Chapel House Motor Company Limited Advertising Banner
Page 7 of 8 FirstFirst ... 345678 LastLast
Results 151 to 175 of 186

Thread: 12 teams in Super League 2021 it is then

  1. #151
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jul 2019
    Posts
    4,739
    Rep Power
    0

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Gray77 View Post
    Standing here in 2020 you're probably right, and all I can do is counter-factually rewrite the mistakes of our recent past to suggest that it didn't need to be that way. I'm not convinced by the argument that any sports succeed based upon the quality or make up of its bottom sides. Success is based on the best teams and how good they are. We have Wigan, Saints, Leeds, Hull who are famous names and who can all attract five figure crowds in decent stadiums (some not their own obviously), and we have less well known (nationally) clubs like Warrington who can also do this. The future of our sport is linked to the viability of those big clubs to punch their weight and create big games and big title races every season. We created so many hurdles for the biggest and best clubs to jump that we are now looking at manufacturing the league to make up for the mistakes we made in reducing the power and marketing potential of what we have at the top.

    TV ratings didn't decline because we have Wakefield or Salford in the SL. They declined because we messed with the system and diluted the importance of the games between the big sides. We implemented ridiculous play off systems that meant that Leeds v Wigan on a Friday night in July became a completely pointless game in the eyes of neutrals or would-be fans. We had a broadcaster telling their viewers that the race for 8th was more important than the race for 1st, and priority was given to ensuring that the very clubs that should make up the numbers became the clubs that were pampered and told they'd achieved something by passing a manufactured bar in a play off system, whilst the sides at the top that generate the tv deal and generate the crowds were playing games nowhere near as important as they should have been. Stick a top 5, 6 or 8 team play off in the PL and see if the viewing figures for Liverpool v Man City 9-10 weeks into the season hold up. Tell the world that the real race is between Everton and Wolves to get the 6th or 8th spot and see how neutrals react to the reality that the 'Big 6 blockbusters' are meaningless because they'll all make the play-offs regardless. It isn't like that, and so Liverpool v Man City is huge 9-10 weeks into a season because every point counts, and nobody views the title race based on whether Brighton or West Brom are pulling their weight, because in reality it doesn't matter.

    Nobody has ever been offered a contract by a top 6 PL club and turned it down because they don't want to play at 'Stoke on a wet Wednesday night'. They sign the deal because they want to play massive games against Liverpool, United, Chelsea, City that have importance.

    Imagine when we were both kids and we'd been told that one day these amazing title races that we saw in the 80s would never happen again. What would we consider the possible reasons why that would be the case.

    No money? No, there's more money in the game now.
    Players not getting paid? No, they're all full time now.
    Grounds falling to pieces and the game imploding? No, most big clubs play in modern grounds and get bigger gates than back then.
    No interest? No, we have a tv deal unlike back then when hardly any games were on tv.

    So, we got to the mid-90s, we still had really good title races, we moved to summer, we were seeing crowds rising, etc. Did anybody care that the league had clubs like Workington, Halifax and Oldham in it then? Why did Sky invest in a league with those clubs in back then? Because they were irrelevant. They bought in because we had Wigan, Leeds, Saints and for a time Bradford at the top of the game, and the top of the game was vibrant and exciting. Hull weren't even in SL in the first year, but nobody really cared because the top of the league was solid and was producing drama. But over the 25 years since we (and Sky) devised system after system to reduce the drama at the top, to handcuff the top teams with salary caps and play-off systems, all to make the game more 'exciting from top to bottom'. Relegation battles are exciting, but we didn't want them because it was more important to prioritise pandering to those clubs and giving them hope rather than making them earn their position in a sport were they were already given manufactured leg-ups via the structure of the season and the salary cap. Title races are exciting, but we didn't want them because 3-4 clubs at the top meant that the mediocrities couldn't be told they were achieving something, so we changed it all to make them feel more important.

    It's ended up with our sport having month after month of games every season that are nowhere near as important as they should be. When we play Wigan or Wire it's big for us tribally, but does a fan in Leeds or Hull really care? When Leeds play Hull do we really care? And if not, why not? Why aren't the games between the biggest clubs as important as they used to be? Could it be because we have a league structure that diminishes the value of 2 points and diminishes the value in fighting for top spot? If we don't care why should anyone else? If Sky are telling us that it's boring if the same teams win the GF every year and that it'd be great if a team won it from 8th (which they said often), and then told us that it was wonderful that Leeds won it from 5th and told us with a straight face that it meant they were the best team in the league that year, why would anyone get invested in the weekly rounds? There are long time fans who shrug off a regular season defeat now as if we've lost a friendly, and there are loads on here who will put up with boring RL every week as long as we win the GF. If the system and the structure inspires apathy from some of us, what chance do we have getting others involved. We had a chance in the mid-90s to take all the good bits about the RL we grew up with, to modernise it, professionalise it and build from it, with clubs that had history and gravitas that could grow even bigger with a tv deal and a move to summer. But we blew it, because we stopped prioritising the best bits of the competition in favour of the mediocre bits. There has to always be mediocre bits, that's life, and we should never want a comp where everyone wins 50% and loses 50% because that would frankly mean everyone was mediocre. Some will thrive, some will struggle, but the ones that thrive will generate the crowds and the tv revenue much like Leicester, Bath, Exeter and Saracens generated tv revenue for RU even if Newcastle and London Irish went up and down every season in front of poor crowds.

