Outside the box idea to settle League 1 (7 Viewers)

[Legia Sky Blue]

While we have this impasse on how to decide League 1 between all the vested interests it's struck me that there is a possible middle ground in all this, allowing every team that wants to stop playing to do so and those that want to play on to also do so. This basically works by allowing those teams that do not want to play to have all their remaining games decided 0-0, while all the remaining games are played to their conclusion. Amongst the bottom half it looks like only Tranmere would want to play on, while in the top half from what I understand Doncaster would be unlikely to want to play on, so on that basis the most games anyone would have to play would be Rotherham with 6. We would have 4 - Oxford (h), Peterborough (h), Wycombe (h) and Gillingham (a). A table prior to the resumption for those that want to carry on would look something like this:

1. Coventry 40 - 73
2. Portsmouth 41 - 66
3. Peterborough 41 - 65
4. Rotherham 38 - 65
5. Sunderland 42 - 65
6. Fleetwood 40 - 65
7. Wycombe 40 - 65
8. Oxford 39 - 64
9. Doncaster 44 - 64
10. Ipswich 43 - 59
11. Burton 44 - 57
12. Gillingham 39 - 55
13. Blackpool 44 - 54
14. Bristol Rovers 44 - 54
15. Lincoln 44 - 51
16. Shrewsbury 44 - 51
17. Accrington 44 - 49
18. MK Dons 44 - 46
19. Rochdale 44 - 46
20. Wimbledon 44 - 44
21. Tranmere 39 - 37
22. Southend 44 - 28
23. Bolton 44 - 24

This would allow everything to still be decided on the pitch, while protecting those clubs that financially don't think they can play on. Tranmere would still have a shot at staying up if they were good enough. All the promotion issues would be decided that way too, but with half the games required to play than at the moment, which makes it more practical. There's even an argument that this situation effectively becomes a play off in its own right, so promoting the top 3 without play offs also becomes a possibility, to reduce further games. The only clubs who might feel this adversely affects them are Ipswich and Gillingham, who are probably only pursuing the play on mantra at the moment in the outside chance that the 10 team play off proposition comes into play, so if this came into force they might decide not to play on, reducing the number of games needed even further.

 

---

[steve cooper]

I think something like this would possibly come the nearest to being acceptable to every team.

 

[Marty]

Quite like this idea actually, I'm not sure we'd need to play another game either.

 

[Flying Fokker]

While we have this impasse on how to decide League 1 between all the vested interests it's struck me that there is a possible middle ground in all this, allowing every team that wants to stop playing to do so and those that want to play on to also do so. This basically works by allowing those teams that do not want to play to have all their remaining games decided 0-0, while all the remaining games are played to their conclusion. Amongst the bottom half it looks like only Tranmere would want to play on, while in the top half from what I understand Doncaster would be unlikely to want to play on, so on that basis the most games anyone would have to play would be Rotherham with 6. We would have 4 - Oxford (h), Peterborough (h), Wycombe (h) and Gillingham (a). A table prior to the resumption for those that want to carry on would look something like this:

1. Coventry 40 - 73
2. Portsmouth 41 - 66
3. Peterborough 41 - 65
4. Rotherham 38 - 65
5. Sunderland 42 - 65
6. Fleetwood 40 - 65
7. Wycombe 40 - 65
8. Oxford 39 - 64
9. Doncaster 44 - 64
10. Ipswich 43 - 59
11. Burton 44 - 57
12. Gillingham 39 - 55
13. Blackpool 44 - 54
14. Bristol Rovers 44 - 54
15. Lincoln 44 - 51
16. Shrewsbury 44 - 51
17. Accrington 44 - 49
18. MK Dons 44 - 46
19. Rochdale 44 - 46
20. Wimbledon 44 - 44
21. Tranmere 39 - 37
22. Southend 44 - 28
23. Bolton 44 - 24

This would allow everything to still be decided on the pitch, while protecting those clubs that financially don't think they can play on. Tranmere would still have a shot at staying up if they were good enough. All the promotion issues would be decided that way too, but with half the games required to play than at the moment, which makes it more practical. There's even an argument that this situation effectively becomes a play off in its own right, so promoting the top 3 without play offs also becomes a possibility, to reduce further games. The only clubs who might feel this adversely affects them are Ipswich and Gillingham, who are probably only pursuing the play on mantra at the moment in the outside chance that the 10 team play off proposition comes into play, so if this came into force they might decide not to play on, reducing the number of games needed even further.

