Serious question for muricans:

serious question for muricans:
why do the seasons in your sports have each team not play every other team the same amount of times?
for example: in >ourleague, FC Porto play every other team twice, while, let's say, the Minnesota Vikings only play 17 games all year, against a random selection from 32 team league, and has played more than one game against some of the teams
how does this make sense to you?

Other urls found in this thread:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Round-robin_tournament#Use
youtu.be/yT0CMOGKKhU
operations.nfl.com/the-game/creating-the-nfl-schedule/
twitter.com/SFWRedditImages

Christ you dire retard. There is a far more concise name for your system

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Round-robin_tournament#Use

Because in this country sports are treated as entertainment and not seriously which is why American sport leagues like the NFL, NBA, and MLB constantly change the rules of the game to suit the pleb's tastes rather than changing the rules to make the game better in a sporting sense. It's also why playoffs are a thing and season long double round robins are not. The average American is too dim witted and stupid to grasp the rules of a double round robin season whereas playoffs are easier to understand. Only retards disagree with me and will shitpost otherwise btw.

> giving hockey, the only league that ensures every team goes home and away against each other, a pass
Based user

ok makes sense
but what kind of retarded system do you use then? (during the regular season)

if you want a serious answer, one reason is that our sports leagues are divided between leagues/conferences/divisions since the country is too damn big to have every team in the same pool.

teams within these conferences aren't competing with teams from the other conference for playoff spots. it matters whether they win or lose when they play out-of-conference games, but it matters far less compared to in-conference games.

the vikings are in the nfc north and are competing against other nfc north teams for a playoff spot; they aren't competing with the raiders in the afc west for that playoff spot. so it makes less sense to have the vikings play every nfl team and more sense to have them play other nfc teams, and especially other nfc north teams.

NFL has a division system, 4 teams to a division. Play the other 3 teams twice, and some random allotment of 10 of the other 28 teams once each.
Best team in each division goes to playoffs along with some of the better 2nd place teams

That's the general idea at least, I'm an absolute casual so the playoff selection confuses me a bit.

ok, i get that you country is big, but you could play each team once and then crown a champions
that way there no need to travel as much and it's a better way to pick a champion

also imagine the injuries in a 31 game schedule.

It's not random. Has to do with league standings from previous season. Also, an nfc division does games with teams from an afc division. Not just randomized

ok, and in the other ones is it the same?
because i know at least in baseball and basketball each team plays close to a hundred games

Americans will tell you that you can't play 31 games each year because the players would get injured, but they are missing the point that if they were forced to play 31 games then that would force the coaches to look for less suicidal tackles to make sure their players will survive the whole season. Not only would an extended season make the league more interesting, it would also reduce injuries.
They don't do it because >muh reluctance to change

Interesting video about the mlb scheduling. It's complicated lol

youtu.be/yT0CMOGKKhU

I don't follow MLB/NBA at all, sorry. I know MLS has an East/West conference, play mostly within their own conference but some cross-conference play and then they have the top 8 of each play a playoff to determine conference champ and the best from each conference is the champion

Regular season with 62 matches for each team I BELIEVE

62 matchdays in 31 weeks of pure emotion

>its another third world shitskin asks why we dont employ their subhuman methods

boring threads desu

>a mathematical tournament format is subhuman or "shitskin"
Why are Ameriniggers so stupid? All you had to say was "I never passed grade school math" and we would have understood.

first of all, lots of attention is focused in american sports on rivalry games, and you don't build rivalries by just playing everyone once. rivalries are built on frequent meetings and rivalry games are huge cash cows.

second of all, americans love playoffs too much to pick a champion based on the "regular" season. playoffs significantly raise the stakes and bring out the best in players. kids dream of winning the super bowl on the biggest stage in the world -- there's a world of difference between winning a championship and being awarded a championship.

kek

nobody said anything about not having playoffs lol he asked why are there only 16 games in the season
and the rivalry argument is bullshit, as if the mlb didn't have strong rivalries (and as if european and south american football didn't have huge rivalries either)

>the country is too damn big to have every team in the same pool.
that's not really an excuse, we have clubs from all over the country in our top football division, they still travel everywhere.
you play both home and away.

what do you mean?
with 1 game/week it would make the season have 32 weeks (because of the bye round)
this would be from september/october to april may (you could even strech it)
and it's not as if they play for too long in each game (11min of action) or the sport is too violent (rugby is worse, and they play about as many games in top 14 for example)

It doesn't really need an excuse. Both formats fulfill their intended goals.

