Play-offs Fair or not?

[The Great Drinkell 50]

I personally like the play offs and think it adds plenty of excitement during the regular season.

The only thing I would change is the away goals rule. I think if the tie ends in a draw over the two legs then the team that finished higher in the league should progress.

I also think the same about the final game. teams who finish lower should have to beat any team who finishes above them to progress.

Anybody else change anything?

[Bethnal Yellow and Green 1,557]

It''s the ''unfairness'' of the play-offs that make them so great.

Personally I''d make it so the top 3 go up from the Championship and then 4th and 5th go into a play-off with the teams that finished 16th and 17th in the Prem.

As the wealth gap gets larger there should be more promotions/relegations to keep spreading the money a little more.

[Fr. Chewy Louie 137]

Should be - but presumably the Premier League clubs at the time would have to agree to it, which seems unlikely.

[Tetteys Jig 830]

I agree with the notion that we all signed up for the same thing in August 2014 so we can''t complain but I think it would be better if they had 6th vs 5th, winner plays vs 4th, winner of that plays the final vs 3rd.

That way, the team in 6th still has hope but the team in 3rd gets a proper deserved advantage.

[Robert Barnes 19]

What I don''t get is a team can miss autos by a single point then get beat out by a team that''s 10 pts below them so unfair. And also if we need playoffs to determine who goes up than it should be the same with teams that get relegated bott 2 automatically go down the playoff to see who goes with them

[Sing up the river end 0]

No not fair.Just another money spinning sky stunt

[Adycakes 5]

Sky created the Playoffs?

[Mello Yello 2,273]

The Play-offs retain an interest right up towards the end of the season......We''d be promoted if it was still the old system as we finished 3rd......Personally, I think it''s unfair as a decider to reach the higher echelons of football, as rightfully, you should be promoted on merit; and therefore us finishing 3rd would have normally given us that right of opportunity to do that......Still, Wembley will be happy as it raises a few more squid to fill the coffers.....and Sky will rake it in......Wonga wins.....

 

Although, if we''d beaten Brum at the Millennium.......I wouldn''t have complained ;-) 

[Martin Bryant 0]

I love the idea of the playoffs but it would be hugely heart breaking to lose after finishing 3rd!

thats a good idea for the premiership though, bottom two teams go down and the 3rd/4th from bottom have a play-off ... although you risk making the league to complicated.

[Yellowbeagle 0]

It''s as decent way of keeping such a large division competitive as possible, otherwise 2 months before the end of the season you could have 10-12 teams with nothing to play for.

[Salopian 1]

Unfairness could result. Say, for instance that a team like us lose in the play-offs to a team a we have beaten twice this season and finished many points above. There will be an element of luck, referee decisions, although I hope that the best refs will be provided, or injury to a vital player.

Of course, we could beat Ipswich, and then beat Middlesboro who have beaten us twice during the season.

I suspect that the motive for the play-offs was financial, and if so why is it not used for the relegated teams. It seems slightly ridiculous to promote on the basis of season-long performance, but then have one place for the lucky, who may have vastly poorer performance over the season

[Lessingham Canary 99]

They are a decent way of keeping the season alive, and of the excitement can twist you anyway. Personally I would like to see a play off between 3rd from bottom in Prem against 3rd in championship, with 4-7th playing off as current.

And all holidays for season ticket holders (any club) should be banned during the month of May.

[It's Character Forming 1,160]

People who think they play-offs are unfair are missing the point. It''s like when it changed from 2 points for a win to 3 - I remember one team complaining at a world cup that they''d have qualified for the next round under the old 2 points system, but they missed out because of the change. Well, deal with it - everyone knew the rules at the start of the season, which means finishing 3rd is a minimal advantage over finishing 6th rather than the old days when it gave auto promotion.

Obviously the playoffs were inspired by the American model when league position gets you into the knock-out stage etc etc but that''s all.

Personally I like the playoffs - look at how exciting the end of the Champ season is, compared to the Prem where Chelsea have been nailed on as champions for ages and it''s all about relegation and who gets into the CL, which is pretty poor really.

[Branston Pickle 3,632]

The play-offs are what they are, most sports seem to have them nowadays. I do think, and always have done even when we qualified before, that 6th place feels a bit too far away to be ''fair'' - a side from the higher division should be involved instead.

