Preferred Play Off Structure

[sam4731]

While it's not necessarily a good idea to be constantly tinkering with the play off structure, I was just curious to know what others preferences would be.

Mine would be top 4.

Wk1: 1v2 (Winner quals for GF) and 3v4 (Loser eliminated)

Wk2: Loser of match 1 vs Winner of match 2 (for other place in GF)

Any more than 4 in the play offs just feels wrong to me, especially after potentially up to 27 regular season games.

[Just Browny]

Top 5 was best for rewarding higher placings in the ladder and kept the riff raff out.

[Damien]

13 minutes ago, Just Browny said:

Top 5 was best for rewarding higher placings in the ladder and kept the riff raff out.

Indeed, if we are to have play off then top 5 was far and away the best.

I definitely dont think any play off system should include half or more teams in the league, it should be special finishing in a play off place.

[The Blues Ox]

I liked the ones where the highest ranked teams got a second chance if beaten. I think that is fair reward for finishing in the top positions.

[Leyther_Matt]

I know it goes against protocol so actually like anything that we currently have within the game but I quite like this one. Top four was far too short of a series and I was never overly keen on second chances.

[M j M]

Top 5, McIntyre system. Should never have been changed. 

[Dave T]

Club call. 

The game's never been the same since it's demise. 

[Wellsy4HullFC]

I like the top 5, but I feel the current system is probably best in terms of simplicity and reward. It's hard to explain it to casual fans that you get a second chance and the many different scenarios it can bring. The current playoffs are basically quarter final stages with top 2 having a bye to the semis. Easy to explain. If we ever went to 14 and decided to go top 7, it's easy enough to just give 1st a bye and everyone else in quarters.

I think for British sporting culture purposes, the simpler we make it, the more likely we are to get people on board. I think the McIntyre system is genius, but genius isn't always the best seller!

 

Edited September 29, 2023 by Wellsy4HullFC

[Liverpool Rover]

Either the top 5 or the one in the OP. I like how every team has to beat the teams above them.

[StandOffHalf]

Week 1: Top team into GF

2 v 3 to see who joins them

Week 2: Grand Final

Frees up an extra couple of weeks for international football.

[Black Country Wire]

Preferred the old top 5 system which gave genuine reward for finishing higher up the table.

[Wellsy4HullFC]

3 hours ago, Black Country Wire said:

Preferred the old top 5 system which gave genuine reward for finishing higher up the table.

My only issue with it was likelihood of trust fixtures. There a good chance you get 2v3 in weeks 1 and 3, as well as 1v2 in weeks 2 and 4. When you've already got loop systems in the league and the CC, it's a bit much.

[Griff]

15 hours ago, M j M said:

Top 5, McIntyre system. Should never have been changed. 

Agree.  Mind you, crowds are often so poor for play-off games that one wonders whether there should be fewer of them

[Leyther_Matt]

7 minutes ago, Griff said:

Agree.  Mind you, crowds are often so poor for play-off games that one wonders whether there should be fewer of them

I think that was very much linked to there being so many games to pay for in such a short period of time, even before we consider season ticket culture. I think the current system works quite well on that front that, at worst, you might have two away games and the final to pay for. Finish higher and the more affordable it becomes in some ways with Wigan having a couple of weeks build up to their game and only the need to pay for a home game and potentially the final. 

[Chris22]

I like that our current system avoids repeated matches and is quite straightforward to understand. What I don't like is that the side finishing 6th finds itself in the exact same position as the side finishing 1st, by winning one match in the first week of the play offs.

[sam4731]

The biggest 2 issues for me are:

Amount of teams (Having half of the teams in the league being able to be champions by either winning just 2 or 3 matches is wrong)

Finishing place should determine your advantage and it should really matter where you finish as to what advantage you get, not slight differences.

