Why do americans call their sports '''leagues''' ? NFL not included...

Why do americans call their sports '''leagues''' ? NFL not included, why is a season that long if you got playoffs to play next ? Why facing opponents more than twice during the regular season ? Explain yourselves yankees, this is even more stupid than the Euro tournament format

>american '''league'''
>it's a cup instead

Welp.

>Ligue 1

the length of the season depends on that particular sports injury rate. NFL has a 100% injury rate so their season is the shortest, baseball has a very low injury rate so they are the longest.

Making so much games remove tension of victory from it.
>we lost ? Nobody cares there's sixty more matches to go and the focus is getting a playoff spot not ending 1st
At least NFL is short so it makes it more exciting

A long season, at least in the 3 other major sports, is the best way to eliminate variance and best ensure the strongest teams make it to the playoffs. And a 7 game series format is the best way to get these better teams to matchup with one another and prove who is the better team.

Furthermore, a long season also ensures that a team can recover from a key injury that might happen during the beginning or middle of the season (although injuries do happen at the worst times occasionally).

The soccer "league" format is stupid. A team can theoretically win the title while losing all of their games against the strongest teams while beating up on bottom feeders, never having to prove themselves heads up in a winner take all situation against the best competition.

This also explain why baseball is yhe most boring sport to watch.
>NFL = only 16 games + 3 if no wildcard = most exciting
>NHL & NBA = meh, too many games but at least it's not boreball
Lacrosse is more exciting to watch than furpuck and apehoop ffs

>>we lost ? Nobody cares there's sixty more matches to go and the focus is getting a playoff spot not ending 1st

Those wins and losses are important, though. The 1st seed/homecourt is a big advantage for a team. And teams have missed the playoffs by 1 game many, many times.

If you win against bottom feeders but other teams can't then it makes you a legit champ.

I've been saying this all along. Basketball and hockey could probably be reduced a few games. Baseball needs to definitely remove a month off the regular season.

the thing about the NFL season though, if you are a supporter of a mediocre team then you're shit outta luck. the offseason in the NFL is arguably the most important offseason in any sport because you have to build a high quality product to get anywhere. in baseball, the long season allows teams to correct themselves and add key players late in the season to make a playoff run. the 2015 Mets are a good recent example of this.

Baseball has a super long season because even the best teams don't win more than 65% of the time. They need a large sample size to ensure that the better teams make the playoffs

That's why the one game wildcard play-in is so fucking stupid

What kind of champion isn't able to play the best teams and beat them?

Just how emasculated is yurop?

check out this spic faggot

What if that strong team had injuries for those games and lost a couple of close games against those bottom feeders?

Or maybe the bottom feeder just got insanely lucky or refballed to victory for one game?

You know what's more stupid than all that?

No playoffs

>just got insanely lucky or refballed to victory for one game?
What happens if that happens in your championship decider?

a 38-odd league determining the winner helps to remove bias from a single game

What if a strong team had injuries for the games against other strong teams?

What if they were refballed in those matches?

>NBA
>National Basketball "League"

>you

But if you have already worked out who the best team is why do you need another game to decide who the best team is?

Americans are too stupid to believe a team who beats every other team can be considered the winner unless they play the teams they've already beaten again

Man, doesn't anyone get tired of these threads constantly for the past 5 years?

Take a tennis player A and B.

A wins almost every tournament while B wins none.
B however always beat A whenever they play against each other in other tournaments
Who's the best ?

MLB used to be like that. The AL and NL operated as separate entities and then there was one final series between the American League champion and the National League champion.

If the best teams aren't able to beat bottom feeders they're not the best teams.

they are the best team of the regular season and everyone acknowledges that. then it is time to prove yourself against the best of the best.

>they are the best team, they have proved that
>but they still need to prove it

Then what's the point of having a hundred game regular season?

because in the regular season the scheduling is balanced differently because the league doesn't know who is going to be the best yet. after the regular season they know who is the best, and they pit them against eachother to see who is the best of the best. i dunno why it's so hard to understand.

Money.

If that's the reason then whatever you do don't set up a chess league

it gives lesser teams more time to get in the running and create more depth in the playoffs.

>after the regular season they know who is the best
So you know who is the best but won't acknowledge them as the league champs?

That's exactly why we use a league format

it'll just have to go until someone flips over the table.

Why do you give a shit? Really, it doesn't affect you at all, I don't see why you care

>against the best of the best
>who they have already finished above

there are multiple teams who have a shot at the championship at the end of a season. the warriors may have won the most games but that doesn't mean there are other teams who could have still defeated them.

