Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Hi all! We have been experiencing an issue on site where threads have been missing the latest postings. The platform host Vanilla are working on this issue. A workaround that has been used by some is to navigate back from 1 to 10+ pages to re-sync the thread and this will then show the latest posts. Thanks, Mike.
Hi there,
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest

Possible changes to champions league ranking

2»

Comments

  • #52
    ArmaniJeanss
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 13,516 ✭✭✭✭ArmaniJeanss


    AgileMyth wrote: »
    Personally I'd like to see a straight knockout tournament with no seeding. And it'd actually be for champions. The winner of every European league would qualify.

    Can't happen though, uefas policy is to keep the big clubs big and **** the rest.

    In fairness it's not really been a longterm UEFA policy, UEFA seemed happy to chug along with the dreary old European Cup and its 1 per league/open draw knockout structure.
    It was only when a gun was put to their heads in the late 80s, and a breakaway 'European Super League' was imminent that they (by degrees) came up with the current structure.
    And they've generally been insistent on reserving places for 'weaker' teams, e.g., the split champions and nonchampions qualifying routes.

    By the way what do people think will happen with the finances under your plans for champions only etc? Cause you know it wouldn't actually be a gateway for smaller clubs to get their hands on the current riches - in fact I'd suggest that the value of sponsorship deals and TV rights would fall by about 95% in a competition top heavy on weaker Eastern European teams, with only a handful of top teams and with a much smaller amount of games overall.


  • #53
    Will I Amnt
    Closed Accounts Posts: 13,222 ✭✭✭✭Will I Amnt


    Take Real Madrid, Barcelona, Chelsea, Arsenal, Dortmund and Roma out of this seasons CL and you are left with a fairly mediocre competition.


  • #54
    anncoates
    Closed Accounts Posts: 13,925 ✭✭✭✭anncoates


    Will I Amnt wrote: »
    Take Real Madrid, Barcelona, Chelsea, Arsenal, Dortmund and Roma out of this seasons CL and you are left with a fairly mediocre competition.

    Of course by that token, you'd agree with Ireland getting dumped out of the world Cup qualifiers to accommodate France or Spain.


  • #55
    Will I Amnt
    Closed Accounts Posts: 13,222 ✭✭✭✭Will I Amnt


    anncoates wrote: »
    Of course by that token, you'd agree with Ireland getting dumped out of the world Cup qualifiers to accommodate France or Spain.

    No, Ireland have to get through a seeded group to get to the World Cup.


  • #56
    anncoates
    Closed Accounts Posts: 13,925 ✭✭✭✭anncoates


    Will I Amnt wrote: »
    No, Ireland have to get through a seeded group to get to the World Cup.

    But the general point stands. You think a world Cup would only benefit from the absence of rubbish teams like Ireland at the expense of Holland, Spain etc?


  • #57
    Shanotheslayer
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 17,191 ✭✭✭✭Shanotheslayer


    Will I Amnt wrote: »
    Take Real Madrid, Barcelona, Chelsea, Arsenal, Dortmund and Roma out of this seasons CL and you are left with a fairly mediocre competition.

    City? Munich? Juve?


  • #58
    Iused2likebusts
    Registered Users Posts: 17,022 ✭✭✭✭Iused2likebusts


    Shanotheslayer wrote: »
    City? Munich? Juve?

    He isnt including the teams that won their leagues the above 3 and psg and athletico as they would be in a Champions only competition.


  • #59
    Will I Amnt
    Closed Accounts Posts: 13,222 ✭✭✭✭Will I Amnt


    anncoates wrote: »
    But the general point stands. You think a world Cup would only benefit from the absence of rubbish teams like Ireland at the expense of Holland, Spain etc?

    No, there's plenty of room for lower tier teams at the WC. The seeded qualifiers mean they deserve their place if they get there. Ireland rightly haven't qualified for WCs in recent times because they are not good enough to be in it.


  • #60
    Will I Amnt
    Closed Accounts Posts: 13,222 ✭✭✭✭Will I Amnt


    Shanotheslayer wrote: »
    City? Munich? Juve?

    Of course there's still going to be good teams there but the competition as a whole suffers. Munich draw City and PSG draw Juve and then you are left with even less quality.


