Change The Playoffs?

[Lord Pityme]

Even before we successfully navigated them this season i have always believed that its wrong for the team finishing second bottom of the Prem to be involved in the playoffs. It should imo be two up, two down. With championship winner automatically promoted and 2,3,4, and 5th involved in a home and away semi final, and a one game final at Hampden or if it makes more sense an alternative neutral venue.

that gives half the championship a shout at promotion, and half the premiership a big incentive to avoid two trap door slots.

thoughts now we are out of the smelly stuff?

[Eric Arthur Blair]

So you think a team finishing 5th in a 10 team league should be involved in a promotion playoff [emoji23]

[Lord Pityme]

17 minutes ago, Eric Arthur Blair said:

So you think a team finishing 5th in a 10 team league should be involved in a promotion playoff

Any more than one place difference to a team finishing fourth?

do you think its fair that second bottom of the prem gets the chance to play a team who might just have had four extra games to get there?

change it to second,nthird and fourth then, its still a much fairer outcome and rewards a level of success and achievement, rather than just being less shite than the one automatic relegation team.

Edited May 28, 2019 by Lord Pityme

[jaybee]

24 minutes ago, Lord Pityme said:

Even before we successfully navigated them this season i have always believed that its wrong for the team finishing second bottom of the Prem to be involved in the playoffs. It should imo be two up, two down. With championship winner automatically promoted and 2,3,4, and 5th involved in a home and away semi final, and a one game final at Hampden or if it makes more sense an alternative neutral venue.

that gives half the championship a shout at promotion, and half the premiership a big incentive to avoid two trap door slots.

thoughts now we are out of the smelly stuff?

It's a fair point, especially given that I would imagine the vast majority of premier teams survive (I'm sure I will be corrected if I am wrong) and it absolutely works superbly in the top English leagues, I have watched all the play off matches and thought them good to superb games.  I'm not so sure it would be quite as exciting in Scotland but that is simply my opinion and you do have to consider the size difference in the leagues, now if we had (as we did when I was a lad) just two leagues, then I think I would agree with you but on balance given the league structure at the moment, I think not.  Having said all that it is still a very valid point to make and consider.

Well done LPM. it's obviously the nice twin thats abroad today?  ☺️

[Kemp]

4th spot out of 10 getting involved in a playoff is pushing it, 5th is taking the piss.

I think it works very well as it is. Only possible change I would make is 10th & 11th going in the playoff against 2nd and 3rd. Similarly 8th & 9th in the Championship vs 2nd & 3rd from League 1.

[Ayrshire Saints]

Speculate all you like turkeys don't vote for Christmas and the only way the Prem clubs even considered agreeing to a return of play-offs was if it was heavily weighted in their favour. They will not change their mindset rightly or wrongly.

[Lord Pityme]

I would also advocate changing to three leagues of fourteen, playing each other three times, meaning 39 games instead of 38 or 36. A wee bit less tedious than potential to play same team four times plus cup games. And could see a better mix of teams in the top league.

[Lord Pityme]

5 minutes ago, Ayrshire Saints said:

Speculate all you like turkeys don't vote for Christmas and the only way the Prem clubs even considered agreeing to a return of play-offs was if it was heavily weighted in their favour. They will not change their mindset rightly or wrongly.

They did in england, now three clubs get the chance to pick up £170million if promoted to the prem!

build it, and they will come.

[LargsBud]

1 hour ago, Lord Pityme said:

Any more than one place difference to a team finishing fourth?

do you think its fair that second bottom of the prem gets the chance to play a team who might just have had four extra games to get there?

change it to second,nthird and fourth then, its still a much fairer outcome and rewards a level of success and achievement, rather than just being less shite than the one automatic relegation team.

This isn't true btw. We played 38 league games this season. Ayr who finished 4th played 36 league games. 

If they had made it to the play off final they would have played 4 further games before meeting us. This is a total of 40 games.

That's 2 more games than us, not 4.

 

 

Edited May 28, 2019 by LargsBud

[Lord Pityme]

1 hour ago, LargsBud said:

This isn't true btw. We played 38 league games this season. Ayr who finished 4th played 36 league games. 

If they had made it to the play off final they would have played 4 further games before meeting us. This is a total of 40 games.

That's 2 more games than us, not 4.

 

 

Really thats your best comback? Ffs

[Callum Gilhooley]

Really thats your best comback? Ffs

Good grief . Imagine coming back with actual Facts . What a walloper.

[Cornwall_Saint]

I’d agree with revamping it, but different to your own suggestion.

For me, finishing 4th in a ten team league does not merit a shot of promotion in any sense. You may scrape a top half finish yet go up, that isn’t right. Last season’s League Two summed it up when Peterhead missed the title on the last day, just to see 4th placed Stenhousemuir promoted having finished 20 points adrift. A 38 game season being decided like that is farcical.

Personally, I would either do:

Straight 2 Up, 2 Down

OR

Straight 1 Up, 1 Down. Playoffs for 2nd bottom v 2nd place - I don’t have a preference for 2 legs or 1 game at a neutral venue - the downside to two legs though is deciding who gets home advantage in the 2nd leg.

In my eyes 3rd in a ten team league does not deserve promotion, so I’d make it Top 2 only.

The one playoff I do agree with is the League Two/Non-League system - It’s great to see the Highland and Lowland champions facing off, and then take on that final barrier of the bottom L2 side to earn their place in the main leagues. 