So city would have played 38?

oxford any Wycombe.

 

[Legia Sky Blue]

Quite like this idea actually, I'm not sure we'd need to play another game either.

That's not why I favour it, but that is true I think. We could probably also choose not to play, and still go up, probably still as champions,which would have been earned by our performances over the season thus far. Personally in this scenario I would rather play the 3 or 4 games needed and win it on the pitch, but that would be for our owners to decide.

 

[chiefdave]

What happens when one team wants to play and the other doesn't? Is it declared 0-0 or a forfeit?

 

[Legia Sky Blue]

So city would have played 38?

???? - you know its a 44 game season right??

 

[Legia Sky Blue]

What happens when one team wants to play and the other doesn't? Is it declared 0-0 or a forfeit?

0-0 - its the only way to do it and have any semblance of fairness.

 

[skybluesam66]

this also shows if we are looking at strong probabilities

we should get autos
Somehow, then 2 places between the next 7

so maybe
3v8
4v7
5v6

and then
2 v 5 or 6
3 or 8 v 4 or 7

for the additional 2 spaces
5 games to finish the season (2 per team max)

 

[skybluesam66]

0-0 - its the only way to do it and have any semblance of fairness.

then we could declare all of ours as 0-0 !

 

[Legia Sky Blue]

then we could declare all of ours as 0-0 !

Yes, in theory. Like I said though, I personally wouldn't want to see us do that.

 

[Brighton Sky Blue]

It would get a bit messy for us as refusing to play would then have a big impact on the chasing pack.

 

[Legia Sky Blue]

It would get a bit messy for us as refusing to play would then have a big impact on the chasing pack.[/QUOT

Us refusing to play would hold us up to a lot of criticism too, which is why I would hope we wouldn't do this if it ever played out this way.

 

[Flying Fokker]

???? - you know its a 44 game season right??

34 + 4 right? I was fully aware there were 44games.... not sure you are.
taken from your text...right?
Wewould have 4 - Oxford (h), Peterborough (h), Wycombe (h) and Gillingham

 

[shmmeee]

0-0 - its the only way to do it and have any semblance of fairness.

Surely then you’d get all the teams with nothing to play for withdrawing costing teams playing on 2 points per game in all likelihood? So you’d disadvantage teams with an easier run in?

Or have I missed something?

 

[Legia Sky Blue]

34 + 4 right? I was fully aware there were 44games.... not sure you are.
taken from your text...right?
Wewould have 4 - Oxford (h), Peterborough (h), Wycombe (h) and Gillingham

They are the games we would have left to play. The other 6 unplayed games would be declared 0-0. 6 + 34 = 40 doesn't it?

 

[Brighton Sky Blue]

34 + 4 right? I was fully aware there were 44games.... not sure you are.
taken from your text...right?
Wewould have 4 - Oxford (h), Peterborough (h), Wycombe (h) and Gillingham

He means we would have 6 draws by default and have the other 4 available to play

 

[fatso]

So all the team who consider themselves safe at 1 point a game can just say they dont want to play.

The only "box" this idea is out of, is the brain box.

 

[Brighton Sky Blue]

I just think this idea would be open to all kinds of abuse and further divide the teams rather than unite them. Though credit for trying to think of something

 

[Legia Sky Blue]

Surely then you’d get all the teams with nothing to play for withdrawing costing teams playing on 2 points per game in all likelihood? So you’d disadvantage teams with an easier run in?

Or have I missed something?

