Its going to happen again...

All advertisments are hidden for logged in members, why not log in/register?

1973_Blade

1973_Blade

Member
Joined
Aug 6, 2009
Messages
426
Reaction score
149
Location
Warrington
... the top 3 teams in the league will be at least 6 points ahead of the rest and one of those may not go up. It could be a team that is over 16 points behind the 3rd place team and win the play offs - how can that be a fair system?
 



It is a fair system.

Without the play-offs the league would be extremely dull, boring and uncompetitive.
 
its never been any different gives teams something to play for otherwise all the team before 3rd now will have given up. If we end up in third and don't go up we don't deserve to go up simple as that.
 
It is fair because all clubs know the rules at the outset, and the rules are the same for all clubs in the league. The aim is to finish in the top two. To get a further chance of promotion by finishing outside of the top two should be viewed as a bonus.
 
I see where you all are coming from, but being fair and adding extra excitement/interest are two different things. If the worst happens and we don't make it then fail to win the play offs will you feel that it is right? Top three for the majority of the season - top scorers in the league yet beaten by a team who could have lost upto 6 more games over the season.
 
I like the play-offs BUT I would adapt a more fair system to reward higher finishing team. So, I would have something similar to Rugby. 5th v 6th - one off eliminator. 3rd v 4th - one off and winner goes straight to Wembley. Then loser of 3/4 plays winner of 5/6, one off game again and then winner advances to Wembley.
 
WarringtonBlade said:
I see where you all are coming from, but being fair and adding extra excitement/interest are two different things. If the worst happens and we don't make it then fail to win the play offs will you feel that it is right? Top three for the majority of the season - top scorers in the league yet beaten by a team who could have lost upto 6 more games over the season.
Click to expand...


The number of sides promoted is a fairly arbitrary figure anyway. It used to be only two, not three. You could argue it should be four - the same number as promoted from division 4 to division 3. In bygone days there were two more sides in divisions 3 and 4 than in divisions 1 and 2, and I always thought the extra two promotion places from division 4 to 3 was because of this. However, now divisions 2, 3 and 4 all have 24 sides, so that reasoning doesn't apply any more.

All sides know the rules and accept them before starting the season. I don't think it's really on to complain of unfairness when/if you subsequently miss out. The league administrators could easily decide that only the side that finishes first goes up, and we'd be no better off.
 
It isn't a fair system at all. Us and the pigs will be duking it out full throttle right to the wire, whilst a team like Huddersfield can now afford to rest a couple of players, as they're pretty much guaranteed to be in the playoffs.


As scouse blade says there has to be some way of rewarding the teams that finish higher up. So how about so how about rewarding the higher placed team by giving them less games to play?

6th plays 5th, winners advance to play the 4th place team, the winners of that go into the final. 3rd place goes straight into the final. All games to played over one leg at a neutral venue equidistant between the two teams, bar the final which would be played at wembley
 
Or we could just let the higher placed side start the match a goal to the good!
 
A better option would be, as Highbury says, 3rd place team goes straight into the final. 6th plays 5th and the winner of that one then goes on to play 4th, where the winner of that goes into the final.
 
WhiteHawk said:
A better option would be, as Highbury says, 3rd place team goes straight into the final. 6th plays 5th and the winner of that one then goes on to play 4th, where the winner of that goes into the final.
Click to expand...


Would that be any 'fairer'? The third placed side would be without a game for some time, whereas the other side getting to thye final could have played (and won) two games and be on a bit of a roll.

I know they use that system in rugby to decide who wins the championship, but have no idea how often the side that finishes top actually ends up being champions. I can certainly think of one side (Gloucester) who finished top for the first time in their history, but were never crowned as champions, because they lost in the final under that system.

Perhaps we should just go back to two up and no play offs.
 
oldblade said:
Would that be any 'fairer'? The third placed side would be without a game for some time, whereas the other side getting to thye final could have played (and won) two games and be on a bit of a roll.

I know they use that system in rugby to decide who wins the championship, but have no idea how often the side that finishes top actually ends up being champions. I can certainly think of one side (Gloucester) who finished top for the first time in their history, but were never crowned as champions, because they lost in the final under that system.

Perhaps we should just go back to two up and no play offs.
Click to expand...

Not really, you could play all three games over the course of the week or 10 days. I do concede that this would cause logistical problems in terms arranging venues and selling tickets (though this could be managed by Ticketmaster or something).

Given the choice of playing three games in a week or one, i'm sure most managers would plump for the latter...
 



JohnDenver said:
Not for me. I hate the playoffs because I'm a Blade, but love them because I'm a football fan.

Schizoid....
Click to expand...


I view the play off place as a bonus. They might be a source of stress and anxiety, but I would rather have the possibility of promotion via the play offs (even though we have a diabolical record in them!) than have no possibilty at all.
 
Highbury_Blade said:
It isn't a fair system at all. Us and the pigs will be duking it out full throttle right to the wire, whilst a team like Huddersfield can now afford to rest a couple of players, as they're pretty much guaranteed to be in the playoffs.


As scouse blade says there has to be some way of rewarding the teams that finish higher up. So how about so how about rewarding the higher placed team by giving them less games to play?

