Pearson Defends The Play-off... Desperate

[oldace]

Come on..let's not lie now eh. Are we expected to believe this ?

 

Of course it is true. These people are friends of quite a few people on here and their response to certain things (always a pet hate of the poster) is that they "cry with laughter" or on the occasional they visit the track for the "first time" where the love the action but always vow never to return because of "double points" "play offs" or whatever bandwagon the poster is on.

 

It is all true, I know these people exist, I believe they live at the bottom of the garden with the fairies

[Mike.Butler]

Go back to one-legged semis if we really have to have them..

[Gavan]

just winds me up when its the Darcy and Greg show like last night.

 

All the swooning over how well Hancock was riding. He scored 5!!!!!!!!

[Vincent Blachshadow]

Go back to one-legged semis if we really have to have them..

Or a one legged final at a neutral track. Then we would be somewhere near most, if not all, of these other sports that have play-offs.

[Humphrey Appleby]

that's true, but it would no doubt be possible to have a league system if they so desired - but could you imagine American football without a superbowl?

 

Although English football had 'test matches' back in the 19th century that were effectively playoffs (so hardly a new idea), the concept of modern-day playoffs probably evolved in American football although there's probably an even longer tradition of them in Aussie Rules.

 

The physical nature of that game and the short season means it's impractical for American football teams to play in traditional round-robin leagues, hence the evolution of conferences and the bowl system. The current structure NFL obviously evolved out of the merger of the former NFL and AFL, but the divisional structure already existed because of the need to have a more coherent schedule in the professional game. Of course, there then needed to be a way of determining the champion, hence the need for playoffs.

 

Playoff systems in traditional round-robin competitions are more contrived. Even baseball eschewed them for years with the exception of the World Series between the winners of the two ostensibly rival leagues. Of course, Aussie Rules has long had them and probably implements the best approach in terms of a double elimination system that gives more advantages to higher placed teams at the end of the regular season.

[moxey63]

I am sure some people actually think Play-Offs are good for speedway. Crowds do look quite impressive for the Play-Offs. But are these hiding the real problem, that figures for the actual league programme suffer because they aren't in fact worth that much - or perhaps not as important as they once were - in that a top four is all you need and, as Birmingham unfortunately discovered, who tops the table is irrelevant

 

You can buy a chick drinks all night; don't mean she will leave on your arm once closing time chimes. The best looking guy will always appear.

[PHILIPRISING]

NEVER had so many (over 30 so far) notifications 'liking a post' than for my original on this thread ... think that shows which way the tide is going.

[TheReturn]

YOUR hatred of all things Pearson knows no bounds does it? It may have escaped your attention that Nigel is working for Sky. Why would he be impartial? Sky want and love the play-offs. So do thousands of others, as evidenced by the crowds that attend them.

So he is sucking up to his employer then, is that what you are saying? Of course, every time someone (not just me mentions Pearson, you are here to defend him). That said, my thread was more of an hatred of the play-offs, I just do not think it is justifiable to decide a season long league championship. The thousands of fans that attended the play-off's at a guess are the fans of those clubs, who would have equally attended a league title winning match. So Mr Speedway Star man, are you also a fan of the play-offs, or do you think they are a stupid way to decide a league long title?

 

NEVER had so many (over 30 so far) notifications 'liking a post' than for my original on this thread ... think that shows which way the tide is going.

Does not mean you and they are all correct though.

[Guest]

Isn't the play-off system to decide overall competition winners something that originated in USA/Canada ice hockey, then drifted to the sport in the UK before being picked up by speedway?

[arthur cross]

Isn't the play-off system to decide overall competition winners something that originated in USA/Canada ice hockey, then drifted to the sport in the UK before being picked up by speedway?

 

Play-offs to decide titles were first developed in various North American sports as well as Aussie Rules football for the simple reason that the much greater distances between teams made it financially daft to have a balanced regular season where everyone played everyone else the same amount of times (especially when long-distance train travel was still the norm rather than domestic air travel).

 

Hence the fans of those sports more easily accepted their titles being settled by play-offs ... it meant just the best teams from opposite ends of the country met each other (at which point the crowds would be big enough to offset the travel costs) while the poorer clubs avoided too many costly trips.

