Attention: Please take a moment to consider our terms and conditions before posting.

Scrap the playoffs.

They are an outdated concept.
It would be better to promote the winner and runner up.
The third place should go to the team that will benefit the league above the most from position 3 -6.

Shrewsbury are a backwater Shropshire town that barely contribute to league one and will only degrade the championship.

There are already two underachieving Sheffield teams in the championship. It doesn't need Rotherham.

I don't even know where Scunthorpe is.

Charlton are the pride of south London. With facilities and fans that would grace and league in the world.

It's a shame the championship isn't more selective in its membership.

Comments

  • Yeah. We need Henry Norris to see this idea through for us.
  • They are an outdated concept.
    It would be better to promote the winner and runner up.
    The third place should go to the team that will benefit the league above the most from position 3 -6.

    Shrewsbury are a backwater Shropshire town that barely contribute to league one and will only degrade the championship.

    There are already two underachieving Sheffield teams in the championship. It doesn't need Rotherham.

    I don't even know where Scunthorpe is.

    Charlton are the pride of south London. With facilities and fans that would grace and league in the world.

    It's a shame the championship isn't more selective in its membership.

    Basically mate, you're either here for a wind up or talking bollocks - but then you are entitled to your opinion. If it wasn't for the play-offs our (and many other teams) season would have ended weeks ago.
  • They are an outdated concept.
    It would be better to promote the winner and runner up.
    The third place should go to the team that will benefit the league above the most from position 3 -6.

    Shrewsbury are a backwater Shropshire town that barely contribute to league one and will only degrade the championship.

    There are already two underachieving Sheffield teams in the championship. It doesn't need Rotherham.

    I don't even know where Scunthorpe is.

    Charlton are the pride of south London. With facilities and fans that would grace and league in the world.

    It's a shame the championship isn't more selective in its membership.

    We don't deserve to be there, end of!
  • Oh come on! He's just having a laugh.

    Besides, what he suggests did actually happen in 1915. His argument seems no more illogical to me than Henry Norris's one.
  • The play-offs do two very important things for football, they keep the league interesting for a lot longer that it would otherwise be and the give an opportunity for some cup-style football at the end. For these reasons, I think they should be kept. I'd like to see two changes made though:
    1. Seed the teams and organise the competition as follows so that higher placed teams get an advantage: 5th and 6th placed teams play each other in a single match (5th place team at home). The winner of this game get to play the 4th placed team in a single match (4th placed team at home). The winner of this match gets to play the 3rd placed team in a Wembley final.
    2. Introduce relegation play-offs along the following lines: 19th and 20th placed teams play each other in a single match (19th place team at home). The winner of this game stays up, the loser has to play the 22nd placed team in a single match (highest placed team at home). The winner of this match stays up, the loser has play the 23rd placed team in a relegation decider (highest placed team plays at home).
  • Stig said:

    The play-offs do two very important things for football, they keep the league interesting for a lot longer that it would otherwise be and the give an opportunity for some cup-style football at the end. For these reasons, I think they should be kept. I'd like to see two changes made though:
    1. Seed the teams and organise the competition as follows so that higher placed teams get an advantage: 5th and 6th placed teams play each other in a single match (5th place team at home). The winner of this game get to play the 4th placed team in a single match (4th placed team at home). The winner of this match gets to play the 3rd placed team in a Wembley final.
    2. Introduce relegation play-offs along the following lines: 19th and 20th placed teams play each other in a single match (19th place team at home). The winner of this game stays up, the loser has to play the 22nd placed team in a single match (highest placed team at home). The winner of this match stays up, the loser has play the 23rd placed team in a relegation decider (highest placed team plays at home).

    Those are actually pretty good proposals, Stig
  • How about making the playoffs down to 8 instead of 6

    3rd and 4th get a bye through to the Semi Final
    5th home to 8th & 6th home to 7th, just 1 leg.

    Winners away to 3rd and 4th, again over 1 leg.

    Same number of matches before Wembley but 2 extra teams involved.
  • Am I right in believing that the reason the playoffs were first brought in was to reduce the top division down to 20 teams (for England international reasons). They were designed to last two seasons and then promotion- relegation would revert back to normal but the idea kept going with just promotion?

    I hope I am right because I have told many, many people this.
  • 25May98 said:

    Am I right in believing that the reason the playoffs were first brought in was to reduce the top division down to 20 teams (for England international reasons). They were designed to last two seasons and then promotion- relegation would revert back to normal but the idea kept going with just promotion?

