Top Clubs demand right of passage to knockout stages

PHB

Sorry I meant biased against Celtic.

A possible way of seeding would simply be position, then points then goal diff, goals scored etc.

So this year the line up would have been(roughly from just glancing)

1.Juventus
2.Inter Milan
3.Lyon
4.AC Milan
5.Chelsea
6.Monaco
7.Bayer Leverkusen
8.Arsenal
9.Werder Bremen
10. Man Utd
11. Real Madrid
12. Barcelona
13. Bayern Munich
14. Liverpool
15. PSV
16. FC Porto

Using a simple 1-16 2-15 type thing

Juve vs. Porto
Inter vs. PSV
Lyon vs. Liverpool
Milan vs. Bayern
Chelsea vs. Barca(lol)
Monaco vs. Real Madrid
Leverkusen vs. Man Utd
Arsenal vs. Bremen

That would be using a plain old top vs. bottom middle vs. middle

Assuming certain things, which I don't think there is any point disagreeing in since its irrelevant,
Juve, Inter, Lyon, Milan, Chelsea, Real, Utd, Arsenal would be in the second round.
Which I think would be a better round than what we have now, and be more accurate than what we have now of what hte top 8 teams are.

Jivin Turkey

PHB wrote:

Sorry I meant biased against Celtic.

A possible way of seeding would simply be position, then points then goal diff, goals scored etc.

So this year the line up would have been(roughly from just glancing)

1.Juventus
2.Inter Milan
3.Lyon
4.AC Milan
5.Chelsea
6.Monaco
7.Bayer Leverkusen
8.Arsenal
9.Werder Bremen
10. Man Utd
11. Real Madrid
12. Barcelona
13. Bayern Munich
14. Liverpool
15. PSV
16. FC Porto

Using a simple 1-16 2-15 type thing

Juve vs. Porto
Inter vs. PSV
Lyon vs. Liverpool
Milan vs. Bayern
Chelsea vs. Barca(lol)
Monaco vs. Real Madrid
Leverkusen vs. Man Utd
Arsenal vs. Bremen

That would be using a plain old top vs. bottom middle vs. middle

Assuming certain things, which I don't think there is any point disagreeing in since its irrelevant,
Juve, Inter, Lyon, Milan, Chelsea, Real, Utd, Arsenal would be in the second round.
Which I think would be a better round than what we have now, and be more accurate than what we have now of what hte top 8 teams are.

What makes you think that is a better round? Because United are there?

There is very little between the two and that is assuming every single last 16 tie goes as you predicted.

A Dub in Glasgo

To me, this looks like another call for the rich teams to continue to be rich. The whole seeding is a bit of a joke anyway considering it is mainly league based in Europe rather than team based in Europe. In other words, a poor team (european wise) from a strong league will be seeded higher than a strong team (european wise) in a poor league. I believe UEFA may have plans to tweak this.

The whole idea of the seedings is to ensure that the higher seeded teams get through to the latter stages of european competition.

PHB

Juve, Inter, Lyon, Milan, Chelsea, Real, Utd, Arsenal

Because Real, Utd and Arsenal
are better than
Bayern, Liverpool, and PSV
Only Bayern there would be able to beat the other three teams, and over two legs, those three teams would nearly defo beat Liverpool or PSV, and would all have a
decent shot of beating Bayern.

I want the cup to be an accuarate reflection of who is who in football.
I want the best four teams into the semis, the best two in the final.
Thats how the money system is designed, and if you aren't going to adopt a seeding system, you have to change the money system

p.s.
I also like the fact that Juve get an easy draw, sinec they did the best in the group, and because say Barca did ****re in the groups, they get a hard draw.
THis would encourage the gorups to be more competitive aswell, with a lot on the line

growler

Quote:
Originally Posted by smemon
the point where im coming from is that porto won the champions league last year, barca were knocked out in the last 16 this year. now is anyone brave enough to say porto deserved to win it last year more than barca this year?


Yes. Porto deserved to win it last year by virtue of the fact that they won it, that's the test.

Barca do not deserve to win it this year because they were beaten over two legs by chelsea.

