Unpopular opinions.

[Bert Raccoon]

1 hour ago, DiegoDiego said:

^Has his club's year of formation in user name.

Hardly means he wants to watch an Accies game from 1874 though does it?

[Tony Ferrino]

Real rough guys don’t shave all their hair off.

[SANTAN]

Watching YouTube reactions is acceptable. 

People love to turn up their nose to this and act like it's pure weird but essentially it's effectively the same as showing your mate something funny, you like to see their positive reaction to reaffirm what you thought was class was actually top class. 

People watch so much shite online and then try and act like reaction videos are beneath them. 

As a proud watcher of YouTube reactors I wanna say it with chest, it is a perfectly normal, healthy thing to do. 

Edited March 5, 2021 by Stormzy

[SANTAN]

Another one. 

You shouldn't dislike posts in this particular thread because you are reaffirming the idea that they are unpopular opinions. #meta

[BFTD]

2 hours ago, Bert Raccoon said:

Hardly means he wants to watch an Accies game from 1874 though does it?

I refuse to believe that anybody on here wouldn't want to watch any game from 1874.

Imagine if you could go back in time and attend a match from the 19th century. It must have played like an entirely different game back then. Did they even sell pies? So many questions.

[Bert Raccoon]

1 minute ago, BFTD said:

I refuse to believe that anybody on here wouldn't want to watch any game from 1874.

Imagine if you could go back in time and attend a match from the 19th century. It must have played like an entirely different game back then. Did they even sell pies? So many questions.

All the fans had a good selection of headwear and I can't imagine you had jobsworth stewards so it probably was more enjoyable 

[Miguel Sanchez]

4 minutes ago, BFTD said:

I refuse to believe that anybody on here wouldn't want to watch any game from 1874.

Imagine if you could go back in time and attend a match from the 19th century. It must have played like an entirely different game back then. Did they even sell pies? So many questions.

You know Chewin the Fat, think of the old grey guys at the football.

[Caledonian1]

1 minute ago, Bert Raccoon said:

All the fans had a good selection of headwear and I can't imagine you had jobsworth stewards so it probably was more enjoyable 

and absolutely no one in Scotland would have called it "footie"

[Mark Connolly]

50 minutes ago, BFTD said:

I refuse to believe that anybody on here wouldn't want to watch any game from 1874.

Imagine if you could go back in time and attend a match from the 19th century. It must have played like an entirely different game back then. Did they even sell pies? So many questions.

With a Gray's Sports Almanac Wee Red Book, I could make a fortune.

[BFTD]

2 minutes ago, Mark Connolly said:

With a Gray's Sports Almanac Wee Red Book, I could make a fortune.

You could warn them about what'll happen in 1888, and attempt to smother the other one before they get too uppity.

[Guest TheJTS98]

On 05/03/2021 at 09:19, GordonS said:

If we're doing unpopular football opinions, mine is play-offs to decide the Premiership. Each match is one-legged so the higher placed team gets home advantage. Third v fourth, winner away to second, winner away to first. Every season goes to the last day, much less chance of nine-in-a-row bollox and every now and then it's going to get won by a non-sectarian club. Whichever of the OF finishes second will usually regard themselves as having had a bad season - can you imagine the bullet-sweating mania of Celtic having to play Aberdeen or Hibs this season to avoid humiliation? And assuming it'll usually end with an OF game, at least it'll draw a big TV audience.

 

I've been on this bus for years. The traditional league was designed for what was basically an amateur sport in the 19th century. It is completely unsuitable for a commercialised 21st century sport where a club like Celtic competes with a club like Ross County.

It's very easy to prove that leagues don't work anymore by simply looking at the fact that most leagues are won by the same team or small group of teams every year.

You would never design a sporting competition from scratch today that wasn't settled by some kind of play-off system, yet football clings to the 19th century despite mountains of evidence year on year that this gives us a boring, predictable sport in which the vast majority of clubs have no hope of success.

Edited March 6, 2021 by TheJTS98

[mishtergrolsch]

15 hours ago, Mr. Alli said:

Got to love it when Grolschy takes his "EVERY DUNDEE FAN KNOWS UNITEDS ACCOUNTS" whine site wide. 

Absolutely fucking superb. Don't let the b*****ds get you down. 

^^^^

[NotThePars]

On 05/03/2021 at 01:19, GordonS said:

If we're doing unpopular football opinions, mine is play-offs to decide the Premiership. Each match is one-legged so the higher placed team gets home advantage. Third v fourth, winner away to second, winner away to first. Every season goes to the last day, much less chance of nine-in-a-row bollox and every now and then it's going to get won by a non-sectarian club. Whichever of the OF finishes second will usually regard themselves as having had a bad season - can you imagine the bullet-sweating mania of Celtic having to play Aberdeen or Hibs this season to avoid humiliation? And assuming it'll usually end with an OF game, at least it'll draw a big TV audience.

