The Unofficial and Independent Leyton Orient Message Board
https://lofcforum.com/forum1/phpBB3/
Barnet in 11th place not in the top 7 e.g https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/teams/barnet/table
Barnet rather lucky to get in the play offs then ! The readjusted League position is not shown on the BBC site, many teams must feel rather aggrieved if they miss out on play offs/promotion because of this PPG adjustment.slacker wrote: ↑Sat Jul 18, 2020 2:56 pm Barnet were 7th after the PPG adjustment used in all unfinished Leagues where promotion and relegation were to happen.
You’re right about only 1 down to the NL, and Stevenage standing on the trap door. But the EFL are appealing against the Macclesfield points penalty that kept them up (I think that’s not concluded), so that might still change.
Notts County very lucky to get 3rdSid Bishop wrote: ↑Sat Jul 18, 2020 3:05 pmBarnet rather lucky to get in the play offs then ! The readjusted League position is not shown on the BBC site, many teams must feel rather aggrieved if they miss out on play offs/promotion because of this PPG adjustment.slacker wrote: ↑Sat Jul 18, 2020 2:56 pm Barnet were 7th after the PPG adjustment used in all unfinished Leagues where promotion and relegation were to happen.
You’re right about only 1 down to the NL, and Stevenage standing on the trap door. But the EFL are appealing against the Macclesfield points penalty that kept them up (I think that’s not concluded), so that might still change.
Yeovil lost 2-0 today to Barnet.tuffers#1 wrote: ↑Sat Jul 18, 2020 5:33 pmNotts County very lucky to get 3rdSid Bishop wrote: ↑Sat Jul 18, 2020 3:05 pmBarnet rather lucky to get in the play offs then ! The readjusted League position is not shown on the BBC site, many teams must feel rather aggrieved if they miss out on play offs/promotion because of this PPG adjustment.slacker wrote: ↑Sat Jul 18, 2020 2:56 pm Barnet were 7th after the PPG adjustment used in all unfinished Leagues where promotion and relegation were to happen.
You’re right about only 1 down to the NL, and Stevenage standing on the trap door. But the EFL are appealing against the Macclesfield points penalty that kept them up (I think that’s not concluded), so that might still change.
Yeovil who were 3rd were meant to play Barnet the same
day notts won there last game which they won to put them above yeovil.
Yeovils game was called off because 2 barnet players tested for covid.
Yes they did is the answer.Sid Bishop wrote: ↑Sat Jul 18, 2020 2:44 pmBarnet in 11th place not in the top 7 e.g https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/teams/barnet/table
According to this BBC League table they are in 11th position many games to go before the season would have been completed but Barnet had a couple of games in hand compared to most other teams, so i guess allowed to take part in the play offs ?
Strange how they worked these things out. I suppose because Bury dropped out the FL that only Stevenage will be going to go down from Division 2 FL to the National League. So I wonder, do Barnet in 11th place knock 4th placed Yeovil out of the play offs if they win today ?
ExactlySid Bishop wrote: ↑Sat Jul 18, 2020 5:37 pmYeovil lost 2-0 today to Barnet.tuffers#1 wrote: ↑Sat Jul 18, 2020 5:33 pmNotts County very lucky to get 3rdSid Bishop wrote: ↑Sat Jul 18, 2020 3:05 pm
Barnet rather lucky to get in the play offs then ! The readjusted League position is not shown on the BBC site, many teams must feel rather aggrieved if they miss out on play offs/promotion because of this PPG adjustment.
Yeovil who were 3rd were meant to play Barnet the same
day notts won there last game which they won to put them above yeovil.
Yeovils game was called off because 2 barnet players tested for covid.
