off final with Liverpool and Man Utd to win the league. Genuinely one of those coffin lid situations (credit to Jill).

[AyeDubbleYoo]

Just seems ridiculous that you play 38 games and the team that finishes 5th can be 'champion'.

 

Maybe have a playoff for the final CL place or something, but not the title.

[The College Dropout]

I look at the play offs and what they've done to Swedish hockey (mind, that's 7 ties after a league that's almost 60 odd games, so not quite what we're taking about here) and it's completely ruined. No one cares about what happens in that one game in December.

I think there are better ways of "saving" the league, and the simple answer is make the EL matter. As it is, it takes an awful lot to finish fourth to have a chance to get into the CL (Leicester this year doesn't count, it's a fluke), but finishing 7th or 8th or whatever gets you into Europe isn't that hard, anyone can do it really as long as they invest well.

Oh, and as the knock out competition clearly is an enticing format, the FA cup winners should have the fourth CL spot, how that hasn't happened yet is beyond me.

 

Terrible idea. Too much fortune involved in the FA Cup. And from a co-efficients perspective it makes sense to ensure the best teams possible qualify for the CL.

 

The league format is great because there's a fairly large number of games but everyone is important. And more importantly, PL tickets are so expensive it's important that matches matter. There's so many NBA games the play-offs make sense. There's so little NFL games the play-offs make sense.

[The College Dropout]

The CL is essentially a play-off and it's brilliant. Take the CL dropouts out the EL and that tournament would be better.

[Incognito]

I look at the play offs and what they've done to Swedish hockey (mind, that's 7 ties after a league that's almost 60 odd games, so not quite what we're taking about here) and it's completely ruined. No one cares about what happens in that one game in December.

I think there are better ways of "saving" the league, and the simple answer is make the EL matter. As it is, it takes an awful lot to finish fourth to have a chance to get into the CL (Leicester this year doesn't count, it's a fluke), but finishing 7th or 8th or whatever gets you into Europe isn't that hard, anyone can do it really as long as they invest well.

Oh, and as the knock out competition clearly is an enticing format, the FA cup winners should have the fourth CL spot, how that hasn't happened yet is beyond me.

 

Terrible idea. Too much fortune involved in the FA Cup. And from a co-efficients perspective it makes sense to ensure the best teams possible qualify for the CL.

 

The league format is great because there's a fairly large number of games but everyone is important. And more importantly, PL tickets are so expensive it's important that matches matter. There's so many NBA games the play-offs make sense. There's so little NFL games the play-offs make sense.

Plus in the NFL, everyone doesn't play everyone else.

[Collage]

Imperialist cunts.

[Hanshithispantz]

If they absolutely must add play-offs then it should be for the final Champions League place and not the title. 4-7 in a play-off, winner gets into the Champions League play-offs, runner up gets into the Europa League.

[loki679]

If they absolutely must add play-offs then it should be for the final Champions League place and not the title. 4-7 in a play-off, winner gets into the Champions League play-offs, runner up gets into the Europa League.

 

2-9 play off for two CL places, FA cup winner gets the other. 10-13 play off for two EL spots. 16th and 17th play off with the Championship play off losers for extra relegation places.  Stick some bacon and cheese on top and we're golden.

[Incognito]

If they absolutely must add play-offs then it should be for the final Champions League place and not the title. 4-7 in a play-off, winner gets into the Champions League play-offs, runner up gets into the Europa League.

This is the best idea if we have to go down the playoffs route.

[Mike]

If they absolutely must add play-offs then it should be for the final Champions League place and not the title. 4-7 in a play-off, winner gets into the Champions League play-offs, runner up gets into the Europa League.

 

It's a great idea but it doesn't break up the hold the mega rich teams have over the league itself. They'll just spend even more and hoard even more players to avoid 4th. I'm not worried about the CL, parity in England will sort the CL out in time. Parity in your league will make it easily the strongest league. Massive do or die fixtures beyond what most of the other teams in Europe could ever dream of participating in makes the EPL stronger.

 

Hell, it might even improve your national team, ffs. Hardened English players knowing what it means to perform when it's all on the line year after year instead of on those infrequent occasions when they land a cup final.

[Mike]

Just seems ridiculous that you play 38 games and the team that finishes 5th can be 'champion'.

 

Maybe have a playoff for the final CL place or something, but not the title.

 

This is the biggest cultural divide I've ever encountered on here. This mindset is more difficult to understand than your accents.

 

The best team is the team left standing at the end. The season exists as preparation for the playoffs. That's all it's for, that's all it should ever be for. You don't make the playoffs, you learn from it and try to make them next year. That doesn't mean regular season games aren't incredibly important. They are; but not more than the playoffs.

[Disco]

If they absolutely must add play-offs then it should be for the final Champions League place and not the title. 4-7 in a play-off, winner gets into the Champions League play-offs, runner up gets into the Europa League.

 

They sort of do this in Holland.

[Incognito]

If they absolutely must add play-offs then it should be for the final Champions League place and not the title. 4-7 in a play-off, winner gets into the Champions League play-offs, runner up gets into the Europa League.

 

It's a great idea but it doesn't break up the hold the mega rich teams have over the league itself. They'll just spend even more and hoard even more players to avoid 4th. I'm not worried about the CL, parity in England will sort the CL out in time. Parity in your league will make it easily the strongest league. Massive do or die fixtures beyond what most of the other teams in Europe could ever dream of participating in makes the EPL stronger.

 

Hell, it might even improve your national team, ffs. Hardened English players knowing what it means to perform when it's all on the line year after year instead of on those infrequent occasions when they land a cup final.

Each team plays each other home and away. Absolutely no need for playoffs. The issue of mega rich teams won't be solved by giving them an extra half a dozen or so games which would no doubt add to their already bursting coffers.