>>65055821 As a Liverpool fan and general football fan, I will admit that I can't argue. I think These teams should have a champion's league all season and get relegated to their old division. That would make things more competitive.
American sports are so shit there's literally no consistency. Probably because the winning team celebrates with a couple hundred Big Mac's causing them a literal early retirement unlike European GOAT elite athletes who actually like to be consistent and win more.
>>65056413 you understand that doesn't make any sense right? United have played like shit ever since he retired, even though in his last season they won the league with like 12 points to spare. They're the richest team in England, if it purely came down to money they would still be walking the league every year instead of losing to relegation tier teams.
United will never have the same success they experienced in the fergie era, and I can guarantee you there will be more than just 4 different winners in the next 20 years because of it.
>>65056467 >I can guarantee you there will be more than just 4 different winners in the next 20 years because of it.
I wouldn't bet on it. Not with wonga finally rebuilding a title winning team or guardiola at city. Which ever team wins now will continue winning and will win the majority of the leagues within the next 10 years. Screen cap this.
>>65056524 The managerial position is different now. Wonga has been around a long time and even if he can create a team that can win many titles within this time (which I still think is generally unlikely despite the Arse squad getting stronger) he won't be around for much longer. As much as I like him and the ideas he puts forward the guy is fucking old now.
As for Pep, if he comes to the PL and succeeds like he has elsewhere it doesn't even matter, he won't be around for a long time, few managers are anymore. They win one season and then get sacked in the morning for not winning (or in Peps case he'll just leave the club). Acquiring the title is more important than ever in this day and age, no manager will be around for the amount of time Wonga/Fergie were.
Also if the EPL can increase their standing in the CL which SHOULD happen due to the amount of money being brought in, the top clubs will even further adopt this style of sacking managers if they don't bring immediate success. All of this is what leads me to believe more than 4 teams will win the title in the next 20 years. No team will have that long term manager that can force results out of players like Ferguson could, which is why there was only that amount that won.
>team finishes first and dominates the Championship (2nd tier of english football) >next season, gets promoted to the premier league, can barley scrape out 4-6 wins, relegated with 3-6 games in the season >gets relegated back to championship >gets promoted again >cycle never ends
>>65057277 In all honesty, aren't there any NFL teams too that have never won the owl and probably never will? >>65057316 Leicester (currently 2nd) got promoted after the 2013-2014 season. Argument invalid.
>>65058191 Here's what it looks like for the last 10 seasons in the NFL.
15-16: Carolina (15-1) 14-15: Dallas, Denver, Green Bay, New England, Seattle (12-4) 13-14: Denver, Seattle (13-3) 12-13: Atlanta, Denver (13-3) 11-12: Green Bay (15-1) 10-11: New England (14-2) 09-10: Indianapolis (14-2) 08-09: Tennessee (13-3) 07-08: New England (16-0) 06-07: San Diego (14-2)
Now look at the last 10 seasons for the EPL:
14-15: Chelsea 13-14: Man City 12-13: Man United 11-12: Man City 10-11: Man United 09-10: Chelsea 08-09: Man United 07-08: Man United 06-07: Man United 05-06: Chelsea 04-05: Chelsea
With the NFL, you get a minimum of 6 different "league winners" in the last 10 seasons, and potentially as many as 8. You only get 3 in the EPL. And keep in mind that New England has been going through an almost impossibly successful period of dominance in the last 14 years, so this is actually less even than the NFL really should be.
Because the two aren't really comparable. You have 78 teams in total competing in the Champions League, while you have 32 teams in the NFL. Champions League:
14-15: Barcelona (5th title) 13-14: Real Madrid (10th title) 12-13: Bayern Munich (5th title) 11-12: Chelsea (1st title) 10-11: Barcelona (4th title) 09-10: Inter (3rd title) 08-09: Barcelona (3rd title) 07-08: Man United (3rd title) 06-07: Milan (7th title) 05-06: Barcelona (2nd title)
14-15: New England (4th) 13-14: Seattle (1st) 12-13: Baltimore (2nd) 11-12: New York (4th) 10-11: Green Bay (4th) 09-10: New Orleans (1st) 08-09: Pittsburgh (6th) 07-08: New York (3rd) 06-07: Indianapolis (2nd)4th) 05-06: Pittsburgh (5th)
So 7 different CL winners and 8 different Super Bowl winners. And the CL is getting less and less competitive each year, it's basically a 3-horse race at this point, with one outsider occasionally challenging (Juventus last season, Atletico the season before that). The Super Bowl, on the other hand, is getting more competitive, with the exception of New England, who keep managing to beat the system through brilliant management, sheer dumb luck, and the best coach-QB duo in football history.
