That proposal from Tranmere generally makes a lot of sense to me, which means there is no way the EFL will give it the time of the day...
I suppose I have two problems/issues with it...
1) Why have their weighting scenarios been based on 3 years? Why not a longer period, say 5 or 10 years? That needs explaining- is it because this is the timeframe that keeps them up?
2) The lack of relegations will really miss with the divisional structures. I'm not sure a 26 team league 1 makes much sense next year, neither would a smaller league 2.
Fundamentally though Tranmere are being extremely unfairly treated in a PPG scenario, and if it was us we'd all be absolutely outraged. I think their owners should be credited with coming forward with a possible solution in a reasonable way, even if I think there are issues with it.
The whole thing is bogus. He's trying to extrapolate a team's current PPG to their 'expected' PPG after another 9 or 10 games have been completed, with a supposedly accepted margin of error. Of course teams' PPG after 46 games will change compared to what it is after 36/37 games - no team accumulates points uniformly throughout a season! Not least because they can only be attained in groupings of 1 or 3. The 20% increase for Oxford 2019 and 25.9% for Newport 2017 as quoted in the 'paper' seems quite misleading when trying to portray the data as an indicator for the 'inaccuracy' of PPG.
That isn't an option on the table though, if the EFL wanted to generate a predicted result for each of the remaining unplayed matches to have a modelled finalised table after 44 games then they would have started down that path already.
It's really quite simple, the only option is to take the current, as it stands right now, no guesses, no estimates, no prediction, PPG of each team and use that to decide the final league placings.
Just found the reasoning for the bizarre 'margin for error' paragraph..
'We have done a statistical analysis of PPG going back 3 years, and it clearly demonstrates a margin for error based on actual outcomes. This ranges from +25.9% at its most extreme (Newport in the 16/17 season), to -5.45 to +6.3% on average. There are a number of other cubs who have outperformed their PPG prediction by more than 20% including Oxford in 18/19, Birmingham City and Swindon in 17/18. The statistical analysis also demonstrates that PPG has been a distinctly worse predictor of relegation places than of promotion places, presumably because to be close to the top of the table teams are more likely to be showing a degree of consistency, whereas those near the bottom are more inconsistent.'
Where do you start?
'and it clearly demonstrates a margin for error based on actual outcomes.' ...is another wonderfully nonsensical sentence. Break it down and it means....nothiing
'We have done a statistical analysis of PPG going back 3 years'
Now, if this was a serious scientific report you would immediately spot the inadequate sample size from this sentence. But that kind of pales into insignificance when you read what's coming next.
This 'analysis of PPG' talks about how teams have performed up until this particular stage of the season, and then thereafter. You would thrown off a statistics course for this.
' close to the top of the table teams are more likely to be showing a degree of consistency, whereas those near the bottom are more inconsistent.'
Breathtaking. A bottom of the table team doesn't consistently lose?
Just read the Tranmere proposal and my thoughts are that it’s a long winded way of saying: ‘We don’t deserve to be relegated’. I have a lot of affection for Tranmere from my time on Merseyside and they have a valid case for claiming they might have survived if the season had been completed, but this convoluted ‘solution’ is not the answer. They are obviously trying to win support by claiming that it would be a fairer way of dealing with promotion issues, but that comes across as a smokescreen to diffuse any accusations of self interest. A lot of what they’ve written is at best verbose, at worst gobbledygook.
The financial consequences of relegation under the current system is such a big problem for clubs so I can understand Tranmere wanting to avoid it.
The league needs to soften the financial blow. Relegation shouldn't cripple a club
Just looked on the original chairboys site, loan players deals expire May 31st, out of contract players 31st June. Not sure how players insurance ect will cover, in the event of the season continuing ?
Comments
That proposal from Tranmere generally makes a lot of sense to me, which means there is no way the EFL will give it the time of the day...
I suppose I have two problems/issues with it...
1) Why have their weighting scenarios been based on 3 years? Why not a longer period, say 5 or 10 years? That needs explaining- is it because this is the timeframe that keeps them up?
2) The lack of relegations will really miss with the divisional structures. I'm not sure a 26 team league 1 makes much sense next year, neither would a smaller league 2.
Fundamentally though Tranmere are being extremely unfairly treated in a PPG scenario, and if it was us we'd all be absolutely outraged. I think their owners should be credited with coming forward with a possible solution in a reasonable way, even if I think there are issues with it.
"Of course to some degree fairness is in the eye of the beholder, but it is capable of being assessed by reference to statistical facts."