Pretty much. It's not hard to understand. You qualify for best seed then win games because it's knockout stage. NBA have a knockout stage because it weeds out pretenders in the regular season and highlights the true best teams in the league.

Regular season is just a longer, more glorified qualifier/group stage

aren't* other teams.

This is why I hate European Soccer leagues, since there are no playoffs the same 3 or 4 teams always win the championship, and it's extremely boring.

It just seems utterly pointless when the whole point in the initial league format is to establish who the best team is.

>a 38-odd league determining the winner helps to remove bias from a single game

That's why it's the best out of 7 aside from the NFL.

Stop watching Spain, Italy and Germany then

The best team should've won in the playoffs too. It's as simple as that, the regular season weeds out the garbage teams and then the real teams get ready to play for the trophy.

We have cups though which are the exact same as playoffs and actually predate the league. People just pay more attention to the league these days because it's a far better test of quality.

Ours is basically the opposite, for example the NFL until around the 30s just declared whoever had the best record the champion, and it was ok until two teams ended up with the same record, they had a one off game to decide it, and since then the playoffs have been more important, after they added them. We really just don't recognize the regular season as worth much since teams have to play so many bottom dwellers.

But anything can happen in a one off game so it's a poor indicator of who the best team is.

Imagine if Arsenal had got through their invincible season undefeated in all 38 games and then played it out in a cup style format. They could be playing Fulham in the final and get someone sent off early on, it would be such bullshit to see the whole season come down to luck on the day. We know this because we've seen teams like Portsmouth win the cup while knowing they can't hold a candle to teams in the actual title race.

from what i understand, in the EPL every team gets to play each other the same amount of times. but our leagues are divided regionally, so you may be the king of your division but that doesn't mean teams from other divisions aren't better than you.

Soccer leagues got 2 titles.
Season champion (the best)
National cups where every teams are allowed (lesser trophy but still an accomplishment with lot of underdog upsets, basically the team with most will)

Well yeah if for some reason we artificially split the league into two equal divisions then we wouldn't be able to declare a champion without a final. I can't see the logic in choosing to do that though.

>not understanding what a league actually is
>League of Nations
>Justice League

>Americans are too stupid to believe a team who beats every other team can be considered the winner unless they play the teams they've already beaten again

But your retarded league format can produce a champion that never beats a fellow contender.

We used to do it this way in baseball, and we've evolved past it because it's a silly way (not to mention anti-climatic way) to decide a champion.

If you can't beat another strong team in a best out of 7 format, which is a true winner take all scenario (i.e., there's no beating up on Aston Villa for some easy/title clinching points after you've lost to the number 2 ranked team), then you don't deserve the title.

the EPL EL and CL are fantastic to watch you twat.
spain germany france and italy are suicide worthy though.

That's why they have legs until the cup final. CL knockouts have two legs to remove the luck factor.

If Arsenal can't win, they were pretenders the whole time and couldn't win when it mattered.

it probably has something to do with travel and jet lag affecting the players. maybe american sports were better when we had so many different professional leagues back in the day.

>he says this
>the same year FUCKING LEICESTER won the league
How is your brain able to keep you breathing?

I guess that's why we like the playoffs, it's unpredictable, generally at least. Teams generally not in the running for the best regular season record rarely win in the playoffs either, occasionally you get some team that's hot though. The last 3 years in the NFL the number 1 seed won, and the Cavaliers were the number 1 seed in the Eastern Conference this year. The Warriors had the best record last year and did win the championship.

Alternatively if you can't beat on teams who are amongst the shittest in the league, you dont deserve to be near the title i.e. spurs

>20,000 Leagues Under the Sea

Whereas we like a full season because it makes every game as important as each other. Game 1 gives you the same amount of help of winning the title/qualifying for europe/avoiding relegation as Game 38.

>pretenders for 38 undefeated games
>'found out' on last game by a team with a completely average record

But what if you beat all the best teams and lose to shitty ones?

It not "easy" points if the number 2 ranked team didn't get any points from the match against Villa, which is the only way this "advantage" you're trying to hint at would exist.

Buddy, it's just a different format. You don't really think the team that wins the super bowl is also 'the best' every single year, do you?

Then there's something wrong with your players, probably their attitude.

>But anything can happen in a one off game

That's why best of 7 is used for every other league. The NFL is only league that employs such a system, and truthfully, I've never been a fan of "one offs," but the NFL is obviously too physical of a sport to play an extended 7 game series.