    When you prioritise the mediocre they became the thing everyone obsesses over, and so the make up of the mediocre becomes the thing that we think drives the success of the game. So we get worked up over whether we have Featherstone in the league when in reality it should be irrelevant if Saints, Wigan, Leeds, Hull and Warrington are playing huge games every weekend in modern stadia in front of decent crowds in a league structure that prioritises the top of the league and not the bottom. But, it's all counter-factual I know, but it was there for us and we ballsed it up.
    Absolutely spot on. One of the best posts I've ever read on here.

  2. #152
    Learning All The Songs
    Join Date
    May 2016
    Location
    Cornwall
    Posts
    2,287
    Rep Power
    11

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Gray77 View Post
    Standing here in 2020 you're probably right, and all I can do is counter-factually rewrite the mistakes of our recent past to suggest that it didn't need to be that way. I'm not convinced by the argument that any sports succeed based upon the quality or make up of its bottom sides. Success is based on the best teams and how good they are. We have Wigan, Saints, Leeds, Hull who are famous names and who can all attract five figure crowds in decent stadiums (some not their own obviously), and we have less well known (nationally) clubs like Warrington who can also do this. The future of our sport is linked to the viability of those big clubs to punch their weight and create big games and big title races every season. We created so many hurdles for the biggest and best clubs to jump that we are now looking at manufacturing the league to make up for the mistakes we made in reducing the power and marketing potential of what we have at the top.

    TV ratings didn't decline because we have Wakefield or Salford in the SL. They declined because we messed with the system and diluted the importance of the games between the big sides. We implemented ridiculous play off systems that meant that Leeds v Wigan on a Friday night in July became a completely pointless game in the eyes of neutrals or would-be fans. We had a broadcaster telling their viewers that the race for 8th was more important than the race for 1st, and priority was given to ensuring that the very clubs that should make up the numbers became the clubs that were pampered and told they'd achieved something by passing a manufactured bar in a play off system, whilst the sides at the top that generate the tv deal and generate the crowds were playing games nowhere near as important as they should have been. Stick a top 5, 6 or 8 team play off in the PL and see if the viewing figures for Liverpool v Man City 9-10 weeks into the season hold up. Tell the world that the real race is between Everton and Wolves to get the 6th or 8th spot and see how neutrals react to the reality that the 'Big 6 blockbusters' are meaningless because they'll all make the play-offs regardless. It isn't like that, and so Liverpool v Man City is huge 9-10 weeks into a season because every point counts, and nobody views the title race based on whether Brighton or West Brom are pulling their weight, because in reality it doesn't matter.

    Nobody has ever been offered a contract by a top 6 PL club and turned it down because they don't want to play at 'Stoke on a wet Wednesday night'. They sign the deal because they want to play massive games against Liverpool, United, Chelsea, City that have importance.

    Imagine when we were both kids and we'd been told that one day these amazing title races that we saw in the 80s would never happen again. What would we consider the possible reasons why that would be the case.

    No money? No, there's more money in the game now.
    Players not getting paid? No, they're all full time now.
    Grounds falling to pieces and the game imploding? No, most big clubs play in modern grounds and get bigger gates than back then.
    No interest? No, we have a tv deal unlike back then when hardly any games were on tv.

    So, we got to the mid-90s, we still had really good title races, we moved to summer, we were seeing crowds rising, etc. Did anybody care that the league had clubs like Workington, Halifax and Oldham in it then? Why did Sky invest in a league with those clubs in back then? Because they were irrelevant. They bought in because we had Wigan, Leeds, Saints and for a time Bradford at the top of the game, and the top of the game was vibrant and exciting. Hull weren't even in SL in the first year, but nobody really cared because the top of the league was solid and was producing drama. But over the 25 years since we (and Sky) devised system after system to reduce the drama at the top, to handcuff the top teams with salary caps and play-off systems, all to make the game more 'exciting from top to bottom'. Relegation battles are exciting, but we didn't want them because it was more important to prioritise pandering to those clubs and giving them hope rather than making them earn their position in a sport were they were already given manufactured leg-ups via the structure of the season and the salary cap. Title races are exciting, but we didn't want them because 3-4 clubs at the top meant that the mediocrities couldn't be told they were achieving something, so we changed it all to make them feel more important.

