Seahawks, NFL and Danger of Overexpansion with Tiny Divisions
by Dave Clark on Dec 28, 2010 6:01 AM PST
in Sounders: MLS Regular Season
Email
PrintMost of you probably know that the Seattle Seahawks have a chance to be the worst team in NFL history to make the NFL playoffs. With just 7 wins they could win their division of 4 teams and advance. As MLS is still adjusting their new MLS Cup Playoff format, it is important to realize that at some point in the near future MLS will not be able to have a double-round robin schedule. When that happens the league must not make the mistake of creating tiny divisions, and not playing each other team at least once.
Sure, Real Salt Lake won the MLS Cup with a losing record, they didn't do it as a regular season division champion. They were considered a poor team and then won a few games.
Seattle's other football team could enter the Playoffs as a "Champion."
My dream structure for the league is a way to get the most markets in North America with top flight soccer where every team plays every other team at least once, and every team in their Conference at least twice. A regular season Conference victory can only be meaningful though if it is of a certain size. Four is clearly too small. Nothing says awesome like being the best out of 4 awful to mediocre teams.
With unbalanced schedules playoffs become more necessary. The Playoffs correct for schedule differences.
What is my dream league structure under these strictures?
If two Conferences - 24 teams. 22 games within Conference and 12 outside.
If three Conferences - 27 teams. 14 16 games in Conference and 18 against other Conferences.
If five Divisions - 30 teams. 10 games in Division and 24 against other Divisions.
That last concept borders on the craziness that is this year's NFL, but it would mean that a 45 point team (in a 34 game season) won their division. How the MLS Cup Playoffs are structured at that point would be more important. Mediocre, or average, teams do not deserve the privilege of home-field advantage.
While Don Garber often looks to the NFL for guidance, hopefully he sees their is greater folly in what could happen this year than the geography lessons we've gotten in MLS the past three years.
64 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
It's not rocket science
Your two conference/division idea with games breakdown as you’ve noted. Division winners get in automatically with home field, take the top 8 or 10 overall. Conference winners get bye weeks/1st round advancement as a reward. Sort it all by points, goals, etc.
It’s not like us Americans are so dumb we couldn’t figure out a system like that on the national level and lets teams worry/focus on their divisional and conference races without watering things down too much.
I am all for a division winner getting into the playoffs
But, I do not think a division winner should “automatically” get the home field. Winning a division should be the first tie breaker, but if a team with say 56 points finishes second to a team with 59 points and is therefore a wild card entry, they should not be behind a team with say 48 points just because they won a division.
That is just my opinion.
by Coug1990 on Dec 28, 2010 9:20 AM PST up reply actions 2 recs
Thats fair
The big thing is that I think in American sports we just expect that you win your class/division/region = you advance, and that’s totally OK by me. Conference winner gets automatic home field, if the two conference winners go head to head, if we didn’t have a rotating MLS Cup location, give it to whomever won on points, then goals. The rest can go into the pool by points. That works too.
It’s not like us Americans are so dumb we couldn’t figure out a system like that on the national level and lets teams worry/focus on their divisional and conference races without watering things down too much.
I wish I could agree with this sentiment, but I don’t. As I’ve gotten older and wiser, and my awareness of how other league’s around the world are run, I have become less and less satisfied with how American sport’s league’s run things.
In a perfect world, it would have been nice for MLS to be the ONE league that bucks the Anmerican trends and says, “no, we’re going to do it this way” but that obviously will never happen, and we don’t live in a perfect world.
I think about the Christmas day game between the Miami Heat and the LA Lakers [note: I hate the NBA, but my general sports awareness keeps me in tune with such events]. At the end of the day, what was that game Worth and what did it Prove? NOTHING! Everyone knows the issue will be settled in the spring, during the playoffs…
There are far too many “throw away” games in American sports… even in the NFL, where this year the league responded to the recent trend of many teams not even caring about their final couple of games by scheduling every single week 17 match as a divisional rivalry game. Such contrivances are necessary, however, when you structure your league in a such a way as to discourage Every game being important , as the NFL does.
As far as MLB… I could live to be a thousand years old and not understand why you ca’;t determine your best two teams in a 162-game regular season; and MLB is going to EXPAND[?11?] their playoffs. Huh?!