And a season + playoffs also works the other way around. What if the best team's star is injured for the first 10 games? They go 2-8 without him and are near the bottom in the standings. He returns, and they battle all the way up to 2nd place.

Everyone knows they are probably the best team, but they get no shot at the "league champion," who were healthy all year.

Unless you're a bottom dweller or god team generally most games are important for seeding, especially in football, I've seen 10-6 teams and even an 11-5 team miss the playoffs, because they missed a tiebreaker or didn't get the game they needed. Also why do you guys have relegation, I feel it wouldn't be fun watching the equivalent of a minor league team.

>team a dominates regular season
>team a chokes during playoffs
>b-but muh team a should still win the title!

I can cherry-pick too, moron.

Besides not all 32 teams make the playoffs, you play the best 8 teams in your conference until you're the last one standing, then play the team who was the best in their conference. Whoever wins the true best team of that year.

>why do you guys have relegation, I feel it wouldn't be fun watching the equivalent of a minor league team.
Cause every village and his dog has a team and local pride actually counts for something

Bigger sample size = More accurate/correct seeding = better playoffs

Could be, also could be match ups.

I'm just saying it makes little sense to me that a team can be declared "champion" if they lost all of their marquee matchups but were just a bit better against the shitty teams than the other stronger teams.

Fair enough. I don't think it caught on in North America though even in soccer, not due to a lack of local pride, but a stigma against watching lesser competition.

>Americans don't understand what a league is
>Champions league

We got relegation because teams are cities properties not franchise (no relocation cuckoldry). It also makes thrilling the last season games for the bottom teams and a reward for the small cities that get their pass to play with the elite

>a stigma against watching lesser competition.
The fact that you can be the best at the minor league and not have a chance to upgrade to the majors probably doesn't help it. At least here you can be a fan of your local village team and know there is a (incredibly slim) chance you'll end up in the premier league one day

Do Yuros other sports have relegation? Playoffs?

That's the reason I think, like my city's minor league baseball team is popular but nobody actually takes them seriously. Generally if we want to watch more amateur competition, we watch college sports, rather than minor leagues.

One man teams don't deserve the title of best

Soccer is probably the only sport that can successfully employ relegation due to the talent pool being literal billions, meaning there's enough talent to fill out those 2nd division teams should their talent get raided by an elite.

Let's say you do it in the NBA, and Lebron 2.0 is on some 2nd division club that he leads to the major league. The very next year, he's getting offered millions to play for a major.

>That's why they have contracts

No talented player would lock himself into a multiyear deal with a 2nd division team.

>a group of sports clubs that play each other over a period for a championship.

What if the "league champion" was also a one man team, but their one man just stayed healthy?

When was the last time a one man team won the chip?

revenue for the leagues

Excluding football almost all other sports have playoffs here

Pretty much every team sport does. Hockey, Aussie Rules, Rugby League, Aussie Soccer, T20 cricket, etc.

But it's only Murkans that do it because we want to be special or something.

It helps the fact that the lower leagues were added at times when the financial gap was pretty non-existent. Now you'd need to have huge financial backing in order to get lower divisions off the ground in america.

I wonder if Canada could get an Ice Hockey league sorted though

>T20 Cricket
T20 cricket here is just a knockout cup, county championship cricket has no play-offs but it does have relegation

More ad revenue for mr shekelstien
And $250,000 courtside seats

I was thinking of the IPL, which I believe has a season plus playoffs format.

Leaguendary

Maybe, I don't pay any attention to that

>I wonder if Canada could get an Ice Hockey league sorted though

Be the same situation. Good players would get poached, and it doesn't help that ice hockey is only played seriously by 5 or 6 relatively small nations population wise aside from Russia.

I would consider us a "small nation" in that regard because ice hockey players really only come from a few states.

Lester city was a shit minor league team 6 years ago and just won the league. please stop being retarded. the MLS and every other league is protected by franchises and a draft. its horseshit that teams like the browns marlins and 76ers can be absolute shit and get rewarded with a number 1 pick. there should be relegation in any league with a minor league system and college football should just be reverted to a minor nfl but way too much money to be lost by the greedy owners

almost only in NBA. Warriors with wilt comes to mind

>Why do americans call their sports '''leagues?

....wat? The sports aren't leagues...they play in leagues

>champions league
>actually a cup competition

I doubt it since the NHL is were canadas favorite teams play and that league is filled with a lot of u.s. teams who would never go for it.

where*