Playoffs - I want to TINKER with them...

[MattBackHome]

It might also improve the final match of the regular season? Teams (e.g. MK Dons) which might otherwise have little to play for in the final match, having been assured of a playoff place, would be fighting for home advantage in the 1st playoff round?

 

[Tricky Dicky]

The current system has been in place since, what, 1986 ? Time for a change I reckons. One of the bugbears is always the fact that a team finishing 6th can triumph over a team finishing in 3rd, and a chasm in points between the teams can make stuff-all difference - the one (small) advantage being that the higher placed team gets the 2nd leg of the semi at home. Sooooo, hows about this.

1. Top 2 go up as usual. But the team finishing 3rd in the League gets a BYE to the Playoff Final.

2. The teams that finished 4th, 5th, 6th and 7th play off against each other. They play a one off match at the home ground of the higher placed team in the League. So the fixtures would be:

4th v 7th
5th v 6th

3. The winners of these one-off ties then play each other in another one-off match, again at the home ground of the higher placed team, for the right to face that 3rd placed team in the Playoff Final.

Yes, ultimately you could now end up with a 7th placed team beating the team that finished 3rd, but at least all the way through, this method recognises and gives home advantage to the teams who have finished the season higher in the table than their Playoff opponents.

The 3rd placed team has had maybe a couple of weeks rest before playing the Final, again a nice advantage, but by keeping the games down to a single legged jobbie it means only 2 games are played by the others instead of 4, so its not excessively exhausting for them either.

It also extends the "excitement" of the season by making an additional Playoff spot available.

What says ye ?

Interesting concept, but the problems is that it improves things for one particular scenario ... i.e. where 3rd finishes close behind second and a long way in front of 4th - I agree, this might be better. But, what if the team finishing in 3rd is 20 points off 2nd and just one ahead of the team in 4th - you are then giving a massive advantage for a very little gap. Nope, not for me. Not sure the current system is perfect, but I await to hear something better.

 

[Wozza]

A team from the division above (3rd/4th from bottom?) used to be in the play-offs, didn't they?

That was wierd.

 

[bob monkhouse]

The way the IPL is doing it this year was quite good I thought.

First two get two bites of the cherry.

 

[Boris Yeltsin]

Give the play-off loser a couple of points head start in the league the next season!

 

[Easy 10]

Only because there are more teams in the play-offs. And anyway, how is that more of a joke than the 3rd placed team going through any sort of play-off for the right to the 3rd promotion spot? Your idea is just a spin-off from the Super League idea.

My point was that putting the team that finished the season top of the League into a Playoff Final seems to me irrational and flawed.

You're not seriously telling me that this ticket sales issue for a 2nd leg are an insurmountable problem in this day and age? They've been doing this for YEARS in MLB, the NHL and the NBA where they have play-offs of 7 game series - meaning up to 3 games are not actually played.

I suppose its possible, but would we really want it that way in football ? Plus you can bet your bottom that the police in this country would want a couple of weeks notice at least as to whether or not they're going to be needed on whatever date the 2nd leg was due, which would stretch the Playoff process out still further. Its probably do-able in some form, but I personally don't think it would work as well as just having a couple of one-off games to reach the Final proper.

 

[Easy 10]

So... the play-offs exist mainly as money-spinners, and not necessarily to ascertain which is the best team to have deserved promotion (i.e. the team which finished THIRD)...?

Are you Crodonilson in disguise?

Did you go to Cardiff ?

Good day out ?

 

[Gritt23]

The problem with giving the top seeded teams a week off, while the others play and win a highly charged tie is that the higher team (who you tried to give an advantage to) loses momentum, while the lower placed team generates momentum.

It's a bit like the NFL Play-offs where the top seeded teams in each Conference get a bye, while the next 4 in each Conference play out a Wild Card round. This year, the 2 6th seeds, knocked out the 2 no.1 seeds, despite the no.1 seeds playing at home. That's what momentum can do for you.

Naah, it aint broke, so no need to fix it. Leave the play-offs EXACTLY as they are.

 

[Simster]

The way the IPL is doing it this year was quite good I thought.

First two get two bites of the cherry.

This is the best I've seen, to be honest.