 

There's also no promotion/relegation in any of the major North American sports because they prefer all their teams starting off each season with a theoretical chance of winning the title ... hence play-offs have to be used in as violent a sport as American Football because there are 32 teams in the NFL but no chance of enough players remaining fit to last a 31-game schedule year-after-year (it's currently 16 in the regular season plus either 3 or 4 play-offs to win a Super Bowl).

 

In a country the size of the UK, it's only the rising cost of fuel prices in recent years that's really put any travel pressure on the need for play-offs ... meanwhile, all our major sporting leagues were begun on the rock-solid prinicple of teams facing each other in a balanced schedule so play-offs weren't needed to overcome any problem there ... hence just about any UK play-offs totally rely on being money-spinning affairs.

 

We've now had nearly 30 years of football promotion play-offs with at least two purposes ... firstly, as a useful way of avoiding too many meaningless mid-table matches each April and May ... secondly, they're very lucrative for the sides who reach them.

 

There's a third purpose that still exists in Scotland, Germany and several other countries where the team that's just escaped automatic relegation is forced to join only 3 promotion hopefuls to create a 4-team play-off ... however, that was soon scrapped in England because the authorities reckoned there was too big a risk of a riot whenever relegation was confirmed that way.

 

But the concept of title-deciding play-offs after a balanced regular-season schedule will always divide opinion between those who have a purely sporting view and those who have a business-attitude alongside their sporting interest.

[oldace]

So he is sucking up to his employer then, is that what you are saying?

 

Doing as his employer tells him. Whatever next!!!

 

 

 

Does not mean you and they are all correct though.

 

You had two likes, think Phil had 12. That seems about consistent with those in favour of play offs. They are generally played out in approx 5 or 6 times an average crowd.

 

Now without overtaxing your little brain have a think about whether the majority are in favour of play offs or not.

[BWitcher]

 

 

But the concept of title-deciding play-offs after a balanced regular-season schedule will always divide opinion between those who have a purely sporting view and those who have a business-attitude alongside their sporting interest.

 

Well I can see the business side of it and from a 'sporting view', you cannot beat the play-offs.

 

Drama, tension, great atmospheres. Its what sport is all about.

[SimonB]

Personally I like the play off finals, it gives drama and excitement (albeit that this years wasnt the best) right to the end of the season.

 

Nigel; and Kelvin are pretty good in my opinion, they both clearly love the sport and that passion shows. I agree that sometimes they make mistakes but then in 60 seconds of action commentary who wouldn't?

[ten years after]

So he is sucking up to his employer then, is that what you are saying? Of course, every time someone (not just me mentions Pearson, you are here to defend him). That said, my thread was more of an hatred of the play-offs, I just do not think it is justifiable to decide a season long league championship. The thousands of fans that attended the play-off's at a guess are the fans of those clubs, who would have equally attended a league title winning match. So Mr Speedway Star man, are you also a fan of the play-offs, or do you think they are a stupid way to decide a league long title?

 

Does not mean you and they are all correct though.

Before the play offs I can remember the final two Kings Lynn matches 2000 were both very well attended one live and one high lights with Sky, both away.

As for Nigel as long as I have known him he always tried to promote the sport. Very passionate about Speedway that young man. No one said he was another Dave Lanning though.

[BluPanther]

Doing as his employer tells him. Whatever next!!!

 

 

 

You had two likes, think Phil had 12. That seems about consistent with those in favour of play offs. They are generally played out in approx 5 or 6 times an average crowd.

 

Now without overtaxing your little brain have a think about whether the majority are in favour of play offs or not.

Many anti play off ex fans who have deserted the sport would not be on the forum, therefore it does not reflect a true picture at all...

[Racin Jason 72]

I do like the play off system especially when the title is decided at the end few heats. But last night it was dead after heat one.

We need to look at the bigger picture is the play off system better or would you prefer a full season for every club into October. A meaningful ko cop competition. Play offs are great for the teams that are in them but everyone else's season just peters out.

The premier league system this year tried to over milk the cow. Instead of 6 clubs having big crowds results conspired to make several meetings pointless.

If I had a choice I'm not sure which way I'd vote tbh

[lucifer sam]

What is there to defend? The play-offs are great entertainment, and shock, horror, actually drag people into speedway stadiums.

 

The play-offs are here to stay.

 

All the best

Rob

[oldace]

What is there to defend? The play-offs are great entertainment, and shock, horror, actually drag people into speedway stadiums.

 

The play-offs are here to stay.

