Besthelboy
Banned
We don't speak about last season.
Why is relegation/promotion not used in American sports?
- Thread starter ICKE
- Start date
- Status
We don't speak about last season.
Germany for example (level in Roman numerals) :
I: Bundesliga (18 teams with heavy hitters like Dormund and Bayern)
II: 2. Bundesliga (18 teams)
III: 3. Liga (20 teams)
IV: Regionalliga (with four divisions constituting a total of 88 teams)
V: State leagues (too many teams)
VI: Lower state leagues (EVEN MOAR TEAMS)
Below the state association league system you have another 67 divisions and close to 1000 teams.
VII: Kreisliga
VIII: Kreisklasse A
IX : Kreisklasse B
X : Kreisklasse C
XI : Kreisklasse D
Soccer, we are pretty crazy about it in Europe
Pretty good arguments. Let me add a couple more.
American sports and Australian sports for that matter don't have relegation/promotion because they operate in their own closed world. Every year all the young talent get drafted by the bottom clubs meaning the league assures themselves of the best talent. In other words, it's a vicious cycle where the the NFL NBA Etc never have to worry about its future. Even though it looks like the league is all about equality it really isn't to other clubs outside the league.
On the other hand football has its own version of the vicious cycle in that the top clubs win more money and can buy better players. When you get so rich like Real Madrid there's basically nothing money can't fix...
Of course I agree you need relegation to avoid tanking but try convincing the clubs and I'm sure they would object to its implementation.
I've always said the AFL should be able to implement promotion/relegation if they really wanted to. Right now there's 18 teams? They could easily add 4 more teams making 22 and have a premier league and championship. Then you could at least have one level of promotion/relegation which would eliminate tanking. For drafting purposes, the championship would get the first picks. Oh and have a nationwide FA Cup competition.
Promotions are boring in soccer. It often just leads to teams that aren't ready to compete at high levels that drop out again after one year. They become a tiny, tiny fish in a big pond with no chance to grow as any investment will be lost once they drop again.
Leicester City, Burnley and Queens Park Rangers got promoted to the Premier League last year. Burnley is highest ranked at 17, one spot above relegation. Hull City, one of the teams that got promoted a year earlier, is hooking up with Leicester and Queens Park Rangers to drop again. And this is in England, the country with about the healthiest second division in existence.
The concept of promotions and relegations should be looked over at the highest levels. For the level of the sport, stopping the system for the highest league with possibly a reduction in the number of teams in the highest league would be better. Even Germany, England, Spain, Italy and France can't support 20 high level teams, let alone countries like The Netherlands.
Leicester City, Burnley and Queens Park Rangers got promoted to the Premier League last year. Burnley is highest ranked at 17, one spot above relegation. Hull City, one of the teams that got promoted a year earlier, is hooking up with Leicester and Queens Park Rangers to drop again. And this is in England, the country with about the healthiest second division in existence.
The concept of promotions and relegations should be looked over at the highest levels. For the level of the sport, stopping the system for the highest league with possibly a reduction in the number of teams in the highest league would be better. Even Germany, England, Spain, Italy and France can't support 20 high level teams, let alone countries like The Netherlands.
Well, time to put him on ignore then. Klinsmann is the worst.
Razgriz-Specter
Member
This sounds silly actually, at least for Football.
Why would you want unnecessary crap thrown in.
NFL is absolutely perfect as is(maybe a few more teams eventually) and college is working its way there.
Nobody would stick with teams in the B league and nobody would watch those games on tv.
Why would you want unnecessary crap thrown in.
NFL is absolutely perfect as is(maybe a few more teams eventually) and college is working its way there.
Nobody would stick with teams in the B league and nobody would watch those games on tv.
Germany for example (level in Roman numerals) :
I: Bundesliga (18 teams with heavy hitters like Dormund and Bayern)
II: 2. Bundesliga (18 teams)
III: 3. Liga (20 teams)
IV: Regionalliga (with four divisions constituting a total of 88 teams)
V: State leagues (too many teams)
VI: Lower state leagues (EVEN MOAR TEAMS)
Below the state association league system you have another 67 divisions and close to 1000 teams.
