Yes, we all know how a league works, including me.
Nothing 'contrived' about the lower placed teams actually having to BEAT the higher placed teams to progress - a lot less 'contrived' than some of the other systems that have been suggested!
That's just my opinion.
No you're not agreeing with me - you're proposing 'ghost' goals, with one team being given a two or three goal start, depending on how far ahead on points they were. Goal starts? - that's NOT football.
My proposal, much more simple and logical, is that the team that finishes lower will actually...
The sixth placed team will have had 46 chances to finish in third place themselves, ahead of the team that eventually finished third (who would then be 4th.!
But it would still be a net loss of 50% of the semi-final revenue. The benefits to attendance in the later stages of the season would still apply, because there would still be the play-offs to go for. Still 50% of the semi-final revenue up the swanee though, with no revenue benefits elsewhere to...
Does start as a level playing field - exactly the same circumstances as our game at 'Boro, actually - the lower placed team HAD to win, while a draw after 90 minutes was sufficient for the higher placed club to progress.
Yes there is - keep the format the same, but lower placed team has to actually win - a draw favours the higher placed team - that would be their justifiable advantage.
Why make it so complex? We have to keep the play offs, now that they've been invented, because of the money generated (and that was the only reason for them, really). So keep them, but just change it so that the lower placed team has to actually beat the higher placed team to progress - tie...
Quite. And therein lies my suggestion for remedying (to an extent) the injustice of the play-offs. Namely, that the lower placed team should actually have to beat the higher placed team. If the scores are level, the higher placed team goes through.
Yes, we have - but we've got a mentally tough...