I don’t get what is happening at the MLS offices. They seem dead-set and determoned to follow the American sports trend of long regular season full of throw-away matches and allowing mediocre teams chances at the championship which are nearly as strong as the elite two or three teams.
...that's MISTER Keller to you!!!
by malcontentjake on Dec 28, 2010 12:05 PM PST up reply actions
I love the idea of the division/local matches to end the season
That’s a great system, and should be used in every league
I am not a Supporter | I am not a Fan | I am a Sounder
Sounder At Heart
in a league without overly generous playoffs
it’s a GREAT idea…
problem is you run the risk of the game being meaningless, with one team potentially not even playing their best players rather than runt he risk of getting them injured or suspended…
...that's MISTER Keller to you!!!
by malcontentjake on Dec 28, 2010 12:30 PM PST up reply actions
Ah, but we have Supporter Cups too
I am not a Supporter | I am not a Fan | I am a Sounder
Sounder At Heart
and Cascadia cups
and I would rather see Cascadia cups decided by full teams playing fully to win and not by teams primarily motivated to not lose any players to injury or suspension for the playoffs
...that's MISTER Keller to you!!!
by malcontentjake on Dec 28, 2010 2:02 PM PST up reply actions
Americans won’t easily accept the anticlimactic nature of the season just “ending”
And while there are some throw away games in American sports throughout the regular season, many matches in football leagues across the world are throw away games, as long as they are not in the relegation zone.
Personally I would rather a few throw away games here or there then having all teams outside of the top 4 check out come April/May
proud 4th line advocate
After a long arduous summer of training, back for a new season of perpetuating hockey superstitions
keep in mind
I am not anti-playoffs. I am anti-“40%-50+% of teams make playoffs”
...that's MISTER Keller to you!!!
by malcontentjake on Dec 28, 2010 12:28 PM PST up reply actions
well, that's the gist of my post
as schedule balance and number of games increase, need for playoffs decreases
as an example, MLS circa 2011 (34 games, double round round "almost perfectly balanced*) schedule) the need for playoffs is minimal. I would advocate a 4-team playoff, consisting of a single-round robin (higher seed hosts). 4 teams would be 22% of teams
on the other end of the scale: college football. utterly atrocious, if nearly non-existent, schedule balance, VERY short season, the need for playoffs is Extreme. I would advocate for 33-40% of team in the playoffs (I can’t think of any reason why any sport in any league needs more than 33-40% of teams in playoffs)**
The NFL actually has about the right balance in this scenario. With a short season and highly unbalanced schedule, 12 of 32 teams is about right. Where they screw it up is how they seed teams (which is comically atrocious- more on this below)
- I say “almost perfectly balanced” because perfectly balanced is impossible: there will Always be variability depending on When you play teams)
- I am operating in the world of idealisms, and as such am going to make logical arguments that fly in the face of “nature of the sport” arguments. The major-college football system is in dire need of fundamental reconstruction, something that I am not naive enough to believe will Ever happen…
...that's MISTER Keller to you!!!
by malcontentjake on Dec 28, 2010 2:12 PM PST up reply actions
Ok, so how many teams "should" make the playoffs in a 27-32 team league?
I am not a Supporter | I am not a Fan | I am a Sounder
Sounder At Heart
that depends on schedule balance and length of season
given your 27-team scenario above, I would say 6-8, with 6 probably cutting pretty thin…
given your 30-team scenario, I would say 8-10. You obviously want all the division winners to get automatic berths, and that’s 5 teams, but you also want to make it possible for good teams to still have a path. It’s only fair if the 2nd-place team in a division has a better record than other division winners (or even a 3rd-place team). You may have to go through a bit of a song and dance to get iot to all work out…
...that's MISTER Keller to you!!!
by malcontentjake on Dec 28, 2010 4:52 PM PST up reply actions
With that few teams qualifying
You have likely a quality playoff field for a fun postseason, but it means the latter half of the season is crap for everyone else to sit through. I suggested before that lacking relegation there should be some sort of tournament for the bottom few teams as well—got 30 teams, advance the top 8, let the bottom 4 by points slug it out for better draft picks.
Tiny correction
For your 3 divisions of 9 teams you have it as playing 14 games in conference. If we played 8 other teams twice it would be 16 games. nit picking, sorry. This way with all three setups there are a total of 34 games.
