Why no playoffs?

[Optimistic Nut]

It would be awful man.

 

Part of the fun of the title race is the teams going for the top coming up a cropper at a team scrapping for relegation. We'd not see exciting finales like Blackburn winning the title because Man Utd couldn't beat West Ham, or the Aguero moment. It'd be horrible.

[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.

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. 

 

But it solved it here. With 162 games, you could argue there's even less need for playoffs in baseball, but we've got them and it's possible for a (comparatively) poor team to topple the teams spending hundreds of millions of dollars. This is due to teams taking an active role in improving themselves year after year (which imo does not happen in the EPL. Most teams work to maintain the status quo) which spreads the top talent around, and affords more opportunities for talent to develop.

[WarrenBartonCentrePartin]

It would be awful man.

 

Part of the fun of the title race is the teams going for the top coming up a cropper at a team scrapping for relegation. We'd not see exciting finales like Blackburn winning the title because Man Utd couldn't beat West Ham, or the Aguero moment. It'd be horrible.

 

[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. 

 

But it solved it here. With 162 games, you could argue there's even less need for playoffs in baseball, but we've got them and it's possible for a (comparatively) poor team to topple the teams spending hundreds of millions of dollars. This is due to teams taking an active role in improving themselves year after year (which imo does not happen in the EPL. Most teams work to maintain the status quo) which spreads the top talent around, and affords more opportunities for talent to develop.

They don't play each other the same amount of times,  do they? Do each team play all of the others at all?

[Mike]

It would be awful man.

 

Part of the fun of the title race is the teams going for the top coming up a cropper at a team scrapping for relegation. We'd not see exciting finales like Blackburn winning the title because Man Utd couldn't beat West Ham, or the Aguero moment. It'd be horrible.

 

So like two things 20 years apart from one another is enough excitement to rally around a system that shuts out 3/4ths of the league? I dunno, man.

[Optimistic Nut]

So what's wrong with the FA Cup? There you have teams who aren't even in the top league who can win it.

[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.

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. 

 

But it solved it here. With 162 games, you could argue there's even less need for playoffs in baseball, but we've got them and it's possible for a (comparatively) poor team to topple the teams spending hundreds of millions of dollars. This is due to teams taking an active role in improving themselves year after year (which imo does not happen in the EPL. Most teams work to maintain the status quo) which spreads the top talent around, and affords more opportunities for talent to develop.

They don't play each other the same amount of times,  do they? Do each team play all of the others at all?

 

There are two leagues. AL and NL. Every AL team plays each other an absolutely ungodly amount of times, and (I think) each division in the AL plays of the teams in a single division from the other league plus any local rival. This is relatively recent. Teams from the AL and NL never used to play at all unless they met in the World Series.

 

So you've got all the AL teams going head to head over and over again, but we've still got playoffs and no one is upset.

[Mike]

So what's wrong with the FA Cup? There you have teams who aren't even in the top league who can win it.

 

I haven't said a thing about the FA cup other than most teams don't care. Then you get a team that's not even in the PL that cares and they can win it. The talent to field a competitive league from 1-20 is clearly there, but there's no incentive to push. If a team gets hot in the FA cup, they go for it. Otherwise it's whatever happens happens. "We've got to focus on the league maintain our place blah blah blah."

[54]

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. 

 

But it solved it here. With 162 games, you could argue there's even less need for playoffs in baseball, but we've got them and it's possible for a (comparatively) poor team to topple the teams spending hundreds of millions of dollars. This is due to teams taking an active role in improving themselves year after year (which imo does not happen in the EPL. Most teams work to maintain the status quo) which spreads the top talent around, and affords more opportunities for talent to develop.

They don't play each other the same amount of times,  do they? Do each team play all of the others at all?

 

There are two leagues. AL and NL. Every AL team plays each other an absolutely ungodly amount of times, and (I think) each division in the AL plays of the teams in a single division from the other league plus any local rival. This is relatively recent. Teams from the AL and NL never used to play at all unless they met in the World Series.

 

So you've got all the AL teams going head to head over and over again, but we've still got playoffs and no one is upset.

If your not playing everyone an even amount of times, how the fuck are you supposed to determine who's the best 8 teams? Isnt that unfair?

[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. 

 

But it solved it here. With 162 games, you could argue there's even less need for playoffs in baseball, but we've got them and it's possible for a (comparatively) poor team to topple the teams spending hundreds of millions of dollars. This is due to teams taking an active role in improving themselves year after year (which imo does not happen in the EPL. Most teams work to maintain the status quo) which spreads the top talent around, and affords more opportunities for talent to develop.

