The Future Structure Of English League Football

Lincsaddick said:

MrLargo said:

With the current league format, it should be 3up 3down, without question. I don't really see the justification in the National League being separate from the Football League - that made sense when the National League was non-professional, but all (or virtually all) clubs are now full-time professional at that level so no reason for the National League to be a separate entity. 

I do think there should be some regionalisation though, perhaps from 4th tier down.

Exactly. A few seasons back (e.g.) Torquay played at Gateshead on Tuesday night, quite ridiculous and a certain loss maker for the away side. There are a lot of similar mad examples 

It would hopefully increase away followings and extra revenue for clubs.

Aldershot as well 1992

EveshamAddick said:

sam3110 said:

Should be 3 up 3 down all the way through, why is PL to championship 3, then 3 between that and League 1, but 4 between League 1 and League 2? Then just 2 from League 2 to non-league. 

And get rid of the play offs. Revert back to 3 auto positions.

I love the play offs, especially as without the 1998 win I wonder if we would ever again have reached the top division .. also a good earner for the play off participants

Lincsaddick said:

EveshamAddick said:

sam3110 said:

Should be 3 up 3 down all the way through, why is PL to championship 3, then 3 between that and League 1, but 4 between League 1 and League 2? Then just 2 from League 2 to non-league. 

And get rid of the play offs. Revert back to 3 auto positions.

I love the play offs, especially as without the 1998 win I wonder if we would ever again have reached the top division .. also a good earner for the play off participants

Play-offs have given me four of my top 10 all time footballing moments! 

EveshamAddick said:

The play offs were originally brought in to reduce the size of the top flight from 24 to 20 teams. Once that had been achieved it should have been binned.

Serious question: Is there a reason you don’t like the playoffs? What is it about them that bothers you? I honestly think the positives outweigh the negatives by a country mile.

Reverting to an old system only makes sense if changes made aren’t beneficial.  If changing something makes something better, you don’t bin it off just because you don’t like change.

Not everything was better in the ‘good old days’!
😎

EveshamAddick said:

The play offs were originally brought in to reduce the size of the top flight from 24 to 20 teams. Once that had been achieved it should have been binned.

Without going into the memories they have given to me (and many a Charlton fan). The playoffs have given the English game something that enhances the spectator side of the sport (and adds to the entertainment).

My criticism of the Barclays Championship to WSL is that it does not have the drama the play-offs provides making their leagues less engaging.
 

cafctom said:

Should have more promotion and relegation all the way through the pyramid. Even local non-league suffers heavily from the one automatic place bottleneck.

Premier League and Championship is just about right. League One to League Two is too much, and League Two to non-league not enough.

Covered End said:

EveshamAddick said:

The play offs were originally brought in to reduce the size of the top flight from 24 to 20 teams. Once that had been achieved it should have been binned.

If it had been binned our season would be dead already, along with half of the other clubs.
NB we'd have missed out on Wembley as well.
The play offs are one of the best things to have happened to our game.

Possibly THE best.

Should be three up, three down for all leagues including the national leagues. Think they are right pushing for this change.

ForeverAddickted said:

Maybe it needs to be a bit more fun and interesting.

In the EFL for example, the 24-teams play each other once.

After 23-games the tables split in two Groups of 12

The teams then play each other from their respective Group the once. The top 8, bottom 8 from each Group then play a round robin, to determine promotion (and the League title) / relegation 

Why bother with 3 24 team leagues. If they do this why don't you have a big 72 league table (where the fixtures are randomised)?

MrLargo said:

With the current league format, it should be 3up 3down, without question. I don't really see the justification in the National League being separate from the Football League - that made sense when the National League was non-professional, but all (or virtually all) clubs are now full-time professional at that level so no reason for the National League to be a separate entity. 

I do think there should be some regionalisation though, perhaps from 4th tier down.

Alex Fynn, who is still around, argued for regionalisation back in 1990, from Div3 down, and allowing for expansion. He emphasised the importance of games being events. In his book, he gave a particularly vivid example: “ Peterborough v. Cambridge is an event. Whereas Liverpool vs Charlton Athletic is not.” 

The general concept of the play-offs is fine, keeping more clubs' seasons "live" for longer.

The problem I have with them is that there isn't much of a benefit finishing in the first play-off place compared to the fourth. We have four teams, two two-legged home-and-away semi-finals and then a final at Wembley. wherever you're seeded in the play-offs you get a home tie.

I would advocate moving to an Australian-style play-off system: increasing the numbers of teams to five and making the ties a single-leg affair with the higher-ranked team being at home.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McIntyre_system#McIntyre_final_five_system



And a simplistic view of the match structure:


With this system you have the concept of the "double chance" in the first two rounds whereby you could lose a match but not be eliminated.

If you finish:

• top: you get a week off, guaranteed two home matches, double chance
• second: you are guaranteed two home matches, double chance
• third: you are guaranteed one home match, double chance
• fourth: you are guaranteed one home match

The higher-ranked you are in the play-offs the better your advantage. If you finish the highest-ranked side in the play-offs you can gain promotion with two victories (one at home, one at Wembley); if you're the bottom-ranked side you have to beat all four of your rivals away from home to win the play-offs.

Briston_Addick said:

The general concept of the play-offs is fine, keeping more clubs' seasons "live" for longer.

The problem I have with them is that there isn't much of a benefit finishing in the first play-off place compared to the fourth. We have four teams, two two-legged home-and-away semi-finals and then a final at Wembley. wherever you're seeded in the play-offs you get a home tie.

I would advocate moving to an Australian-style play-off system: increasing the numbers of teams to five and making the ties a single-leg affair with the higher-ranked team being at home.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McIntyre_system#McIntyre_final_five_system



And a simplistic view of the match structure:


With this system you have the concept of the "double chance" in the first two rounds whereby you could lose a match but not be eliminated.

If you finish:

• top: you get a week off, guaranteed two home matches, double chance
• second: you are guaranteed two home matches, double chance
• third: you are guaranteed one home match, double chance
• fourth: you are guaranteed one home match

The higher-ranked you are in the play-offs the better your advantage. If you finish the highest-ranked side in the play-offs you can gain promotion with two victories (one at home, one at Wembley); if you're the bottom-ranked side you have to beat all four of your rivals away from home to win the play-offs.

Good idea, but considering English fans struggle with the new Champions League format, I doubt they'll understand this (also English fans don't like the idea of losing teams having to play another game).

Briston_Addick said:

The general concept of the play-offs is fine, keeping more clubs' seasons "live" for longer.

The problem I have with them is that there isn't much of a benefit finishing in the first play-off place compared to the fourth. We have four teams, two two-legged home-and-away semi-finals and then a final at Wembley. wherever you're seeded in the play-offs you get a home tie.

I would advocate moving to an Australian-style play-off system: increasing the numbers of teams to five and making the ties a single-leg affair with the higher-ranked team being at home.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McIntyre_system#McIntyre_final_five_system



And a simplistic view of the match structure:


With this system you have the concept of the "double chance" in the first two rounds whereby you could lose a match but not be eliminated.

If you finish:

• top: you get a week off, guaranteed two home matches, double chance
• second: you are guaranteed two home matches, double chance
• third: you are guaranteed one home match, double chance
• fourth: you are guaranteed one home match

The higher-ranked you are in the play-offs the better your advantage. If you finish the highest-ranked side in the play-offs you can gain promotion with two victories (one at home, one at Wembley); if you're the bottom-ranked side you have to beat all four of your rivals away from home to win the play-offs.

Very good!

York City has brought the question up again...


Tbf the Oldham Athletic boss has also called for it.