>>65055882 >Yeah American basketball is so much better
Number of different EPL champions in the last 15 years: 4
Number of different NBA champions in the last 15 years: 7
All 4 of those EPL Champions are still contenders at least once every couple years today. Chelsea won it last season, United won it two years ago and should be able to win it in the next few years thanks to all their money, Arsenal and City are the favorites for the title this season. Compare that to Detroit, Boston, Dallas or LA, none of which look like they can win a title in the next few years.
The difference between the two is even bigger if you use the European "best record=league champion" system, the NBA would have had 10 different winners in the past 15 years (Golden State, San Antonio, Chicago, Cleveland, Dallas, Boston, Los Angeles, Detroit, Indiana, Sacramento).
>>65059587 Because there is no relegation in the NFL. If you wanna go theoretical, there are theoretically infinite potential winners in the Champions League, since European national leagues have promotion and relegatoin. Leicester City was in the second english division last season, will probably go to the Champions League next season and will be a "potential winner". That's why we have playoffs in the Champions League, to give the lesser teams a chance to progress further. Since in the NFL it's always the same teams, there is no need to have that many teams. That doesn't necessarily mean that there should be more different winners because 78 teams enter the Champions League. The only thing that means is that there are a lot more shitty teams in the Champions League than there are in the NFL in total. Only 32 teams enter the "real" Champions League anyways, which begins in the group phase, same number of teams as the NFL.
Teams in your sports actually lose matches on purpose so that they can get better players in the draft. That is laughable desu.
The whole concept of a draft is fascicle as well. The whole point of a sport is that its engaging and anyone can get started on the pyramid, For some reason yanks prefer sports like handegg and basketball which regular people can't even play themselves and so have to fulfill their cuck fetishes watching 6'6 280lb black men play instead.
>>65060019 Doubt Leicester at your peril m8 >>65060020 It's called the joys of a free market economy and I wouldn't have it any other way
Also here's a league where the richest teams don't always win - the Championship. Pic related is wage bills for 2015/16. QPR and Fulham who are spending the most are near the bottom of the table. Meanwhile Middlesbrough and Derby who spend much less are at the top.
Clubs rise and fall, that's what makes football exciting. In the NFL teams are all owned by the league, and that league not only imposes wage caps but can also just move those teams, willy nilly, whenever they feel like it. I mean what a fucking joke. One second you're supporting the Rams and the next second you don't have a team. Football is all about watching your team as they go up and down (hopefully up) the table.
>>65060076 Forgot pic >>65060057 >not understanding attacking with the ball, defending, pressing, counter-attacking, set pieces, link-up play, vision, dribbling skills, passing skills, shooting, etc. Wouldn't expect anything more from an American >>65060072 >not doing everything you can to win the game Nice """sport""" you got over there
this is literally the most retarded shit I've heard yet. It also shows the difference between effeminate yuro mentality and the american mentality(always winners btw.
yuro trash >a 0-0 tie is perfect, everyone should get a medal for participating >p-pls dont compare our countries leagues compare all of our pathetic continent, even though historically we have always hated each other
American always a winner mentality >if we are not good in a sport at this moment we challenge ourselves to becoming the goat in that sport because thats just the american thing to do > ties are pointless, might as well not have shown up to play
and that ladies and faggots, is why american will always dominate the world while yurolets will lay down and wither away into the dust.
>>65060076 >Clubs rise and fall, that's what makes football exciting.
>Man United has won 13 titles since 1992 >Real Madrid has won 7 titles since 1992 >Barcelona has won 12 titles since 1992 >Bayern Munich has won 12 titles since 1992
Not a lot of falling going on here imo. And in the Premier League at least, it looks like the only way a club can rise is to be bought by a shady billionaire willing to invest $1 billion or more in a team.
>>65060112 >American sports are based on instant gratification.
Yeah, that's baseball all right. All-out action, constant score changes every few seconds.
>If the score isn't constantly changing they get bored.
Not really, most football games have scores in the low 20s (and since each TD is for all intents and purposes 7 points, that's the roughly the equivalent of 3 goals). Americans don't like soccer for the same reason Brits don't like baseball and nobody outside of the Commonwealth of Nations likes cricket: it's boring as hell unless you actually have some understanding of what's going on or you're actually playing it/have played it.
Are you really saying the business-orientated domination that football has turned into is preferable? I admit you can't suddenly implement a NFL style system for football but its actually one of the ways American sports are better.
>>65059829 >The whole point of a sport is that its engaging and anyone can get started on the pyramid, For some reason yanks prefer sports like handegg and basketball which regular people can't even play themselves
Regular people can and do play football and basketball. Go to just about any park on a weekend and you'll find people playing pickup game.
>>65060193 Ignoring baseball, all American sports /are/ kind of based on constant gratification. Basketball is the best example of it. Hockey not as blatant but still more than other sports.