    It's ended up with our sport having month after month of games every season that are nowhere near as important as they should be. When we play Wigan or Wire it's big for us tribally, but does a fan in Leeds or Hull really care? When Leeds play Hull do we really care? And if not, why not? Why aren't the games between the biggest clubs as important as they used to be? Could it be because we have a league structure that diminishes the value of 2 points and diminishes the value in fighting for top spot? If we don't care why should anyone else? If Sky are telling us that it's boring if the same teams win the GF every year and that it'd be great if a team won it from 8th (which they said often), and then told us that it was wonderful that Leeds won it from 5th and told us with a straight face that it meant they were the best team in the league that year, why would anyone get invested in the weekly rounds? There are long time fans who shrug off a regular season defeat now as if we've lost a friendly, and there are loads on here who will put up with boring RL every week as long as we win the GF. If the system and the structure inspires apathy from some of us, what chance do we have getting others involved. We had a chance in the mid-90s to take all the good bits about the RL we grew up with, to modernise it, professionalise it and build from it, with clubs that had history and gravitas that could grow even bigger with a tv deal and a move to summer. But we blew it, because we stopped prioritising the best bits of the competition in favour of the mediocre bits. There has to always be mediocre bits, that's life, and we should never want a comp where everyone wins 50% and loses 50% because that would frankly mean everyone was mediocre. Some will thrive, some will struggle, but the ones that thrive will generate the crowds and the tv revenue much like Leicester, Bath, Exeter and Saracens generated tv revenue for RU even if Newcastle and London Irish went up and down every season in front of poor crowds.

    When you prioritise the mediocre they became the thing everyone obsesses over, and so the make up of the mediocre becomes the thing that we think drives the success of the game. So we get worked up over whether we have Featherstone in the league when in reality it should be irrelevant if Saints, Wigan, Leeds, Hull and Warrington are playing huge games every weekend in modern stadia in front of decent crowds in a league structure that prioritises the top of the league and not the bottom. But, it's all counter-factual I know, but it was there for us and we ballsed it up.
    Couldn’t agree more

  3. #153
    In The South Stand Noel Cleal's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    3,471
    Rep Power
    21

    Default

    I too agree with Gray77.

    I remember Salford away in 1997 when we lost. Everyone was distraught. The game mattered and we lost it. As a result we were out of the Championship race, there wasn't a play off system to bail us out. Equally in 1996, we had so many nail biters. Warrington and London away stick out, with a playoff system it wouldn't have been such a thrill ride.

    One of the benefits of a top 5 was there was a sliding scale of difficulty. If you finished outside the top 3 you had to beat your top 4 rivals in consecutive weeks to be called champions. It is doable but a pretty impressive achievement. The downfall was definitely the move to a larger playoff system with a top 8 being a complete mess that as has been said took the focus off the top of the league.

    In the end the love affair with the Grand Final is born out of self interest. It is a money spinner for the RFL. So screw it if you have 2k less a week on gates. The RFL are going to pick the big money event for them. The same could be said about the Magic Weekend, money in the RFLs pocket at the expense of the integrity of the league.
    I could agree with you but then we would both be wrong.

  4. #154
    In The South Stand Paul Newlove's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    3,655
    Rep Power
    21

    Default

    I remember that game at Salford I've got it in my head it was a Wednesday night... But I've said it for years the big league games are long gone.

  5. #155
    In The North Stand With All The Old Folk fishy3005's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    earth
    Posts
    12,154
    Rep Power
    31

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Paul Newlove View Post
    I remember that game at Salford I've got it in my head it was a Wednesday night... But I've said it for years the big league games are long gone.
    They are mate. Super dead. I would even go as far as to say that the play offs are dead. The Grand Final always seem to do ok, and thats good enough for SKY. I love the spectacle of the GF, but should the play offs be scrapped for the good of the sport? Maybe.
    The play off system seems to work because the league is alive up until the last game. But lets be honest. Only 4 different clubs have won the championship since summer rugby. So even though Wire, Hull, Catalans, Cas and many more made the play offs over the years, none have been crowned champions.
    If the play offs were scrapped the regular games would be a lot more important undoubtedly! Should the sport scrap the play offs for a 5 year period to see how things go? Maybe. My worry is that the damge done to the sport in recent years is irreparable. Fans of the game are sick of constant change. Any change now, needs to be for a fixed period to let it bed in.
    screaming in the family corner, scaring the kiddies