If NFL teams played 32 games a year, the players would all be dead or completely immobile by the age of 50.

that's not a fair comparison though, not that i disagree with the idea that it's better for all teams to play each other, but most of the teams in our league are located around the center of the country, it's not like there are teams from ushuaia or salta
and our lower divisions play mostly regional teams

then why did you even mention the country being too big as an excuse?

this desu. A very strange obsession with the US. Why are they all so insecure anyway about our opinion of soccer?

I'm a different poster, user, sorry.

>Rugby is worse

Rugby has strict tackle rules that are stringently enforced. Also phases in rugby are played about nowhere near the speed an NFL play is. Furthermore the helmets and pads make the players more reckless in the NFL

how many games do american franchises play?
I think that european clubs play more games during Champions League, and they have to travel all over europe.
distance is not a valid excuse.

Remember this format was made before air travel was common and players would slog from place to place by train

If you're comparing the NFL to the Champions League, you're comparing two extremely different sports.

>portugal
>shitskin
whatever help's you sleep at night 56%ers
and i was just curious as in what the methods you use are, because they dont seem to make any sense

This is a "spic doesn't do even the bare minimum of research before posting" thread.

>how many games do american franchises play?
NFL plays 16, NBA and NHL play 82 and the MLB plays 162.

You clearly know fuck all about this topic

read i did the reasearch and it doesn't make any sense

I've heard that foreign players in MLS have trouble adjusting to the climate in America
They have to go from 40° and raining in Seattle / Portland to 5000 feet above sea level in Denver to 100° and humid in Houston to 3" of snow in Minnesota and it is hard for the players to adjust to
Might account for the less frequent games

This is why American teams are always superbly conditioned if nothing else.

If you can't read and understand something as simple as operations.nfl.com/the-game/creating-the-nfl-schedule/ then you have a lower IQ than the people you seem to hate so strongly

This. But it's funny watching people from eurocountries and sudaca shitholes with no universities of note demonstrate their retardation ITT

>if you're comparing 2 different sports, you're comparing 2 different sports

yeah, I was talking about NFL, 16 games then, that's not much, they should be able to travel all over the country.

great argument m8

sure, we go through that exact same thing in South America, even with our national teams.
we still play, that's not an excuse.

Also, consider the following:

Most of the world are single-sport markets, at least in any meaningful way. A large number of sports fans in the US may follow 2 or 3 or even 4-6 different sports if they are so inclined. The playoff system allows the seasons to be more concise and provides for more interesting ending to the season.

At 162 games, the regular season games for baseball are already mostly meaningless and only really hyped up games get any attention. Try having enough games for every single series to be played through twice in a season, and overlapping that with some other sport doing the same thing. You would a) have the most boring sports schedule in the world, and b) completely ruin the market share for multiple leagues that, when they can, try to cooperate to gain viewers.

Relative of mine is an OR nurse in suburban Chicago and has participated in cases with MLS players
First time, they took off his clothes while he was anesthetized, and the entire staff stopped what they were doing and stared at his absolutely perfect physique for like a solid minute

It's not random.
The league is divided into two conferences, each further divided into four divisions of four teams each. Teams are ranked within their division first through fourth (obviously) and seeded from first through sixteenth within their conference. The first four seeds are the best teams in their respective divisions ranked from best record to worst. The next twelve are just every other team ranked from best to worst record. The top six seeds advance to the playoffs and the top two seeds get a bye week the first round of the playoffs, with the #1 seed getting to play in their own stadium for the playoffs. So the sixth-seeded team in a conference plays the third-seeded team in that same conference, as do the fourth- and fifth-seeded teams. The lower-seeded winning team from that first round and the higher-seeded winning team play the first- and second-seeded teams in the conference, respectively. Then the winner of those two games play each other for the conference championship, and the winners of both conference championships play each other in the Superb Owl.

And the scheduling of teams' games during the regular season isn't random either - first off, they play two games against the three other teams in their division (one home and one away). Then they play a game against every team in a certain division in their conference (it cycles through from year to year) and a certain division in the other conference (again, cycles through). Then they play two more games, one home and one away, against the two teams that were ranked in the same place within their division (first through fourth) from two other cycled-through divisions from their conference. This totals up to sixteen games.

It's a clusterfuck, but it's better than
>having your league's champion decided before Christmas

>yeah, I was talking about NFL, 16 games then, that's not much, they should be able to travel all over the country.
So your argument is that they should go from 16 to 62 games per season?

no, no. I was saying that long distances is no excuse for making conferences or whatever you call them, make them all play each other but not twice, make it 1 season home, 1 season away, that's it.

>Great argument

Your lack of knowledge on gridiron, The history of American sport and basic geography are integral to your inability to grasp this.

So you think they should increase the season from 16 to 31 games then.