Mr. Clark stole my thunder
I was preparing an epic post on a very similar topic, but he does a good job summarizing the NFL problem…
There are two things to address here. first we know the MLS will have 20 teams by 2012 or 2013. And second, how do you fix the NFL? The second one is amazingly easy…
here’s how I think the 20-team MLS will look
2 conferences, each with 2 divisions of 5 teams each
Divisional play: 3 games against each team = 12 games
conference play: 2 games against each team in other division in conference = 10 games
1 game against each team in other conference = 10 games
this all equals a 32-game regular season.
Playoffs will be 10 teams, 5 from each conference. I would suspect it would work along the lines of division winners plus next best team overall in each conference. There would be a “wild card” round that may or may not involve the possibility for conference crossover teams. keep in mind the MLS will move to the 10-team playoff next year, so I think we will learn A LOT about what they are thinking for the 20-team format.
As for the NFL,their solution is simple. take you 4 division winners plus two wildcards, and then seed strictly by record. Yeah, a 7-9 team would still be in the playoffs, but they would be seeded LAST. If the 2nd or 3rd best team in the conference had the misfortune of being in the same division as the #1 seed, then they would still be seeded #2 or #3 (this would avoid the confounding injustice suffered by the Indianoplis Colts a few year back, where as the #2 team overall in the AFC were reduced to the #5 seed and traveled across country, on a day’s less preparation, to play at a Chargers team who only got in because they won a terrible division)
I would like the NFL to do this, and no small reason for this is that the MLS would inevitably copy that idea
...that's MISTER Keller to you!!!
by malcontentjake on Dec 28, 2010 12:18 PM PST reply actions
Craziness or opportunity?
While it might seem outrageous that a losing team could make the playoffs, keep in mind that Seattle is playing a meaningful game on Sunday – a game that will draw a lot of interest and excitement. If we’d had something less crazy in terms of divisional structure, Seattle and probably St Louis would instead be playing some meaningless game at the end of the season. Or: see the article on season parity. I’m not nearly as offended as most other people. For one, it’s obviously a once in a generation situation. The NFC West is historically bad and there’s still a good chance that it’s going to be an 8-8 team that makes it out. I don’t think I’d stress about 4-team divisions as being problematic. For two, I’ll take an occasional 7-9 playoff team if it means that there are more meaningful games.
Nos Audietis
problem is
NFC West has been one of the poorer divisions for quite some time now. This is a definite trend, and while I’m sure it will change eventually, there has been a certain separation of poor and strong divisions in the NFL over the last 5 years.
MLB is actually pretty bad when it comes to this. Teams like the Toronto Blue Jays and Baltimore Orioles are doomed by geography. I’m sure these teams would love a shot at the AL West sometime…
...that's MISTER Keller to you!!!
by malcontentjake on Dec 28, 2010 2:17 PM PST up reply actions
It just hit me, I think that is why the commish wants more wild card teams.
To give Toronto and Baltimore home
So what exactly is the problem?
So I’ve gathered that there are two things folks are annoyed with. Please set me straight if I’m not getting it.
1) “A team with a losing record making the playoffs? OUTRAGEOUS!” I don’t even feel like thinking about how silly it is for a fan of MLS to stress about that. Also, IF the Seahawks win, it will be the very first time a losing team made it. Doesn’t the exception prove the rule? They have structured the rules very well to keep it from happening, and its taken all the stars alligning to make it possible.
2) “Some games aren’t meaningful and the teams phone them in!” What in god’s name can you do about that? It’s not always a do or die situation for both teams. When it is, thats called the playoffs. All sports have this issue. I think the NFL and the MLS do a pretty good job at raising the tension. That race to the playoff for the sounders was awesome. We had a 7% chance in july and climbed our way to it. Was that whole half the season not meaningful enough?
by Jonathan Cracolici on Dec 28, 2010 4:28 PM PST reply actions
Exceptions don't prove rules
They are merely exceptions.
And I never said I have a problem with a losing team making the Playoffs. I have a problem with teams claiming a “championship” when they clearly suck.
