timeEd32 Posted January 24, 2016 Share Posted January 24, 2016 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. It's widely accepted based on fairly simple math that playoffs produce random winners. Here's one article: http://freakonomics.com/2012/11/09/does-the-%E2%80%9Cbest%E2%80%9D-team-win-the-world-series/ Do you agree that when the Giants beat the Patriots in the SB in 2007 it was an upset? If so (and surely you must), you agree that the Patriots were the better team heading into that game. And if you believe that then a single result should not change anything, particularly when it was an ideal matchup for the underdog and it took one of the luckiest plays you'll ever see to win a close game. The Giants were the champions that season, no one disputes that, but they were not the best team. 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. No, playoffs exist in America for one reason - money. They keep expanding for the same reason. The unbalanced schedules exist because of the league structure and the importance given to division winners. Creating parity (via randomness) is a by product and yes, it can make things more interesting but it doesn't make it more fair. Have you been watching the Premier League this season? Every team is vulnerable every single week. Financial heavyweights Leicester City - LEICESTER - are three points clear at the top at the end of January. Let's pretend for a moment there was a playoff in the format you suggested (top 8). We would already know 5 of the 8 teams. The only drama between now and May would be who got the three lowest seeds and if Leicester would get home-field advantage throughout (although if this ever happened the final would surely be at Wembley because money). People would be wondering if Chelsea could sneak in and if they did, could they win it all? Does Chelsea really deserve to win anything this season? They quit on their manager and were abysmal for four months. Instead, every single week between now and May will have must-watch games with Leicester, Arsenal, and Man City, not to mention everything else teams are playing for. Would it produce some really exciting moments? Of course it would, but do you know how dull a #4 Spurs vs. #5 Man Utd. match would be? LVG would be playing for 1-0 or penalties. Here are the 8 teams in your playoff for the last 5 seasons: 2014/15 2013/14 2012/13 2011/12 2010/11 Chelsea Man City Man Utd Man City Man Utd Man City Liverpool Man City Man Utd Chelsea Arsenal Chelsea Chelsea Arsenal Man City Man Utd Arsenal Arsenal Spurs Arsenal Spurs Everton Spurs Newcastle Spurs Liverpool Spurs Everton Chelsea Liverpool Southampton Man Utd Liverpool Everton Everton Swansea Southampton West Brom Liverpool Fulham Would it really be worth 38 weeks of games to basically watch the same teams compete for a championship in an even less fair way? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mike Posted January 24, 2016 Share Posted January 24, 2016 I promise to read that when I'm not muttering Churchillian. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Foluwashola Posted January 24, 2016 Share Posted January 24, 2016 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. It's widely accepted based on fairly simple math that playoffs produce random winners. Here's one article: http://freakonomics.com/2012/11/09/does-the-%E2%80%9Cbest%E2%80%9D-team-win-the-world-series/ Do you agree that when the Giants beat the Patriots in the SB in 2007 it was an upset? If so (and surely you must), you agree that the Patriots were the better team heading into that game. And if you believe that then a single result should not change anything, particularly when it was an ideal matchup for the underdog and it took one of the luckiest plays you'll ever see to win a close game. The Giants were the champions that season, no one disputes that, but they were not the best team. 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. No, playoffs exist in America for one reason - money. They keep expanding for the same reason. The unbalanced schedules exist because of the league structure and the importance given to division winners. Creating parity (via randomness) is a by product and yes, it can make things more interesting but it doesn't make it more fair. Have you been watching the Premier League this season? Every team is vulnerable every single week. Financial heavyweights Leicester City - LEICESTER - are three points clear at the top at the end of January. Let's pretend for a moment there was a playoff in the format you suggested (top 8). We would already know 5 of the 8 teams. The only drama between now and May would be who got the three lowest seeds and if Leicester would get home-field advantage throughout (although if this ever happened the final would surely be at Wembley because money). People would be wondering if Chelsea could sneak in and if they did, could they win it all? Does Chelsea really deserve to win anything this season? They quit on their manager and were abysmal for four months. Instead, every single week between now and May will have must-watch games with Leicester, Arsenal, and Man City, not to mention everything else teams are playing for. Would it produce some really exciting moments? Of course it would, but do you know how dull a #4 Spurs vs. #5 Man Utd. match would be? LVG would be playing for 1-0 or penalties. Here are the 8 teams in your playoff for the last 5 seasons: 2014/15 2013/14 2012/13 2011/12 2010/11 Chelsea Man City Man Utd Man City Man Utd Man City Liverpool Man City Man Utd Chelsea Arsenal Chelsea Chelsea Arsenal Man City Man Utd Arsenal Arsenal Spurs Arsenal Spurs Everton Spurs Newcastle Spurs Liverpool Spurs Everton Chelsea Liverpool Southampton Man Utd Liverpool Everton Everton Swansea Southampton West Brom Liverpool Fulham Would it really be worth 38 weeks of games to basically watch the same teams compete for a championship in an even less fair way? Sanity. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kaizero Posted January 24, 2016 Share Posted January 24, 2016 You don't need 38 weeks of games though. Fewer games makes things more exciting. That said it would never happen like that, because money. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Foluwashola Posted January 24, 2016 Share Posted January 24, 2016 And because it would be utter madness. Who would want their team to have <15 home games over the course of a calendar year? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kaizero Posted January 24, 2016 Share Posted January 24, 2016 I fucking love playoffs Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
timeEd32 Posted January 24, 2016 Share Posted January 24, 2016 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Interpolic Posted January 24, 2016 Share Posted January 24, 2016 Tbh it's not the format that's wrong, it's everything else. As it's not in the interests of the powers that be to change everything else I'd be all for a change in format for a bit of variety and perhaps some hope. Always prattle on about this but still gutted there was no breakaway European Super League, it was being talked about like it was a formality before the PL and CL started seriously raking the cash in. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tooj Posted January 24, 2016 Share Posted January 24, 2016 The reason the same teams generally occupy the same positions in the league is because they have the best players [emoji38]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. Just no man. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deuce Posted January 24, 2016 Share Posted January 24, 2016 The reason the same teams generally occupy the same positions in the league is because they have the best players [emoji38]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. Just no man. What would you propose, assuming you agree that the system is broken? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kaizero Posted January 24, 2016 Share Posted January 24, 2016 Denver, man. How can anyone not want this in their lives? I don't even care about either of the teams playing but fuckkkkkk that shit was tense. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
timeEd32 Posted January 25, 2016 Share Posted January 25, 2016 Why don't you think the next 15 matches in the PL won't be intense? Leicester basically has 15 straight playoff games with a chance to do the unthinkable. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
The College Dropout Posted January 25, 2016 Share Posted January 25, 2016 The CL is that play-off competition Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
newsted Posted January 25, 2016 Share Posted January 25, 2016 Why don't you think the next 15 matches in the PL won't be intense? Leicester basically has 15 straight playoff games with a chance to do the unthinkable. I really hope they do. There's a lass at work who is a proper Leicester fan and she's walking in the air like I was in 96, she really can't believe it's possible. Every Monday I walk in and say " OK, Lesta?" and she's "I know! WTF?" She needs something nice in her life, she's a good lass. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kaizero Posted January 25, 2016 Share Posted January 25, 2016 Why don't you think the next 15 matches in the PL won't be intense? Leicester basically has 15 straight playoff games with a chance to do the unthinkable. Booooorrrrriiiiiing. Too many games in the PL tbh. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
newsted Posted January 25, 2016 Share Posted January 25, 2016 Why don't you think the next 15 matches in the PL won't be intense? Leicester basically has 15 straight playoff games with a chance to do the unthinkable. I really hope they do. There's a lass at work who is a proper Leicester fan and she's walking in the air like I was in 96, she really can't believe it's possible. Every Monday I walk in and say " OK, Lesta?" and she's "I know! WTF?" She needs something nice in her life, she's a good lass. I mean, ridiculously good. I've seen her give money and food to the homeless from afar. And them knock back a morning bacon sarnie, which she brought in to work and gave to a colleague. FFS, Leesesster all the way, woohoo! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
