Peterborough vs Bolton

[DiggerB]

deleted

Edited April 25 by DiggerB

[Charliegeorge1962]

To make the playoffs more justifiable they should be done something like this.

Top two automatic promotion

Whoever finishes 3rd has to play the team 3rd bottom from the league above. This then proves whether they are capable of playing in that league above.

I hate to think a team finishes 3rd is beaten in the playoff final by the 6th place side just because they had an off day or too many injuries.

Premier league and championship would be a straight swap. Bottom. 3 for the top 3.

It's not about fairness it's about the football league's grubby little fingers making money.

Edited April 25 by Charliegeorge1962

[Archied]

9 minutes ago, Charliegeorge1962 said:

To make the playoffs more justifiable they should be done something like this.

Top two automatic promotion

Whoever finishes 3rd has to play the team 3rd bottom from the league above. This then proves whether they are capable of playing in that league above.

I hate to think a team finishes 3rd is beaten in the playoff final by the 6th place side just because they had an off day or too many injuries.

Premier league and championship would be a straight swap. Bottom. 3 for the top 3.

Not for me ,,, simple fact is very few clubs are in a position player and wages wise to compete with the teams coming down ,,, we all know derby need to rebuild , you may have a point if all clubs are the best and worse they will ever be but that’s not the case , the relegated clubs are relegated and that gives the sides coming up a chance to see if they can build a side to compete in the division above , we think parachute payments unfair as it is🤷🏻‍♂️

Edited April 25 by Archied

[Ambitious]

10 minutes ago, Charliegeorge1962 said:

To make the playoffs more justifiable they should be done something like this.

Top two automatic promotion

Whoever finishes 3rd has to play the team 3rd bottom from the league above. This then proves whether they are capable of playing in that league above.

I hate to think a team finishes 3rd is beaten in the playoff final by the 6th place side just because they had an off day or too many injuries.

Premier league and championship would be a straight swap. Bottom. 3 for the top 3.

It's not about fairness it's about the football league's grubby little fingers making money.

Hate this idea, it gives a team in the Premier League who has been able to enjoy the fruits of £150m plus revenues to snatch the same chance away from a championship club who are probably turning over £20-25m (if not already subsidised by parachute payments).

Last season it would’ve matched Luton with their £18m turnover and £24m wage bill (a lot of which would’ve been promotion bonus payouts) against Leicester with their £177m turnover and their £171m wage bill. 

It’s bad enough with 5 parachute payment clubs in the top 6 this season. It’s already becoming an ever-increasingly difficult proposition for non-parachute payment clubs to compete - this makes it much more difficult. 

[Tamworthram]

20 minutes ago, Charliegeorge1962 said:

To make the playoffs more justifiable they should be done something like this.

Top two automatic promotion

Whoever finishes 3rd has to play the team 3rd bottom from the league above. This then proves whether they are capable of playing in that league above.

I hate to think a team finishes 3rd is beaten in the playoff final by the 6th place side just because they had an off day or too many injuries.

Premier league and championship would be a straight swap. Bottom. 3 for the top 3.

It's not about fairness it's about the football league's grubby little fingers making money.

Playing the team that finished third bottom in the league above wouldn’t prove you are capable of playing in the league above. It would just prove that in a one off match (or two if over two legs) you might be able to complete with the players you currently have (that might well change if you’re promoted) against a team that weren’t necessarily good enough themselves.

I know the current system can be harsh on the team finishing third but I think it’s OK. It’s also not just about the football league making more money. Don’t the clubs involved make something out of it as well? but, more importantly, it keeps the season alive longer for the fans of more clubs.

As other have suggested, the only thing I’d consider changing is to give the higher finishing teams more of an advantage. Maybe the semi’s only played over one leg (at the venue of the team finishing highest). Or:

3rd place go straight through to the final.

QF: 4th v 7th (one off game at 4th placed ground)

QF: 5th v 6th (one off game at 5th placed ground)

SF: Winners of the above play each other also in a one off game at the venue of the team that finished highest to earn a place in the final.

Final at Wembley. I know the team finishing third wouldn’t have home advantage but I think playing it at Wembley is important in order to make it a special occasion (or horrible day out if you lose 😀).

[Charliegeorge1962]

40 minutes ago, Ambitious said:

Hate this idea, it gives a team in the Premier League who has been able to enjoy the fruits of £150m plus revenues to snatch the same chance away from a championship club who are probably turning over £20-25m (if not already subsidised by parachute payments).

Last season it would’ve matched Luton with their £18m turnover and £24m wage bill (a lot of which would’ve been promotion bonus payouts) against Leicester with their £177m turnover and their £171m wage bill. 

It’s bad enough with 5 parachute payment clubs in the top 6 this season. It’s already becoming an ever-increasingly difficult proposition for non-parachute payment clubs to compete - this makes it much more difficult. 

I said .."Premier league and championship would be a straight swap. Bottom. 3 for the top 3."

