All matches played at neutral venues.

The top two play each other, the winner goes into the final.

The third and fourth place play each other and the winner plays the loser of the first game.

A much fairer system.

Is this on planet scrumpy ?

If it's a fairer system we want- how about the top 3 in the league go up? They've been the best 2 teams over the whole season. (I presume your "top two" = 3rd & 4th?)
However, the various playoffs have been constructed to produce additional excitement/interest and (more importantly) revenue. The current system does that pretty well (5 extra matches incl a big Wembley final).

Scrumpy and Wiltshire aren't synonymous, for Wiltshire read white horses.

Its as fair as it is right now. Only fairer way is if the top 3 go up. But doing that the League could possibly be dead after 35 games or so.

Dyched wrote:Its as fair as it is right now. Only fairer way is if the top 3 go up. But doing that the League could possibly be dead after 35 games or so.

This.

Leave as is.Very exciting.

I'd keep it as it is but just play the one leg in the semi's with home advantage to the higher placed them.

I don't see how that's fair, the team who finished 4th would only have to win 2 playoff games and the 5th placed team would have to win 3, the difference between them in the league could potentially be goal difference.

If it ain't broke, don't fix it!

brighton and derby are hilariously crap at the current format so i'm all for keeping things as they are.

quoonbeatz wrote:brighton and derby are hilariously crap at the current format so i'm all for keeping things as they are.

This

The good thing about ablue now going down this path is maybe he feels he has exhausted all things to moan about the club and is now seeking to improve football as a whole rather than just us.

I would change them. Whoever wins automatically relegates any teams with the word Blackburn in their name

claretdom wrote:The good thing about ablue now going down this path is maybe he feels he has exhausted all things to moan about the club and is now seeking to improve football as a whole rather than just us.

Nah just giving us a couple of days off, before resuming where they left off.

Vegas Claret wrote:I would change them. Whoever wins automatically relegates any teams with the word Blackburn in their name

I don't think there's any need to change the rules to help Blackburn down the leagues. Let them get relegated on their own merits!

Think those teams finishing 5 & 6 really need to do it the hard way, possibly having a match between themselves first then the winner taking on the 4th placed side away from home, then the winner of that taking on the 3rd place side at a neutral venue, at least that way whoever beats the 3rd place side has had to work hard for their promotion.

ablueclaret wrote:All matches played at neutral venues.

The top two play each other, the winner goes into the final. - Who does the Finalist play?

The third and fourth place play each other and the winner plays the loser of the first game. - Why and for what purpose

A much fairer system.

- How do you fathom this answer out?

You do not explain how you have come to your conclusion and for what reasons, why change or try to repair something if it is working correctly or not broken?
The whole idea is to generate revenue, Yes/No.

Do you own a Sea rod?

I'd have 3rd place going straight to Wembley with 4th and 5th playing a semi final. Top two still go up automatically.

box_of_frogs wrote:If it ain't broke, don't fix it!

I usually like changing things and this quote is frequently used to kill new ideas. However, on this occasion I agree and really don't see how it would be better.

ablueclaret wrote:All matches played at neutral venues.

The top two play each other, the winner goes into the final.

The third and fourth place play each other and the winner plays the loser of the first game.

A much fairer system.

Did you get distracted and not finish the explanation of your system.

So far we have got one team in the final, the winner of the 2nd game playing the loser of the 1st game.

Presumably the winner of this game then plays the winner of the first game in the final?

So the final could be a repeat of the first game.

Is that your system?

I have given two alternatives.

A & B play each other, winner goes straight to final.

C & D play each other and winner has to play the loser of the A/B game to see who gets to the final.

Meanwhile the winner of the A/B game is better rested due to playing less games, which is bound to cause some complaints.

The play offs are great to watch if you are one of the top two teams or if you win the final. (They must be a pita if you lose the final!). We have almost done the lot; title winners, runners up and play off winners (not lost the play off final as yet and hope we never do!). Leave as is for me.

If you finish third you dont really deserve to go up automatically. So the current lottery makes the season exciting. Both for the chasing pack right up to game 46 and for the top three, at least in recent seasons.

It means that almost all games right through the season have some meaning.

Changing it ruins all that.

Current system is fine.

I like the system as it stands.

But - every year really poor teams from higher leagues escape going down by a point or a goal.
Some good/better teams in the league below miss going up in playoffs... (Sunderland should have gone down years ago).
So maybe 4th bottom could be part of the playoff schedule? with 4 teams possibly going down?
4th bottom enters the playoffs of the league below with 4th, 5th & 6th of the league below.

So third place get's you up.
Third bottom sends you down as it stands anyway and 4th bottom means you have no skin left on your teeth anymore.

It could spread some of the money (just slightly) fairer than it stands at the moment also.

Could do it similar to the Scots and have 19th-20th in the Prem automatically down and 1st-2nd in the Champ automatically up, then have 18th in the Prem join in the fun along with 3rd-5th in the Champ; same format as before, two two-legged semi-finals before a Wembley final.

i like it as it is, when we beat sheff in the final in 09, they'd finished higher than us in the league, but we made it.
The blades plummeted dramatically after their failure.
Felt a little sad for them to be honest. The current system works very well .

