Yeah, imagine the idea of fixing a national sporting event - that would never happen in good ole USA with such fine upstanding spectacles as the World Series. Oh, wait..........
An American would NEVER throw the game so that everyone won. The only instances we see are rare instances where people shave points for gambling reasons. We HATE Ties.
I could be wrong but wasn't there a time, albeit a long time ago, when a team in chicago(?) were bribed into throwing world series matches? I'd imagine this is what he meant.
A tie is just as bad as a loss so might as well make the points as bad as a loss. 3-0-0 If you tie you both get nothing,doesn't matter if it is 0-0 or 6-6 you both lose Not sure about all of the disadvantages but i think it would keep the action up more as the teams are not going to settle for a draw,They are going to want a win because that's all they can do to get points
It was in fact the Chicago White Sox of 1919. And there have been numerous betting scandels leading to the shaving of points, mostly affecting college football and basketball. The idea that American sports are immune to corruption is silly. And some of us actually appreciate the nuances that "ties" introduce to sports, especially over a long season.
I'm sorry guys. You all have far to much time on your hands. Just stop a moment and read some of this...I mean.........AHGggggggg!!!
Wrong for two reasons. 1) a tie is not as bad as a loss. 2) a tie is not as bad as a loss. Technically those two reasons are the same, but it is such an absolutely fundamental point that I thought it was worth mentioning twice. Nice to see you kept the idea of 3 points for a win though, as obviously under your system if there were only 1 or 2 points for a win there wouldn't be so much incentive to go for victory.
From 1978 to 1988 the USSR league allowed teams to earn points from draws in only a limited number of matches. The number varied as the length of the season varied from 34 to 46 matches. Generally a team was allowed 10 draws. After that, no points were given. Obviously this increased the pressure late in the season to play for a win. I don't know if any other nation adopted this system. The Russian league does not use it today. England went to 3 points for a win in 1981-82. Most nations did not adopt the system until the 90s.
I don't see how 1 or two points are going to add more incentive. Example: 3-0-0 setting Aston Villa-3-0-0-9 Liverpool-2-0-1-6 Arsenal-1-1-1-3 Everton-0-1-2-0 1-0-0 setting Aston Villa-3-0-0-3 Liverpool-2-0-1-2 Arsenal-1-1-1-1 Everton-0-1-2-0 There both just as close so i don't know what your are talking about having more impact on winning with a 1-0-0 or 2-0-0.It will look closer on a piece of paper but the gap is no wider or closer then using a 3-0-0 Also about a draw not being as bad as loss,You have either a)Never played in a competitive game/league or b)Never played in a competitive game/league A lot of leagues are changing rules in order to eliminate draws,A draw is basically a double loss,That's why you usually don't see people going crazy(in a good way) when a match ends in a draw
I can tell you're new here at BigSoccer, but let me warn you that a lot of people here use this device called "sarcasm" and the post you quoted seems to be exactly that. To emphasize a point, sometimes people say the opposite of what they mean - "sarcasm" can be hard to detect for the unitiated so smiley faces are used to denote its use. First, which leagues are we talking about? Certainly not MLS or J-League, as the former did away with the shootout couple of years ago, and after the current season, the latter will no longer play extra time after 90 minutes of play. Second, I can tell you from my playing experience that, while I'd prefer to win, I'd gladly take a draw over a loss. Plus, in European club tournaments and regional qualifiers, the conventional wisdom is to go for a win at home and a draw away. Educated fans understand the value of the draw and see no need in deciding the winner for the sake of deciding the winner. Obviously, you missed USA at Azteca and England at Rome in 1997, and England vs Greece in 2001.
