| 3 up, 3 down 12:59 - May 20 with 9829 views | leicesterdale |
Now that we are back in the EFL (hoorah!) are we still advocating 3 up 3 down?
For me it's still a yes |  | | |  |
| 3 up, 3 down on 19:00 - May 21 with 1393 views | isitme |
| 3 up, 3 down on 18:14 - May 21 by R17ALE |
Now we are back up I'd suggest 0 up 0 down!
On a serious note, I remember how bad Division 4 was before 1 up 1 down. You could be absolutely shyte and get away with it, as we often did. Introducing 1 up 1 down improved the quality of Division 4, and when it became 2 up 2 down the quality went up again. In theory 3 up 3 down would improve League Two further. |
It would also offer a better opportunity for clubs relegated from League Two to come straight back up. |  | | |
| 3 up, 3 down on 19:08 - May 21 with 1372 views | D_Alien |
Let's go the whole hog, and drop the bottom half finishers in L2 into the NL and replace them with the top half of the NL
That'd concentrate a few minds, but the serious point here is why stop at 3, when the logic of extending the numbers only points in one direction? |  |
| |
| 3 up, 3 down on 19:49 - May 21 with 1292 views | pnc4eva1 |
Always thought it should be 4 up 4 down including the premier league |  |
| |
| 3 up, 3 down on 20:03 - May 21 with 1249 views | D_Alien |
| 3 up, 3 down on 19:49 - May 21 by pnc4eva1 |
Always thought it should be 4 up 4 down including the premier league |
It's interesting to think these things through
R17 makes the point - correctly - that the introduction and then extension of the number of teams promoted/relegated to the old D4 increased the quality of competition
If that's so, then logically a further increase might increase the level of competition even more - but there must be a point where that then starts to diminish
For instance: if it was the whole half of a division being relegated, those teams near the bottom might just give up at a certain point (apart from the having someone like Hilly come in who dragged us from the very bottom of the league to a top-half finish in 06/07)
But why not 4... or 5... or 6 ?? | |
| |
| 3 up, 3 down on 20:20 - May 21 with 1198 views | 442Dale |
Would go for seven. If only for the associated drink promotion. |  |
| |
| 3 up, 3 down on 20:23 - May 21 with 1167 views | TVOS1907 |
| 3 up, 3 down on 20:03 - May 21 by D_Alien |
It's interesting to think these things through
R17 makes the point - correctly - that the introduction and then extension of the number of teams promoted/relegated to the old D4 increased the quality of competition
If that's so, then logically a further increase might increase the level of competition even more - but there must be a point where that then starts to diminish
For instance: if it was the whole half of a division being relegated, those teams near the bottom might just give up at a certain point (apart from the having someone like Hilly come in who dragged us from the very bottom of the league to a top-half finish in 06/07)
But why not 4... or 5... or 6 ?? |
Now you're just being s(h)illy. |  |
| Maestro? No.
Elite? No.
Heavyweight poster? No.
Able to be rational and not over-react to individual results? Yes. |
| |
| 3 up, 3 down on 20:24 - May 21 with 1166 views | D_Alien |
| 3 up, 3 down on 20:20 - May 21 by 442Dale |
Would go for seven. If only for the associated drink promotion. |
I'd go for 5, in association with a porn star | |
| |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.