I cannot understand how anyone thinks seeding will benefit "everyone" , it only benefits the top few clubs in the UEFA old boys network, ensuring that they carve up the revenue between them each year, ensuring that no other clubs can through either good fortune or playing "above" themselves really challenge the established hierarchy of european football. It's nonsense and utterly condesending to say that smaller clubs should be happy with the chance to go through the motions of playing some of the big boys each year, no way is that true, certainly the fans of any club would want to see their club progress as far as possible ( praying for easy draws admittedly) the players in any club new to the CL have achieved the highest level of their club career and would need to know that they could, ala Porto , do the unexpected without having such artificial barriers protecting the big boys, and the owners of these non G14 clubs have every right to challenge for the vast wealth that the CL generates.

thejollyrodger

The biggest problem I have is that Man Utd is a PLC. I.E its main aim is to look after the shareholders and make a profit. Chelsea on the other hand is not. Ambromvich's main aim is to win competitions and play good football. He doesnt worry about loosing money on players etc, or having to make past the quarters to get the money. Man Utd is all about money.

Maybe if Man Utd was bought by Glazier it would do everyone a favour.

Big Ears

thejollyrodger wrote:

.
Maybe if Man Utd was bought by Glazier it would do everyone a favour.

Im gonna take a not to wild guess here and say Glazier would probably wish there was seeding after the group stage as it gives United a better chance to progress and...........make more money , which is obviously what every business man like Glazier wants .

Washout

This is a weird thing for man u to say if indeed they have said so. What would give the bigger clubs (I say bigger clubs in terms of financially) the right for seedings in the knockout stages.

Man U came third in the domestic and came second in their group...looking at that...on what basis would they deserve a seeding.

But if UEFA want to go the seeding route then seed the teams that finish top of their groups so they cant play against each other . that would make the times make the group stage games more competitive and hopefully more attractive to watch.

(maybe they do this already im not 100% on that)

kaimera

let Utd play in their own euro cup, invite the teams of their choosing, their rules etc.

keep them happy.

While we're at it, lets keep the so called 'weaker' teams out of the champions league, make it a 2 group affair where the winners of each group play in the final.

It's called the 'European Champions League', not the 'Elite teams League'

Utd are sore they went out so tamely and that a 'bad' Liverpool team progressed further.

A Dub in Glasgo

kaimera wrote:

It's called the 'European Champions League', not the 'Elite teams League'
.

UEFA decided it was the latter years ago. Calling it the Champions League contravenes the trade descriptions act.

kaimera

regardless, it's still made up of teams from europe, not just the top teams.

uberwolf

I believe this is finacially motivated. Those teams who believe they are entitled to progress have budgeted to do so which is their problem.

PHB - I think it was you - said it would be a better competition for ensuring the best teams progress. IMO that's not far removed from having pundits decide the competition in studio. last years final was one of the better in recent years. Football is entertainment - whatever provides the best entertainment should be retained.

The group stages are seeded. If teams perform they should win their group. Having won their group they should be playing teams from the 2nd tier of 8. Which is seeding - if this doesn't happen then it's only because teams under perform.

Having glamour ties at every round is better than a clinical disposal of second tier teams.

abccormac

I think any system which makes things harder on the smaller teams would be a bad idea. The seeding of the group stages already gives the bigger teams an advantage, I don't see why that advantage should be extended into the knockout rounds. As to wether or not Porto deserved to win it last year, of course they did. They got through the group stages and knocked out everybody else they had to play. How else do you decide who wins? The same with greece in Portugal last year. They beat the hosts in the final.

I know it's never going to happen but I would love to see a return to a straight knockout competition, with no group stages, perhaps with the stronger teams only getting involved after a few rounds.


(my first post on soccer, so thanks to my sponsors)

gimmick

smemon wrote:

the point where im coming from is that porto won the champions league last year, barca were knocked out in the last 16 this year. now is anyone brave enough to say porto deserved to win it last year more than barca this year?

Yes Porto deserved to win it last year. Their passage to the final was hardly easy, and they only losy once in Europe last year? Barca lost 3 times in 8 games this year? Porto got their tactics right, played to their own strengths, and benefitted. Barca this year didnt win their group, got a tough draw, and bye bye.

To say that their should be seeding after the groups is silly. Thatw ay teams like Man Utd etc would get away with playing 2nd string sides like they did against Fenerbahce, knowing that they would still get drawn against weaker opposition in the latter stages. Man Utd screwed up. If they had been more professional in their outlook, and not been so cocky, they would be safely in the last 8 now.