I am not a Supporter | I am not a Fan | I am a Sounder
Sounder At Heart
I actually do have a problem with "losing" teams making the playoffs
it somewhat defeats the purpose of the regular… why play all those games to determine who the cream of the crop are only to allow average and below-average teams into an elimination tournament where “anything can happen.” seems to me that eventually teams will learn there is not point in going “all out” to win as many games as they can, and when you do this, you have a REAL problem on your hands…
...that's MISTER Keller to you!!!
by malcontentjake on Dec 28, 2010 4:40 PM PST up reply actions
well ok
@ Dave
Ok sure it’s just an exception. And yes the ’hawks do suck. But the NFC West championship is not something people often brag about. Who brags about being the best of the worst? Also, hawks and the rams have the same record in division. Thats how the division champ is decided. So the game on sunday is basically a NFC West Division Championship Game. Whoever wins deserves it. They even have the same record in conference. I dont see how performance against the AFC makes the Rams a better fit for the title. PLUS if they cant beat the ’hawks they should all just go home and cry. I dont think Carrol was ready for the level of suckitude of the hawks.
by Jonathan Cracolici on Dec 28, 2010 5:07 PM PST reply actions
Actually there will be a banner flown by every single Division Champion in the NFL
The Seahawks sent out a press release calling this week “Championship Week”
So yes, they are making a big deal out of it.
Larger divisions with a more balanced schedule eliminates the entire issue.d
I am not a Supporter | I am not a Fan | I am a Sounder
Sounder At Heart
The FO pumps it up
But how many people do you see walking around with “Seahawks- 2007 NFC West Champs!” sweatshirts? The conference is a big deal. I see plenty of 2005 hats. But no one cares about the NFC west champ. The FO is just putting some hype on it.
Maybe youre right about the bigger division deal. But I know some fans of the NFC North that would hate it. We just have this problem because we are the worst division. and in my mind, that puts the onus on NFC West teams to just get better. There is no reason they can’t. I dont think its a league problem.
by Jonathan Cracolici on Dec 28, 2010 6:43 PM PST up reply actions
What harm is their in bigger divisions?
Would you rather have the Sounders carry a division/conference banner by beating 2 other teams? Or 8 other teams? Which has more meaning?
I am not a Supporter | I am not a Fan | I am a Sounder
Sounder At Heart
I'll add this
Smaller divisions works a little better in NFL because there are so few games. They are less necessary in MLS where you can have bigger divisions, still play two games against your division foes and have room to play the other teams. In the NFL, if you had a six-team division, there would only be four games left to play against non-division foes.
Editor/writer at Sounder at Heart, North American soccer editor SB Nation and of course follow me on Twitter
by Jeremiah Oshan on Dec 28, 2010 7:23 PM PST up reply actions
Fair point jake.
That would indeed be a very real problem. But please consider that in a league with a draft, being the best team to NOT make the playoffs is the worst position possible. Making only a very few teams qualify for the playoffs might eliminate the mediocre teams getting trophies, but then again if they are so mediocre and the other teams so great, why dont the great teams just win? Also you might risk creating a race to the bottom for draft picks and allocation money.
But all this assumes that teams basically want trophies and good players and that they will act calculatingly and cynically to get them. Maybe true. But i dont think so. I think teams want FANS. Fans who spend their money on the team. And that it is the fans who want trophies and good players on their chosen team. I dont think many teams will phone in games because fans HATE that. Like you do. Take comfort in knowing that everyone hates seeing their team put in a shitty effort and not even try. So its not very profitable.
If all us would send them 1k a year to not show up, they’d oblige. But we dont. So dont stress.
by Jonathan Cracolici on Dec 28, 2010 5:48 PM PST reply actions
Making only a very few teams qualify for the playoffs might eliminate the mediocre teams getting trophies, but then again if they are so mediocre and the other teams so great, why dont the great teams just win?
this is always the argument, and always will be the argument, and it’s incredibly weak to me. When the 12-4 Colts lost to the 8-8 Chargers in the ‘09 NFL playoffs, there was a nationwide cry of "if they Colts were so good, they would’ve won."
They sure did, in a 16-game schedule, they won 4 more games that the Chargers. That’s a full 25% of games… that is a significant margin.
This all goes back to the “who’s the best team arguments.” If you play 34 games, then the “best team” is the one that had the best record out of those 34 games. If you play one game, then the “best team” is whoever won out of that 1 game. Things is, I will ALWAYS take the larger sample set, and anyone who knows anything about statistics would agree with me (there are exceptions, as applying to the quality of the data).