It's for this reason that rollbacks would have been fairest. Rollback everyone's points tally in the NL to after they had played 35 games (matching Barnet, the lowest in the division) and place teams according to that. Then you get no need to have to worry about points per game projections.WickfordO wrote: ↑Sat Jul 18, 2020 5:37 pmYes they did is the answer.Sid Bishop wrote: ↑Sat Jul 18, 2020 2:44 pmBarnet in 11th place not in the top 7 e.g https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/teams/barnet/table
According to this BBC League table they are in 11th position many games to go before the season would have been completed but Barnet had a couple of games in hand compared to most other teams, so i guess allowed to take part in the play offs ?
Strange how they worked these things out. I suppose because Bury dropped out the FL that only Stevenage will be going to go down from Division 2 FL to the National League. So I wonder, do Barnet in 11th place knock 4th placed Yeovil out of the play offs if they win today ?
The premiership lead BBC have not adjusted the tables accordingly, because it is the NL, but because Barnet only played 35 games and the others played 37 or 38 or 39 games, they managed to accrue more average points over those 35 games, than the others who played the more games when the league stopped and that put them up to 7th. The formula for the PPG is:- (points gained divided by games played) multiplied by (games due to be played in the full season). In Barnet's case that is (54/35) x 46 = 70.97. Hope that explains it.
Hadn't heard of that before. Or even considered it.Smendrick Feaselberg wrote: ↑Sat Jul 18, 2020 8:26 pmIt's for this reason that rollbacks would have been fairest. Rollback everyone's points tally in the NL to after they had played 35 games (matching Barnet, the lowest in the division) and place teams according to that. Then you get no need to have to worry about points per game projections.WickfordO wrote: ↑Sat Jul 18, 2020 5:37 pmYes they did is the answer.Sid Bishop wrote: ↑Sat Jul 18, 2020 2:44 pm
Barnet in 11th place not in the top 7 e.g https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/teams/barnet/table
According to this BBC League table they are in 11th position many games to go before the season would have been completed but Barnet had a couple of games in hand compared to most other teams, so i guess allowed to take part in the play offs ?
Strange how they worked these things out. I suppose because Bury dropped out the FL that only Stevenage will be going to go down from Division 2 FL to the National League. So I wonder, do Barnet in 11th place knock 4th placed Yeovil out of the play offs if they win today ?
The premiership lead BBC have not adjusted the tables accordingly, because it is the NL, but because Barnet only played 35 games and the others played 37 or 38 or 39 games, they managed to accrue more average points over those 35 games, than the others who played the more games when the league stopped and that put them up to 7th. The formula for the PPG is:- (points gained divided by games played) multiplied by (games due to be played in the full season). In Barnet's case that is (54/35) x 46 = 70.97. Hope that explains it.
Notts county would complain as there wer 4th or 5th at the time having won games.Tent Keague wrote: ↑Sat Jul 18, 2020 9:04 pmHadn't heard of that before. Or even considered it.Smendrick Feaselberg wrote: ↑Sat Jul 18, 2020 8:26 pmIt's for this reason that rollbacks would have been fairest. Rollback everyone's points tally in the NL to after they had played 35 games (matching Barnet, the lowest in the division) and place teams according to that. Then you get no need to have to worry about points per game projections.WickfordO wrote: ↑Sat Jul 18, 2020 5:37 pm
Yes they did is the answer.
The premiership lead BBC have not adjusted the tables accordingly, because it is the NL, but because Barnet only played 35 games and the others played 37 or 38 or 39 games, they managed to accrue more average points over those 35 games, than the others who played the more games when the league stopped and that put them up to 7th. The formula for the PPG is:- (points gained divided by games played) multiplied by (games due to be played in the full season). In Barnet's case that is (54/35) x 46 = 70.97. Hope that explains it.
Seems like a good was of going about things. What's the drawback using that method? I'm plucking my brains trying to think of one and all I can think of is that some could claim that after the 35th game that they had actual points.
Wonder how Websfeet would've faired using that method.