    I hope I am right because I have told many, many people this.

    95% sure you are wrong. Sorry.
  • Sponsored links:


  • How about making the playoffs down to 8 instead of 6

    3rd and 4th get a bye through to the Semi Final
    5th home to 8th & 6th home to 7th, just 1 leg.

    Winners away to 3rd and 4th, again over 1 leg.

    Same number of matches before Wembley but 2 extra teams involved.

    So copy the model thats been used in the National League this season?

    To an extent its not a bad one... teams that finish 5th to 8th will play the same amount of games that you do now to win the Play-Offs, teams in 3rd or 4th will only have to play two games as the two legged ties will be chucked
  • 25May98 said:

    Am I right in believing that the reason the playoffs were first brought in was to reduce the top division down to 20 teams (for England international reasons). They were designed to last two seasons and then promotion- relegation would revert back to normal but the idea kept going with just promotion?

    I hope I am right because I have told many, many people this.

    The original aim of the playoffs was certainly to reduce the size of the top division to 20 teams over two seasons. I suppose it was felt that four-down-three-up was too unfair on the First Division clubs and three-down-two-up was too harsh on the Second Division and so the relegation/promotion-style playoffs was a compromise: it allowed either possibility to eventuate without prematurely curtailing the season of many Division Two clubs.

    I've no idea whether the playoffs were supposed to be a two-season wonder and then disappear but their existence certainly keeps more clubs' seasons alive longer than a standard three-up-three-down system would have done.

    Personally, I don't think that the playoffs should be two legs, the higher-ranked team should have home advantage. The format used in the National League this season was better but I also like the systems used in Australia whereby teams qualifying in the top places get a second chance i.e. if they lost their opening playoff match they get another life as a reward for finishing higher.
  • How about making the playoffs down to 8 instead of 6

    3rd and 4th get a bye through to the Semi Final
    5th home to 8th & 6th home to 7th, just 1 leg.

    Winners away to 3rd and 4th, again over 1 leg.

    Same number of matches before Wembley but 2 extra teams involved.

    So copy the model thats been used in the National League this season?

    To an extent its not a bad one... teams that finish 5th to 8th will play the same amount of games that you do now to win the Play-Offs, teams in 3rd or 4th will only have to play two games as the two legged ties will be chucked
    I have a confession. Whilst most of you lot were getting depressed in deepest darkest Shropshire yesterday evening, I was at Hampton & Richmond, celebrating my local non-league team (Braintree Town) winning promotion back to the National League through exactly this format.

    So, from the perspective of a 'winning' fan, I would say it's a fantastic format and they should extend it to all leagues. The advantages are that it keeps more teams in the play-off fight for more of the season, and I also think the single leg play-off matches were much more exciting that the two-leg affairs we're all used to.

    Putting on a neutral hat, however, I do have to admit it's pretty ridiculous that we've been promoted from 7th place in the League when there are another 5 teams who finished above us who haven't.

    Personally I think the best approach would be to stick to four teams, but perhaps reduce the semi-finals to one leg, to be played at the ground of the club that finishes highest. I think that would open the games up considerably as you wouldn't get the 'stronger' team in the first leg being cagey and playing for the draw so they can win at home. It would also provide more of an advantage to finishing higher in the league which I think is only fair.

    It would never happen though - can't see the Leagues going for anything which is going to reduce the number of matches and therefore their revenue!
  • Jodaius said:

    How about making the playoffs down to 8 instead of 6

    3rd and 4th get a bye through to the Semi Final
    5th home to 8th & 6th home to 7th, just 1 leg.

    Winners away to 3rd and 4th, again over 1 leg.

    Same number of matches before Wembley but 2 extra teams involved.

    So copy the model thats been used in the National League this season?

    To an extent its not a bad one... teams that finish 5th to 8th will play the same amount of games that you do now to win the Play-Offs, teams in 3rd or 4th will only have to play two games as the two legged ties will be chucked
    I have a confession. Whilst most of you lot were getting depressed in deepest darkest Shropshire yesterday evening, I was at Hampton & Richmond, celebrating my local non-league team (Braintree Town) winning promotion back to the National League through exactly this format.

    So, from the perspective of a 'winning' fan, I would say it's a fantastic format and they should extend it to all leagues. The advantages are that it keeps more teams in the play-off fight for more of the season, and I also think the single leg play-off matches were much more exciting that the two-leg affairs we're all used to.