 

All the best

Rob

 

Not the case Rob, havent you heard, people are leaving the sport because of the play off system. I can't really explain how massive crowds for these matches fits in with that argument but blupanther might be able to explain that one to you

[Arson fire]

What is there to defend? The play-offs are great entertainment, and shock, horror, actually drag people into speedway stadiums.

 

The play-offs are here to stay.

 

All the best

Rob

tend to agree, but they need to organize the season better, maybe they will discuss this and other things like a formula to ensure all clubs are represented in the pairs and fours aswell...... Or maybe they won't

[Humphrey Appleby]

Play-offs to decide titles were first developed in various North American sports as well as Aussie Rules football for the simple reason that the much greater distances between teams made it financially daft to have a balanced regular season where everyone played everyone else the same amount of times (especially when long-distance train travel was still the norm rather than domestic air travel).

 

Not really. The main Aussie Rules teams were nearly all in the same city (Melbourne), whilst most of the professional sports teams in North America were based in the North-East where most of the major cities are not that far apart. It was only in the 1960s there was expansion to the west and later south, and in the case of Aussie Rules only in the 1990s that it expanded outside of Victoria (unless you count South Melbourne moving to Sydney in the 1980s).

 

Baseball didn't have playoffs (other than the World Series) at all until 1969, when geographical expansion meant the leagues needed to be loosely divided into regional divisions, but with Atlanta and Californian teams both put in the NL West, it wasn't really for the convenience of travel. The divisional alignment was more to maximise games against traditional opponents (or to create new rivalries in the case of the expansion teams).

 

it meant just the best teams from opposite ends of the country met each other (at which point the crowds would be big enough to offset the travel costs) while the poorer clubs avoided too many costly trips.

 

Again not really. Neither the AL or NL, nor NFL or AFL (and latterly NFC and AFC) really have any geographical alignment (although the AL and AFL historically featured more teams to the 'west' in the sense of the Near Mid-West). It's true that the NBA and NHL are ostensibly geographically aligned, but in fact are more truly 'national' competitions than MLB or NBA in that every team plays every other team in the league.

 

The playoffs in the NHL actually evolved out of the challenges for the Stanley Cup that was not exclusively the championship trophy of the NHL until 1947. The champions of other ice hockey leagues could and indeed did challenge for the trophy, and the World Hockey Association (that was eventually absorbed by the NHL) even tried to so as late as the 1970s.

 

There's also no promotion/relegation in any of the major North American sports because they prefer all their teams starting off each season with a theoretical chance of winning the title

 

It's more to do with the fact that US major league sports are franchised rather than club based. The very old teams did start as clubs in the British/European sense, but quickly evolved agreements to have exclusive markets. As result, new teams tended to form new leagues, which in time became graded according to the quality of the players they could attract, which in turn led to the evolution of the farm system as teams from 'minor leagues' became adopted by teams from the 'major leagues'. Of course, American football is slightly different in that it evolved from a college sport that still acts as the feeder system, although some US colleges and even high schools get attendances that exceed those in the professional game.

 

As such, there's no tradition of promotion and relegation, although as you point out, it does have the advantage that teams all start the season at the same level. However, I think that's more a historical accident than by design.

 

hence play-offs have to be used in as violent a sport as American Football because there are 32 teams in the NFL but no chance of enough players remaining fit to last a 31-game schedule year-after-year (it's currently 16 in the regular season plus either 3 or 4 play-offs to win a Super Bowl).

 

It would be theoretically possible to play all 15 teams in the same conference, but the tradition in the American football is to play unbalanced schedules in conferences because of the limited length of the Autumn college term (11 weeks), followed by the best teams being invited to bowl games. This idea was carried over to the professional game.

 

In a country the size of the UK, it's only the rising cost of fuel prices in recent years that's really put any travel pressure on the need for play-offs

 

Even with the rising cost of fuel, travel costs are relatively negligible in a country the size of the UK. Moreover, it can often be easier to go north-south rather than east-west in the UK, even assuming you can get an equal split of teams between the defined regions.

 

It makes no sense to contrive a geographically based playoff system in the UK, far less England. A round-robin approach is the best and fairest system if it's practical, and it does not preclude playoffs either. After all, the Aussies have taken this approach for years and few suggest the winners of the Grand Final shouldn't be the champions.

 

They simply shouldn't be called playoffs in speedway though as you don't 'play' speedway.

Edited October 16, 2013 by Humphrey Appleby