As I previously pointed out, because of the way the results during the first half of the season have already gone, it will be impossible for Man City to be relegated on 50 points, they are mathematically safe from relegation, this will be proven correct at the end of the season because all three clubs that will be relegated WILL have less than 50 points.
I think you’re underestimating the number of casual American sports fans who casually watch the big Premier League matches, and profess to be a Man U or Liverpool fan alongside their favorite American sports. You don’t pull those NBC ratings by just snagging the narrow strand of American soccer fans who refuse to watch MLS but become giddy at thought of an American playing in Portugal or Belgium.
Again, your logic is flawed, or at least you're not explaining it well. Just because 3 months from now nobody with 50 points or more is relegated doesn't mean that right now anyone with 50 points is automatically safe. If you're trying to say "50 points + the schedule that's remaining means their safe" that is (probably) true. But the way you wrote your statement it seems like you're saying "At the end of the season when we know the point total of the relegated team we'll know that anyone above that point total on Feb. 10th was mathematically safe", which isn't accurate.
But 50 points now IS mathematically safe, my 'logic' is simple - Man City ARE mathematically safe from relegation, Wolves are not. That's it, that's what Im saying, there is NO WAY that City can be relegated this season, even if they lose all their remaining games, they already have too many points and no matter how 'other' results go there aren't enough points to share around to get as many as 17 clubs to overtake them, also the fact that none of the three relegated clubs will get to 50 points WILL ultimately prove it.
This is (likely, I haven't seen anyone work out the math to prove it) correct. This is, however, a logical fallacy. Just because something doesn't happen doesn't mean something couldn't have happened.
And here is the biggest point. Wolves are not only not Mathematically safe, they still have to consider relegation as a genuine possibility. They can't just promote the youth team or have a fire sale on the last day of the transfer window. They have to keep trying to find a way to get points and win matches. That is NOT the case in closed leagues. If this were a closed league it would probably make a lot of sense for Wolves to spend the second half of this season rebuilding. They are already in transition, plus with the whole Covid thing it would be good to get high wages off your books for 6 months or a year, maybe longer. The owners of course would say they are just investing in youth and aren't just pocketing the money (we won't know either way of). The reality is under a closed league system Wolves game would have basically no jeopardy attached to them, at least for Wolves. Under a pro/rel system they still do, at least for the next few weeks.
A issue I never disagreed with, because my point wasn't using the statement made at halftime of the Wolves game as a comparison between open and closed leagues. My point was to use it as a counterpoint to those who claim that in pro/rel every game a team plays matters and teams are under pressure to get a result in every game. Yet the halftime commentators literally said Wolves wasn't under much pressure in the game on Sunday because they were comfortably out of relegation danger. A game in early February at the 60% point of the season. Again, I'm not the one making that claim. I'm repeating the claim of a person who's been reporting on the English game for almost 20 years and a player who had over 200 EPL appearances in his career. People can disagree with them (and already have here) but that's a lot of experience saying that to just ignore it and its, IMO, a strong counterpoint to the claim above.
But Wolves would keep scrapping as long as they had a chance of making the playoffs. We see that in MLS every year. And if you're already assured of a place in the playoffs you want to make sure that you get home advantage. Yes the lack of relegation gives teams and coaches the chance to build without the pressure of financial annihilation. What we've traditionally seen is coaches hanging on to their jobs for much longer than they do in pro/rel leagues, see Ben Olsen (bad) and Jim Curtin (good). But recently I think we've seen owners become less patient and I think that has to do with new clubs coming into the league expecting to win. But not every match in a pro/rel league is critical. I've seen Notts players give up once relegation seems inevitable, occasionally pulling out a big result against a top team, giving us false hope. I've occasionally seen Notts in mid-table doldrums though I think Notts fans would enjoy some mid-table doldrums occasionally, as long as it wasn't in their current league.
Why do you think they would have this reaction to a unified pyramid though? Would they really think it’s any different than the G-League or MiLB? What, exactly, would they be reacting to? I can’t see any scenario where a merger with USL would trigger the emotional reaction you’re describing. It would just be positive or continued indifference.
