TWENTY SEVEN.....

[Grizzly blade]

The top 3 teams should be the ones promoted. The play-offs are little more than TV revenue over football. Football is a very simple game (hence its popularity) ruined by fake concepts of modernity.

Absolutely agree.
What is the point of the league as that is the biggest play off of them all.
However, they are here to stay and for all we don't do them very well, we wouldn't complain if we had benefitted by scraping up in one of the previous 5 seasons.

There are many arguments for and against play offs, and the reasons for just get it for me.
However, if you finish third you should be the one to beat and have an advantage so that it takes a bloody good side to go up over the third placed team.

 

[loyalblade95]

absolutely boring game bradford defense stood still for the goal then missed a sitter at the end which could have taken it to extra time

 

[ThroughThinAndThinner]

As Grizzly has stated above - his ideas are similar to what happens in both Rugby codes.

There is no advantage in playing a final at Wembley either - just another money making venture.

ANY final should be a one game affair at the home of the team finishing 3rd - that is an advantage worth having and ensuring you don't get the pigs 2nd team playing Fulhams 2nd team on the last day of the proper season or Huddersfield playing a reserve side against Birmingham. If 3rd, 4th, 5th and 6th had some actual proper merit in playing for, then the competition would still keep the season open for teams further down the league but would also properly benefit teams who finish in a higher position.

UTB

...which in hindsight makes it even more hilarious that neither have made the final.

 

[Bladesway]

Grrrrr RAGE!

 

[Not_a_Cheat]

It's a complete joke that they're still in existence.

Millwall or the play offs?

 

[loyalblade95]

would do something similar to scotland for all 4 leagues e.g. for the championship 22nd in champ vs 3rd in league 1 winner is in the championship loser is in league 1

 

[JohnDenver]

The playoffs are unfair but add hugely to the season for most. Some of the matches are as good as football has to offer.

They're going nowhere so should be embraced - we might need to win one in the next year or two.

 

[Cerberus Blade]

I feel really sorry for Bradford but one of their problems this season has been scoring goals!. The guy they got from Carlisle has been poor in my opinion!. Millwal are really going to struggle unless they invest heavily in the team!!. Millwall is a shit hole but I'll still be making the trip down there.

Yes, they could really do with someone like Hanson.

 

[Fulwood Blade]

I considered that too, however I just felt that for many clubs the play offs are their only likely chance for them to play at Wembley.
And even though the third placed side might fancy the advantage of being at home, they might prefer the extra revenue that is guaranteed from going to Wembley.

But there should certainly be an advantage of finishing third

Yep accepted - but if you use us as an example, we as a cluib have frozen on more than one occasion or left clubs like Wolves to plan for a one off game that didn't reflect the majority of the season.

For me that has to be a significant advantage over playing 46 games and make that advantage worthwhile at the end.

As for the championship - 1 game worth £200m on neutral territory is just plain daft.

UTB

 

[Revolution]

3 at home to 4 - winner goes to Wembley
5 at home to 6 - loser out, winner plays loser of 3 v 4 game for a place in the final.

Each place worth something more than the one below.

I also like the Italian rule that if you're 10 points clear of the team below there's no playoff.

I hate the playoffs but:

- 3 up 3 down was only a 13 year thing (1974-1986).
- they keep interest up for more teams
- they are one of the reasons gates have gone up in the last 30 years

 

[Fulwood Blade]

3 at home to 4 - winner goes to Wembley
5 at home to 6 - loser out, winner plays loser of 3 v 4 game for a place in the final.

Each place worth something more than the one below.

I also like the Italian rule that if you're 10 points clear of the team below there's no playoff.

I hate the playoffs but:

- 3 up 3 down was only a 13 year thing (1974-1986).
- they keep interest up for more teams
- they are one of the reasons gates have gone up in the last 30 years

yep, like that too - wasn't aware of that one.

UTB

 

[Worksop II]

condescendity

Well, I have tried, but I cant pronounce that ..

