• Hi Guest!

    The costs of running this forum are covered by Sea Lion Press. If you'd like to help support the company and the forum, visit patreon.com/sealionpress

Football PoDs and alternate possibilities.

Because I am a hack, I'd do one where Charlton would just win the trophies they came 2nd in

So:

1937 - First Division
1946 - FA Cup
1947 - FA Cup (won OTL)
1987 - Full Members Cup

Not a historically successful club.
 
Quite a basic one, but changing the winners of certain seasons where they're separated by goal difference or a certain number of points could be fun (would also mean that Charlton would win the 1936/37 First Division ahead of the Woolwich Rejects which is all I can ask.)

Reminds me of how in baseball you could have turned the Milwaukee Braves into a four-peat dynasty (at least for the NL pennant) by changing the results of only a few regular season games from 1956 to 1959.
 
Ok, so for the background of my next project, I'm going to have Mexico winning a World Cup, a somewhat long-shot victory "predicted" by the legendary sports betting analyst "Dr. Goldrush" to a garguantan profit (some say he simply arranged bets on all the theoretically possible winners and showed the one that made it-a preposterous lie!)

Tout shenanigans aside, I'm curious just how much of a stretch that would be.
 
Ok, so for the background of my next project, I'm going to have Mexico winning a World Cup, a somewhat long-shot victory "predicted" by the legendary sports betting analyst "Dr. Goldrush" to a garguantan profit (some say he simply arranged bets on all the theoretically possible winners and showed the one that made it-a preposterous lie!)

Tout shenanigans aside, I'm curious just how much of a stretch that would be.
It would definitely be a stretch but it's also definitely not completely out there IMO. They've gotten past the group stage for the last seven World Cups but only won a knockout game in 1986 on home soil.
 
Here's a format question that I've been intrigued by-what if the World Cup had no group stages and was just single elimination from the get-go? Besides more opportunities for underdogs to win/advance, would that change much?
 
Here's a format question that I've been intrigued by-what if the World Cup had no group stages and was just single elimination from the get-go? Besides more opportunities for underdogs to win/advance, would that change much?
All other things being captured in a honking great butterfly net, Senegal doing France in the opening of 2002 would be an even bigger upset.
 
Here's a format question that I've been intrigued by-what if the World Cup had no group stages and was just single elimination from the get-go? Besides more opportunities for underdogs to win/advance, would that change much?

Would underdog teams still apply in as great a numbers? Its an expensive trip to play one game, lose and then go home.
 
Would underdog teams still apply in as great a numbers? Its an expensive trip to play one game, lose and then go home.
Explicitly one reason why Brazil advocated bringing back round robins in 1950 I believe (of course they also wanted more ticket sale revenue).
I think if WW2 is somehow avoided you could get it continue in 1942, and likely another European host in 1946, and maybe you could have a rugby sevens style thing where it's knockout but you play out all rankings and maybe have consolation tournaments (which I think the Olympic football tournament already did) but I think it's quite hard to see it being maintained to the present day as a World Cup (European, maybe).
 
This is a niche one, with probably only interest for me, but teams from Oceania used to be part of Asian qualification for World Cups (NZ playing 15 games to get to the 82 WC which at the time was a record) - what if they still were?

There were also proposals for NZ to join CONMEBOL in the 2010s which would genuinely have been very interesting for football development.
 
More combining World Cup qualification with continental championships could also be interesting IMO.
Is there any way to have a single Americas federation? Feel like football's quite exceptional in not having one.
 
In light of recent shenanigans, wondering what it would take for this to not be a possibility or at least delayed by several decades more. @Geordie has said it was perhaps inevitable from the format of the Premier League, with which I'd be inclined to agree. The changes to the Champions League, specifically allowing multiple entrants from the same country, are another thing that likely contributed.

I find myself wondering too about the overseas audience for the Premier League and the Champions League. Not too sure about China, but in the US can the 1994 World Cup be said to have had an impact?
 
In light of recent shenanigans, wondering what it would take for this to not be a possibility or at least delayed by several decades more.

From a very big, broad, macro perspective, I'd say it, or at least the possibility, was probably inevitable. From all the business-of-sports research I've done, I've seen that it has very a "barbel-ed" kind appeal, regardless of the game, country, or system. Outside of stuff with intrinsic local appeal, there's just a very limited market for anything not at the very top.

So the pressure for the big clubs to use their leverage to maximize their earnings will always be there,and they'll always have that leverage.
 
I assume somebody has already worked out who'd be the winners if the 2 point system for a win remained? How about if you do Magath's suggestion and give 0 points for any 0-0 draw?
Someone probably has in more detail but the only change I'm sure of is the draw would have been enough for United's third title in a row in 1995 (although only only on goal difference).
 
Back
Top