NFL is different in that the instant gratification doesnt come from scoring so much as the fact that essentially EVERY play is a big play. A game changing interception or fumble could happen at any moment and the constant ticking clock of 3 downs creates that exciting tension.
I'm not saying that this is a bad thing, I'm a big gridiron and hockey fan, but it is mostly true. ITs mostly indicative of our different cultures.
>>65060096 >>65060103 Exactly my point >>65060105 They might do Better than a tournament where any literal who can win the top prize. What the hell is the point in that? Just shows your tournament is a joke >>65060112 >If the score isn't constantly changing they get bored. Its just the way it is, they need something to keep them cheering and clapping. Or if there isn't a brainless beer or truck advert to pacify them, or if there aren't dumb bitches in skirts dancing for them, etc... >>65060158 And now Man United are 5th, they didn't even get into European competitions for last season, and this season they got binned out the CL. And Chelsea, one of the top clubs, are 14th in the PL. As you Americans like to say, "go figure".
He used the wrong words but I kind of agree with his point. The better concept to consider is beign invested in the sport. When you grow up watching football/soccer you become invested in the sport and /get/ how it becomes exciting even in a 0-0 situation. From outside it must be dreadfully boring. We've all sat through 0-0 shitshows that we almost wish we hadnt, but we accept them for all the better games we know will pop up any minute.
>>65057419 >In all honesty, aren't there any NFL teams too that have never won the owl
>and probably never will?
No. In the Premier League, about 2/3 of the teams will never win a title and never even challenge for the title unless the government of some Arab country buys them. Stoke, Crystal Palace, West Ham, Norwich, Bournemouth, West Brom, Sunderland.....these teams are never going to win and will almost certainly never even come close.
In the NFL, on the other hand, any team can theoretically win the Super Bowl with smart management and a little luck. Seattle won their first Super Bowl 2 years ago, New Orleans won their first 5 years ago. Carolina and Arizona have never won it, but one of them will definitely be in this year's Super Bowl and have a good chance of winning their first.
>>65060368 >IT means half the matches are fucking pointless. So when Leicester beat Man U 5-3 last season, that was a pointless match? >Competitive tournaments and leagues where loads of people have a chance of winning are literally always preferable. We have that mate, it's called the FA Cup. There's a reason people don't take the FA Cup as seriously as the Prem. Because literal whos can chance their way to winning the cup through a few flukey performances. Yes it is exciting and it's cool to see when a smaller team wins. But it doesn't make the FA cup winner the best team. People watch the Prem because it means you have to consistently perform for 38 matches to win the title. Then you know that the winner is definitely the best team.
I mean what's the point in handegg if some random shitty team chances its way to the super bowl and wins? It's not reflective of the regular season is it. May as well not play the regular season at all. >more of a joke than a league where you can essentially buy yourself the title with a sheikh sugar daddy? That's a recent phenomenon mate and as you have seen, City haven't been able to buy the CL have they. The best players and managers want to join the prestigious clubs rather than those that just have money
These kind of come under the same heading. How is this a bad thing? This year's epl has been the best in ages because it hasnt been predictable and boring but we all know that its going to be a fluke of a season and go back to normal over the next few years. Handegg v football threads are the ONLY place where football fans act like parity is a bad thing; when we're having league v league threads the first insult everyone goes to is "two-horse league/one-horse league."
>Franchises Whats your issue with them?
>Muh breaks in play to air more commercials
Yeah thats kind of retarded when the actual game is changed to accommodate commercials but the actual constant commercials aren't a problem since you'd just be watching people standing about/setting up on the field or lsitening to the american equivalents of Michael Owen giving their shit opinions
Dumb as shit.
Eh, keeps everything clean and not spread across 7 different teams in one city. Also if you watch other sports then its less of a problem.
>>65060389 That's what we have the Champions League for. There is no such thing as a Football League in the USA. The NFL is just a longer version of the Champions League. You can't compare the Premier League to the NFL. They don't even work the same way. There are no knockout rounds in the Premier League or any other european soccer leagues.
>>65060332 >And now Man United are 5th, they didn't even get into European competitions for last season, and this season they got binned out the CL.
Oh, the horror, they've fallen all the way down to 5th. They're still the richest club in the league, and they're virtually guaranteed to win another title in the next 5 years because that's just how the Premier League works.
>And Chelsea, one of the top clubs, are 14th in the PL. As you Americans like to say, "go figure".
Chelsea won the title last season, they're going through an unprecedented collapse this season, but they'll probably also win a title in the next 5 years, they just have too much money not to.
The Premier League especially is the best example of the "rich clubs just keep getting richer" thing, for the last 20 years it's been 4 rich teams passing the trophy around, and for the last 12 years it's just been 3. If a club challenges the 4 rich clubs, it loses its top players to them or to a rich foreign club the following season and promptly sinks back to mediocrity (Liverpool, Tottenham, Southampton, Leicester next season, probably Tottenham again soon) Nobody is rising except for the clubs already at the top.
