You've missed the point. America has six times the population of England, therefore it would have six times the amount of big markets that can put together a successful team. If England was six times bigger, there would probably be six times as many teams who could compete. Therefore the parity in American leagues is more due to the population and number of large cities than anything else. England has only three cities with more than a million people, America has dozens and dozens. So if every team had the capability of winning the league, teams wouldn't celebrate avoiding relegation? Of course they ********ing would. Come on, let's have some common sense, you're talking bullshit.
They may think they're trying to win, but that's not how things often play out when there's little on the line. A perfect example: Dagenham & Redbridge had lost five league games all season, secured the championship, and then immediately lost two consecutive games. Do you really think their intensity level was the same for those two games as it had been prior to that? I'm sorry, but comparing the intensity of a relegation battle to one where better draft choices are on the line is utterly absurd.
Did they play the games at the location of said minor league team? If not, I'm not sure what your point is.
leg_breaker, you're an odd fellow... A. I have now admitted twice that it is logical for people to celebrate staying up... You should have read it at least once considering that I just wrote it. This is why my original comment was ill-conceived. Speaking of common sense... "America has six times the population of England, therefore it would have six times the amount of big markets that can put together a successful team. If England was six times bigger, there would probably be six times as many teams who could compete. Therefore the parity in American leagues is more due to the population and number of large cities than anything else. England has only three cities with more than a million people, America has dozens and dozens." That is maybe the least sensical thing I have ever read. There's a concept called relativity here... its not how many "big markets" you have, its the gradations between them. America could have 30 markets of 1 million people, but if it has 5 markets of 30 million people, then you're still going to have relative imbalance. There is no absolute threshold whereat you can compete with anyone above that threshold, no matter how far. New York, LA, and Chicago are markets that dwarf almost every one we have. No matter if we have 100 big markets, relativity dictates that they take on the mantle of a small market relative to teams in New York, Chicago, etc. If England's number of markets grew exponentially out at the same distribution it is at now and then took the top 20 teams are so, you'd still have a small set of clubs running budgets relatively larger than all the other clubs. EDIT: Add on: To M, the point was that it has happened in the MLB in the last decade that a chunk of players who the season before were on the same team together at AA ball have simultaneously made the jump to the pros and made up the core of their new team and have been successful. This is the closest analogy you can make in baseball to promotion relegation. Playing in the same location doesn't seem to have much to do with it. What is it with everyone making a different post for each seperate point?
Because if they are suddenly playing in a completely different location on their "promotion", how is this useful to fans of said minor league team and in any way equivalent to promotion/relegation?
It's really not a very good point anyway, as the emotions surrounding relegation-avoidance haven't suddenly appeared in the the 'modern' era of Champions League cash distorting things at the top. There have always been small teams in Europe battling against all the odds, and their survival is something that should be celebrated, imo.
American minor league teams don't often have "fans" in the same sense as major league teams. Minor league baseball is pretty small time and functions mainly as a family/children-oriented event. It's just sort of something where you take a kid to the game as a thing to do. The people who follow minor league teams most like a fan are not as much the local population but the fans of the pro team that follow their prospects. When I was younger we had a local A ball team and we went to watch them play sometimes, but we were never really "fans," we just went because it was a cheap baseball game and it was small time enough that you could literally go talk to the players. Fans of the larger team knew about the players more than I did, I was just at the game. And yes, I've admitted several times that it was poorly used... But the overall point is still very valid to me that teams outside of the big four celebrate other lesser achievements (UEFA Cup place, and I poorly chose the relegation avoidance example) when to me those would never matter at all. "There have always been small teams in Europe battling against all the odds, and their survival is something that should be celebrated, imo." Yes, this is called drama, makes for a nice movie... Celebrate it all you want. I'm just not going to get bent out of shape for a team that finishes 17th and celebrates this. So they're small... they suck, they weren't last... big achievement. Maybe I'm just numbed by the fact that in the NFL every season there are several teams that go from nothing to something. Someone expected to be terrible (say Sheffield United) beating a legitimately terrible team (Watford), cementing that they aren't the absolute worst and might stick around next year... Has their fans going crazy and their coach running around like a lunatic (I actually don't mind him, though... He really enjoyed the win against Arsenal, I begrudgingly was happy for him). Sure it's a nice story, but does this inherently have great substance to it? I don't think so. The terrible team turns out to be just really bad. Great. Reading is a little better example, they jumped up and succeeded well, good for them. That's something to celebrate.
there is a problem with people who have only got into the game in the last few years looking at england in particular and assuming that the uncompetitiveness, which is a problem, is something that's always been there. It hasn't. It's a relatively recent thing. There's the further problem of a wild extrapolation, making the assumption that pro/rel is the cause of this problem. The two aren't remotely related. I think the second problem is caused by the total inability to see anything other than the relegation side of pro/rel, which leads to "relegation is a bad thing for the teams that go down, so the system is bad" type thinking. Yes, you certainly could make a more competitive premiership if you made it a closed shop and applied US rules, but the game here has 100 professional clubs, not 20, and hundreds more below. Going the american route would be the equivalent of creating an 8 team MLB and either folding the rest of the clubs or forcing them down to the minor leagues.
