EFL season over

[BillyStubbsTears]

Regardless of who gains or loses, unweighted PPG is a shockingly bad way of determining final positions.

Not really, no.

There is, under current regulations, no weight afforded to home or away games.

Plus, to quote the EFL;

There is no basis for concluding, home and away is the only factor. For example, it is equally valid to consider strength of opponents played to date and potentially others. All of which points to forecasting the outcome of the season as opposed to determining placings at the point of curtailment.

Follow your logic then. Using unweighted PPG DOES apply weight to home and away records.

Wycombe have played 34 games. 18 at home and 16 away.

So, their current unweighted PPG comes from a skewed dataset. It comprises 53% of games played at home and 47% played away.

The whole point of weighting the PPG is precisely to make sure that the final figure is unweighted.

And that is before you drill into the much bigger question of the imbalances in quality of the teams that each side has played and still has to play.

For example, Rotherham still had 5 of the to 9 to play and only 3 of the bottom 9. Fleetwood, 2 points behind them, had 2 of the top 9 to play and 6 of the bottom 9.

So the EFL line appears to be: Because it looks too hard to come up with a good solution, we will use the worst one available.

I can see the logic though. They are presumably concerned with legal challenges against ANY approach. And the thinking is that the simpler the approach, the more they can hold their hands up and say "well we had to do SOMETHING."

In which case, fine. But don't try to spin this is being in any way genuinely fair.

I wasn't applying my logic, nor did I say that it was unfair or otherwise.

What I've given you is the criteria that the EFL used for determining the end of a season, if that's what the clubs choose, when sporting integrity can't provide the answer.

The EFL, if they go down this route, will have to make changes to their own regulations to allow this to conclude.

Its forecasting which ever way you look at it, just applying your version of a forecast doesn't make it fairer or otherwise, its still a false conclusion to a sporting contest.

I entirely agree that it is forecasting, whichever way you look at it. The question is whether that forecasting is as reasonably intelligent as you can make it, or wilfully dumb.

To answer DN, to me, it is blindingly obvious that there are two major first order influences to the accuracy of any predictor: How you have left to play and where you have left to play them. As a general rule (and you don't drill down into each club's nuances, you look at the big picture) clubs generally get more points from matches at home to poor sides than they do in matches away at strong sides. There's no real arguing the case on that and pointing out particular examples that go against that is irrelevant - we are talking about averages.

Ignoring those factors in a scenario like the top of L1 is pretty much guaranteed to result in poor predictions.

Wycombe are a good example of the H/A issue. By NOT weighting their performance to date on how many matches they have played at home and away, you get a prediction that they will get 76.4 points from 44 games. By taking into account the fact that they have only 4 Home and 6 Away games left, you get a predicted final tally of 74.7 points. At the moment, moving a team up by 1.7 points would move them from 8th to 3rd in the table. That alone shows how senseless it is to not take H/A weighting into account.

Then there is WHO sides have left to play.

Rotherham still have to play:
Fleetwood
Wycombe
Portsmouth
Doncaster
Sunderland
from the top 9 and
Southend
Tranmere
Bolton
from the bottom 9.

Fleetwood have to play:
Oxford
Rotherham
(top 9)

MK Dons
Accrington
Lincoln
Tranmere
Southend
Bolton
(Bottom 9).

Clearly a major factor in Rotherham having a marginally higher PPG than Fleetwood as of today is the the fact that they have, on average, played significantly weaker sides in their first 35 games. There's a similar case that Sunderland, Portsmouth and Peterborough are being unfairly treated by ignoring this, relative to Rotherham, Wycombe and Oxford. It wouldn't be difficult to devise a fair algorithm to factor these issues in. It appears to be lack of desire on the part of the EFL to do so.

[NewDonny]

It’s also time for agents earnings to be capped, or as they are working for the player, the player should pay the agent fees. If the games financial structures are to change, it should be the whole game, agents included

Filo, whilst I don't disagree with the sentiment, the content of your post and its points are not correct.

