The Much Awaited Return of Promotion Maths

[Sexual Ealing]

Why would a target be stupid?

It would be stupid if it's set at a level that two teams have overtaken.

[Lastfootstamper]

It can't be. Unless the plan was to win the opening 29 games, and then just give up in the remainder, how do you decide which ones? Would we have to inform the other clubs of our intentions? Is there a reciprocal agreement? Does that explain QPR?

I just don't see how it'd be workable.

[Ads]

Most managers break the season up into chunks and target points recoveries from that tranche of games.

[Sexual Ealing]

But the suggestion seems to be that Bruce set an overall target of 87 and then if anyone else beats that then fair play to them. Well, the season's not over and three teams are there already, none of which is Aston Villa.

[London Villan]

What has been the average point haul for second place over a 46 game season? That is a sensible starting point.

[Sexual Ealing]

What has been the average point haul for second place over a 46 game season? That is a sensible starting point.

A starting point from which you'd add a hefty number of points just in case the season isn't average.

[London Villan]

Or even the maximum needed for second place?

[SoccerHQ]

What has been the average point haul for second place over a 46 game season? That is a sensible starting point.

Fewest points needed for automatic promotion in championship:

07-08- 76 points (Stoke)
12-13- 78 points (Steve Bruce's Hull).
09-10- 80 points (West Brom)
10-11- 81 points (Southampton)
08-09- 81 points (SHA)
05-06 81 points (Sheffield United)

Boro went up with 89 points in 15/16 and 86 points would've been enough last year with Reading finishing third on 85 points.

Been a very rare year needing 90 + points for second.

[Lastfootstamper]

Sorry, but I can't grasp the mechanics of it. Are people suggesting that we've only won the games that we'd decided beforehand we were going to win, or one that we now had to win because we fucked up by not winning a previous one that we'd meant to, and that when we'd lost through being shit, we'd been shit on purpose because those points didn't matter?

I feel like I'm arguing with my nan about the wrestling on World Of Sport.

[Sexual Ealing]

Sorry, but I can't grasp the mechanics of it. Are people suggesting that we've only won the games that we'd decided beforehand we were going to win, or one that we now had to win because we fucked up by not winning a previous one that we'd meant to, and that when we'd lost through being shit, we'd been shit on purpose because those points didn't matter?

I feel like I'm arguing with my nan about the wrestling on World Of Sport.

I think the suggestion is that Bruce decided at the start of the season that 87 points would be enough for us to go up, so as long as we were on course for that then we'd be Ok in the end. I have an issue with this (if it's true) because three teams have reached beyond that total. We're still on course to hit it and we'll finish fourth.

[dave.woodhall]

Where did this suggestion come from?

[Drummond]

He's not stupid to set a target and aim for it. Not unless it was a ridiculously low target.

This season is a freak season.

However, it's all pretty irrelevant until May 26th isn't it?

[Clampy]

Sorry, but I can't grasp the mechanics of it. Are people suggesting that we've only won the games that we'd decided beforehand we were going to win, or one that we now had to win because we fucked up by not winning a previous one that we'd meant to, and that when we'd lost through being shit, we'd been shit on purpose because those points didn't matter?

I feel like I'm arguing with my nan about the wrestling on World Of Sport.

I think the suggestion is that Bruce decided at the start of the season that 87 points would be enough for us to go up, so as long as we were on course for that then we'd be Ok in the end. I have an issue with this (if it's true) because three teams have reached beyond that total. We're still on course to hit it and we'll finish fourth.

If it's true, would you have had an issue with it had he set a target of 87 points and we finished second?

[Sexual Ealing]

Sorry, but I can't grasp the mechanics of it. Are people suggesting that we've only won the games that we'd decided beforehand we were going to win, or one that we now had to win because we fucked up by not winning a previous one that we'd meant to, and that when we'd lost through being shit, we'd been shit on purpose because those points didn't matter?

I feel like I'm arguing with my nan about the wrestling on World Of Sport.

I think the suggestion is that Bruce decided at the start of the season that 87 points would be enough for us to go up, so as long as we were on course for that then we'd be Ok in the end. I have an issue with this (if it's true) because three teams have reached beyond that total. We're still on course to hit it and we'll finish fourth.

If it's true, would you have had an issue with it had he set a target of 87 points and we finished second?

Think about what you've just written.

[PeterWithesShin]

I can't recall him ever mentioning a target of 87 points, is there a link to where he said it?