  6. #156
    In The North Stand With All The Old Folk Belgian Saint's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Europe
    Posts
    11,178
    Rep Power
    32

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Gray77 View Post
    Standing here in 2020 you're probably right, and all I can do is counter-factually rewrite the mistakes of our recent past to suggest that it didn't need to be that way. I'm not convinced by the argument that any sports succeed based upon the quality or make up of its bottom sides. Success is based on the best teams and how good they are. We have Wigan, Saints, Leeds, Hull who are famous names and who can all attract five figure crowds in decent stadiums (some not their own obviously), and we have less well known (nationally) clubs like Warrington who can also do this. The future of our sport is linked to the viability of those big clubs to punch their weight and create big games and big title races every season. We created so many hurdles for the biggest and best clubs to jump that we are now looking at manufacturing the league to make up for the mistakes we made in reducing the power and marketing potential of what we have at the top.

    TV ratings didn't decline because we have Wakefield or Salford in the SL. They declined because we messed with the system and diluted the importance of the games between the big sides. We implemented ridiculous play off systems that meant that Leeds v Wigan on a Friday night in July became a completely pointless game in the eyes of neutrals or would-be fans. We had a broadcaster telling their viewers that the race for 8th was more important than the race for 1st, and priority was given to ensuring that the very clubs that should make up the numbers became the clubs that were pampered and told they'd achieved something by passing a manufactured bar in a play off system, whilst the sides at the top that generate the tv deal and generate the crowds were playing games nowhere near as important as they should have been. Stick a top 5, 6 or 8 team play off in the PL and see if the viewing figures for Liverpool v Man City 9-10 weeks into the season hold up. Tell the world that the real race is between Everton and Wolves to get the 6th or 8th spot and see how neutrals react to the reality that the 'Big 6 blockbusters' are meaningless because they'll all make the play-offs regardless. It isn't like that, and so Liverpool v Man City is huge 9-10 weeks into a season because every point counts, and nobody views the title race based on whether Brighton or West Brom are pulling their weight, because in reality it doesn't matter.

    Nobody has ever been offered a contract by a top 6 PL club and turned it down because they don't want to play at 'Stoke on a wet Wednesday night'. They sign the deal because they want to play massive games against Liverpool, United, Chelsea, City that have importance.

    Imagine when we were both kids and we'd been told that one day these amazing title races that we saw in the 80s would never happen again. What would we consider the possible reasons why that would be the case.

    No money? No, there's more money in the game now.
    Players not getting paid? No, they're all full time now.
    Grounds falling to pieces and the game imploding? No, most big clubs play in modern grounds and get bigger gates than back then.
    No interest? No, we have a tv deal unlike back then when hardly any games were on tv.

    So, we got to the mid-90s, we still had really good title races, we moved to summer, we were seeing crowds rising, etc. Did anybody care that the league had clubs like Workington, Halifax and Oldham in it then? Why did Sky invest in a league with those clubs in back then? Because they were irrelevant. They bought in because we had Wigan, Leeds, Saints and for a time Bradford at the top of the game, and the top of the game was vibrant and exciting. Hull weren't even in SL in the first year, but nobody really cared because the top of the league was solid and was producing drama. But over the 25 years since we (and Sky) devised system after system to reduce the drama at the top, to handcuff the top teams with salary caps and play-off systems, all to make the game more 'exciting from top to bottom'. Relegation battles are exciting, but we didn't want them because it was more important to prioritise pandering to those clubs and giving them hope rather than making them earn their position in a sport were they were already given manufactured leg-ups via the structure of the season and the salary cap. Title races are exciting, but we didn't want them because 3-4 clubs at the top meant that the mediocrities couldn't be told they were achieving something, so we changed it all to make them feel more important.

    It's ended up with our sport having month after month of games every season that are nowhere near as important as they should be. When we play Wigan or Wire it's big for us tribally, but does a fan in Leeds or Hull really care? When Leeds play Hull do we really care? And if not, why not? Why aren't the games between the biggest clubs as important as they used to be? Could it be because we have a league structure that diminishes the value of 2 points and diminishes the value in fighting for top spot? If we don't care why should anyone else? If Sky are telling us that it's boring if the same teams win the GF every year and that it'd be great if a team won it from 8th (which they said often), and then told us that it was wonderful that Leeds won it from 5th and told us with a straight face that it meant they were the best team in the league that year, why would anyone get invested in the weekly rounds? There are long time fans who shrug off a regular season defeat now as if we've lost a friendly, and there are loads on here who will put up with boring RL every week as long as we win the GF. If the system and the structure inspires apathy from some of us, what chance do we have getting others involved. We had a chance in the mid-90s to take all the good bits about the RL we grew up with, to modernise it, professionalise it and build from it, with clubs that had history and gravitas that could grow even bigger with a tv deal and a move to summer. But we blew it, because we stopped prioritising the best bits of the competition in favour of the mediocre bits. There has to always be mediocre bits, that's life, and we should never want a comp where everyone wins 50% and loses 50% because that would frankly mean everyone was mediocre. Some will thrive, some will struggle, but the ones that thrive will generate the crowds and the tv revenue much like Leicester, Bath, Exeter and Saracens generated tv revenue for RU even if Newcastle and London Irish went up and down every season in front of poor crowds.