 

[Simster]

So... the play-offs exist mainly as money-spinners, and not necessarily to ascertain which is the best team to have deserved promotion (i.e. the team which finished THIRD)...?

Are you Crodonilson in disguise?

I reckon 95% of football fans would vote not to scrap the play-offs if such a vote was ever offered, and with good reason. Firstly, for all your misty-eyed memories of 3rd place promotions, you are forgetting that for half the teams in the league, the season became pretty meaningless from February onwards before the play-offs arrived. This is not a good state of affairs for an industry in the entertainment business.
Secondly, everyone knows the score - if you finish 3rd, you go into the play-offs. But I think tinkering with the play-offs to partly redress the lack of advantage for higher placed teams is probably quite sensible.

 

[Easy 10]

By the time all of those games have been played the 3rd place side won't have played for about 3 weeks while the other side would be battle hardened after it's other games.

The other teams are only playing 2 games to reach the Final remember. Could be done & dusted within a week to 10 days.

It might also improve the final match of the regular season? Teams (e.g. MK Dons) which might otherwise have little to play for in the final match, having been assured of a playoff place, would be fighting for home advantage in the 1st playoff round?

Agreed. Thats another little plus.

Interesting concept, but the problems is that it improves things for one particular scenario ... i.e. where 3rd finishes close behind second and a long way in front of 4th - I agree, this might be better. But, what if the team finishing in 3rd is 20 points off 2nd and just one ahead of the team in 4th - you are then giving a massive advantage for a very little gap. Nope, not for me. Not sure the current system is perfect, but I await to hear something better.

The gaps in reward between very narrow margins are already massive, always have been. You can miss out on automatic promotion on goal difference and end up in the Playoffs, but thats the way it goes, as long as everyone knows from the start how everything is done then whats the issue ?

There's never going to be a perfect system, but I think this recognises and rewards the final League placings better than the current method, which really gives very little reward between finishing 3rd and 6th.

 

[beorhthelm]

the potential points chasm between 3rd and 6th does make it seem unfair. it seems ludicrous that after a season gaining 15 points more than Bournmouth, Huddersfield still have to roll along and prove themselves worthy of promotion.

how about only having a playoff if there is less than 4 points gap between 3rd and 4th, with 4th having to first playoff against 5th, who play of against 6th and so on, only if also within 4 points of 3rd.

 

[DerbyGull]

I like the current system tbh. I'm more interested at what happens at the other end. I would like to see the bottom team going down and the next 4 team to have have playoffs to determine whether they stay up or go down. 23rd v 20th and 22nd v 21st. With the two losers relegated. It will bring a few more mediocre/crap teams into it. And be quite exciting to watch

 

[Easy 10]

I quite like that idea. The problem with teams having two weeks off before a play off final is that while it gives them a break, it can also mean they lose their sharpness which ironically can give an advantage to the side who have come through two games to get there. Also if third and fourth are level on points and miles clear of 5th, 6th and 7th, then is it fair on the fourth place team.

I think the format should generally stay as it is with slight tweaks like Simster's idea or the semi finals only being over one leg at the higher placed team's ground. I definitely wouldn't get rid of the play offs though. It is the most exciting couple of weeks of the season, even if you aren't involved it can be so dramatic (remember that Charlton vs Sunderland play off final)!

The problem with giving the top seeded teams a week off, while the others play and win a highly charged tie is that the higher team (who you tried to give an advantage to) loses momentum, while the lower placed team generates momentum.

It's a bit like the NFL Play-offs where the top seeded teams in each Conference get a bye, while the next 4 in each Conference play out a Wild Card round. This year, the 2 6th seeds, knocked out the 2 no.1 seeds, despite the no.1 seeds playing at home. That's what momentum can do for you.

Naah, it aint broke, so no need to fix it. Leave the play-offs EXACTLY as they are.

These are good points to be fair. How much of an advantage would having, say, a 2-3 week break before playing the Final really be for the team finishing in 3rd ?
It can be argued either way. They could be refreshed, injury niggles have had a chance to clear up, they've been away from the pressure, time to prepare. Or it could mean they've lost their edge.

I don't think there's a definitive answer tbh.

