I thought the National League had finished playing ?

[tuffers#1]

It's not punishment because you're looking at performances over a relatively robust sample size of 35 games, not a volatile sample of 2-4 games that happened after game 35.

It is punishment to a point.
I wont argue with you over it as the leagues & clubs voted to allow ppg to happen.
Therefore that is the fairest way . As Barnets ppg was better over a number of the 35
games they still would have finished in the play offs .
Halifax may not have as Stockports
last 5 was Stronger , only to mess up with a defeat in there..

It's not correct to say that because teams voted for points per game that it was the fairest way when that was the only option on the table at that time. For example the league had ruled out weighted points per game and didnt present that as an alternative to be voted on.

Rollback was never on the agenda. It was never discussed, debated or even raised by the media. Which is odd when it would have eliminated all guesswork and flawed estimations of the number of points that a team may or may not have picked up in their remaining games.

Trouble with that system is you would penalise a team only adding points scored .
Notts were behind both yeovil & borehamwood at the time
Goals scored in the last 5 or 6 meant notts having played 1
game more & now a better goal difference than both Yeovil & BW .

It would also have affected relegations
Havent only 2 gone down instead if 4 ?

All very hit & miss whatever was done other than play out the full season.

[Smendrick Feaselberg]

It is punishment to a point.
I wont argue with you over it as the leagues & clubs voted to allow ppg to happen.
Therefore that is the fairest way . As Barnets ppg was better over a number of the 35
games they still would have finished in the play offs .
Halifax may not have as Stockports
last 5 was Stronger , only to mess up with a defeat in there..

It's not correct to say that because teams voted for points per game that it was the fairest way when that was the only option on the table at that time. For example the league had ruled out weighted points per game and didnt present that as an alternative to be voted on.

Rollback was never on the agenda. It was never discussed, debated or even raised by the media. Which is odd when it would have eliminated all guesswork and flawed estimations of the number of points that a team may or may not have picked up in their remaining games.

Trouble with that system is you would penalise a team only adding points scored .
Notts were behind both yeovil & borehamwood at the time
Goals scored in the last 5 or 6 meant notts having played 1
game more & now a better goal difference than both Yeovil & BW .

It would also have affected relegations
Havent only 2 gone down instead if 4 ?

All very hit & miss whatever was done other than play out the full season.

The big flaw in all of your posts is that rather than independently decide on the fairest process for determining final placings (i.e. pros and cons for each), you're biasing them by going on to calculate what the final outcome would be and using that in conjunction with the last league table to determine whether the process is "fair" or not, or looking at games in isolation. It's totally the wrong way to be going about this.

I couldn't tell you what the final placings would be for points per game, weighted points per game, rollback or any other proposal - and that's ok because it means there is no clouding of judgement on the most suitable process to use. That's the key thing here.

The league put it to a vote for fear of being sued and quite clearly when clubs can calculate how the result of a process affects them they will vote on it accordingly. That applies for whatever process was put forward. The league should have put forward several options and let teams vote on that - then a fair process would have been agreed on.

[tuffers#1]

It's not correct to say that because teams voted for points per game that it was the fairest way when that was the only option on the table at that time. For example the league had ruled out weighted points per game and didnt present that as an alternative to be voted on.

Rollback was never on the agenda. It was never discussed, debated or even raised by the media. Which is odd when it would have eliminated all guesswork and flawed estimations of the number of points that a team may or may not have picked up in their remaining games.

Trouble with that system is you would penalise a team only adding points scored .
Notts were behind both yeovil & borehamwood at the time
Goals scored in the last 5 or 6 meant notts having played 1
game more & now a better goal difference than both Yeovil & BW .

It would also have affected relegations
Havent only 2 gone down instead if 4 ?

All very hit & miss whatever was done other than play out the full season.

The big flaw in all of your posts is that rather than independently decide on the fairest process for determining final placings (i.e. pros and cons for each), you're biasing them by going on to calculate what the final outcome would be and using that in conjunction with the last league table to determine whether the process is "fair" or not, or looking at games in isolation. It's totally the wrong way to be going about this.

I couldn't tell you what the final placings would be for points per game, weighted points per game, rollback or any other proposal - and that's ok because it means there is no clouding of judgement on the most suitable process to use. That's the key thing here.

