BINGO ... anyone questioning coaches/players in this regard is just ... yeah, fill in the blank. Even more so, the field is watered down as it it. It's the CHAMPION's LEAGUE ... yet we get teams that finish 19pts or 33pts off their own league title getting in (Chelsea in this year's GS and last year's GS or Gladback in last year's). So a club that finishes 33pts off their league's title winners deserves to be in a CHAMPIONS league? K
it is single table not a have loosing record and still be in play off lol. champions league get you for winning and getting into top 4. not getting in one division where everybody has loosing record
You didn't answer the question. You think a club that finishes 33pts off their own league title deserves to be in a CHAMPION'S League? LOL
Good point. I presume the argument is that the title "Champions League" is inaccurate given that teams from the strongest nations have four participants. Of course, the amount of teams a country gets is based on UEFA coefficients formed by weighted performances by each country over the last five seasons so that the competition has a high probability of having the best teams in it. And finishing fourth in a strong league is a little different than having half or more teams in a league qualify for a playoff. So, great, the competition name is somewhat incorrect. But it's classic "whataboutism" to compare it to the oversized playoffs that are a feature of US closed leagues.
does a team basicly has negative wins to other play off teams deserve play off spot. this is single table ad only 20% of teams make cl and only 30% make europe in general if we compare it to play off system
You still didn't answer the question. You think a club that finishes 33pts off their own league title deserves to be in a CHAMPION'S League? Perspective: 33pts = at minimum 11 games off the champion of their league. Yet, they still got a chance to win the highest level of club competition that exists. Least year win Washington got in with a 7-9 record (by winning their division) they were only ONE game behind the last playoff team. Only ONE team that didn't make the playoffs had a better record than them (and they were 8-8). They finished 6 games off the best team in the NFC with a .438 win% BUT when Freiburg qualifies for Europe at .500 (and 34pts off the champions) or Dortumund does it with a losing record .... nobody cares. Let's not even get into cup winning sides that have losing records that qualify for Europe (which is essentially how Washington got in with a losing record, they won their division). One is just fined and cool .... the other isn't. Why is that?
i just told you 30% of teams make play offs and not even in league they get a privilage to play in totaly different tournament with diferent teams then the ones they compete in saturday and sunday compared that to leagues where 50% of teams make it in which they don;t actualy compare wins and looses but standings in group and play same team every year
I know how it works ... all you told me was, nothing. You STILL haven't answered the question and avoided the new one I posed to you. You're just like M, except insanely harder to discern in regard to what's typed.
Even in leagues with four entrants in the CL, the percentage is 22.2% or less for the CL. Compare and contrast to the 50% or more that we see in US closed leagues. Honestly, you're wasting your time trying to discuss anything with that particular poster.
Honestly sounds like your biggest issue is with the name. At the end of the day teams still qualify based on how they do not on the size of their population or the corporate footprint of their area.
Except that the rankings are set up so that more clubs in the biggest TV markets qualify for the tournament proper.
If the sticking point is the word champions, then a team that comes second on goals scored doesn't deserve to be in it. If it's a question of quality, then sadly, with the way football is today, even a team 33 points adrift in a major league is likely to be better than a fair number of actual champions from weaker nations that also make the group stage.
Which is how teams make the playoffs ... It's a joke for American sports though ... Sure, and I agree Though if someone is going to call one league (or whole country's sports) on it, then they need to apply the principle to soccer as well. A 9-7/8-8 division winner in the NFL getting in the playoffs is no different than the Champions of Serbia getting in the CL or an English/German club 33pts off the league title getting in. Except for the fact they get more games on tv/money (in the EPL anyway) and uh yeah, the coefficient favors higher profile leagues/clubs Them pesky facts
a leas it is single table pro/rel i know people here are used to their team being in top division even if they loose 0-16 or 40-62 or50-112 but still to me it is really boring to watch every week team and sports that just suck now mls same thing i mean just like epl make them self most competative football league off course it is not leastt competative leagues are epl and mls. epl for just how many points separate 1-4 at end of season and mls because 50% of teams get in too loose 1 game
At my first college, I hung out with a lot of European students in 1996. They were unanimous in saying the addition of non-champion teams was a grievous mistake.
I like single tables and pro/rel and would love it if someday soccer became broadly popular and stable enough here to have it. That said--casual Werder Bremen fan speaking here--the thrill of watching your shitty team suck in a lower division against lesser competition is overrated, IMHO.
It's not really the same. One is letting in average clubs who lose as many as they win, while even in Borussia Meonchengladbach's case, they won 20 and lost 9. Compared to the possibly of being stuck in that lower division forever, or not existing at all, it's not that bad though. In truth, being crap in any division is pretty miserable. I recall in th early years of Danny Baker's 606 phone-in, one of his suggested subjects was "It's only September, but you already know you're going down" One of the strange things in football here at the moment is the growth in both fans seemingly interested in only the biggest clubs, and also the growth in crowds at non-league level. Notts County drew nearly 13,000 at the weekend in the conference, and on Saturday I went to a game in the 10th tier and the crowd was approaching 700, and it's fair to say Hallam FC's glory days are a long way behind them - about 160 years to be precise.
I've seen the ticket prices in the EPL have had the thought that if I ever lived there, I'd have my big 6 team to root for, and maybe go a couple of times a season, but would go on a more regular basis to a local minor league team that's affordable. One good thing about MLS in the USA is that it is really affordable.
That's happened at least three times over the last 7 seasons. Moenchengladbach 2015/16 (17 wins, 13 losses), Chelsea 2019/20 (20 wins, 12 losses) and Nice in 2015/16 (18 wins, 11 losses). It's weird that they all finished exactly 33 points behind the winners, as there's nothing else close in the top 5 leagues since 2014/15. They should play the lottery.
In 2004/05 Liverpool qualified for the Champions League with a 17-14 win-loss record finishing 37 points behind Chelsea, with the same number of points as Bolton Wanderers. In fact they were 12 points closer to the drop zone than to Chelsea.
All the "pesky facts" on how UEFA club/country rankings are determined: https://kassiesa.net/uefa/calc.html
And in fact they still had a winning record. And in fact entered at the first round of qualifying unlike Chelsea's group stage entry. Meanwhile in 2020 a team with a 7-13 W-L record qualified for MLS's playoffs, as did another with an 8-9 record. And this season a 14-14 team did.