Fairness of play-offs

[swanstuff]

First of all, thank you to Sutton fans for the kind comments about Staines Town on this forum. Good luck for next season.

Several posters questioned the fairness of the play-offs, and I agree with them too. Perhaps I could summarise an alternative suggestion I posted earlier on the StainesMassive forum:

First, some basics -

1) Play-offs are inherently disadvantageous to teams finishing higher, but do add excitement (and financial benefit) to the later part of the season.

2) The Blue Square Conference South was formed only recently from clubs just like ours, in the Premier Divisions of the three feeders, some of whom finished as low as 16th yet still survived at the higher level. For this reason, relegating only 3 from each of the North & South divisions of the Conference seems rather miserly - four would be fairer (even if the divisions were increased from 22 to 24 teams).

Developing the theme further -

3) At present, 3 of the 6 promotion spots available are determined by play-offs. This is too many. If 4 are relegated from each of Conference North & South, a total of 8 can be promoted from the Premier Divisions of the Ryman, BGB and Unibond Leagues.

4) This can be achieved by promoting the top TWO from each of those Premier Divisions (total 6), leaving 2 more teams to go up from an 8-team play-off.

5) My original suggestion to form these 8 was to take the next three (ie 3rd, 4th & 5th) from each of the Premier Divisions, less the one with the worst record. This would guarantee that (apart from the missing one), the same number of teams as at present are either promoted or in the play-offs.
An alternative would be to have the 3rd & 4th from each Premier Division, plus the next-lowest team in each of Conference N & S.

6) Play-offs would then be arranged ACROSS the leagues, thus reducing the chances of a team being knocked out by a side which finished below them in their own league. Teams would be ranked 1-8 according to record, and the highest ranked paired at home to the lowest and so on, regardless of league. (It may be preferable to first divide the teams into north and south). This would reduce teams from 8 to 4, and a second round would bring it down to two teams to go up.

7) If two teams from the same league meet, and they were separated by anything more than goal difference, there would be no extra time or penalties. The lower placed team, as well as giving away home advantage, would have to win the game in 90 minutes to progress,

I'd be interested to know what others think, and if you can suggest any improvements to this plan.

[billy]

7 sounds like a good idea to me.Congratulations on getting there anyway,it would have been farcical if Staines hadn't made it.

[taz]

TBH, play-offs aren't perfect, but they certainly keep the season alive that bit longer and clubs know what the score is.

Thing is, whilst I agree it would have been sad for a side like Staines not to make it, all those other options just seem unecessarily complicated, just to give the 'better' sides the advantage. Surely the fact that they're they better team over 42 games & have a home match should be enough? It's not the fault of the visiting team if the higher ranked side sacks it off or has an off day is it? That's football.

Have to say though, option 7 is by far the worst of the lot. What an awful thought! In our case, all Staines would have had to do was get a draw this season to progress. Which is crap. Why even bother with a game in the first place in that case? I'd personally rather suffer the 3-0 defeat than have my season ended by a dull as feck 0-0. At least then you can walk away from the game and say "Fair enough, they were better than us".

Leave it be. Like penalty shoot outs, not the best solution, but it's at least simple and everyone knows where they stand.

[os]

I like the idea of playing teams from the same position in a different league, say 3rd in RP verses 3rd in Southern, that way its completely fair.

Failing that I reckon the playoffs should be decided by who has the most and noisiest supporters

[billy]

You can't have teams playing other sides that finish 15 odd points below them - it's ludicrous.

[billy]

Staines also scored a trifling matter of 25 more goals than Sutton.

[tonyd]

So what? The rules are there for the benefit of the clubs in the leagues. They know what the rules are when the season starts and what they have to do to get promotion. This argument may be of relevance to people who don't go to matches, but they make things more interesting for those of us who do and generate additional revenue for the clubs involved. The worst thing that can happen is that a team that doesn't win the league doesn't get the promotion that some people think they "deserve". The only thing that's farcical or ludicrous is the way some people bang on about how "unfair" the play-offs are.

[ab]

The Play-Offs have completely reinvigorated the game at all levels. Surely you can remember those turgid seasons when only the champions went up and the season was effectively over in February?

Do you really think our home crowds for the last 3 games (727, 1251 and 832) would have been the same if we didn't have the excitement of the Play-Offs to go for? Teams as far down as 10th or 11th in March still have that target to go for which otherwise would not have been the case and it keeps the season alive and interesting for more teams and their fans.

Please don't decry one of the innovations in the game which has increased excitement levels and much needed revenue for many clubs.

Next you'll be asking for a return to goal average and 2 points for a win.

[taz]

Thing is, if we do away with play-offs and just promote the 2nd placed side, we just go back to what AB describes above. Ours (and pretty much everyone elses) season would have been over by Feb.

As I said, they're not perfect by any stretch, but by god they've certainly livened up this level of the game.

[billy]

If a team finishes X points in front of the others (say 10 + ?) they should cancel the play offs,it's a joke.

Is this the norm in non league ? Surely most play offs would involve teams who finished within a few points of each other ?

15 points???...................STOP IT

[Gareth]

May 7, 2009 19:56:00 GMT billy said:

If a team finishes X points in front of the others (say 10 + ?) they should cancel the play offs,it's a joke.

Is this the norm in non league ? Surely most play offs would involve teams who finished within a few points of each other ?

15 points???...................STOP IT

Billy, it's the norm in football, not just "non-league"

[os]

I tell you what would be fun and thats relegation playoffs say 8th from bottom down

[taz]

Billy, check out the history of play-offs in the Football League. If you do, I think you'll find plenty of examples of 5th place teams beating 2nd place sides who had finished a gazillion points ahead of them.

And they get two legs!

[Andy K]

And congratulations to Hayes And Yeading who pipped Hampton 3-2 tonight in the BSS final - bizarre game by all accounts (Thanks Spak!) - Hamptons 2nd was one of those 'look behind you' goals when a keeper doesn't realise an opposing player is behind them and promptly nicks the ball and scores. Hampton then get their keeper sent off! And a certain Mr Doswell was spotted in the burger queue at half time, passing on the message to us Sutton faithful - he passes on the message that "He's always working"

[Del]

So whats wrong with 2 points for a win and goal average?

Goal average was excellent but a little complicated for some.