They don't play each other the same amount of times,  do they? Do each team play all of the others at all?

 

There are two leagues. AL and NL. Every AL team plays each other an absolutely ungodly amount of times, and (I think) each division in the AL plays of the teams in a single division from the other league plus any local rival. This is relatively recent. Teams from the AL and NL never used to play at all unless they met in the World Series.

 

So you've got all the AL teams going head to head over and over again, but we've still got playoffs and no one is upset.

Because you have to get the National league and American league to send their best teams to the World Series. That's the elephant in the room. In the Premiership, the best team wins it. Except 95-96 that is. Each team has played the same fixtures. That isn't the same in American sport is it?

[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.

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. 

 

But it solved it here. With 162 games, you could argue there's even less need for playoffs in baseball, but we've got them and it's possible for a (comparatively) poor team to topple the teams spending hundreds of millions of dollars. This is due to teams taking an active role in improving themselves year after year (which imo does not happen in the EPL. Most teams work to maintain the status quo) which spreads the top talent around, and affords more opportunities for talent to develop.

They don't play each other the same amount of times,  do they? Do each team play all of the others at all?

 

There are two leagues. AL and NL. Every AL team plays each other an absolutely ungodly amount of times, and (I think) each division in the AL plays of the teams in a single division from the other league plus any local rival. This is relatively recent. Teams from the AL and NL never used to play at all unless they met in the World Series.

 

So you've got all the AL teams going head to head over and over again, but we've still got playoffs and no one is upset.

If your not playing everyone an even amount of times, how the fuck are you supposed to determine who's the best 8 teams? Isnt that unfair?

 

Playoff seeding is determined by division standings plus the wild card. Each league has three divisions. East, Central, West. Those teams play each other an even more ungodly amount of times. Top teams from the divisions make the playoffs, and the top two also ran teams face each other for the fourth spot.

[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.

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. 

 

But it solved it here. With 162 games, you could argue there's even less need for playoffs in baseball, but we've got them and it's possible for a (comparatively) poor team to topple the teams spending hundreds of millions of dollars. This is due to teams taking an active role in improving themselves year after year (which imo does not happen in the EPL. Most teams work to maintain the status quo) which spreads the top talent around, and affords more opportunities for talent to develop.

They don't play each other the same amount of times,  do they? Do each team play all of the others at all?

 

There are two leagues. AL and NL. Every AL team plays each other an absolutely ungodly amount of times, and (I think) each division in the AL plays of the teams in a single division from the other league plus any local rival. This is relatively recent. Teams from the AL and NL never used to play at all unless they met in the World Series.

 

So you've got all the AL teams going head to head over and over again, but we've still got playoffs and no one is upset.

Because you have to get the National league and American league to send their best teams to the World Series. That's the elephant in the room. In the Premiership, the best team wins it. Except 95-96 that is. Each team has played the same fixtures. That isn't the same in American sport is it?

 

It's the same in basketball. Each team plays one another at least twice.

 

Also each team absolutely does not play the same season. Not from what I've seen. There are games where teams try, and there are games teams are happy to survive. I don't think any of the top teams regularly face teams that are actively trying to beat them. That's why they keep going to Europe and getting cracked.

[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. 

 

But it solved it here. With 162 games, you could argue there's even less need for playoffs in baseball, but we've got them and it's possible for a (comparatively) poor team to topple the teams spending hundreds of millions of dollars. This is due to teams taking an active role in improving themselves year after year (which imo does not happen in the EPL. Most teams work to maintain the status quo) which spreads the top talent around, and affords more opportunities for talent to develop.

They don't play each other the same amount of times,  do they? Do each team play all of the others at all?

 

There are two leagues. AL and NL. Every AL team plays each other an absolutely ungodly amount of times, and (I think) each division in the AL plays of the teams in a single division from the other league plus any local rival. This is relatively recent. Teams from the AL and NL never used to play at all unless they met in the World Series.

 

So you've got all the AL teams going head to head over and over again, but we've still got playoffs and no one is upset.

Because you have to get the National league and American league to send their best teams to the World Series. That's the elephant in the room. In the Premiership, the best team wins it. Except 95-96 that is. Each team has played the same fixtures. That isn't the same in American sport is it?

 

It's the same in basketball. Each team plays one another at least twice.

 

Also each team absolutely does not play the same season. Not from what I've seen. There are games where teams try, and there are games teams are happy to survive. I don't think any of the top teams regularly face teams that are actively trying to beat them. That's why they keep going to Europe and getting cracked.

 

That's how certain teams approach the game. Goal difference is another add in that we have and therefore influences how teams play when they face the big teams. The fixture list is still the same for everyone.

