Crewe's promotion and the farce of the play-offs

[hector]

I hate the play-offs...it is utterly wrong that a team can get promoted when they finish 9 or 10 points behind another. I really wanted Cheltenham, simply because over the season they deserved it more than Crewe.

Whilst I accept that the play-offs are here to stay, it should at least be weighted in favour of the teams that finish higher. Whether this be one-legged semi's or my preference would be the following, based on this season's finishing places...

Southend, finishing highest qualify for the final.

Crewe play in a one-legged tie away at Cheltenham, with the winners playing a further around at Plainmoor against Torquay.

The winners of that meet Southend in the final.

At least then, each team gets some favour for finishing higher and if the team 9 points behind battles their way through two away games and a further game against a fresh Southend, then fair enough. To a degree they earned it.

But on no account, under the current system do Crewe deserve to be promoted simply because they have played well since February.

The weak argument for this is that teams know the rules before the start of the season, which I guess they do, but it means that those teams going for it are penalised when it comes to the play-offs. We would have been better just doing enough to get into the play-offs, resting players etc, so that we were in better shape for it, but the going for automatic promotion took its toll on us to the extent that we were disadvantaged when faced with clubs who had not played to the same level over the league system.

I always remember Danny Baker back in the day when he presented 606 saying 'The play offs are vile' and I agree with him.

[bixieupnorth]

23 years, they're not going anywhere now, it adds so much to the season for so many teams, play better and you'll get automatic, everyone knows the score

fair play to crewe, what about wrexham with 98 points!! liked it better when the third bottom team of the league above were envolved too! look at holland, they have about 8 games to play after the regular season

[AustrianAndyGull]

We weren,t good enough to beat Cheltenham over two matches despite us finishing above them so we didn,t deserve promotion. Harsh but true. We had a second chance to beat what was put in front of us and failed. Crewe ended the season flying and although i don,t think they are a particularly strong side however they peaked at the right time, oozed confidence and everybody knew their name was on the last spot before a play off ball was kicked.

[friendlygas]

The way to look at it is that the TOP 3 teams go up automatically and the 4th place is a bonus. As somebody else put earlier the play offs keep interest up even for teams who can be 16th in February!! It increases attendances in the second half of the season for all clubs that are chasing the play offs. Only the clubs that finish in the highest position but fail to go up are unhappy about the system. The truth is for sheer excitement and the bonus of p[laying at Wembley it is better to go up through the play offs than winning the League!! I am sure that had you gone up via the Play offs you wouldnt have wanted to change the system.Just think it could be worse...we could be run by7 the Rugby Officials where nobody gets automatic promotion and the top 8 all get in the Play offs. This is the top 8 out of 12 as well which pretty much m akes the League itself a total waste of time!!

[SteveDeckchair]

I don't mind them actually.

It gives a load of mid-table sides the hope that a good run of results could put them in contention for promotion.

I just don't understand why people have an issue with it? Sure it's not a nice way to lose, but everyone knows the rules before the start.

[stevegull]

Exactly Steve.

Everyone knows the deal. The top 3 go up. 4th - 7th go into the 'lottery' of the play-offs. It's not as if the play offs have sprung out of nowhere and are suddenly an injustice for the teams near the top.

Long live the play offs. (Althought I do think the promotion system from the conference desperately needs a look at, it is a farce that only one team goes up automatically)

[Scott Brehaut]

With reference the conference, I think the best and fairest way would be three up (two automatically and one via playoffs) and three down.

[ferrarilover]

Yeah, I see merit in Hector's idea, and I quite like it. The present method of handicap is to allow the higher placed team playing the lower placed team, but in the face of Hector's plan, it all seems a little inadequate. I too was pondering the situation and did begin to wonder if we might (bear with me) draw our inspiration from the TV show Gladiators.
For those who have repressed the memory of the best show of the 90s, the premise was that contestants would accumulate points throughout the challenges. Come the final challenge of the episode, the contestant with the greater points was awarded a head start based on a half second per point advantage over his opponent.
I propose a similar system based around points garnered over the season and a handicap placed upon the lower placed side, perhaps a goal head start per 5 point lead.
Sure, it's revolutionary and it'll never happen, but does at least offer some incentive and reward.

Matt.

[Yellow4life]

What I like is when some leagues have a team in the higher division (league 1 in our case) against a team in league 2, this shows which team is cut out for the league.

Why not have 3rd and 4th from bottom league one V 3rd and 4th league 2

Naturally 1st and second go up automatically as do 2nd and last from league one down.

[the_shredder]

I like y4l's suggestion.

Crewe deserved to go up tho, if theyre currently the best team of the 4 then that's the team that will stand the best chance in the league above. There's not much point us being promoted in a different kind of system if we can't beat Cheltenham (who can't beat Crewe) what chance do we have of doing well in L1? Not as good a chance as Crewe, is the answer

[ferrarilover]

We are missing only a decent finisher from our squad this year, that was the difference between playoff disappointment and winning the division. We would have struggled in L1, but we'd have survived.

As to the match today, thought I'd put this here; go back a week and Cheltenham were bleating t how real teams take their chances and it was our fault that we hadn't beaten them. Suddenly, after today, it's all about chances created, corners, pressure etc. Dear oh dear.

Matt.

[brucie]

zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz get over it. Cheltenham were average at best and we lost 4-1. Those are the rules. It adds interste to the season. Just admit it - we weren't good enough.

[the_shredder]

zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

^

[leetufc]

I like the play-offs in that they add excitement to the end of the season and they keep things interesting, but I do agree that they are unfair to teams who finish higher up, especially in the lower leagues. I agree with Hector's proposal and have actually been saying the same thing for a while myself. It gives benefit to those teams who finish higher up in that they play less games and get home advantage, while still encouraging teams putside the play-offs to push for 7th spot. It would also keep the added drama to the end of the season.

The other unfair thing about the playoffs are teams who can be sat in the middle two playoff spots, who can't quite make automtic promotion, but are clear enough of those chasing not to worry, and are therefore able to rest players going into the playoffs, such as Cheltenham this year. This gives them fresh legs to play against teams who have been fighting hard for 46 games and who couldn't rest their players. Hector's proposal would encourage these teams to keep playing a full strength team until the end of the season so they had less games to face in the playoffs.

[ferrarilover]

A lot of forum (Latin nerds, what's the plural of forum?) have an 'ignore' button. Any chance?

Matt.