TwoShedsJackson

Maybe they should be moaning at Fergie for putting out the kids in that last match and ending up playing Milan instead of Werder Bremen (duly thrashed 10-2 on agg by Lyon), instead of wanting the system changed to suit themselves - idiots :rolleyes:

eirebhoy

PHB wrote:

Juve, Inter, Lyon, Milan, Chelsea, Real, Utd, Arsenal

Because Real, Utd and Arsenal
are better than
Bayern, Liverpool, and PSV
Only Bayern there would be able to beat the other three teams, and over two legs, those three teams would nearly defo beat Liverpool or PSV, and would all have a
decent shot of beating Bayern.

I want the cup to be an accuarate reflection of who is who in football.
I want the best four teams into the semis, the best two in the final.
Thats how the money system is designed, and if you aren't going to adopt a seeding system, you have to change the money system

p.s.
I also like the fact that Juve get an easy draw, sinec they did the best in the group, and because say Barca did ****re in the groups, they get a hard draw.
THis would encourage the gorups to be more competitive aswell, with a lot on the line

This would be perfectly fine. A team that does the best in the group stages deserves to gain the advantage. That is actually a very good idea PHB.
The thing that would be ridiculous is:
1. Teams in the last 16 being favoured because of their European history. Its fine to do this in the group stages but its going a bit far if a team can get 2nd spot with 7 points in the groups and be seeded in the last 16 yet another team wins all their matches in the group and doesn't get seeded.

2. Teams being seeded in the quarters and semi's.

I think its clear that United want point 1 to be the case which is completely unfair for the reason mentioned in that point.

Gileadi

the problem with favouring teams on their existing history is that it could make it extremely hard for teams on the rise to be added to the list of elites and how to throw waning teams out

eg up until russian time chelsea wouldnt have been considered a european powerhouse but assuming things keep going as they are currently they will be one of the stronger teams in the tournement for the next few years and teams like liverpool whos history in europe is quite long were very poor performers in the CL overall up until this year

the great thing about football is how unpredictable it is and if you make a system where you know what teams are gonna be in the knockouts (or even if its weighed in their favour) that it will turn some ppl off,after portos run last year they did deserve to become european champions for consistancy and tactics even if many other teams would have many times the talent and flair on the pitch

Pigman II

Seeding only has any justification if only one team qualifies from each group at the group stage. Two or more and it becomes illogical.

It would be completely unfair for a team to coast thru a group for 2nd place and then be rewarded with an easier draw than the team above them who actually made the effort to said group.

Jivin Turkey

PHB wrote:

Because Real, Utd and Arsenal
are better than
Bayern, Liverpool, and PSV
Only Bayern there would be able to beat the other three teams, and over two legs, those three teams would nearly defo beat Liverpool or PSV, and would all have a
decent shot of beating Bayern.

They "are better"? Why?

Arsenal pipped PSV to first spot in the group due to having scored more away goals in the two games between them. Hardly a huge gap between them.

Liverpool beat the same Leverkusen team that topped Real Madrids group, and who also beat the same Real Madrid team 3-0 at home, and drew 1-1 in the Bernabeu.

United and Munich would be very evenly matched.

To me it seems your only gripe here is that United are not in the tournament anymore. Very much a changed tune from United fans when the draw was made "if you want to win it you have to beat the best".

PHB wrote:

I want the cup to be an accuarate reflection of who is who in football.
I want the best four teams into the semis, the best two in the final.

The cup is a reasonable reflection of the "who is who" in European football. And while it may pain you to see it, Liverpool deserve their place there as much as any of the other teams. They beat the winners of one of the toughest groups on paper in the last16.

PHB wrote:

I also like the fact that Juve get an easy draw, sinec they did the best in the group, and because say Barca did ****re in the groups, they get a hard draw.
THis would encourage the gorups to be more competitive aswell, with a lot on the line

But Barca didnt do "****re" in the groups, the did 4th best out of the runners up. Going by your draw, why should they get a tougher draw on paper than Liverpool? Its completely flawed.

PHB

1. Teams in the last 16 being favoured because of their European history. Its fine to do this in the group stages but its going a bit far if a team can get 2nd spot with 7 points in the groups and be seeded in the last
Man Utd want this

Find me anywhere where United said that? Seriously anywhere and I'll eat my hat.
They want what I want. Gill was advocating the system I was tring to show, with a coefficent thing in there to make it more accurate or something, so that it is also related tho the teams in your group.

You've got to look past the fact I@m a united fan and actually look at what i'm saying, can you do that?

Arsenal pipped PSV to first spot in the group due to having scored more away goals in the two games between them. Hardly a huge gap between them.