So, are we interested in finding out who the best team is over the course of a SEASON or just one or two games. If we are only interested in finding out who the best team is over 1 or two games that’s fine… BUT WHAT IS THE POINT OF THE REGULAR SEASON?!
You raise the “entertainment” issue, which is certainly valuable. But it is my personal opinion that sport’s league’s tread on Dangerous ground by reducing the competitive value and importance of regular season games. At some point, people are going to catch on and maybe not care as much.
One reason I am so big on this issue is that this is basically what happened to me with the NHL and NBA (before I turned my back on the NBA as any sort of fan). At some point, I just couldn;t care about regular-season games any more… I had better things to do, because, frankly, what was the point?!
...that's MISTER Keller to you!!!
by malcontentjake on Dec 28, 2010 6:24 PM PST up reply actions
Why do you care anyway?
I hate to bring it up, because its something sports fans dont often like to examine, especially the super-fan type. I care about the sounders because after a death in the family I was very upset. and being of norwegian stock, the coping model i had was straight ignoring to pain. Then i discovered the sounders. Going to a losing game is like a group therapy session and a great way to misdirect some hate in a totally acceptable way. Then they started winning and it was so much fun. The USOC game was amazing and dramatic and energenic.
So why do you support? What role does trophies have in your fandom? You talk a lot about trophies and who is statistically the best and such. Why? Why dont you care about games that have a direct relationship to a trophy? Its not YOUR trophy…
I mean, sure, anyone who knows about statistics would agree that the team who preformed better over a large sample was better. But thats not who wins, esspecially in soccer. there were games in this last season where everyone said, “the sounders did great at possession and creating chances, but they couldnt finish them.” In soccer, you have to finish your chances or you’ll lose. Chances at goal, or at a trophy.
by Jonathan Cracolici on Dec 28, 2010 6:56 PM PST reply actions
I think the reason “why” is because many of us here want a sense of accomplishment after a season.
Like last season, USOC Champions, qualified for the playoffs, qualified for the Champions league. We can look back on a season and not just see the great wins like vs Portland in the USOC, Ljungberg’s return to Seattle, Fucito’s heroics, Nkufo’s hatrick in Colombus, ect.
Those are all great, but trophies and titles are really what many of us here seek. And we don’t want those titles and trophies to be meaningless.
Many of us here don’t care about friendlies, pre season games, and anything else that isn’t a competitive game because we won’t look back on a season and say “Man what a great season, we beat X famous team in a friendly, and had a great win over Vancouver”
We will look back on a season and say " Man what a great season, we advanced to the knockout stage of the Champions League, reached the USOC Final, and won a few playoff games"
proud 4th line advocate
After a long arduous summer of training, back for a new season of perpetuating hockey superstitions
yeah i understand. but why?
I feel largely the same way. The open cup matches and playoff race were the best for me. What a rush.
But I’m not asking Jake if trophies are important to him. I know they are. Me too, honestly. What I am wondering is WHY Jake likes trophies. What about them appeals to him so strongly? I feel he must have a good personal reason to focus so steadily on the Sounders winning a trophy, and for that trophy to be properly prestigious.
Im honestly asking. im not looking to be critical or anything.
What about trophies do you like iced?
Im asking because I think that getting to the bones of peoples ideas helps avoid the internet “everyone misunderstands and argues with each other and no one listens” thing
by Jonathan Cracolici on Dec 29, 2010 1:17 AM PST up reply actions
what do I like about trophies? The fact that they signify success for my team
proud 4th line advocate
After a long arduous summer of training, back for a new season of perpetuating hockey superstitions
yes they do
The thing is, I’ve been lurking on this blog for a long time, and people like Iced, MalcontentJake, and myself take a much more than passing interest in the success of the sounders. I have my reasons to be attatched to the team(see above). I think trophies in particular appeal to me because it fufils some sort of childish sports hero/glory fantasy in me. Attaching yourself to something glorious and impressive has a strong attraction, especially if, like me, you dont have much of it in your day to day life. Also, as I said above, the gameday experience has become a sorta fun ritual to me.
So thats me. I dont assume you feel the same.
You dont have to give more than a stock answer to my question, but id be interested.
by Jonathan Cracolici on Dec 29, 2010 11:18 AM PST up reply actions
PS
I really dont mean to pry Jake. Its just that as fans we often forget that everyone doesnt relate to the team the same way we do. We all invest in different ways and for different reasons.
by Jonathan Cracolici on Dec 28, 2010 7:00 PM PST reply actions
the arguments I'm making are based upon logic...
not based upon my emotions as a supporter. I think it is logical to say that the longer and more balanced the schedule, the less need there is for a playoff.
