Are the playoffs fair.

[Sm1ffj]

Just thoughts.

Is the playoffs fair or should the top 3 be promoted anyway, not the top 2 and the third as a result of playoffs as it is now.

[Razzle Dazzle]

Having watched the refereeing standards this season if your lucky you could get 20 points more than you deserve from incorrect decisions or you could be unlucky and lose 20 points which impacts promotion massively

I think it's fair simply because the best team from 3rd to 6th will go up in the end. We see so much money in the game now it's no longer about honour and pride it's about 100m quid

[Panda]

I think there should be more of an advantage for finishing higher in the league. Make the games one leg, with the team that finishes higher playing at home. Make it the same for the finals - never been a fan of the playoffs being at Wembley.

[rubcale]

It's a money making exercise and it certainly is exciting.

I don't like it though - I think the team that finishes highest should automatically go up. They've earned it.

Yes, many points are won and lost through bad refereeing decisions but I tend to think these even out over the Season.

[frag]

May 8, 2016 11:55:51 GMT 1 Panda said:

I think there should be more of an advantage for finishing higher in the league. Make the games one leg, with the team that finishes higher playing at home. Make it the same for the finals - never been a fan of the playoffs being at Wembley.

I always thought the fans of football league sides enjoyed going to Wembley. It tends to get filled for the Championship play-off final, too, and around half full for most of the League 1/2 finals in the past few years. Even for the JP Trophy, over 59,000 showed up last month to see Barnsley (average attendance 9499) beat Oxford (average attendance 7211).

[frag]

As for giving an advantage for finishing higher in the league, I like Panda's idea of one-legged matches.

In Scotland, they give the highest ranked team (actually the 2nd-bottom team in the league above) a bye all the way to the final, although they have two-legged matches all the way, so the 4th placed team has to play six post-season games to be promoted.

[rewardman]

I never liked the concept of play offs. It should be based on league position.

[raliverpool]

May 8, 2016 12:01:27 GMT 1 rubcale said:

It's a money making exercise and it certainly is exciting.

I don't like it though - I think the team that finishes highest should automatically go up. They've earned it.

Yes, many points are won and lost through bad refereeing decisions but I tend to think these even out over the Season.

Except for the fact Opta Stats have calculated with two games to go Manchester United are set to be the biggest net beneficiary of bad referring decisions for the 14th occasion since the Premiership started.... For example they think if officials had the aid of technology freely available and used in such backward antiquated sports such as Cricket, Tennis, Rugby Union ... and even Snooker then Marouane Fellaini would have seen red in 7 PL games this season alone....

Incidentally the rest of the top 6 net beneficiaries consisted of Man City; Leicester City; Arsenal; Tottenham Hotspur; & West Ham .... whilst the 3 biggest net losers were from bottom upwards .... Aston Villa; Newcastle; and Norwich! with Sunderland in 9th spot.

Still as we know football is not in anyway whatsoever corrupt.

Re: The play off question, the only thing I would change would be the side finishing higher in the League wins in event of a tie after 2 Legs or the Final.

[Razzle Dazzle]

depends who comes up with the stats because west ham were bottom on the one I looked (which was a 3 man panel going over every big decision), they lost 10 points in 5 games very recently all refereeing howlers.

things definetly do not even up over a season, I support west ham so I know their stats better than others, Leicester have had 13 penalties this season, west ham got their first in 5 and a half year away from home last week


Team For Against Total For/Against

1. Man Utd Thirteen Four +9

2. Liverpool Fifteen Seven +8

3. Man City Thirteen Six +7

= Tottenham Twelve Five +7

5. Leicester Nineteen Thirteen +6

6. Aston Villa Seven Two +5

7. Crystal Palace Seven Five +2

= Sunderland Nine Seven +2

= Stoke Nine Seven +2

10. Everton Four Five -1

= Watford Six Seven -1

12. Norwich Four Seven -3

= West Brom Seven Ten -3

14. Arsenal Ten Fourteen -4

= Southampton Seven Eleven -4

= Newcastle Six Ten -4

17. Chelsea Nine Fifteen -6

= Bournemouth Six Twelve -6

19. Swansea Five Twelve -7
20. West Ham Seven Eighteen -11

[suedehead]

As a fan of a team that finished third this season, six points ahead of fourth place, I might be expected to sound off against the play-offs. However, I've generally supported them in the past so, in the interests of consistency, I can't really change my mind now.

That said, there are changes I would want to make although there is no chance of it happening. Whatever the original thinking behind the play-offs (officially to increase the number of teams with something to play for at the end of the season), they now generate too much money for the format to be changed.

First, I would say that the play-offs should be scrapped altogether if the highest-placed team is at least, say, ten points ahead of the team immediately below them. I think this was the case in Italy at some point.

The format I have been advocating for many years is similar to that proposed by Panda. I would have a four team league with the teams playing each other once. The higher placed team would always be at home. Therefore, the highest placed team would play all their matches at home and the lowest placed team would play all three matches away from home. If teams finish level, then there are a number of ways of separating them after goal difference and goals scored. They can use (in a order to be determined) head-to-head in the play-offs, head-to-head in the league and final league position.

One of the biggest problems with the current format (particularly with the play-offs for a place in the Premier League) is the timing. The long gap between the semis and the final means that the winners are at least three weeks behind the teams who gain automatic promotion. That can mean that some potential transfer targets have already been snapped up by other clubs by the time the play-off winners enter the market.

[Tom]

May 8, 2016 11:55:51 GMT 1 Panda said:

I think there should be more of an advantage for finishing higher in the league. Make the games one leg, with the team that finishes higher playing at home. Make it the same for the finals - never been a fan of the playoffs being at Wembley.

