What if UEFA Champions League was a Postseason Playoffs?

The Champion of the current or previous season? It wouldn't work with current, plus we have Int. tournaments that need preparation.

 

It wouldn't be a champions league either, it will go back to the Champions cup with cup winners cup mixed in.

 

Never mind cup winners , they are not champions.
The best way to determine the best team in Europe is as follows.
Take the winners of each domestic league, limit that to maybe 10 or 12.
The smaller nations can have a qualifying round.
Put all 12 teams in the same group, they play each other home and away.
This makes for a truly balanced schedule as opposed to luck of the draw.
Then you can either have the top two teams meet in the final, or the top four play a semi and the winner meet in the finals. No draw, (1 plays 4) and (2 plays 3)
And no penalties, you play extra time until one team scores. Don't give
me an excuse about players being tired, hockey players can play 4 and 5 extra
periods and than play the very next day. And Hockey is a real contact sport.
I don't think a team that ends up 4th in their league should be playing for European
honors, but his will not change because it's about the money not the competition.

 

Football players run A LOT more than hockey players.
Watching teams that are in the UEFA cup - currently scheduled thursdays - play on a saturday afterwards makes no fun at all. They are simply too exhausted to play up to their normal level.

@OP
If you're confused about the rules of CL scheduling, look them up. There's absolutely no problem with the rules as it is and your format is even worse for determining a "true champion". For once, round robins are always less dependend on luck than single elimination games. And playing the the CL/UEFA Cup over a full season actually requires a team to be good for a long time instead of getting a hot streak for a month.

I'd personally rather have the old Champions Cup back, but the CL is here to stay and will rather be expandedd than anything else.

 

You say this is the best way to determine the best team, yet include a playoff at the end where - like in the current system - anything can happen. Why have a mickey-mouse playoff at all?

Except that's not true. Barca could've won it this year had they just played 2 good games (ie. the second-leg v Man Utd and final v Chelsea)

 

"@OP
If you're confused about the rules of CL scheduling, look them up. There's absolutely no problem with the rules as it is and your format is even worse for determining a "true champion". For once, round robins are always less dependend on luck than single elimination games. And playing the the CL/UEFA Cup over a full season actually requires a team to be good for a long time instead of getting a hot streak for a month."



I know the rules but it depends on luck of the draw and penalties, two things that would never be used in North America. How does Chelsea getting a favourable draw
make it a fair system? if you think a completely balanced schedule is unfair , than there is no point in any further discussion.


"You say this is the best way to determine the best team, yet include a playoff at the end where - like in the current system - anything can happen. Why have a mickey-mouse playoff at all?"


The only reason I included a playoff is so you would have a big game at the end, I would have no problem with the top team winning it. Although with my system there is no luck of the draw, top team plays low team which is how all playoffs match ups are determine in North America pro sports.

And don't get me started on the World Cup, that's the worse of them all.
Imagine having a tournament where some clubs are given advantages before it even starts.

 

Well, that's just it. It's a tournament. Not to be confused with a league season where you have plenty of time to determine the best team. The World Cup only has 5 weeks (or 7-8 games). Considering the constraint on time/games, I think its the best format possible to determine a deserved winner.

If the WC format is so terrible, surely you can suggest a couple of better alternatives?!

 

Actually I have the perfect alternative, at least IMO.
It goes as follows:
First there are to many teams, I would limit it to 20 to 24.
I would divide it into two regions
One would consist of Europe and Asia, we'll call it Eurasia.
The other The Americas and Africa, you can add oddities like Australia
into one or the other.
For the WC the 10 or 12 qualifiers for Eurasia would play in one group ,
and the America-Africa would be another group of 10 - 12.
Each team plays each other once in their respective group, thus making it a
balanced schedule ( which is the biggest problem I have with these tourneys)
The winner of each group would meet in the final, thus you would always have a finalist from one of the groups. That would eliminate the possibility of having
an all European final, not that there is anything wrong with that.
That would probably mean a longer tournament, but that is the fairest system.
The final can not go to penalties, first team to score in extra time wins.

 

It's funny that you're not bothered by the unbalanced (unfair) schedules that exist in North American sports leagues, which essentially operate as cartels (read: the opposite of "fair").

And again, you can't keep playing forever in football. It's not hockey where each player averages about 7 minutes of ice-time per hour of real-time.

Finally your proposal calls for a very harsh UEFA qualifying system. With only 8-10 teams qualifying from UEFA, there will be a lot of very good teams not even making the WC finals. So in all your efforts to have a fair system, the best team in the world might not even make the World Cup final tournament because your qualifying system will be inferior to the current one.

It's clear you're a big advocate of fairness and the single-table, balanced schedule. And so am I. But such a format is just not feasible in a short tournament like the World Cup (sorry, 12 games is way too much).