VII: Kreisliga
VIII: Kreisklasse A
IX : Kreisklasse B
X : Kreisklasse C
XI : Kreisklasse D
Soccer, we are pretty crazy about it in Europe
Maybe it's just me but I wouldn't call the team on the last place in the German Bundesliga a heavy hitter
firehawk12
Subete no aware
I think hockey in Canada is probably just as wacky with the number of leagues, except all the smaller leagues are divided by age groups and region. It's probably the only North American sport that skips the college system entirely and your prospects for the major leagues start when you're like 10.Germany for example (level in Roman numerals) :
I: Bundesliga (18 teams with heavy hitters like Dormund and Bayern)
II: 2. Bundesliga (18 teams)
III: 3. Liga (20 teams)
IV: Regionalliga (with four divisions constituting a total of 88 teams)
V: State leagues (too many teams)
VI: Lower state leagues (EVEN MOAR TEAMS)
Below the state association league system you have another 67 divisions and close to 1000 teams.
VII: Kreisliga
VIII: Kreisklasse A
IX : Kreisklasse B
X : Kreisklasse C
XI : Kreisklasse D
Soccer, we are pretty crazy about it in Europe
Maybe it's just me but I wouldn't call the team on the last place in the German Bundesliga a heavy hitter
ConfusingJazz
Member
Most North American leagues derive their league system from the National League in 1876.
Most European leagues derive their league system from the Football League in 1888.
The reason the National League went against relegation and promotion is because of what happened when the sport became professional, it was exceedingly unstable. The National League responded by closing shop, making sure the fanbases weren't split, etc. This allowed them the confidence to spend money on stadiums, and for travel.
The Football League was trying to establish legitimacy within the Football Association, rather than split away from it. They simply wanted a league for the best of the best in the FA. In order to sell it, they allowed for promotion and relegation.
Also, crucially, the FA also survived the onset of professionalism, which the original baseball association, the National Association of Base Ball Players (NABBP), did not.
Most European leagues derive their league system from the Football League in 1888.
The reason the National League went against relegation and promotion is because of what happened when the sport became professional, it was exceedingly unstable. The National League responded by closing shop, making sure the fanbases weren't split, etc. This allowed them the confidence to spend money on stadiums, and for travel.
The Football League was trying to establish legitimacy within the Football Association, rather than split away from it. They simply wanted a league for the best of the best in the FA. In order to sell it, they allowed for promotion and relegation.
Also, crucially, the FA also survived the onset of professionalism, which the original baseball association, the National Association of Base Ball Players (NABBP), did not.
In 22 years of being formed for the EPL... Only 8 different teams have appeared in the Champsionship, And 33 out of those 44 teams have been the same 3 teams.
I'm confused at were these small teams to beat a big team are coming from? Also wondering were is the excitement? By all accounts, it's sounding like the league is heavily stacked for just a few large clubs. There is no distribution of talent, but rather just large clubs absorbing all the talent to compete against the same 3 or 4 teams.
Now comparisons over the same time frame(Last 22 years)
MLB - 22 Different teams in the World Series and 11 different winners.
NFL - 21 Different teams in the Super Bowl and 14 different winners.
A few notes. A vast amount of talent in the MLB comes from Central and the Caribbeans. A common idea in most American sports isn't about having home town talent, but having the best talent in the world. This works for the NBA and NHL. It's why when the Olympics come around and you see US get their ass kicked, by a lot of the players in the NHL. They go back home to compete similar in Football for their World Cup.
We have something similar with the Minor leagues. You have A, AA, and AAA. A is the lowest, AAA is the highest. Players than in AAA can get called up the MLB. Most of the minor league teams are owned by a professional team.
I'm confused at were these small teams to beat a big team are coming from? Also wondering were is the excitement? By all accounts, it's sounding like the league is heavily stacked for just a few large clubs. There is no distribution of talent, but rather just large clubs absorbing all the talent to compete against the same 3 or 4 teams.
Now comparisons over the same time frame(Last 22 years)
MLB - 22 Different teams in the World Series and 11 different winners.
NFL - 21 Different teams in the Super Bowl and 14 different winners.
A few notes. A vast amount of talent in the MLB comes from Central and the Caribbeans. A common idea in most American sports isn't about having home town talent, but having the best talent in the world. This works for the NBA and NHL. It's why when the Olympics come around and you see US get their ass kicked, by a lot of the players in the NHL. They go back home to compete similar in Football for their World Cup.
