4-4 on aggregate

THIS UNBELIEVABLY RACIST VAR MUST BE STOPPED AAAARRGHHHH I CANT BELIEVE THE RAAAAAAAAAAAACISM AGAINST RAHEEM STERLING FOR DISALLOWING THAT GOAL

The problem with it is that it benefits the team that plays the first hand at home. In case of extra time they have at least half an hour of time where goals are worth more.

No, they should go to penalties or extra time

Removing away goals would just slurpify the sport as the away teams will play defence.

Tell that to Ajax, because clearly they missed the fucking memo. They lost twice at home and BTFO'd TSUUUUU and Refball Uefadrid

Attached: 1511622869271.jpg (600x350, 51K)

Spurs didn’t concede 3 fucking goals at home. They deserved to go through.

I wonder if Gary Linecuck is crying about it today, the fucking prat.

They tied against Juventus in home tho

They didn't lose to Juve, they drew at home

t. seething city fag

away goal is a Genius idea. without it the game would be qui boring tonight without it.

how can you prefer penaly to away goal.

OH NONONO BAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHSHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

Attached: 1478225401627.jpg (1024x768, 74K)

Exactly, I'd much rather away goals than watching already tired players play for an extra half hour.

I can tell you fuckers have never attended or even played football to high school level football since you can't understand that the home team will always have an advantage.

they probably just want (You)s

The point stands

COPE

Attached: 1486352715801.jpg (514x532, 38K)

its arbitrary as heck. why is scoring more goals away better than goals at home?

>hurr it's harder to score away

if that was true, then they would have scored even more goals at home than they did, since scoring at home is meant to be so easy. but they didn't

It's a bit stupid, away goals shouldn't count for extra time

>Still doesn't understand home field advantage

>home field advantage

>Spurs only scored 1 home goal with their home field advantage

>City got 4

so why have Spurs qualified again? they only scored 1 goal with home field advantage. that's shit. that's 3 goals worse than city

Because Spurs also scored 3 away while City scored 0 you unfathomable buffoon

but that would make it even harder for americans to understand

If their stadium wasn't a fucking library their opponents would struggle to push 3 even through their village whore of a defense.
That's the reason why so many teams struggle away in Russia and the Balkans, because their fans are antisocial maniacs who throw vodka bottles on the pitch

The rules of the game are known before the match starts, so your opinion is retarded.

Despite which all statistics indicate that the team who plays the home leg second is more likely to go through.

yes, and i'm saying

>hurr Spurs got 3 home goals less than City

and

>hurr City got 3 away goals less than Spurs

are both equally demeaning to both teams.

so why have Spurs gone through again?

Don't you dare insult village whores like that

>being this retarded about a sport you invented

>t. SEETHING mahmoud

Confirmed home counties virgin who still lives with his mum at the age of 26.

Do one you fucking nerd before I find your address and put you in a headlock infront of your parents.

The away goal rule doesn't make sense only if your stadium is full of tourists, when you really have fans pushing and making hell on earth it's pretty hard to score away

>1 match sample size
t. simpleton fucking retard

whats the advantage? the field is exactly the same

You don't understand the concept of tactics zoomer, stop trying to sound like an expert after watching one match. Spuds restricted MC to zero away goals- that was their gameplan. Winning to nil in a home-first 2-leg tie is absolutely imperative, not winning 4-1 just because you scored more home goals.

except for South America where the crowd literally threatens and throw shit at rival players, there is no real home team advantage and away goals are gay.

>muh fans!

Where do you feel most comfortable, at home or at a random stranger's place?

>the field is exactly the same
It isn't. Every team can have the pitch to the size they want within a certain amount

No it isn’t you absolute mong and newfag, before the away goals the visiting team used to park the fucking bus, making the game intolerably boring, the away goals rule incentivises the away team to attack to score a valuable goal.

Oldfag reporting out.

Home team has an advantage because the fans influence the referee. How does this happen at school level football?

How old are you? The away goal rule exists since the 70s

referees get kicked to death yearly in dutch high school football

They should go straight to penalties. Three hours is enough time.

HAHAHAHAHAHA

Arab money is worse

>long bus ride over
>shitter changing rooms
>different pitch size
>different ground consistency

You never played footie or rugby at school did you.

Actually in the mid sixties,
but no, not that old to remember, I’ve just read a lot about football history

Are these just crying City fans or do people really not understand home field advantage?
For any sport, not just football, your home fans are extremely important to the match at hand. They actually have an effect on the outcome of a game.
Why do you think poop guardiola was begging fans to "show up" for the match during interviews yesterday.

>>different ground consistency
Anyone complaining about "away goals rule" clearly doesn't remember the dirty tactics home managers have implemented to hamper the other team. Here are some examples:

In 2005, Mourinho had the grounds-keeper not ready the pitch in order to disrupt Barca's tiki taka play, you can go look up the state of the pitch in that game and see that it looks like playing in a farm.

In the early 2010's, Inter Milan had their flanks logged with water to disrupt Arsenal's wing play when they heavily relied on Walcott...Arsenal ended up losing 4-0

They watch games in their laptop streams, what do they know

Homefield SHOULD be an advantage you fucking mongoloids, there's literally no reason to offset it with the away goal rule

Well, if you're playing in your home stadium at -10°C 1500 km away of your opponent city, that's a plus, you are used to it, and you don't have to travel, plus, you are at your own pitch (size is not the same in every club)

>its not comfortable
why y'all such pussies?

Maybe he thinks Mourinho and Pep beg for fans to come over just for shit and giggles

You’re missing the point.

Away goals is a perfectly acceptable way of attempting to break the deadlock of a tied game which has been played for ONE HUNDRED AND EIGHTY MINUTES

>Taking metaphors literally
Absolute state of American education

This, even the length of the grass and its dryness can influnce the speed of the ball while it gets passed.
Inter did that in the 2010 semifinal to slow down Barca's Tiki Taka

Americans pretending that the concept of "home advantage" doesn't exist is really amazing...Why do you have a 7 game series in your major sports? Why not just have all the games at a "neutral" stadium?

its genius because makes the away team go foward, otherwise 0 x 0 would be the norm.

youtube.com/watch?v=iS9ATtKhpng

It was actually AC Milan...Look at the state that pitch is in.

This.

>Score the same amount of goals as your opponent has throughout the course of two (2) complete matches
>Still lose because you scored your goals in the wrong stadium

Trivia fit for this week: in the return leg Arsenal went 3-0 and during half time Ibrahimovic literally put Allegri up against the wall

>Can't score at both stadiums
>Complain when eliminated

Why do American teams have each other play in different stadiums during the NBA play-offs?

They still went through but Arsenal got done dirty in that 1st leg

Then please explain it to me

If you need a tiebreaker and don't want to do it the american way, then home goal advantage should be the deciding factor, not away goal. It's the principle - away goals are harder so they should count for more? That's fucking equity nonsense, being good on the road is it's own reward but you ought to be dominant at home. There is literally no good reason not to have the rule reversed so that more home goals count as the tiebreaker.

Fields are not the same size. Liverpool's field is 101 meters long and Barcelona's is 105 meters.
4 meter difference is a lot.

It doesn't have a cumulative score at the end of the series, where if the total sum was tied at the end of game 7, the lower seed would advance without any overtime period. It's a game by game basis.

retard, the NBA playoffs are best-of-seven series, so there can't be a tie and the team with the higher seeding gets home court advantage - which is rightfully treated as an advantage and is not mitigated by fucking pansies looking to neutralize home advantage.

the away goal rule doesnt persist in extra time, its like they start of 0-0, eg. if the games are 2-1, 2-1 and in extra time both teams score 2 goals (6-6 on aggregate, but the second team scored 3 goals away) they still go to penalties

Guarantee you support some dome babby team like the Saints

>gets home court advantage
Thought home advantage didn't exist?

Why do the teams alternate playing between different courts if it ultimately shouldn't matter?
Well aren't you moronically trying to argue that there's no such thing as home court advantage?

FUCK
Looks like the AmeriGODS where right again...
How will we ever recover from this s fellow thirdworldipoor bros?

I don't watch handegg

No I'm not arguing that at all, learn to read, chumps. I'm arguing that home field advantage ought to be rightfully treated as an advantage and not neutralized by pansies who think being good at home should be offset.

>lose 2-1 on the road
>win 1-0 at home
>Win the series
Truly the beautiful game

It's not that it doesn't matter, it's that it shouldn't count as a tiebreaker if you scored more on the road.
>Steph Curry memechucked 13 3-pointers at Oracle for 39 points
>Steph Curry memechucked 13 3-pointers at Staples Center for 39 points
>Steph Curry scored more points at Staples Center

>win 5-1 at home
>lose 0-4 on the road
>lose the series
euros who hate innate advantages WILL defend this

Away goal rule makes no sense if you play an even amount of games at each stadium.

