EPT2014 - 2015 Football Thread - Page 241
| Forum Index > Sports |
|
haitike
Spain2724 Posts
| ||
|
{CC}StealthBlue
United States41117 Posts
| ||
|
Maenander
Germany4926 Posts
| ||
|
Rebs
Pakistan10726 Posts
On September 25 2014 21:55 Stratos_speAr wrote: This is false. Every American sport has equal or more variation in champions than the individual European soccer leagues. Basketball has the least, but it's still better than European soccer. Ice hockey has the most, and hasn't had any kind of real dynasty for decades and is now more popular than ever. Same with American football. A huge amount of competition and variation, and there really aren't any dynasties in that sport at all, and popularity continues to explode. Globalism also doesn't have anything to do with the lack of competitiveness. A global game should have a larger pool of talent to pull from, meaning that there should be more competitiveness. Financial rules define the competitiveness of the European leagues. Aside from that, it's not an all-or-nothing game. You don't have to strip teams of the ability to make and spend any money whatsoever or make everything like the NFL playoffs to insert randomness into the picture to get some more variability and competitiveness in the leagues. However, there aren't really any (serious) limitations on spending or any policies that promote competition whatsoever, and it gets pretty out-of-control. I don't count Bayern dominating the Bundesliga for years exciting, or Spain being owned by Real Madrid and Barcelona for years exciting. Oh, and MLS isn't as popular because of the talent level in the games. People enjoy watching big names and a high level of talent. They don't watch La Liga because only the same two teams ever matter. They watch it because it's one of the most talented leagues in the world with the world's most recognizable players. EDIT: Number of Champions since 2000: NBA: Champions: 7 Repeats: 3 Threepeats: 1 MLB: Champions: 9 Repeats: 0 NFL: Champions: 9 Repeats: 1 Threepeats: 0 NHL (One less season): Champions: 11 Repeats: 0 Premier League: Champions: 4 Repeats: 5 Threepeats: 1 Double Winners: 2 Treble Winners: 0 La Liga: Champions: 5 Repeats: 4 Threepeats: 1 Double Winners: 1 Treble Winners: 1 Serie A (One less season): Champions: 5 Repeats: 7 Threepeats: 2 4-in-a-row: 1 5-in-a-row: 1 Doubles Winners: 2 Trebles Winners: 1 Bundesliga: Champions: 5 Repeats: 4 Threepeats: 0 Double Winners: 10 Treble Winners: 1 Europa League: Champions: 11 Repeats: 1 Champions League: Champions: 9 Repeats: 0 Overall, we see that every major American sport is more competitive than major European soccer leagues, with the least competitive (NBA) still more competitive than Europe. Europe is surprisingly close in terms of competitiveness (although if you narrowed the sample to the last 10 years, Serie A and La Liga would drop in competitiveness), with the Bundesliga having the least amount of Repeats/Threepeats but by far the most amount of Doubles. You could probably do a more in-depth analysis by looking at the average point differential at the end of each campaign or the different number of CL/EL participators (in which I would guess the Bundesliga would have the largest variance and La Liga the smallest amount), and on the American side the variation of teams making the playoffs, but I think this gets the point across. This also shows my point about the Bundesliga as well: Bayern counts for 9 championships since 2000, 3 out of 4 Repeats, 8 out of 10 Doubles, and the only Treble. The Bundesliga's competitiveness is hindered almost completely by Bayern (not that just getting rid of them would magically solve the problem, that's ridiculous). Uhmmm I didnt say much about other american sports I just pointed out basketball that has limited variability. Way to nitpick dude. Like not even looking at anything else I said. I am so speechless. Also just since 2000 ? I like how we are talking about sports leagues that have been around for decades in the vaccume of 14 years. Its a bit unfair to pick and choose what stats you want to throw to make a point. I said last few decades or is that so hard to read through 'agenda goggles?" I already pointed out that the only way to guarantee variability in terms of the final winner is single elimintation knockout sports. The CL is your prime example in your own list no less. So not sure why you felt you needed to go and tell me I am falsifying something im not talking about . It is a garbage level of analysis to simply point to a bunch of different winners. They may have different winners season on season but look at the average win rates of teams over the last few decades (in all major american sports) and you will get my point. I very specifically also mentioned league play. I really dont even know where to start to explain how you are making