We have something similar with the Minor leagues. You have A, AA, and AAA. A is the lowest, AAA is the highest. Players than in AAA can get called up the MLB. Most of the minor league teams are owned by a professional team.
Do a continental comparison and use the Champions League and EUROPA cup instead of just national leagues from specific countries across Europe.
Small teams have provided countless upsets in the Cup competitions and others have climbed the ladder even if they have not been able to compete for the highest honors.
Don Draper's Hat
Member
John Oliver seems just as confused by football as Letterman.
The Atticus
Member
The success of Swansea, Southampton, and to an extent West Ham completely contradict those ideas.
I don't feel that's the same. If the champions league was the only league then things might be different.
The Atticus
Member
Ignoring the Champions League is missing the point of success in European club football.
For some teams, qualifying for the Champions League is in itself a trophy.
/Arsene
The argument he is making that there is not enough competition across the board and only a few teams have managed to win titles. Obviously that is true when you look at different national leagues, because capital cities and other large metropolitan areas tend to have the most successful clubs while small towns do not have the capacity to compete. So usually you have around 2-5 teams competing for the title.
But then there is the Champions League where the biggest clubs from every European nation compete against one another. You have to earn your place there every year and the competition is fierce. No team has managed to defend the title since the name was changed early 90's.
I think around 120-130 have participated in Champions League since 1993 with 13 different winners in 21 years.
I'm not ignoring the champions league it's the competition I pay attention to the most, but its existence doesn't rectify the extremely low levels of competitiveness in the domestic leagues. Ultimately most of the time is spent playing domestically. That's where most of the players energy is used. CR7 and the Real Madrid royalty are most of the time playing guys who aren't fit to play in the Champions league, and I think the quality of the game itself long-term suffers because of that. A loss or two here and there or coming in third now and then doesn't justify it.
I can't really imagine football if there was only Champions League and that's it. 32 teams in one competition and few hundred professional footballers and nothing else. Everyone in England support four teams, travel across Europe half the time to support your team and most people would never get into a stadium to want a game. There many weekends of emptiness that will have to be filled by something else. Rugby and cricket will have to pick up the slack.
Grenouille
Member
Brazil and Argentina use the relegation system. Don't ask me how those extremely poor clubs manage to travel though, it had never crossed my mind. They probably make a group for each region.
Fulham comfortably mid-table... sigh.
Maybe it's just me but I wouldn't call the team on the last place in the German Bundesliga a heavy hitter
They're rare exceptions and that is already in the country with the highest investments, and even they usually don't do more than sit in the middle. The regular promoted teams have very little chance against the teams most people watch.
I live there, one of the only times I've seen my town mentioned on GAF.
Ninja Scooter
Member
Hate to repeat but it's absolutely money. You'd have to blow up the leagues, completely scrap infrastructure in terms of TV deals and stadium deals to even think about having relegation in American pro sports.
I'm not saying it has the be like the champions league format or that I even know how the leagues could be fixed. The talent being far too concentrated is the problem though.
Stereogatari
Banned
It's quite a simple explanation. In Europe the football teams themselves are individual businesses, just like any individual business that exists. They are left to their own whims within the system.
That's a good point. It's unlikely for teams like United to be relegated, but not qualifying for the CL is kind of the equivalent of that for a big club. Chelsea of course only qualified for the CL in 2012 by winning it, and the first few seasons of City's big money they weren't qualifying and even after qualifying they've found it very difficult to compete.
As a pre-Abramovich Chelsea fan I've won the football lottery of course. Went from celebrating qualifying for the Champions League in 2003, like super duper crazily celebrating as if we'd won a trophy, to celebrating winning the whole damn thing in 2012. If we didn't get that investment then chances are we were going to fall into a Leeds like situation of relegation due to having to sell a lot of players. Amazing thing is I would have been watching my team regardless.
That's a good point. It's unlikely for teams like United to be relegated, but not qualifying for the CL is kind of the equivalent of that for a big club. Chelsea of course only qualified for the CL in 2012 by winning it, and the first few seasons of City's big money they weren't qualifying and even after qualifying they've found it very difficult to compete.
As a pre-Abramovich Chelsea fan I've won the football lottery of course. Went from celebrating qualifying for the Champions League in 2003, like super duper crazily celebrating as if we'd won a trophy, to celebrating winning the whole damn thing in 2012. If we didn't get that investment then chances are we were going to fall into a Leeds like situation of relegation due to having to sell a lot of players. Amazing thing is I would have been watching my team regardless.