Let's strip this down even further cause it seems you're having a hard time understanding this...When did anyone ever say Steph Curry scored more points at Staples Center?

If the warriors lose a home-game, isn't that more detrimental than losing an away game? Answer yes or no

If the Warriors lost a home game by 5 it wouldn't be more detrimental than losing an away game by 35

>the away goal rule doesnt persist in extra time
it does in the CL

heres a hot meme arrow
>being rewarded for scoring less in front of your home fans

I have no clue if I'm being trolled right now but it's always hard to tell when it comes to North American posts....

Does home court advantage exist? You would say yes, and so would any rational sports fan.

Does losing at home matter more than losing away? Technically no, cause a loss is a loss, but losing a home game stings more than losing an away game despite the metric being used is the same ie a W is a W and an L is an L, however the Clippers beating GS away is more impressive than beating them at their own court.

Football takes this into account by implementing the away goals rule. A team that scores more goals away from home while in a foreign environment with tens of thousands of people in the stadium has accomplished a great feat and so if after 3 hours of game-time it's still a tie, the team that did better in an away environment gets rewarded. That's literally all the away goals rule is for and it's absolutely baffling how North Americans struggle with such a simple concept.

EXACTLY
THIS
thank you, finally a yuro who gets it

that prioritizes defense at home, which is less exciting than aggression. the fans in person should get to watch the most exciting football played by their team, so home teams ought to be rewarded for going on the offensive. it's dumb to have teams prioritize defense at home

What if you play an even amount of games and you draw..

Actually it rewards grit and determination. No one would say that exciting football wasn't played between City/Spurs, one could argue that it was sloppy, but if City wanted to show they were the better team then conceding 3 goals at home isn't the way to show it.

American sports are fundamentally different than European sports cause it's always constant back and forth scoring and so you don't really emphasize defending as much that's why you're having such a hard time understanding why good defense is a good thing. In today's match, 4 goals were scored in 10 minutes, that's not a normal thing in champions league football.

tl;dr Americans don't appreciate defense and that's why they will never understand the away goals rule.

3rd game at a neutral field with a draw resulting in directly going to PK

I guess that's true, it's a different philosophy of sport. Personally, I think offence is way more exciting and don't really know how anyone could think differently, but to each their own I suppose.

>3rd game
Yeah give the next team they face in the next round an even bigger advantage all because you're too daft to understand a simple rule

>Americans don't appreciate defense
they did until everyone became brainless blobs of fat and literally every sport changed it's rule to allow higher scoring games, the greatest example of this being the NFL.

>tfw city can still win da treble
>carabao cup
>epl
>fa cup

The scheduling's tricky enough as it is lad

football schedule is too packed to let this happen. playing in a neutral stadium is unnecessary. if its a draw on away goals, then it goes to overtime and penalties anyway. theres a logic to it; its harder to score away from home. and any arbitrariness is just as arbitrary as say using a golden goal format or the different possible formats of penalty shoot out.

>>epl
How? They don't play in such a league

My other posts were actually real. This one though I was only pretending to be retarded. Sorry for the confusion bros.

Just play 3 separate games and whatever team wins 2 out of the 3 games advances to the next round.

Why are Eur*peans so stupid?

Attached: 1494193747475.jpg (1080x1349, 73K)

You've never ran a day in your life

Thank you based Spurds

Gonna need her ig brah

can i have a go on those monstrous mummies

Other guy wasn’t me. I’d say you just go to PKs and if you lose, tough shit.

???
the exceptional premier league has been going for years

So fucking wrong, that German was right, the statistics prove that the team that plays away the first game wins the legs 90% of the time. Ignore based Ajax here.

>City don't play in the Exposed Pep League

Why are you complaining about away goals when penalty kicks are even more arbitrary. What are you even arguing is the negative of away goals in that case. If both teams know the rules then they can plan how to play their games and its fair.

so what about when its 1-1 over 3 games.

The ironic thing is that playing for penalties forces the game to be even more defensive which is what these American mongs don't want yet that's the solution they're offering.

The mind games the away goal rule adds are patrician as fuck
>penalty shootouts
NOT. EVEN. ONCE

No, you.

@itsjustajlove

If any of the 3 sets of game end in a tie. Resort to penalty kicks, it's not that far fetched.

Attached: 1528419445538.jpg (1080x1270, 1.58M)

Penalties are the ultimate mind game user and the true kino way to decide a game

>be Italy
>be Mourinho led team
Yeah, I am just gonna park the bus and go for the penalty shootouts. Fuck playing football.

>bus parking isnt the most kino tactic

Guaranteed tension, nerves and drama you pleb

hahaha fuck city, should have flushed that money down the toilet, or maybe they could have bought ronaldo

How many more threads are you going to make lmao

2 game aggregate series are fucking retarded and I'll never understand why people defend this garbage

You know what solves this problem? Bo3.

shut your bitch mouth Gary

>bus
>most kino
Yeah, we definitely don't want to shit things, um, webm related. Now STFU Ireland, you know jack shit about football.

Attached: 1555497424502.webm (1366x768, 2.13M)

I don't mind who went through but agreed away goal is pretty retarded. i'd love more pen shootouts

glad city got bfto but desu the away goal rule is pretty outdated now. It was a good idea at the time but no need for it these days.

wow some passes in midfield and a blocked shot

Arbitrary results in champions league style formats are inevitable because scoring is so few and far in between with soccer. The World Cup doesn’t have this issue for example.

they can fucking play

juve were playing like trash, wtf is that shape even. i reckon its one of those things were ajax were underestimated but if you stick to a decent plan and good tactical shape then you can stop ajax relatively well.

Beautiful and the best part is that they are passing forward instead of passing sideways tictaca style

The best final this decade was Chelsea vs Bayern and it was the biggest bus parking I've ever seen.

don't you have some females to beat up in a fit of drunken rage?

>Countries that can play some proper football
>Masters of hoofing it

Attached: 1501473426756.gif (190x200, 2.56M)

COYS! :3

Attached: Pepe COYS.jpg (814x909, 115K)

All these idiots trying to argue against salty plastic tupperware. It doesn't matter that home field advantage is literally more important than having GOATs on your team, all that matters is that it's fair. If the tie breaker was number of goals scored in the 62-78th minute while a beached blue whale fucked a Nicaraguan armadillo off the southern Togolese coast it would still be OK because it would be fair. Both teams have equal chances of exploiting the rule and both teams know the rules in advance. It's FAIR.

The whole thing with the away goals was first implemented in the mid-sixties becase without it away teams would park the bus, they were content with a 0-0 draw away since everybody knows the home team has the advantage, psychological, the home team gets to manipulate the state of the pitch etc.
With the away goals it means a 0-0 result away can be a risk going into the second leg if the opposing team were a good counter attacking side. If not, then the other team would park the bus for 120 minutes and would let the game go to penalties. What I described had actually begun to happen in the late fifties and early sixties. And what does that mean? A boring game.
Although I agree that it might seem unfair at certain times, the away goals rule facilitates more open and more entertaining footbaal, because in the end it's all that it is: entertainment.
If there were a home goal advantage, then we'd see on team attacking for 90 minutes with the other team lined up in front of their goal line, or in better cases hoofing the ball toward a lone striker. So for me, it makes sense.

Bunch of old men getting outplayed by school boys; this reminds me of my primary school days when we would form teams and the younger lads would outplay the older kids using cheeky flicks and passes cause back then everyone wanted to be Ronaldinho

Cause you're an American and don't understand why defense is valued in football

If you could have it your way they would be playing each other 7 times

Juventus didn't have really that many old players at all. Allegri thinks to train players in a pace babby sport you need to hit the weights like you're a bodybuilder. The result is that webm.

Oh no, slick one touch passing, I'm real scared. Reminds me of those great Arsenal teams of zoomers that scored all those great goals playing like that and won all those trophies. How will the goyim ever recover?

>Ronaldo(34)
>Bonucci(31)
>Matuidi(32)

Playing against guys 10 years younger and way faster playing with more creativity than le hoof it to Ronaldo in the 18 area strategy

Europeans are truly another breed of delusional and inflated self-worth. What a ridiculous, objectively terrible rule to defend. I am genuinely so happy I do not like soccer

Thanks for confirming your strawman. One man in the front, only one old guy in the midfield, the old guy in the back blocked the shoot. It wasn't about the age, Juve used to play better than that with fucking 32 year old Pirlo in the midfield.