Agents fees in divisions one and two and a lot of Championship sides are very small (2-10k probably) or non existent in some cases. In the EPL & other countries Premier Leagues sides of course things are very different but then the players earnings are also on a different scale altogether. But equally agents represent clubs not just players, Clubs rely on agents, openly encourage it in fact and accept that there is a fee to be paid.

Also, a players agent contract includes a percentage of earnings, image rights etc anyway so players are in fact the ones that pay the agents anyway already when a player is in his prime years. Also, agents normally take little or nothing when being involved in the transfer of a young players first few contract negotiations but continue to work for and with that player in the hope that as they are successful on the pitch they in turn will reap the benefits longer term when they earn a bigger longer term contract.

[IDM]

Are you an agent then ND.?

[NewDonny]

Are you an agent then ND.?

No

[Chris Black come back]

I agree. It would get rid of bigger clubs like Coventry and Rotherham, also potentially Portsmouth through play offs. Bolton who are a big club and must soon turn a corner, also go. The clubs that come down from Championship are the smallest clubs in there. So long as Sunderland continue to massively underperform, then it is a fairly even league next season on this basis.

. Rotherham a big club????

Nope - as I said “bigger” club(s). They have very recently been in the Championship, which is more than can be said for the majority of the teams in League One. Rotherham are one of the bigger clubs in League One currently.

[Alan Southstand]

PS: Or. Maybe in the big scheme of things, who goes up and who goes down really isn't that important...

That about sums it up for me, BST. And, if you look at the bottom 3 clubs in the Championship, the chances of any of the 3 teams going up from L1 doing anything next season are, probably, very slim indeed. Yes, it’ll mean their supporters get to see a better standard of football for one season, but for how much of next season people will be watching is anyone’s guess, at this stage!

I think your arguments are good from the point of view looking at the relative quality of the teams that the top sides have yet to play and I agree, it’s an improvement on the ‘weighted’ ppg system. However, with what we’re all having to contend with right now, it’s bordering on meaningless.

The bigger question, wrt football right now, is how many Clubs will be left to compete for anything? I’ve even read somewhere, recently, that it’s been suggested to bring in the top clubs B teams to pad the league out, if some clubs fall by the wayside. Can you imagine? All hell would break loose.

[BillyStubbsTears]

PS: Or. Maybe in the big scheme of things, who goes up and who goes down really isn't that important...

That about sums it up for me, BST. And, if you look at the bottom 3 clubs in the Championship, the chances of any of the 3 teams going up from L1 doing anything next season are, probably, very slim indeed. Yes, it’ll mean their supporters get to see a better standard of football for one season, but for how much of next season people will be watching is anyone’s guess, at this stage!

I think your arguments are good from the point of view looking at the relative quality of the teams that the top sides have yet to play and I agree, it’s an improvement on the ‘weighted’ ppg system. However, with what we’re all having to contend with right now, it’s bordering on meaningless.

The bigger question, wrt football right now, is how many Clubs will be left to compete for anything? I’ve even read somewhere, recently, that it’s been suggested to bring in the top clubs B teams to pad the league out, if some clubs fall by the wayside. Can you imagine? All hell would break loose.

Agreed. All of it.

[NewDonny]

Regardless of who gains or loses, unweighted PPG is a shockingly bad way of determining final positions.

Not really, no.

There is, under current regulations, no weight afforded to home or away games.

Plus, to quote the EFL;

There is no basis for concluding, home and away is the only factor. For example, it is equally valid to consider strength of opponents played to date and potentially others. All of which points to forecasting the outcome of the season as opposed to determining placings at the point of curtailment.

Follow your logic then. Using unweighted PPG DOES apply weight to home and away records.

Wycombe have played 34 games. 18 at home and 16 away.

So, their current unweighted PPG comes from a skewed dataset. It comprises 53% of games played at home and 47% played away.

The whole point of weighting the PPG is precisely to make sure that the final figure is unweighted.

And that is before you drill into the much bigger question of the imbalances in quality of the teams that each side has played and still has to play.