timeEd32 Posted January 25, 2016 Share Posted January 25, 2016 PL - 38 games that all matter NBA - 82 regular season games and 2 months of playoffs NHL - 82 regular season games and 2 months of playoffs MLB - 162 games plus playoffs So is the NFL the only league you like? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kaizero Posted January 25, 2016 Share Posted January 25, 2016 Already mentioned I can't get into hockey or basket, even though I want to, because there's far too many games. Baseball is a shitty ass sport so they can do whatever they want Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kaizero Posted January 25, 2016 Share Posted January 25, 2016 My main issue with the amount of games isn't really play-off related though. I feel that because the league is so long, games matter less in the beginning and middle as teams always feel they can catch up later no matter what. With fewer games they'd all matter that little bit more. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Optimistic Nut Posted January 25, 2016 Share Posted January 25, 2016 The CL is that play-off competition That's how I think of it too. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mike Posted January 25, 2016 Share Posted January 25, 2016 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. It's widely accepted based on fairly simple math that playoffs produce random winners. Here's one article: http://freakonomics.com/2012/11/09/does-the-%E2%80%9Cbest%E2%80%9D-team-win-the-world-series/ Do you agree that when the Giants beat the Patriots in the SB in 2007 it was an upset? If so (and surely you must), you agree that the Patriots were the better team heading into that game. And if you believe that then a single result should not change anything, particularly when it was an ideal matchup for the underdog and it took one of the luckiest plays you'll ever see to win a close game. The Giants were the champions that season, no one disputes that, but they were not the best team. This is that thing where we fail to see eye to eye on what better and best mean, and how they're different. The Patriots were the better team that season. The Giants are the best team from that season. No, playoffs exist in America for one reason - money. They keep expanding for the same reason. The unbalanced schedules exist because of the league structure and the importance given to division winners. Creating parity (via randomness) is a by product and yes, it can make things more interesting but it doesn't make it more fair. Have you been watching the Premier League this season? Every team is vulnerable every single week. Financial heavyweights Leicester City - LEICESTER - are three points clear at the top at the end of January. Let's pretend for a moment there was a playoff in the format you suggested (top 8). We would already know 5 of the 8 teams. The only drama between now and May would be who got the three lowest seeds and if Leicester would get home-field advantage throughout (although if this ever happened the final would surely be at Wembley because money). People would be wondering if Chelsea could sneak in and if they did, could they win it all? Does Chelsea really deserve to win anything this season? They quit on their manager and were abysmal for four months. Instead, every single week between now and May will have must-watch games with Leicester, Arsenal, and Man City, not to mention everything else teams are playing for. It's dead wild to argue in favor of the status quo because it's fairer than random chance. Leicester's season is the exact same random shit you hate from the playoffs but you're using it in your argument. There's nothing special about them, they just happen to believe they can do more than they were expected to. They've bought into a playoff mindset and are playing to win every game. 20/20 teams should be doing that every single season, but they're not and Leicester's season is proof of that, imo. Teams bust their ass to keep whatever meager scraps they've got because anything else is too risky. There's no incentive for a lower table team to go for it because according to some of the assholes running those teams the penalty for ambition can be relegation. Look at us, we score a goal (yao) and we pretty much spend the next 10-15 minutes apologizing for the shit. We haven't got a shred of ambition and it's hilarious that people here are pissed about that, but love the system that encourages it. Put in playoffs, give all teams a reason to believe and alot the negative terrified bullshit goes away. Here are the 8 teams in your playoff for the last 5 seasons: 2014/15 2013/14 2012/13 2011/12 2010/11 Chelsea Man City Man Utd Man City Man Utd Man City Liverpool Man City Man Utd Chelsea Arsenal Chelsea Chelsea Arsenal Man City Man Utd Arsenal Arsenal Spurs Arsenal Spurs Everton Spurs Newcastle Spurs Liverpool Spurs Everton Chelsea Liverpool Southampton Man Utd Liverpool Everton Everton Swansea Southampton West Brom Liverpool Fulham Would it really be worth 38 weeks of games to basically watch the same teams compete for a championship in an even less fair way? Motherfuckers stay dusting off the table tags to call me an asshole. I'm pretty sure those wouldn't be the teams if 20/20 or even 15/20 teams realistically believed the title was a possibility. But even if those were the teams, we'd probably get a more diverse list of champs. Even if it jumped from three champs in five years to four. You'd know the team at the top earned it. We're going around in circles a bit because I feel like the better/best thing is coming up again, but the top teams bullshit games vs each other. They're generally 12 rounds of searching jabs and no hooks. Then they'll head out and play lower table teams dying for a draw and squeak out a 2-0 or something with the occasional 6-0 thrown in to make it look like they're better than they are. I mean, going into any season, how many teams do you think are trying to win the league? It's definitely not 20. 