retired_sedimohasel

[quote]Originally posted by Hom3r:
<BLOCKQUOTE>Originally posted by Meitheisman:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Richie P:
No they won't they're given every disadvantage, more qualifying round and non-seeding. Solution is simple, have the fourth placed teams play each other instead of national champions, suddenly it would be a lot more open for champions to qualify. Fortunately Europe consists of more than 5 leagues. </BLOCKQUOTE>

It's like saying that you want the EPL teams to get in the FA Cup at the same time than the Conference teams and I completely disagree, teams earned there way to being one of the best and I don't want smaller teams to get free passes.
They have to be one of the best 32 teams in Europe and imo the 4th team in Spain/England/Italy is definitely one of the top 32 teams in Europe

retired_sedimohasel

They would have to use the club coefficients for this purpose, but then most of the teams would come from the top 3 leagues, which would make the ECL even more boring than it already is. </BLOCKQUOTE>

Once again I don't care what country/city teams are from and I don't see how the CL would be more boring if it had better teams in it.
If Everton - Osasuna are better teams than Praga - Kiev then I'd rather have them in even if there's already 4 English/Spanish teams in

retired_sedimohasel

What you call a bad season is a matter of perception.
I personally think that a team finishing 4th in the EPL had a better season than the team winning the Slovenian League.
Should we put the winner of the Championship in the CL just because they're "Champion"? To me that's basically what you're saying, location doesn't matter to me what I want is the best teams to play in the best competition. </BLOCKQUOTE>

Arsenal last year, looked no where near title contention and struggled alot vs some weaker teams. Guess the same could be said for Liverpool. Whereas some teams can have their best season ever, but due to the lack of resources in their league, have no chance when their unseeded and drawn against a team with loads of money. </BLOCKQUOTE>

I've had my best 100m dash ever in 12 seconds today, should I go to the Olympics instead of Powell (sp?) because he only ran it in 10.50 seconds today? </BLOCKQUOTE>

No? What relevance does that have? </BLOCKQUOTE>

The same as the Slovenian champion killing his league while Arsenal is struggling in theres. I'll still rank Arsenal's performance higher

retired_v_meenucancer

i like how a slovenian (or, to use a better example, swedish or danish) side who keep winning their league are harming football in their country, but sides who do the same in the bigger leagues should have qualifying skewed heavily in their favour

LOGIC

retired_jsnap

The argument is not that people want the best 32 club sides in the competition. That's not what the competition is about.

The Champions League should reward teams for performing well in their domestic league. With entry for the 4th place team it just rewards mediocrity for that team.

Everton finished 4th 3 years ago and this was talked about as a great accomplishment. It was, but it shouldn't be. 15 years ago, 4th place didn't qualify for Europe.

The Champions League system as it is just makes the rich clubs richer and widens the gap to the other domestic teams and to the national champions of other nations.

retired_sedimohasel

right, i am going to try and explain this very simply.

team a are big. they play in a big league. they finish fourth a lot.

team b are smaller. they play in a smaller league, but not a tiny one. they win the title most years.

team a are in europe. they have to play one qualifier, which due to the seeding system, they are guaranteed to play against team b. team a usually win.

one year, team b (lets call them fc copenhagan) beat team a, and make it into the group stages. everyone says how nice it is to have a new team qualify. they don't make the next round, although people do comment on how nice it was to have a bit of diversity in the group stages.

the next year, oh look, they have to play team a again in a qualifier. they lose, because it's hard to get much better in one year, especially when the champion's league acts as a big shop window for your players

they lose. their uefa coefficient is still buggered. team a, as long as they keep finishing fourth, are fine. </BLOCKQUOTE>

Which proves they're a better side and I want the best sides in the competition.
It's like if you're applying for a job, actually for 32 jobs and it just happens that 10 of the best 32 candidates are English, should we automatically disregard 6 (or more) of them because we want diversity?

EVERY team in Europe dreams of playing the CL which is why I think this priviledge should be given to the most deserving teams, not to the best of the rest.

DebSchiff

You're completely mad.

retired_v_meenucancer

should go the whole way and just decide who wins it by interview

retired_jsnap

Yeah, you just don't get the point of the competition, Meitheisman.

retired_anneduck

Seedings also include 33% of the countries coefficient, which is normally 20.000+ for the top three, so no it's not a level playing field from day one.

They are? I must have missed Chievo, Osasuna, Real Sociedad, Celta Vigo and Everton over recent years then. None are anywhere near the top 32 in the rankings and two are in the Segunda These teams are being rewarded for mediocrity in their leagues.

Using your logic I don't know why we bother with any round up until the quarters, just pick the 8 richest/most famous teams from the big leagues and have done with it. Fortunately most people appreciate more variety.