I’m not really sure where you are getting your trophies talk from…
...that's MISTER Keller to you!!!
by malcontentjake on Dec 29, 2010 5:30 PM PST up reply actions
I believe you are wrong in yourr premise
The purpose is not to find out who the best team is, it is to crown a “Champion.” There are several ways to achieve that, some ways are better than others and what constitutes “better” is up to debate.
What is a "Champion" if not the best team?
I am not a Supporter | I am not a Fan | I am a Sounder
Sounder At Heart
I think what Coug1990 is getting at...
Our playoff systems are not designed to crown a champion that is clearly the best team. They are usually designed to balance that desire with creating an exciting spectacle. In a balanced schedule league, for instance, there’s no question allowing fewer playoff games are more likely to award the “better” teams, but the more teams there are creates the more watchable product. Playoffs are almost always about money, not about crowing great champs.
Editor/writer at Sounder at Heart, North American soccer editor SB Nation and of course follow me on Twitter
by Jeremiah Oshan on Dec 30, 2010 9:44 AM PST up reply actions
I, for one, believe that the threat of relegation keeps teams honest in the whole "let's go 7-9. make the playoffs, turn a profit, rinse and repeat thing"
If this league turns a profit, and most teams ever do, relegation needs to be revisited- there’s too much incentive to coast. I’m also saying this because if there were a promotion system, North Carolina would have an MLS team- it’s something of a joke that we don’t, in a state that has done a great deal for the development of the game in the United States.
The twitter
Anfield Asylum, sbnation's very own open zoo for the most dangerous game: Liverpool fans
"Voetbal is pas totaal als je wint"- Coach Adun
"The greatest sin is to spurn the gift"- Coach Alistair
Relagation is not feasable in MLS. It will never happen
Expansion fees for the Sounders and the Union were $30 million. Expansion fees for the Whitecaps and the Timber were $40 million. There has been talk of $50 million in expansion fees the next go around. Furthermore, there are the soccer specific stadiums that are being built for countless millions.
What owner/city in their right mind would spend that much money on a team/facility with the chance they would be relegated to a lower level?
In addition, would the second division team have to pay $50 million to move up (else it would not be fair to teams that had paid an expansion fee)? Would a 2nd division team have a stadium that was MLS ready?
I see your points...sorta
but you buy a team and know that it’s an investment, but investments don’t always work. Owners of epl teams spend milions yet get relegated, and they all have millions of dollars in stadiums (pounds for the ones who like specifics) yet get relegated. How does leeds feel or newcastle last year? Yes we don’t have the fan base or money for relegation, but to say never? I can see it with the growth that’s been happening in maybe 20 years, or 30… (if I can get my wish)
A sky of blue, a sea of green...(or claret)
by kelliott1527 on Dec 29, 2010 6:36 PM PST up reply actions
What current owner will vote in favor of relegating themselves?
AEG with their hundreds of millions spent on the league? they have 2 votes
Hunt Sports Group with their hundreds of millions spent on the league? they have 2 votes
Kraft with his losses in the upper tens of millions? that’s another vote
Anschutz with his losses in the upper tens of millions? that’s another vote
That alone is 6 votes from the founders of the league with hundreds of millions of losses that you think will be willing to literally destroy their franchise?
I am not a Supporter | I am not a Fan | I am a Sounder
Sounder At Heart
did the owners of english teams get a vote?
or the germans, or spanish or dutch etc etc. How aout the aba owners that lost their teams? My point is eventually we will get to a point where the league is too big and there is more demand. We can’t have a 50 team league can we… Or 40 you eventually get to a point where you have to change something and someone is going to lose out whether they like it or not. Also did newcastle get destroyed last year?
A sky of blue, a sea of green...(or claret)
by kelliott1527 on Dec 30, 2010 9:37 AM PST up reply actions
For pro/rel in nearly every country where it exists
It was around before 99% of current owners’ lives.
And yes, ABA owners of teams that folded voted for that. They were given a lot of money.