>objectively terrible rule to defend.
You're just too daft to understand it.

They have old men and play with old men philosophies; not going to fly against a hungry young team.

>32 year old Pirlo
At least they had Pogba to balance it out (back when Pogba was actually good)

>what is the advantage? the field in Florida is the same as Foxboro in mid December

Attached: 1384549112973.png (250x250, 149K)

that's why both teams have 1 game at home each ya dingus, away teams don't deserve a handicap

Attached: avin a giggle.png (395x387, 282K)

>Pogba playing with fifty year old Italian men
>godlike
>Pogba playing with young English men
>terrible
Do the math, Shitain.

nope can't do that in the CL anymore

the playing away myth is completely retarded. you feel shook for like your first one or two away games at most and after that you're completely fine, if you're still affected by fans after multiple years of professional level play you are a drooling retard.

What "math" moron?

So why do American sports have series played at home and away? Clearly it doesn't matter according to your professional opinion eh?

The thing is, everyone knows beforehand that away goals are more valuable, so if they can't explore that better than their adversary than its too bad for them.

Don't bother trying to explain it to Americans; they will never actually get it; I don't think they have the capacity to, and I don't mean that disrespectfully, you just can't explain it to them and have it make sense cause their sports are completely wired differently.

>muh hinchadas

What a dumb fuckin' "sport."

There's nothing to understand, its a rule made because euros are too dumb to think of anything else. It's an unfair advantage and makes the game laughable in integrity

Damn you were a nerd at school obviously

>Points and winning are more important in American sports

Issue is soccer is a terribly designed sport that ends in a draw more often than any good sport should, so they need arbitrary bullshit tiebreakers like penalty shootouts, aggregates, and away goals to determine winners, since ties are so likely.

>Murricunt, murrican, etc, etc

Not even about American sports vs. foreign sports. Cricket, Gaelic football, Aussie Rules, and even "pub games" like snooker and darts enjoyable. Soccer is just shit.

It's a very simple concept to understand but Americans for some reason try and over-complicate and muddle it.

Home advantage exists; any reasonable rational sports fan acknowledges that a team playing at home has an advantage; even American sports acknowledge this.

There's nothing unfair about it, other than it emphasizes an aspect of sports that Americans don't know about, and this aspect is called defense, something Americans don't emphasize at all.

Also the fact that Americans cannot sit still in front of their televisions for 45 minutes straight and need for there to be continuous scoring for the game to be "enjoyable"...It's like a little kid who gets impressed by car keys being jiggled in front of them...that's the best analogy I can give for how American sports cater to people's psychology...oh wow Lebron just dunked...oh the other team just answered back with a 3-pointer...constant back and forth scoring that in the long run ends up being meaningless because all that matters is how you finish the game. That's why an "elite" team in NBA can blow a 31 point lead.

tl;dr: Americans will never understand the away goals rule because they don't understand what defense means.

Three legged series, there you go, a solution.
Is just not any better/practical than the current system that they have.

>Three legged series
What if all those matches end 1-1? Do we have a 5 legged series next?

>teams are tied 1-1 in a series of 2
>goals tied 4-4
>instead of playing an odd game which is infinitely more fair than the alternative, they decide to let the winner be the one who scored more goals in a different location no less than the size of texas
>instead of playing an odd game like every other sporting event does, and even some soccer leagues
>even though both teams won a game
lmao, what a terrible sport, what fucking retard actually designs this shit ahhahahahahahhahahahahahahaha

>Giving a team an extra goal will emphasize defense and isn't unfair
Lmfao at this mental gymnast

>draw more often than any good sport should
Funny, you're talking about arbitrariness while making such an unfounded argument.
And then just mention a bunch of sports that "are better than Football" just to try to make yourself look more credible and unbiased. Try again.

You can't even formulate a counter argument cause your education system didn't give you the tools to be able to do so. Pretty sad if you ask me.

All tied games in those series end up with a winner, the tie breaker would be the golden goal.

fucking missedf it

Home field advantage is maybe a 2% advantage, goals being worth more is a 25% massive advantage. I would never want to be the home team in this rigged "sport", it really can't be called a sport with bullshit rules like that though.

oh no, the argument is clearly there, you will just keep saying how uneducated americans are and keep defending a rule thats getting phased out because you cant be wrong

There is no counter-argument because you have no argument yourself. It is objective that having one teams goals worth more for something really quite arbitrary is an unfair advantage and damages the legitimacy of the "sport", there's nothing you can say that will change this. You are giving a massive advantage in exchange for a teeny tiny advantage, even other euros can admit it

>Home field advantage is maybe a 2% advantage
Says who? Are you a professional athlete? Have you ever had to play/perform in front of 50,000 people?

Funny how you talk about objectivity when you keep introducing more arbitrary nonsense that you can't even prove.

i always find it funny with all the fake injuries and straight up time wasting that goes on in the game the ref just straight up guess how much extra time there should be. i actually took notes during one game with all the time wasting (something like over 11 minutes wasted) and the ref put up 3 min extra time. great sport you got there it's worse than baseball when it comes to modernization

>basketball and football are the only sports that Americans watch.

Hockey and baseball can be just as low scoring as soccer, with the latter derided as "boreball" by some, because the sport doesn't feature constant running and jumping around. Hockey relevance is indeed lower than the NBA and NFL, but due to the fact that most Americans don't live in a cold climate and have never played the sport. MLB is still more popular than the NBA.

The away goals rule is retarded because it's an arbitrary way of deciding a winner by imparting more value to scoring done under different circumstances. Why not, I don't know, just play best of fuckin' 3 with the final game at a neutral location? There's just something so anti-climatic about a team tying up a series with a win and still losing.

Point is, UEFA brass or whoever can come up with a better solution to fairly match up teams from different leagues. In American sports, the team with the best regular season record gets home court advantage. I understand this wouldn't work in UCL since the teams play in different leagues, so the respective records aren't 1 to 1. But the current solution is just dumb.

> i actually took notes during one game with all the time wasting
You are obsessed, do something with your life.

The argument is playing away from home is a disadvantage; you clearly don't think it is yet you somehow believe titles should be decided in 7 game series in your own sports and "play-offs"(yet another dumb concept)

>damages the legitimacy of the "sport"
How can you damage the legitimacy of the most popular sport in the world? Do you really think people are going to stop watching football cause Americans are too daft to understand how away goals work?

There's no massive advantage being given. The rules themselves are fair. If after 3 HOURS OF PLAYING, we can't find a winner, then the team who scored more away wins, this isn't hard to understand, except for someone who thinks their country is the center of the universe.

Ties are objectively shit. Name one other sport in the world that ends in a tie 30% of the time? (That's the percentage of games in the big leagues that end in a tie).

Why do people consider Tic-Tac-Toe a broken game? Because it always end in a tie.

this lmao
>goals in a different location on the same island worth more
check
>constant diving to try to bait the shit refs into giving you a penalty kick
check
>VAR was only introduced recently and the Goal line technology was only implemented in the 2012 World Cup.
check
what a terrible sport, actually such a backwards sport it makes the coin toss look like a 200IQ sporting decision
pathetic, europeans who support this are a step below literally any poster on this website by far

>yet you somehow believe titles should be decided in 7 game series
never said that, 3 games would be good enough, and whoever scored more away games could even get home field advantage for game 3 since you believe its that important
odd games are not american sports exclusive in playoff/championship scenarios, but theyre 100x better than the shit you have

The solution isn't dumb just cause you don't understand it.
>Just play 3 games
What if those 3 games all end up being ties? What then? Do you see how your "solutions" don't actually solve anything but only serve to over-complicate a really simple scenario? Your "solution" in fact puts the winning team at a HUGE DISADVANTAGE cause they still need to go to the next round and play the next team who will have played a game less...Your dumb solution actually punishes the winner.

>neutral location
Do you even have this concept in your own sports?

>Name one other sport in the world that ends in a tie 30% of the time
Why is it tie so shit anyway? Oh yes, because the purpose of every sports game is to have a winner.
Wiat a minute tho, in american sports half of all the teams in any given league lose ON PURPOSE, or just not try to win at all, in order to have higher draft picks.

>How can you damage the legitimacy of the most popular sport in the world?
By making a team get more points for an arbitrary thing, stopped reading after this

>stopped reading after this
Can't really blame you; your education system is at a sorry state.
>arbitrary
All while you continue to promote more arbitrary metrics that you can't even prove

I agree it is an insanely retarded rule.

Only "retarded" when the team you bandwagon end up losing. It wasn't retarded when Barcelona went out cause of it last year.

>3 games would be good enough
Yeah and what happens if they all end in draws? Haven't really thought this through have you?