 

Hockey has something called "line change" and multiple substitutions.

Watch him call for endless substitutions now.

 

who was the best team in the nfl 2007/2008 season?

put it this way if the Pats played the Giants 10 times it would be atleast 7-3 to the pats.

Your system aint so great either

 

What if we dropped the bomb?

What if we enriched drinking water with sarin?

What if we used JP-1 to build campfires?

What if we were to sell full automatic rifles as vermin repellents?

And 1001 other fantastic ideas!

 

Except they didn't put names in a hat to determine the matchups.
Your season standings only entitle you to have a favourable matchup
or home field advantage .

Besides the giants had to play as a team to beat the Pats, the game wasn't
decided by penalties.
Maybe if it ended in a tie you could have the field goal kickers battle one another
The rest of the players who battled all season could just sit on their hands and watch, like they do in the WC.

 

What's your point?

If you're comparing North American leagues with European soccer leagues, then may I remind you that there are no penalty shootouts used to determine league champions in European soccer. They even use a fair, balanced schedule and a single-table. The North American leagues divide teams into divisions (some strong, some weak) and have unbalanced schedules. Then playoff teams and playoff seeding is determined by regular season records when the teams didn't even have the same opponents. Look at the NBA West conference compared to the East. Huge unfair advantage for teams in the East. Talk about mickey-mouse!

If you're comparing the formats of international tournaments involving soccer with those involving "North American" sports, may I remind you that international hockey games are often decided on a penalty shootout. And Basketball games are often decided on free-throws (not teamwork like you claim).

So why again do you think the North American system is so superior?

 

settle down boca or I will start to like you.

Some of these americans are so fookin xenophobic, many of our systems are history and culture in one as they have existed for over 100 years, I mean just look at their NHL ffs it only had 8 teams until the 1960's expansion.

To all You AMRICANS

"THIS IS OUR CULTURE STOP MOANING ABOUT IT"

I like the NHL and NFL and its obvious the Pats were the best team in the NFL last season (Im a Dallas Fan) but do I complain about your system?

No I just except it because its Your Game your sport and your Culture

Now fookin except ours or go and watch another sport

 

"may I remind you that international hockey games are often decided on a penalty shootout."

Who runs international hockey?
I can assure in North America we despise that system.

Another stupid thing about soccer is the way they manage the clock.
A referee can just add as much time as he likes at the end of the game.
I think I'll add 4 minutes, and if Italy or Brasil don't score, I'll let it run a bit longer.
Talk about leaving yourself open to corruption, another soccer trait.
How about ending the game after 90 minutes, if the ref feels there is a need for a stoppage, just stop the clock temporarily.
Yeah I know about your traditions, but the world is in constant change and progress, except soccer of course lol

 

You have never seen players demand the ref when play is stopped? Make a "what time is it" gesture? The ref acknowledges it and keeps that in mind when giving stoppage. Nothing is perfect.

 

Yet you have shootouts galore in the NHL now. Sure only in the regular season, but that affects who makes the playoffs and the playoff seeds and, therefore, it affects everything.

At least int'l hockey gives 3 points for a win and 2 points for a shootout win. The NHL even fluffed that.

Yes, having the referee manage the clock is obviously a stupid idea. It's much better having it managed by some electrical engineer drop-out making minimum wage sitting in the time-keepers box.

Don't you know the whole story of why they went to using tenths of a second on the clocks? It was because of a corrupt time-keeper in Boston!

As Visca said, no system is perfect.

 

I just like the idea to have 64 teams in home and away (just like in the system before the champions league started).
Every game would be important ,coz a bad performance can be the knock out ..

 

A lot of people don't like the shootout in the NHL, it's also a bad idea.
I would prefer the 3 point system, one thing soccer does right.
As for the timekeeper, the referee's still control the time. The timekeeper just controls the clock, and is often corrected by the ref.
But at least we can all see how the time is manipulated, and all sports use replays to correct the time. Plus the players know how much time they have to either score, or defend.
How many times have we seen fans and even managers complain about how much extra time a ref has added . They always seem to add one minute in the first half, and 3-5 in the second no mater what happens in the game. Just play 95 minutes. lol

 

To be honest with you and don't take offense to this, but no one gives a flying ******** about how North American sports are run and it will never be used on soccer outside your country. You also can't change the rules of a game just like that you know. The referees add time depending on how much the match was delay due to injuries, substitutions(witch is why refs usually adds 3 minutes in the end), and any other situations. And we see fans and managers complaint because its not of their advantage. And you say ok some exaggerate on the additional time, and idk about you but i rather have 5 more minutes of game play than to be on the stadium for 2 more hours dying of boredness due to "play challenges", "time outs", and having the clock stop every time their is a foul, or the ball goes out of bounce.