Perhaps the most wonderful sentence written in the English language. Take a bow son!
one could write a dissertation on that sentence
There is then applied to the table the statistical average actual margin for error over the last 3 years (being +6.3 or – 5.45%);
Possibly the worst mathematical expression in the english language
You can spot someone who knows nothing about maths by their use of the word 'statistical'
Pure gold
'statistical actual(!) margin for error'
I assume he means 'margin for error' here, the rest is redundant, but it isn't clear.
The whole thing is bogus. He's trying to extrapolate a team's current PPG to their 'expected' PPG after another 9 or 10 games have been completed, with a supposedly accepted margin of error. Of course teams' PPG after 46 games will change compared to what it is after 36/37 games - no team accumulates points uniformly throughout a season! Not least because they can only be attained in groupings of 1 or 3. The 20% increase for Oxford 2019 and 25.9% for Newport 2017 as quoted in the 'paper' seems quite misleading when trying to portray the data as an indicator for the 'inaccuracy' of PPG.
That isn't an option on the table though, if the EFL wanted to generate a predicted result for each of the remaining unplayed matches to have a modelled finalised table after 44 games then they would have started down that path already.
It's really quite simple, the only option is to take the current, as it stands right now, no guesses, no estimates, no prediction, PPG of each team and use that to decide the final league placings.
Just found the reasoning for the bizarre 'margin for error' paragraph..
'We have done a statistical analysis of PPG going back 3 years, and it clearly demonstrates a margin for error based on actual outcomes. This ranges from +25.9% at its most extreme (Newport in the 16/17 season), to -5.45 to +6.3% on average. There are a number of other cubs who have outperformed their PPG prediction by more than 20% including Oxford in 18/19, Birmingham City and Swindon in 17/18. The statistical analysis also demonstrates that PPG has been a distinctly worse predictor of relegation places than of promotion places, presumably because to be close to the top of the table teams are more likely to be showing a degree of consistency, whereas those near the bottom are more inconsistent.'
Where do you start?
'and it clearly demonstrates a margin for error based on actual outcomes.' ...is another wonderfully nonsensical sentence. Break it down and it means....nothiing
'We have done a statistical analysis of PPG going back 3 years'
Now, if this was a serious scientific report you would immediately spot the inadequate sample size from this sentence. But that kind of pales into insignificance when you read what's coming next.
This 'analysis of PPG' talks about how teams have performed up until this particular stage of the season, and then thereafter. You would thrown off a statistics course for this.
' close to the top of the table teams are more likely to be showing a degree of consistency, whereas those near the bottom are more inconsistent.'
Breathtaking. A bottom of the table team doesn't consistently lose?
Fantastic
Just read the Tranmere proposal and my thoughts are that it’s a long winded way of saying: ‘We don’t deserve to be relegated’. I have a lot of affection for Tranmere from my time on Merseyside and they have a valid case for claiming they might have survived if the season had been completed, but this convoluted ‘solution’ is not the answer. They are obviously trying to win support by claiming that it would be a fairer way of dealing with promotion issues, but that comes across as a smokescreen to diffuse any accusations of self interest. A lot of what they’ve written is at best verbose, at worst gobbledygook.
Gobbledygook is an underused word. It should be promoted in home schooling imho.
If @oilysailor uses the word 'gobbledygook' in his next totally football podcast, I will donate £100 to the Trust. Genuine.
Extra ton if poppycock is slipped in (has to be same podcast though)
The financial consequences of relegation under the current system is such a big problem for clubs so I can understand Tranmere wanting to avoid it.
The league needs to soften the financial blow. Relegation shouldn't cripple a club
It all sounds like Bunkum, Piffle & Balderdash to me
Make you should change your name to BoristheBandito if you use those words.
Surprised Tranmere didn't add a "if your team name starts with a T or ends in ranmere, no relegation should be forthcoming".
You can't let teams create these silly little schemes that funnily enough benefit themselves.
There is no chance the Tranmere proposal will get passed. It looks far too ‘smart alec’ to win support.
I'm saving my outrage for when I actually know what is happening.
I'm starting to lose track to be honest, is it this week or next we're now likely to find out ?
I really hope we go up now that Nathan Jones is back at Luton.
Tables using Tranmere's proposal. Seven-team play-offs? Not gonna happen.
Next week.
Always next week.
Missed that.
Wonder if their abusive fans are suddenly won back over.
Does this suggest the possibility of an 11 team play off in the championship or am I reading this incorrectly?!
@Brownie That's how I interpreted it too. Madness.
Just looked on the original chairboys site, loan players deals expire May 31st, out of contract players 31st June. Not sure how players insurance ect will cover, in the event of the season continuing ?
31st June is the new 30th February
Crafty way to deal with contracts.
Time has no meaning any more anyway.
since when?