Football 16-17

[Comfy Bean]

If you want to restore the magic of the FA Cup, give the winner the 4th champs league spot.

Aint going to happen of course.

[kaosmark2]

It's been a long time since the CL was actually just for the Champions. Shame they didn't hybridise it with the Cup Winners Cup better. 

[TheGayTent]

46 minutes ago, pink_triangle said:

I think they would pull in a greater amount of casual viewers who want to see players they have heard of. I also suspect a larger proportion of people who define themselves as Sutton or Wimbledon fans attend live games than Man Utd or Spurs. I had no interest in any game in the 3rd round so didn't bother watching any.

I don't agree. They'll get higher viewing figures because they have more fans - don't believe they'll attract more casual viewers for a second. 

[TheGayTent]

29 minutes ago, kaosmark2 said:

It's been a long time since the CL was actually just for the Champions. 

Was it ever? 

[LJS]

1 hour ago, TheGayTent said:

Was it ever? 

Yes. But it was called the European Cup.  

[mjsell]

10 hours ago, pink_triangle said:

I think they would pull in a greater amount of casual viewers who want to see players they have heard of. I also suspect a larger proportion of people who define themselves as Sutton or Wimbledon fans attend live games than Man Utd or Spurs. I had no interest in any game in the 3rd round so didn't bother watching any.

So you have just said that as a casual viewer (supposedly who the companies are aiming at) none of the games were of interest to you, so why not put on a game where the added tv money means something to the clubs? 

https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/football/2017/jan/08/sutton-united-doswell-bbc-wimbledon-fa-cup?client=safari

the manager of Sutton volunteers, and has invested more than £1m of his own money. If their game had been televised it would have been worth over a quarter of their annual budget and have done good for the youth teams that play there. Televising games like United/reading over Sutton/Wimbledon is what kills the FA cup in my opinion. The same money wouldn't even pay half of one of their top players weekly wages. 

[thetime]

7 minutes ago, mjsell said:

So you have just said that as a casual viewer (supposedly who the companies are aiming at) none of the games were of interest to you, so why not put on a game where the added tv money means something to the clubs? 

https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/football/2017/jan/08/sutton-united-doswell-bbc-wimbledon-fa-cup?client=safari

the manager of Sutton volunteers, and has invested more than £1m of his own money. If their game had been televised it would have been worth over a quarter of their annual budget and have done good for the youth teams that play there. Televising games like United/reading over Sutton/Wimbledon is what kills the FA cup in my opinion. The same money wouldn't even pay half of one of their top players weekly wages. 

So what ever angle you look at it, the FA Cup is about money.

 

[mjsell]

15 minutes ago, thetime said:

So what ever angle you look at it, football is about money.

 

fixed for you.

Yes it is about money, but the same amount of money can be vital for a non league club (and its community) or pennies for a premier league club.

[Hugh Jass]

The World Cup in 2026 is being expanded to 48 teams. Why? Because FIFA wants more money.

[pink_triangle]

48 minutes ago, Hugh Jass said:

The World Cup in 2026 is being expanded to 48 teams. Why? Because FIFA wants more money.

I personally love the group stages of the world cup, so will have no issues watching more games. I also think as a supporter of a smaller nation it means more opportunity for qualification. I think it's very different if your from a England, France, Germany, Spain etc who always qualify, but many of us are not.

[eFestivals]

58 minutes ago, Hugh Jass said:

The World Cup in 2026 is being expanded to 48 teams. Why? Because FIFA wants more money.

Marcel was on TV this morning, pointing out that teams like Iceland, Wales, and Northern Ireland can do well in a tournament if they're given the chance in it in the first place, and much the same applies to other countries too.

I applaud it being opened up to more teams. If they never get a shot at it it's not hugely likely their footie will progress.

[mjsell]

I dont have as big a problem with the expansion of the actual tournament. 3 teams per group is going to be weird but will actually stop there being as many dead rubbers (but will increase hugely mismatched games I imagine - with small teams trying to cling on for a point). For me its the 2 years of qualifying that is going to be excruitatingly dull - but thats coming from my biased England perspective.

Edited January 10, 2017 by mjsell

[TheGayTent]

It makes it a lot more expensive for supporters who go to the finals. 

[eFestivals]

6 minutes ago, TheGayTent said:

It makes it a lot more expensive for supporters who go to the finals. 

especially the ones who wouldn't have a chance to go to a finals otherwise.

 

[mjsell]

8 minutes ago, TheGayTent said:

It makes it a lot more expensive for supporters who go to the finals. 

I'm obviously being clueless but how so?

[Hugh Jass]

36 minutes ago, eFestivals said:

Marcel was on TV this morning, pointing out that teams like Iceland, Wales, and Northern Ireland can do well in a tournament if they're given the chance in it in the first place, and much the same applies to other countries too.

I applaud it being opened up to more teams. If they never get a shot at it it's not hugely likely their footie will progress.

Iceland, Wales and Northern ireland would all have qualified under the the 16 team rule.

i'm very much of the belief that the more teams are added the further it dilutes the overall quality of the tournament. Can anyone say the Euros were better for the eight extra teams? The world cup will have 48 matches to reduce the number of teams from 48 to 32.

Scotland still won't qualify.

[TheGayTent]

8 minutes ago, mjsell said:

I'm obviously being clueless but how so?

It makes it a longer trip with all the additional expenses that brings. 

[mjsell]

1 minute ago, TheGayTent said:

It makes it a longer trip with all the additional expenses that brings. 

Again how so?

I dont know the specifics of time frames between games but the tournament remains the same overall length I believe (in days), with teams needing to play the same amount of games to win it. 16 teams will be going home quicker than in the old system (with less games to play) - admittedly I dont know how many days longer/shorter you would be there if your teams make the knock out stages

[TheGayTent]

Ah ok, hadn't realised time frames were the same. 

Still, it must mean more games, which means more travelling and more tickets. 

[TheGayTent]

Ignore me - I hadn't even read the press releases - seems winners still only play 7 games? 

[The Nal]

6 minutes ago, TheGayTent said:

Ignore me - I hadn't even read the press releases - seems winners still only play 7 games? 

Yes. 16 groups of 3 teams. 

[TheGayTent]

Sometimes perhaps good things are done for the wrong reasons

[mjsell]

1 minute ago, Scruffylovemonster said:

Also more likely that two teams finish on equal points so there's talk of penalty shootouts after every draw to be used in case of equal points goal difference head to head etc. 

That would be outrageous. But yeah i hadnt thought of the fact it suddenly becomes fair more likely for teams to finish on exact same point/gd

[The Nal]

It may lead to a shitty group stage as teams will be more cautious of losing as theres only two games to play.  

[pink_triangle]

1 hour ago, Hugh Jass said:

Iceland, Wales and Northern ireland would all have qualified under the the 16 team rule.

i'm very much of the belief that the more teams are added the further it dilutes the overall quality of the tournament. Can anyone say the Euros were better for the eight extra teams? The world cup will have 48 matches to reduce the number of teams from 48 to 32.

Scotland still won't qualify.

I don't think that's correct, I think Wales would have had a play off in the 16 team format.

While many (not me as a Welsh fan) could call Euro 2016 dull, Euro 96 was also dull with a 16 team format. You could probably halve the number and still get dull tournament.

Looking at the last world cup I would say the group stages were fantastic and the entertainment in general decreased as the tournament got less diluted.