the wrong arguments against arguments that dont exist. Maybe you have your agenda to push but dont place it against things I have to say Also lets get real here. The world doesn't care, emerging markets don't care that YOU don't find Bayern dominating or Real/Barca dominating exciting. The growth of the game relies on these things whether you like it or not and that is a fact. It is incredibly asinine and arrogant to assume the world things about things the way you do because to "you" it makes sense. Maybe sitting in your little Murica bubble it might be hard to see, but I travel alot and I am exposed frequently to fanbases across Asia and East Asia your largest emerging markets. So much larger that all of Europe and the US accounts for about a fraction of fans in Subcontinental Asia alone. and they dont give 2 shits about Eibar. They want Madrid and Barca Fans in Asia dont give a shit if Villareal becomes a competitive team. They want to see Barcelona and Madrid do well. So I would quit being a whiny idealist "coz we like differents winners" And as far as American sports are concerned. They are hardly global games in the true sense of the word. So they dont care about their immediate growth in emerging markets and it doesnt matter to them either. Maybe a bit in recent years but come on lets be real. These sports are in their own little continental bubble. Murica fuck yeah right ? (P.S no one gives a shit about hockey. And MLS isnt a higher level becaause no team can dominate and create a trend of excellence, for everyone to follow. Thats how it has always worked and thats how it will always work and this is the case for all major sports.) | ||
|
zeo
Serbia6336 Posts
I came here to read one liners and debate whether Messi or Ronaldo are GOAT and why Mourinho/Guardiola is the best manager right now. Stop ruining the TL football thread experience with intelligent discussion and paragraphs. Thank you. | ||
|
fbs
United Kingdom2476 Posts
On September 26 2014 01:46 Micro_Jackson wrote: Nottingham Forrest, currently leader of the english championship (second league) spend 10,69 million euro this transfer period. Thats more then the second german league and the 3 least spending first league teams. Combined. This includes Schalke 04, a consistant CL team. lol nice stat  | ||
|
malcram
2752 Posts
| ||
|
Craze
United States561 Posts
On September 26 2014 18:40 Rebs wrote: Uhmmm I didnt say much about other american sports I just pointed out basketball that has limited variability. Way to nitpick dude. Like not even looking at anything else I said. I am so speechless. Also just since 2000 ? I like how we are talking about sports leagues that have been around for decades in the vaccume of 14 years. Its a bit unfair to pick and choose what stats you want to throw to make a point. I said last few decades or is that so hard to read through 'agenda goggles?" I already pointed out that the only way to guarantee variability in terms of the final winner is single elimintation knockout sports. The CL is your prime example in your own list no less. So not sure why you felt you needed to go and tell me I am falsifying something im not talking about . It is a garbage level of analysis to simply point to a bunch of different winners. They may have different winners season on season but look at the average win rates of teams over the last few decades (in all major american sports) and you will get my point. I very specifically also mentioned league play. I really dont even know where to start to explain how you are making the wrong arguments against arguments that dont exist. Maybe you have your agenda to push but dont place it against things I have to say Also lets get real here. The world doesn't care, emerging markets don't care that YOU don't find Bayern dominating or Real/Barca dominating exciting. The growth of the game relies on these things whether you like it or not and that is a fact. It is incredibly asinine and arrogant to assume the world things about things the way you do because to "you" it makes sense. Maybe sitting in your little Murica bubble it might be hard to see, but I travel alot and I am exposed frequently to fanbases across Asia and East Asia your largest emerging markets. So much larger that all of Europe and the US accounts for about a fraction of fans in Subcontinental Asia alone. and they dont give 2 shits about Eibar. They want Madrid and Barca Fans in Asia dont give a shit if Villareal becomes a competitive team. They want to see Barcelona and Madrid do well. So I would quit being a whiny idealist "coz we like differents winners" And as far as American sports are concerned. They are hardly global games in the true sense of the word. So they dont care about their immediate growth in emerging markets and it doesnt matter to them either. Maybe a bit in recent years but