Printable View
the promotion relegation play off....
i think the 12 in prem and 10 in 1st works very well and its the right structure now...but i dont see the reason for this play off....the gap between a first div team and a prem team is huge...the prem team wins the majority of the time and thus are saved from relegation
2 up 2 down is fair....do ye agree
No. Would mean 2 from 10 in 1st division get promoted. In reality can expect 3 teams in 1st division to be well off the pace so 2 from & battling for promoting.Quote:
Originally Posted by wild rover
If 2nd place team is good enough & win playoff then they deserve to be promoted.
I agree that 2 up automatically from 10 is too much.
I would, however, like to see the playoffs expanded to 2 or 3 teams from the first division to keep the interest there for more teams for longer in the season.
This could be done a number of ways:
3rd plays 4th and the winners play 2nd with the winners playing 2nd last in the premier
or
2nd last in the premier plays 4th in the first, 2nd plays 3rd and the winners playoff
or
2nd plays 3rd and the winners play 2nd last in the premier.
Obviously, not very fair on the team that finishes 2nd in the first, but the benefit of keeping the interest for more teams for longer in the season is probably worth it, imo
That would just mean a midtable team has the chance of promotion. A 10 team league is too small for a multi-team playoff.Quote:
Originally Posted by monutdfc
There is too much of a jump in quality to Premier to allow a 4th place 1st division team to be promoted.Quote:
Originally Posted by eirebhoy
That logic could be applied to stopping any team going up. There is a gulf between the first and premier full stop. There is very little between the teams in the first (well - top half anyway). Look at the table now - four teams within two points at the top. A team in 3rd or 4th in First is not that far behind the team that finishes top.Quote:
Originally Posted by pete
I think the best approach is 11th in premier versus fourth in first. (If there is such a gulf then no worries for premier team over a two legged game). 2nd in first versus 3rd in first. Winners play off.
As is there will a load of dead rubbers in the first come August and September. It is hard enough to keep interest without having anything to play for.
I'd have to agree with LFC in Exile on this. You need to keep interest going in the first division for as long as possible. After all they don't have relegation like the premier has. Which means lower half teams have nothing to play for toward the end of the season.
Playoff games are always good for increased attendences and are a good way for the first division club of getting some extra revenue even if they lose out on promotion to the premier division team.. They should stay.
whatever about the promotion/relegation aspect, I think the 12 team premier is a disaster- this thing of playing teams 3 times is insane
If you don't have it in the premier you have it in the first division.. there really is no way around it without more league teams.Quote:
Originally Posted by Éanna
Quote:
Originally Posted by holidaysong
Or with two fewer! Get rid of some of the unviable teams. OR the plain crap ones (I know that would mean GUFC at the moment or at least at that muppet [or is it puppet] Lally is 'in charge')
The league should be encouraging teams such as mullingar to join and not kicking teams out and definately not just kicking teams out to round off the numbers.Quote:
Originally Posted by exiled_gufc_fan
Without wanting to píss off the hardcore first divisioners here....better the first division than the premier if one league has to get it.Quote:
Originally Posted by holidaysong
We aren't first divisioners by choice! Much rather be a hardcore premier divisioner! :DQuote:
Originally Posted by Slash/ED
I like the current system, I'd like to see non-league teams have a door into league football (bottom lge club plays the best equipped non-lge club).
I think that the in an ideal situation it would be a 14 team Prem and a 14 team Div1, actually no I'm wrong, Ideally there would be an All-Ireland league with a 16 team Prem and a Div 1 and Div 2! :cool:
How about the last (prem) and first (first) go down and up respectively
Then 11th (prem) plays 2nd (first) and 10th (prem) plays 3rd (first) and then the winners of each tie over two legs go/stay up ???
Just trying to include more teams from Prem to keep it interesting at the botom aswell, and teams in top of first have a fighting chance !!
No it isn't. There won't be fixture pile-ups with the 3 round system. We played 3 rounds for 15 years before, so why are people only whinging now? We can't play 2 rounds as the division's not big enough, or 4 rounds because there's too many games. Therefore, playing 3 rounds is the best solution in the NL.Quote:
Originally Posted by Éanna
No, it's a load of crap. What if Shels win the league by a point over Cork, having played them twice home and once away? Is that fair? Is that a true reflection of the strenghts of both sides? No, one side gets an unfair advantage, so what's the bloody point in a league table if it isn't? The league table in this case does lie. 3 games is a joke.