>>65060411 >So when Leicester beat Man U 5-3 last season, that was a pointless match?
Ignoring random upsets the majority of teams play meaningless fixtures after Christmas. Most teams start the season knowing they will be lucky to finish above 7th but safe knowing they wont finish below 15th.
FA Cup isnt taken as seriously becasue its not the important league. Flukey performances are more common but they still mean nothing in the grand scheme of things and aren't relevant here.
>Random shitty team chances its way
They still have to actualy get into the play offs and flukes aren't as easy in handegg as they are in football. If they made it to the super bowl then they deserve to be there.
>Best players want to join clubs over money
Bullshit. City were literally who uefa cup tier and are now constant title challengers purely because of money.
>>65060464 >That's what we have the Champions League for.
But the Champions League has a similar problem. Who are the title contenders? Barca, Real, Bayern, PSG, Atletico, maybe Manchester City. Atletico is the only club you could seriously point to as a contender that hasn't either already won it multiple times or hasn't been bought out by an Arab country. If you're not a fan of one of those extremely rich clubs, you're fucked, barring a near-miraculous run.
>You can't compare the Premier League to the NFL. They don't even work the same way. There are no knockout rounds in the Premier League or any other european soccer leagues.
You could look at which team was the top seed at the end of each NFL regular season. It would be skewed by the division system, but it doesn't change the fact that teams actually rise and fall in the NFL in a way that just doesn't happen in the Premier League.
ITs actually gotten worse in recent years. Newcastle and Sunderland are most likely going to be relegated and are the only two northern teams left. Expect in the next 5 years for the only clubs to be within an hours drive of manchester and london.
thing is, there are always multiple trophies or objectives to aim for in a season. winning the league title is of course the biggest prize domestically, but you still have the cups and european qualification spots to aim for. then you have the europa league and champions league which have the best teams from each league playing in them, which makes them highly competitive. european football isnt as one dimensional as american sports are.
you can make a case for the ridiculous amounts of money injected into the sport in the last 20 years basically ruining any parity, but i don't think the american system is the answer.
True, thats why I said I accept that. Funnily enough, its a microcosm for how communism can't work in a globally capitalist society unless it is self-sufficient and isolated a la Soviet Union and the NFL .
>>65060411 >City haven't been able to buy the CL have they.
They've only been part of the rich club for about 8 years now. It's only a matter of time, Chelsea were able to buy the Champions League within a decade of being bought by Abramovich (along with a few league titles).
>The best players and managers want to join the prestigious clubs rather than those that just have money
If that was the case, then Mourinho would have never gone to Chelsea, Ancelotti wouldn't have gone to PSG, and Guardiola wouldn't (probably) be going to Manchester City next season. Players and coaches follow the money first, prestige is an afterthought.
So out of the 78 clubs that compete in the Champions League each season, every finalist in the past decade has been one of the 10 richest clubs except for Dortmund (11th), Milan (12th), Atletico (15th), and Inter (17th). That's the equivalent of 4 different teams appearing in the Super Bowl over a 10-year period, and it takes some of the excitement out of the competition when you can pick half of the quarterfinalists (if not the semifinalists) before the season even starts.
>>65060684 >Did anyone really expect them to beat Barca?
So Atletico was seconds away from beating Real, but Juventus didn't stand a chance from the beinning? Again, nice cherry picking.
Also, here is a list of Super Bowls of the last 10 years:
Pitsburgh Steelers - Seattle Seahawks Indianapolis Colts - Chicago Bears New York Giants - New England Patriots Pittsburgh Steelers - Arizona Cardinals New Orleans Saints - Indianapolis Colts Green Bay Packers - Pittsburgh Steelers New York Giants - New England Patriots Baltimore Ravens - San Francisco 49ers Seattle Seahawks - Denver Broncos New England Patriots - Seattle Seahawks
So, again, in the same time frame, 12 different teams have played in the Champions League final, as well as in the Superbowl.
And again you come up with this "78 teams" bullshit. The Champions League truly starts in the group phase, where only 32 teams participate. Before that are simply the play-offs to give smaller teams a chance to progress further, since we have promotion and relegation in European leagues. NFL teams don't get relegated. I've already explained all of this before and you still insist in saying that there is a difference when there clearly isn't.
Thread replies: 123 Thread images: 16
Thread DB ID: 455754
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective parties. Images uploaded are the responsibility of the Poster. Comments are owned by the Poster.
This is a 4chan archive - all of the shown content originated from that site. This means that 4Archive shows their content, archived. If you need information for a Poster - contact them.
If a post contains personal/copyrighted/illegal content, then use the post's [Report] link! If a post is not removed within 24h contact me at firstname.lastname@example.org with the post's information.