The SPL playoffs in Scotland are a little convoluted, but at least you do get some benefit from finishing higher up, something you don''t get in our league.

[cannigia1 0]

Scottish play offs is fairer . queen of the south who finished 4 th play Rangers 3rd over two legs .then the winner plays hibs over 2 legs .then the winner plays the 2nd bottom team from the SPl ..most likely Motherwell in a 2 leg final. not at Hampden but Ibrox then fir park .more games but alot fairer .

[cannigia1 0]

and I''d expect Rangers to win the play offs ..but then again queen of the south are dark horses .hibs are staying down lol

[Jezzard 16]

Totally unfair - and I thought that when we beat Wolves. 46 matches over all conditions and managing injuries,suspensions and refereeing decisions reduced to 180 then 90 minutes of chaos in a low scoring sport.

Premier League wouldn''t back this for deciding champions league places so don''t know why we have to put up with it. And even after nearly 30 years no one at the football league has the imagination or intelligence to try out a system given advantage to teams in higher positions eg: no away legs for these guys; IPL style 3v4; winner to final loser plays winner of 5v6. etc.

In summary - not a fan.

[Indy_Bones 441]

Exciting - sometimes, Fair - Often not.You often hear statements like "If we''d not been robbed against ''x'' team we''d have gone up" or "If we''d have got three points against ''x'' team we''d have avoided relegation", and the usual counter to this is that it''s a 46 game season not single games, and over the course of a season a club finishes where they deserve the vast majority of the time.However, once a club has performed better than 22 other teams in the league and finished above all but 2 others, instead of getting a fairly earned promotion, they instead get chucked into a lottery with 3 other teams who could have finished anywhere from 1-15 (or theoretically even more) points behind them and potentially NOT get their rightfully earned promotion based on 2-4 games...You don''t see relegations where the bottom 2 automatically go down with 1 of the next 4 joining them based on a playoff, nor do you see CL places given to the top 2 teams, with a 3rd or 4th based on playoff games, so how does it suddenly become fair and reasonable to have a promotion based playoff???I can see the good and bad points about both systems, but surely this should be about which teams have got the results over a season rather than apparently having to justify this even further at the end against teams who simply haven''t performed as well as they did overall...?

[Tetteys Jig 830]

[quote user="Jezzard"]Totally unfair - and I thought that when we beat Wolves. 46 matches over all conditions and managing injuries,suspensions and refereeing decisions reduced to 180 then 90 minutes of chaos in a low scoring sport.

Premier League wouldn''t back this for deciding champions league places so don''t know why we have to put up with it. And even after nearly 30 years no one at the football league has the imagination or intelligence to try out a system given advantage to teams in higher positions eg: no away legs for these guys; IPL style 3v4; winner to final loser plays winner of 5v6. etc.

In summary - not a fan.[/quote]

I''ve thought this, fair enough have the playoffs but I do think 3rd place should have an advantage.

1 legged ties, 5th at home to 6th, winner goes to the home of 4th. Winner of that goes to Wembley vs 3rd.

That''s 3 matches, over 3 weekends, each placed team gets an advantage over the other and you''d still get the wembley final.

I know Eredivise have a playoff system for the champions league place for 2nd, so it''s not unheard of.

[Woodman 92]

[quote user="Jezzard"]Totally unfair - and I thought that when we beat Wolves. 46 matches over all conditions and managing injuries,suspensions and refereeing decisions reduced to 180 then 90 minutes of chaos in a low scoring sport. Premier League wouldn''t back this for deciding champions league places so don''t know why we have to put up with it. And even after nearly 30 years no one at the football league has the imagination or intelligence to try out a system given advantage to teams in higher positions eg: no away legs for these guys; IPL style 3v4; winner to final loser plays winner of 5v6. etc. In summary - not a fan.[/quote]

With our away record under Alex Neil, I''d rather we get a chance to play away!   6th v 5th home and away, then winner plays 4th at a neutral ground - not Wembley - then winner plays 3rd at Wembley would be a more reflective recognition of performance over the whole season.  Though I suspect Boro would have tried a bit harder in their final game last weekend.