you contradicted your own argument there. if teh 2nd place in first div is a worse team than the 2nd bottom ini premier then theyve no right to be in the top flightQuote:
Originally Posted by wild rover
that was the system for one season a couple of years ago i think. 2/3/4th in first div should play off with 2nd bottom in top flight.i know giving the 4th placed out of 10 teams the chance to get promoted is generous (in saying that if they win through then they would have earned their status in top division), plus it will keep practically the whole division competitiveQuote:
Originally Posted by monutdfc
it might be a valid argument if you had to play in front of an 80,000 crowd of nutcases in a big league.but in the EL i dont agree with the home advantage/away disadvantage. i mean its hardly intimidating for cork to travel to tolka and play in front 1600 people is it. thats just a pathetic ready made excuse imoQuote:
Originally Posted by Slash/ED
Where's the advantage? On paper, not on the field. Shels have to go to Dalymount 4 times this season, but the sides who play there only visit Tolka once. As it is, Shels have Cork twice at home, and have lost once already. Cork are home to Derry twice, if it's a title decider on Day 33 and Cork win, is it because they played Derry twice at home? In turn, Derry are home to Shels twice. If Derry finish above Shels, is it because of the home factor?Quote:
Originally Posted by Slash/ED
All games begin at 0-0. You win/lose the league by how you perform against everyone during the season, and not by how many times you have to travel away to certain teams. The 4-rounds were a total disaster, with fixtures cancelled for fun, were cancelled by FAI blazers in Switzerland at 2am on one occasion at a crucial time in the season, Longford had 6 games to play in November last season, and come the end of both seasons, teams found themselves playing the same team twice in the same week. The result was chaos, and the 4-round system was a fixture farce. Playing 3 rounds is not perfect, but the only sane option.
You think that playing three matches means matches can't be cancled and somehow eliminates FAI incompetence? :confused:
Just wait until the European games start again, already matches have been cancled for them.
Yes, and those matches will be replayed at times and dates agreed upon by the teams involved. Problem?Quote:
Originally Posted by Slash/ED
Fact is, only one team has won the league playing the extra away game.Quote:
Originally Posted by anto eile
That's different to before, how?Quote:
Originally Posted by Jaime
Which team Macy? :D :D ;) :DQuote:
Originally Posted by Macy
Sorry, I forgot that Shels and Cork must be given special treatment when their league games "clash" with upcoming European ties the following week. Shels and Cork are both full-time teams, so how they can't play 2 games in a week with their resources, boggles me. :confused: Other clubs' games shouldn't be held to ransom for the sake of a couple of teams competing in Europe, who don't want to play the weekend before. If they want to be successful in Europe, then they have to adjust to playing twice a week, most weeks.Quote:
Originally Posted by Slash/ED
It's not fair that clubs can have 4,5,6 league games postponed to facilitate their European demands. If you play in the Intertoto Cup, then your games that are postponed at the weekend should be played the following midweek, so that no team has the advantage of games in hand for several months over their rivals. The league must continue, and those clubs in Europe should be allowed no more than one game in hand over the non-participating European clubs. That way, nobody loses out, and everyone stays more or less in line with each other in the league.
Shouldn't the teams competing in Europe be given the best possible chance to be successful and give a good account of the league in Europe?? If games have to be called off then so be it. The more games called off the better cos that will mean that Irish teams are doing well in Europe.
Back to topic tho...
What do people think of the format used in the premier division in Scotland. Halving the league after round 3, top teams play top teams and bottom teams play bottom teams. Didn't the Eircom league do this a while back? Why didn't they stick with this?
Why? They don't do it in Scotland, England, Holland, Italy, Germany, etc, etc, so why should they do it here? I would understand why if the clubs had a realistic chance of decent progress in Europe. But there will always be a Longford that lose to teams like Vaduz, and with respect to Cork and Shels, they both have the resources to be able to play two games in a week. They just can't be bothered, and expect the FAI to cancel games for them on tap, only to go out of Europe a few weeks later, with several games in hand giving them an unfair advantage over other clubs. If you want to be successful, then you have to adjust to playing twice a week when required.Quote:
Originally Posted by sullanefc
Because it was crap basically! It was an attempt to have more mouth-watering top of the table clashes, but it largely ignored the bottom half of the table. It was scrapped after 2 bad seasons because it was a mistake, like it is in Scotland now.Quote:
What do people think of the format used in the premier division in Scotland. Halving the league after round 3, top teams play top teams and bottom teams play bottom teams. Didn't the Eircom league do this a while back? Why didn't they stick with this?
12 team league is a farce and indicative of the clowns who run our league. The only thing they got right was the 10 team league and they scrapped that after 3 seasons :mad:
With 10 teams you know you are gonna play 18 home and 18 away games plus its a more competitive league. Is there another league that ends up playing an odd number of games FFS?
1 down and the Champions come up plus a playoff between the runners up and the team finishing 9th. Also NO other teams to be admitted to the league. Not enough fans and players to go around.
KOH