Liverpool beat the same Leverkusen team that topped Real Madrids group, and who also beat the same Real Madrid team 3-0 at home, and drew 1-1 in the Bernabeu.

United and Munich would be very evenly matched.

PSV vs. Man Utd - Utd
PSV vs. Real - Real
PSV vs. Arsenal - Arsenal(as has been shown)
Liverpool vs. Man Utd - Utd(look at this season)
Liverpool vs. Real - Real, althought you might quesiton that
Liverpool vs. Arsenal - Arsenal(look at this season)
Munich vs. Man Utd - fair game
Munich vs. Real - fair game
Munich vs. Arsenal - Munich(as has been shown)

Real United and Arsenl are better overall than PSV liveprool and Munich, you can't deny that.

----

But Barca didnt do "****re" in the groups, the did 4th best out of the runners up. Going by your draw, why should they get a tougher draw on paper than Liverpool? Its completely flawed.

Cause you think Barca got the tougher draw, while the group stages system says that Lyon are better than Chelsea in the seedings. If ferige had played his best team, Liverpool would have had to play Milan probably.
It's based on the assumption that the seed 1 there is the best, whether he is or not is irrelevant since it would just be, no hes better, no he is.

---

The cup is a reasonable reflection of the "who is who" in European football. And while it may pain you to see it, Liverpool deserve their place there as much as any of the other teams. They beat the winners of one of the toughest groups on paper in the last16.

I'm not saying that Liverpool didn't deserve to win, good for them. I'm saying that United and Real and Arsenal would also have beaten Leverkusen, do you deny that?
Why is it then Liverpool get through while United and Real and Arsenal don't?
Why is this chance allowed? Thats not fair either. Seeding systems minimise this.
If this is the acse, its not a reasonable reflection.
The goal of this cup is simply to find out who the best team is, which is fine, but if thats the case, the money system needs to be reorganised.

Somethings gotta go

Töpher

It's all clearly financially motivated.

If you are good enough to make the latter stages, prove it: Win on the pitch. If not, shut the hell up and prepare better for your assault next year.

As it stands, having big games throughout the stages keeps people interested and ensures consistent income. Otherwise there would only be select groups interested in particular ties, effectively reducing income. Or so I would have thought? Either way, my first point stands!

Töpher

PHB wrote:

I'm not saying that Liverpool didn't deserve to win, good for them. I'm saying that United and Real and Arsenal would also have beaten Leverkusen, do you deny that?
Why is it then Liverpool get through while United and Real and Arsenal don't?
Why is this chance allowed? Thats not fair either. Seeding systems minimise this.
If this is the acse, its not a reasonable reflection.
The goal of this cup is simply to find out who the best team is, which is fine, but if thats the case, the money system needs to be reorganised.

Somethings gotta go

Whats the point in it being a cup then? My apologies if this comes accross in the wrong tone, but that is possibly the stupidest argument ever.

The best team wins the competition by winning on the pitch. If you can't do that you're not good enough. There's always an element of chance in the draws, but if you expect to win it you should be able to beat Bremen or any of the top teams. That is afterall the point in knockout competitions. Prize money is also handed out depending on the stage you reach etc, so why should it be easier for the big teams to get more of that, even if they aren't good enough?

Prove your worth on the pitch.

The money should not be the main issue, and nothing should be financially restructured, its about the pride of wining the toughest competition in Europe (Something United/Arsenal/Barca [as the teams mentioned] were not up to this year and no help should be given to guarantee them fatter cheques).

Its about the football. End of.
Prove your worth on the pitch.

The Muppet

Einst&#252 wrote: »

If you are good enough to make the latter stages, prove it: Win on the pitch. If not, shut the hell up and prepare better for your assault next year.

That's it in a nutshell, reputation should have nothing to do with it.

A Dub in Glasgo

Einst&#252 wrote: »

Whats the point in it being a cup then? My apologies if this comes accross in the wrong tone, but that is possibly the stupidest argument ever.

The best team wins the competition by winning on the pitch. If you can't do that you're not good enough. There's always an element of chance in the draws, but if you expect to win it you should be able to beat Bremen or any of the top teams. That is afterall the point in knockout competitions. Prize money is also handed out depending on the stage you reach etc, so why should it be easier for the big teams to get more of that, even if they aren't good enough?

Prove your worth on the pitch.

The money should not be the main issue, and nothing should be financially restructured, its about the pride of wining the toughest competition in Europe (Something United/Arsenal/Barca [as the teams mentioned] were not up to this year and no help should be given to guarantee them fatter cheques).