  • Advertisement
  • #61
    Will I Amnt
    Closed Accounts Posts: 13,222 ✭✭✭✭Will I Amnt


    The opportunity for the league winners of every country is there to get to the group stages if they are good enough, nobody wants to see a whole load of cannon fodder.


  • #62
    anncoates
    Closed Accounts Posts: 13,925 ✭✭✭✭anncoates


    Will I Amnt wrote: »
    No, there's plenty of room for lower tier teams at the WC. The seeded qualifiers mean they deserve their place if they get there. Ireland rightly haven't qualified for WCs in recent times because they are not good enough to be in it.

    But they devalue the competition by being "rubbish" and "cannon fodder" right?

    Why should supporters of Spain, Holland etc be forced to tolerate mediocrity at the premier international tournament even if we get there on merit?

    That's your reasoning for meritocracy in club football isn't it?


  • #63
    Will I Amnt
    Closed Accounts Posts: 13,222 ✭✭✭✭Will I Amnt


    anncoates wrote: »
    But they devalue the competition by being "rubbish" and "cannon fodder" right?

    Why should supporters of Spain, Holland etc be forced to tolerate mediocrity at the premier international tournament even if we get there on merit?

    That's your reasoning for meritocracy in club football isn't it?

    Nope, you don't seem to be able to grasp it at all. If they get through the qualifiers they deserve it. Teams like Ludogorets are deserving of their place in the group, if they are good enough to get through that then they are deserving of their place in the last 16 and so on...
    The qualifiers serve their purpose and the seeded groups serve their purpose.


  • #64
    anncoates
    Closed Accounts Posts: 13,925 ✭✭✭✭anncoates


    Will I Amnt wrote: »
    The qualifiers serve their purpose and the seeded groups serve their purpose.

    If Ludogorets go through it will be despite the group stage seeding, not because of it. They were supposed to be the barrel of fish to make sure Madrid and one of the others went through safely.


  • #65
    noodler
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 26,510 ✭✭✭✭noodler


    Richard Hillman wrote: »
    It is completly ridiculous that Liverpool or Basel could get through the group stage playing awfulling and winning only 2 games from 6. If Liverpool or Basel get through on 7 points that is a record of 1.17 points per game. In a 38 game league season that is 44 points.

    Last year Zenit got through on 6 points, that would probably have you relegated on a 38 game season. Form of a relegation team but good enough for the second round of the champions league :confused:

    Crazy comment.

    SantryRed wrote: »
    Surely it's all relative to the team's in the group though? The reason Zenit got through last year on 6 points is because one team was too strong and 3 were of a similar standard?

    6 games isn't a big sample size either tbf.

    Exactly.
    rarnes1 wrote: »
    That's how a mini league/ group system works :confused:

    Exactly.


  • #66
    Will I Amnt
    Closed Accounts Posts: 13,222 ✭✭✭✭Will I Amnt


    anncoates wrote: »
    If Ludogorets go through it will be despite the group stage seeding, not because of it. They were supposed to be the barrel of fish to make sure Madrid and one of the others went through safely.

    The system works whichever way you choose to look at it. If Dundalk were to get there they would deserve it because they would have shown they can mix it at a certain level, they won't get there though because it's too high a standard of football and that's what you want in the premier European competition.


  • Advertisement
  • #67
    noodler
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 26,510 ✭✭✭✭noodler


    Yeah, surely Ludogrets have clearly been up against it.

    Playing the Euro Champions, perennial CL stalwarts Basle and (in theory) a Liverpool team that was awesome last season.

    They lost so narrowly to Madrid at home (only team that did beat them there), turned Basle over and pushed Liverpool all the way.

    They won't beat Madrid in Spain but if they did - they'd have qualfied against all the odds and obstacles.


  • #68
    anncoates
    Closed Accounts Posts: 13,925 ✭✭✭✭anncoates


    Will I Amnt wrote: »
    The system works whichever way you choose to look at it. If Dundalk were to get there they would deserve it because they would have shown they can mix it at a certain level, they won't get there though because it's too high a standard of football and that's what you want in the premier European competition.

    If the elite are so high a standard then pitch them against any random team in a first round knockout in July or August then.

