Giving crap teams the best players is an awful idea imo.

well yea if youre a fan of the teams that are already loaded and good lol

Dont watch NFL but Aston Villa only just avoided relegation last season. wouldnt want to be handed a load of players just cos we arent very good. Where iz the achievement in that?

i see what you mean


like you shouldnt be rewarded for bein bad


but how could a team ever improve if their players are all inferior to other clubs?? its no fun if your best players just always get poached by teams with more money which seems like thats kinda how soccer works. thats how baseball works and it sucks for competition


you look at nfl where every team has a chance every year. just literally maybe 2 years ago the west coast was a shathole for football and now the west coast is the best football in the country (san fran, seattle). football is really americas game and i think this is why, cause all fans can have hope.

This was the point I was aiming at earlier, the draft concept in US sports is quite alien to us and goes against the historical context of team sports here, which are built around a greater tradition of historical success. Whereas to Americans it's quite the norm to use a draft system to potentially improve their team, so as they say it's horses for courses.

Quite easily by having a better manager and buying better in the transfer market. It's not like the team in question here Aston Villa haven't got the money to get some better players. They're a big club that doesn't like to spend in the transfer market.

like you are not familiar with the draft im not so familiar with transfers and soccer contracts and leagues. i know a limited amount from my brother being somewhat of a soccer fan (cause he plays FIFA on ps3 all the time lol)

but if the nfl were like soccer and there was no salary cap, there would be hardly any incentive for good coaches or players to want to coach in small markets and crappy locations. no offense to fans of these teams but who would want to play in minnesota?? or buffalo?? when you could play alongside the beach or in a big market (texas markets, new york, california, etc). those teams would get loaded with all the best talent unless some free spending billionaire bought one of the clubs in an undesirable location

i mean its like with baseball where theres no salary cap and the draft means very litle. the yankees just sit their and poach the best players from other ball clubs (and other teams but yankees the most). which sucks for half the league who opens every season with no chance of hope. if you give the worst teams the best players in the draft it helps balance the playin field a little bit.

the alternatives are 1) give best teams the best college players and make the seperation betwene the good and bad teams even greater or 2) have no draft and let the college players sign with whoever they want, which most would likely go to the teams that are already great.

kinda more back on topic but colleges make sooooo much merchandising money off student athletes. yes they get free education, but the monetary value of that is so little compared to the money they generate by their hard work. its not like these players can hold normal college jobs either. i think right now the issue is coming to a forefront unlike anytime previous. i dont think a stipend is a good idea. in any other business on earth you can use your hard work, talent, accomplishents to brand yourself and make money except college sports. seems unfair to me

Where is the achievement in just being mister money banks and just buying up a good squad?

There isnt any, which is why i hate clubs like Chelsea and Manchester City, But there are only about 10 teams who are bankrolled by sugar daddies across europe and they are two of them. To put that into perspective england has about 700 football clubs.