[Deuce]

So what's wrong with the FA Cup? There you have teams who aren't even in the top league who can win it.

 

In theory it's a fantastic tournament, and I'm sure it was tremendous back in the day. Unfortunately, nobody with a realistic chance of winning it gives a fuck about it. You have to incentivize it, and I agree that giving the FA Cup winner a CL place would go a long way to doing that.

[triggs]

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. 

 

But it solved it here. With 162 games, you could argue there's even less need for playoffs in baseball, but we've got them and it's possible for a (comparatively) poor team to topple the teams spending hundreds of millions of dollars. This is due to teams taking an active role in improving themselves year after year (which imo does not happen in the EPL. Most teams work to maintain the status quo) which spreads the top talent around, and affords more opportunities for talent to develop.

They don't play each other the same amount of times,  do they? Do each team play all of the others at all?

 

There are two leagues. AL and NL. Every AL team plays each other an absolutely ungodly amount of times, and (I think) each division in the AL plays of the teams in a single division from the other league plus any local rival. This is relatively recent. Teams from the AL and NL never used to play at all unless they met in the World Series.

 

So you've got all the AL teams going head to head over and over again, but we've still got playoffs and no one is upset.

Because you have to get the National league and American league to send their best teams to the World Series. That's the elephant in the room. In the Premiership, the best team wins it. Except 95-96 that is. Each team has played the same fixtures. That isn't the same in American sport is it?

 

It's the same in basketball. Each team plays one another at least twice.

 

Also each team absolutely does not play the same season. Not from what I've seen. There are games where teams try, and there are games teams are happy to survive. I don't think any of the top teams regularly face teams that are actively trying to beat them. That's why they keep going to Europe and getting cracked.

Disagree tbh. You rarely see smaller teams in the Premier League just roll over and die. The reason they are getting beaten in Europe is that they waste loads of money on the wrong players and just aren't as good as the best European teams

[Incognito]

So what's wrong with the FA Cup? There you have teams who aren't even in the top league who can win it.

 

In theory it's a fantastic tournament, and I'm sure it was tremendous back in the day. Unfortunately, nobody with a realistic chance of winning it gives a fuck about it. You have to incentivize it, and I agree that giving the FA Cup winner a CL place would go a long way to doing that.

Losing the Cup Winners Cup was what devalued the FA Cup, offering the winner a Uefa Cup/Europa League spot doesn't compensate at all.

[Troll]

I'm torn here.  On one hand, I'm bored of football, never watch it, and think it could be shaken up a bit.  On the other hand, taking Mike's side on this makes me feel physically sick.  It's a tough one.

[timeEd32]

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.

 

I'm American and I think this is the most ridiculous opinion ever. Actually, the part in bold isn't an opinion - it's just an incorrect statement. And to say regular season games in US sports are "incredibly important" is a gross exaggeration. The only sport where this is true is college football, which still has its own issues. The NFL it's true for half the season and then there are an increasing number of pointless games. Don't get me started on the NHL and NBA regular seasons.

 

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. 

 

But it solved it here. With 162 games, you could argue there's even less need for playoffs in baseball, but we've got them and it's possible for a (comparatively) poor team to topple the teams spending hundreds of millions of dollars. This is due to teams taking an active role in improving themselves year after year (which imo does not happen in the EPL. Most teams work to maintain the status quo) which spreads the top talent around, and affords more opportunities for talent to develop.

 

There isn't a need for playoffs in baseball (if they switched to a balanced schedule), but it's all about $$$. The baseball playoffs deliver the most random champion of any sport, even more so now with the WC games.

 

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. 

 

But it solved it here. With 162 games, you could argue there's even less need for playoffs in baseball, but we've got them and it's possible for a (comparatively) poor team to topple the teams spending hundreds of millions of dollars. This is due to teams taking an active role in improving themselves year after year (which imo does not happen in the EPL. Most teams work to maintain the status quo) which spreads the top talent around, and affords more opportunities for talent to develop.

They don't play each other the same amount of times,  do they? Do each team play all of the others at all?

 

There are two leagues. AL and NL. Every AL team plays each other an absolutely ungodly amount of times, and (I think) each division in the AL plays of the teams in a single division from the other league plus any local rival. This is relatively recent. Teams from the AL and NL never used to play at all unless they met in the World Series.

 

So you've got all the AL teams going head to head over and over again, but we've still got playoffs and no one is upset.

 

The schedule isn't balanced within the league let alone out of the league. This is true for all four major sports because of divisions and conferences. It's fine because there are playoffs, but for the millionth time - there is nothing more fair for declaring a champion than the format of the Premier League. Financial imbalance is a completely different topic.

