- This topic has 32 replies, 14 voices, and was last updated 11 years, 6 months ago by
.
-
Posts
-
We’ve all established that the Rugby League play offs are a farce, so I’ve come up with a simple alternative.
Please note: this is a sensible thread aimed at those who have the gift of reason and/or like Rugby League. If you have/are neither, please don’t bother replying.
(I’d put it on a Rugby League forum, but as we all know, I can’t and would be banned by their administrators for the merest utterance of a disparaging remark against the sport.)
So…
The top eight teams play-off and their respective league points tally is reflected by way of an inverse handicap system – ie. Wigan finish top on 42 points and play Wakefield who finish eighth on 26 points. Wigan start the game at 16-0.
No, it’s still not ideal because the league winners should be crowed as such, but as they are hell-bent on having play-offs, at least it means a full season of games has some bearing on the end of season play-offs.
To even it up further however, three points should be awarded for a win instead of two, therefore, Wigan would have had a 24 point start against Wakefield.
When a team loses, they’re out, and the team that wins goes on to play the next game, and does so with their relative points advantage in place as way of an inverse handicap. (eg. next game against Huddersfield with a 21 start in place)
To prevent a team who is (eg) 30 points behind at the start of a game from merely giving up and rolling over, as the play-offs are a pure money spinner, incentivise the players with a bonus per point scored. If a player knows he’s getting a couple of grand in his @rse pocket for a good result in a one-off game, he’ll put the effort in.
I might be being too simplistic, but surely someone must have thought of something similar before.
Interesting theory here fella and not one that I’ve seen on the rugby forums.
I think with that at this moment in time, the supporters of Wigan, Warrington & St Helens will all think the current playoff system is utter crap. The supporters of Leeds probably thought so until two years ago!
We are rewarding mediocrity – 8th place and a win ratio of less than 50% should not give you a tilt at the title, but as its one club, one vote, then the likes of Wakefield, Salford, etc will always vote to give themselves a chance of success – by limiting the playoffs to the top 4 or 5 would mean that mediocrity would no longer be even allowed to sniff a reward, let alone play for it. There should also be relegation – again we are rewarding mediocrity, but as London could well be relegated, this will not happen as the first rule of Superleague is that “A team in London will be kept at all costs”.
If we really must have playoffs and then a Grand Final, then IMHO the team that finishes top must automatically go to the final, leaving 2nd to host 5th and 3rd to host 4th, with the two winners playing a mini-final for the right to challenge top spot in a Grand Final. It has even been suggested by one of the Sky TV pundits in an article in the telegraph that the GF should be contested by 1st v the winners of 2nd v 3rd – that way, the likes of Leeds wouldnt be able to coast through the regular season, only upping their game come September.
I have often thought some clubs could aim at finishing 6th, 7th or 8th at a canter so to speak by rotating squads more frequently and so therefore being as fresh as a daisy and all fit and raring to go for the play offs ! I do however stick by my prediction that this form of rugby will be all but a semi professional sport within 15yrs !
Interesting theory here fella and not one that I’ve seen on the rugby forums.I think with that at this moment in time, the supporters of Wigan, Warrington & St Helens will all think the current playoff system is utter crap. The supporters of Leeds probably thought so until two years ago!
We are rewarding mediocrity – 8th place and a win ratio of less than 50% should not give you a tilt at the title, but as its one club, one vote, then the likes of Wakefield, Salford, etc will always vote to give themselves a chance of success – by limiting the playoffs to the top 4 or 5 would mean that mediocrity would no longer be even allowed to sniff a reward, let alone play for it. There should also be relegation – again we are rewarding mediocrity, but as London could well be relegated, this will not happen as the first rule of Superleague is that “A team in London will be kept at all costs”.
If we really must have playoffs and then a Grand Final, then IMHO the team that finishes top must automatically go to the final, leaving 2nd to host 5th and 3rd to host 4th, with the two winners playing a mini-final for the right to challenge top spot in a Grand Final. It has even been suggested by one of the Sky TV pundits in an article in the telegraph that the GF should be contested by 1st v the winners of 2nd v 3rd – that way, the likes of Leeds wouldnt be able to coast through the regular season, only upping their game come September.
Yes, the winner going straight to the final would also be better than the system currently in place – although they are still only being rewarded for winning the league, and not being rewarded for how much they win the league by.
In my opinion, if they win the league easily, they should be rewarded accordingly.
Failing this, another system is, prior to the start of the season they have a draw and the league is split into two groups, with teams then playing the other teams in their groups – home and away.
So as not to reduce the number games by too much – which would affect the clubs’ finances substantially, they’d have to increase the number of teams in Super League.
When the group stages are done, the top half teams from group A, play off against the top half teams in group B (eg. Winner plays 5th place, runners up play 4th place etc) culminating in a Grand Final.
Either way, Rugby League needs to completely revamp its ‘product’ or like Filmoss, I think it will end up semi-professional.
Yes, the winner going straight to the final would also be better than the system currently in place – although they are still only being rewarded for winning the league, and not being rewarded for how much they win the league by.In my opinion, if they win the league easily, they should be rewarded accordingly.