come on lets be real. These sports are in their own little continental bubble. Murica fuck yeah right ? (P.S no one gives a shit about hockey. And MLS isnt a higher level becaause no team can dominate and create a trend of excellence, for everyone to follow. Thats how it has always worked and thats how it will always work and this is the case for all major sports.) What an incredibly rude response to someone that took time to put together statistical trends with research that just happened to refute your claim. You can go back further in those sports and see even more variation if you really want to. MLS isn't a higher level because the US doesn't produce many great soccer players, if any. There's really no other reason. If you transported Bayern over and renamed them NYFC it wouldn't make the league better unless more young people started playing soccer seriously with the hope of becoming professionals. I don't see how his post was claiming "America is better." If you want to see five teams dominate a league forever until some playboy billionaire buys a sixth then the Euro model is great. I like to see teams like the Indi Colts, who lose almost every game in the preceding year (2-14) come back and be a winning team in the next (11-5) without a massive influx of cash. West Ham will never win another premier league with their current ownership, and that sucks for fans. Can you not agree with that? Or is your fanboyism so limited to the top club that you support that you adopt the "screw all the other guys" attitude? Oh, and Messi is the GOAT. | ||
|
Stratos_speAr
United States6959 Posts
On September 26 2014 18:40 Rebs wrote: Uhmmm I didnt say much about other american sports I just pointed out basketball that has limited variability. Way to nitpick dude. Like not even looking at anything else I said. I am so speechless. Also just since 2000 ? I like how we are talking about sports leagues that have been around for decades in the vaccume of 14 years. Its a bit unfair to pick and choose what stats you want to throw to make a point. I said last few decades or is that so hard to read through 'agenda goggles?" I already pointed out that the only way to guarantee variability in terms of the final winner is single elimintation knockout sports. The CL is your prime example in your own list no less. So not sure why you felt you needed to go and tell me I am falsifying something im not talking about . It is a garbage level of analysis to simply point to a bunch of different winners. They may have different winners season on season but look at the average win rates of teams over the last few decades (in all major american sports) and you will get my point. I very specifically also mentioned league play. I really dont even know where to start to explain how you are making the wrong arguments against arguments that dont exist. Maybe you have your agenda to push but dont place it against things I have to say Also lets get real here. The world doesn't care, emerging markets don't care that YOU don't find Bayern dominating or Real/Barca dominating exciting. The growth of the game relies on these things whether you like it or not and that is a fact. It is incredibly asinine and arrogant to assume the world things about things the way you do because to "you" it makes sense. Maybe sitting in your little Murica bubble it might be hard to see, but I travel alot and I am exposed frequently to fanbases across Asia and East Asia your largest emerging markets. So much larger that all of Europe and the US accounts for about a fraction of fans in Subcontinental Asia alone. and they dont give 2 shits about Eibar. They want Madrid and Barca Fans in Asia dont give a shit if Villareal becomes a competitive team. They want to see Barcelona and Madrid do well. So I would quit being a whiny idealist "coz we like differents winners" And as far as American sports are concerned. They are hardly global games in the true sense of the word. So they dont care about their immediate growth in emerging markets and it doesnt matter to them either. Maybe a bit in recent years but come on lets be real. These sports are in their own little continental bubble. Murica fuck yeah right ? (P.S no one gives a shit about hockey. And MLS isnt a higher level becaause no team can dominate and create a trend of excellence, for everyone to follow. Thats how it has always worked and thats how it will always work and this is the case for all major sports.) Really Rebs? Are you serious? No where did I say anything about "America being better" or anything like that. The fact that you would think that I, out of all posters on TL, would be the "'Murica" guy just points to the fact that you read one part of this post, flipped your lid, and proceeded to throw a tantrum for no reason. I also addressed all the major points of your post in