Bonus Points

[Leyton388]

**** that bonus point ****. It would just be another way to help the Scum win more titles.

[Le Chef]

How about awarding 4 points for an away win thus negating the parked bus effect

[Kronenburg1892]

How about awarding 4 points for an away win thus negating the parked bus effect

It would have to be 4 points for a home win for that to work.

Personally, I think players should wear roller skates and teams have wide men on motorbikes.

[Kenneth]

Nah, that would be rubbish.

A team could get a flukey 8-0 win or something and lose 2 other games - and would still end up with the same points or more, than a team which won 2 games and lost 1.

This thread had passed me by, but I hope it's not too late for a belated at craig's fail. Both the maths fail, and the idea of a flukey 8-0 win.

[Craig_H]

[Catrin]

On second thoughts a sinbin in footy would encourage diving, unless the sinbin was reserved for diving and dissent and normal fouls carried on under the cards system

[CJ]

wasnt the move to 3 points for a win supposed to mean teams would attack more?

also it was probably seen as a silly idea when they introduced it

[topscorer]

wasnt the move to 3 points for a win supposed to mean teams would attack more?

also it was probably seen as a silly idea when they introduced it

Indeed and yes.

What surprised me looking at Wikipedia is that the points change rule seems to have made very little difference on who the champions are.

Wikipedia only lists 2 occasions ANYWHERE that would have had different champions under the 2 point rule.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three_points_for_a_win

And everyone still complains about teams 'parking the bus' in front of the net and playing for a draw so I suppose the conclusion could be made that the point change hasn't worked.

I wonder if more goals have been scored/conceded since the points change. That could be another way to measure whether or not football has been more attacking since the points change.

Football rules have evolved continuously ever since the first rulebook with changes such as the offside rule, substitutions, back pass and points but rarely to they seem to have been embraced when first introduced.

[Neil Young]

Indeed and yes.

What surprised me looking at Wikipedia is that the points change rule seems to have made very little difference on who the champions are.

Wikipedia only lists 2 occasions ANYWHERE that would have had different champions under the 2 point rule.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three_points_for_a_win

And everyone still complains about teams 'parking the bus' in front of the net and playing for a draw so I suppose the conclusion could be made that the point change hasn't worked.

I wonder if more goals have been scored/conceded since the points change. That could be another way to measure whether or not football has been more attacking since the points change.

Football rules have evolved continuously ever since the first rulebook with changes such as the offside rule, substitutions, back pass and points but rarely to they seem to have been embraced when first introduced.

Just because people are conservative in accepting change, it doesn't mean all ideas that receive a poor reception when first proposed are necessarily good ones.

After three points for a win was introduced, Jimmy Hill suggested that in the event of a draw the team who had won more corners should get the win (or at least more points). Do we really want teams in a tight game playing to get corners?

Also the three points for a win may not have made much difference to final league positions but again it doesn't mean it's had no effect. I think it encouraged teams to be less defensive. That has been offset in recent years (say, the last fifteen or so) to an extent by the gulf in quality between the best teams and the rest, partly encouraged by regular European football (one reason we were so dominant for so long) and mainly by the differences in income enjoyed by top clubs (again Champions League football is a factor here). The most recent TV deal changed this a bit, which is why teams like Stoke and Sunderland have been splashing the cash around, to noticeably different effect.

Perhaps teams are becoming more defensive again but I don't think so.

As for other innovations, the Football League introduced goals scored instead of goal difference and the result was, in my opinion, a decline in the standards of defending. And I'm not really interested in football turning into basketball scores.

On a side note, we would have won the league in '89 if the League hadn't moved from goal average to goal difference (and thence goals scored). Not so f*cking great then, was it?

[Exiled_red]

I don't think you will ever get rid of small teams going away to big teams and 'parking the bus', whatever changes to the rules you make. I think the problem is the money in the game meaning that Premiership survival is essential, and the gap between the top few clubs and the rest. So many teams having the mentaility of needing to get to 40 points - probably half of the teams in the league have this as their only ambition at the start of any season. Their aim is mainly to beat the teams around them, and games against the top sides are damage limitation (not get a big beating which would be bad for goal difference), keep it tight and hope to get a point which would probably be considered a bonus.

[topscorer]

I don't think you will ever get rid of small teams going away to big teams and 'parking the bus', whatever changes to the rules you make. I think the problem is the money in the game meaning that Premiership survival is essential, and the gap between the top few clubs and the rest. So many teams having the mentaility of needing to get to 40 points - probably half of the teams in the league have this as their only ambition at the start of any season. Their aim is mainly to beat the teams around them, and games against the top sides are damage limitation (not get a big beating which would be bad for goal difference), keep it tight and hope to get a point which would probably be considered a bonus.

Yes I agree with that point.

What about making the bottom 6 play off with 6th from bottom playing bottom, 5th from bottom playing 2nd from bottom and 4th from bottom playing 3rd from bottom. 3 losers get relegated.

Then you need more than 40 points to get to safety and I doubt any team with have nothing to play for going into the final few games of the season.

[Neil Young]

I think playoffs demean the league. I know they use and like them in rugby league but they can f*ck off.

From what I recall the relegation battle tends to go down to the last game anyway.