Every team has those games to play though. Bar the season resuming in its entirety, this is the the fairest way, as it effectively evens things out, while minimising the risk of sending those teams with nothing to play for out of business. Look at the projected League table in this scenario. Every team in with a realistic chance now will still have that chance, and promotion will therefore effectively be decided between immediate rivals, but done so on the pitch. No team with a realistic chance is disadvantaged compared to their current position, and the successful teams will earn promotion from being better than their rivals. Surely that's fairer than PPG/ Null and Void/ 10 game play offs etc?

 

[robbiethemole]

And one sore throat or cough would fuck the lot, or even one positive test with no symptoms. Too much at stake, lives and families, to risk still

 

[Legia Sky Blue]

So all the team who consider themselves safe at 1 point a game can just say they dont want to play.

The only "box" this idea is out of, is the brain box.

I am working from the premise of accepting that the greater interest of the game is for the likes of Accrington and Rochdale to not go out of business. If we don't accept that and it truly is dog eat dog, then ok lets just play out the season and let them face the consequences. If we want to be supportive of the majority in the league then this is one way of doing so. The only teams that can be truly safe by taking one point a game are those that have accrued enough points by their performances through the season so far. One point a game through a season would normally see you relegated from this league, so no team are getting any huge favours in this scenario. If say Rochdale took this option, both Wimbledon and Tranmere would still be able to overtake them by playing their games, and winning them, the same as they would have had to do if the season had played out as normal.

 

[GaryMabbuttsLeftKnee]

And one sore throat or cough would fuck the lot, or even one positive test with no symptoms. Too much at stake, lives and families, to risk still

While I agree in principle, I find it strange how there are so many people petitioning for it 'not to be safe' to get back to playing football, but then to be quite comfortable going down the local park with their friends/neighbours relatives and completely going against Social Distancing rules. Not accusing you of that by the way, but the British publics view of whats dangerous or not is all over the place.

 

[robbiethemole]

My wife is a midwife and to see her PPE shit, just to visit a baby and Mum to check them, you would understand what the issue is. Without going o/t and being political, this is the herd immunity wanted but the public are doing it themselves. Me?, not seen family or grandkids since March, only go out to shop and now wear a full FFP95 mask , and tell people to keep away from me " excuse me, 2 metres is the length of a coffin". Stay safe is the rule

 

[hill83]

Yeah, this is mental

 

[David O'Day]

1 step up from a kerby tournament to decide

Sent from my SM-G975F using Tapatalk

 

[hill83]

1 step up from a kerby tournament to decide

Sent from my SM-G975F using Tapatalk

Now that is an idea. We could play our home games where I used to live in hillfields. The kerbs are massive.

 

[jimmyhillsfanclub]

I just think this idea would be open to all kinds of abuse and further divide the teams rather than unite them. Though credit for trying to think of something

Oohhh....a classic teacher put-down...lifted straight from my 1980s comprehensive education

 

[Brighton Sky Blue]

Oohhh....a classic teacher put-down...lifted straight from my 1980s comprehensive education

Wasn't trying to, honest!

 

[jimmyhillsfanclub]

Wasn't trying to, honest!

Ha...it just gave me flashbacks to my french & history teachers....it was no wonder I ended up switching off & staring out the window....ended up dropping history and "failing" french.

 

[Brighton Sky Blue]

Ha...it just gave me flashbacks to my french & history teachers....it was no wonder I ended up switching off & staring out the window....ended up dropping history and "failing" french.

I set things on fire in my classroom to be fair

 

[jimmyhillsfanclub]

I set things on fire in my classroom to be fair

I did that too.....got a weeks detention, during which they left the chemistry stores open so I lifted a whole roll of magnesium ribbon...

 

[jimmyhillsfanclub]

I can confirm burning magnesium can burn a whole through a toilet seat & I can also confirm that wrapping it around the grill element of a cooker as a practical joke is not the best idea.

 

[Grendel]

Wasn't trying to, honest!

I guess no zoom lessons today?

 

[fernandopartridge]

I think you're ignoring the fundamental reason why teams do not want to play on which is about finances. What happens if I'm a team that wants to play on but all of my opponents do not?

It's flawed. PPG is and always has been the only way.