For example, Rotherham still had 5 of the to 9 to play and only 3 of the bottom 9. Fleetwood, 2 points behind them, had 2 of the top 9 to play and 6 of the bottom 9.

So the EFL line appears to be: Because it looks too hard to come up with a good solution, we will use the worst one available.

I can see the logic though. They are presumably concerned with legal challenges against ANY approach. And the thinking is that the simpler the approach, the more they can hold their hands up and say "well we had to do SOMETHING."

In which case, fine. But don't try to spin this is being in any way genuinely fair.

I wasn't applying my logic, nor did I say that it was unfair or otherwise.

What I've given you is the criteria that the EFL used for determining the end of a season, if that's what the clubs choose, when sporting integrity can't provide the answer.

The EFL, if they go down this route, will have to make changes to their own regulations to allow this to conclude.

Its forecasting which ever way you look at it, just applying your version of a forecast doesn't make it fairer or otherwise, its still a false conclusion to a sporting contest.

I entirely agree that it is forecasting, whichever way you look at it. The question is whether that forecasting is as reasonably intelligent as you can make it, or wilfully dumb.

To answer DN, to me, it is blindingly obvious that there are two major first order influences to the accuracy of any predictor: How you have left to play and where you have left to play them. As a general rule (and you don't drill down into each club's nuances, you look at the big picture) clubs generally get more points from matches at home to poor sides than they do in matches away at strong sides. There's no real arguing the case on that and pointing out particular examples that go against that is irrelevant - we are talking about averages.

Ignoring those factors in a scenario like the top of L1 is pretty much guaranteed to result in poor predictions.

Wycombe are a good example of the H/A issue. By NOT weighting their performance to date on how many matches they have played at home and away, you get a prediction that they will get 76.4 points from 44 games. By taking into account the fact that they have only 4 Home and 6 Away games left, you get a predicted final tally of 74.7 points. At the moment, moving a team up by 1.7 points would move them from 8th to 3rd in the table. That alone shows how senseless it is to not take H/A weighting into account.

Then there is WHO sides have left to play.

Rotherham still have to play:
Fleetwood
Wycombe
Portsmouth
Doncaster
Sunderland
from the top 9 and
Southend
Tranmere
Bolton
from the bottom 9.

Fleetwood have to play:
Oxford
Rotherham
(top 9)

MK Dons
Accrington
Lincoln
Tranmere
Southend
Bolton
(Bottom 9).

Clearly a major factor in Rotherham having a marginally higher PPG than Fleetwood as of today is the the fact that they have, on average, played significantly weaker sides in their first 35 games. There's a similar case that Sunderland, Portsmouth and Peterborough are being unfairly treated by ignoring this, relative to Rotherham, Wycombe and Oxford. It wouldn't be difficult to devise a fair algorithm to factor these issues in. It appears to be lack of desire on the part of the EFL to do so.

BST - that's all very interesting but makes absolutely no difference to the end result and the method that will be used, assuming of course the clubs dont agree to finish the season which imho is extremely doubtful. What I would say, however, there is no such thing as an easy game, a team still has to go out to win every game and beat whats in front of them. As the saying goes "complacency breeds contempt" and any side going out excepting to win does so at their peril.

[Chris the Rover]

The whole things a farce. The season should have been voided totally. But that was never going to happen.

[BillyStubbsTears]

ND

Do you agree that sides near the bottom of the league tend, on average, to pick up points less often than sides near the top of the league?

[albie]

DFP article on the cost of carrying on;
https://www.doncasterfreepress.co.uk/sport/football/cost-playing-financial-implications-doncaster-rovers-complete-201920-season-including-pricing-covid-19-testing-2861983

This is alongside no gate receipts from playing in an empty stadium.

Just make a decision EFL.....kicking the can down the road is not a solution.

[Padge_DRFC]

Name 12 teams who will want to carry on. Fact there's the play offs now likely to happen with PPG probably leaves about 3 or 4 teams who will want to carry on

[NewDonny]

ND

Do you agree that sides near the bottom of the league tend, on average, to pick up points less often than sides near the top of the league?