However unlikely, it is something that is possible. I actually sent an inquiry to the UK Gambling Commission ... we'll see what they say. HA, I KNEW it'd been done somewhere! and I was right, 58 is the mathematical certainty of safety in the current EPL. That's not true at all ... they'd be square in the hunt for playoffs/playoff positioning. They'd have plenty riding on their matches, for them. And that, illustrates perfectly a point myself, Jasonma and others have been making against the claims that there's "nothing riding" on games in closed leagues: IE - it isn't that there isn't anything riding on them, it's that where there's something to play for sits in a different part of the table.
Well, like "Man City is mathematically safe at 50 points", this is highly dependent on a lot of other variables. It assumes that we're talking a post-season like MLS or NBA or NHL where half the league gets in. Playoffs like MLB's would almost certainly be out of reach for where Wolves at at this point in the season (unless their division suuuuuuucked). Even NFL's would probably be a stretch for them, unless they were in the NFC East or something.
Tú no entiendes la cultura del fútbol en los países futboleros, Juticalpa juega en 2da división y aspira a volver a la 1ra división. A nosotros los futboleros nos gusta el ascenso y descenso.
I don't think it'd really be much of an "emotional" reaction, more like a brief perception of a minor league doing ultimately minor things, in this case MLS tying itself to an even worse league and marketing it as a new exciting selling point.
I am not going to deal in absolutes so I will never say that a club in a pro/rel will always have more to play for or anything like that. But for good and sometimes for bad clubs in the bottom part of the table are under more pressure in a pro/rel set up. That's a true statement. For a neutral looking at the table it's probably a fair take. But that's not how a supporter will see it, and it better not be how the players and manager are seeing it. Well I tend to ignore a lot of what pundits say. They may have experience in a locker room but I wonder how much football do they actually watch before they open their mouths? But the whole point isn't whether you, or Tim Howard thinks Wolves will go down. Like you said reasonable people can disagree. The point is their matches still have, and could continue to have jeopardy going forward where they wouldn't in a closed league.
Your conflating playoffs with pro/rel. They are two different issues and you could have both if you wanted to. Yeah not even trying to argue which is "better". Just saying we have an example of where pro/rel does create more drama. And instead of people saying "Fair Enough" it's a pedantic argument about when a club is officially safe, or saying "But in a playoff league..." I have never, nor will ever say "every" match in a pro/rel league is critical. Of course not. You get dead rubbers no matter what. What I will say is in my experience, which is growing up with American sports and following European Soccer for 25 years, pro/rel adds more jeopardy, for more clubs, for longer in the season. Even when compared to closed leagues with playoffs.
Most teams have played 22 or 23 games, IF clubs were to share the remaining points to the max they will pick up 22 points, like I keep saying MANCHESTER CITY ARE MATHEMATICALLY SAFE FROM RELEGATION, Wolves are not.
MAN CITY ARE MATHEMATICALLY SAFE FROM RELEGATION, do the maths yourself if you don't believe me! Wolves ARE not mathematically safe from relegation! If the maths is beyond you then ask anybody else on here that has the maths capability and they will do the maths for you and agree with me.
You are conflating pro/rel with playoffs. They are entirely different things. You could, and places do, have pro/rel with playoffs. And you could, although I don't know of any current examples, have a closed league and no playoffs. And for the record I have never said their isn't anything riding on closed league games. What I have said and continue to is pro/rel does generate more jeopardy. It just does. Now you can argue that it's not worth it because of the risk connected to it. But you can't say, a closed league has the same to play for as a pro/rel league. There is literally an extra competition. It's like saying two apples is the same as three.
For crying out loud man, keep up: even if Fulham got to 51, the 16 other teams can’t. Someone would be blocking someone else’s path to get there at this point in the season.
For Fulham to get to 63, they have to win games, which means that other teams trying to overtake Manchester City have to lose games.
I'm still not 100% convinced. If we just posit that every team wins all its remaining home games except Man City, City would then be in 16th and only 8 points from the relegation zone. If Fulham then also beat Everton, Liverpool, and Arsenal on the road they would pass City. Burnley would have to beat Spurs, Everton, and United on the road. Even with those losses Everton, Liverpool, Arsenal, Spurs, and United would pass City. There. That's one way City could still be relegated. (I didn't map out exactly every game but its pretty close to accurate, close enough that I'm convinced they aren't mathematically safe yet) Done. They are likely not safe.