>"play-offs"(yet another dumb concept)
How are tournament style playoffs a dumb concept when that's how every fuckin' international tournament in every sport is decided? And how the Champions League is decided?

7 game series is objectively superior to a single game playoff since it reduces the luck factor.

The European soccer model to decide champs is pretty much the same as the American playoff model. The better teams from the European leagues compete the Champions League tournament to decide the best soccer team in Europe. Just like the better teams in the NBA, NHL, MLB compete in a tournament to see who is the best team.

If European soccer fans were really satisfied with the "win most league games, league champs" model, you wouldn't have needed the Champions League. You want to see the best of the best match up in a winner take all format. That format to decide a champion is much more exciting than watching a team win their league by beating a bottom feeder to secure the most points.

this. there's literally nothing long with a game ending in a tie. if neither did enough to win it in 90 minutes of a league game, neither deserves 3 points.

>because the purpose of every sports game is to have a winner.
yes
>in american sports half of all the teams in any given league lose ON PURPOSE, or just not try to win at all, in order to have higher draft picks.
youre so full of shit and you know it, the suns (one of the worst teams in the NBA) beat the best team in the NBA twice, cavs beat the 3rd best team twice, no fucking team is actually trying to tank, they just suck, if they were actually trying to tank they wouldnt be winning these games. And even if they were, its not fucking half, are you retarded? AND, shitty teams that you "think" are tanking more often than not dont actually have first round picks, or enough of them, to make a difference.

>Haha your education system lol
NPCs have trouble coming up with new things to say, I get it

>Yeah and what happens if they all end in draws
dont let them end in draws? Are you fucking retarded? Did you really believe I thought of making it an odd number of games if it could just keep continuing??? Whats your fucking problem, they could do a number of things, the easiest would be PKs, since if i recommended OT you would complain that would be too taxing on your athletes. PKs are infinitely more competitive than away goals

Keep the rule except for overtime because that's plain dumb

>7 game series is objectively superior
Yeah in sports where nothing literally happens, I can understand why someone would be interested in a 7 game series.
>is pretty much the same as the American playoff model
Except that it isn't. There's no relegation in American sports, so the same horrible teams will always be there next season and the season after, and how the play-off seeds are decided is even more non-sensical...for instance in NBA it's #1 vs. #8 and so on so forth to determine the conference winner...whereas in Football good teams can actually play each other early in the group stage...but you choosing to focus on this is just another good case of deflection and the ADHD mentality popular in Americans.

>That format to decide a champion is much more exciting
Yeah cause once again Americans are enticed by car keys being jingled in front of their faces.

A team in American sports can go unbeaten in the regular season and none of that ultimately means anything. Consistency and hard-work never gets rewarded in American sports, just dumb chance and temporal good form.

Wll firstly teams do tank on purpose, is just a fucking fact of life.Is a fact that the Knicks were tanking all season long to try to get Zion, and it's a fact that Mavericks tanked in the final of the season to try to keep their lottery pick. You would have to be 100% dishonest to deny this.
And those are just the teams that I give a fuck to remember.

>dont let them end in draws?
Are you drunk? Do you realize that your rules fundamentally are trying to change how the entire game is played?

>the easiest would be PKs
Don't you losers still complain about that as well?

Lol. I understand away goals just fine. It gives more value to goals scored on an opponent's turf. You keep deflecting with "Murricunts don't understand it!" to handwave away our criticisms. Wow. What an intellectual concept. Away goals are valued more because they're more difficult to score for the road team! We get it, and it's retarded.

>What if those 3 games all end up being ties?

No proper sport should have 3 straight games all ending up as ties. This is another criticism of your precious soccer you deflect. But I suppose the only solution is the Mario Party minigame penalty shootouts, since world soccer brass and fans wince at the idea of unlimited substitutions (unlimited subs would make overtimes playable. If you think unlimited subs would somehow affect regular time soccer too much for your liking, then they're only allowed in over time. This would also make roster building more interesting, as teams would have to consider how they build their overtime lineups).

Yes, a winner should be "punished" for needing 3 games to beat an opponent vs. a winner who needed only 2. You also underestimate the speed at which professional athletes can recover. An extra 7 miles over 90 minutes isn't going to waste a soccer team for their next match 3 or 4 days away.

Superbowl is played in neutral locations, as is the NCAA tournament. In the other leagues, the team with the better regular season record enjoys homecourt advantage.

>Yeah in sports where nothing literally happens, I can understand why someone would be interested in a 7 game series.
ah, so you dont actually have a rebuttal, just "your sports are shit" or "your education is shit" got it
>There's no relegation in American sports, so the same horrible teams will always be there next season and the season after,
this is heavily because of poor FOs and drafting practices
>or instance in NBA it's #1 vs. #8 and so on so forth to determine the conference winner.
this is true, but if you actually look at basketball youd realize, at least in the western conference, the 8th seed is only 6 or so games behind the 1st seed, its incredibly tightly packet
>Consistency and hard-work never gets rewarded in American sports, just dumb chance and temporal good form.
you dont actually believe this do you? of course you dont, you just want to take cheap shots at american sports because you cant actually talk about the one OP made the thread for
>A team in American sports can go unbeaten in the regular season and none of that ultimately means anything.
This is just odds of a team beating another team? It happens in every sport practically, Man City were the heavy favorites against spurs and had a much better record in the premier league but still lost, same with Juventus and Ajax, happens in every sport, its not special with soccer at all

And after the away goals rule it's now the home team that parks the fucking bus. Good job.

>Wll firstly teams do tank on purpose, is just a fucking fact of life.Is a fact that the Knicks were tanking all season long to try to get Zion
even if this were true, the fact of the matter is that tanking is more discouraged because the worst team has the same odds as 2nd and 3rd worst teams (14.5% at a first round pick) and 4th, 5th etc are not far behind. Also, if the Knicks actually were tanking, they wouldnt have beaten the spurs, the magic, the bucks, and other good teams, they do not have the players to actually beat good teams, which is what you believe to be tanking

>Do you realize that your rules fundamentally are trying to change how the entire game is played?
no shit, what do you think im going to become a commissioner of the UEFA and change the rules? Its a fucking hypothetical thread
>Don't you losers still complain about that as well?
no actually, i havent seen anyone criticize that on this board in years

>even if this were true
Good night to you

>We get it, and it's retarded.
You don't and you never will because you don't think home advantage exists (when it does) or you just don't want to admit it does or you've never competed in a team sport where you had to go play away from home a day in your life, not even when you were in high school.

>No proper sport should have 3 straight games all ending up as ties.
So is this your way of backing out of the dumb solution you just offered?

>unlimited substitutions
What a dumb idea. How about just go all the way and admit you simply want to Americanize every sport because your head is so big you think your country is the center of the world?

>An extra 7 miles over 90 minutes isn't going to waste a soccer team for their next match 3 or 4 days away.
Have you ever actually played football professionally to be making a statement like this?

>Yeah in sports where nothing literally happens,
What "literally happens" in soccer aside from 0-0 ties and the average 1-0 game? Also, if you're going to deride Americans for being "ADD," I don't think it's a good tactic to criticize the "slowness" of American sports.

You Euros can talk about muh relegation all you want, but it doesn't make sense for American sports, with the exception of maybe baseball. Why? Soccer is the most popular sport in the world, and the talent pool is large enough to field decent enough lower level teams that won't get embarrassed at tier 1 levels. NFL is a domestic sport, and the best NCAA team would get murdered. Basketball requires an outlier build of tall, athletic freaks. The average male height worldwide is 5'6". A lot of people around the world play basketball, but only few have the build to actually play it professionally.

>A team in American sports can go unbeaten in the regular season and none of that ultimately means anything. Consistency and hard-work never gets rewarded in American sports, just dumb chance and temporal good form.

"Dumb chance" never wins a 7 game series. A 7 game series also requires consistency and hard work. If you didn't enjoy best of the best match ups, you wouldn't watch the Champions League, since that's exactly what the fuck it is. Same with the World Cup.

You're reaching at straws here out of an American hate boner, rather than accept people have different opinions or acknowledge valid criticism. You want to criticism the draft model of American sports? Feel free. There's problems with it, and many sports fans would like to see it fixed. But again, muh relegation isn't a realistic solution for the reasons I mention (among others, like the fact we watch more than one sport).

Do I think home field advantage exists? Yes
Do I think its enough to justify the away goals rule when they could just play fucking extra time instead? No.

Also, penalties are bullshit too. It should be corners.

Jesus Christ. I just explained to you that the goals are more valued because they're scored in tougher conditions, meaning I fully acknowledged home field advantage exists. Every American sports fan acknowledges since, um, teams will have better records at home vs. the road.