That's not feasible. The players are ded as is. There's a difference between non-contact soccer like south Americans and Spaniards play and American football

Soccer isn't popular enough here to mls games year round
Also, the reason the teams are separated into divisions and conferences is because there's a sensible playoff system, unlike Argentina's, which got River Plate relegated in 2011

no, I'm not saying they should do anything, just don't use long distance as an excuse for the system you have, when there's a clear good option to it.
that's all.

unbelievably good argument.

They do travel all over the country.

This season, the Panthers have gone from Charlotte to Nashville, Jacksonville, Santa Clara, Foxboro, Detroit, Tampa, Chicago, New York, New Orleans, and Atlanta. They're literally going coast-to-coast during a 16-game season. Maintaining that for 32 (or more) weeks would be difficult, prohibitively costly, and would put unnecessary physical as well as emotional strain on the athletes.

>no, I'm not saying they should do anything, just don't use long distance as an excuse for the system you have, when there's a clear good option to it.
Okay. I think I get it. Each of the 32 teams in the NFL should play each other once for a total of 16 games per season.
I think we've got this nailed.

Ahem
They went to east Rutherford, not new York

Ah shit, u rite

our league has no playoff system and I believe yours doesn't have relegation, what the fuck are you even talking about?
how are playoffs a sensible system anyways?
it's only good for tight schedules and even then they're awful.

Play offs are more entertaining. 12th best team could suddenly be the number 1 team. It's the magic of the cup style sport.

>32 teams play each other for 16 games a season
I never said that.

yes, it is entertaining.

>12th best team could suddenly be the number 1 team.
that's why it's shit, it's an absolute clown fiesta, the best team rarely wins a tournament with playoffs.

We have conferences and divisions that encourage rivalries geographically and ease the cost of travel (America is fucking huge). In the NBA and NHL every team plays every team but you play your conference and especially division more often. NFL is too demanding a sport to play enough games to face every team and in the MLB the two leagues formed independently and only played each other in the world series for 70 years. They have interleague play every day now but the focus is still intraleague so you don't end up facing every team every year

That's how they were called in American soccer press
They stopped showing Argentine soccer so I never really supposed up, just remembered that river plate had to play random games to determine if they were relegated or not

You're making the mistake of assuming the goal of an NFL season is to determine the best team. The actual goal is to be entertaining. Once you accept that it makes it fine.

Playoffs add an element of randomness which makes the sport much more entertaining. If every team just played each other most of the games would become meaningless by week 20 because a lot of teams (Browns, Bears, Bucs, etc.) would be so far out of it that there's no point even watching them. Also the amount of injuries that would happen in a Round Robin style format would be ridiculous and make the game still very luck dependent anyways.

No. It's just the logical conclusion from your arguments. The point is that if you want a reasonably length football season and you also want a 32 team league not every team is going to be able to play each other. Any idiot should be able to fathom this.
So the teams are divided into conferences and division so teams are matched against other teams that have a similar strength of schedule. This isn't rocket science.

>having your league's champion decided before Christmas
where does this even happen?

damn. its the same autispic ITT thats been bootyblasted about Americans all week

Why do your nfl commentators suck so much
And why do fans get to call in to pregame shows with their stupid questions

He's referring to Manchester City

>12th best team could suddenly be the number 1 team.
Like when?

the last 2 clubs in the general standings were relegated and the 3rd last one played a "promotion" match against the 3rd best from the second division, that's how River Plate got relegated, how's that not a sensible system?
is it even a playoff if it's just one match (it was 2 in this case, home and away, but you get it).

I was talking about any tournament with playoffs, but sure.

9-7 Giants tbqh

The NHL does this, each team plays every other team home and away at least once a season.
MLB has a tradition of playing a series in another town, which evolved out the fact that transportation took for fucking ever when the league was concieved so it was easier to play all their games against one opponent all at once.

I have no fucking idea why the NFL and NBA don't do something similar.

>Alright, Europe. You have to invent a playoff system. It could be a single elimination style, best of 3, best of 7. The possibilities are endless.
>Best of 2!
>But...
>Best of 2!
>Why not pick an odd numbered...
>BEST OF 2!
I'll never understand that continent.

I don't follow your sports so I couldn't give you those examples, but Greece and Denmark won the European championships and they were far from the best, and Chile won Copa America twice and then failed to even qualify for the World Cup, where the 5 best South American teams qualify.
just to give you a few examples, there are more at club level, ofcourse.

It used to be how it was done for baseball. You can thank all the interleague fags.