 

[Simster]

the potential points chasm between 3rd and 6th does make it seem unfair. it seems ludicrous that after a season gaining 15 points more than Bournmouth, Huddersfield still have to roll along and prove themselves worthy of promotion.

how about only having a playoff if there is less than 4 points gap between 3rd and 4th, with 4th having to first playoff against 5th, who play of against 6th and so on, only if also within 4 points of 3rd.

Your idea wouldn't work. Consider this as the position coming up to Saturday:
Team 3: 67
Team 4: 63
Team 5: 62
Team 6: 57
Team 7: 56

Say team 4 plays team 5 on the last day. Using your idea, team 5 would miss out altogether on the play-offs if they won but team 3 also won. However, if they choose to LOSE they would still qualify!

 

[Easy 10]

I like the current system tbh. I'm more interested at what happens at the other end. I would like to see the bottom team going down and the next 4 team to have have playoffs to determine whether they stay up or go down. 23rd v 20th and 22nd v 21st. With the two losers relegated. It will bring a few more mediocre/crap teams into it. And be quite exciting to watch

They did something like this the first time Playoffs were introduced. I think it was 3rd bottom of the Prem (or First Division as it was then) played off against the 3rd placed team in the Second Division over two legs, to decide if the teams swapped divisions. It was Chelsea v Middlesbrough, and it quickly turned into a bunfight between fans (I think Chelsea went down with Boro taking their place). The idea was scrapped as the stakes were considered too high.

 

[Turkey]

Keep it the same but you get a goal head start for every point ahead of the opponents you are playing.

That would be a disaster. Huddersfield kicking off against Bournemouth 15 goals up!

I think in Italy, rather than penalties, if its level after extra time, the winner is the side who finished highest in the league. Could be an idea but guess it would make the games a bit rubbish with the higher placed side playing for a draw.

 

[fataddick]

They did something like this the first time Playoffs were introduced. I think it was 3rd bottom of the Prem (or First Division as it was then) played off against the 3rd placed team in the Second Division over two legs, to decide if the teams swapped divisions. It was Chelsea v Middlesbrough, and it quickly turned into a bunfight between fans (I think Chelsea went down with Boro taking their place). The idea was scrapped as the stakes were considered too high.

It was fourth bottom of Division 1 against 3rd, 4th and 5th in Division 2. They did it in 1987 and 1988 to reduce the top division to 20 teams (previous 1st & 2nd were both 22 team divisions). Charlton played in the first one, we had ended up in the fourth from bottom slot in our first season back in the top flight (86-87). Both the semi and final were two legs home and away, there was no extra time or pens in the final, so when we and Leeds both won our home ties 1-0, we had to have a replay at a neutral venue, St Andrews. Charlton got the away end, the shittest in football at the time (complete with broken glass and barbed wire atop the high fences) and took about 700 fans (I hitched up there, age 16). Leeds took about 15,000. It was SCARY. But we won 2-1 in extra time hurrah!

The following season (87-88) was Chelsea v Middlesborough in the final. Then, with the top division down to the required 20 teams, it switched to the 3rd-6th against each other format that has continued to this day.

There is a good argument for the top three going up and fourth playing off against fourth from bottom in the Prem. Unfortunately, the Premier League being what it is they'll never agree to it. I'm surprised they haven't done away with promotion and relegation to the PL altogether. You know they want to.

 

[DerbyGull]

They did something like this the first time Playoffs were introduced. I think it was 3rd bottom of the Prem (or First Division as it was then) played off against the 3rd placed team in the Second Division over two legs, to decide if the teams swapped divisions. It was Chelsea v Middlesbrough, and it quickly turned into a bunfight between fans (I think Chelsea went down with Boro taking their place). The idea was scrapped as the stakes were considered too high.

I don't think that would be appropriate today, as the gulf in class between prem and champ is vast. It would be an advantage for the prem team definately and an unfair disadvantage for the championship team who had been performing well through out the season.

 

[Gritt23]

It's not remained COMPLETELY unchanged since it's inception though has it. The first couple of years the play-offs were made up of 3 teams chasing promotion, and 1 team from the division they want to get into. So it was something like 3-5th from Division 2, and 19th from Division 1, to decide who gets the place in Division 1 next season. I remember Charlton staying up by winning teh play-offs in the first season it was introduced.

Were they right to scrap that?