Newcastle is not in the USA where the 2nd Division has a team failure rate at something like 66%, and the third division at over 75%. So I don’t really care what happens to them. I care about American soccer and the lower divisions here are a death sentence if an MLS team got relegated to them.
I am not a Supporter | I am not a Fan | I am a Sounder
Sounder At Heart
my original post says IF...
not when. (the 20 year is a dream, not destined to happen I know that) would the sounders die if it went to division 2 for a couple yearsn I don’t think so, maybe I’m wrong. Your point about 99% of teams is irrelevant, in 100 years if or league keeps growing 100% of the owners today will be dead, it has to happen to someone. The premier league of today didn’t start until what 94 I believe? The nasl today which is now the number two division split off last year, who is to say that can’t happen, maybe the best supported teams grow tired of mls’s roster rules and split…my point is you can’t say will never happen, we don’t know what will happen
A sky of blue, a sea of green...(or claret)
by kelliott1527 on Dec 30, 2010 1:21 PM PST up reply actions
Thought the EPL didn't start until mid 90s
it replaced the old First Division that already had pro/rel.
I am not a Supporter | I am not a Fan | I am a Sounder
Sounder At Heart
I don't think it replaced it
it started as a way for big teams to make money, they wanted better tv rights. The old first division is now the championship (d2). They decided to break off. It started in 92.
A sky of blue, a sea of green...(or claret)
by kelliott1527 on Dec 30, 2010 4:43 PM PST up reply actions
Sure, except that every team in the old 1st Div
was immediately in the EPL
I am not a Supporter | I am not a Fan | I am a Sounder
Sounder At Heart
2 werent
there was 22 in the old one, now it’s only 20
A sky of blue, a sea of green...(or claret)
by kelliott1527 on Dec 30, 2010 8:48 PM PST up reply actions
Sure, but there wasn't really an option to not have pro/rel
I am not a Supporter | I am not a Fan | I am a Sounder
Sounder At Heart
and eventually IF (IF IF IF IF)
there are too many teams, there will be no other option then to have pro/reg in the states, so back to my original point, you can’t say never will happen. It could, it’s plausible. Right now no…bt in 50 years, why not? The original owners who paid fees will be dead.
A sky of blue, a sea of green...(or claret)
by kelliott1527 on Dec 30, 2010 9:25 PM PST up reply actions
Plausible?
no
possible, maybe
if in 50 years the 2nd division isn’t in 80% empty high school football stadiums, and not even on TV, then maybe.
I am not a Supporter | I am not a Fan | I am a Sounder
Sounder At Heart
I'm sorry maybe I'm an idiot
but what’s the difference between plausible and possiblen in my mind it’s basically them same
A sky of blue, a sea of green...(or claret)
by kelliott1527 on Dec 30, 2010 10:10 PM PST up reply actions
also sorry for the typos...its on a phone
A sky of blue, a sea of green...(or claret)
by kelliott1527 on Dec 30, 2010 10:12 PM PST up reply actions
Chance of it happening
Plausible has a greater likelihood with a higher weight of logical indicators.
Possible just has less of both.
I am not a Supporter | I am not a Fan | I am a Sounder
Sounder At Heart
got it
thanks for the definitions
A sky of blue, a sea of green...(or claret)
by kelliott1527 on Dec 31, 2010 12:10 PM PST up reply actions
I'm stupid when it comes to word choice
Likely over particular
I am not a Supporter | I am not a Fan | I am a Sounder
Sounder At Heart
Strucure
OK- I know this is a radical idea that would never actually work- but how about this. You play a whole season- make it 8 months long with plenty enough games to separate the men from the boys. Then the next year you take your best, say, 4 teams and put them in a playoff with the best teams from other countries’ leagues. Call it, um, a.. Champion’s League. I like the sound of that. Run the playoff’s concurrently with the next year’s season. And just to make sure that every team is playing for something- every team will earn a spot- and a seeding (based on it’s previous year’s performance) in some sort of “post season” tournament filled with both local and international clubs.
Now that would be awesome. I mean, I really don’t get why you can’t have a post season at the same time as you have a regular season.
And just for giggles and some excitement, lets add another single elimination playoff in there, for all the adrenaline junkies. Oh, and to keep North Carolina happy lets invite amateur teams too. Call it a… Open Cup, or something simple like that.
It would be sweet. And I know a setup like this could never work under any circumstance. But I’m telling you, a setup like that would be exciting.
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