[Ambitious]

11 minutes ago, Charliegeorge1962 said:

I said .."Premier league and championship would be a straight swap. Bottom. 3 for the top 3."

Missed that bit, but equally the gap between League One and the Championship is ever-growing and more significant year on year so wouldn’t be ideal either.

The playoffs typically keep the season alive too, it’s actually a very good system albeit can leave the team finishing third feeling robbed. 

[Tamworthram]

11 minutes ago, Charliegeorge1962 said:

I said .."Premier league and championship would be a straight swap. Bottom. 3 for the top 3."

Why would you want to give the team finishing 3rd from bottom in the Championship or below another chance to avoid relegation simply because the team finishing third in the league below were not good enough on the day to beat them in a one off game (or two games if played over two legs)? The fact that the team finishing third MIGHT not be good enough to play in the division above isn’t sufficient justification for another team to avoid relegation.

If you hate the idea of the team finishing third missing out against the team finishing 6th possibly due to injuries or because they had an off day, wouldn’t you hate the idea of the team finishing third losing out to the team finishing 3rd from bottom potentially for the same reasons?

[RadioactiveWaste]

Why should a team that's spent the whole season proving they're not up to playing in the division above get a chance for a reprieve in a one off match? It's also just got the absolute worst vibes for hope, ambition, joy. Just hate the idea. So PL will probably implement it.

My preference would be:

3rd play 4th at home - winner is finalist. Loser plays winner of 5/6 at home.

5th play 6th at home - winner plays loser of 3v4 away.

Winner of that match goes to the final.

I like it because each place up you finish gives an advantage.

3rd has 2 shots at making the final, both at home.

4th has 2 shots at it, second of those at home.

5th has to win 2 games to get to the final, but the first is at home.

6th has to win 2 away games to make the final.

Final because it's a good money spinner. The games to get there are not two legs.

It's still balls because we all know top 3 should go up by right, but the entertainment value of the play offs is a good thing overall.

 

[Animal is a Ram]

3 minutes ago, RadioactiveWaste said:

Why should a team that's spent the whole season proving they're not up to playing in the division above get a chance for a reprieve in a one off match? It's also just got the absolute worst vibes for hope, ambition, joy. Just hate the idea. So PL will probably implement it.

My preference would be:

3rd play 4th at home - winner is finalist. Loser plays winner of 5/6 at home.

5th play 6th at home - winner plays loser of 3v4 away.

Winner of that match goes to the final.

I like it because each place up you finish gives an advantage.

3rd has 2 shots at making the final, both at home.

4th has 2 shots at it, second of those at home.

5th has to win 2 games to get to the final, but the first is at home.

6th has to win 2 away games to make the final.

Final because it's a good money spinner. The games to get there are not two legs.

It's still balls because we all know top 3 should go up by right, but the entertainment value of the play offs is a good thing overall.

 

Also known as, the double elimination bracket. See it tons in esports. 

Yes, I know, I'm a nerd.

[Grumpy Git]

Surely the fairest way would be (appologies if it's already been proposed):

3rd Pos'n - Straight to PO final v winner of semi-final

4th Pos'n - single home Semi-final v winner of 5th v 6th

5th Pos'n - single home game v 6th Pos'n

Edited April 25 by Grumpy Git

[Patrick Rams]

1 hour ago, Tamworthram said:

Playing the team that finished third bottom in the league above wouldn’t prove you are capable of playing in the league above. It would just prove that in a one off match (or two if over two legs) you might be able to complete with the players you currently have (that might well change if you’re promoted) against a team that weren’t necessarily good enough themselves.

I know the current system can be harsh on the team finishing third but I think it’s OK. It’s also not just about the football league making more money. Don’t the clubs involved make something out of it as well? but, more importantly, it keeps the season alive longer for the fans of more clubs.

As other have suggested, the only thing I’d consider changing is to give the higher finishing teams more of an advantage. Maybe the semi’s only played over one leg (at the venue of the team finishing highest). Or:

3rd place go straight through to the final.

QF: 4th v 7th (one off game at 4th placed ground)

QF: 5th v 6th (one off game at 5th placed ground)

SF: Winners of the above play each other also in a one off game at the venue of the team that finished highest to earn a place in the final.

Final at Wembley. I know the team finishing third wouldn’t have home advantage but I think playing it at Wembley is important in order to make it a special occasion (or horrible day out if you lose 😀).

What you've put forward as an idea to make playoffs fairer is already the case in the National league and leagues below.Virtually to the letter. Apart from only the team finishing top gets automatically promoted.

[Patrick Rams]

34 minutes ago, RadioactiveWaste said:

Why should a team that's spent the whole season proving they're not up to playing in the division above get a chance for a reprieve in a one off match? It's also just got the absolute worst vibes for hope, ambition, joy. Just hate the idea. So PL will probably implement it.

