Mama Smurf said:
I don't like that method, relegation leads to better teams. I realise football isn't big over there, I'm not suggesting they have 4 professional leagues like we do, but amareur teams get pomoted to professional here all the time, no reason it couldn't work there.
It's a shame, because a great amateur team with an inspirational manager and an owner who really cares about the club don't have the chance to make it. And teams like that would make it sooner or later in a promotion/relegation system.
I'm not about to say that promotion/relegation sucks, it's certainly something I appreciate about the various leagues that are set up that way, but I also appreciate the lack of it in American-styled leagues.
For a professional athlete, I would think pro/reg sucks.
You made it to the "big leagues", but now because your
team sucks, you're either getting sent down to the minors, or sold for probably less than your true worth. You don't need promotion, because if you deserve to play at a higher level, someone somewhere will pick you up. And this quaint notion of playing for your local side and getting promoted all the way up to the Premiership is a pipe dream, if only because by the time they get that far,
you're not playing for them any longer.
For the team owner, I would think pro/reg sucks because how can you invest in the facilities to handle 50,000+ crowds if there's the chance that you might be lucky to draw 20,000 next year. How do you attract better players if you're a Wigan? Hell, how many times have I read targets reject Tottenham because they want a better team?
For a fan, I would think pro/reg sucks. The team you support gets relegated, and you're stuck watching lower quality games for a year and watch your best players, your best chance for promotion and staying up, snatched away. If your team isn't relegated, sure you get to see three new teams this year, but since they're three teams that suck, that's hardly an advantage.
And does pro/reg really lead to better teams? Is Man U that much better because they're in danger of being relegated? Or is it because there's no attempt whatsoever at parity? I almost wrote a tirade very much like this one earlier in the thread when someone said something along the lines of "we all know any given team can win on any given day in the Premiership" which is just nucking futs. Green Bay beating Chicago last season is "any given Sunday," West Ham beating Arsenal is a fluke.
Now obviously, there are some great things about pro/reg otherwise it wouldn't still be around. But for as much as pro/reg is neat, there are downsides, and I just wish more people (moreso on bigsoccer.com than here) would realize it's no magic bullet, and that football/soccer would do as well with or without it. It's a league structure, there's no reason that it's the only way. In a way, American leagues don't need relegation because the playoff system serves that purpose, there's a reason the playoffs are called "the real season."
That said, there certainly are failings in the American system. Teams do play for the draft pick at the end of the season, although I think the major American leagues are helped by the fact that they're the best leagues in the world for their respective sports which makes the draft possible. But you also have more teams fighting for playoff positioning. Sure West Ham fighting to stay up beats the hell out of Art Shell finishing out his season of ineptitude, but I'd rather watch 7-8 teams strive to get into the playoffs and the best teams strive to get the best seed.
American leagues do move their franchises more than pro/reg leagues. But for as much as people deride team relocations, there's a lot of stability in the American majors. Not only are there fewer Leeds-like collapses, but in the last 40 years, there have been just 29 team moves across all four major sports, and just 5 in the last 10. Keep in mind that that encompasses 122 teams.
While I'm already on a tirade, let me say that I do love the American system. Especially for American football, basketball, and non-revenue sports. I like baseball in hockey, where there are stable developmental leagues and the players move up through them. But colleges as a development system is amazing.
First you've got the passion of students and alumni. If you've ever derided American sports for being too Disney or for having too much music to get the crowd going, go to a Michigan-OSU football game. Go to a Duke-UNC basketball game. Hell, I see more passion in the Iowa-Iowa State game than I saw in the World Cup final (although that's probably not really a fair comparison because of pre-sold tickets.) And they have that passion without the hooliganism that used to mar association football (and still does to a lesser extent.)
Then you've got the fact that even if an athlete doesn't make it professionally, he/she most likely leaves collegiate system with a degree in hand. They didn't waste their time. And that opportunity extends not just to the revenue sports, but also the women's and other non-revenue sports.
And finally, you've got parity. In the Premiership, over the last five years, the four big clubs have claimed 18 of the possible 20 spots in the top four, 34 of 40 in the last ten. Don't you guys get tired of the same teams Every. Single. Year? Sure, we've got the Yankees, but not even Jerry Jone's wallet can keep the Cowboys competitive every single year.
Even if the team wasn't great, it would still be worth the price of admission to see Beckham, Angel, or any of the other eventual imports (maybe Zidane or Ronaldo?).