6th plays 5th, winners advance to play the 4th place team, the winners of that go into the final. 3rd place goes straight into the final. All games to played over one leg at a neutral venue equidistant between the two teams, bar the final which would be played at wembley
Click to expand...
Or simply state that a team finishing in third at the end of the season 7points ahead of fouth is promoted automatically and the play offs for that division is cancelled.
That way the fourth placed team has to keep playing their best team in the interest of keeping within 7 points.
I chose seven points as 2 wins and a draw ahead.
 
bournemouth 2 huddersfield 0
our win on saturday looks even better now


if wednesday as I expect finish 3rd I think its a wonderful system

if we didnt have play offs wednesday wouldnt have 2 tough games against carlisle and brentford yet to play
no one expected anything other than an owls win today
likewise we should dispatch now bottom club rochdale
 
Blade58 said:
3rd place straight to Wembley. 4th, 5th and 6th play a round robin comp for the right to play at Wembley also
Click to expand...

I thought of that, but the team reaching the final would have had to have played 5 games in the space of a fortnight.
 
Yeah not sure what it is about play off finals but the ability to score seems to go out the window.

We must be cursed in play-off's.
 
I think any club that finishes 9 points 3 wins ahead of 4th should scrub the need for play offs, by right

but I do like the play offs even though its done us no favours , but to be fair weve always been in championship play offs against really good sides ,
this is div 1 , wednesday got out by beating brentford and hartlepool, perennial div 3 teams
weve lost to wolves burnley , who have both won the league in my lifetime and palace another side thats graced the top flight for years
who finishes 3rd could end up playing carlisle and mk dons , no one can tell me thats as testing
 
Highbury_Blade said:
I thought of that, but the team reaching the final would have had to have played 5 games in the space of a fortnight.
Click to expand...


That's the whole point of giving the team that finishes 3rd an advantage over the others.

You want to play less games than the others in a play off spot, then finish 3rd

Sat, Tues, Sat, Tues, Sat (final) Frequency happens all the time during a season
 
Highbury_Blade said:
I thought of that, but the team reaching the final would have had to have played 5 games in the space of a fortnight.
Click to expand...
Not if they were one off games.
I like this idea coupled with the 7 points and they are cancelled (never going to happen as it makes too much money)
 
The problem with round robin tournaments is that they can produce a situation where there is no clear victor, especially when the amount of games is so few. It's quite feasible that over the course of the 3 games that would decide a 3 team round robin tournament (Where the teams only played each other once) that 1st and 2nd place could end up being completely evenly matched. How would you separate them then? Do we really want a situation like what happened in England's group at the 1990 world cup where 2nd and 3rd place was decided by drawing the team name out of a hat?

A knockout format is best, but we want the odds to be stacked in favour of the team that finished higher up the table. I think also that any one team should have to play a maximum of 3 games.

I'll tweak my earlier suggestion as it gave no benefit to the team that finished 5th over the team that finished 6th.

So 6th place should play 5th place at 5th's home ground, the winner of that game should then play 4th at 4th's home ground, and the winners of that match play 3rd place at Wembley. Ideally the final would be played at the 3rd teams home ground, but the powers that be would never agree to that.

This gives every team an incentive to finish as high up the table as possible. By playing the games at one of the teams home ground it also solves some logistical issues as the tickets can go on sale earlier, as all the dates and locations are known.
 
Highbury_Blade said:
The problem with round robin tournaments is that they can produce a situation where there is no clear victor, especially when the amount of games is so few. It's quite feasible that over the course of the 3 games that would decide a 3 team round robin tournament (Where the teams only played each other once) that 1st and 2nd place could end up being completely evenly matched. How would you separate them then? Do we really want a situation like what happened in England's group at the 1990 world cup where 2nd and 3rd place was decided by drawing the team name out of a hat?

A knockout format is best, but we want the odds to be stacked in favour of the team that finished higher up the table. I think also that any one team should have to play a maximum of 3 games.

I'll tweak my earlier suggestion as it gave no benefit to the team that finished 5th over the team that finished 6th.

So 6th place should play 5th place at 5th's home ground, the winner of that game should then play 4th at 4th's home ground, and the winners of that match play 3rd place at Wembley. Ideally the final would be played at the 3rd teams home ground, but the powers that be would never agree to that.

This gives every team an incentive to finish as high up the table as possible. By playing the games at one of the teams home ground it also solves some logistical issues as the tickets can go on sale earlier, as all the dates and locations are known.
Click to expand...
Isn't that what you originally said anyway?

That's certainly the format that I thought you meant and so agreed with!
 



Not that i'm advocating using the AFL playoffs as an example (I don't really like AFL), however, the entire top 8 teams all enter the playoff phase. So yes, the team finishing top doesn't even win the league automatically!

The play offs are weighted in favour of those teams finishing higher, by giving them a second/third chance and home advantage in the play off games. It's quite complicated and I can't replicate all the rules, however, if you finish top or 2nd, you've got a way higher chance of getting to the final than the team finishing 8th.

Fairer.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

loyalblade95
Top 4
2 3 4
Replies
114
Views
5K
Flatulent_Bob
Flatulent_Bob
BalticBlade
The myth of our Play Off 'curse'
2 3 4
Replies
117
Views
9K
PeterNdlovu081
PeterNdlovu081
ucandomagic
Matchday 22 – Bluenoses Bloodied – Graphs, Charts and Chat
Replies
2
Views
467
unitedbhoy
unitedbhoy
ucandomagic
Matchday 24 – Stoked up for the New Year, and some Playoff Facts (rather than Emotions).
Replies
22
Views
1K
ThirdGenBlade
T
Super_Dazzler
We’re not making the Play Offs…..simple maths
4 5 6
Replies
158
Views
10K
Nedski
Nedski

All advertisments are hidden for logged in members, why not log in/register?

All advertisments are hidden for logged in members, why not log in/register?

Back
Top Bottom