[ITA] Serie A 2012/2013 (16 Viewers)

Status
Not open for further replies.

Vlad

In Allegri We Trust
May 23, 2011
24,068
not sure how i feel about that. what are proes and cons?
Pros: less games would be beneficial for Italian clubs who play in Europe. It would also raise quality of the current games as you wouldn't have huge number of teams 8 rounds before the end nothing to play for. Less games would mean more anticipation and probably higher attendance. More money from TV rights for all the clubs.

Against: well I can't see it really.

I'm all for it.
 

Buy on AliExpress.com

Zacheryah

Senior Member
Aug 29, 2010
42,251
Pros: less games would be beneficial for Italian clubs who play in Europe. It would also raise quality of the current games as you wouldn't have huge number of teams 8 rounds before the end nothing to play for. Less games would mean more anticipation and probably higher attendance. More money from TV rights for all the clubs.

Against: well I can't see it really.

I'm all for it.
Juventus should take out the balls, and individually sell tv rights.

Serie a fucked us over hard enough, its time to claim what is ours
 

Buck Fuddy

Lara Chedraoui fanboy
May 22, 2009
10,897
Pros: less games would be beneficial for Italian clubs who play in Europe.
4 games less. Apparently easy games anyway, so it shouldn't matter much.


It would also raise quality of the current games as you wouldn't have huge number of teams 8 rounds before the end nothing to play for.

No way to prove that.

A league where they recently went to a format with less teams is the Belgian one. Quality has not improved. Most people would argue the opposite, while I personally think it's basically the same.


Less games would mean more anticipation and probably higher attendance.
Again, this isn't really based on anything rather than a feeling.

The example of the Belgian league points in the opposite direction (with some clubs having significantly lower attendances).


More money from TV rights for all the clubs.
Or less money. Since there's less "product". Because it's not like the games that are taken away are replaced by something better.
 

Joe

Senior Member
Dec 20, 2009
14,980
Roberto Martinez (Manager of Wigan Athletic): "Sacchi's Milan marked an era, and then Guardiola's Barcelona. Today the models are the Germans and Conte's Juventus."

:weee:
 

Vlad

In Allegri We Trust
May 23, 2011
24,068
4 games less. Apparently easy games anyway, so it shouldn't matter much.
Every game matters. We tend to play with the same team every week as Conte isn't fond of turnover. There would definitely be less those mid week games.

No way to prove that.

A league where they recently went to a format with less teams is the Belgian one. Quality has not improved. Most people would argue the opposite, while I personally think it's basically the same.
I don't need to. Just look at the competitions who reduced or increased number of teams. CL for example. I would say there was more quality when 16 teams participated than now. You couldn't see 8-0, 6-0 results often as these days. The same is with Serie A. There would be less weak teams.


Again, this isn't really based on anything rather than a feeling.

The example of the Belgian league points in the opposite direction (with some clubs having significantly lower attendances).
Ok it's a feeling but you can't deny when there is less supply of something it becomes more valuable.


Or less money. Since there's less "product". Because it's not like the games that are taken away are replaced by something better.
More quality product I would say and the TV rights are sold in advance so I can't see how we could receive less money. There would be the same amount but to a fewer number of teams to distribute.
 
Jul 1, 2010
26,352

Buck Fuddy

Lara Chedraoui fanboy
May 22, 2009
10,897
I don't need to. Just look at the competitions who reduced or increased number of teams. CL for example. I would say there was more quality when 16 teams participated than now. You couldn't see 8-0, 6-0 results often as these days. The same is with Serie A. There would be less weak teams.
Is there even a single example of this?

Would you agree the Bundesliga has been the most improving league over the last 5 or so years? 20 clubs for more than 20 years now.
Spanish league: 20 clubs for more than 20 years now.
Premier League: same.
Ligue 1: I'd say that league 1 actually improved when they went from 18 to 20 teams.

As for Serie A: they've had both a rise & decline with the 20 teams format imo.


And when it comes to CL: it's just weeks ago that I saw a 4-0 in a semi final. Does that not tell you there will always be similar results?
And if you want high scores when there were less teams: Marseille - Moscow 6-0 (92) ; Werder Bremen - Porto 0-5 (93) : Bayern - Ajax 2-5 (94) ; Real Madrid - Ferencvaros 6-1 (95) ; ...


Like I said: there is absolutely no proof that even hints at the idea that less teams means a better quality league. Even if that is something that you'll hear every so often.

Coincindentally, I heard a lot about it these past few years in Belgium. We went from 18 to 16 & according the people behind that change, the quality would definitely improve (for those very same reasons you're mentioning). Everyone now basically agrees that it didn't. And now there's talk of going to a league with even less teams (12 seems to become the magic number). Surely it will improve then!


The number of teams in a league has very little impact on its quality (providing it's economically viable).


Ok it's a feeling but you can't deny when there is less supply of something it becomes more valuable.
Yes. In theory.

Yet the opposite happened in the Belgian league.


More quality product I would say and the TV rights are sold in advance so I can't see how we could receive less money. There would be the same amount but to a fewer number of teams to distribute.
And at the same time it's not too far fetched to think that the broadcasting companies would pay less, since they get less games (hence less ad time) in return.