    Putting on a neutral hat, however, I do have to admit it's pretty ridiculous that we've been promoted from 7th place in the League when there are another 5 teams who finished above us who haven't.

    Personally I think the best approach would be to stick to four teams, but perhaps reduce the semi-finals to one leg, to be played at the ground of the club that finishes highest. I think that would open the games up considerably as you wouldn't get the 'stronger' team in the first leg being cagey and playing for the draw so they can win at home. It would also provide more of an advantage to finishing higher in the league which I think is only fair.

    It would never happen though - can't see the Leagues going for anything which is going to reduce the number of matches and therefore their revenue!
    With regards to that argument I always believe that teams know exactly where they stand before the season starts so Braintree's win (Congratulations) in the Play-Offs is as deserved as any side in previous years.

    After all its not like the League makes the decision halfway through the season.

    There is only one team that truly deserves promotion at the end of the day... the team that finishes 1st
  • edited May 14
    Jodaius said:

    How about making the playoffs down to 8 instead of 6

    3rd and 4th get a bye through to the Semi Final
    5th home to 8th & 6th home to 7th, just 1 leg.

    Winners away to 3rd and 4th, again over 1 leg.

    Same number of matches before Wembley but 2 extra teams involved.

    So copy the model thats been used in the National League this season?

    To an extent its not a bad one... teams that finish 5th to 8th will play the same amount of games that you do now to win the Play-Offs, teams in 3rd or 4th will only have to play two games as the two legged ties will be chucked
    I have a confession. Whilst most of you lot were getting depressed in deepest darkest Shropshire yesterday evening, I was at Hampton & Richmond, celebrating my local non-league team (Braintree Town) winning promotion back to the National League through exactly this format.

    So, from the perspective of a 'winning' fan, I would say it's a fantastic format and they should extend it to all leagues. The advantages are that it keeps more teams in the play-off fight for more of the season, and I also think the single leg play-off matches were much more exciting that the two-leg affairs we're all used to.

    Putting on a neutral hat, however, I do have to admit it's pretty ridiculous that we've been promoted from 7th place in the League when there are another 5 teams who finished above us who haven't.

    Personally I think the best approach would be to stick to four teams, but perhaps reduce the semi-finals to one leg, to be played at the ground of the club that finishes highest. I think that would open the games up considerably as you wouldn't get the 'stronger' team in the first leg being cagey and playing for the draw so they can win at home. It would also provide more of an advantage to finishing higher in the league which I think is only fair.

    It would never happen though - can't see the Leagues going for anything which is going to reduce the number of matches and therefore their revenue!
    In a four-team playoff format give the top two teams a second chance as a reward for finishing higher.

    Semi-finals: 1 v 2, 3 v 4

    Preliminary final: Loser SF1 v Winner SF2

    Playoff Final: Winner SF1 v Winner PF

    If you finish first or second you are guaranteed a home playoff match. (see edit)
    If you finish first or second and you win your semi-final you get an extra break ahead of the final.
    If you finish first or second and you lose your semi-final you get a lifeline of a home match against the winner of the other semi.
    If you finish third or fourth you would have to beat the other three teams in order to win promotion.
    If you finish fourth you would have to win all the playoff matches away from home.

    EDIT: just noticed - if you finish second you won't get a home playoff match if you win the semi-final as you'll go straight through to the final at Wembley!
  • 25May98 said:

    Am I right in believing that the reason the playoffs were first brought in was to reduce the top division down to 20 teams (for England international reasons). They were designed to last two seasons and then promotion- relegation would revert back to normal but the idea kept going with just promotion?

    I hope I am right because I have told many, many people this.

    The original aim of the playoffs was certainly to reduce the size of the top division to 20 teams over two seasons. I suppose it was felt that four-down-three-up was too unfair on the First Division clubs and three-down-two-up was too harsh on the Second Division and so the relegation/promotion-style playoffs was a compromise: it allowed either possibility to eventuate without prematurely curtailing the season of many Division Two clubs.

    I've no idea whether the playoffs were supposed to be a two-season wonder and then disappear but their existence certainly keeps more clubs' seasons alive longer than a standard three-up-three-down system would have done.

    Personally, I don't think that the playoffs should be two legs, the higher-ranked team should have home advantage. The format used in the National League this season was better but I also like the systems used in Australia whereby teams qualifying in the top places get a second chance i.e. if they lost their opening playoff match they get another life as a reward for finishing higher.
    I think they were originally only meant to last for that two year period.

    Charlton has a proud record as the only team from the higher Division to survive the process. Chelsea went down the following season.

