1985 2. divisjon
The 1985 2. Divisjon was a second-tier football league in Norway. The league consisted of 24 teams, divided into groups A and B. The winners within each group were promoted to the 1986 1. divisjon.[1] The second-place teams of each group met the tenth position finisher in the 1. divisjon in a qualification round, with the winner promoted to 1. divisjon. The bottom three teams of both groups were relegated to the 3. divisjon.
Season | 1985 |
---|---|
Champions | HamKam Strømmen |
Promoted | HamKam Strømmen Tromsø |
Relegated | Haugar Pors Kvik Halden Alvdal Strindheim Harstad |
← 1984 1986 → |
Tables
Group A
Pos | Team | Pld | W | D | L | GF | GA | GD | Pts | Promotion, qualification or relegation |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
1 | HamKam (C, P) | 22 | 15 | 4 | 3 | 44 | 21 | +23 | 34 | Promotion to 1. divisjon |
2 | Sogndal | 22 | 13 | 3 | 6 | 48 | 27 | +21 | 29 | Qualification for the promotion play-offs |
3 | Vidar | 22 | 12 | 4 | 6 | 47 | 24 | +23 | 28 | |
4 | Faaberg | 22 | 10 | 6 | 6 | 43 | 33 | +10 | 26 | |
5 | Vard | 22 | 9 | 7 | 6 | 31 | 31 | 0 | 25 | |
6 | Fredrikstad | 22 | 10 | 4 | 8 | 39 | 41 | −2 | 24 | |
7 | Ørn | 22 | 8 | 5 | 9 | 35 | 40 | −5 | 21 | |
8 | Strømsgodset | 22 | 8 | 4 | 10 | 45 | 37 | +8 | 20 | |
9 | Jerv | 22 | 6 | 4 | 12 | 25 | 41 | −16 | 16 | |
10 | Haugar (R) | 22 | 6 | 4 | 12 | 26 | 47 | −21 | 16 | Relegation to 3. divisjon |
11 | Pors (R) | 22 | 5 | 5 | 12 | 18 | 40 | −22 | 15 | |
12 | Kvik Halden (R) | 22 | 4 | 2 | 16 | 24 | 43 | −19 | 10 |
Source: rsssf.no
Rules for classification: 1) points; 2) goal difference; 3) number of goals scored.
(C) Champion; (P) Promoted; (R) Relegated.
Rules for classification: 1) points; 2) goal difference; 3) number of goals scored.
(C) Champion; (P) Promoted; (R) Relegated.
Group B
Pos | Team | Pld | W | D | L | GF | GA | GD | Pts | Promotion, qualification or relegation |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
1 | Strømmen (C, P) | 22 | 19 | 2 | 1 | 54 | 14 | +40 | 40 | Promotion to 1. divisjon |
2 | Tromsø (O, P) | 22 | 15 | 3 | 4 | 45 | 20 | +25 | 33 | Qualification for the promotion play-offs |
3 | Hødd | 22 | 12 | 7 | 3 | 57 | 23 | +34 | 31 | |
4 | Steinkjer | 22 | 11 | 7 | 4 | 45 | 32 | +13 | 29 | |
5 | Sunndal | 22 | 9 | 6 | 7 | 34 | 29 | +5 | 24 | |
6 | Mjølner | 22 | 9 | 5 | 8 | 32 | 26 | +6 | 23 | |
7 | Aalesund | 22 | 7 | 4 | 11 | 22 | 41 | −19 | 18 | |
8 | Bærum | 22 | 7 | 2 | 13 | 33 | 42 | −9 | 16 | |
9 | Grand Bodø | 22 | 5 | 4 | 13 | 22 | 42 | −20 | 14 | |
10 | Alvdal (R) | 22 | 3 | 8 | 11 | 21 | 42 | −21 | 14 | Relegation to 3. divisjon |
11 | Strindheim (R) | 22 | 5 | 3 | 14 | 27 | 44 | −17 | 13 | |
12 | Harstad (R) | 22 | 3 | 3 | 16 | 20 | 57 | −37 | 9 |
Source: rsssf.no
Rules for classification: 1) points; 2) goal difference; 3) number of goals scored.
(C) Champion; (O) Play-off winner; (P) Promoted; (R) Relegated.
Rules for classification: 1) points; 2) goal difference; 3) number of goals scored.
(C) Champion; (O) Play-off winner; (P) Promoted; (R) Relegated.
Promotion play-offs
Results
Tromsø won the qualification round and was promoted to the 1. divisjon.
Play-off table
Pos | Team | Pld | W | D | L | GF | GA | GD | Pts | Promotion or relegation |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
1 | Tromsø (O, P) | 2 | 2 | 0 | 0 | 2 | 0 | +2 | 4 | Promotion to 1. divisjon |
2 | Moss (R) | 2 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 2 | 1 | +1 | 2 | Relegation to 2. divisjon |
3 | Sogndal | 2 | 0 | 0 | 2 | 0 | 3 | −3 | 0 |
Source: rsssf.no
Rules for classification: 1) points; 2) goal difference; 3) number of goals scored.
(O) Play-off winner; (P) Promoted; (R) Relegated.
Rules for classification: 1) points; 2) goal difference; 3) number of goals scored.
(O) Play-off winner; (P) Promoted; (R) Relegated.
gollark: <@301092081827577866>Answering questions in the order I read them.
gollark: 8 (personal preference). Ugly syntax
gollark: 7 (mostly due to 1, 2). reliance on code generation as a poor alternative to macros.
gollark: 6 (partly cultural). User/implementer divide. Only the people who write the standard library get to use generics, `recover`, etc. And no.user type can get make, new, channel syntax, generics.
gollark: 1. Lack of generics mean that you can either pick abstraction or type safety. Not a nice choice to have to make.2. The language is horrendously verbose and discourages abstraction.3. Weird special cases - make, new, some stuff having generics, channel syntax4. It's not new. They just basically took C, added a garbage collector and concurrency, and called it amazing.5. Horrible dependency management with GOPATH though they are fixing that.
This article is issued from Wikipedia. The text is licensed under Creative Commons - Attribution - Sharealike. Additional terms may apply for the media files.