Maybe they could be allowed to start the final five or ten minutes before the other finalist – the number of minutes ‘start’ being pro- rata based on the number of points they were ahead at the end of the regular season, as you suggest. :dry:
Rugby League should revert to `semi-pro`, have three divisions of sixteen clubs,with a two up two down promotion and relegation system.
Play offs could be in the 2nd,and 3rd divisions for promotion and relegation.
Rugby League for far to long has been trying to compete with `National sports` like football and rugby union,it cannot and its time they realised it.
Rugby League should revert to `semi-pro`, have three divisions of sixteen clubs,with a two up two down promotion and relegation system.
Play offs could be in the 2nd,and 3rd divisions for promotion and relegation.
Rugby League for far to long has been trying to compete with `National sports` like football and rugby union,it cannot and its time they realised it.goodpost goodpost goodpost goodpost goodpost goodpost goodpost goodpost goodpost goodpost goodpost goodpost goodpost goodpost
Rugby League for far to long has been trying to compete with `National sports` like football and rugby union,it cannot and its time they realised it.Couldn’t agree more. i don’t mean that in a disparaging “stick to your village green sport” kind of way but more that in it’s 100 & odd years of existence it has always been a regional sport. & a good one at that with a loyal band of followers
It didn’t spread not because people hadn’t heard of it but because, in the main,they either didn’t like it or they didn’t mind it but preferred to spend their money on other sports. That’s life – you can lead a horse to water but you can’t make them drink
In their drive to “spread the gospel” the RFL has ignored some of its heartlands to pursue pipedreams of clubs in London, Gateshead, South Wales, North Wales & Paris. The naivety of thinking that “if we put a club in south wales people will come coz they like rugby down there” whilst leaving historical clubs like Leigh & Swinton to rot is shocking.
If you cut off a trees roots it will die & people in “rugby league” towns such as have lost interest in droves coz all they see is a sport with no hope of progression
I often think that football’s governing bodies haven’t got a clue what they’re doing but in comparison to those in charge of rugby league they’re like the professors of Oxford UniversityRugby League for far to long has been trying to compete with `National sports` like football and rugby union,it cannot and its time they realised it.
Couldn’t agree more. i don’t mean that in a disparaging “stick to your village green sport” kind of way but more that in it’s 100 & odd years of existence it has always been a regional sport. & a good one at that with a loyal band of followers
It didn’t spread not because people hadn’t heard of it but because, in the main,they either didn’t like it or they didn’t mind it but preferred to spend their money on other sports. That’s life – you can lead a horse to water but you can’t make them drink
In their drive to “spread the gospel” the RFL has ignored some of its heartlands to pursue pipedreams of clubs in London, Gateshead, South Wales, North Wales & Paris. The naivety of thinking that “if we put a club in south wales people will come coz they like rugby down there” whilst leaving historical clubs like Leigh & Swinton to rot is shocking.
If you cut off a trees roots it will die & people in “rugby league” towns such as have lost interest in droves coz all they see is a sport with no hope of progression
I often think that football’s governing bodies haven’t got a clue what they’re doing but in comparison to those in charge of rugby league they’re like the professors of Oxford University[/quote]I still think it has the potential to grow but having two sets of different rules for the same sport will always cause problems in terms of growing it. RL was doing fine until 2 major factors started the decline. 1 is everybody’s favourite person ‘Owd Maurice’ and the salary cap is far too low.
I still think it has the potential to grow but having two sets of different rules for the same sport will always cause problems in terms of growing it. RL was doing fine until 2 major factors started the decline. 1 is everybody’s favourite person ‘Owd Maurice’ and the salary cap is far too low.I agree that it has the potential to grow but the RFL authorities went about it in completely the wrong way.
It completely baffles me that they thought it was a goer that they could just create clubs out of absolutely nothing, stick them in an area with no tradition of playing or watching rugby league & expect enough locals to turn up to support a full time professional club. It was absolute madness & doomed to failure – the only reason why Catalan are surviving is because that area has a tradition of playing the game.
What they should have done was strengthen the game from the bottom up, get more people watching & playing it in its heartlands thereby improving the product on offer on the telly & slowly reach out into other areas through schools etc.. then start up small clubs & so on. It’d take a while but if you build a house on sand it will fall down & so its proved
If Latics struggle to fill the DW has shown anything it’s that you can’t expect a club with no real tradition of big support to go from small time to big time very quickly & pull in the same sort of crowds as club’s who’ve been around that level for donkeysrugby league clubs in London and Cardiff have as much chance of success as a Polo club in Scholes!
It was a ridiculous idea that was doomed to failure from day one.
rugby league clubs in London and Cardiff have as much chance of success as a Polo club in Scholes!It was a ridiculous idea that was doomed to failure from day one.
Again goodpost goodpost goodpost goodpost goodpost goodpost goodpost goodpost
That is just Wigan, attendances through the gates range from 42,000 to 75,000 weekly……. evry attendee in a super league week would all fit into Old Trafford basically.
Don’t know how many watch on TV.
But in answer to the question of who gives***** the answer is around 75,000.
FA Cup Winners 2013, sounds good that
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
