Premier League 16/17

Seth said:
This is really interesting. For instance, what if pro/rel was based on a three-year cumulative point total so teams don't get punished for just one bad year? But then if they managed to have one stellar year it might just keep them up over a team that was consistently mediocre. Not saying all leagues should instantly adopt this but it's a very interesting concept. Rewards more than just immediate short-term thinking, punishes less than one catastrophic injury (just as two examples perhaps).
Click to expand...
I don't know, seems like a system that lets transferees know who is more likely then not to be relegated, so they avoid certain teams or push to be transferred away, sealing the clubs fate. I know money could overcome that, but lack of money is probably why those teams are there in the first place. And the glory of saving a team is likely not going to be enough of a draw because, well, money. People don't want to be associated with loser. Being on underachievers give you a bad association = less money on your next contract when other clubs come knocking. You have a finite career, maximize it by being with winners.

Also people want to be on and want to cheer for cinderella teams. Knowing you have no shot at promotion because you have an average 2 year season again keeps talent from joining your club and make you less motivated as a fan. With a blank slate you can feel like this year might be your lucky year and anything can happen, at lease until the season actually starts. Hope = money.
 
Last edited:
Seth said:
This is really interesting. For instance, what if pro/rel was based on a three-year cumulative point total so teams don't get punished for just one bad year? But then if they managed to have one stellar year it might just keep them up over a team that was consistently mediocre. Not saying all leagues should instantly adopt this but it's a very interesting concept. Rewards more than just immediate short-term thinking, punishes less than one catastrophic injury (just as two examples perhaps).
Click to expand...
Interesting idea, but would you only relegate every 3 years? Or would this be a rolling thing? Because the main issue with this is if you relegate every year, you would ultimately lose the bottom 9 teams of the EPL to relegation just due to math.

Example:
You go through 3 years of this, so teams 18, 19, 20 are relagated.
Teams 1, 2, 3 of Championship are promoted, after their first year in EPL, they don't have enough data to be relegated again, so teams 15, 16, 17 of EPL are relegated.
Teams 4, 5, 6 of Championship are promoted. After their first year, neither them or teams 1, 2, 3 have enough data to be relegated, so teams 12, 13, 14 of EPL are relegated.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Ulrich and mgarbowski
Seth said:
This is really interesting. For instance, what if pro/rel was based on a three-year cumulative point total so teams don't get punished for just one bad year? But then if they managed to have one stellar year it might just keep them up over a team that was consistently mediocre. Not saying all leagues should instantly adopt this but it's a very interesting concept. Rewards more than just immediate short-term thinking, punishes less than one catastrophic injury (just as two examples perhaps).
Click to expand...

It's a system that was invented in South America to help the bigger clubs - whose entire business models operate on the basis of selling their best players to European clubs for extravagant fees - to avoid relegation if they sold too many players at once. That's why it was so controversial a matter when River Plate got relegated a few seasons back - because they had been part of the introduction of this system, and yet it had failed to prevent them from being relegated. There were honestly senior figures around who were advocating giving them an exemption from relegation "because they are River Plate", and it was all because they thought that they'd managed to avoid that possibility with the way they crafted the rule.

Rimil said:
I don't know, seems like a system that lets transferees know who is more likely then not to be relegated, so they avoid certain teams or push to be transferred away, sealing the clubs fate. I know money could overcome that, but lack of money is probably why those teams are there in the first place. And the glory of saving a team is likely not going to be enough of a draw because, well, money. People don't want to be associated with loser. Being on underachievers give you a bad association = less money on your next contract when other clubs come knocking. You have a finite career, maximize it by being with winners.

Also people want to be on and want to cheer for cinderella teams. Knowing you have no shot at promotion because you have an average 2 year season again keeps talent from joining your club and make you less motivated as a fan. With a blank slate you can feel like this year might be your lucky year and anything can happen, at lease until the season actually starts. Hope = money.
Click to expand...

Only relegation is decided by the three-year average. Promotion is always on a season-by-season basis.

SoupInNYC said:
Interesting idea, but would you only relegate every 3 years? Or would this be a rolling thing? Because the main issue with this is if you relegate every year, you would ultimately lose the bottom 9 teams of the EPL to relegation just due to math.