    The groups protect them because a small team will probably only get one chance to knock out a bigger team. Spreading it over a group protects the bigger teams.


  • #69
    Will I Amnt
    Closed Accounts Posts: 13,222 ✭✭✭✭Will I Amnt


    anncoates wrote: »
    If the elite are so high a standard then pitch them against any random team in a first round knockout in July or August then.

    Look, you would like to see a lottery of a competition where small teams pray to be drawn against smaller teams. I prefer to watch the best of the best battle it out at the business end of the competition, we will leave it at that yeah???


  • #70
    Benimar
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,787 ✭✭✭Benimar


    noodler wrote: »
    Yeah, surely Ludogrets have clearly been up against it.

    Playing the Euro Champions, perennial CL stalwarts Basle and (in theory) a Liverpool team that was awesome last season.

    They lost so narrowly to Madrid at home (only team that did beat them there), turned Basle over and pushed Liverpool all the way.

    They won't beat Madrid in Spain but if they did - they'd have qualfied against all the odds and obstacles.

    Slightly OT but Ludogorets cannot qualify. They lose the head to head with either Liverpool or Basle, whichever one of them finishes on 7 points (or 9 in Basles case)


  • #71
    AdamD
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 12,745 ✭✭✭✭AdamD


    The idea of champions only is so inferior to the current model it makes my head hurt.


  • Advertisement
  • #72
    Dempsey
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 20,553 ✭✭✭✭Dempsey


    rob316 wrote: »
    So I was reading earlier that there is a proposal to change the ranking system so the teams in pot 1 would be the 8 top countries respective champions.

    It's an idea and I do feel a team like arsenal who have finished 4th time and time again are seeded in pot 1 is a bit ridiculous. It is called the champions league after all.

    But then it's sounds equally ridiculous having inferior teams like malmo and Ajax as pot 1 picks.

    What does everyone think?

    How does UEFA expect smaller leagues to improve when the wealth distribution is set up for the likes of Arsenal to milk the system.


  • #73
    Paz-CCFC
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,527 ✭✭✭Paz-CCFC


    I don't mind the seeding too much. I think it's fair enough to reward the consistently best teams in Europe. Although, I think the top seeds should be the defending champions and the top 7 league winners (not the winners of the top 7 leagues, as a club should not be able to come out of nowhere, win their domestic league and become top seeds despite little European history).

    My main problem is the distribution of the teams. Far too many teams are given a bye. 12 of the 32 are from the top 3 leagues and 22/32 altogether go straight in. The champions of the lower 40 leagues then have to fight it out for a paltry five places. The same amount of places as the league route, which only has 15 teams. I'd have less teams qualifying for the group stages automatically, more teams in the league route to increase competition and more places for the champions route.

    The Europa League is moving in the direction of the CL, too. Guaranteeing places for a select few leagues, whilst blocking it off for other leagues. It's a shame, because it started off a much fairer system, giving a decent chance to pretty much all the entrants to get through at least one round.


  • #74
    dan1895
    Registered Users Posts: 4,597 ✭✭✭dan1895


    I couldn't give a ****e what format the cl had if the idea of a second tier champions league was entertained. Basically the champions of all leagues knocked out in the qualifiers and not represented in the group stage.


  • #75
    noodler
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 26,510 ✭✭✭✭noodler


    Benimar wrote: »
    Slightly OT but Ludogorets cannot qualify. They lose the head to head with either Liverpool or Basle, whichever one of them finishes on 7 points (or 9 in Basles case)

    I see.


  • #76
    Richard Hillman
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 12,033 ✭✭✭✭Richard Hillman


    Iused2likebusts wrote: »
    Something like the Heineken cup would be best 6 groups of 4 with the group winners and the two best runners up making the q finals. Most years in the Heineken cup the qualification goes right down to the wire . If the quarter final line ups were decided on a ranking system like the Heineken cup you would have teams take all games seriously.

    I like this but the clubs want a 2nd round because it leads to more money.

    I think it could be done if we drew all 8 groups but the groups are irrelevant in the league structure. It would be a 32 team table with the top 16 after 6 games.

    Then 1st v 16th, 2nd v 15th etc for the 2nd round. It keeps it competitive all the way through the 1st round


Advertisement