Personally think the play-offs are completely unfair but if we are to have them then the team finishing third should have a significant advantage and the rest have to do a lot more to unseat it, so straight into the final for the third place side, 5&6 play -off and the winner plays the 4th side, the winner of that gets to the final. Yes they will have played significantly more games but if they then go on to beat the third placed side they will have deserved their promotion.

On the other hand, the third place team will have had three weeks off while the lower teams have been getting match practice.

surely as it is though, the incentive should be for the 3rd placed team to finish 1st or 2nd ! if they fail to do so then they face a play off.
The cut off for promotion is top two. Not achieving that means you have to take your chances with evryone else below. Harsh perhaps, but exciting.
The target is obvious at the start of the season therfore 3rd is no better than 6th in my opinion.

The play offs people say unfair because 'poorer teams' have a chance. But surely thats what we love about it.

Had we not took that chance in 2009 who knows where we would be today. Teams like us, Hull, Swansea have really benefited from it which is surely better for the game?

If there is to be any justice then only teams within three points of the third side should take part, this might mean the third side get promoted auromatically but if not, only sides within one win of them get the opportunity.
Rules can be changed whenever people decide to change them.

"So maybe 4th bottom could be part of the playoff schedule? with 4 teams possibly going down?
4th bottom enters the playoffs of the league below with 4th, 5th & 6th of the league below."

When the Play-Offs first started they involved the 3rd from bottom team in the higher league, along with the 3rd, 4th & 5th team in the lower one. It was decided after a very short time, possibly only two seasons,to drop that in favour of the current system.

there's nothing wrong with the current format.

Relegation play offs!
Bottom two go down, 19th-22nd play for last spot

Excitement, revenue and mirrors the top.

The only thing to changing is how goal difference is worked out(in all english leagues)

Say we finish 3rd(+20)behind Derby(+21)on goal difference. But we beat Derby 2-0 home and away. We should finish above them on results.

Dyched wrote:The only thing to changing is how goal difference is worked out(in all english leagues)

Say we finish 3rd(+20)behind Derby(+21)on goal difference. But we beat Derby 2-0 home and away. We should finish above them on results.

Running head-to-head and goal difference systems at the same time seems overly complex (is it even possible?). I could only see head-to-head being implemented if goal difference was tied instead of the current system which then go to who scored more goals (then a play off at neutral venue if it relates to promotion, relegation, entry to other competitions etc).

Still prefer goal difference reflects on the entire season instead of two games and encourages teams to attack/defend beyond when a result may be decided for more entertaining games.

I wouldn't change it. Top 2 you know you are up. The season is alive for most clubs be it promotion, play-offs or relegation issues right up to the last few games. 6th position gives you a chance of promotion albeit you play the 3rd and have the away game second. Didn't we go up from 6th recently ?
It's hard on the team finishing in 3rd many points more than the rest, but that's life.

The Premier League are a separate entity to the English Football League and have a total veto on any proposed changes to the system as they transfer a share certificate to new entrants from the relegated clubs. They would rather vote to REDUCE the number of teams relegated than allow an increase to 4 teams being threatened.

The play off system is great. The 3rd placed team can often be on a bit of a wobble by then whilst the 6th placed team sneaks in on the back of a cracking run so the results can often go either way.

Perhaps the only way to make it 'fairer' is to have 3rd vs 6th and 4th vs 5th as single ties at home of the highest placed team.

In reality though the only 'unfair' rules in the English game are in the League Cup where the away goals rule is unlike any other competition and playing players in the second leg who were ineligible for the first, but surely such a daft scenario has never occurred.

So final scheme is third place team go up if 3 or more points ahead of 4th, no play -off.

Any team within 3 points of third place side will compete in play-offs.

3rd place side goes straight into the final.

Any other teams involved play off against the team immediately above them in a sudden death fixture at the higher teams ground, these fixtures continue until a side wins the sudden death stage and plays against the third place side.

Fair and reflecting the teams overall performances prior to the competition.

I think there are two ways of "improving" it. Either:-
a) 1 and 2 go up
b) 4 play 5 in the semi-final
c) 3 plays the winner of 4 v 5 in the final.

Some years that would be much fairer (look how far ahead the 3rd placed team sometimes is) - but I don't think we need to go that far. I'd rather the "or":-
If at the end of the second leg of the semi-finals (or the extra time in the final) the scores are level then the side that finished in a higher league position is presumed to have scored an extra goal and goes through without the lottery of a penalty shoot out.

That ought to see one team going all out attack for the last few minutes, rather than them both settling for penalties.

Sky Sports broadcast 75 matches from across the Football League, including the play-offs and all three finals.

I would think as a whole and taken without a specific season in mind clubs would much rather take the revenue from these extra 15 high profile games that is spread among them at the start of the season. There's probably a higher average chance of promotion with the current format too.

So by removing the playoffs you take money from every club in all leagues and reduce the overall chance of promotion.

The play offs could be the only games the neutral watches from the lower leagues so a boost in ratings. They will most likely be the biggest crowd of the season for the home clubs and people are suggesting cutting it to one leg?
Going to Wembley is proven to boost attendances for the year after as well.

The play offs are one of the best things for league football.

If any changes happen it might be a relegation play off in the premier league. Two, two legged ties with the losers playing at Wembley and the loser going down. We are safe for now as the relegation battle on the final weekend is normally more exciting than the top half.