http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,277-1550278,00.html sorry if this has been posted before. What do u britts think? As an American who loes the NFL and its structure, i can appreciate the merits of such a change. However, I do not think this would benefit the english league at all. American Football is to physical to possible play each team home and away, even in a 20 team league. Soccer on the otherhand, provides this possibility and removes any consternation teams left out of such a playoff might have about "strength of schedule." Also, is there enough quality in the next 12 teams of the Cola league that they could be added to the premiership without seriously calling into question the quality of play? Thoughts??
As an outsider looking in, I see positive aspects in the inclusion of teams and fans that will benefit from greater exposure and revenue sharing. I think the way American baseball is aligned might be a better model, since it is a league with a long season, much like English football. The NFL is a championship of about 20 games, including the playoffs -- I think that is approximately right. How baseball manages its many teams over a long season with I don't know how many games is a matter worth studying, if an expanded EPL with playoffs is being considered. By the way, the Mexican first division also uses conferences and playoffs. It's no heresy to restructure a championship; it could prove refreshing and profitable.
Are you sure this isn't an April fools joke? I do think that the salary cap and inclusion of most of the Coca-cola teams would solve the financial issues....
I live in the US, and follow the NFL & EPL very closely, and I can tell you, this is smells like a april fools gag. Salary cap, revenue sharing - those would help the league not be decided by Christmas. But a 32 team league, not playing everyone home/home...no way. See in the NFL, making the playoffs is big, but other than that - it's all about winning the Super Bowl. Finishing 3rd/4th is meaningless. In the EPL, the European spots are too valuable...it is important to finish 5th, for example. And you could say, well, that would be determined by the playoffs. But the problem is you have the shedules become weighted. Let's say there were 6 divisions...whoever wasn't in a division with the Big 3 [and thus play them only once, and perhaps at home only!] would have an advantage. This year for example, let's say Charlton was in Arsenals Division, Spurs are in Cleshea's and Bolton are in with Villa, Boro and Man City. Bolton makes the playoffs by winning its division even though they may finish level on points with Spurs/Addicks. And that's if they're 6 divisions [the old NFL way]...now there are 8 - could you imagine? Plus the gap between the Big 3 and the Bottom 3 is already so vast, could you imagine vs. teams 30, 31 & 32? Everyone needs to play everyone...twice - it's not broken, don't fix it.
I'll give anyone 2-1 odds that this is a joke. If there are any takers, pm me and we can settle by PayPal.
Because a respected news source would never play an April Fools gag, oh no: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spaghetti_tree
Even if it's not an april fools gag, it's still a joke...this would be horrible. Maybe money wise it would be good, but it would destroy the quality of english football.
In the NFL all that revenue sharing and an eventual salary cap does in ensure mediocre football. I like the fact that the EPL has some of the great clubs in the world... The EPL is not broke and does not need fixin. LEAVE IT ALONE!!!!!!!!!
Thank god that didn't come from The Guardian or else no one would of noticed! You can only get away with a salary cap/lots of revenue sharing in a JOINTLY owned league, which the NFL is. The teams are owned by the NFL AND the Owners. The NFL is like the corperation..etc...and the owner is like the franchisee... What if the NFL system was turned upside down and was made like European football? It'd probably be the best thing to happen to any sport...ever.
why is the idea of doing this a bad one? the season has been over for at least 6 weeks already. where is the drama involved? what fun is it to a viewer knowing that chelsea have won, game over? that is crap. they should go to at least a four team playoff system, if nothing else.
even in baseball, which has the most "un-fair" financial system of all american sports, 8 teams out of 30 (i think it is 30) make the playoffs. that means probably 16 teams have a realistic chance of making the playoffs deep into the six month regular season. 8 out 31 does not unnecessarily cheapen the regular season. in the nfl 12 teams out of 31 make the playoffs, and probably 24 teams have some chance of making the playoffs until the end of the regular season. to me, that is a better system than what is used in world soccer. sport is a business. keeping more teams in contention without cheapening the regular season (as is the case in basketball and hockey) is prudent. you use this system in the lower divisions, RIGHT? 2 teams are promoted and 4 other teams go to playoffs. why should the premiership, which has the greatest potential for financial gain, be any different?
In England, you have about ten teams that still have an outside shot at Europe. Especially if Arsenal-Man U play in the FA Cup final, meaning three UEFA cup slots. In most sports, even the NFL, there are a few teams that dominate every year, and some that suck every year. Parity isn't acheived by the addition of divisions or playoffs.
i'm talking about winning the league itself, not finishing high enough to qualify for an entirely different event. the argument is economic in any case.
. In most sports, even the NFL, there are a few teams that dominate every year, and some that suck every year. Parity isn't acheived by the addition of divisions or playoffs.[/QUOTE] i don't think you have looked real hard at history.the nfl has been all about competitive balance since the early 1960s.
the argument is still economic. the more teams that stay in contention longer, the more money you will make. the only nfl dynasty that i will acknowledge is the 49ers from 81-02, and even there they won only five titles. the fact that they were in contention for 20 years qualifies as a dynsty. the cowboys of the early 90s faded quickly, i do mnot consider a 5-6 year run a dynasty. and i'm not arguing that certain teams can be very good over a period of time under the nfl system, its just that when you don't have playoffs the league can be a bore for months. we have known chelsea was going to win sice january, right? how is that good for business?