This made me laugh much more than it should have You should borrow @It's Only A Game's dressing gown mate.
Imagine if there had been a final between Man City and Liverpool this season though. Most likely Liverpool would have won it. A lot of people would say that's unfair, but for me it proves who the best team is, rather than who has the best squad (most money). Also, it means there would be far more competition at the top of each respective league. With the current format, the teams in 5th and 6th position probably give up around February/March. If they were both 3rd in their respective leagues however, they would more likely keep going until the end. It basically eliminates the chances of another boring season like this one (Man City winning by 19 points).
How about making the format more like the NFL, where you have 2 separate leagues for gradation purposes but you still play some games against teams in the other league? Or make it like the Scottish Prem, where nobody understands the system at all?
I do understand your point, I just don't like the idea that a team can a top a league after 34 games and not be champions, very Super League/Yank like for me.
But that's the point; in a dual-league system, there are two champions. Two trophies etc. Winning League B, say, but then losing the grand final, would be better than finishing second and receiving nothing for doing so. In Super League, there is just one division, which is a bit daft, as it means the team who finishes top, are clearly the best team, as they have played everyone else. And even if you had two runaway leaders, the season would still always be guaranteed an exciting climax.
I was thinking of calling it the Universe League of Major Bastards. It combines good ol' American grandiosity, along with some British self-deprecation.
Yeah but no one would ever remember the individual champions, they would just remember the 'grand final' ( ) winners from each year, particularly after a while.
I beg to differ. Maybe the big clubs would not be too fussed about winning their individual leagues, but if an outsider was to do it (much more likely in this scenario), it would still be a major achievement. Think about Saints in '83. Our best ever season, but still just 'runners up'. I think 'League A/B Champions' would offer more glory. I guess it all comes down to how the achievement is played up/down by the media.
How would European qualification work in this scenario? Obviously I presume top two from each league get the CL spots but how do you decide which league gets the EL spot? (As technically speaking, there's only one EL spot available for league position) And if one of the top two (4) won a domestic cup I presume you would give the EL spot to whichever league they're in but is that fair on the teams in the other league? For example, we finish 3rd in League A and City win League B by a mile and both domestic pots. Is it fair that us finishing 3rd gets us nothing but a team potentially finishing 4th or 5th in the other league could qualify for Europe?
Another thing that has just crossed my mind, both cups would need to be altered in terms of what round what teams enter. So currently the EFL cup has 72 teams enter in round one, another 13 in round two, and then the remaining 7 in round 3. The FA Cup has 44 teams who don't enter until round 3. Obviously both of these will need to be restructured to fit in with the new PL we have. Have you considered this and though of a fair solution, with numbers perhaps? @Black just realised I didn't quote for either of these posts.
