Quote Originally Posted by flourbasher View Post
When I read the proposal a week or two ago I thought it said That those teams in an automatic promotion spot would not be affected by the margin of error and Tranmere,s suggestion therefore relates just to the playoff places and obviously them not being relegated.
So if a journalist has applied the margin of error to us then they shouldn't have done as we are exempt.

I assume Mr Palios has done this to get maximum votes to save his club including cov , Roth, all the teams in expanded playoffs, Wimbledon plus all the clubs who have got financial concerns


I didn't read it closely though as it wasn't clear and I gave up after a while so who knows what it all means
I don't blame you for giving up flour.
What Tranmere's analysis is supposed to demonstrate is that ppg, over the last 3 years, would have got the final positions predictions much more incorrect for the relegation places than for the promotion places - not that the top teams wouldn't have been affected by margin of error.
Trying to shed a bit more light:
Tranmere reckon that the ppg calculation of points for games not played could be wrong. The possible points, based on the last 3 years stats, could be 5.45% less than the included ppg figure or 6.28% higher.
So, for example, our final points could be anywhere between 73.73 and 82.84
Oxford, for example, would have a predicted spread of 71.36 to 80.17
Because we could conceivably have, say 79 points, and Oxford (plus other clubs) could conceivably have got, for instance, 80 points Tranmere would argue that the data does not suggest, with enough certainty, that we would have finished in the top two.