the previous page's discussion. I didn't do anything inflammatory here and posted stats so we could discuss the pro's and con's and maybe ways to fix the lopsided-ness in European soccer (because it is a problem and is complained about everywhere, especially in the Bundesliga now, even if you don't want to admit it). Do you really think this kind of attack is justified? That your condescending and rude tone is in any way appropriate? you should be ashamed of yourself. You're like a rabid dog that comes in out of nowhere to attack a couple people having a polite, enjoyable, civil conversation about sports.. Also, for all of the insulting you do to me for supposedly being too arrogant, your level of arrogance and self-centered rhetoric (insulting entire countries or entire regions of the world) is astounding. | ||
|
malcram
2752 Posts
| ||
Pandemona
Charlie Sheens House51493 Posts
Please lets talk about how awesome attractive Chelsea play football. Especially how they dominated Man City last sunday. | ||
|
zeo
Serbia6336 Posts
On September 26 2014 23:35 Pandemona wrote: Yeah i don't like this pointless discussion of something no one knows the answer too as it will never happen. Please lets talk about how awesome attractive Chelsea play football. Especially how they dominated Man City last sunday. Yeah totally, Chelsea is awesome. I could talk about how Chelsea is better than every other team all day. | ||
|
Stratos_speAr
United States6959 Posts
On September 26 2014 23:35 Pandemona wrote: Yeah i don't like this pointless discussion of something no one knows the answer too as it will never happen. Please lets talk about how awesome attractive Chelsea play football. Especially how they dominated Man City last sunday. Chelsea's gonna choke hard and lose in the CL Ro16. Callin' it.  | ||
|
Pandemona
Charlie Sheens House51493 Posts
Not gone out at that stage in a while. Since Mourinho beat us i think or maybe Yanited. | ||
|
zeo
Serbia6336 Posts
On September 26 2014 23:47 Pandemona wrote: I hope we don't choke in RO16 t.t Not gone out at that stage in a while. Since Mourinho beat us i think or maybe Yanited. Yeah, Inter was the last team to beat us in ro16. Before that Barcelona I think. | ||
|
Mensol
14536 Posts
in Ibra we trust. | ||
|
MapleLeafSirup
Germany950 Posts
| ||
|
warding
Portugal2394 Posts
On September 26 2014 15:30 Maenander wrote: The abolishment of third party ownership is good news for sure, but in the short run it might be disastrous for some clubs that heavily relied on that system, like for example some Portuguese clubs. Here's another topic to have a long intelligent discussion about with a lot of paragraphs. I still don't exactly understand how third party ownership is bad. Anyone care to explain why it's bad for football? While you do, also specify how you're measuring the goodness or badness for football of it - football viewership? Total team revenues? | ||
|
Greg_J
China4409 Posts
Looks like I've been missing some pretty remarkable football. Just managed to catch Match of the Day 2 and Liverpool’s poor performance at West ham. How can losing Suaez be such a big loss to them. I guess he didn't just score half their goals last season he created the other half too. I'm sure the names are big enough at the worlds bluntest object (Liverpool) for them to eventually get their shit together and challenge for Europe don't see them as a title threat at the moment. Things aren't looking much better at the other end of Stanley Park where Everton don't look like a threat for Europe at the moment. Great performance against Wolfsburg midweek shows some hope for more to come from that team. United scored some great goals in that epic defeat to Leicester. LVG has got one end of the pitch sorted maybe its time to look at the other one now. Chelsea look too good, I'm officially anti supporting them until such time as they have less than a 4 point lead at which point I become neutral again. Manchester City and Arsenal aren’t in to poorer position to try and keep the chase on Chelsea. I hope Wellbeck is going to be good enough to keep Arsenal in the race for another few months at least. Anyway back to the pool. Oh one last thing I wanted to ask to anyone playing Fantasy Football is why the hell Mata has lost me 0.3 million of his original value despite the fact he’s not really done that bad at all? I was thinking of trading him since he might not be guaranteed to make the team every week now and I felt like I was been robbed when I saw he’s down in value. Look at bloody Hazard he’s worth 10 million (1 million more originally) has only scored one more point than Mata and some how he’s lost no value and Mata’s scored one less point and lost 0.3 seemingly for no better reason than to piss me off. Anyway pool, Fantasy Football not worth anger. | ||
|
malcram
2752 Posts
| ||
| ||