The league put it to a vote for fear of being sued and quite clearly when clubs can calculate how the result of a process affects them they will vote on it accordingly. That applies for whatever process was put forward. The league should have put forward several options and let teams vote on that - then a fair process would have been agreed on.

Its not a flaw
Before notts went above yeovil
There ppg was less than yeovils
I worked it out its wuite simple to dowhen it
Was 1st muted as a possiblilty.
Points gained divided by Games played .

Roll back doesnt change that
Yeovil & Borehamwodd would have been higher on roll back at 35 games
Barnet would have been even better off as they had more
games postponed than the other teams so there point average actually
dropped the way it was w9rked out on games played upuntil lockdown.

Had there been a vote with waiting & finishing the season
that would have been voted the winning way

[Smendrick Feaselberg]

Trouble with that system is you would penalise a team only adding points scored .
Notts were behind both yeovil & borehamwood at the time
Goals scored in the last 5 or 6 meant notts having played 1
game more & now a better goal difference than both Yeovil & BW .

It would also have affected relegations
Havent only 2 gone down instead if 4 ?

All very hit & miss whatever was done other than play out the full season.

The big flaw in all of your posts is that rather than independently decide on the fairest process for determining final placings (i.e. pros and cons for each), you're biasing them by going on to calculate what the final outcome would be and using that in conjunction with the last league table to determine whether the process is "fair" or not, or looking at games in isolation. It's totally the wrong way to be going about this.

I couldn't tell you what the final placings would be for points per game, weighted points per game, rollback or any other proposal - and that's ok because it means there is no clouding of judgement on the most suitable process to use. That's the key thing here.

The league put it to a vote for fear of being sued and quite clearly when clubs can calculate how the result of a process affects them they will vote on it accordingly. That applies for whatever process was put forward. The league should have put forward several options and let teams vote on that - then a fair process would have been agreed on.

Its not a flaw
Before notts went above yeovil
There ppg was less than yeovils
I worked it out its wuite simple to dowhen it
Was 1st muted as a possiblilty.
Points gained divided by Games played .

Roll back doesnt change that
Yeovil & Borehamwodd would have been higher on roll back at 35 games
Barnet would have been even better off as they had more
games postponed than the other teams so there point average actually
dropped the way it was w9rked out on games played upuntil lockdown.

Had there been a vote with waiting & finishing the season
that would have been voted the winning way

Ok Tuffers. I can see from this thread and your past form you're that just going to argue and argue and argue and want the last word, so I'll leave you to it.

[tuffers#1]

The big flaw in all of your posts is that rather than independently decide on the fairest process for determining final placings (i.e. pros and cons for each), you're biasing them by going on to calculate what the final outcome would be and using that in conjunction with the last league table to determine whether the process is "fair" or not, or looking at games in isolation. It's totally the wrong way to be going about this.

I couldn't tell you what the final placings would be for points per game, weighted points per game, rollback or any other proposal - and that's ok because it means there is no clouding of judgement on the most suitable process to use. That's the key thing here.

The league put it to a vote for fear of being sued and quite clearly when clubs can calculate how the result of a process affects them they will vote on it accordingly. That applies for whatever process was put forward. The league should have put forward several options and let teams vote on that - then a fair process would have been agreed on.

Its not a flaw
Before notts went above yeovil
There ppg was less than yeovils
I worked it out its wuite simple to dowhen it
Was 1st muted as a possiblilty.
Points gained divided by Games played .

Roll back doesnt change that
Yeovil & Borehamwodd would have been higher on roll back at 35 games
Barnet would have been even better off as they had more
games postponed than the other teams so there point average actually
dropped the way it was w9rked out on games played upuntil lockdown.

Had there been a vote with waiting & finishing the season
that would have been voted the winning way

Ok Tuffers. I can see from this thread and your past form you're that just going to argue and argue and argue and want the last word, so I'll leave you to it.

I actually agree with what youve said about most of it

But fairest wasnt really on the table once covid hit .
Just got to take whats on offer & get on with it.


I do think its a little unfair of you to be blaming me
being argumentative.
I didnt call off games Barnet had due to covid infectiond
Or for waterlogged pitches or storm threats in February.

Still not to worry eh.