I wasn't speaking about J-league or MLS i am talking about "SPORTS" leagues of all forms.Sports leagues in general are trying to do away with draws,of course not every single league in the world is acting on it but a few major leagues and a lot of minor ones i have seen are doing things to eliminate or reduce draws.the NFL is doing something now as well to reduce the amount of draws,Not sure exactly what it is because i don't watch it,but they have something up there sleeve.NHL has reduced draws this year as well,I doubt that was a goal for them,but it is happening none the less and IMO it is more exciting because of it. BTW i have seen all those matches and i enjoyed them all.I am not saying a draw can't ever be good,but when you support your team i doubt your saying "COME ON LETS DRAW THIS GAME!!" or maybe you do i don't know And if you are wondering why i am pro-reducing draws it is just because i am fed up with teams not giving it there all,If there tired from playing to many games in a short time that's one thing,But i see lots of teams that just milk the clock because they are at the top of the league,ect and i think eliminating the "free point" for a draw will make force them to play and to win or else they will get knocked down by another team. Also i am not saying have 300 overtimes until someone wins i am just saying if it ends in a draw don't award either team a point.
I understand your point better now but I don't think it applies here. 1) Hockey and gridiron are not soccer. What works in NFL/NHL won't necessarily work in soccer and vice versa. 2) The rule changes, you talk about are intended to increase offense, not eliminate draws, as you admit. More attacking play led to more scoring which in turn led to less likelihood of a draw, naturally. But I'm certain NHL would be satisfied with just more offense even if there are the same number of draws As for the NFL, draws happen so rarely (about once a decade?) that it's a non-issue. It's near impossible to reduce something that happens once in a bloon moon. The games aren't more exciting because they don't end in a tie - they're more exciting because the product on the field/ice is better. 3) You say sports leagues in general, but only cite American examples. Not to say that the US point of view isn't valid, but it's a limited sample when talking about "sports in general". In fact, I'd say American sports are an anomaly when you consider the big picture. 4) And as I stated below, NHL and NFL aren't really trying to eliminate draws, per se. The only sport that actually eliminated draws was college football and one sport does not a trend make. On the other hand, at least two soccer leagues actually a) increased the likelihood of a match ending in a draw or b) implemented it for the first time in its history. As for the problem of teams playing for the draw, I don't see how that is any different from a team with the lead taking the air out of the ball. And suppose we did institute the zero-for-draw system. Say going into the last weekend of the season, Team A is 2 points behind Team B at the top of the table. Even with 0-for-draw, Team B can still decide it is better to play for the draw, rather than risk losing the match and the championship. No, I don't wish for a draw. But if two teams are evenly matched, or a better team is unable to capitalize, then it is a fair result. And while I would prefer a win, anytime you can get a point on the road in European play or WC qualifiers is an accomplishment.
For the record, the "Black Sox" World Series was a rather different situation than the Germany-Austria game or things like it. The teams were not colluding with each other to get a mutually beneficial outcome; instead, a good number of the players were bribed to underperform (although some did not take the bribes, and some did but refused to throw the games anyway). It was a case of greed, whereas Germany-Austria was two teams 'strategically' cheating. Also, everyone who took the bribes was banned from baseball for life and, excepting Pete Rose, we haven't really had a problem with it since. Except in college basketball, which is just a rotten system from top to bottom.
Actually, several Boston College (American) football players were implicated in a point shaving scandal as well. And I'm sure point shaving/gambling is more widespread in college football and basketball than the NCAA would like to admit. Big time college sports tends to attract corruption because they generate so much money while the athletes are unpaid. But like you're correct, most cases of cheating in American sports are for financial, not strategic gains.