That's irrelevant BST, every game is played over 90 minutes and each side go out to get points from the game irrespective of where they are in the league. We played some of the better teams expected to be in or around the top end of the league come the business end of the season, early in the season and picked up a very good haul of points. We then played sides that some on here were saying we should beat because they were expected to be in the lower part of the league and dropped points.

[BillyStubbsTears]

ND.

But it's not about specific games. It's about the average, where over and under performances cancel out.

That is LITERALLY the difference between cup and league competitions.

But even then, I really don't get where you are coming from. What you are saying is that we SHOULD  determine the end of season places on an averaging system. Just a very badly flawed one. And you are saying I'm wrong for wanting a much less flawed one.

Odd argument to make.

[drfchound]

PS: Or. Maybe in the big scheme of things, who goes up and who goes down really isn't that important...

That about sums it up for me, BST. And, if you look at the bottom 3 clubs in the Championship, the chances of any of the 3 teams going up from L1 doing anything next season are, probably, very slim indeed. Yes, it’ll mean their supporters get to see a better standard of football for one season, but for how much of next season people will be watching is anyone’s guess, at this stage!

I think your arguments are good from the point of view looking at the relative quality of the teams that the top sides have yet to play and I agree, it’s an improvement on the ‘weighted’ ppg system. However, with what we’re all having to contend with right now, it’s bordering on meaningless.

The bigger question, wrt football right now, is how many Clubs will be left to compete for anything? I’ve even read somewhere, recently, that it’s been suggested to bring in the top clubs B teams to pad the league out, if some clubs fall by the wayside. Can you imagine? All hell would break loose.

Alan, I read that conclusion to BSTs earlier quote and was reading through the rest of the thread before going on to say that his phrase was one that I totally agreed with.
To be honest, I have got to the point of thinking the same.
You beat me to saying it.

However, I also saw that bit in your post about B Teams making up the numbers and it reminded me of the JPT cup (or whatever it is called these days) and that people were saying that allowing the “big clubs” to play their U21 teams in the competition.
Clubs going out of business could inevitably lead to it happening.
 

[NewDonny]

ND.

But it's not about specific games. It's about the average, where over and under performances cancel out.

That is LITERALLY the difference between cup and league competitions.

But even then, I really don't get where you are coming from. What you are saying is that we SHOULD  determine the end of season places on an averaging system. Just a very badly flawed one. And you are saying I'm wrong for wanting a much less flawed one.

Odd argument to make.

Not odd atall BST but as usual you get a bee in your bonnet about something and cannot let it go.

You said in your earlier post that Rotherham were yet to play the stronger sides in the league inferring that they would drop points in the game they had left because they had not been tested. My point is that you cannot say that with any certainty, same as I am trying to explain to you that a team has no given right to expect to go out and win against a side at the bottom of the league. As I said in my last post, we (DRFC) beat a lot of the stronger sides earlier in the season but dropped points against some of the sides below us/towards the bottom of the league.

Equally as someone said on here earlier in this post, who's to say that sides in the relegation places in the league did not dig out a few useful results against some of the top sides to haul themselves out of trouble.

So my point is that using a PPG average is the only way to determine the final league placings based on results so far home and away, other than completing the season which is not going to happen now. What other method would you use to ensure we had promotion and relegation places? After all we are 80% into the leagues fixture programme after all.

[DonnyBazR0ver]

I've read and heard so much on this topic (not the average points) from all sorts of people across all spectrums and I'm just as confused as ever as to what is the right thing to do to draw a line under a season that will forever be denoted with one massive asterix against it.

Some say it will be a national embarrassment if we can't complete the season.

Some say completing the season will cause irreparable financial damage.

Some say they've earned the right to have the chance of promotion and desire that outcome even if that means other clubs going to the wall as a consequence.

Some say the government should bail out struggling clubs.

The EFL take views from clubs and say, well if you vote to end the season, we're going to relegate you anyway.

It appears the game as a whole is totally devoid of a collective voice of reason and leadership.