Its about the football. End of.
Prove your worth on the pitch.

Nail hit firmly on the head...

PHB

Its about the football. End of.

Its not, hence why there is prize money.
The pride is key to the players, but the money is key to the club. The club needs the money, that simple. I'd like it if no money in play, maybe like the NFL system which is cool, but thats simply not the case, why lie to yourself about it?

so why should it be easier for the big teams to get more of that, even if they aren't good enough?

Its not about big teams, its about better teams. Why should it be easier for crap teams to get more of that, even if they aren't good enough?

abccormac

Its not about big teams, its about better teams. Why should it be easier for crap teams to get more of that, even if they aren't good enough?

If teams aren't good enough then, by definition, they won't get through. Its no use giving out about how supposedly lesser teams go through at the expense of the likes of barca, man u or arsenal. They got knocked out because they weren't good enough. For the CL to have any meaning as a contest it needs to be as level a playing field as possible. The big teams already get a theoretically easier draw in the group stages, if they fail to make the most of it, thats their own problem. You shouldn't penalise the smaller teams, who arguably have achieved more just by getting out of their groups, just for the sake of trying to make things easier on the likes of barcelona or united.

If they were realy better than the opposition they would still be in the competition. Porto last year may not have been the best team to watch, but they are the team who made the most of ehat resources they had, which is why they won the competition.

Jivin Turkey

PHB there is ACTUAL flaws in so many of the points youv'e made. And thats not just my opinion, its actual facts going against you.

PHB wrote:

PSV vs. Man Utd - Utd
PSV vs. Real - Real

Ok thats your opinion.

PHB wrote:

PSV vs. Arsenal - Arsenal(as has been shown)

But the group games were not played as a two leg knockout tie. If they were the attitudes towards the away goals might have been different. As it stands over two games, Arsenal could not beat PSV. It is very presumptious to think that they are a better side than them. Having said that I acknowledged that they topped the group ahead of them, but there was still little between the two. Arsenal over PSV in the quarters is adds little to the difference of the standard of the CL.

PHB wrote:

Liverpool vs. Man Utd - Utd(look at this season)
Liverpool vs. Real - Real, althought you might quesiton that

I would question both. Neither in a CL knockout would be a foregone conclusion.

PHB wrote:

Liverpool vs. Arsenal - Arsenal(look at this season)

Ive looked at this season, Liverpool have won the only game between them. So how do you manage to come to your conclusion?

PHB wrote:

Munich vs. Man Utd - fair game
Munich vs. Real - fair game
Munich vs. Arsenal - Munich(as has been shown)

Fair games yes, like all the others would be. You dont get to the knockout stages of the CL if you are a crap team. There is very little between all the teams at this level.

PHB wrote:

Real United and Arsenl are better overall than PSV liveprool and Munich, you can't deny that.

Based on what? Your opinion? Arsenal didnt beat PSV once over two games. Liverpool beat the team that topped Reals group home and away, that team beat Real 3-0, and drew 1-1 in Spain. If Real were that good, surely they would have finished ahead of Leverkusen?

PHB wrote:

Cause you think Barca got the tougher draw, while the group stages system says that Lyon are better than Chelsea in the seedings. If ferige had played his best team, Liverpool would have had to play Milan probably.
It's based on the assumption that the seed 1 there is the best, whether he is or not is irrelevant since it would just be, no hes better, no he is.

That argument is fundamentally flawed. Lyon did so well in the groups because there were whipping boys in the group. Barcelona didnt do so well because they had one of the favourites for the competition. To set the first seed as the one who does best in the group is possibly a better indicator as to who had the easiest group over who is the best team in Europe.

PHB wrote:

I'm saying that United and Real and Arsenal would also have beaten Leverkusen, do you deny that?

Yes I do, and Ill say it for the third time. Leverkusen beat Real 3-0, and drew with them 1-1 in Spain. Based on the two games they played against them, they would not have gone through.

PHB wrote:

Why is it then Liverpool get through while United and Real and Arsenal don't?
Why is this chance allowed? Thats not fair either. Seeding systems minimise this.

Chance is not fair? Thats the most incorrect thing Ive seen in a while. There is nothing unfair about luck, or percieved luck as we have here.

United or Real didnt get through because they didnt beat a group winner, Liverpool did. Arsenal didnt beat a group runner up, they dont deserve to go through.