What we disagree with is the solution. Far as we're concerned, the results of this match are even and there should be a third deciding match. You go on about "muh center of the world Murricans" when it's you who can't accept people have different opinions.

>How about just go all the way and admit you simply want to Americanize every sport

Why would unlimited subs for OT only be bad? I'd rather see the match decided by proper on-field play than a minigame. You disagree. Fine.

This point is also ironic from you because Euros are constantly criticizing the lack of relegation in our leagues and the "flow" of our sports (amount of NFL commercials sucks, no disagreement. But the sport is differently designed, with a more turn-based gameplay). Seems you won't be happy until every sport resembles soccer in some way. Sounds like center of the world thinking to me.

A lot more happens in football than in American sports where you have commercial breaks, time-outs, and half-time shows as part of the viewing experience.

>A 7 game series also requires consistency and hard work.
It requires less hard-work and consistency; what American sports teaches you is you can be the best team for 50 games but if you slip up and have a bad run of form for 6 games then too bad you were never good and all those 50 games you played mean nothing, you literally get punished for temporal inconsistency

> best of the best match ups
Except that's not what the American play-off system is about.

I already admitted that you're entitled to your opinion because of the culture you grew up in emphasizes attack and "action" more than it does defense and intelligent passivity; that's why you complain about games that end 1-0 cause for you, you're used to seeing scores like 115-110 all your life.

American sports = checkers

Attached: IqoHtiq.jpg (900x608, 128K)

i fucking referee soccer and i think away goals is the single stupidest rule in any sport in the world. home field advantage is a great notion but no other sport in the world gives a LITERAL advantage to the visiting team. the away goals rule is LITERALLY GIVING THE VISITING TEAM AN EXTRA GOAL

jesus christ almighty, the IFAB is changing some stupid ass rules 50 years too late which is good, but when will this piece of shit go away

>Seems you won't be happy until every sport resembles soccer in some way.
This is an interesting point. As far as team ball sports go, Euros basically tune out any sport than doesn't superficially resemble soccer. Maybe not the Brits, since cricket still has some relevance there, but European team sports culture is basically centered around 60 different versions of soccer (handball, field hockey, ice hockey, waterpolo, indoor soccer, korfball, basketball, rugby [slightly different from soccer, but still about one group vs. another on a rectangular field trying to move a ball across a goal with flowing gameplay], Gaelic football, Hurling, Bandy).

>when it's you who can't accept people have different opinions.
You're entitled to your opinion and I'm entitled to call your opinion dumb. There's no need for a 3rd game. If you ever played 90 minutes of football you'd know why. After 3 hours of play and the score is tied, there's no need to see a 3rd game, the irony here though is spurs/city will be playing each other again this weekend so maybe you can tune in for that and treat that as the tie-breaker...in the context of the CL, Spurs performed better and go to the next round deservedly based on the prior agreed upon rules which are FAIR and not based on anything arbitrary. Home advantage exists and the team that performs better away from home gets rewarded; end of story.

>Euros are constantly criticizing the lack of relegation in our leagues and the "flow" of our sports
Only because you lot love to complain about the away goals rule and pks EVERY SINGLE TIME because you have no idea what you're talking about and love to ignore the dumb rules in your own sports (that the rest of the world doesn't follow by the way)

>A lot more happens in football than in American sports where you have commercial breaks, time-outs, and half-time shows as part of the viewing experience.
Since you don't know American sports, this opinion can be discarded. You'll that you do, that you've watched them, but it's obvious you haven't when you think only the NBA and NFL are the followed leagues here.

No good team should have a bad form over 6 games.

The American playoff system is just that. Quit talking out of your fuckin' ass. It's the top 8 to 16 teams in the league facing off.

No, you're not entitling anyone to their opinion, since you are qualifying it with a passive-aggressive insult out of your cliched American hate boner. We have a sport here where a game played in the final rounds lasted 7 hours and ended 3-2. If intelligent passivity is defined as carefully choosing spots to attack, baseball is certainly about that at its core, where not swinging at pitches is probably more important than what you swing at.

I guess it's beyond your comprehension that we actually follow, and I mean follow to the point where we have 4 leagues worth billions (not just follow the occasional Ashes and Rugby world cup), more than 1 sport intently. Basketball and football aren't the only sports in town here.

Attached: GodsvsFags.jpg (2535x1207, 453K)

>love to ignore the dumb rules in your own sports (that the rest of the world doesn't follow by the way)
Basketball is the second most popular sport in the world (sorry cricket, China factor), with a big European professional league that pays millions.
Baseball is big in about 12 countries (more countries than in which Rugby is big in) totaling a population of 750 million people (US included).
Ice Hockey (Canadian sport, but a sport Americans follow) is big in Scandinavia, Russia, and former Soviet Satellites.

Yes, nothing reaches soccer level popularity, but soccer really is the only global sport. All other sports are big in specific regions/countries. Not relevant in the UK=/=not relevant in other countries. And it's Brits who always criticize Americans for being insular.

>when you think only the NBA and NFL are the followed leagues here.
They are the most watched sports and the Superbowl and March Madness are the biggest sporting events in your country

>No good team should have a bad form over 6 games.
American sport system rewards luck and demands perfection while punishing consistency and hard-work. Consistency meaning that if you are good for long extended periods of time but run into a rough patch you get punished for it, whereas if you are consistently mediocre for a long period of time and run into a good run of form then you get massively rewarded.

I already qualified my statement as not coming from a place of disrespect ; you've already proven my statement correct cause you think a game that ends "1-0" will always be boring cause your brain is subconsciously wired for constant back and forth scoring and scores of 115-110 on the screen.

Baseball is one of the most boring sports to watch and even most Americans will admit that. The problem with American sports is you just can't find the right balance of things. A 7 hour game is impractical but you will complain about having to sit still for 45 minutes.

>i fucking referee soccer

Yikes

>American sport system rewards luck and demands perfection while punishing consistency and hard-work
please explain how this is the case, this should be priceless

holy mother of based

>yikes
go back to rebbit you fucking faggot

Fair enough, they drew but were losing on Away goals. Should have specified that.

I already explained it but I'll do it again,in baseball a team plays 162 games, Let's assume there's a team A that wins 150 games and a team B that wins 80 games and both teams make it into the play-offs. Let's also say that team A beat team B in the regular season decisively.

Let's say these teams face each other in the play-offs and team B ends up winning, it literally does not matter at all what team A did during the regular season. All those wins team A amassed in the regular season are meaningless and useless, their consistency does not matter and will never matter, what matters is they lost to a vastly inferior team over a stretch of 4-7 games and that's what they'll be judged on. It doesn't matter that for over the season they were consistently good, what matters is they ran into a string of bad luck and lost to a worse team, either cause maybe their good players got injured or because they just ran into a bad form, something that happens a lot in sport. So you have a scenario where consistency and hard-work gets punished in favour of spontaneity and short-term endearment which gets rewarded. It's like going to class all semester, participating in class discussions, handing in all the assignments, but doing bad in the final either cause you were sick or didn't read an important chapter and you get an F, but some kid who rarely ever showed up to class, did 0 homework but did well on the final gets the A.

And then Americans have the nerve to talk about "unfairness" and "arbitrary rules"

Attached: TMT.png (398x222, 111K)

More talking out of your ass? March Madness isn't the second biggest sporting event. World Series games beat it out. The MLB crushes the NBA regionally and the highest rated non-NFL sporting events are usually baseball games.

I guess you can't get it through your thick skull. You can't luck your way into winning a 7 game series.

You criticize Americans for wanting to Americanize soccer, but are implying soccer style gameplay "is the right balance of things." I also find it funny you call another sport boring but call Americans wired to enjoy a certain aesthetic. I can easily say your brain is wired to constantly expect uninterrupted "jogging around" that you're incapable of appreciating different game designs. I also find it odd that a Brit would criticize the pace of American sports when cricket (8 hour matches) and snooker are big aspects of UK sports culture, or used to be anyway.

Attached: BTFOAPEHOOP.png (1483x904, 261K)

Do you realize that the MLB works like kind of a pseudo UEFA? Teams play the most against their own division, so what if that 150 win team simply padded against a shitty division?

Think of MLB divisions like European soccer leagues. The teams that win their division get the chance to play the other division winners for the title, just like the winners/better teams in the various Euro soccer leagues get to play for the Champions league title.

The reverse can also happen that a team's good players get injured for the majority of the season. Happens all the time.

Getting nitpicky over semantics isn't going to dig you out of the hole you're in. Basketball, American Football, and Baseball are your most popular sports, so trying to be nitpicky about which one has more % viewers doesn't make your point any stronger cause you know exactly what I'm talking about.