15? 10? Could you honestly say half the league is trying to win it? You can't even say half the league dream of the title. I don't even feel comfortable saying 8. Or six. Five? Maybe five, right? Maybe? I feel like the team right outside the top four wants to be fourth for a few consecutive years and the team that's fourth is really thinking about that fifth team. So....Three? Twenty fucking teams and three of them want the title, and it's the craziest thing that's ever happened because this year there's five teams going for it instead. So this is what this league is, then? Forever? A couple of interchangeable identikit seasons with the occasional Blackburn or maybe Leicester standing out from the row upon row of identical logos when you look up the title winners on wikipedia. God that's fun. No cap, no floor. No fix in sight for the gap created by cash. But it's alright because it's fairer. Come on, man. It's shit. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mike Posted January 25, 2016 Share Posted January 25, 2016 The reason the same teams generally occupy the same positions in the league is because they have the best players [emoji38]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. Just no man. I feel like your sig kinda disagrees with you here? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kaizero Posted January 25, 2016 Share Posted January 25, 2016 Mike is going up in my estimation. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ujpest doza Posted January 25, 2016 Share Posted January 25, 2016 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. It's widely accepted based on fairly simple math that playoffs produce random winners. Here's one article: http://freakonomics.com/2012/11/09/does-the-%E2%80%9Cbest%E2%80%9D-team-win-the-world-series/ Do you agree that when the Giants beat the Patriots in the SB in 2007 it was an upset? If so (and surely you must), you agree that the Patriots were the better team heading into that game. And if you believe that then a single result should not change anything, particularly when it was an ideal matchup for the underdog and it took one of the luckiest plays you'll ever see to win a close game. The Giants were the champions that season, no one disputes that, but they were not the best team. 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. No, playoffs exist in America for one reason - money. They keep expanding for the same reason. The unbalanced schedules exist because of the league structure and the importance given to division winners. Creating parity (via randomness) is a by product and yes, it can make things more interesting but it doesn't make it more fair. Have you been watching the Premier League this season? Every team is vulnerable every single week. Financial heavyweights Leicester City - LEICESTER - are three points clear at the top at the end of January. Let's pretend for a moment there was a playoff in the format you suggested (top 8). We would already know 5 of the 8 teams. The only drama between now and May would be who got the three lowest seeds and if Leicester would get home-field advantage throughout (although if this ever happened the final would surely be at Wembley because money). People would be wondering if Chelsea could sneak in and if they did, could they win it all? Does Chelsea really deserve to win anything this season? They quit on their manager and were abysmal for four months. Instead, every single week between now and May will have must-watch games with Leicester, Arsenal, and Man City, not to mention everything else teams are playing for. Would it produce some really exciting moments? Of course it would, but do you know how dull a #4 Spurs vs. #5 Man Utd. match would be? LVG would be playing for 1-0 or penalties. Here are the 8 teams in your playoff for the last 5 seasons: 2014/15 2013/14 2012/13 2011/12 2010/11 Chelsea Man City Man Utd Man City Man Utd Man City Liverpool Man City Man Utd Chelsea Arsenal Chelsea Chelsea Arsenal Man City Man Utd Arsenal Arsenal Spurs Arsenal Spurs Everton Spurs Newcastle Spurs Liverpool Spurs Everton Chelsea Liverpool Southampton Man Utd Liverpool Everton Everton Swansea Southampton West Brom Liverpool Fulham Would it really be worth 38 weeks of games to basically watch the same teams compete for a championship in an even less fair way? The Giants were the best team and had the best quarterback to be fair like. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
timeEd32 Posted January 25, 2016 Share Posted January 25, 2016 This thread needs to be locked and it's quite clear the NFL should never be discussed on here if these are genuine opinions. 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