So you've never seen a crowd go wild when their team has scored an injury time equaliser then? Tell me, as you obviously play so much competitive football, if your team was losing deep into injury time and you got a penalty kick, would you bother taking it? After all, even if you score there wouldn't be enough time to get another an win, so in your world there's no point even bothering to score as a draw is the same as a loss. Maybe I could refer you to England v Greece at Old Trafford last year. When Beckham curled in England's equalising goal in the 93rd minute what percentage of the fans do you think were disappointed that England had only managed a draw? The final game of last season my team Reading had a do or die battle for promotion with the team 1 point below us. If they won, they went up. If we won or drew then we went up. We equalised in the 78th minute. I could have been wrong, I didn't conduct a thorough survey or anything, but there didn't seem to be many Reading fans disappointed that the match finished 1-1 If you think a draw is no better than a loss then I can only assume you have trouble counting.
again you are missing the point which i am not even going to try to explain to you since you don't understand what i am saying. BTW your point about England vs Greece isn't really valid to my point.I am not talking about scoring last minute goals and it ends in a tie,I am talking about teams that tie through the whole game and do nothing because they are already at the top and they only need 1 point,Basically they just throw the match.If they don't get a point for milking a match they won't be able to throw matches because another team could sneak up on them and take the lead. Also why do you think people went crazy? hmm could it have been because England went up? if the game was tied and one had to win to move up i doubt they would have cared about the draw,They would want England to win not draw,but since England just needed a draw point they were happy with the draw.So that point has no barring on what i am talking about. skipshady:Wasn't to sure on the NFL thing i just heard something about tie elimination in American Football games.I figured ties would be few and far between.The reason i used those 2 are because those were the 2 bigger leagues people would know,I didn't say AIFL(football/soccer) or ARFU(rugby) or anything because those are Alaskan leagues and most people have never heard of them,Thought i would use bigger leagues that people have actually heard of Like AIFL use the 1-0-0 setting Can't remember what the rugby union uses. My point is when you make a tie worthless(point wise) then the teams are going to "TRY" to win,If it ends in a tie i don't care,What i care about is when a tie is worth something and a team just sits on there ass the whole game and not playing to win because they can pick up a free point and advance. Ties are fine if both teams are trying to beat each other Ties where both teams are just milking the clock to pick up a point is not fine.Not with me anyway.
What's wrong with both teams doing as well as each other in scoring (or preventing) the same amount of goals ?. Draws can be 'fixed' results that suit both teams, as that Germany vs. Austria world cup game in 1982 had shown, but a situation in which a draw suits both teams in a league are rare. I'm happy with the 3/1/0 points syste, and would not like to see extra time, penalty shoot-outs or whatever after a league match.
Are you female? Your style of arguing makes me wonder if I may have dated you once. OK, so you are against ties because two teams who only need a draw can both play negative football and get the result they both want, fair enough, but how often does that scenario happen? I'd say it is actually a freak occurrence. That point also goes against your original statement that a draw is as bad as a loss, the implication of which is that no team should ever be rewarded unless they win. Although I can see where you are coming from in that teams wouldn't sit back and accept a draw in the closing stages, it does make the wholly inaccurate assumption that all drawn games end in draws because of a lack of attacking ambition. That just isn't the case. Rugby has ties too, they are just rare. Even cricket has ties, albeit about one every 20 years or so.
I remember the game well - Milan -v- Brescia. It was the game shown live on Channel 4 in the UK that day. The Milanese reaction to the goal was indeed hilarious. The scorer raised his arms, looked at his team mates and then everyone looked sick. As Richard L says, the Milan defence then invited Brescia to score. A nonentity of a player was allowed to run straight through the middle, with great defenders like Baresi leaping yards out of his way.
2 Points for a win ---------------------P---W----D----L--- Pts 17 Bolton-------38---6---12---20----24 18 WBA---------38---9---5----24----23 3 pts for a win 17 WBA---------38---9----5---24----32 18 Bolton------- 38---6---12---20----30 As you can see, attacking football is promoted through 3 points for a win system as Bolton, under the old two points system, with over twice the amount of draws would of survived relegation. However, with 3 pts for a win, West Brom would survive even though they lost more games than Bolton. The crucial factor is they benefited from winning matches (= more attack minded) . This is why it angers me when pundits go on about teams can only afford to lose "5 or 6" games in a season to win the league. it's not about how many games you lose, its about how many games you win. The sysstem works fine. Maybe we could give half a point to 0-0 scores ? Then again, maybe not.