 

Why not do what Rugby League does and have the league then a championship decider for the top 4 or whoever. Two separate trophies. 

[Arabdownunder]

Gerry Cinnamon has some cracking tunes

[Monkey Tennis]

10 hours ago, TheJTS98 said:

I've been on this bus for years. The traditional league was designed for what was basically an amateur sport in the 19th century. It is completely unsuitable for a commercialised 21st century sport where a club like Celtic competes with a club like Ross County.

It's very easy to prove that leagues don't work anymore by simply looking at the fact that most leagues are won by the same team or small group of teams every year.

You would never design a sporting competition from scratch today that wasn't settled by some kind of play-off system, yet football clings to the 19th century despite mountains of evidence year on year that this gives us a boring, predictable sport in which the vast majority of clubs have no hope of success.

The correct response to this is not to abandon leagues as structures for football competitions.

It's to completely reconfigure how wealth and power is distributed.  Obviously, that ain't happening, but still.

[Guest TheJTS98]

2 minutes ago, Monkey Tennis said:

The correct response to this is not to abandon leagues as structures for football competitions.

It's to completely reconfigure how wealth and power is distributed.  Obviously, that ain't happening, but still.

Ideally, yes. But, as you say, that's not going to happen.

If the wealth distribution and the format don't match and you can't fix the wealth distribution, then you've got to re-visit the format.

I'm in my mid-thirties and in my memory there have only ever been two champions. It's a waste of time and it should be changed.

[DiegoDiego]

I've been on this bus for years. The traditional league was designed for what was basically an amateur sport in the 19th century. It is completely unsuitable for a commercialised 21st century sport where a club like Celtic competes with a club like Ross County.
It's very easy to prove that leagues don't work anymore by simply looking at the fact that most leagues are won by the same team or small group of teams every year.
You would never design a sporting competition from scratch today that wasn't settled by some kind of play-off system, yet football clings to the 19th century despite mountains of evidence year on year that this gives us a boring, predictable sport in which the vast majority of clubs have no hope of success.

That's not a problem with a league structure. There are plenty of examples of traditional top tier league formats which provide a variety of winners.

[Guest TheJTS98]

7 minutes ago, DiegoDiego said:

10 hours ago, TheJTS98 said:

I've been on this bus for years. The traditional league was designed for what was basically an amateur sport in the 19th century. It is completely unsuitable for a commercialised 21st century sport where a club like Celtic competes with a club like Ross County.
It's very easy to prove that leagues don't work anymore by simply looking at the fact that most leagues are won by the same team or small group of teams every year.
You would never design a sporting competition from scratch today that wasn't settled by some kind of play-off system, yet football clings to the 19th century despite mountains of evidence year on year that this gives us a boring, predictable sport in which the vast majority of clubs have no hope of success.

That's not a problem with a league structure. There are plenty of examples of traditional top tier league formats which provide a variety of winners.

The only places that happens is where you have an extravagance of wealth or a shared level of poverty.

England, for example, is one of few countries where a surprise winner is possible and multiple winners in a decade are inevitable because there are so many rich clubs. Good teams can only be so good, and smaller teams are rich enough to be able to afford very good players. Leicester can bridge the gap once in a while, but Motherwell can't. Leicester can go out and afford players who would be among the best players in plenty of other countries. That's fine for super-rich leagues. The Premier League format is fine for its situation.

Most leagues don't have that. Most leagues have certain big clubs and a big drop off in wealth below that where clubs are shopping at such a diminished level that it's pointless. In a round-robin format, the chances of a non-financially doped side emerging to win the league in Scotland or Portugal or a host of other countries you could name is basically zero.

Edited March 6, 2021 by TheJTS98

[spud131]

I've been on this bus for years. The traditional league was designed for what was basically an amateur sport in the 19th century. It is completely unsuitable for a commercialised 21st century sport where a club like Celtic competes with a club like Ross County.
It's very easy to prove that leagues don't work anymore by simply looking at the fact that most leagues are won by the same team or small group of teams every year.
You would never design a sporting competition from scratch today that wasn't settled by some kind of play-off system, yet football clings to the 19th century despite mountains of evidence year on year that this gives us a boring, predictable sport in which the vast majority of clubs have no hope of success.

This is why I like the way American sports do things, the team that is generally the worst for that season (I know there are other factors taken into account) get the pick of the most talented player(s) for the season ahead from the college system in the draft system.
Obviously this wouldn't work for British football as its all academies owned or affiliated with clubs but at least it keeps it abit more competitive.

[ICTChris]

I watched that Hotel Cecil thing that was mentioned on here a few weeeks ago. Some of those web sleuths are complete arseholes.  One of them got his mate to go to the grave and film himself touching the headstone, what an utter danger.