 

[GRUMPY BLADE]

Deciding anything on penalties is ridiculous. Penalties are one small aspect of football. Why not see who can take the longest throw-in or win the most corners?

Matches should be decided by all facets of the game; by playing football. The much-maligned "golden goal" makes far more sense than penalties.

As for the play-offs. Whatever the competing merits and faults, the terms and conditions are certain and well-known before the season starts. Each team can plan accordingly. The goalposts, unfortunately for Fernando and his piggy mates, are not moved.

Golden goal is probabaly the best option.

 

[GRUMPY BLADE]

If it ends a draw in the semi final the team that finished highest in the league goes through? Likewise in the final? Higher placed team only need to draw?

Still leaves it open for a Wednesday at Huddersfield insipid performance as the 3rd placed team would get promoted for keeping a clean sheet?

 

[mancunianblade]

Play offs serve a purpose in keeping the league competitive, if it wasn't for the Play Offs then there would be many more teams In the closing stages of the season with nothing to play for who put weakened teams out to give them a run.

I maybe wrong but it feels like those who gain momentum and sneak in to the Play Offs at the last minute usually carry that momentum into the Play Offs and win it, it's not uncommom for a team to finnish 3/4 as a result of being in top two and running out of steam as was the case of Scunthorpe.

The Play Offs are important just seem a little unfair.maybe expand it to 5 teams 3rd place already in he final waiting the other 4 have to compete like they do now and play two finals

 

[GRUMPY BLADE]

I do not believe that the use of play offs to increase interest is in dispute its the fact that teams finishing higher up the "play off" table should have an advantage.
As previously suggested
6 v 5 with 5 at home
The winner plays 4, with four at home and the winner plays 3 at Wembley.
How you ensure that 3 has an advantage at Wembley is open for debate?
Teams finishing a certain number of points above their opponent could also be awarded with a goal start. ( possibly one goal for every five points )
Not sure how it should all work but something has to change to favour the team finishing higher up the league?

Agree with that but being given a 1/2 goal start would only lead to more Wednesday at Huddersfield insipid performances?

Edit:

In fact when you look at all the options the pigs have every opportunity to be shite so its easy, ban the fuckers from the play offs.

 

[bladesmanluke]

Still leaves it open for a Wednesday at Huddersfield insipid performance as the 3rd placed team would get promoted for keeping a clean sheet?

If that's how they want to go about it then I think that's fair enough. It would serve them right if it fucked up though and they conceded anyway.

 

[Flakey]

Listening to the pre match and during the commentry on 5 live yesterday, the way the pundits raved about Millwall, you would have thought they were the best team in the division.

The play-offs should be third and fourth place only provided they are within 10 points of each other, or third place should be automatic.

Still, it's all about the money and the gate receipts at Wembley .

Leastways, I can't see Millwall managing to stay up

 

[Rollerball]

How about a 3 game league 3rd plays all 3 others at home, 4th plays 2 home vs 5th 6th and 1 away vs 3rd highest points from the 3 games gets promoted, goal difference etc counts.
On a similar note would it not be pretty good if league points were as follows.
Lose = 0 points but you get a point if you score 2 or more in losing
Draw = 0 point but same bonus if you score 2 or more i.e. 2-2 gives both teams 1 point, so there is no real point (pardon the pun) for going out for a draw
Win = 3 points but score win by 2 goals bonus point 3 or more and you get 5 points for the win
I'm sure there are holes in my thinking but sounded good on a Sunday morning when there's no real football to watch

 

[McGrath]

I think Millwall will give a decent fist of staying up. More so than any of the others in the playoffs, as they've got a decent forward line. If they hadn't have had the cup run they might have been more comfortably in the playoffs earlier

Any way, I can't stand their fans. Utterly obnoxious, they belong in the seventies. For that reason alone I wish them the worst luck possible and hope they get do a Rotherham, and that them and Leeds fans knock ten bells of living shit out of each other (they'll probably do that anyway )

 

[Fanny magnet]

The team with the massivest support should win

 

[PokerBlade]

The biggest argument against the Play Offs seems to be when an unpopular team wins.