    The football authorities saw how exciting the concept was and decided to make it a permanent feature.
  • Jodaius said:

    How about making the playoffs down to 8 instead of 6

    3rd and 4th get a bye through to the Semi Final
    5th home to 8th & 6th home to 7th, just 1 leg.

    Winners away to 3rd and 4th, again over 1 leg.

    Same number of matches before Wembley but 2 extra teams involved.

    So copy the model thats been used in the National League this season?

    To an extent its not a bad one... teams that finish 5th to 8th will play the same amount of games that you do now to win the Play-Offs, teams in 3rd or 4th will only have to play two games as the two legged ties will be chucked
    I have a confession. Whilst most of you lot were getting depressed in deepest darkest Shropshire yesterday evening, I was at Hampton & Richmond, celebrating my local non-league team (Braintree Town) winning promotion back to the National League through exactly this format.

    So, from the perspective of a 'winning' fan, I would say it's a fantastic format and they should extend it to all leagues. The advantages are that it keeps more teams in the play-off fight for more of the season, and I also think the single leg play-off matches were much more exciting that the two-leg affairs we're all used to.

    Putting on a neutral hat, however, I do have to admit it's pretty ridiculous that we've been promoted from 7th place in the League when there are another 5 teams who finished above us who haven't.

    Personally I think the best approach would be to stick to four teams, but perhaps reduce the semi-finals to one leg, to be played at the ground of the club that finishes highest. I think that would open the games up considerably as you wouldn't get the 'stronger' team in the first leg being cagey and playing for the draw so they can win at home. It would also provide more of an advantage to finishing higher in the league which I think is only fair.

    It would never happen though - can't see the Leagues going for anything which is going to reduce the number of matches and therefore their revenue!
    In a four-team playoff format give the top two teams a second chance as a reward for finishing higher.

    Semi-finals: 1 v 2, 3 v 4

    Preliminary final: Loser SF1 v Winner SF2

    Playoff Final: Winner SF1 v Winner PF

    If you finish first or second you are guaranteed a home playoff match.
    If you finish first or second and you win your semi-final you get an extra break ahead of the final.
    If you finish first or second and you lose your semi-final you get a lifeline of a home match against the winner of the other semi.
    If you finish third or fourth you would have to beat the other three teams in order to win promotion.
    If you finish fourth you would have to win all the playoff matches away from home.
    Looks like a good idea to me.

  • Scunthorpe, the only town in the UK with the word C... in it.
  • Riviera said:

    They are an outdated concept.
    It would be better to promote the winner and runner up.
    The third place should go to the team that will benefit the league above the most from position 3 -6.

    Shrewsbury are a backwater Shropshire town that barely contribute to league one and will only degrade the championship.

    There are already two underachieving Sheffield teams in the championship. It doesn't need Rotherham.

    I don't even know where Scunthorpe is.

    Charlton are the pride of south London. With facilities and fans that would grace and league in the world.

    It's a shame the championship isn't more selective in its membership.

    Some good points but then you let yourself down. Charlton is far more in the east of London than south.
    Nope, it's in Kent ;-)
  • Sponsored links:


  • Or just leave it as it is simple. Why get upset about losing could be worse we could of lost at Wembley.
  • Keep the playoffs ?
    The three games against Leeds and the best match seen at Wembley against Sunderland as voted by neutrals last century. Plus the best quality hat-trick scored at the old Wembley by super Clive.

    Scrap the playoffs ?
    Losing to Palace, Swindon, Shrewsbury etc made me feel sick.

    Looking at the bigger picture the season would be over by Easter for many teams if no playoffs.
  • I think the team that finished 3rd should just be relegated, put in to administration and the players forced to spend 30 mins in the shower with @DaveMehmet
  • Just top 3. No playoffs. If you earn it, you earn it.
  • Playoffs are all about £ for clubs and mainly tv companies. It keeps the interest going. Tv has ruined football from top to bottom.
  • Keep the play offs but rules must be brought in whereby, regardless of final league positions, we only ever play Leeds or Sunderland with the Final played at Brunton Park.
  • Keep the play offs, but introduce a new rule as follows:

    If a certain team from Bermondsey, with connections to the sewage industry, qualify for the play offs, then their opponents are automatically awarded a bye.
  • Keep the play offs but rules must be brought in whereby, regardless of final league positions, we only ever play Leeds or Sunderland with the Final played at Brunton Park.

    With the semi-final against Ipswich.
Sign In or Register to comment.

Roland Out!