They're not being punished. You're just rolling it back to a 35 game season.tuffers#1 wrote: ↑Sat Jul 18, 2020 9:14 pmNotts county would complain as there wer 4th or 5th at the time having won games.Tent Keague wrote: ↑Sat Jul 18, 2020 9:04 pmHadn't heard of that before. Or even considered it.Smendrick Feaselberg wrote: ↑Sat Jul 18, 2020 8:26 pm
It's for this reason that rollbacks would have been fairest. Rollback everyone's points tally in the NL to after they had played 35 games (matching Barnet, the lowest in the division) and place teams according to that. Then you get no need to have to worry about points per game projections.
Seems like a good was of going about things. What's the drawback using that method? I'm plucking my brains trying to think of one and all I can think of is that some could claim that after the 35th game that they had actual points.
Wonder how Websfeet would've faired using that method.
There argument quite fairly could have been
Why should we be punished ?
Remember covid was only supposedly
In london at the time.
Notts were 3 goals worse off than yeovil on roll backSmendrick Feaselberg wrote: ↑Sat Jul 18, 2020 9:41 pmThey're not being punished. You're just rolling it back to a 35 game season.tuffers#1 wrote: ↑Sat Jul 18, 2020 9:14 pmNotts county would complain as there wer 4th or 5th at the time having won games.Tent Keague wrote: ↑Sat Jul 18, 2020 9:04 pm
Hadn't heard of that before. Or even considered it.
Seems like a good was of going about things. What's the drawback using that method? I'm plucking my brains trying to think of one and all I can think of is that some could claim that after the 35th game that they had actual points.
Wonder how Websfeet would've faired using that method.
There argument quite fairly could have been
Why should we be punished ?
Remember covid was only supposedly
In london at the time.
I said the fairest way .
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.tuffers#1 wrote: ↑Sat Jul 18, 2020 10:02 pmNotts were 3 goals worse off than yeovil on roll backSmendrick Feaselberg wrote: ↑Sat Jul 18, 2020 9:41 pmThey're not being punished. You're just rolling it back to a 35 game season.
They scored 5 in there last game putting them 3rd .
Moving them back down to 4th & therefore out of the semi final &
Home advantage to quarter finals with an away semi final.
How is that not punishment ?
The fairest way, was to play the season out & the govt/PL to pay 70-80 % wages of lower league football &
Non leagues top 3 tables.
The only reason it wasnt finished is players would no longer be furloughed , but clubs could not pay
Players without any income .
It is punishment to a point.Smendrick Feaselberg wrote: ↑Sat Jul 18, 2020 10:49 pmIt'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.tuffers#1 wrote: ↑Sat Jul 18, 2020 10:02 pmNotts were 3 goals worse off than yeovil on roll backSmendrick Feaselberg wrote: ↑Sat Jul 18, 2020 9:41 pm
They're not being punished. You're just rolling it back to a 35 game season.
They scored 5 in there last game putting them 3rd .
Moving them back down to 4th & therefore out of the semi final &
Home advantage to quarter finals with an away semi final.
How is that not punishment ?
The fairest way, was to play the season out & the govt/PL to pay 70-80 % wages of lower league football &
Non leagues top 3 tables.
The only reason it wasnt finished is players would no longer be furloughed , but clubs could not pay
Players without any income .
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.tuffers#1 wrote: ↑Sat Jul 18, 2020 11:04 pmIt is punishment to a point.Smendrick Feaselberg wrote: ↑Sat Jul 18, 2020 10:49 pmIt'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.tuffers#1 wrote: ↑Sat Jul 18, 2020 10:02 pm
Notts were 3 goals worse off than yeovil on roll back
They scored 5 in there last game putting them 3rd .
Moving them back down to 4th & therefore out of the semi final &
Home advantage to quarter finals with an away semi final.
How is that not punishment ?
The fairest way, was to play the season out & the govt/PL to pay 70-80 % wages of lower league football &
Non leagues top 3 tables.
The only reason it wasnt finished is players would no longer be furloughed , but clubs could not pay
Players without any income .
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..
