In recent years the CL has had fewer surprises though. And don't forget that the Bosman ruling was only mid 90s, which reduced competition in the CL significantly.
Printable View
In recent years the CL has had fewer surprises though. And don't forget that the Bosman ruling was only mid 90s, which reduced competition in the CL significantly.
The NHL is a single league. This season is different than usual where teams only play within divisions to limit travellingQuote:
Originally Posted by RandBlade
The reason for the diversity in Stanley Cup champions are:
- Salary cap
- Draft picking (the teams in the bottom of the standings get the first draft picks)
And no money allowed for transfers. And yes, definitely a single league.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ziggy Stardust
You also following the playoffs?
There was no salary cap for about 40% of the time period in question. And yes, the NHL is most definitely a single league.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ziggy Stardust
One big reason is that goalies (even mediocre ones) save 90% of the shots in hockey, which means there's a much greater luck component. The better team wins less frequently than in most other major sports.
You have more games to compensate for that*, and prior to the salary cap there were dominant teams if I'm not mistaken (red wings come to mind).
* Compare a normal season of 82 NHL games (regular season) vs 34 (Dutch football season). Playoffs are best of 7, all football tournaments I know are either 1 or 2 games per round.
There was an upper-tier of team before the salary cap, but teams rarely stayed in that tier for more than a decade. The Red Wings were an exception, and even they only won 4 cups.Quote:
Originally Posted by Flixy
82 games is pretty typical of American sports though. I do think the structure of the playoffs makes it difficult for the best team to consistently win. Then again, the same teams win the English FA Cup despite the knock-out format.
The same clubs win the FA Cup because they're better.
The difference between American and European sport ironically is that American sport is very socialist, while European is very capitalist.
In European football if you perform terribly you get relegated down to a lower league where you have to sort yourself out and earn promotion to get back.
In American sport it seems that performing terribly gets you rewarded with better draft picks.
In European football if you perform well you get rewarded with promotion to a higher league, or if you're in the top league then qualification to the pan-European cup competitions.
In American sport it seems if you perform well you get punished with inferior draft picks.
I'm happy to see success rewarded with promotion and failure having consequence with relegation, than rewarded crap clubs so they get better picks.
There doesn't seem to be any negative consequences for a terrible season in America, just rewarding failure with draft picks. Not like here were failure leads to relegation.
What really matters in this debate isn't the USA vs Europe, or a meritocracy vs welfare rewards, or even the big clubs vs the little clubs; it's that Leicester City won the FA cup on Saturday.
Shame they lost against Chelsea midweek and will probably miss out on the Champions League as a result.
It is. Again :(
I'll take the FA cup over top 4 though. Tough choice but it's a bigger thing for the club and fans. We saw that on Sat.
I agree. Getting a trophy in the cabinet absolutely trumps being also-rans in next years cup competition. Record books will forever record FA Cup Winners 2020/21, they don't record "Champions League participant 2021/22".
Yes. Rooting for the Bruins since 2001 :)Quote:
Originally Posted by Flixy