>You can't luck your way into winning a 7 game series
But you can luck your way into having a good regular season record? Great logic.

There's no right balance in American sports. Commercial breaks, time-outs, and general nonsensical drama are part and parcel of the viewing experience.

>incapable of appreciating different game designs
Watching someone getting an oxygen tank or players huddled around a coach for numerous "time-outs" or commercial breaks so you can go refill your soda isn't related to the game design at all.

>cricket
We are talking about football not cricket, try and actually stay on topic.

you actually dont know what youre talking about at all, how do you even view any of that as unlucky, if a shittier team beats a better team in the playoffs or vice versa it is because the playoffs is entirely different than the regular season and certain teams game plans work better or worse, see the jazz, a defense oriented team who cant do fuck all in the playoffs.

So why bother having a regular season at all? LOL Americans man....

Ok, youre just trolling at this point, i got it

>emphasizing defense is good
>LMAO FUCKING YUROPOORS WHY IS EVERY SAWKER MATCH 0-0

Ah yes, the famed 2012 World Cup

>a slow 45 minute game where it's possible to have absolutely no scoring attempts at all, it takes long periods of time for there to be any real change in the flow of the game, and it's not even necessarily about winning the game because of its retarded rules
>versus a slow 2 to 3 hour game on average where every pitch taken by a batter (100-150 per team per game) is a definitive scoring attempt, the entire game can and often does change in a matter of milliseconds, and winning is so paramount that they play until they drop
nah soccer boring is on its own tier
Regular season record does matter. It's the difference between a division title and a free ticket to the playoffs and being forced to gamble your entire 162 game season on a one game sudden death wild card game. Last season the Yankees won 100 games and the Oakland A's won 97 games, and both of those teams were forced to play in that sudden death game. In that sudden death game, it's all hands on deck, and each team's ace pitcher is on the mound. That means you can't use him for the first game of the next playoff series, and the wild card winner always plays the 1 seed and faces their ace pitcher, while missing their own ace and likely a few relief pitchers. The wild card team is at a distinct disadvantage the whole series in many ways, because they didn't win consistently enough to win their division. Also, baseball gives very large sample sizes, so the regular season is a great and reliable starting point for teams to plan their approach in the playoffs.

Another example from last year: the Tampa Bay Rays won 90 games and missed the playoffs. 90 games was enough to make the playoffs in the league they don't play in. Besides a stretch in April-May where they were bad, they played great baseball for most of the year. But the fact that they didn't play great baseball all of the year while other teams in their league did means that they're sitting on their couches in October.

No I'm not trolling, I'm still trying to wrap my head around how someone can with a straight face criticise away goals rule, but then turn around and be okay with a consistently good team having their regular season record ultimately mean absolutely nothing.

>and be okay with a consistently good team having their regular season record ultimately mean absolutely nothing.
because you arent separating the differences between regular season and playoff season, teams play worse in the playoffs because of tightened rotations, pressure, schedule changes etc, its hardly even the same sport. If a team with a good record loses it doesnt instantly mean "hurr it didnt mean fuck all" it means they couldnt adjust to the playoffs which can stem from a number of issues: Not adapting to pressure (westbrook, derozan a million other players) shitty coaching that worked well enough in the regular season, whatever

Even the most boring football game in the world trumps the most exciting baseball game there has ever been. How do people derive enjoyment from someone swinging a bat and missing more often than not for 7 hours? It really is an American thing...

>Regular season record does matter.
>90 games was enough to make the playoffs in the league they don't play in

Does this sound fair to you?

>It really is an American thing...
its not, baseball is popular in a lot of countries, you should try to not be so narrow minded

What semantics? You said Americans are conditioned to expect back and forth high scoring. I told you this is wrong since our 2nd most popular sport can end in 1-0, as well as our 4th (hockey), then you replied by suggesting that football and basketball are our biggest sports, implying they are somehow the only ones Americans really follow. Boiled down, you handwaved away the popularity of baseball and hockey to keep your retarded "ADD American sports fan" myth going.

You can sometimes luck your way into having a great regular season if your opponents suffer an injury fate. And regular season success is rewarded. They win their division title and get a post-season berth. What's so hard to understand about this? If you dislike this model so much, please boycott the World Cup and/or petition FIFA to have an "international league" that decides the World Cup winner over 30 games. Why are you so averse to see how strong teams compete against one another in high-stakes matches? Oh, I know, because it gives you an excuse to criticize Americans (which is probably the second most popular sport next to soccer for your country).

>There's no right balance in American sports. Commercial breaks, time-outs, and general nonsensical drama are part and parcel of the viewing experience.

Commercial breaks have nothing to do with on-field play.

>There's no right balance in American sports. Commercial breaks, time-outs, and general nonsensical drama are part and parcel of the viewing experience.

Wow! Different sports require different body types, some that even need oxygen after an intense play! Maybe you're behind the curve, but feel free to put a lean and shredded offensive or defensive line together that won't need oxygen, and watch how they get totally destroyed. That size is needed for the conditions of the sport.

No, mentioning cricket is germane because we're basically talking about sporting cultures.

1/2

>90 games was enough to make the playoffs in the league they don't play in
yes, because they were not able to compete with the better players in their own division (the yankees and red sox were two of the best teams in the league) now if you believe something like that happens a lot you are mistaken obviously, the AL central is much better this year but sucked ass last year, and the red sox and yankees are not playing well

How do people derive enjoyment from overpaid scrubs trying to be actors and lightly tapping a ball around the whole time like it was high school gym class? It really is a third world thing...

And yes it does. They played hard, but their league was composed of some of the best teams fielded by any organization this decade, so they should've won more at the beginning of the year instead of being bad. Work harder, and be relentless. That was a big part of how the Red Sox put together their best season in franchise history last year, because their manager treated every game like it was his last. Now look at the same Rays team this year. They're playing hard from the get go and now they have the best record in baseball. The Red Sox are playing sloppy baseball and now have the second worst record in baseball.

I mentioned cricket because it has many of those aspects you find repellent in American sports (time outs to change the field positioning as a new bowler/batter enters on), very slow paced (not talking t20, which is cartoon cricket, far as I'm concerned), events like a batter batting for 10 hours straights basically blocking in order to salvage a draw.

Oh, and we do have a flow sport. Flows more than soccer. Called hockey.

Japan, Dominican Republic and where else?

canada, puerto rico, cuba, venezuala, most asian countries (including israel) Europe (EBF) australia and new zealand

>You said Americans are conditioned to expect back and forth high scoring.
Because you literally are, and you proved it a few posts later by crying about how you personally find 1-0 scorelines to be boring.

>You can sometimes luck your way into having a great regular season
Exactly how is this even possible? The World Cup model doesn't reward mediocrity, neither does the champions league, or the league system, American sports do it all the time.

There's no good reason to hassle to finish 1st in your conference cause there's no big difference between 1st and 8th in NBA

How do American sports reward mediocrity?
>There's no good reason to hassle to finish 1st in your conference cause there's no big difference between 1st and 8th in NBA
lol, the bucks are absolutely ass raping the pistons, the warriors lost against the clippers but are far and above the best team in the league, youre objectively wrong and its not even an argument

>people like different things than me

Weird right? Crazy how that works. So fucking weird bro. Like it’s so strange that some people like some things and other people like other things. Dude this is the wildest fucking discussion. Thanks for participating.

top fucking kek

it's not like the NFL is exactly averse to low scoring either. here's a pic that's tallied every final scoreline of every NFL game ever played; the low scoring games are to the top left of the graph and the high scoring games are to the bottom right. at a glance the split between high and low scoring games seems fairly even, there's been dozens to hundreds of both kinds, and there are certain low scores that are rare and certain high scores that are rare. additionally, the element of unique scoring combinations is completely unique to American football, no other sport really has it. really there's no minimum baseline for an NFL score; you can't necessarily definitely call American football a low or high scoring game. really the only popular American sport that's definitively high volume scoring emphasized is basketball.

nflscorigami.com

Attached: Screenshot_20190418-015414_Chrome.jpg (2220x1018, 1.02M)

Attached: 1531584350651.png (384x395, 200K)

So if the warriors lose to the clippers how did their regular season form help them exactly?

>you proved it a few posts later by crying about how you personally find 1-0 scorelines to be boring.
No. I was being rhetorical. You stated "nothing happens in American sports" (a lot actually happens, if you understand them and approach them in an unbiased manner, which you are incapable of doing). So if you were going to take that road, I replied "so what can possibly happen in a 0-0 or 1-0 game?"