Truth be told, much as I don't mind Bradford (and every sympathy for their fans this evening), I'm not really that bothered. I'd sooner have an away day in London than Bradford.

I think it's more than reasonable to argue that it's unfair to promote a lower ranked team based on three games rather than the 46 preceding ones. And I don't think there's a good counter to the point of fairness. Still, I think the impact it has on the competitiveness of a division and the increased mobility of teams between divisions are huge positives overall. Oxford, Rochdale, and Southend (and maybe a couple of others) that finished just outside the top six were all playing out the vast majority of the season with a chance, however slim, at promotion. And they would all have gone up with a slimmer chance of survival, but at least teams like that get more of a shot at moving up a level.

 

[Bartleby]

If you are using a playoff system then apply the same principles to the last relegation spot as well and make 4 teams play off for it.. They all play each other and the team with the least points after 3 fixtures goes down. If a team can get promoted over those who finish above them, then a team who finishes 3rd from bottom should have a chance to stay up at someone else's expense.

they used to do that, that's how we got relegated in 1988.

I do generally agree about the playoffs being unfair, but if we ever do finally benefit from them (ie go up not down via them) I won't complain.

 

[Champagneblade]

The team with the massivest support should win

It'd be a bit boring for Wendy though wouldn't it, being European and World Club Champions all the time

 

[Damski]

Play offs are great, all the reasons I could give have already been listed above. As if you wouldn't all be going mental if we'd have won the final yesterday. I don't think I'd have gone to bed yet.

 

[Fulwood Blade]

Play offs are great, all the reasons I could give have already been listed above. As if you wouldn't all be going mental if we'd have won the final yesterday. I don't think I'd have gone to bed yet.

Problem is........we don't win.

UTB

 

[HillmortonBlade]

I think it's more than reasonable to argue that it's unfair to promote a lower ranked team based on three games rather than the 46 preceding ones. And I don't think there's a good counter to the point of fairness. Still, I think the impact it has on the competitiveness of a division and the increased mobility of teams between divisions are huge positives overall. Oxford, Rochdale, and Southend (and maybe a couple of others) that finished just outside the top six were all playing out the vast majority of the season with a chance, however slim, at promotion. And they would all have gone up with a slimmer chance of survival, but at least teams like that get more of a shot at moving up a level.

I think it's reasonable to argue that the current system is entirely fair. Every team enters the competition knowing the rules. If you finish third you are not good enough to be automatically promoted and enter the play offs. What's unfair about that, it's the rules of game?

 

[Hillsboro Blade]

As a keen follower of the Bundesliga, I think they have the right system. The team finishing 3rd from bottom in league 1 play 3rd from top in League 2 in a two legged playoff. What really annoys me about our playoffs is that it's a league for 46 games then becomes a Cup for three. Its not a case of sour grapes because we don't do well in them, it's that it's totally unfair and just a money making racket. I'd never go to another playoff game because of this. If people didn't go to them they would be scrapped.

 

[Isar]

The rules are clear at the start of each season, the play offs in each league give a huge incentive to many teams to battle right to the last game. It has boosted the interest in all the leagues, brings in more fans and creates some thrilling finishes to a league season. It doesn't matter how far the sixth place team is to the 1st or 2nd placed team, they have fought to get the 6th spot and will do their best to get promoted.

I have spent a fortune following the Blades at play-offs, and it does sometimes seem unfair that the team that finished below gets promoted, but as a system to boost interest in the game, it ticks all the boxes.

 

[PokerBlade]

I think it's reasonable to argue that the current system is entirely fair. Every team enters the competition knowing the rules. If you finish third you are not good enough to be automatically promoted and enter the play offs. What's unfair about that, it's the rules of game?

Perhaps a better way to look at it is not are the play-offs "unfair" but are they less fair than rewarding the team who has achieved a higher rank over the season. And rules can be unfair. As in the Tevez saga, what happened was well within the Premier League's remit, but it was still a shit ruling. I don't think someone saying "Hey, you knew that a panel could screw you over when the season started" would've been a good defence.