The Play Offs

[gateman49]

Correct my last post, Rotherham were beaten by Swansea who then controversially beat us in the final (well, I thought it was so, as the ref had a stinker in the second leg)

[happytorq]

I bet Tranmere spent a good deal this season and they didn't manage it. I have no evidence but it wouldn't surprise me if they spent far more than anyone else to get back to the FL in one go.

Think was Tranmere's second season outside of the FL. Would be interesting to see what kind of budget than can muster next season, although their attendances should be enough to sustain a pretty healthy one.

[Scott Brehaut]

I'd like to see the playoff system whereby, if you finish "bottom" of the playoff positions, you play the team above you. Whichever team wins that game plays the team above, and finally you have the final against the team that finished top of the playoffs positions.

Seems the fairest way - that way there is actually a reward the higher up the table you finish, and if the team that finishes bottom of the playoffs gets to the final and wins, they deserve to go through.

[SenorDingDong]

I'd like to see the playoff system whereby, if you finish "bottom" of the playoff positions, you play the team above you. Whichever team wins that game plays the team above, and finally you have the final against the team that finished top of the playoffs positions.

Seems the fairest way - that way there is actually a reward the higher up the table you finish, and if the team that finishes bottom of the playoffs gets to the final and wins, they deserve to go through.

So somewhat similar to rugby playoffs and the way the MLS does its early playoff rounds? Certainly gives more benefit to the 3rd placed team than just home advantage.

[Jerry]

So somewhat similar to rugby playoffs and the way the MLS does its early playoff rounds? Certainly gives more benefit to the 3rd placed team than just home advantage.

Sounds good to me.

The gate money from all the games would need to be divided equally amongst all the competing teams though.

[SuperNickyWroe]

I'd like to see the playoff system whereby, if you finish "bottom" of the playoff positions, you play the team above you. Whichever team wins that game plays the team above, and finally you have the final against the team that finished top of the playoffs positions.

Seems the fairest way - that way there is actually a reward the higher up the table you finish, and if the team that finishes bottom of the playoffs gets to the final and wins, they deserve to go through.

nice idea scotty, but for me - as far as the conference/league 2 are concerned, there should be a straight four up, four down.
or at worst, three up from the conference and the 4th placed team plays the 4th bottom team in league 2, still giving that play off final feel.

[hector]

In the early days of the playoffs that last option was tried (I seem to remember Rotherham surviving a drop by winning against a team trying to climb up and over them)

Division 3 Rotherham were relegated to Divison 4 via play-offs in 1988. They lost to Swansea, who then beat us in the two-legged final.

The year before, Charlton survived relegation by beating Leeds in the final.

This system is still used in Scotland.

[hector]

I'd like to see the playoff system whereby, if you finish "bottom" of the playoff positions, you play the team above you. Whichever team wins that game plays the team above, and finally you have the final against the team that finished top of the playoffs positions.

Seems the fairest way - that way there is actually a reward the higher up the table you finish, and if the team that finishes bottom of the playoffs gets to the final and wins, they deserve to go through.

This is exactly the idea I have always suggested.

[stargull]

The biggest criticism of this I've heard is that it's hard for the highest seeded team to prepare for a game after a couple of weeks' break while the others fight it out amongst themselves; I seem to remember some rugby types moaning that this was actually a disadvantage.

Personally, I don't think the current system is 'fair' but it does make things interesting - and anyway, weren't we the first club to get promoted after finishing 7th?

[nickbrod]

Apparently the National League board are to discuss having a six team play-offs in future. Teams that finish 2nd and 3rd would go into a semi-final each with home advantage to play either team 4 who would play team 7 while team 5 would play team 6 in "qualifying rounds".
Teams finishing 2nd & 3rd would have an advantage as only having to play once before progressing to the play-off final.
Think that makes sense - the plan not the idea!
But it could make the season more interesting with the extra two places to fight for as team finishing 7th could get promoted.

[desperado]

Quite like that idea, though would rather have two going straight up, not that its going to bother us for a while

[hector]

At last - some advantage to finishing higher.

http://nonleague.pitchero.com/news/the- ... ue-format/

[SenorDingDong]

Quite like that idea, though would rather have two going straight up, not that its going to bother us for a while

It's about bloody time that the Football League sanctions three up/three down. The problem is it's not often that turkeys vote for Xmas, I'm surprised they ever expanded promotion to two teams tbh.

Not sure I like the idea six team one legged play-off matches though, from the way the Non League Paper article is written it seems like it's a done deal as well. Will be interesting to say the least, plenty of people will have something to say about the changes.

[Gullscorer]

http://www.devonlive.com/torquay-united ... story.html
NO...!! NO...!! NO...!!!

[merse btpir]

Don't forget that at the AGM on June 10th, clubs can vote to amend the proposals, decline them or accept them if they feel like you; but I wouldn't bet on it.