You were being reductive, so I responded with a reductive perspective of my own. I don't really like soccer, but I don't discount a lot happens in a 1-0 game that entertains its fans.

Lucky regular seasons don't happen a lot, but can happen if a couple of favored teams in a division lose star players, meaning the weaker team got lucky and was able to win more games than should have.

>There's no good reason to hassle to finish 1st in your conference

Homecourt advantage. Wasn't your whole spiel earlier about that? Now it doesn't count/worth winning the regular season for. Lol.

See, here's where Brits and Americans differ. The NBA does reward mediocrity. Too many teams make the playoffs and tanking for the draft is out of hand, especially in a sport where individual impact is so great. Fans do want fixes. But no, relegation will not work. Talent pool isn't large enough, and no good players, either college players or from Europe, would sign on with a 2nd tier team for more than a year, because they wouldn't want to commit themselves to a minor league team. And here's what would happen if, say, the Lakers are relegated. When a soccer club is relegated, you still follow that team intently win or lose because you aren't passionate about any other sport (your pro rugby league attendance show this), so you'll ride with the club from the lowest levels of the pyramid to the Premier. If the Lakers got relegated, the fans interest, time, and money is now going toward the Dodgers, Angels, Kings, Ducks, Rams, Chargers, etc.

1/2

So if the Warriors end up losing to the Clippers, how does their regular season form end up mattering? They don't win a trophy for finishing first in their conference and they're getting punished for a lapse in form against the 8th best team in their league, something that happens all the time in sports, so yes American sports punishes long term consistency and rewards short term quality

>people
More like just Americans. You're entitled to your opinion but those opinions are also due to be criticised for how short-sighted and dumb they usually tend to be. I don't watch baseball, don't think I've ever watched a full game, but I will never be arrogant enough as to think I can go ahead and tell its viewers that it should change its rules to accommodate just me; for some reason Americans think the entire world should try and cater itself to its preferences, if you can't understand the away goals rule then that's your problem, not everyone else's.

2/2

No fan is going to want to devote their time and money to watching the Lakers stink it up in the 2nd level. They won't be able to sign any good players to crawl out of relegation hell, because again, no talented player will want to waste his time in the proverbial minors.

This is where you come in with the bandwagoner accusation, but the average American sports fan has 3 to 5 teams (even soccer teams!) they follow. Only so many hours in the day and money in the bank to keep up with them.

Our sporting cultures are just different. Yours revolves around a single sport. Ours doesn't.

You know that this would be the GOAT final, two teams representing Cruyff's legacy.

Nobody wants to see two perpetual EPLEL bottlers in a CL final.

Attached: 0a489-15535154110303-800.jpg (602x401, 45K)

>See, here's where Brits and Americans differ.
What I meant by that is we can acknowledge faults with our sports, while Brits can't.

they played like scrubs for one game and choked a 31 point lead and lost. it's the worst single game playoff blown lead in NBA history. a good regular season record doesn't give you an excuse to play sloppy ball or not adjust to your opponent's game plan, which is what they did. but since playoff series are 4-7 games, they have multiple chances to get off their ass and play to their ability as they showed in the regular season. if they can't do that despite knowing they're in a playoff series for all the marbles, they're not giving it their full effort and the game the respect it deserves, and deserve to lose, no matter their regular season record.
>they're getting punished for a lapse in form
good. then don't lapse next time, and work harder so it doesn't happen. "it happens all the time in sports" is literally a loser mentality. the bulls lapsed at first in the late '80's but got their shit together and never lost an NBA finals in the '90's, despite going to 6. the yankees sucked for most of the '80's and early '90's, but then built a winning team and winning culture and won 4 championships in 5 years in the late '90's. the patriots built a winning culture starting in the early 2000's and went from a joke franchise to being a dynasty of unparalleled success in a sport and league that's specifically designed to prevent dynasties.

even in hard fought 7 game series, there's always one blown opportunity in one of those games where if a particular team played better, they wouldn't have to play a hard 7 game series. but the fact that they weren't able to execute means that they're forced to play more games. 7 game series are great for the fans. they're horrible for the players.

>Nobody wants to see two perpetual EPLEL bottlers in a CL final.
I-I would.

For the fans, dipshit

American sports are about money first

>American sports are about money first
And you think European sports should follow suit as well? I guess you're so used to being fleeced and squeezed of money you think suggesting a 3rd game is an actual good solution

>Robinho not acknowledging Ibra
Glad that monkey faded into irrelevancy.

>soccerfag trying to take the high horse on money grubbing and corruption
lmao

Well they weren't going to be winning on away goals after only playing the home leg, were they?

I'd save your fingers. This is what his gripe boils down to:

>Americans do it
>Bad

Despite the fact the Aviva Premiership Rugby League is decided by a knockout tournament, the World Cup is, the CL is, the Cricket World Cup, and host of other sports in leagues around the world that aren't American.

People simply want to see the best vs. best, hopefully at full strength, face off for the prize. He'll disagree, but the Warriors clinching the NBA title in early April by beating the Knicks would be so fuckin' lame. We want to see what the best can do when the pressure is on vs. another contender.

I’s say the difference between home and away matches is smaller than ever. In the 70’s ajax played benfica once and it was 3-0 at home for ajax and 3-0 for benfica at home. They had to do a third match on neutral ground to get separation (ajax won 3-1). Nowadays you can get advance for playing 0-0 at home and 1-1 away. It makes little sense to be honest. Just go to extra time and penalties, it’s still random but at least there is no real favour in playing home/away first anymore.

Nah

>there is no real favour in playing home/away first anymore.
Except that there is, and the stats even prove it. That's why Ajax winning yesterday was an anomaly

>Abolish away goals rule.
>Team wins 1-0 away then parks the bus for the 2nd leg

The whole reason for it is to encourage attacking football from both sides.

If you're happy to see bus parking Tier 2 bullshit football in the Champions League then by all means, get rid of the rule.

Lol way to miss the point I've been making the entire time. The point is Americans think that every sport should have scorelines of 115-110 and that there should be unlimited subs, time-outs, stopped clocks, and whatever other rules they can import from their sports to make football more like the NBA or MLB.

7 game series is built off fleecing fans of money, why do you have to play best of 7 as opposed to 5 or even 3? Cause the primary motivation is to make money and not actual practicality.

This.

With the away goals rule, a team that won 2-1 at home playing away would not feel comfortable trying to protect that lead for 90 minutes.

>anomaly
Like half the wins in the RO16 were away wins

Attached: 1526598076607.png (558x614, 24K)

>all those passes
>final shot is a random chuck hitting a defender
Bravo.

>not actual practicality.
The 7 games series model was imported from baseball. It's practical in baseball because a starting pitching staff is 4 to 5 deep, so both teams get to use their best pitchers against one another. And no, pitchers can't throw 5-9 innings without minimum 2 to 3 days rest, unless you like the sound of torn UCLs.

Perhaps the 7 game series model makes less sense in the other sports. And once again, Americans don't think every sport should be 115-110. You mentioned that again and then went on to mention the MLB, where the average score is 5-4. You disproved your own retarded point.

A lol "fleecing money." Wow. We get to watch more of the sport we like! Travesty!

RO16:
7 home wins
2 draws
7 away wins
QF:
4 home wins
1 draw
3 away wins
>h-home teams have a huge advantage g-guys!

Ajax scored more in Turin than at home. Ajax scored more in madrid than at home. Ajax scored more in Munchen than at home. Ajax scored more in lisboa than at home. Not much of an anomaly. Spurs scored more at in manchester than at home. Liverpool won 1-4 away and only 2-0 at home. It’s happening everywhere. Most teams still experience at home advantage but it’s less and less.

>why do you have to play best of 7 as opposed to 5 or even 3?
you're literally contradicting your entire argument you fucking retard. 3 game series means that if a team plays like shit for 2 games in a row, which in the NBA/NHL/MLB would comprise less than 1-2% of any given season, all of those other games and wins they had would go to waste. even the best teams lose two games in a row at times. it takes something special for a good team to lose four in a row. the Red Sox never lost more than three games in a row last season.

a shorter series would exactly reward short term success over long term consistency, much moreso than a longer one. having to win 4 games instead of just 2 bumps that percent range up to 2-5% of the regular season. Furthermore, say the chance of winning a game is 50%. The probability of winning two games in a row is 25%. The probability of winning four games in a row is 6.25%. Not only does a longer series include a much bigger sample of games and allow a more accurate and precise outcome, but also, the probability of a clean sweep in a best of 7 is so much lower than a best of 3 that it's much harder for a team to luck out into an easy playoff victory over another that may be more deserving in a longer series, and it allows both sets of players and coaching staffs to more accurately gauge the style of the other team. plus, more games = more playoff fun for the fans. do you hate fun or something?