    When you prioritise the mediocre they became the thing everyone obsesses over, and so the make up of the mediocre becomes the thing that we think drives the success of the game. So we get worked up over whether we have Featherstone in the league when in reality it should be irrelevant if Saints, Wigan, Leeds, Hull and Warrington are playing huge games every weekend in modern stadia in front of decent crowds in a league structure that prioritises the top of the league and not the bottom. But, it's all counter-factual I know, but it was there for us and we ballsed it up.
    This would put anyone that is no a stalwart off watching RL. As much as I love RL I'm a bit sad at where we are after this read. The most depressing part is I don't disagree with any of it.

  7. #157
    In The South Stand
    Join Date
    Sep 2014
    Location
    Wirral
    Posts
    2,662
    Rep Power
    15

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by fishy3005 View Post
    They are mate. Super dead. I would even go as far as to say that the play offs are dead. The Grand Final always seem to do ok, and thats good enough for SKY. I love the spectacle of the GF, but should the play offs be scrapped for the good of the sport? Maybe.
    The play off system seems to work because the league is alive up until the last game. But lets be honest. Only 4 different clubs have won the championship since summer rugby. So even though Wire, Hull, Catalans, Cas and many more made the play offs over the years, none have been crowned champions.
    If the play offs were scrapped the regular games would be a lot more important undoubtedly! Should the sport scrap the play offs for a 5 year period to see how things go? Maybe. My worry is that the damge done to the sport in recent years is irreparable. Fans of the game are sick of constant change. Any change now, needs to be for a fixed period to let it bed in.
    If they want to keep the GF as the showpiece, why not make it first v second, at least that would give the league some meaning.

  8. #158
    In The North Stand With All The Old Folk
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Macclesfield
    Age
    46
    Posts
    8,427
    Rep Power
    33

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Prez View Post
    If they want to keep the GF as the showpiece, why not make it first v second, at least that would give the league some meaning.
    Or take the Challenge Cup Final off the Crown Jewels list so that Sky can show it. Ditch the play offs and let Sky have their big games in the Semi Finals and then the Final at Wembley every year in the summer, with the league as FPTP. Sky have no cup finals, no showpiece Wembley game and they’d love the Cup Final during the summer when their output is weak. It’d also boost the rep of the Cup if the SL broadcaster also showed the Cup Final. The Cup Final is still a bigger deal internationally and letting Sky sub licence it to Australian and Kiwi broadcasters as host broadcaster would be worth more to them than the Grand Final.

    The play offs are nowhere near as compelling as a proper title race where we’d have months of big games before the league took shape. Most years it’s still be up for grabs with 5-6 weeks to go, so I’m surprised some see 4 weeks of games at the end of a drab season as more financially viable than 7 months of important games.

  9. #159
    Banned
    Join Date
    May 2015
    Posts
    547
    Rep Power
    0

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Gray77 View Post
    Or take the Challenge Cup Final off the Crown Jewels list so that Sky can show it. Ditch the play offs and let Sky have their big games in the Semi Finals and then the Final at Wembley every year in the summer, with the league as FPTP. Sky have no cup finals, no showpiece Wembley game and they’d love the Cup Final during the summer when their output is weak. It’d also boost the rep of the Cup if the SL broadcaster also showed the Cup Final. The Cup Final is still a bigger deal internationally and letting Sky sub licence it to Australian and Kiwi broadcasters as host broadcaster would be worth more to them than the Grand Final.

    The play offs are nowhere near as compelling as a proper title race where we’d have months of big games before the league took shape. Most years it’s still be up for grabs with 5-6 weeks to go, so I’m surprised some see 4 weeks of games at the end of a drab season as more financially viable than 7 months of important games.
    Give the CC to sky ? They wouldn't get the veiwing figures the BBC do for one and what about people like me that don't have Sky ?

  10. #160
    Learning All The Songs
    Join Date
    May 2016
    Location
    Cornwall
    Posts
    2,287
    Rep Power
    11

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Gray77 View Post
    Or take the Challenge Cup Final off the Crown Jewels list so that Sky can show it. Ditch the play offs and let Sky have their big games in the Semi Finals and then the Final at Wembley every year in the summer, with the league as FPTP. Sky have no cup finals, no showpiece Wembley game and they’d love the Cup Final during the summer when their output is weak. It’d also boost the rep of the Cup if the SL broadcaster also showed the Cup Final. The Cup Final is still a bigger deal internationally and letting Sky sub licence it to Australian and Kiwi broadcasters as host broadcaster would be worth more to them than the Grand Final.