Whether or not they're sold in advance doesn't matter anyway. The deal will have to be renegotiated sooner or later. Besides, the companies who have the distribution rights would have to agree to a change in format either way.
 

Vlad

In Allegri We Trust
May 23, 2011
24,068
Is there even a single example of this?

Would you agree the Bundesliga has been the most improving league over the last 5 or so years? 20 clubs for more than 20 years now.
Spanish league: 20 clubs for more than 20 years now.
Premier League: same.
Ligue 1: I'd say that league 1 actually improved when they went from 18 to 20 teams.

As for Serie A: they've had both a rise & decline with the 20 teams format imo.


And when it comes to CL: it's just weeks ago that I saw a 4-0 in a semi final. Does that not tell you there will always be similar results?
And if you want high scores when there were less teams: Marseille - Moscow 6-0 (92) ; Werder Bremen - Porto 0-5 (93) : Bayern - Ajax 2-5 (94) ; Real Madrid - Ferencvaros 6-1 (95) ; ...


Like I said: there is absolutely no proof that even hints at the idea that less teams means a better quality league. Even if that is something that you'll hear every so often.

Coincindentally, I heard a lot about it these past few years in Belgium. We went from 18 to 16 & according the people behind that change, the quality would definitely improve (for those very same reasons you're mentioning). Everyone now basically agrees that it didn't. And now there's talk of going to a league with even less teams (12 seems to become the magic number). Surely it will improve then!


The number of teams in a league has very little impact on its quality (providing it's economically viable).
It's been actually 18 clubs but never mind.
CL is one good example of how quality dropped. There were some results as you pointed it out but from 1994-1999 only one team won 0 points in the group stage Kosice in 97/98.
2011/12 teams with 0 points Villareal, Oleti, Dinamo Z.
2010/11 Zilina and Partizan
And so on...
It's been evident decrease in quality lately. Those teams are there just to fill up the place. Again less teams more quality.



Yes. In theory.

Yet the opposite happened in the Belgian league.
Leave the Belgian league alone. Its lame and not representative. I can give you plenty of examples when two variables who people think correlate yet some other factor changes the course of both of them. And there is absolutely no connection between Italian and Belgium league.
And at the same time it's not too far fetched to think that the broadcasting companies would pay less, since they get less games (hence less ad time) in return.

Whether or not they're sold in advance doesn't matter anyway. The deal will have to be renegotiated sooner or later. Besides, the companies who have the distribution rights would have to agree to a change in format either way.
I don't know why is it hard to understand? Less of something ( matches, peanuts, insert almost anything here really basic principle of economy) , more demand, higher prices and more revenues in the end. Higher supply of almost anything brings to decreasement in prices. Less minor teams like Pescara for example would mean more quality games in a relative way. For example 5 poor games out of 10 per week could be 3/8 games. That's increase in quality. From 50% of lousy games we would have 38%. Sponsors look at the league in general. If the league is branded as boring who would want to watch it. They will pay more if the league offers more thrill with fewer number of teams who can beat each other rather than just having some of the teams there to fill the space. No matter of quantity. Quality is what matters not the number of useless matches.

And one other factor I neglected. People expectations, mass hysteria it will influence almost anything. If the decreasment in number of teams is generally presumed as increase in quality, people will form expectation of that sort and even if an actual quality isn't raised they will feel like it is and will valuate the product more. You can find plenty of examples in economy. One example of the previous thesis.
If FED wants to decrease unemployment and increase production they will probably raise the money supply either by purchasing government bonds or in some other way. When the average Joe sees it he will understand it as signal of recovery. He will form expectations of that sort. Next thing you know he will spent some money on unimportant things. Consumption raises, investments also, in the end leading to production increase.
More specifically in our case number of viewers and sponsors payments would be influenced.
 

pitbull

Senior Member
Jul 26, 2007
11,045
There are 7 Europa spots and 3 relegation spots, which means there's hardly any difference if you end up 8th or 17th, I think Parma fans can tell you all about mid table fun when your season is pretty much over at March every year, last time they competed for something was back when Rossi&Ranieri saved them from relegation I think. Less meaningless games = less corruption and more competitive league, that has to count for something in Italy.
 

Vlad

In Allegri We Trust
May 23, 2011
24,068
There are 7 Europa spots and 3 relegation spots, which means there's hardly any difference if you end up 8th or 17th, I think Parma fans can tell you all about mid table fun when your season is pretty much over at March every year. Less meaningless games = less corruption and more competitive league, that has to count for something in Italy.
Good point :tup:
 

Zacheryah

Senior Member
Aug 29, 2010
42,251
Less teams, would work as there is more competition, and thus more interesting games to watch.


Most importantly, we must sell our tv rights individually, that is hurting us severely currently.

About belgium, the play offs offer like 8? extra top games for the 5 highest placed teams. from financial pov thats pretty good, since gate receipts and money from play offs on TV is a BIG income
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Users Who Are Viewing This Thread (Users: 0, Guests: 16)