A bit hard to do for a sport that doesn't do that ... And completely does away with the comparison of records between the two. Well, the Raiders and Chargers do exist ...
Yeah, but then that applies equally to using winning percentage for soccer. But you can make a comparison between PPG (i.e. percentage of 3) and winning percentage
But Paul, don't you want teams you don't follow, in areas you don't live in, people that you don't know to be punished by the sins of a losing season? Who is not, I cannot say because as a Manchester City fan, I can blissfully be satisfed at Abu Dhabi money getting the best players in world, with the best coach in the world, while the relief of not getting relegated in the top division and facing smaller teams with smaller budgets. Why don't you want Penistone Church FC or Shitterton Town FC to rise up the ranks and someday play in Premier League? I also can say flying cars will happen sometime soon. Just spread some Disney pixie dust everywhere, and all of the world's problems will be solved.
If I did the math right, Brighton's PPG is 1.04 in the PREM and their % of gained points is 35% (they've gained 35% of the available points to them in their PREM seasons). That actually makes them seem a bit worse than the Lions ... Detroit's win % in B/H's PREM tenure is 36.5%
I can see how much posters here who feel that pro/rel and open systems are the be-all-end-all of watching soccer are irritating. I enjoy my MLS team (especially this season). But to compare how engaged Norwich fans are in their survival plight to Detroit Lions fans is a bit silly. Clearly, Norwich have more to play for. Also it is nice that the EPL and other European leagues have three new teams each season - the expansion teams have brought a lot of excitement to MLS, but it will have to stop eventually (unless they go to 2 tiers). I watched some of the UCL Championship on Sunday night, how fun would it be to have one or both of those clubs (Tampa Bay Rowdies and Orange County) in MLS next year? They had good support on the night (and personally I love old randomly configured stadiums like the one they were playing in). I get the let-us-have-our-own-culture arguments - I love MLS play-offs; and I understand our North American tradition of divisions. But come on, three new teams each year, and a death trap for the three worst teams; and bad teams falling down to a league where they might actually win (and get new opponents) all sounds pretty fun to me. And that not to say European Soccer Leagues don't have predictability problems or could not do with some changes (Bayern's dominance of the German League is ridiculous), but I don't think permanent EPL status for Norwich would make the EPL better.
That's not exactly what was done. The original comment that brought about the sets of fans was that Detroit fans had "NOTHING" left in the season (this was three games ago BTW). It wasn't about which set of fans had 'more' or 'more significant' or whatever ... Nice, sure, but also potentially dreadful. There was nothing redeeming or even fun about Derby's Prem season outside of the opening match. Norwhich have been dreadful to watch this season. Sure, Brentford is looking like Leeds last season but Watford isn't much better than Norwhich. Does it matter what badge is on the struggling team's kits? I prefer the excitement of not knowing where the competition will come from this year due to their always being a team that comes out of nowhere to compete and sometimes even win (our model). That's more exciting to me than simply inserting team name here that'll be in the 'thanks for playing here's your you suck checks' "race" ... OC or TB being in MLS next season wouldn't make two shits a damn difference to me. If anything they could potentially make the season worse by playing in a Derby-esque fashion. They're nowhere near ready for that sustained level and one off-season ain't going to get them there. Norwich gaining promotion to the ELP didn't make it better either. The revolving door at the bottom keeps the EPL artificially below what it could be by continually putting in Derby, Norwich, etc level clubs. And no, a death trap for clubs isn't appealing either ... it sucks watching a team wither on the vine and see their support poof out of existence. Now, that just applies for me, HERE in the US mainly (and I think it would apply some other places too). BUT for the most part, where it already works this way I like it, it makes sense, and it should remain.
No they don't they are now the LOS ANGELES Chargers which is completely and fundamentally different than being the San Diego Chargers. Not many. Very few fans from San Diego carried their loyalty up the freeway to LA. Actually most former San Diego Charger fans from here now actively hate the team. If they play the raiders I'm going for the Raiders. The Chargers are basically a sports marketing experiment. Is it possible to have a money making team that doesn't actually have any support? Sadly so far the answer is yes.
Same franchise, new city. Just like when they moved from LA to SD they were still the same team. The Dodgers are the same team that started in Brooklyn ... that's what it is unless there's an actual franchise change. Nothing but the city changed with the Chargers and the Raiders. Ya know, just like the Rams are the same Rams that were the StL Rams from LA that are now back in LA. Hell, the A's are on their third city (potentially getting a fourth) ... but it's the same team.
The Rochester Royals of the NBA became the Cincinnati Royals, then became the Kansas City-Omaha Kings, then became the Sacramento Kings. Same team, however.
LA Chargers 1960 San Diego Chargers 1961-2016 LA Chargers 2016-? Cleveland Rams 1936-45 LA Rams 1946-1994 St. Louis Rams 1995-2015 LA Rams 2016-? The Chargers were in San Diego longer than the Rams were in LA (the first time).
They are the same legal entity and franchise, but I think it's perfectly reasonable to say that they're not the same team. The latter is what forms the basis of their identity and there's no way that you can honestly claim that a team maintains the same identity post-relocation, given that geography makes up a huge part of a team's identity.
Would that be the Oakland Raiders, the LA Raiders, the Oakland Raiders (redux) or the Las Vegas Raiders?
According to my brother who was stationed in the Navy in SD in the late aughts, Charger fans were pretty fairweather. Take it for what it's worth.
Well they were living in the right place. Meanwhile, have you noticed that only 4 EPL teams have positive goal differences this season.
I'd be pretty "fairweather" if I thought my team was going to relocate to a completely different locale at the drop of a "false shortage" hat.
Clearly Manchester United's negative goal difference has been caused by pro/rel. As opposed to them being crap, of course.
Yeah...FC Cincy has been MLS' USL team for the past three seasons.....they're awful to put it kindly. And their owners have way more money than the groups behind Orange County and the Rowdies combined. Those teams would get pummeled over a 34 game MLS season. In fact they are a good example of a team that should just be relegated, without a team being promoted to take their spot. Addition by subtraction! Yeah I'd be fairweather too if I could go to beach and hang out in 75 degree temps and sunny skies all day everyday!
I didn't hear rumors back then. This was 14 years ago. Then again, San Diego built a stadium for the Padres and didn't build one for the Chargers. What did they expect?
Maybe they should have built their own stadium rather than attempting to feed off the teat of local taxpayers?