    The play offs are nowhere near as compelling as a proper title race where we’d have months of big games before the league took shape. Most years it’s still be up for grabs with 5-6 weeks to go, so I’m surprised some see 4 weeks of games at the end of a drab season as more financially viable than 7 months of important games.
    Two excellent posts Grey. I would like to see a 14 team super league with 13 home and 13 away games plus 1 magic weekend leaving a 27 match season. The final game could be first v second in a grand final to win the league. I agree that it wouldn’t matter having ten teams in the the league that are unlikely to win it. I would like to see Toulouse and London in maybe with Leigh or York. I don’t know. Scrap the salary cap and stop relegation. Offer five year franchises with any teams that finish regularly in the bottom three as candidates to be replaced at the end of the five year franchise.

    As for the CC have the top tier enter the competition at the 64 team round producing more games in the cup and some giant killer matches. I can’t see Batley beating Wigan or Rochdale beating Hull but never mind. I remember Saints playing Mayfield many years ago and battering them. I also remember Saints losing to Doncaster! Let the BBC keep its Crown Jewels but open the competition in January and have the final on a May bank holiday weekend.

  11. #161
    In The North Stand With All The Old Folk fishy3005's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    earth
    Posts
    12,154
    Rep Power
    31

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Prez View Post
    If they want to keep the GF as the showpiece, why not make it first v second, at least that would give the league some meaning.
    Yeh thats not a bad idea mate.
    screaming in the family corner, scaring the kiddies

  12. #162
    In The North Stand With All The Old Folk The Wee Waa Womble's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Harrogate
    Age
    33
    Posts
    7,965
    Rep Power
    30

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Pasty View Post
    Two excellent posts Grey. I would like to see a 14 team super league with 13 home and 13 away games plus 1 magic weekend leaving a 27 match season. The final game could be first v second in a grand final to win the league. I agree that it wouldn’t matter having ten teams in the the league that are unlikely to win it. I would like to see Toulouse and London in maybe with Leigh or York. I don’t know. Scrap the salary cap and stop relegation. Offer five year franchises with any teams that finish regularly in the bottom three as candidates to be replaced at the end of the five year franchise.

    As for the CC have the top tier enter the competition at the 64 team round producing more games in the cup and some giant killer matches. I can’t see Batley beating Wigan or Rochdale beating Hull but never mind. I remember Saints playing Mayfield many years ago and battering them. I also remember Saints losing to Doncaster! Let the BBC keep its Crown Jewels but open the competition in January and have the final on a May bank holiday weekend.
    I’d go pretty much the same but with a top 4 playoff. 1st v 2nd - winner straight through to GF
    3rd v 4th - loser eliminated
    Loser of 1st v 2nd vs Winner of 3rd v 4th - winner to GF
    Grand Final
    Gives the top 2 sides an advantage with each position from 1st to 4th being more favourable than the one below due to either having a 2nd chance finishing top 2 or home advantage if you finish 1st or 3rd.
    Forwards win games. The backs decide by how much.

  13. #163
    In The South Stand Paul Newlove's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    3,655
    Rep Power
    21

    Default

    I said it in a letter to the league express in 1998 when the GF first started and I stick by it now. The CC should have stayed as it was, the league should have stayed FPTP and I quoted the exciting inaugural SL title race BUT the play offs should be a expanded WCC, not the debacle we saw in 97 but simply our top 4v NRL top 4,semi's then a final at Old Trafford. It may have been slow to start and people say the Aussies don't care but I think that would've been a credible competition that I'm sure would've captured the interest of a lot of people, it probably would have alternated venue after a few years.
    Imagine playing regular NRL opposition each year it would have benefitted the national team and raised our standards. RU have the Heineken Cup we can't compete with that but this could've been huge now..

  14. #164
    Moderator Div's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Sintellins
    Posts
    11,911
    Rep Power
    32

    Default

    We used to have The Premiership play offs and final after The Championship was sorted. We could return to that scenario.

  15. #165
    In The North Stand With All The Old Folk
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Macclesfield
    Age
    46
    Posts
    8,427
    Rep Power
    33

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Div View Post
    We used to have The Premiership play offs and final after The Championship was sorted. We could return to that scenario.
    And it worked mate. When we were young and Saints were out of the title race we still had points to play for hoping we’d get a Top 4 spot and a home tie. The Premiership took time to become important but by the late 80s when it moved to OT it was pulling in 35-40,000 and was the last big game of the season. It wasn’t as important as winning the league or the Cup but it meant something and was a good way to end the season. It also gave league games meaning for those that were out of the title race but didn’t give teams in mid table some inflated opinion of themselves. There was a prize to be won, but not the biggest one.