FelixOrion
Poet Centuriate
Germany for example (level in Roman numerals) :
I: Bundesliga (18 teams with heavy hitters like Dormund and Bayern)
II: 2. Bundesliga (18 teams)
III: 3. Liga (20 teams)
IV: Regionalliga (with four divisions constituting a total of 88 teams)
V: State leagues (too many teams)
VI: Lower state leagues (EVEN MOAR TEAMS)
Below the state association league system you have another 67 divisions and close to 1000 teams.
VII: Kreisliga
VIII: Kreisklasse A
IX : Kreisklasse B
X : Kreisklasse C
XI : Kreisklasse D
Soccer, we are pretty crazy about it in Europe
If you count NCAA and NAIA as the minor leagues of the NFL (32 teams), then you have:
NCAA Div. I-A (aka FBS) (128 schools)
NCAA Div. I-AA (aka FCS) (124 schools)
NCAA Div. I-AAA (aka No Football) (0 schools w/ football teams)
NCAA Div. III (245 schools)
NAIA (88 schools)
For a rough total of 755 collegiate teams. (These numbers will vary depending on the sport, mind you.)
Add on top of them all the high schools in the country as minor league below that, and you're looking at somewhere around 14,000 more teams (this can be fuzzy as small rural schools will play alternative formats like 8-man or 6-man).
This isn't even counting the mess of constantly forming and folding semi-pro and independent minor leagues and teams in North America. Though there are a few more stable minor leagues, that play slightly different formats, like the Canadian Football League (9 teams) and the Arena Football League (12 teams), the size of them and the lack of them should show just how much American professional sports rely on the high school and collegiate systems to farm talent. Hell, the NFL even eventually folded it's own European D-League.
Genius at Work
Neo Member
A lot of it simply comes down to the fact that that's how it's always been and it's nearly impossible to change it now. Why would any top tier team agree to such a thing? Why would the owners or cities that built stadiums? Where are the second tier teams going to come from and who will support them?
It's also why European football leagues will never go away from promotion/relegation. How do you possibly decide which 20 teams will be in the EPL forever? There'd be riots on the streets for days from all the other supporters.
The true answer would probably trace back to the history of how the competitions were originally set up. FWIW although promotion/relegation sounds better in theory, I think the American style of leagues seems to actually produce more interesting competitions.
It's also why European football leagues will never go away from promotion/relegation. How do you possibly decide which 20 teams will be in the EPL forever? There'd be riots on the streets for days from all the other supporters.
The true answer would probably trace back to the history of how the competitions were originally set up. FWIW although promotion/relegation sounds better in theory, I think the American style of leagues seems to actually produce more interesting competitions.
Stereogatari
Banned
One thing that would be cool to have in Europe is the kind of fanfare Americans have behind the high school and university teams. As far as I understand it even some of the non-footballing high schools and unversities in America have the school ethos and pride behind them and decent sized crowds watching games? I think there are some exceptions across the UK, but generally school/unversity teams are just playing on an empty field with no one cheering them on.
Hell that's even true of the youth levels of professional teams. Players don't get used to playing in big crowds until they're actually playing for the first teams (assuming they make it that far). Like recently there is a youth player from my team (Chelsea) who has been getting a few substitution appearances for the first team and so playing in front of 40,000 people. That would have been as novel an experience to him as it would be for us fans. He's 19, so in America he'd still be playing for his university and assuming he was at a major one then he'd be used to playing in front of much bigger crowds than 40,000 by now.
Living in Europe, but I watched NBA during the 90s. I know both system well enough to say that the American system is far better than the European one. It's a big irony that the arch-capitalistic US have a system which at least tries to even the teams a bit and limit the influence of money (hello NY Knicks).
The European system is a pretty capitalistic system with some shared revenue, but ultimately it's nearly aristocratic in the sense that the top teams stay on top forever with some exceptions. Sure, there are some Cinderella stories, but the majority of the teams below the top can barely make a (longterm) winning team when they don't get the big funds which are the international games. If football/soccer wasn't a sport which relied a good amount of luck, the difference between top clubs and the rest would be even more apparent.