[Griff]

3 hours ago, Chris22 said:

I like that our current system avoids repeated matches and is quite straightforward to understand. What I don't like is that the side finishing 6th finds itself in the exact same position as the side finishing 1st, by winning one match in the first week of the play offs.

 

Well, they're not quite, because the top team have had a week's rest and are at home.  But you're going to put up with the jeopardy of knock-out football if you want to avoid the risk of repeat fixtures entirely.

[17 stone giant]

As a casual fan (and it's just my opinion), I don't like 2nd chances. I much prefer that when you lose, you're out.

Not just because that's what I'm used to with other sports, but because I don't like the thought of watching a game, only for those two teams to still end up in the GF a couple of weeks later.

It would reduce my interest in watching that GF (to the extent that I might even not bother), because my feeling would be that I've already watched those two teams play and a winner be decided, so why would I want to see it again. Whatever outcome now happens, I'm dissatisfied. It's either 2-0 and there was no point in the second game, or it's 1-1 and don't we need a third to finally decide things?

What I'd probably then do under that system, is the following season I'd give the playoffs a miss and just watch the Grand Final. Rather than risk feeling that I've wasted my time on a match that's now going to be played again, I'll just let them do whatever they have to do to produce two finalists, and I'll watch that.

 

[JohnM]

Whatever system we choose, keep it simple, and well, just keep it stable for 5 years minimum.

Other sports do use "second chance" as do shows like University Challenge. It's called "repercharge" which might make it sound more acceptable.

E.g. https://www.insidethegames.biz/articles/1126135/athletics-introduce-repechage-paris-2024

Edited September 30, 2023 by JohnM

[17 stone giant]

Have they ever done (or considered doing) a playoffs for who gets relegated?

[17 stone giant]

28 minutes ago, JohnM said:

Other sports do use "second chance" as do shows like University Challenge. It's called "repercharge" which might make it sound more acceptable.

Appreciate the info, but would still prefer not to have it for the RL playoffs. With athletics I want the best athletes to reach the final and so I'm happy if there's a bit of a safety net in case someone had a freakish bad race for whatever reason (if Usain Bolt had fallen over, for example). But with the RL, I don't always want the final to be 1st v 2nd. If that's all I ever wanted, might as well just make that the GF and dispense with the playoffs.

I'm afraid University Challenge is a bit above my pay grade. I prefer quizzes where I have a chance of occasionally answering a question. I'd be happy to see Scumbag College given multiple chances to appear though.

[DI Keith Fowler]

13 minutes ago, 17 stone giant said:

Have they ever done (or considered doing) a playoffs for who gets relegated?

Middle 8s was an extended play off and the million pound game a very literal play off final. 

Edited September 30, 2023 by DI Keith Fowler

[17 stone giant]

1 minute ago, DI Keith Fowler said:

Middle 8s was an extended play off and the million pound game a very literal play off final. 

I must confess I don't really know about the Middle 8s, so I'll have to read up on that.

I do remember watching Toronto v London a few years back when London beat them in Toronto on that pitch with all the different markings.

I was thinking more of say the bottom four teams playing off to produce a relegation Grand Final, if you like.

[JohnM]

6 minutes ago, 17 stone giant said:

Appreciate the info, but would still prefer not to have it for the RL playoffs. With athletics I want the best athletes to reach the final and so I'm happy if there's a bit of a safety net in case someone had a freakish bad race for whatever reason (if Usain Bolt had fallen over, for example). But with the RL, I don't always want the final to be 1st v 2nd. If that's all I ever wanted, might as well just make that the GF and dispense with the playoffs.

I'm afraid University Challenge is a bit above my pay grade. I prefer quizzes where I have a chance of occasionally answering a question. I'd be happy to see Scumbag College given multiple chances to appear though.

It's used in many sports in one form or another: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Repechage

[Griff]

50 minutes ago, 17 stone giant said:

Have they ever done (or considered doing) a playoffs for who gets relegated?

Yes. Very much a failure.