    Imagine all the stuff we had then replicated with more money and a tv deal. A proper league season, a Cup that was prestigious with a Final that was the biggest day of the season, a Top 8 Premiership at the end of the season, Ashes series with proper tours by the Kangaroos, etc. Imagine having such a great system and then flushing it all down the toilet when we had the chance to make it bigger and better.

  16. #166
    In The North Stand With All The Old Folk
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Macclesfield
    Age
    46
    Posts
    8,427
    Rep Power
    33

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by mufcsaint View Post
    Give the CC to sky ? They wouldn't get the veiwing figures the BBC do for one and what about people like me that don't have Sky ?
    If what I’ve read is true they already have it, but sub licensed it to the BBC. Only the Final needs to be FTA so Sky could have covered the entire competition and then shared the Final with a FTA broadcaster if they wanted. They opted to sub licence that part of their tv deal and the BBC took it up. No reason why Sky couldn’t do a deal with Channel 4 or Channel 5 to share the rights and have Sky be the host broadcaster, do the commentary and have their big day at Wembley with 4 or 5 taking their coverage for the FTA audience. Also no reason why Sky couldn’t host the Final but also show it on their Pick channel on freeview like they did with several PL games during lockdown last summer. I’m just thinking of hypothetical ways we could replace the GF, and only Sky having the Cup Final in some form would ever make them consider it IMO.

  17. #167
    Learning All The Songs Blue Harvest's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Posts
    1,255
    Rep Power
    0

    Default

    Having read through most of posts on this thread, i think we are all in general agreement that the magic or sparkle has fallen away from the game. Some is the league structure diluting the excitment, some is the entertainment quality of the game (wrestle-a-thon), some is the lack of positive media coverage, some is the growth of other sports (football) with differing budgets.

    After countless failed expansion projects (PSG, Gateshead, Crusaders, Toronto), the too long a name Huddersfield-Sheffield "Merger" and various other revenue drains, the move to a 5, then 6, then 8 play off, the strange split of the leagues to generate the million pound game, does anyone have any faith in the powers that be making a call that actually stays the duration?

    I understand that moving to an expanded playoff keeps the season's relevance appealing in the last third of the season, but it does dilute the excitement and relevance of finishing at the top.

    If there are sufficient clubs that meet the criteria, i'd propose moving to a 2 tier Superleague, 2 leagues of 10, with a franchise model locked in with a 3 year review. Top 5 playoff, in both leagues, along with with promotion and relegation. This would keep the season interesting at both ends, provinding that there's no run away leaders or dead duck teams. Logistically it might take several seasons to move towards achieving it, but is 20 full time clubs that unachievable? We've probably had more than 20 clubs be fulltime since 1996. More games, could open up the TV deals to being restructured, a few midweek games (as per this season) or even Sunday afternoon/evening, repackage the whole comp and see if anyother broadcasters would take a punt on it.

  18. #168
    In The South Stand warringtonsaint's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Posts
    3,046
    Rep Power
    23

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Angry Dave View Post
    Absolutely spot on. One of the best posts I've ever read on here.
    I was about to say the same thing, tremendous post
    "The great fallacy is that the game is first and last about winning. It is nothing of the kind. The game is about glory, it is about doing things in style and with a flourish, about going out and beating the other lot, not waiting for them to die of boredom." Danny Blanchflower.
    Might have been written by a footballer about football - but never a truer word............

  19. #169
    In The North Stand With All The Old Folk Belgian Saint's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Europe
    Posts
    11,178
    Rep Power
    32

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Gray77 View Post
    And it worked mate. When we were young and Saints were out of the title race we still had points to play for hoping we’d get a Top 4 spot and a home tie. The Premiership took time to become important but by the late 80s when it moved to OT it was pulling in 35-40,000 and was the last big game of the season. It wasn’t as important as winning the league or the Cup but it meant something and was a good way to end the season. It also gave league games meaning for those that were out of the title race but didn’t give teams in mid table some inflated opinion of themselves. There was a prize to be won, but not the biggest one.

    Imagine all the stuff we had then replicated with more money and a tv deal. A proper league season, a Cup that was prestigious with a Final that was the biggest day of the season, a Top 8 Premiership at the end of the season, Ashes series with proper tours by the Kangaroos, etc. Imagine having such a great system and then flushing it all down the toilet when we had the chance to make it bigger and better.
    I loved that format.

