94th Minute Posted January 11, 2010 Report Share Posted January 11, 2010 This is either going to spark some debate, or fall flat on its face I'm sure, but it gives something different to discuss to the standard "Silly Season" posts. However to keep it in the style of normal discussion here, nothing said in this thread will have any impact on the outside world The Premier League closed shop idea was first put forward by that Bristol City fan on the FA board (yes this is factual based, who ever said the finer points were important), and it was met with disgust, outrage and projectile vomiting by a number of fans on here, however, with so many clubs going under, and football looking to need a major shift, maybe this is what is needed. It was browsing the NFL playoff fixtures, and seeing that neither the Steelers (last years champions) nor the Eagles (semi finalists) had made the quarter finals this time around. To me this suggests a turnover in the best teams in the league, similar trends are seen in the NHL (although the maple leafs are destined to suck forever), and basketball too... probably. Baseball even fits into this trend if you ignore the Yankees (and what self respecting person wouldn't) One of the major reasons behind this is the draft system, the best new talent doesn't go to the top four year in year out, it goes to the worst teams in the league (famously the crosby draft of recent years) Secondly, in my opinion, what is wrong in sport at the moment is that all of the players are uneducated morons. They get plucked out of school at 12, and from then on do the minimum of the curriculum until the age of 16, when they become footballing matchines. In America you have a system whereby all players go through school, complete university before being eligble to play in the major leagues. Not only gaurenteeing every player a chance at an education whilst furthering their careers, but also stopping the ridiculous trend of 'youngest player to play in the (enter competition here) This also has the nice advantage of making university anything but a laughing stock. Stadiums bigger than the NFL and television audiences to compete, it gives everyone a chance to get behind their regional university as well as their team. Who would disagree that it would be far more exciting to see a yound Theo Walcott rising through the ranks at his university, tearing apart other teams in the league, then being 3rd pick in the draft to lowly Birmingham, who then have a fighting chance the next season, rather than 15 year old Theo being thrown into football far above is standard and struggling for year after year? Finally for now, I can't help but feel that one of the reasons this was so badly recieved here, was that we wouldn't have a team in the top flight, we would be locked out. The teams in America are franchises, the fans essentially decide where the club moves. There isn't a chance that Manchester area would continue to sustain 3 clubs, with the untapped potential of Bristol clubsless. We would have a club, and our club would almost certainly be known as Bristol City FC Football is just not sustainable at present, how many clubs aren't paying taxes, wages and transfer fees. Football needs to be modernised, and I see the American sporting model as a true way this can be acheived in the long term. A funnel system of English youths ensures that the best make it, it will not only be good for the national game, but the national team as well Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
94th Minute Posted January 11, 2010 Author Report Share Posted January 11, 2010 Ok, reasoned debate seems of little interest here. How about irrational, poorly thought out comments Malcolm Glazer was the best thing to happen to English football, discuss? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Riaz Posted January 11, 2010 Report Share Posted January 11, 2010 No offence - but game of football is already too american - all seaters - music drowning out the supporters.... etc etc... The system in place could work - if the Premier League money was diveded more fairly & filtered down the divisions and not kept just for the top division. Thats why clubs are over-spending - to get in the players who are capable of delivering higher level football... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
94th Minute Posted January 11, 2010 Author Report Share Posted January 11, 2010 No offence - but game of football is already too american - all seaters - music drowning out the supporters.... etc etc... The system in place could work - if the Premier League money was diveded more fairly & filtered down the divisions and not kept just for the top division. Thats why clubs are over-spending - to get in the players who are capable of delivering higher level football... Corporate suit isn't a good look for football, I completely agree, but I think we can take parts of their game without taking all of it. I see it as the league needs to find a more sustainable model, transfer fees barely exist in the American sporting world, instead Southampton could buy say Tevez for a first round pick in the next years draft A huge amount of money is wasted on young talent, this is a way around it, no? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Riaz Posted January 11, 2010 Report Share Posted January 11, 2010 Corporate suit isn't a good look for football, I completely agree, but I think we can take parts of their game without taking all of it. I see it as the league needs to find a more sustainable model, transfer fees barely exist in the American sporting world, instead Southampton could buy say Tevez for a first round pick in the next years draft A huge amount of money is wasted on young talent, this is a way around it, no? I like the transfer system..... sorry but you wont convince me. Why would southampton being able to pick Tevez be a good thing? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Us_and_Them Posted January 11, 2010 Report Share Posted January 11, 2010 This is either going to spark some debate, or fall flat on its face I'm sure, but it gives something different to discuss to the standard "Silly Season" posts. However to keep it in the style of normal discussion here, nothing said in this thread will have any impact on the outside world The Premier League closed shop idea was first put forward by that Bristol City fan on the FA board (yes this is factual based, who ever said the finer points were important), and it was met with disgust, outrage and projectile vomiting by a number of fans on here, however, with so many clubs going under, and football looking to need a major shift, maybe this is what is needed. It was browsing the NFL playoff fixtures, and seeing that neither the Steelers (last years champions) nor the Eagles (semi finalists) had made the quarter finals this time around. To me this suggests a turnover in the best teams in the league, similar trends are seen in the NHL (although the maple leafs are destined to suck forever), and basketball too... probably. Baseball even fits into this trend if you ignore the Yankees (and what self respecting person wouldn't) One of the major reasons behind this is the draft system, the best new talent doesn't go to the top four year in year out, it goes to the worst teams in the league (famously the crosby draft of recent years) Secondly, in my opinion, what is wrong in sport at the moment is that all of the players are uneducated morons. They get plucked out of school at 12, and from then on do the minimum of the curriculum until the age of 16, when they become footballing matchines. In America you have a system whereby all players go through school, complete university before being eligble to play in the major leagues. Not only gaurenteeing every player a chance at an education whilst furthering their careers, but also stopping the ridiculous trend of 'youngest player to play in the (enter competition here) This also has the nice advantage of making university anything but a laughing stock. Stadiums bigger than the NFL and television audiences to compete, it gives everyone a chance to get behind their regional university as well as their team. Who would disagree that it would be far more exciting to see a yound Theo Walcott rising through the ranks at his university, tearing apart other teams in the league, then being 3rd pick in the draft to lowly Birmingham, who then have a fighting chance the next season, rather than 15 year old Theo being thrown into football far above is standard and struggling for year after year? Finally for now, I can't help but feel that one of the reasons this was so badly recieved here, was that we wouldn't have a team in the top flight, we would be locked out. The teams in America are franchises, the fans essentially decide where the club moves. There isn't a chance that Manchester area would continue to sustain 3 clubs, with the untapped potential of Bristol clubsless. We would have a club, and our club would almost certainly be known as Bristol City FC Football is just not sustainable at present, how many clubs aren't paying taxes, wages and transfer fees. Football needs to be modernised, and I see the American sporting model as a true way this can be acheived in the long term. A funnel system of English youths ensures that the best make it, it will not only be good for the national game, but the national team as well To be honest i quite like the way our league works etc but what i would like to see is a cap on player wages....clubs need to live within their means the same as the rest of us.....seems to be alot of risk taking going on in football these days putting clubs in danger of bankruptcy (just like we found with the bankers!)....lucky for us we got a chairman who has got his head screwed on. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robbored Posted January 11, 2010 Report Share Posted January 11, 2010 The PL is a meritocracy - end of. The longer you stay there, the bigger your fan base the more money you get. Its not nicknamed the 'promised land ' for nothing. British Soccer has little to learn from the Americans. Hell......they don't even like games being drawn. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
grove park city Posted January 11, 2010 Report Share Posted January 11, 2010 The whole American concept of sport is mainly alien to British tastes just look at the protests at the Yanks in charge at Liverpool and Manchester United ,only the Villa chairman Randy Learner seems to accept letting people who know what they are doing run the club,this idea of lower clubs getting 1st go at the best signings is totally against any Sky policy they want the top group up there they sell abroad and at home. Be honest who really wants to watch Wigan play Bolton even if both clubs had the entire Arsenal,Chelsea,Man utd squads to choose from . People would proberly be more likely to watch Leeds utd play Newcastle in a championship match if possible because of their history ,the American way of franchise and promoting sport is fine if you like pro wrestling,big 4 track dumper truck racing ect,look at the uproar over the M K Dons team from old Wimbledon any suggestion about City and Rovers combined into 1 team. We like to see what the Yanks get up to yes they can market sport entertainment /putting on a show they do it fantastically well , its just that like trying to market American Football here a lot of it falls flat on its ass when push comes to shove . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Murraysrightplum Posted January 11, 2010 Report Share Posted January 11, 2010 This will never work in Football. The reason is that players are good enough to play at a younger age in football than other more size-dependant sports. A 16 year old could never play in the NFL and probably not in rugby etc as well simply due to size, muscle mass etc. Also premier league teams recruit younger and younger players so how many of those kids would be prepared to ignore lots of money from a prem team to go to university until they are 21ish? Not many. LeBron James in NBA went from high school to the NBA instead of going to college first, because of money. The other problem is infrastructure in universities is no where near good enough to have a decent level of sport, so the standard of coaching facilities etc. would mean that players coming out were a poor standard anyway. American universities make a fortune from tuition fees, which they can spend on facilities, coaches etc. In the UK the amount of money available is considerably less. Also regarding the education of players: College football players do pointless courses that are about 5 hours a week and the rest of the time they are training, in the gym etc. I bet not many of them use their 'Basket weaving' degree or whatever when they have finished playing. Rugby could use this system as players tend to develop and peak later (around 21-25) and there is not so much money in the game to lure young kids away from a university education. Rugby in England is a traditionally middle class game so players are more likely to go to university anyway. Footballers tend to be working class and probably not interested in going to university. Stereotypes I know, but largely true if you look at the figures...only a handful of footballers have university degrees, in rugby there are loads. In fact some only start playing in University. In conclusion; No way Jose Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BCFC_Dan Posted January 11, 2010 Report Share Posted January 11, 2010 The odd thing about the American model is that it is essentially a Socialist system and quite at odds with American political ideals. It's a reasonably fair system but very closed down and I think there is too much that would be lost by converting football (soccer) to a similar model. English football fans would be very opposed to a franchise system for one thing. Just look at the apathy towards the MK Dons, and then imagine that on a much larger scale. OK so Bristol probably would be represented, and the club might actually be Bristol City itself (if the Premier League expanded to 32 teams for instance, City would just about make the cut as things stand), but what about the clubs that would miss out? Does London need so many clubs? Who would make way? Would West Ham or Fulham for example be booted out to allow, say, Carlisle in? As to the University aspect, really that's a bit of a joke. It just means that Universities allow in people who are academically weak just because they're good at football. The Academy system in place at many English clubs now has improved the academic standard of footballers and as far as I know most now take A-levels or equivalents. It's an interesting point you've brought up, but I think there's too much that would be lost from the English game to make it worthwhile. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sephjnr Posted January 11, 2010 Report Share Posted January 11, 2010 The exclusivity will be the killing point, as every fan wants to eventually see his team play at the top level. The only way this idea will be feasible would be to effectively regionalise the Premier League in order to expand to cater to (at least some) teams that are close to Premier level and would be denied. This itself is unfeasible considering the glut of teams from the London, Birmingham and Manchester areas, and region 'borders' could be extended in ridiculous proportions. In addition to this there's no guarantee you'll get the exact number of teams per regional league, so that kisses the notion of balanced schedules goodbye, and therefore each division has its own schedule strength i.e. the league that "only" has the Manchesters plus the glut will see a slightly more balanced spread of results than the team with Arsenal, Chelsea, Spurs, West Ham and any poor bastards unfortunate to have to play in it. In turn when deciding playoffs - if it gets to that - teams with the more difficult schedule will have a more favourable draw. But at least the league itself can decide who qualifies, not the sodding newspapers. The NCAA's bad enough for that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest DanC Posted January 12, 2010 Report Share Posted January 12, 2010 Promotion and relegations are what makes our leagues so special. Take that away and what have you got? Just look at rugby, 1 team goes up and 1 goes down and the winners are not actully the winners as they then got to win the play offs in order to win it. Completely wrong imo. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tunley Legend Posted January 12, 2010 Report Share Posted January 12, 2010 Ok, reasoned debate seems of little interest here. How about irrational, poorly thought out comments Malcolm Glazer was the best thing to happen to English football, discuss? "Secondly, in my opinion, what is wrong in sport at the moment is that all of the players are uneducated morons." Given you make the above ridiculously stereotyped comment it is a bit rich of you to expect any reasoned debate of your post. The only type of person who would make a comment like that is one who thinks he is intellectually superior to other people - it smacks of nastiness and arrogance to be honest. How many sports players do you know personally to be able to make this assumption? However I will try to give you some reasoned debate and make the following comments:- Having a University Degree does not necessarily make you "well educated" as some people doss around, get their 45% for every piece of work and scrape a 3rd Class Degree. And not only that but not everyone is suited to a University education for various reasons. In fact, the more cynical amongst the American students would suggest that these College Footballers you refer to only have to turn up for lectures to "earn" their degree and not do much else. Perhaps the kind of "shining examples" of American university educated sportsmen you want our young footballers to "emulate" are as follows:- OJ Simpson - enough said Michael Vick - Atlanta Falcons Quarterback - jailed for being part of a dogfighting ring Odell Thurman - Cincinnatti Bengals Linebacker - Banned for substance abuse and drink driving Ricky Williams - Miami Dolphins Running Back - Banned for failing four drugs tests People talk about Rugby players in this country being educated, and they nearly all seem to have University Degrees, but it doesn't stop some of them taking drugs (have a word with Bath Rugby), being sex pests or trying to outrageously cheat by faking blood injuries. The main difference being that the middle classes look upon Rugby Player misdemeanours as some form of "Jolly Japers" and all good for team spirit. And another issue is that it is probably easier to cover up problems in Rugby due to the lower profile it has than Football in this country whereas even Dean Gerken, a second tier footballer, struggling to find somewhere to have a p1$$ is front page news in our local media. Footballers, in general, are looked down upon by these stuck up people as being "council estate thugs" and "uneducated morons" but that says more to me about the people who think that than about the footballers themselves in my opinion. Regarding the general gist of your post I just don't think there is a place for franchised sport in this country. It does not marry in with our culture and, as MK Dons are finding out, the vast majority of people are strongly opposed to it. Sports clubs in this country, by and large, belong to the Community rather than the franchise and we are reliant on local businessmen made good like Steve Lansdown to keep things afloat. Yes, the financial meltdown happening within football needs to be addressed but it will not happen by introducing regional franchises that nobody wants to support. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cityhead Posted January 12, 2010 Report Share Posted January 12, 2010 Both NFL and EPL have their advantages and dissadvantages. My biggest grouch with the present system is that money generaqted by nthe sport is not distributed evenly and the biggest wallets win everything, even when those wallets are full of borrowed money. I am against restrictive practises like wages caps or transfer limits, but I am in favour of all money being distributed evenly. The Prem was set up to prevent the big clubs seperating from the league because the big clubs wanted a bigger slice of the cake, because as they say they have a bigger fan base and so are more important and have more of an influence on the overall sport. However, my argument is that all clubs have an equally important effect on the sport, big and small clubs, as without the other opponents the big clubs have no competition and so any breakaway of big clubs would have very limited appeal. So, all ticket sales are split 50/50, all tv money is split between all professional clubs with clubs keeping their own commercial income. That way smaller clubs get paid more for playing bigger clubs and the bigger clubs still get a larger income from their large fan base from money from commercial activity. Lastly, all clubs must keep within their income, not being able to borow from rich benefactors or mortgage future season ticket sales to buy success. Whilst this will not produce a completely level playing field it will bring some sense and a bit more competition for4 the better players and greater possibility of smaller clubs winning promotion/trophies etc and make the whole sport less predictable. IMO Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Luke_Ciderhead Posted January 12, 2010 Report Share Posted January 12, 2010 Itll never work simply because ourselves and the yanks are wired differently when it comes to sport. Whilst logically its hard to argue with any of the points in the origonal post, such a thought cannot ever be entertained.. Think of all the things that make football special: Wimbledon rising from the non league to the Premier League and the FA Cup trophy.. City running out at Wembley infront of 40,000 Bristolians to compete for a Premier League place... A jumped up village team (Histon) humbling a team that competed in the CL semi final a few years earlier (Leeds) The joy of promotion and the pain of relegation... A schoolboys dream of one day being able to be good enough to play for one of the big teams... Is destroying all of this worth it for the sake of making a few accountants happy? Instead of winning promotion to the Premier League in a glorious day at Wembley, or through storming to a league Championship, we'd only get there by buying say Wigan or Bolton, relocating them to Bristol and renaming them Bristol City.... how depressing a prospect is that? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.