Tried finding a definition in your native language but no dice

So that doesn't really apply to American style playoffs, does it.

it's not best of two, winning a game doesn't give you a point, the score carries on to the next match, that's what matters, not the number of games.
you could lose a game and win the other, or tie both games, and still go through because you had the better score, the number of matches is absolutely irrelevant.

thay havent one anything yet
there are loads of stories of teams chocking away titles in worse ways than man city could do this year

> soccer fans refuse to accept that having a home and away game levels the playing field and the away goals shouldn't be so heavily weighed

ok, the relegation matches doesn't fit either of those 2 definitions m8.

if what I'm reading on wikipedia is correct, it does apply to the NFL.

Maybe back when wins were worth two points, yeah

what are you even saying?

>Why not pick an odd numbered...
so that the teams have the same chance...
jesus are you really this dumb?
also, where you trying to make fun of cup competitions or league competitions?
couldnt tell by how absurd it was

You have a team that wants to fight off relegation and one that wants to be promoted. They have to play to determine the outcome. That's a playoff. It's not for a trophy, but it's still a playoff

> soccer fans refuse to accept that having a home and away game levels the playing field
that's why i think your system is retarded, because it doesnt aloow for this to happen
>away goals shouldn't be so heavily weighed
why not?
if play away from home is a disadvantage (as you said) why shouldnt away goals be rewarded?

The aggregate score system is stupid, even if it helped eliminate Manchester United at old Trafford in 2010, which brought a tear to my eye

They cancel out that disadvantage by getting home field advantage in the next game

ok, I don't mind the nomenclature, the third worst team of the first division facing the third best team of the second division, how is that not a sensible system?

>The aggregate score system is stupid
why? just because you don't like it?

but then the other team gets that advantage
away games are always harder than home games, especially in europe, so the away goal rule is a good rule

>The point is that if you want a reasonably length football season and you also want a 32 team league not every team is going to be able to play each other.
football clubs play several more games than 31 a year.

I like the way England does it better
That shit makes no sense

It has to do with history. Playoffs in baseball were born from the fact that you had two main leagues. They then decided to play a series between league champions to determine who was the best there is. Football was mostly a college game in the early days, so way too many teams for that once it got popular. The Super Bowl was also originally a league vs league game.

Also, the country is big and has a lot of regional differences. Modern league construction has muddled that a bit, but it still reflects it. Take baseball. 2 leagues with 3 divisions. Divisions are loosely regional, say The AL Central is comprised of midwest teams(Cleveland, Detroit, Chicago, Kansas City, and Minneapolis). Those teams play one another an inflated number of times, and the team with the best record wins the division, essetially a regional champ, and plays the other regional champs to determine who is best.

The short answer: Logistics.

The long answer: The US is huge. Its total area is about the size of Europe. The contiguous US (i.e. excluding Alaska and Hawaii) is still a little over 25% larger than Europe if you also exclude the European part of Russia. Our population is also very uneven with concentrations mainly along the Atlantic and Pacific coasts, the Great Lakes, and Texas. You also have large areas in between with relatively sparse populations. Given our size and where everyone lives, if you set up a league that played a true round-robin schedule you'd have to compromise either in having a regional rather than national footprint, drastically truncating the schedule to save on travel costs. or lengthening the season considerably. None of those are good options WRT overall league health. The NFL is the only possible exception here... IF they cut out inter-conference play like MLB did i the past and either added or subtracted one team in each to balance the home/away schedules.

Baseball used to have a true round-robin of sorts (MLB was technically a partnership between two separate leagues until 2000 and didn't have regular-season interleague play until 1997) but that was ditched for a divisional structure in 1969 due to expansion coupled with teams moving south and west. Before 1961 each league had 8 teams and they all played each other 22 times then from 1962 to 1968 they both had 10 that played each other 18 times (fun fact: in 1961 the AL expanded to 10 teams but the NL still only had 8, so for that season the AL used the new 10-162 setup while the NL kept the 8-154 setup before also expanding to 10 teams and 162 games for 1962).

>the third worst team of first division facing the third best team of second division
>doesn't make sense
wat

what's so special about europe?

>bracket tournament ISN'T "mathematical"

Really, what's wrong with YOU.

Away goals are only harder because refs are biased to home teams when crowds are involved
At the matches played behind closed doors, like the cska Moscow champions league matches against bayern a few years ago, officiating was fairer with no distraction from crowds

what's your point?
you're only proving him right.

This. Watch a game of each... closely. Pay particular attention to how they tackle. They're completely different in terms of both method and force. Rugby tackles are usually high, more likely to come from the side or behind, and analogous to trying to drag the ball carrier down. In American football a "proper" form tackle is low (when I was in high school we were taught to aim for about the top of the runner's thigh pads), more likely to be head-on barring a big offensive play and/or busted defensive coverage, and analogous to trying to knock someone down.