My preference would be:

3rd play 4th at home - winner is finalist. Loser plays winner of 5/6 at home.

5th play 6th at home - winner plays loser of 3v4 away.

Winner of that match goes to the final.

I like it because each place up you finish gives an advantage.

3rd has 2 shots at making the final, both at home.

4th has 2 shots at it, second of those at home.

5th has to win 2 games to get to the final, but the first is at home.

6th has to win 2 away games to make the final.

Final because it's a good money spinner. The games to get there are not two legs.

It's still balls because we all know top 3 should go up by right, but the entertainment value of the play offs is a good thing overall.

 

As already mentioned your proposal is virtually copied and pasted from the National League rule book.Only two divisions below Derby County.

[Animal is a Ram]

1 minute ago, Patrick Rams said:

As already mentioned your proposal is virtually copied and pasted from the National League rule book.Only two divisions below Derby County.

Not quite - this one is double elimination. Barnet would get two bites at it with the one @RadioactiveWaste proposed.

[Patrick Rams]

14 minutes ago, Grumpy Git said:

Surely the fairest way would be (appologies if it's already been proposed):

3rd Pos'n - Straight to PO final v winner of semi-final

4th Pos'n - single home Semi-final v winner of 5th v 6th

5th Pos'n - single home game v 6th Pos'n

Haven't you ever noticed how it's done in the National League?

[RadioactiveWaste]

46 minutes ago, Patrick Rams said:

As already mentioned your proposal is virtually copied and pasted from the National League rule book.Only two divisions below Derby County.

Serves me right for skimming the thread and not reading it properly.

[Charliegeorge1962]

2 hours ago, Tamworthram said:

Why would you want to give the team finishing 3rd from bottom in the Championship or below another chance to avoid relegation simply because the team finishing third in the league below were not good enough on the day to beat them in a one off game (or two games if played over two legs)? The fact that the team finishing third MIGHT not be good enough to play in the division above isn’t sufficient justification for another team to avoid relegation.

If you hate the idea of the team finishing third missing out against the team finishing 6th possibly due to injuries or because they had an off day, wouldn’t you hate the idea of the team finishing third losing out to the team finishing 3rd from bottom potentially for the same reasons?

If we must have playoffs-

Top 2 and bottom 2 swap over- like the olden days.

Team finishing 3rd has to prove that can compete with the team who finished 3rd bottom.

Bearing in mind they would have two weeks at the end of the season to prepare for a one off Wembly game.

Or do away with the playoffs altogether and go 3 up 3 down.

After all its about how you do over a season rather than either 1 or 3 games.

Edited April 25 by Charliegeorge1962

[Tamworthram]

44 minutes ago, Charliegeorge1962 said:

If we must have playoffs-

Top 2 and bottom 2 swap over- like the olden days.

Team finishing 3rd has to prove that can compete with the team who finished 3rd bottom.

Bearing in mind they would have two weeks at the end of the season to prepare for a one off Wembly game.

Or do away with the playoffs altogether and go 3 up 3 down.

After all its about how you do over a season rather than either 1 or 3 games.

Yes but as I said, how would a one off game prove they can compete? We all know a one off game isn’t necessarily proof of anything. Your suggestion is that they can compete against the team finishing third. Well so what? Why should they have to “prove” they can compete against a single team in the league above?  And, as I said, the team claiming the third promotion spot might well strengthen their squad anyway so this one off game definitely wouldn’t prove anything.

I like the play offs system (although I do understand the point regarding the team finishing third potentially feeling hard done by if they don’t make it) but I certainly wouldn’t be giving the team finishing third from bottom another chance to avoid the drop.

[Charliegeorge1962]

1 hour ago, Tamworthram said:

Yes but as I said, how would a one off game prove they can compete? We all know a one off game isn’t necessarily proof of anything. Your suggestion is that they can compete against the team finishing third. Well so what? Why should they have to “prove” they can compete against a single team in the league above?  And, as I said, the team claiming the third promotion spot might well strengthen their squad anyway so this one off game definitely wouldn’t prove anything.

I like the play offs system (although I do understand the point regarding the team finishing third potentially feeling hard done by if they don’t make it) but I certainly wouldn’t be giving the team finishing third from bottom another chance to avoid the drop.

Why not?

The team finishing 3rd is certainly not good enough for promotion in that particular division. Hence why it always worked fairly before the football league grubby little fingers got involved to make more money. 2 up 2 down or 3 up 3 down, promotion and relegation is based over season not on whether you can finish 6th and get promotion.

 

[Tamworthram]

1 hour ago, Charliegeorge1962 said:

Why not?

The team finishing 3rd is certainly not good enough for promotion in that particular division. Hence why it always worked fairly before the football league grubby little fingers got involved to make more money. 2 up 2 down or 3 up 3 down, promotion and relegation is based over season not on whether you can finish 6th and get promotion.

 

Edited April 25 by Tamworthram