It is, actually: 1992/93 SV Werder Bremen 2. Bayern München 3. Frankfurt 4. Dortmund 1993/94 FC Bayern München 2. Kaiserslautern 3. Dortmund 4. Bayer Leverkusen 1994/95 Borussia Dortmund 2. Werder Bremen 3. Freiburg 4. Kaiserslautern 1995/96 Borussia Dortmund 2. Bayern München 3. Schalke 4. Mönchengladbach 1996/97 FC Bayern München 2. Bayer Leverkusen 3. Dortmund 4. Stuttgart 1997/98 1. FC Kaiserslautern 2. Bayern München 3. Bayer Leverkusen 4. Stuttgart 1998/99 FC Bayern München 2. Bayer Leverkusen 3. Hertha BSC 4. Dortmund 1999/00 FC Bayern München 2. Bayer Leverkusen 3. Hamburger SV 4. 1860 München 2000/01 FC Bayern München 2. Schalke 04 3. Dortmund 4. Bayer Leverkusen 2001/02 Borussia Dortmund 2. Bayer Leverkusen 3. Bayern München 4. Hertha BSC 2002/03 FC Bayern München 2. Stuttgart 3. Dortmund 4. Hamburger SV 2003/04 SV Werder Bremen 2. Bayern München 3. Bayer Leverkusen 4. Stuttgart 2004/05 FC Bayern München 2. Schalke 04 3. Werder Bremen 4. Hertha BSC 2005/06 FC Bayern München 2. Werder Bremen 3. Hamburger SV 4. Schalke 04
Well, and for those of us who celebrate things like this your opinion doesn't matter at all, so things equal out a bit, I guess .
I've seen this comment (or something similar) countless time in this thread and I still don't get it at all. A lot of Eurosnobs here seem to be making massive generalizations without basis in fact. Couple of facts.... (1) The NBA does indeed compete internationally with a large number of teams and still gets the best talent from all over the world. And that's with a draft and a slary cap and "forced parity". (2) The NHL competes with a number of international leagues, many in somewhat wealthy European countries and still is able to draw in top talent, despite having revenue sharing and a salary cap and "forced parity". (3) MLB competes with a number of international teams, including ones in wealthy countries of the Far East and has no problem at all bringing in top talent. And this is despite shared revenues, some attempts to limit team spending (a payroll tax) and a draft. What do all these situations have in common? the teams all make tons of money. All of these leagues dwarf their international competition in terms of revenues. That's true even in baseball where MLB is able to easily outspend teams in Japan, a fabulously wealthy and highly populated country with a long tradition in the sport. What does that mean? If MLS could emulate the massive revenues of other US-based sports leagues, then they too could compete for top talent worldwide and, heck, even possible dominate the world wide market for talent. Is this going to happen for sure? No. Is it even likely? Probably not. And if it were to occur, we're looking at decades from now, not years. But right now MLS simply doesn't make much in revenue. TV viewship is poor to middling, attendance is okay but nothing special (and ticket prices are much less than major US sports, so teams don't even make as much per person) and the sport simple hasn't captured the American mindset. Yet. But if it got to the point where MLS were a "major" US sport -- where they had a lucrative TV deal and 30K attendance for matches at $30 a ticket and where the MLS Cup was a hyped event -- then MLS would have the money to spend on top players. And top players would play for MLS -- even without pro/reg or the Champions League or single table -- because money talks and bullshit walks. The main thing holding back MLS from getting Ronaldo or Ronaldinho or Henry (or whomever) is simply that the teams can't afford to do so now; the revenues aren't there at this point. It has nothing to do with a "salary cap" -- the salary cap is limiting team spending because the league wants to remain viable and grow and not overspend their resources and go into debt. When the league revenues increase, the cap will go up accordingly (and it has indeed been raised slowly) and MLS will be able to pursue more international stars. Again, I'm not suggesting that a super league in America is going to develop. MLS may never get bigger than minor sport status in the US. Soccer may never get big in the US. But the idea that it won't get big because of the draft or salary cap or the lack of pro/reg is complete and utter nonsense.
Baseball plants minor league teams to increase interest in their parent team. People will go watch those players there and then follow them in the big leagues. This entire thread is getting silly because people are arguing about things that aren't connected and pretending they are connected. Salary Cap, promotion/relegation, and the draft are all three as unrelated as you can get. MLS could make an MLS1 and MLS2 with 16 teams in each with promotion/relegation, get rid of the draft, and yet keep a salary cap. I still say that the Champions League is the real European competition. I just wish they would adjust things to make the UEFA Cup more important like it was back before the Champions League. What I wish they would do is just give every country in UEFA 2 spots in the competition and have the top 8 UEFA Cup finishers qualify for the next Champions League. Make the champions league keep its top 24 finishers and add the top 8 from the UEFA cup. It gives the smaller countries a competition to play for which is very meaningful. Gives them their chance to play against the big boys in the Champions League. It also gives teams like say Newcastle, Everton, etc the chance to play in the Champions League if they are good enough, where as right now they could be the 5th best team in Europe and not get a chance. (note, not that they are) This would be the ultimate opportunity for promotion/relegation to show that it works, but UEFA is not doing it.
