Hi all, I have always been a fan of EPL, but i seriously started watching the league about 3 years ago and when RA bought Chelsea, it became my team (i was born in Russia, plus I always liked Lampard, even before Chelsea). I always wonderd about the way a team becomes an EPL champion. Unlike other sports, ex. baseball, american football, tennis, and many others, as well as soccer in Ukriane and Russia (if i'm not mistaken) there are no playoffs if one team has more points than all others. example is Arsenal of last year. Do any of you think it would be more exciting if there was a playoff and a final? If not, tell me why you think the way EPL is now is the best way? Thanks for your comments.
The league is decided over 38 games. This means the best team over the whole season is the winner. Playoffs find the better team over 1 or 2 games.
But why can't, say 4 teams with highest points advance together and then have a playoff. I guess according to this logic, baseball and football champion would be dicided when the regular season ends. (St.Louis Cardinlas would win the Major League and not the Red Sox). Thanks for the response though.
The reason that we wouldn't want it is tat you could have a situation as arose in rugby last year. Bath won the league by miles and Wasps came second, in the playoff match Wasps won. How is that possibly fair? Anyway we have numerous cup cometitions for one off games.
As someone born in Europe, I'm surprised you ask. The playoff format is unusual, and is only present in some promotion battles in Europe. A large part of the development of the playoffs has to do with the geographic and economic development of US sports. Not only were long distances hard to travel, but there were rival leagues. This was not a problem in Europe. However, when such distances were a factor, Europeans came up with a similar solution - the Champions League is, after all, a playoff tournament. (Moreso in the old days, when there was no group stage.) Playoffs are fundamentally different, especially since most US sports have "divisions" based on old leagues. This doesn't exist in soccer, where there is no unbalanced schedule. So the thinking goes - what didn't you prove over the course of 38 games that you need to prove over 4 more? One flukey penalty call, and you crash out after beating your opponents by 15 points over a regular season. Makes no sense. Besides - that's what the Cups are for.
Its a totally different set up. In US sports the teams are organised in to mimi leagues or conferences. They don't all play each other. It's really a historic thing in that the two styles of deciding have evolved. In Rugby Union over in England the title is decided by a playoff between the top 3 clubs. Last season Bath won the regular season by a country mile, and were outstanding for most of the season. However, injuries and a loss of form meant that they were far from their best in the playoff final which was won by Wasps. Personally, I don't like that style of decider. But it works really well in the US. Don't forget we also have the Cup competitions which are pure knockout. Or what Nicephoras said...damn too slow typing again
THAT MAKES SENSE. I GUESS I'M JUST USED TO PLAYOFFS NOW. AS FOR THE FACT I WAS BORN IN RUSSIA, I NEVER REALLY THOUGHT ABOUT HOW THE SEASON WORKS. I CAN SEE YOU POINT. YOU'RE SAYING SINCE IN BASEBALL TEAMS DON'T PLAY AGAINST EVERY OTHER TEAM, THERE SHOULD BE A PLAYOFF. THANKS FOR THE RESPONSE.