Surely if the seeding system was so perfect, why bother play the last 16 or quarters, or semis, or final? Because surely the best eight, or best four, or best twom or best one, would win anyway.

PHB wrote:

If this is the acse, its not a reasonable reflection.
The goal of this cup is simply to find out who the best team is, which is fine, but if thats the case, the money system needs to be reorganised.

Somethings gotta go

What is wrong about the money system? Do you actually know how it works? Why do you think its unfair given the current system?

A Dub in Glasgo

PHB wrote:

Its not about big teams, its about better teams. Why should it be easier for crap teams to get more of that, even if they aren't good enough?

You mean like the way they are faced with the top seeds in each group? Yeah, that really is easier for the crap teams.

What you are proposing is a nice cosy cartel which is totally against the principles of contest and competition.

PHB

The fact that teams win or not is somewhat irrelevent, I'm just tryign to use it to highlight the point.

If the goal of the compo is to decide who is the best team in Europe, thats fine, I accept that as a view, but I think the money system of giving teams more money as they progress is unfair, expect to the top team, since the lack of seedings.
If you think that Man Utd didn't deserve to win the compo because MIlan beat them, I totally agree, that said, I don't think that they deserve to miss out on the money for the last 8, if the goal of the como is to pick a winner.

If the goal of the compo is to find out the top 16 teams in the country, by saying that one team is the number 1, number 2, number 3-4, number 5-8, number 9-16, then thats ok too. The money system is configured for this, and implies this.
If this is the case, then a seeding system needs to be introduced.

A better example would be seen if it was fake teams:

Group A:

Team 1 - 18 points
Team 2 - 12 points
Team 3 - 0 points
Team 4 - 0 points

Group B:
Team 5 - 14 points +10 GD
Team 6 - 14 points + 5 GD
Team 7 - 0 points
Team 8 - 0 points

Group C:
Team 9 - 14 points +15 GD
Team 10 - 14 points + 9 GD
Team 11 - 0 points
Team 12- 0 points

Group
Team 13 - 14 points +13 GD
Team 14 - 14 points + 4 GD
Team 15 - 0 points
Team 16 - 0 points
Couldn't be assed makign up more scores so I'm just using goal difference.

So:

Team 1,2, 5, 6, 9, 10, 13, 14 go through.

Under the current system the following happens:
Team 1, 5, 9, and 13 get group winner seed
Team 2, 6, 10, and 14 get runner up seed
So 1 could play 2 6 10 or 14
Could play the best team 10 or the worst, utterly random.
I think it is unfair that Team 1 should have to play Team 10, I think they should have to play team 14. In turn I think its unfair for Team 10, who did well int he group stages, to have to play Team 1, when they should at least get a chance to get through.
In this system it makes sense to giev out the money at group stages, then to the winner, nothing inbetween. AS the cup run depends on luck.


In the other system, Team 1 would play Team 14 as a reward for the fact that they did so well in their league.
I think that system is fairer, as I think in turn, it would make it much more likely that Teams 1, 5, 9, and 13 would go through.
It would prob make sure that at least 1 and 5 go through, and 9 and 13 would have much better chances than random draws.
In this system is makes sense for the money to be distributed based on progression, since the progression is as fair as possible.

Töpher

If you think that Man Utd didn't deserve to win the compo because MIlan beat them, I totally agree, that said, I don't think that they deserve to miss out on the money for the last 8, if the goal of the como is to pick a winner.

So, if to go by your system, only the winner gets prize money? Or Man Utd get more even if they get knocked out?

You're trying to make it too complicated, and (IMO) have lost the plot.

If it was seeded all the way through, the seeds would never change (by any significant value), and it would be the same teams year in year out.

Jivin Turkey

But PHB teams can win groups comfortably (and hence become number one seed) because some of the other teams in that group are weak.

And also if the competition is seeded as so, why bother play any more games? Why not just award the competition to the number one seed.

If the purpose of seeding is to see the the best teams go furthest, why not just give the number one the cup and not waste any time?

Slash/ED

Keep football for the elite few I say. Who wants those pesky small clubs who don't even have suppoters associations in Asia coming in and winnng things and ruining it for the rest of us? Who do they think they are?

The competition is seeded, winners of group face losers of group, where the groups have already been heavily seeded after a heavily seeded qualifying series. Don't win group, face AC Milan. It's that simple. Try winning the group next time.

abccormac

So 1 could play 2 6 10 or 14

Can you be drawn aginst a team you played in the group? Not a major point anyway, as I see where you're coming from, in relation to the financial side of things. As far as the competition goes however I still think a random draw is the fairest way of doing things.