I certainly don't believe the government should be bailing out a game that boasted it  being the best/richest league in the world.

From a financial perspective, there ought to be some means of being able to complete the season without any club being put into further financial hardship. Whether that be an advance on solidarity payments or whatever.

Professional football should be all for one and one for all, and should be able to decide to null and void the season or complete it right across the board. All clubs stand together for the greater good. “You'll never walk alone“ Really?

From a virus prospective, is it reasonably safe to work towards restarting the season? Probably. If it proves otherwise before the scheduled start date, then we're back to voiding the whole thing??

Are we really that divided as a football family that titles will be awarded, promotions won and celebrated, medals awarded at the expense of the existence of clubs within our great pyramid system that underpins the reason why millions of fans follow the game? And all that on the back of 1000's of deaths of fans who were here to support their team from the beginning and have since been taken from us.

I wish someone with common sense, compassion and reason would step forward and help English football do the right thing!

[Donnybob]

Weighted ppg is fine until you look into the mathematics. Take Cov versus Wycombe. Play the game and there are 3 points up for grabs but using wppg the points awarded total greater than three which cannot be right in any logical scenario.

Likewise a fixture between two clubs near the bottom means they will share less than 3 points between them.

In no way can this be a fair representation nor uphold the integrity of the game. It's a load of manufactured cobblers. A travesty.

I care little for what happens with promotion but to relegate teams without fulfilling fixtures is wrong however you dress it up. The financial impact on a club, dip in attendances, loss of players, etc, cannot be imposed arbitrarily simply because a team is in the bottom 4 on a give day unless that day is after the 46th/44th round of games has ended.

[IDM]

Precisely, which is why voiding the season is the only truly equitable way to end the season if it is not practical to play out all the fixtures.

If that happens then there clearly can be no promotion nor relegation.

[DonnyOsmond]

Precisely, which is why voiding the season is the only truly equitable way to end the season if it is not practical to play out all the fixtures.

If that happens then there clearly can be no promotion nor relegation.

Yeah but Bolton.

[IDM]

If this season is void, Bolton should start on -12 next season.

[NewDonny]

Precisely, which is why voiding the season is the only truly equitable way to end the season if it is not practical to play out all the fixtures.

If that happens then there clearly can be no promotion nor relegation.

Again, why would you void a season 80% complete, that's absolutely ridiculous!

[BillyStubbsTears]

ND.

I understand precisely what you are saying. You want final places determined by a straight predictor based on current PPG.

As I say, despite your protestations, you ARE favouring a predictive approach. One that says the prediction of final points totals should be based on the assumption that teams would average in their remaining matches what they averaged in their matches to date.

I get that. And I've explained patiently why that is badly flawed.

If you are saying that you do not believe that on average teams pick up fewer points away than at home and that in average, side pick up fewer points in games against top sides than in games against weaker sides, that's your prerogative to think that.

The problem is, the evidence says that, on average, it is wrong.

If you disagree with any of that analysis, please explain why. Without accusing me if having a bee in my bonnet (translate: dispassionately disagreeing with you).

[IDM]

Precisely, which is why voiding the season is the only truly equitable way to end the season if it is not practical to play out all the fixtures.

If that happens then there clearly can be no promotion nor relegation.

Again, why would you void a season 80% complete, that's absolutely ridiculous!

Because, quite simply, the season isn’t finished.

There’s no mathematical model which can fairly predict the remaining 20%.  Football is too unpredictable.

Voiding is far from ideal but it is the only option which treats all clubs the same.

[BillyStubbsTears]

ND

By the way, while we are talking about Rotherham, their current average POG in matches against sides in the top 9 is 1.09.

Their current average PPG against sides in the bottom 9 is 1.73.

If you carefully read what I'm saying, I'm not questioning that odd results can crop up in specific games. That is what makes football fun.

I'm talking about what happens ON AVERAGE.

You are too, you just don't seem to realise it. You are just talking about a different average. One that would very disproportionately benefit Rotherham and penalise Fleetwood and others.