The European system is a pretty capitalistic system with some shared revenue, but ultimately it's nearly aristocratic in the sense that the top teams stay on top forever with some exceptions. Sure, there are some Cinderella stories, but the majority of the teams below the top can barely make a (longterm) winning team when they don't get the big funds which are the international games. If football/soccer wasn't a sport which relied a good amount of luck, the difference between top clubs and the rest would be even more apparent.
But isn't that the same for United States, even more so? There can be no cinderella stories as lower league teams are not even allowed to compete against the big boys - even in any cup competitions? You look at Europe as a continent and the amount of top teams is significant in various sports. Champions League is the equivalent of NFL in American football where teams from different states/countries compete against one another. The difference is that in Europe the teams have to be champions or place high enough locally to gain access to the "superstar league". They have to maintain that edge every season or the door is shut to continental cups, and also risk relegation locally if they completely capitulate or fall into financial turmoil. Dortmund is 18th right now in Germany.
I don't think either way is automatically better, it's just a different approach.
I think one of the reasons why the systems are different (and will stay different) is the same reason football (the non-American kind) isn't as successful in the US.
Football is often seen as "boring" or "pointless" because there are so few goals scored. I.e., everything except for goal scoring is "useless" to some American eyes. Whereas a European would say that no, of course everything in-between is important, goals are just the best thing about it.
Let me compare that to the different league philosophies: Americans have all sorts of "socialised" aspects in their leagues to let lower-ranked teams at least think about winning something. Again, not being able to win the league at any point is seen as "pointless". Whereas a European would say, well, of course my team is probably never going to win the league, but having a season full of good results is enough.
Which is also why we usually don't have play-offs.
Football is often seen as "boring" or "pointless" because there are so few goals scored. I.e., everything except for goal scoring is "useless" to some American eyes. Whereas a European would say that no, of course everything in-between is important, goals are just the best thing about it.
Let me compare that to the different league philosophies: Americans have all sorts of "socialised" aspects in their leagues to let lower-ranked teams at least think about winning something. Again, not being able to win the league at any point is seen as "pointless". Whereas a European would say, well, of course my team is probably never going to win the league, but having a season full of good results is enough.
Which is also why we usually don't have play-offs.
Can Crusher
Banned
There is something better than Play offs. The Champions League.
Football and basketball have the benefit of the NCAA for talent development in America. There's just not enough "lower-level" professional squads out there to facilitate this. And don't say "D-League." That's where hoop dreams go to die.
I'm getting kinda bored with baseball so I wouldn't mind seeing them try it. There's already a minor league team in every decent sized city in America. Just dissociate the minor league teams from the majors and allow for promotion/relegation of the top/bottom 3. There's already no salary cap in baseball. I could see some enterprising owners of some minor league clubs throwing out some cash to overpay decent major league talent to spread the pool out.
I'm getting kinda bored with baseball so I wouldn't mind seeing them try it. There's already a minor league team in every decent sized city in America. Just dissociate the minor league teams from the majors and allow for promotion/relegation of the top/bottom 3. There's already no salary cap in baseball. I could see some enterprising owners of some minor league clubs throwing out some cash to overpay decent major league talent to spread the pool out.
Sure, in the States, a league of 32 teams is closed. Sorry Seattle, no NBA games for ya. However, within the league everybody has a fair shot to the playoffs, and the mechanism for a tad more equality are well proven (salary cap, rookie draft).
In Europe, money is everything. The reason why the Champions League isn't as one-sided as the national leagues is because the top teams are so overpowered in their national league that they have reached diminishing revenue level on international level. Following the development though, I won't be surprised if the CL gets more and more one-sided within the next two decades. That's how it works with capitalism when there aren't any strong regulations.
Zaraki_Kenpachi
Member
It really feels like you're hand waving to dismiss arguments. NFL is not like champions league. There's plenty of people who follow the national league and care about that, champions league isn't the only thing that matters. You already admitted those leagues have one or two good teams which already proves the point of what people hate. I like parity and salary caps, not whoever can piss away the most money/ is the biggest city to win. You seem to only want to your champions league comparison due to physical size of America which isn't right. There's plenty of upsets and Cinderella stories in the current american leagues. There's no benefit what so ever to make most teams in a 30+ team league to always suck. There's literally no benefit to your system.
Thornton Reed
Member
Ends with the best team over 38 games on top of the table, they are the campions.