I think the money system of giving teams more money as they progress is unfair, expect to the top team, since the lack of seedings

How is it unfair though? The same thing happens in the premiership, the teams who finish at the top get more money than those who lose. If a team is good enough over the two legs they will go through. It's not like barca, united, real et al are going to go bankrupt due to getting eliminated from the CL. On the other hand the money makes a much bigger difference to the smaller teams, so why make it harder for them to get their hands on some tv cash than it already is?

PHB

Because the league has no random factor, it is entirly fair in the sense that you can't get lucky draws.
Thats the problem with a cup system, which I don't mind, I like a cup, but the financial aspect needs to be revisited.

Jivin, because I'm not saying that seed 1 is necessarily going to beat the other team, just because they are seed 1.
I am saying that because they have earnt their number 1 seed, they deserve a reward.

Also the problem you arise with the weaker teams in groups, can be fixed by makign the system system combined with a coefficient system based on the past 3 years preformance.


WHy can't the seeds change throughout the compo?
WHere is there a rule that says that?
Why can't you have different seeds at different stages

p.s. why is everyone so annoyed at this, surely if a tem is good enough to win, it will get through despite being seeded against the top teams? The reason tihs isn't the case is because you recognise there is an advantage to a random draw for the 'weaker' teams

Töpher

But you can't "revisit" the financial aspect without completely destroying the competition. So either clubs learn to budget, or do a Leeds. Might teach some of them a lesson tbfh.

abccormac

advantage to a random draw for the 'weaker' teams

Well why change things to give an advantage to the stronger teams? Is being a stronger team not advantage enough already? If you win your group you already get a draw which should be easier on paper. Upsets are part and parcel of cup competition, it's part of what makes them so entertaining. If you make it harder for smaller teams to get through, I think you'll take away a lot more of the romance from the competition.

Slash/ED

PHB wrote:

Because the league has no random factor, it is entirly fair in the sense that you can't get lucky draws.
Thats the problem with a cup system, which I don't mind, I like a cup, but the financial aspect needs to be revisited.

Jivin, because I'm not saying that seed 1 is necessarily going to beat the other team, just because they are seed 1.
I am saying that because they have earnt their number 1 seed, they deserve a reward.

Also the problem you arise with the weaker teams in groups, can be fixed by makign the system system combined with a coefficient system based on the past 3 years preformance.


WHy can't the seeds change throughout the compo?
WHere is there a rule that says that?
Why can't you have different seeds at different stages

p.s. why is everyone so annoyed at this, surely if a tem is good enough to win, it will get through despite being seeded against the top teams? The reason tihs isn't the case is because you recognise there is an advantage to a random draw for the 'weaker' teams

Why should teams who are supposedly stronger be given an advantage and have it easier than supposedly weaker teams, who are already way behind financially? You win your group, that gives you your seeding. If you don't, don't bloody whinge about not being given a seeding just for being you or based on your record in previous competitions.

eirebhoy

PHB wrote:

Find me anywhere where United said that? Seriously anywhere and I'll eat my hat.
They want what I want. Gill was advocating the system I was tring to show, with a coefficent thing in there to make it more accurate or something, so that it is also related tho the teams in your group.

You've got to look past the fact I@m a united fan and actually look at what i'm saying, can you do that?

I don't really have to look very far. From the link in the opening post:

"Maybe we should use a system where the holders are rated number one and they play the 16th ranked team, number two versus 15, and so on."
"Maybe Uefa will use their ranking lists to influence the draw in future."

It is absolutely clear to me there that Gill wants the UEFA rankings to be used to seed teams in the last 16 like they do in the group stages. The holder of the CL are always the top seed in the UEFA rankings.

Honestly, what did you think Gill meant? Maybe I've got you wrong though.

PHB

I saw Wenger say somethign bout the group stages, so I assumed Gill was talking about the same. That said, even if we used that system, Man Utd last season would have been in the 9-16 group so what advantage would it have been to them

People seem to think what UNited want is, United are the biggest club in terms of pop and income etc, thus they should get to play a **** team, but they never said that, people just want them to say it.

Why should teams who are supposedly stronger be given an advantage and have it easier than supposedly weaker teams, who are already way behind financially?