[BuddieinEK]

I’d agree with revamping it, but different to your own suggestion.
For me, finishing 4th in a ten team league does not merit a shot of promotion in any sense. You may scrape a top half finish yet go up, that isn’t right. Last season’s League Two summed it up when Peterhead missed the title on the last day, just to see 4th placed Stenhousemuir promoted having finished 20 points adrift. A 38 game season being decided like that is farcical.
Personally, I would either do:
Straight 2 Up, 2 Down
OR
Straight 1 Up, 1 Down. Playoffs for 2nd bottom v 2nd place - I don’t have a preference for 2 legs or 1 game at a neutral venue - the downside to two legs though is deciding who gets home advantage in the 2nd leg.
In my eyes 3rd in a ten team league does not deserve promotion, so I’d make it Top 2 only.
The one playoff I do agree with is the League Two/Non-League system - It’s great to see the Highland and Lowland champions facing off, and then take on that final barrier of the bottom L2 side to earn their place in the main leagues. 

Good points well made.
Can't argue with your logic.

[oaksoft]

9 hours ago, Lord Pityme said:

Even before we successfully navigated them this season i have always believed that its wrong for the team finishing second bottom of the Prem to be involved in the playoffs. It should imo be two up, two down. With championship winner automatically promoted and 2,3,4, and 5th involved in a home and away semi final, and a one game final at Hampden or if it makes more sense an alternative neutral venue.

that gives half the championship a shout at promotion, and half the premiership a big incentive to avoid two trap door slots.

thoughts now we are out of the smelly stuff?

You want the 5th team out of a 10 team league to have a chance of promotion?

I'm sorry but 🤣

The playoffs should be done as 2 semi-finals and a single final match at a neutral venue big enough to take as may fans as want to come.

We should have played Ayr and Utd should have played Inverness.

That final game between us and Utd should have been a single match at Tynecastle.

That's the only change I think need to be made.

Keeps both Premier and Champ leagues from dying with a few weeks to go.

[oaksoft]

9 hours ago, Lord Pityme said:

Any more than one place difference to a team finishing fourth?

do you think its fair that second bottom of the prem gets the chance to play a team who might just have had four extra games to get there?

You'll need to explain that one. Had Ayr made the final against us they'd have played 40 games.

We'd have played 38 games.

My arithmetic may be rusty but I'm pretty sure 40-38 is 2 not 4.

[oaksoft]

I'm afraid that anyone advocating removing the playoffs is just not paying attention.

Times have changed. There is no denying the excitement these games bring.

They will never be removed.

[faraway saint]

49 minutes ago, Slartibartfast said:

No need for playoffs.

We should change the league structure to a 10/20/12 setup. Top league play each other 4 times, middle league 2 times, bottom league have the same split we do now in the top league.

Then, and here's the really ingenious part, 10 up, 10 down between each league with the last 2 in the bottom league being replaced by the highland and lowland champions. That would definitely shake up the leagues as no team would be in the same league two seasons in a row. It could be shaken up even more by having it be the bottom 10 in the middle league who get promoted and the top 10 who get relegated. You know it makes sense, let's do it FFS.

I was going to suggest the exact same thing......................

[faraway saint]

2 minutes ago, Slartibartfast said:

Great minds and all that. Or, as my auld granny used to say, "fools seldom differ".

Your granny would love this forum. 

[antrin]

Perspiration.

[faraway saint]

10 minutes ago, Slartibartfast said:

Too many f**kin sweaty words for her.

Granny for mod. 

[Lord Pityme]

So if you take the roasters out of it, most posters agree the playoffs, or/and the league format need to be changed. But still the spfl persist with something no one, including our manager agrees with.

[Bud the Baker]

39 minutes ago, Lord Pityme said:

So if you take the roasters out of it, most posters agree the playoffs, or/and the league format need to be changed. But still the spfl persist with something no one, including our manager agrees with.

I think you're overstating your case there, besides I don't see any consensus as to what would be a better option.

PS - Why are roasters opinions any less valid? Without them this place would be pretty quiet! 

*************************

FWIW - If you restricted the play offs to the 2nd/3rd placed teams in the Championship with the winner playing 11th place in the Premiership all 3 teams would have played 38 league games prior to the final!

Edited May 29, 2019 by Bud the Baker

[Lord Pityme]

19 minutes ago, Bud the Baker said:

I think you're overstating your case there, besides I don't see any consensus as to what would be a better option.

PS - Why are roasters opinions any less valid? Without them this place would be pretty quiet! 

*************************

FWIW - If you restricted the play offs to the 2nd/3rd placed teams in the Championship with the winner playing 11th place in the Premiership all 3 teams would have played 38 league games prior to the final!

Anyone's opinion can be valid, if they actually have one to state! The roasters aren't interested in meaningful debate, they cream their pants at a typo, or if you state championship teams play four more games at the end of the season, they then feel the absolute need to state the bleedin obvious that their season is two league games less, but decide to omit the fact that they actually play in an additional competition to Premiership teams.

you see they want you to think their smart, but fail miserably in the process.

i know there is no overriding consensus for one option, but surely for the sake of making it a reward for achievement, rather than a stay up inspite being shit award, then it should be two up, two down and playoffs contested by the lower leagues highest runners up?

[Lord Pityme]

16 minutes ago, Slartibartfast said:

You tell him, Bud.  Don't let him bully you, you're opinions should be considered as well. 

He's a baker, no a roaster!

[Sweeper07]

It is easy for us to write our opinions, but the bulk of the Premiership teams have no incentive to change the format.

Personally I would like to see  12  teams in the top league without the two ugly sisters (or even 14) - get them away into some other set up.

This way the Dee and Inverness teams and another can join us up top and we will be clear of being a yo-yo team AND more importantly have a real chance at winning the league, cups etc far more often... the finances would be much more fairly split too...

Europe here we come . . .

Edited May 29, 2019 by Sweeper07