Couldn't really disagree more i'm afraid, personally prefer the two-legged ties (though it made Maidenhead's promotion more satisfying having to win two away ties in 2007), and it lessons the possibility of a team making the final through 1 lucky game if that makes sense. I'm thankful the playoff finals are at Wembley from a Reading perspective (even though the FA Cup semi last year was probably better) for a reason that i'll keep to myself but one or two on here may be able to guess. I'll admit they don't help northern fans though, maybe they could have them at a neutral ground somewhere in the middle?  

Despite my team's sh*t record in the playoffs, and what happened in 1995, i'm glad they exist, creates more interest at the end of the season. Also gives me a chance to watch games for other sides I look out for (like Accrington for a Reading player, Plymouth for a Reading player, Gillingham if they'd made it etc etc).

[Deleted]

I would only have a play off if the three teams below third were very close points wise to the 3rd finishing team

So this season I would have had just Brighton v Hull in a play off for Championship, league one I would have had 3rd, 4th and 5th play each other.

A system could be set up to say anyone who finishes within 5 points behind highest team gets to have a play off or you could say as Brighton were level with Middlesbrough Brighton automatically go up.

The current system is too random a team in 6th could be 20 points behind 3rd for example.

[Razzle Dazzle]

And If the team that's 3rd can't beat the team that's 6th over two legs they are not good enough to go up. I would also advocate 1 leg semi finals played at the teams that finishes 3rd and 4th and then the final at Wembley

[Deleted]

May 8, 2016 19:56:38 GMT 1 Razzle Dazzle said:

And If the team that's 3rd can't beat the team that's 6th over two legs they are not good enough to go up. I would also advocate 1 leg semi finals played at the teams that finishes 3rd and 4th and then the final at Wembley

Under that theory then Burton shouldn't go up and Doncaster shouldn't go down as neither could win today so surely Burton are not good enough?

If a team over 8 months is higher than another surely they have proved they are good enough.

[Razzle Dazzle]

It's just my opinion. 3rd place gets the advantage of playing the worst team, the 6th place team that "don't deserve to go up" I think they even make sure 3rd place have the 2nd leg advantage so they play away first and they don't have away goals. It's stacked in 3rd place favour

[o]

Thing is at the start of the season you know what the situation is, finish Top 1, 2 or 3 and go up automatically, finish in the lower positions, make the play offs. It might not look fair that the team in 3rd has 20 points more than the team in 6th, and maybe even beat them twice in the season, it comes down to those two games. We lost most recently in them to cheating York back when we were in the Conference, we solved it the following year, by winning the league automatically.
But now when the playoff game in the Championship has so much at stake (financially), it's just wrong, then again, there's far too much money sloshing around at the top of the game. When a team can spend 80 MILLION, and everyone says it's a miracle they won the Prem title, then you know something isn't right with the game.

[Earl Purple]

I would keep it as it is but in the semi-finals there would not be penalties. If the scores are equal after extra time, the team that finished higher in the league should go through.

Not so sure about the final (but then I'm probably biased because of 1998, and we were only 1 point behind Sunderland anyway).

The main advantage of having the play-offs at all as it that it gives team towards the middle of the table something to still play for until the last couple of games. We were nowhere in 2013 then finished only 3 points short of them. The same season, Bradford City went on a run from mid-table at the point of the league cup final to scrape into them and win them in League Two.

[Razzle Dazzle]

It's better than the Dutch playoff system. 1st goes up and bottom goes down, simple enough so far

But then 6th to 9th in the lower league enter a two leg playoff (unless ajax dejong who can't be promoted finish in the top 9 then 10th qualify for the playoff instead)

Anyway once 6th to 9th finish their play off they join a 2nd round of playoffs with 2nd-5th and 2nd/3rd bottom from the top league and all 8 remaiming teams enter playoffs. All in all they play 6 games

Until 2015 if it was a tie over 2 legs you went into a 3rd deciding game instead of a penalty shoot out but they did away with that as teams could be playing 9 games in their playoff system.

What for me is the most shocking is if you finish 2nd you have to play 4 games in the playoff including a game against a top division team

[suedehead]

There was a time when almost every team in the Eredivisie (the Dutch top division) was involved in a play-off for something!

[suedehead]

For people who don't like the play-offs, last night provided them with plenty of ammunition.

For starters, Sheffield Wednesday's players looked a lot fresher than Brighton's. That's because they were. Wednesday went into their last league match knowing that they would finish sixth regardless of the result. That meant they could rest players and that last night's starting line-up contained just one player who started that last league game. Brighton, OTOH, had something to play for, so put out the best side they could.

Things got worse once the match started. Shortly before half-time, Brighton had to make a double substitution due to two injuries. Until that point the two sides had been reasonably well-matched, but the loss of two players changed that. Within five minutes of the second half starting, Brighton had to make a third substitution, and just a few minutes after that they were down to ten men because of a fourth injury. Thankfully, they somehow managed to limit Wednesday to just one more goal to end up with a two goal deficit. Now they just have to hope they've got enough fit players for Monday.

All of the above would be frustrating but "just one of those things" in one league match out of 46. In a two-leg play-off, they were more than just frustrating, particularly against a team that finished 15 points behind Brighton. That makes me feel that my preferred format should be tweaked to favour the highest-placed side more, particularly when the gaps were so high.

Maybe the fourth team should start the mini league with zero points while the others get, say, 0.25 points for each point they are ahead of that team. This year, that would give Derby 1 point, Hull 2.25 and Brighton 3.75. If the gap was so large that the fourth team had no chance of wining the group, they would be eliminated and it would just be a three team league. Of course, another advantage would be that it would reduce the chances of teams finishing level on points.