Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Soccer in the USA' started by bigredfutbol, Mar 12, 2016.
Never heared of splitting the leagues in two or three?
Yup, the epl run between Liverpool and ManCity last season was boring as hell, as the last minutes deciders runs of the Manchester clubs too.
The leagues are already broken down in various ways. MLB is broken up into two leagues consisting of three five-team divisions. There is limited inter-league play, but not every team plays every other team every year. The NHL and NBA are also broken down into divisions and conferences. But, the schedules are weighted more heavily towards teams playing their division rivals.
Now try doing that with an 82 or 162 game schedule. Without playoffs, more than half the respective leagues would have little or nothing to play for halfway through the season. How many people would keep turning out to games where there were 20 home games to go, with nothing for their team to play for?
Eh... this would mean the teams would play each other even more times. In NBA, and NHL every team plays every other team - they just play their own conference/division more.
MLB is a little different: it's completely balanced within your division (minus each team's "natural rival"), but this works out because the playoffs are seeded from the divisional winners (in addition to wildcards, but that works out to 1 from each league after their play-in game).
NFL is the only major sport with both completely unbalanced scheduling and not every team plays each other.
Sounds like they need pro/rel.
Because they rig their schedule for parity to some extent
I had to look it up, but based on the timing of your post, I figured this was who you meant.
What I mean, though, is that having the best win percentage in the NFL is relative: they played in the completely butt AFC North and still lost to the Browns. Based on their losses and that they just barely beat the 49ers at home (which is the difference in the two teams' records), it's hard to objectively state they were the best team. They just had the best record.
But, there's no supporter's shield in the NFL, so it doesn't matter much.
Well... There's a limit, though. Since 2001, the Patriots should have had basically the hardest schedule of anybody in the league, yet 6 games of every season were guaranteed against tomato cans. Then you have to reconcile that the divisions play all the same opponents except two, so the Patriots are benefitting from the absolute atrocity that is the AFC East on top of getting to play the AFC East.
That ship sailed about a century ago for MLB. Could pro/rel have happened back when every large town and small city had their own baseball team? Maybe. But, then a group of owners of the more stable clubs decided they wanted a league made up of teams from larger cities. No one is trading the Detroit Tigers and Florida Marlins for the Columbus Clippers and the Round Rock Express (though it might be tempting to get rid of the Marlins).
Which shows the weakness of the small division approach, more than anything else. But I think you're overstating your case anyway. You have to be pretty darned good to have the record New England have had over the past 15 years, despite the rigged schedule and "better draft choices" going to the poorer teams. As we saw this season with the Patriots, playing at home in the playoffs doesn't get you very far if you are actually mediocre despite a divisional win.
I'm not really making a case - the NFL's schedule is what it is and has to be what it is due to the nature of the sport and there being only 16 regular season games.
This doesn't undermine the dominance that the Patriots have shown in the last 2 decades, it's just pointing out that their parity measures are somewhat limited by the fact that the very best and very worst team's schedules may only be different by two games.
The APSL in 1990 had two leagues which had merged; the champions only meeting in the championship game. Still, most of the teams folded after that year.
For all intents and purposes, this is what USL does, so I doubt the setup is the problem and maybe APSL's struggles were more about specifics.
Perhaps it's not especially productive to use examples from a time when professional soccer wasn't viable, regardless of how the league was organized.
Debating who is the best team is a feature of being a NFL supporter or journalist.
There's no definitive way of establishing the best team but that doesn't detract from the fascination with the league, in fact it creates yet another talking point.
Personally I'm not into NFL but one or two of my Facebook acquaintances are Ravens fans and they're not happy.
Given that the National League was formed before the first automobile was patented its unlikely that a widespread pro-rel system would have worked.
And was pro-rel even a thing in 1876?
Early baseball teams were so unstable and fly-by-night that there was a pretty good chance that the team you were supposed to play on any given day might not show up for the game. It's not surprising that the more stable teams decided to form their own league.
There's never really been an example of a sport in the United States where there were so many stable, competitive teams that a pro-rel pyramid was needed. And there still isn't, and likely never will be in this country.
Part of this, IMO, is because there is no single sport in the US that is as dominantly popular as soccer is in many countries around the world. Baseball used to be the most popular sport, and now it's American football. But, neither sport has ever completely dominated the sports landscape like soccer does in places like England. We have something like 120 world-class sports franchises int the US and Canada among the big four sports leagues. If American history had been different and the large majority of those teams played in one sport, of course that sport would need pro/rel. I just don't see any reason why a league, like MLS, where every top tier team is already in the league, needs pro/rel. There are no teams being unfairly excluded from the league, and there's no evidence that any such team ever will be.
Yes quite - I think we might be talking at crossed purposes here - at the end of the Premier League making the the top 6 clubs play each other again in a one game knockout and then declaring the winner the best team in England (when that team may have finished 6th) = mockery as I'm sure you agree - the Champions League, FA Cup or when you have a competition to incorporate the best of a group of SEPERATE leagues to decide a winner are all completely different no? Like I said it's not necessarily the best team in Europe that wins the Champions League or the best team in England that wins the FA cup but that doesn't devalue those types of competition because in these competitions it's not about being the best team in the land, that's what league play is for, plenty of clubs can win the FA cup without being the 'best' team & that in its own way is a merit and the attraction of the FA Cup.
I'm just going to leave this exchange right here...
It would make a mockery of the Premier League but it's OK in Premiership and Super League rugby??
No argument here - it definitely added a dimension to college football until they instituted the playoff. It still exists in college football (since the playoff selection is often controversial), but it's moderately less subjective now.
Yes and I stick by that (see my last post), why is it so difficult for you to understand??
No it's not! Perhaps that's why Super League English rugby (a superior sport to football?) Isn't the worlds most popular sports league!! Which takes us back to my original point! If you want US football to be more appealing (to the world outside the US) then the league structure needs pro/rel and NOT a playoff that makes a mockery of a whole league season (note LEAGUE) and YES the same can be Said about English Super League Rugby!
Your argument is undermined by the fact that the world's most watched sporting event, outside of the Olympics, is literally a playoff.
,,,, not always undoubtedly, and I've given an example recently.
I love how you have to bend things SO HARD to try and keep your shit straight. You say something but then qualify it or just selectively apply it so as to try and not trap yourself.
The Champions League is a playoff competition at the next level from any given national league. The national leagues (Serie A, EPL, etc) are QUALIFIERS for it. IE - the "best teams" make the next year's CL ... By your logic the national leagues are a mockery
Don't bother, he'll tell you that Liverpool's home and away with Watford has more significance than the Champions League final.
You mean a cup final surely?