Its caused by promotion/relegation, champions league, and the way advertising/tv revenues are shared. US Baseball is actually a good model to compare the Euro leagues with as the talent is mostly developed in house with the exception of New York Chelsea and Boston United. Baseball, however, has done a few things which allows its smaller teams to actually compete for and win championships.
I realy hope the US would take the sport of soccer seriously someday because it could produce some great reivalries. And soccer is the only sport wich is anyway near of being a true global sport.
"there is a problem with people who have only got into the game in the last few years looking at england in particular and assuming that the uncompetitiveness, which is a problem, is something that's always been there. It hasn't. It's a relatively recent thing." I think there is also a problem of people born into the sport that still think that the soccer world of their youth exists. I firmly recognize that it used to be different, but I also think that it can never go back to any type of competitiveness. You have used the Nottingham Forest reference in about three different threads that I've been in now, and plenty more like you have as well. To me this is pointless. It has been almost 30 years since this and the sport shows absolutely no signs of going back to that level of oppurtunity at all. So it is insignificant to me that these situations did once exist, what matters is what I think exists today and will exist for the forseeable future. As well, I think you are misinterpreting. I don't think many are saying promotion/relegation is a cause of lack of competition. I think it has largely been used in this thread as a comparisson to the draft (which certainly does help the cause of competition, as well as arguing its dramatic value. This is also the second thread I've been in which you made the assertion that people think promotion/relegation causes uncompetitiveness, which I don't think has ever been the case...
A team like Blackburn are never going to play in front of 76,000 a week. It doesn't matter how long they stay in this division, or how successful they become, they are never going to be at that level. Relegation has absolutely nothing to do with it. It does not make a club smaller, despite what people think. Blackburn get low crowds because they only have about 150,000 people in the area. Per head of population, smaller clubs are far better supported than their big city rivals, but when competing against teams with 10 times the population, to get 1/3rd of their crowds is doing well. The US doesn't have this in major sports. The smallest NFL team is Green Bay. As small as green bay, the town, is, you can't escape the fact that the team plays in a catchment area with a population equivalent to the whole of Scotland. It shows up in baseball, where the Yankees, for example, murder a lot of teams in crowd terms. The cubs can be rubbish and still average 38,000. Others barely pull in 15,000. If having no relegation was the key, then those teams would all be pulling in Yankees style crowds too.
Other than the Florida Marlins, baseball attendance is almost an entirely different thing, though. Because basically every team has at some point in their history had an extended period of time of basically every-game sellouts. No one shows up in Cincinatti anymore, but they used to. People don't show up in kansas city anymore, but they used to. It has little to do with market size and population, it's about how popular the sport is and how good the product on the field is. Very few franchises in the US have extended support without success (The Golden State Warriors are a notable exception). Which of course agrees with the fact that a lack of relegation has nothing to do with it.
If you take out the Champions League money and fully share TV/Advertising revenues equally between only the top flight then Blackburn becomes much more competitive with Arsenal, Liverpool, and Manchester United. So let's see. Losing some of your best players due to nonrelegation clauses. Having your income go down from tv/advertising, and having less gate because frankly more people show up to see the big teams in the EPL than they do to see Sunderland doesn't impact the quality of your club? If that is your stance then there is no point in even discussing this. Green Bay Metro area is 240k Glasgow Metro area is 2.47 million. I'm really not sure what you are trying to say with that. [/quote]It shows up in baseball, where the Yankees, for example, murder a lot of teams in crowd terms. The cubs can be rubbish and still average 38,000. Others barely pull in 15,000. If having no relegation was the key, then those teams would all be pulling in Yankees style crowds too.[/QUOTE] This is worse than discussing religion and politics at a work party. Saying that relegation, revenue sharing, and champions league are what are keeping the teams in England into a class system has nothing to do with relegation's impact or lack thereof on attendance. Not even remotely significant. The fact is that in the US Green Bay or St Louis can compete with Dallas Cowboys or NY Yankees. That isn't true in England because of the financials, period. Also, Germany has a different economic system than the EPL which further cements the status quo.
its not a reward system its too try to keep the teams even as possible, so every one has a chance at the players if not now maybe in a few years no one wants too lose ever, even if its a lebron type player in the next draft and even if they did whats the big deal if it will help them be better next year. if your already in a hole want not trade some players for more draft picks so your better next year? its better for the fans this way so every year theres a chance for you team to win, instead of boring europe were only a few teams have a chance. i cant even follow euro soccer because of that only the epl because some yanks play there i like to see how there doing thats it
yeah the npsl really proved that! lmao i dont like the dp rule very much, i like how we got beckham but not at his price. atleast the mls didnt pay for him it was the team owners itself if my sources are right
exactly and i said what i like about it, too me there all pros just my opinion. dude honestly there arent many people that just make me want to kick there asses for being themselves but your definatly one of them. please dont ever post in my threads or quote my comments ever again id really aprictiate it thanks!