Example:
You go through 3 years of this, so teams 18, 19, 20 are relagated.
Teams 1, 2, 3 of Championship are promoted, after their first year in EPL, they don't have enough data to be relegated again, so teams 15, 16, 17 of EPL are relegated.
Teams 4, 5, 6 of Championship are promoted. After their first year, neither them or teams 1, 2, 3 have enough data to be relegated, so teams 12, 13, 14 of EPL are relegated.
Click to expand...

Firstly, to answer your question the way it's done in South America is that every season teams are relegated.

Anyway, to address your example I see your point although by stopping your example at year 3 you're missing the partial answer to your problem, which is that every season you've got three former Championship clubs now eligible for relegation who weren't before, and it's highly likely that at least two of them are in the mix to go down. That then grants an immediate reprieve to most of the "teams 12, 13, 14" and "teams 15, 16, 17" you've quoted there, so the actual situation doesn't get anywhere near as bad.

The other thing to observe is that only one South American league operating the rolling performance average relegates as many as three teams a season, and some only relegate one despite having more than twenty teams.
 
  • Like
Reactions: SoupInNYC and mgarbowski
Falastur said:
Anyway, to address your example I see your point although by stopping your example at year 3 you're missing the partial answer to your problem, which is that every season you've got three former Championship clubs now eligible for relegation who weren't before, and it's highly likely that at least two of them are in the mix to go down. That then grants an immediate reprieve to most of the "teams 12, 13, 14" and "teams 15, 16, 17" you've quoted there, so the actual situation doesn't get anywhere near as bad.

The other thing to observe is that only one South American league operating the rolling performance average relegates as many as three teams a season, and some only relegate one despite having more than twenty teams.
Click to expand...
Ahhhh, very true. I really only looked at it from a Year 1-3 ordeal and not Year 4+. Good point.
 
Man City convincingly wins over Crystal Palace 5-0, in solid third place (for the moment). Where was this good team hiding all season?
 
Credit to Swansea, but I think I'm done watching Everton for the season. They're reeking of Vacation Brain and it's frustrating to watch.

...that said I'll probably cave and watch EVE v ARS to see if my boys can further humiliate the Gunners (and also because I'll probably be at The Football Factory celebrating Last Day Of The League, watching all ten matches).
 
  • Like
Reactions: Christopher Jee
giphy.gif


IMG_5994.JPG
 
  • Like
Reactions: JayH, Midas Mulligan and BxLio91
LeeNYCFC said:
Congratulations from the other side of the coin. 9 players is no way to run a club. Thank goodness for NYCFC.View attachment 7004
Click to expand...
Thanks, and tough run for you. That Hull made it as far as they did given how they were forced to start the season is remarkable. As recently as 10 days ago it looked like you had a clear advantage over the Swans. Always a great feeling to stay up but never want to gloat over those who go down. Good luck making your way back.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Christopher Jee and LeeNYCFC
I hope that when we get our stadium, the seats can be as close to the field as they are at WHL.
 
Usmanov wants to buy Kronke's 67% of Arsenal for $1.3 Billion. That would value them at $2 Billion.

For Arsenal fans sake it better happen as Kronke is the worst team owner in sports.
 
ferrarinycfc said:
Usmanov wants to buy Kronke's 67% of Arsenal for $1.3 Billion. That would value them at $2 Billion.

For Arsenal fans sake it better happen as Kronke is the worst team owner in sports.
Click to expand...
Hope it doesn't happen. Last thing Arsenal needs is a bunch of dirty oligarch money fueling its operations. To date, he may own a third but he's not got any other power, and that's not a bad thing.
 
ferrarinycfc said:
Usmanov wants to buy Kronke's 67% of Arsenal for $1.3 Billion. That would value them at $2 Billion.

For Arsenal fans sake it better happen as Kronke is the worst team owner in sports.
Click to expand...

Seems pretty unlikely it's going to happen. Kroenke has no intention of leaving.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Seth
Premier League 2020/21
Replies
72
Views
6,497
Other Football
JayH
JayH
Gene
Fare Thee Well Barclays Premiere League
Replies
22
Views
2,865
Other Football
Ohenry
Ohenry
Gene
Barclays Premier League 15/16
Replies
539
Views
40,322
Other Football
ktdNYCFC
ktdNYCFC
Top Bottom
Back