As I say, if you disagree with that logic, please explain clearly why.

[BillyStubbsTears]

By the way, this is an indication of how badly flawed unweighted PPG is.

In the 8 games Rotherham have left against teams from the top and bottom 9, if you simply award Rotherham the average PPG they have gained so far in all 35 matches, you would give them 14.17 points.

If, instead, you award them the average PPG they have got in matches against the top 9 for their 5 remaining matches against top 9 sides, and ditto for the 3 remaining games against bottom 9 sides, they'd get 10.64 points. That's a 3.5 point difference.

Given how tight the table is, that is the difference between automatic promotion and not even making the playoffs.

You see my point?

[NewDonny]

Precisely, which is why voiding the season is the only truly equitable way to end the season if it is not practical to play out all the fixtures.

If that happens then there clearly can be no promotion nor relegation.

Again, why would you void a season 80% complete, that's absolutely ridiculous!

Because, quite simply, the season isn’t finished.

There’s no mathematical model which can fairly predict the remaining 20%.  Football is too unpredictable.

Voiding is far from ideal but it is the only option which treats all clubs the same.

Using your words, "quite simply" voiding a season 80% in just because its not finished would have been utterly rediculous.

[drfchound]

This argument is a bit like a political one.
One side will never agree with the other and whatever decision is made then there will be people who are happy and others who won’t be.
Eventually the EFL will get round to making a decision and people will have to accept it.

[IDM]

Precisely, which is why voiding the season is the only truly equitable way to end the season if it is not practical to play out all the fixtures.

If that happens then there clearly can be no promotion nor relegation.

Again, why would you void a season 80% complete, that's absolutely ridiculous!

Because, quite simply, the season isn’t finished.

There’s no mathematical model which can fairly predict the remaining 20%.  Football is too unpredictable.

Voiding is far from ideal but it is the only option which treats all clubs the same.

Using your words, "quite simply" voiding a season 80% in just because its not finished would have been utterly rediculous.

No, it’s not rediculous nor even ridiculous.

There are only two ways the season could end which is equitable to all clubs.  Play it out or void. 

The amount of fixtures played already is irrelevant as there are plenty of games left to make the finishing table significantly different than any ppg model.  Even if that means one or two different teams get promoted/relegated, that is highly significant to those clubs and to their rivals they replace in those positions.

I keep on saying, voiding is far from ideal, but it is the only way to go which is truly fair to all..

I can see the argument to try and concoct a conclusion, but I cannot see them as fair at all.

I don’t know if league one has a prize money structure relative to league position, but if there was, that could be applied to the table now as a gesture to recognise what each club has achieved so far.

Oh, and unless he has changes his mind over the last few weeks, DM has the same argument:

https://www.doncasterfreepress.co.uk/sport/football/doncaster-rovers-boss-darren-moore-says-season-should-be-voided-if-it-cannot-be-completed-2843797

DM has a reputation for being an honest guy, a moral and humble bloke.  I happen to think he is right on this occasion.

[Alan Southstand]

Trouble is, IDM, the EFL, in their infinite wisdom, have clearly stated that voiding will NOT be an option. That’s that.

We have 2 choices - play it out or terminate and go to ppg for the remaining fixtures. That’s what clubs have to vote on, like it or lump it.

I’d have preferred the EFL decided what was going to happen with no voting required, but their ‘need for strong leadership’ obviously doesn’t stretch to making uncomfortable decisions. L2 made it somewhat easy for them!

DBR, I agree with your final sentence, but I’m assuming you, like me, believe that entity, whoever they are, are certainly not the EFL! And, yes, why does the government have to be called on to bail out lower league Clubs, including ours, when the average annual wage of a Premiership footballer is in excess of the new proposed annual budget for L1 Clubs and whilst there are Clubs getting exorbitant parachute payments for getting relegated from the Premiership? Isn’t it time to get these things sorted? If it’s deemed it’s not time, then why not just scrap leagues 1 and 2 all together and then we don’t have to be an ‘after-thought’ anymore?