I agree, I'd like the NFL system, but we don't have it, nor does anyone in football seem to want it, so why fake it?

If you make it harder for smaller teams to get through, I think you'll take away a lot more of the romance from the competition.

I agree, but I think if thats the case the finance needs to be restructured.

Töpher

But, how do you propose to restructure the finance without fúcking up the compeition structure. Honestly, rewarding teams for their progress is the fairest way to do it.

Could you imagine someone turing around to the folks at Lyon:
"Congratulations. However, due to only beating W.Bremen you are only entitled to 50% of the prize money allocated to you for reaching this stage. 25% of that will go to Liverpool for knocking out a superior team to the one you displaced"?

Nonsense!

Jivin Turkey

PHB you have mentioned in your last four or five posts gripes with how the competition is financed, yet you have failed to put forward and links or information about how the financed is managed apart from the obvious idea that, if you go further you get more money.

The competition is currently seeded, in the optimum way (minus ever so slight tweakings), in my and a lot of other peoples opinions. It allows the top teams from the top leagues a bit of lee-way into the groups, and then you earn your future seeding on merit (winners against runners up).

Seeding based on previous years performance is completey ridiculous. Teams change every year. New players and new managers result in huge changes in performance. That idea is just stupid.

Again and again you have put forward ideas of how your seeding system can work only for countless flaws to be identified with them.

You implied that this years quarter-finalists arent a fair representation of the "who's who" of Europe, but when it comes down to it, there isnt much at all between the two or three worst teams on paper still in, and the two or three best that aren't, so I dont know how you can come to the conclusion that United, Arsenal and Real were screwed over by the draw.

Slash/ED

PHB wrote:

I agree, but I think if thats the case the finance needs to be restructured.

That's how the so called smaller clubs are supposed to grow and actually compete financially.

growler

financial rewards are the incentive for all clubs, big and small, to progress in the CL any change to the financial benefits ( presumably weighted in favour of the top clubs) would be a travesty, if anything the financial rewards should be biased in favour of the smaller clubs to allow them develop and challenge the status quo in future seasons.

thejollyrodger

United seeding gets boot
http://www.unison.ie/irish_independent/stories.php3?ca=94&si=1364473&issue_id=12247
MANCHESTER United's call for Europe's leading clubs to be kept apart by a seeded draw at the knockout stage of the Champions League has been rejected by UEFA.

They claim the plan would make the competition "a joke". United chief executive David Gill revealed this week that discussions had taken place between clubs keen to introduce seeding at the last 16 stage in an effort to avoid the heavyweight pairings that saw United, Real Madrid, Arsenal and Barcelona knocked out recently.

But UEFA director of communications William Gaillard countered last night: "These plans would turn the Champions League into a bit of a joke. Are United saying that they want to turn it into a static competition where the same clubs reached the latter stages every season?"

Mark Ogden
in Manchester

Brilliant news I knew it was all complete tosh. I think it just goes to show that Man Utd arent one of the great teams

growler

thejollyrodger wrote:

Brilliant news I knew it was all complete tosh. I think it just goes to show that Man Utd arent one of the great teams

now now , to be fair to them, Man Utd were one of the great teams !

eirebhoy

I just can't believe people (Man U fans or not) actually backed this suggestion.

Pigman II

These are ManU supporters we're talking about here tho.

Töpher

eirebhoy wrote:

I just can't believe people (Man U fans or not) actually backed this suggestion.

Can't say I'm surprised. Anything to help a club will be backed by the supporters, which I can understand, but when its a ridiculously unfair and biased solution that would ruin the competition I must say I find it hard to believe.

Pigman II

The best thing UEFA could do would be to scrap the last-16, QF and Semis and only let group winners into the next stage. Then have a 2nd round of two groups of four (it could be based on seeding or not, I don't care) with the two final places given to each group winner.

As a bonus it would finally get rid of this 'coasting' mentality that clubs like ManU seem to have adopted in recent years for the group stage and be IMHO a truer filtering system for defining who 'the best of the best' is.

smemon

thejollyrodger wrote:

Brilliant news I knew it was all complete tosh. I think it just goes to show that Man Utd arent one of the great teams

and how does it show that?

anything which favours utd in the slightest utd fans will back, OBVIOUSLY. any of you's would back something like this if your club was calling for it.

again, people having a dig at utd fans, above 4 or 5 posts uncalled for and provoking utd fans imo. whilst it might be all harmless and non-intentional it doesnt go down well with utd fans.