That format is about the one thing the EPL gets right
Stereogatari
Banned
Considering NFL has 32 teams it would be cool if they organised a knockout cup tournament in addition to the main season competition.
In the unlikely event that the top 2 (or top 3, 4 etc.) have the identical points, goals scored and goals conceded, then only in that ever so rare scenario would a play off occur.
And anyway we have the thrill of play-offs from other competitions like the FA Cup, League Cup and European competitions. Best of both worlds.
In the unlikely event that the top 2 (or top 3, 4 etc.) have the identical points, goals scored and goals conceded, then only in that ever so rare scenario would a play off occur.
And anyway we have the thrill of play-offs from other competitions like the FA Cup, League Cup and European competitions. Best of both worlds.
Thornton Reed
Member
This a great point although the cups have kind of lost their appeal
It's not about beating the Man U's etc at first, it is about safely staying up. Relegation brings excitement/ disappointment depending on what happens to your team, if you manage to stay up you get a huge amount of cash from the Prem. This means you can kick on and push up the league. The big teams obviously still all end up near the top (usually) but that doesn't stop the smaller teams from beating them during the season.
There are so many good football players just because of the sheer number of players playing that i doubt the champions league will ever be as one sided as national competitions are.
Too many good players and even stars have off years.
Stereogatari
Banned
I'm a Chelsea fan and I get just as upset when we get knocked out of the Cups as I did in the pre-Abramovich days. But I agree that the general perception towards Cups is negative. Just like the answer to this thread, it's all about the MONEY!
If the NFL (or whoever) decide they can't have or earn a major league team then that is much more a punishment for shit the fans have no control over.
A small number of rich men controlling the teams and limiting their risk/expenses in the name of profit? It's not really socialist at all.
The FA Cup final actually sells out the second biggest stadium in Europe every year.
2014 attendance: 89,300
2013: 86,300 (for a game between two historically smaller clubs)
2012: 89,100
2011: 88,600
2010: 88,300
2009: 89,400
and so on
Fulham were an utter mess. There's only two decent players on that list (Berbatov, who was always going to leave them, and Sidwell), the rest are either too old or were never of the required standard. Relegation gives clubs an opportunity to rebuild their squad and come back stronger. Magath managed Fulham's relegation very poorly, but they're still rebuilding their team around a group of talented young players (Roberts, Bettinelli, Woodrow, Hyndman, Dembele, Williams, Burn) which will be positive in the long run.
Player turnover for promoted teams isn't really that high IMO and teams that do try to replace everyone usually do badly. If you look at the squads of a club like Swansea or Southampton there are key players there that have been promoted through two divisions with their teams.
Stereogatari
Banned
Exactly. The run up to the final can certainly be criticised for being drab in places, but I'm sure even then the viewing figures are huge for the stand-out ties of each round.
Actually yes.
Or they are supposed to.
Football clubs in the UK (and across most of Europe) exist primarly to serve their local community. They were set up by their local community, to serve their local community. The idea of foreign ownership of football clubs is a relatively new concept over the last two decades or so, and even then very few owners make money out of football clubs.
Football clubs in the UK and Europe existed and belonged to the fans and the community long before the influx of money in the game, and they'll be around long, long after the bubble bursts and the money is gone.
NineOverSeven
Neo Member
Having read through the topic so far, it amuses me the situations we could've got in the past.
"Congratulations Derby County, you just achieved the record lowest points total in the history of the Premier League. Here's Cristiano Ronaldo for you trouble."
Not sure how it would've gone down at the old iPro.
"Congratulations Derby County, you just achieved the record lowest points total in the history of the Premier League. Here's Cristiano Ronaldo for you trouble."
Not sure how it would've gone down at the old iPro.
Interesting idea, but it wouldn't work, as you said. For one thing, the conferences are used for all sports, not just football. For another, the conferences also extend to academic affairs.
The US already has that equivalent. It's called not making the playoffs. And it usually creates some drama right at the end of the season year after year.
As was pointed out, over the last 22 years, 14 different teams have won the Super Bowl. 14! That's nearly half the league.
Sure occasionally you get some teams that are stuck in the muck forever, like my Detroit Lions, but there's more than enough churn for a person to honestly believe at the beginning (and even middle!) of the season to believe they have a chance to win it all.
- Status