 

[Incognito]

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.

[emoji38]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.

 

I'm American and I think this is the most ridiculous opinion ever. Actually, the part in bold isn't an opinion - it's just an incorrect statement. And to say regular season games in US sports are "incredibly important" is a gross exaggeration. The only sport where this is true is college football, which still has its own issues. The NFL it's true for half the season and then there are an increasing number of pointless games. Don't get me started on the NHL and NBA regular seasons.

 

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. 

 

But it solved it here. With 162 games, you could argue there's even less need for playoffs in baseball, but we've got them and it's possible for a (comparatively) poor team to topple the teams spending hundreds of millions of dollars. This is due to teams taking an active role in improving themselves year after year (which imo does not happen in the EPL. Most teams work to maintain the status quo) which spreads the top talent around, and affords more opportunities for talent to develop.

 

There isn't a need for playoffs in baseball (if they switched to a balanced schedule), but it's all about $$$. The baseball playoffs deliver the most random champion of any sport, even more so now with the WC games.

 

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. 

 

But it solved it here. With 162 games, you could argue there's even less need for playoffs in baseball, but we've got them and it's possible for a (comparatively) poor team to topple the teams spending hundreds of millions of dollars. This is due to teams taking an active role in improving themselves year after year (which imo does not happen in the EPL. Most teams work to maintain the status quo) which spreads the top talent around, and affords more opportunities for talent to develop.

They don't play each other the same amount of times,  do they? Do each team play all of the others at all?

 

There are two leagues. AL and NL. Every AL team plays each other an absolutely ungodly amount of times, and (I think) each division in the AL plays of the teams in a single division from the other league plus any local rival. This is relatively recent. Teams from the AL and NL never used to play at all unless they met in the World Series.

 

So you've got all the AL teams going head to head over and over again, but we've still got playoffs and no one is upset.

 

The schedule isn't balanced within the league let alone out of the league. This is true for all four major sports because of divisions and conferences. It's fine because there are playoffs, but for the millionth time - there is nothing more fair for declaring a champion than the format of the Premier League. Financial imbalance is a completely different topic.

Cracking post.

[Mike]

Long post!

 

I just don't understand what you mean when you say random champions in a derisive way. I mean....the team that wins is the best team. This is where we'll never see eye to eye, I figure.

 

The schedule isn't balanced within the league let alone out of the league. This is true for all four major sports because of divisions and conferences. It's fine because there are playoffs, but for the millionth time - there is nothing more fair for declaring a champion than the format of the Premier League. Financial imbalance is a completely different topic.

 

So you say playoffs in America level the field to compensate for whatever advantages might exist due to unbalanced schedules. Wouldn't it also work to level a completely unbalanced financial playing field in soccer? I'll always feel as if smaller teams don't tend to take chances in matches against top sides. So how is the schedule balanced if the upper level teams never have to leave first gear for 3/4ths of the season? They may slip up from time to time, but surely there's a reason the same teams finish in the same spots year after year.

 

There's never going to be a cap. There will never be a floor. So we'll just maintain what we've got now? For what? Let the poor teams scrap in the mud for the league cup and the right to ignore Europa League. What an awesome century of football we've got ahead of us.

 

You (Not you specifically, mind) can't be like "Money is ruining the game" in every thread and then bitch that the game is fine the way it is when you don't like the origin of an idea.

[Mike]

I'm torn here.  On one hand, I'm bored of football, never watch it, and think it could be shaken up a bit.  On the other hand, taking Mike's side on this makes me feel physically sick.  It's a tough one.

 

This shit will always kinda hurt.

[triggs]

The reason the same teams generally occupy the same positions in the league is because they have the best players

[Deuce]

The reason the same teams generally occupy the same positions in the league is because they have the best players

 

ya think?

 

The problem is that they have the best players not because they're particularly brilliant at scouting, developing, or even coaching. It's purely because they have the most to spend. You mitigate that by introducing a spending or salary cap, which won't happen. So in lieu of making clubs more financially competitive, you alter the format to make the league itself more competitive.

[henke]

Playoffs are useful, or needed when you have different conferences etc playing for the same ultimate prize. But a league with twenty teams in doesn't want or need a playoff.

 

 

[Kaizero]

Playoffs are useful, or needed when you have different conferences etc playing for the same ultimate prize. But a league with twenty teams in doesn't want or need a playoff.

 

 

 

Easy fix, split the PL into conferences. Add some of the more historical teams to the mix as well. Spread the joy.