I kind of disagree on the no finals thing, it really depends on how you define "best" team. Soccer leagues define best as most consistent, which is a perfectly good measure, but not the only one. Other leagues do it based on who wins when the strongest teams play each other, effectively ignoring consistency for top end quality, and therefore have finals series or playoffs. I think there are arguments either way.
If all you want to do is get a decent indication of who the teams are that should be playing in the finals to decide who the "best" team is, then a fixture can be quite unbalanced before it puts that in jeopardy.
Edit: just realised you meant that you think no finals works better for soccer leagues. Agree entirely on that, because "best at taking penalty kicks" is the worst measure of "best team" going around.