The United States seems to have this compulsion to draw out championship/playoff series by playing a series of games rather than a two-game tie or a single-game final. It started in 1903 with the World Series, and for a couple of years, they even played a best five out of nine series (first to five wins takes the championship). The Best of 7 format has spread like a disease to basketball and ice hockey, and I think it was Best of 7 in the indoor ranks (our pinball version of Futsal) in the 1970s and 80s. Would supporters absolutely reject the concept of playing more than just a single-game final or could you realistically treble the ticket sales by playing "best of 3?"
Eh....Aye! Nobody in the football world would accept that. I can see how American officials would love that as it seems to work in other American sports but from what I've seen, a lot of Americans have matured as football supporters from the utter morons that most of them were a few years ago. I can't even imagine American fans, taking to that one. Football is so great because it is exciting, not the week long soozathon like baseball.
not sure if thats totally true about baseball but everything else u said is. I think the reason a 7 game serise is popular is because it garuntees that the best team will eventually win, unlike a one game scenario. I know this wouldnt translate well to "soccer" lol for several reasons (you couldnt play frequently enough) but the biggest reason against ti is that you dont need 7 games to find the best team. That said, ill admit i go back and forth on the "leg" system. sometimes i think best of 3 would work better bc if someone loses by 3 goals in the 1st game, there would still be a reason to watch the second game. At the same time tho, in the leg system you basically have a 180 minute game, so even if a team is up 2-0 in th 80th minute, both sides play hard bc a goal either way is critical. Maybe its just the american comming out in me.
The World Series is played in 8 days. The Stanley Cup and NBA Finals are played in roughly 12-13 days. 7 games of soccer would take a minimum of 3 weeks. Are you f'in kidding me?
True. How did the lords of footy decide to take out "replays" of drawn matches, though? I think it's still done in the FA Cup, yes?
i ddint see anyone sugesting that it was a good idea. I only said sometimes i think a best of 3 would be better, although im 50-50 on that myself. That would only take 8 days. whats so terrible about that?
The FA Cup and the Scottish Cup are played in the same format. It used to be that games were replayed until there is a clear winner, theoretically, this could mean 10 games or more. The current format is, a 90 minute game, if this is tied, it goes to a replay, if this is tied it goes to extra time and penalties. In the Final, a winner must be determined on the day. When my club, East Fife, won the Scottish Cup, we played a record number of games for the winners of the trophy. A relpay was needed in almost every round, including the final. I think we played around 12 games to win the Cup.
There's a couple of problems with that.# Are we talking about games in a neautral venue. You could, theoretically, have 3 games in a Champions League Final but not a semi-final as the home/away element comes into it. Also, league games have to be played in this time, I beleive it's in the form of a play-off in the US, where would this become applicable to football?
It's a stupid idea. Look at what just happened to the Yankees...They were Up 3 games and lost the next 4. Best of 7 (Or any Playoff form) Sucks because sucky teams that didn't deserve to even be in the playoffs can win the whole thing.
Replays during tournaments - like the World Cup - were removed upon the onset of TV scheduling and TV money. Imagine if the World Cup 94 final between Brazil and Italy had to be replayed two or three days later. Plane tickets, hotels, match tickets, TV arrangements - it's just not feasible.
For a period prior to the traditional home and away league format becoming standard in the Brasileiro, a best-of-three playoff format existed to crown the Brasilian national champion. The top eight teams in the table at the end of the season would be matched up (1 vs 8, 2 vs. 7, etc.) in best-of-three series. Actually it was called "first to 5 points." (3pts for a win, 1 for a tie, and 0 for a loss...with no dilineation between home/away goals). The higher seed got to play the last two legs at home. Thus, in the 1 seed vs. 8 seed matchup: Game #1 at Seed 8 Game #2 at Seed 1 Game #3 at Seed 1 (if necessary) With 8 teams you basically had quarters, semis, and finals each lasting at most a week (weekend and midweek games). May seem bizarre, but it brought alot of excitement to the games IMO. Unfortunately, did not always reward the most consistent team over the course of the year, so am generally against it to determine league champs. Definitely not feasible in WC, Euro, Copa America formats either.
A "best of" five/seven or nine series is in the middle ground between a one off cup game and a season spanning league, as most football teams have a cup and league to compete in already there doesn't seem much need for a middle ground. And usually you play a cup if you don't have enough time for a league, so you won't have enough time for many "best of" games either.
This is ridiculous. The reason baseball plays a best of seven is because of how the sport is played. MLB plays 162 regular season games. You really think that if it takes 162 games to determine the best eight teams, that you can narrow the field from eight to four in just one game? Or from four to two in just one game? Or to crown the champion? Same thing goes with NBA and NHL, only to a lesser extent since they play 82 games. The more games, the better the odds of the favorite winning. And do you really think the Yankees are that good if they can give up that lead? They were an inning away from sweeping them. All that proved was that the Yankees were good (three straight wins) but not good enough to win a fourth while Boston did. Sykotyk
it wouldnt takes to long and the format is in favor of the home team. cause homefield in soccer would be hard.
South American competitions used to routinely use the "best of 3" format. Normally the first two matches would be home and away, and the third match, if necessary, was played at a neutral site.
the homefield advantage would/should go to the better team, whether it be the team w/ the higher league ranking, better performance in pool play or however. Again, im not totally in love with this idea, i like the leg system too. But the people who think this is totally unfeasable are a bit off base i believe. Remember, you dont always play 3 games, sometimes only 2, which is the same situation as it currently is, and its only one more game in that case. The positives are, you get a definitive winner, no tie breakers like away goals (if im understanding how u do it over there) to advance two otherwise equal teams.
Why don't you make the Super Bowl(s) into a two-leg aggregate? Then you can play one game at each of the clubs hometowns. What a novel concept for American football!
Seriously, a best-of-three in futbol is baloney. Total goals should definately be a factor. As such, two matches are enough.
I guess people generally favored the "first to five" format over a best-of-three where PK's or shootouts could determine the winner of a single game. People had an objection to a team winning two shootouts, thereby taking the series over a team that had a regulation-time win. The one point I had against the first-to-five is that if the first game is tied, then there is no chance of someone clinching in game two. Therefore the general public can skip over (i.e. not watch) that game and look straight to game three. I do like the concept of having the higher seed play the last two games at home; the series MUST be decided on their field. The current MLS playoff format came about partly because teams couldn't clear stadium dates on six potential matchdates, if two three-game series were needed. I myself would prefer a two-game series (not total goals) with a tie-breaker game played after the second game, if the two matches are split. The old NASL did that some years [and my Detroit Express lost that mini-game one time, when they had the best conference record!].
The Super Bowl would be decided over who has the least injuries. I figure you are joking... but either way... best of 7 for the Super Bowl would probably ruin the Super Bowl.