October 09, 2007

How would NFL look like EPL season?: chico's column (and ensuing comments from other SpoFites) had me wondering how we could make this work.
1. How would you crown an all-NFL champ from league play alone? What would that league season look like?
2. What would the FA Cup look like in NFL play? Is it the Super Bowl or something else? What would you call the cup? How would this in-season tourney work out? What teams could play?
3. League Cup? I don't think we need this, given 1. and 2. How about you? How would you make it work.
4. Charity Shield = League champ vs FA Cup champ. Nuff said!

posted by worldcup2002 to navel gazing at 11:20 PM - 9 comments

I'm not saying this is a worthwhile exercise across all major league sports. But it's a fun exercise. Perhaps the NFL league and Super Bowl format is perfectly suited to the sport (physicality matched with no. of games played), geography (logistics and travel cost), finance (player costs, winnings, etc.) but I wanted to have this little conceit to work it out. Perhaps something interesting or new will come out of it. 1. First of all, I'd want every team to play every other team twice, i.e., once at home, and once at the opponent's stadium. Do they do this already? I don't really pay attention, but it doesn't seem that way. 32 teams would each have to play 31x2 = 62 games. Shudder. How many does a team play now, if they make it all the way to the Super Bowl? What's regular season game volume? How about fewer teams? How about a team only plays other teams once, but half of those games is at home, the other away? (Are we starting to look like the thing we're trying to change now? I'm no NFL expert, so forgive me.) 2. Considering the physicality of this sport, I shudder at what would happen with implementing no.1 alone. Tacking on another tourney seems insane. Perhaps all we end up with is no more playoffs. But that sounds too boring, compared to the current model. This new system would have to be at least as interesting, if not more interesting than the current system to be worth considering. 3. No League Cup. See 2. 4. That would be a fun start to the season. Obviously, if someone does the League and Cup double, it's the League Champ vs the FA Cup runner-up. But see 2.

posted by worldcup2002 at 11:45 PM on October 09, 2007

Wow. It takes a lot of skill to quadruple post.

posted by Ying Yang Mafia at 05:05 AM on October 10, 2007

All the posts are different YYM.

posted by Mr Bismarck at 06:46 AM on October 10, 2007

These kids today and their lack of reading comprehension. Punks.

posted by The_Black_Hand at 08:41 AM on October 10, 2007

worldcup2002 also posted this comment: I know I look like I'm nuts but seems like MLB is ripest for a change. 1. Every team plays every team, home and away but only once per meeting, not multiple-headers. So that's 30 teams each playing 29x2 = 58 regular season games. Compared to 164, that's pretty good. 2. FA Cup = World Series (or sumtin'). Top 16 teams in regular season play enter the World Series tourney. It's knockout format, home and away, except that there's a tie-breaker game if the score's tied. (Or you can conjure up some MLB version of the away goals rule where the runs you score on the road count for more than those you score at home. An aggregate tied playoff might mean you play extra innings in the second leg until a winner emerges). So, OK, not in-season play, but seems to make sense. 3. League Cup = Babe Ruth (or somesuch) Cup. Bottom 14 teams play this one out. Top 6 of this lot get byes into the quarterfinals. Bottom 8 play for the two slots that join the top 6 in the quarterfinals. 4. Charity Shield = Jackie Robinson (or somesuch) Cup. League Champ (see 1.) vs World Series Champ (see 2.). Seems like more silverware, more sponsorship opps, winnings could be spread accordingly, without so many games? I know, I know, business model would change due to less money from tickets, but work with me here.

posted by rcade at 09:56 AM on October 10, 2007

Editorial: wc02, why not spread out these posts, maybe one every couple of weeks or so? That way each gets the community's full attention. It's also unlikely that any of the leagues in question will convert to a promotion/relegation system in the meantime, so there's no rush. :)

posted by DrJohnEvans at 10:58 AM on October 10, 2007

All the posts are different YYM. Oops

posted by Ying Yang Mafia at 02:21 PM on October 10, 2007

DrJohnEvans: I hadn't thought of that. I was all hot and bothered, y'see. Just wanted to get the conversations going. rcade: I split up the posts for NFL, MLB, NBA and NHL, so we could go into depth for each sport. I wasn't trying to spam the community or anything, so why take all those off? Are you going to slowly release them back into the wild, like DrJohn suggests, or do I have to post them again? I don't see the harm in them. I was looking to learn from the various sport afficionados on the history of the sports leagues and how they developed, and perhaps even discover new ways to enjoy them. There's no way we could do more than one sport in one thread in any meaningful fashion.

posted by worldcup2002 at 10:32 PM on October 10, 2007

I think its an interesting question. And yes we all know such an arrangement isn't likely to occur in any of the major US sports. But that shouldn't prevent us from discussing the merits of such a proposal and theorizing on its effects. I've been reading up on FIBA and the various national leagues (ACB, Serie A), I may have some comments on the notion of promotion/relegation, league/championship play in the NBA soon.

posted by lilnemo at 02:31 PM on October 11, 2007

You're not logged in. Please log in or register.