>7 game series is built off fleecing fans of money, why do you have to play best of 7 as opposed to 5 or even 3? Cause the primary motivation is to make money and not actual practicality.

So...you want fans to watch less of their favorite sports?

If bus parking is such effective tactic that it needs solving through something like away goals, then maybe soccer is a broken sport?

Why not solve it with on-field rule changes?

How about actually educating yourself instead of relying on anomalies?

Attached: dummy.png (1027x584, 367K)

Is this how you justify being fleeced of money? How about a 13 game series? first team to get to 7 wins so that the fans can see more of their favourite teams!

What happened to the quadruple?

As I also replied to him, a 7 game series HAS to be the form in baseball due to the size of starting pitching staffs. It's to ensure both teams get to use their full staffs.

Yes, they hate fun. Getting to watch more of sports we like is "fleecing us."

>fleeced of money?

what is a tv?

>Brits are so poor they don't have the money to spend watching their favorite teams for a couple of more games.

The fact that you're criticizing this confirms your gripes really are out of a cliched anti-Americanism (Americans do something, so I have to reflexively dislike it, because feeling self-righteous is the British way).

>4 out of 8 teams that started the first leg of RO16 at home progressed to QFs
>3 out of 4 teams that started the first leg of QFs at home progressed to SFs
But sure keep digging up past statistics.

>you fucking retard
Immature baby still can't make an argument without getting emotional. Your solution to the "away goals rule" is "let them play a 3rd game bro" what if the 3rd game also ends in a tie? You never answered other than to give another aggressive typical angry American answer.

>do you hate fun or something
Lol I like how you've now completely pivoted the discussion to something as subjective as "fun"....American model for sports is absolutely nonsensical cause it does not reward long term consistency and this has already been proven to you...warriors going 82-0 means absolutely nothing if in the end they're going to run into a bad run of form and end up losing 4-3 to some 8th ranked team that went 50-32, and luck is definitely involved in these play-off games cause more often than not last minute shots end up counting a lot, just off the top of my head Kyrie Irving and Ray Allen are responsible for clutch last minute shots in the NBA finals so anything you're saying about no luck being involved is literal nonsense.

>hehehe you're poor xD why don't you want to pay for a 15 game series hehe xD
Not even surprising. Explains how you're able to tolerate all those ads in your "sports"

>Evidence that proves me wrong is wrong
Well okay then

You can't even answer the question. That's fine; I'll just continue to enjoy nightly playoff basketball/hockey while you get a few games in the middle of the work week.

My point is that home advantage no longer counts for anywhere as much as it used to in the past. Therefore past statistics having an overwhelming home advantage don't refute my argument.

I'm the poster you've talking with, he's someone different.

The solution to the away goals is a 3rd game. You think this is an "American idea," but it seems you missed the Dutch poster mentioning that is in fact what they did in the 70s. This further proves my point of your anti-Americanism. You're reflexively against a 3rd game because an American suggested it. I bet if the flag was any other, you'd be much less antagonist.

I guess you can't get it through your head that consistency is rewarded. The regular season winner gets the 1st seed, home court advantage, and wins a division title. If you were so on-board with your idea, again, petition FIFA to change the World Cup winner to the best International record over 30 games played over a determined length of time. And don't deflect. I've heard countless times, "Gah, England is always unlucky and loses on penalties."

But your anti-Americanism requires double-think here. World Cup knockout is totally fine because it's not an American event. Knockout tournament in American sports? Bad, cause, um, Americans are doing it!

>they did in the 70s
when the skill difference was much lowers and players weren't nearly as versatile...A 3rd game is absolutely nonsensical given the typical schedule of a regular season, you probably think that football is as low impact as American sports but as much as you like to straw man about "light jogging" they're out there playing at the highest level for 3 hours and then you come along and say they should play a 3rd game cause you can't understand a very practical rule. What happens if the 3rd game ends in a tie? Still can't answer.

>home court advantage
And why does that matter? Looks like you're actually arguing against yourself by saying a team that gets to play in favourable conditions has a distinct advantage but you can't put 2 and 2 together and realise that very same rule is being implemented in football.

I have no problem with the World Cup format nor do I have a problem with the CL format. Americans, more often than not, are the ones who have a problem with any format, because they want to Americanize everything.

yeah that's definitely true. plus baseball's kind of our legacy sport so it makes sense that they would just take the original World Series format and use it for their playoffs. and I also don't get the eurofags whole tirade about the 2-3-2 format. the US alone is the size of their whole continent, probably bigger.
I'm not even trying to argue the away goals rule. I literally don't give a shit what you do with your sport because I couldn't care less about soccer. What I am doing is calling out your asinine and baseless arguments that playoff systems in American sports don't value consistency in the regular season and that longer series have no real purpose.
>this has already been proven to you
no it hasn't. you're just repeating your point ad infinitum with no real support.
>means absolutely nothing if in the end they're going to run into a bad run of form
then don't do that then? 82-0 is pretty much impossible. if your team is good enough to win 82 fucking basketball games in a row then surely it can win four more? if you win 82 games in a row and choke against a scrub team four different times, you don't deserve to be called the best, especially since an 82-0 record probably means you trounced that same team at some other point.
>Kyrie Irving and Ray Allen
literally two of the best basketball players out there. Ray Allen in particular had the NBA record for most made threes in the regular season (and postseason, until these playoffs). He specifically has a drill where someone passes him the ball and he practices moving to the three point line without looking to see where it is. He says he does this for offensive rebounding purposes, because "You never know when you'll be in a situation where you have to find the three-point line without looking down." He literally prepared his whole career for that one shot. It's not luck. It's years of hard work and discipline to prepare for those big moments.

"Work ethic eliminates fear." - Michael Jordan

>the fans influence the referee
>the fans
the fans my ass
they're always bought by the club itself, especially UEFAlona.

t.seething halal customer

Lol it was because Allegri started Mesbah at LB and played a 4-3-3 leaving Ibra isolated by himself(dude hated playing as a lone forward)

The same season Xavi complained about the grass at San Siro not being cut the way he liked.

They then proceded to refball >/us/ in Camp Nou with 2 bullshit penalties and it was only Milan who scored a KINO goal that night.
youtube.com/watch?v=07VpSGu_WGc

Thank god Chelsea punished these cunts later.
I still remember
>TORRES TORRES TORRES

>What happens if the 3rd game ends in a tie?
then don't have ties. kill two faggy rules with one move.

I've already admitted home field advantage. You like the away goals solution, I don't. I'd rather see a winner take all 3rd game.

As much as I hate penalty shootouts, they're preferable to me. You won't consider unlimited overtime subs (just for overtime) to make extending the game feasible.

I'm not straw-manning soccer. Soccer player covers about 7 miles in 90 minutes. That translates to 5mph. 5mph is walking speed. A 102 year old ran a 10km marathon in 1:34 without a break. Yes, yes, they sprint in soccer, but you're acting like they're enduring a triathlon out there. Recovery times after playing soccer:

footballscience.net/special-topics/recovery/

- 5 hrs to recover full sprint speed
- 48hr to recover repeated sprint speed ability

Isn't the average time between matches usually about 3 days? I know you think soccer is the most grueling sport to ever exist, but feel free to provide me some sports science studies that illustrate the players wouldn't be able to recover for a 3rd game played 3 days away.

oh shit my man's really going in now

Attached: ohboi2.gif (240x182, 1.82M)

>then don't have ties.
There's that American logic hard at work

>ship three goals at home
>score none away
perfectly fair

yeah you should follow it sometime. maybe it'll let you get a smidgen of your old glory that we stripped away from you back.

>What happens if the 3rd game ends in a tie?
Eh, that one's obvious. Extra time + penalties. It'll be fairer to have that on neutral ground, with neither side having home advantage.

Away goal rule threads get more traction than racism, porn, or video games threads.

It's genius. The away team feels like they have to drag something home while the home team gets pushed forward by the roaring fans (well maybe not city).

Correct, it really is THAT fucking simple. This thread is such a massive waste of time.

Away goal is one of the best rules in football, gonna SEETHE hard when they will get rid of it

>The away goals rule truly is the worst thing ever introduced in football

Attached: Dumb.jpg (645x729, 48K)

The away goals rule should change to not include draws. If both matches end in draws (i.e. 0-0 and 2-2), neither team should advance. No point in rewarding a team that can't win a game over 180 minutes. In any other scenario, it's fine.

This 2bh. It also shouldn't apply to teams that share the same stadium.

"""Dutch"""