  20. #170
    In The South Stand Tez the Saint's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Posts
    3,502
    Rep Power
    21

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by The Wee Waa Womble View Post
    I’d go pretty much the same but with a top 4 playoff. 1st v 2nd - winner straight through to GF
    3rd v 4th - loser eliminated
    Loser of 1st v 2nd vs Winner of 3rd v 4th - winner to GF
    Grand Final
    Gives the top 2 sides an advantage with each position from 1st to 4th being more favourable than the one below due to either having a 2nd chance finishing top 2 or home advantage if you finish 1st or 3rd.
    I think that’s about right, I’d go with that. You could even have a semi final between 2 and 3 whilst 1 goes straight through.

    One issue with a FPTP league IMO would potentially be player welfare, they’d need to look at that. The game is physical enough and tough enough as it is but the shot clock, the interchanges and the six again have obviously sped the game up even more and it would be asking a lot of the players to play absolute must win games every week. James Roby for example missed a couple of games last year with his groin but in a FPTP system I suspect that he’d have played through it and who knows what effect that would have had.
    Steve Prescott MBE (1973-2013)
    V

  21. #171
    Got A Season Ticket
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Leeds
    Posts
    210
    Rep Power
    0

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Gray77 View Post
    Standing here in 2020 you're probably right, and all I can do is counter-factually rewrite the mistakes of our recent past to suggest that it didn't need to be that way. I'm not convinced by the argument that any sports succeed based upon the quality or make up of its bottom sides. Success is based on the best teams and how good they are. We have Wigan, Saints, Leeds, Hull who are famous names and who can all attract five figure crowds in decent stadiums (some not their own obviously), and we have less well known (nationally) clubs like Warrington who can also do this. The future of our sport is linked to the viability of those big clubs to punch their weight and create big games and big title races every season. We created so many hurdles for the biggest and best clubs to jump that we are now looking at manufacturing the league to make up for the mistakes we made in reducing the power and marketing potential of what we have at the top.

    TV ratings didn't decline because we have Wakefield or Salford in the SL. They declined because we messed with the system and diluted the importance of the games between the big sides. We implemented ridiculous play off systems that meant that Leeds v Wigan on a Friday night in July became a completely pointless game in the eyes of neutrals or would-be fans. We had a broadcaster telling their viewers that the race for 8th was more important than the race for 1st, and priority was given to ensuring that the very clubs that should make up the numbers became the clubs that were pampered and told they'd achieved something by passing a manufactured bar in a play off system, whilst the sides at the top that generate the tv deal and generate the crowds were playing games nowhere near as important as they should have been. Stick a top 5, 6 or 8 team play off in the PL and see if the viewing figures for Liverpool v Man City 9-10 weeks into the season hold up. Tell the world that the real race is between Everton and Wolves to get the 6th or 8th spot and see how neutrals react to the reality that the 'Big 6 blockbusters' are meaningless because they'll all make the play-offs regardless. It isn't like that, and so Liverpool v Man City is huge 9-10 weeks into a season because every point counts, and nobody views the title race based on whether Brighton or West Brom are pulling their weight, because in reality it doesn't matter.

    Nobody has ever been offered a contract by a top 6 PL club and turned it down because they don't want to play at 'Stoke on a wet Wednesday night'. They sign the deal because they want to play massive games against Liverpool, United, Chelsea, City that have importance.

    Imagine when we were both kids and we'd been told that one day these amazing title races that we saw in the 80s would never happen again. What would we consider the possible reasons why that would be the case.

    No money? No, there's more money in the game now.
    Players not getting paid? No, they're all full time now.
    Grounds falling to pieces and the game imploding? No, most big clubs play in modern grounds and get bigger gates than back then.
    No interest? No, we have a tv deal unlike back then when hardly any games were on tv.

    So, we got to the mid-90s, we still had really good title races, we moved to summer, we were seeing crowds rising, etc. Did anybody care that the league had clubs like Workington, Halifax and Oldham in it then? Why did Sky invest in a league with those clubs in back then? Because they were irrelevant. They bought in because we had Wigan, Leeds, Saints and for a time Bradford at the top of the game, and the top of the game was vibrant and exciting. Hull weren't even in SL in the first year, but nobody really cared because the top of the league was solid and was producing drama. But over the 25 years since we (and Sky) devised system after system to reduce the drama at the top, to handcuff the top teams with salary caps and play-off systems, all to make the game more 'exciting from top to bottom'. Relegation battles are exciting, but we didn't want them because it was more important to prioritise pandering to those clubs and giving them hope rather than making them earn their position in a sport were they were already given manufactured leg-ups via the structure of the season and the salary cap. Title races are exciting, but we didn't want them because 3-4 clubs at the top meant that the mediocrities couldn't be told they were achieving something, so we changed it all to make them feel more important.

    It's ended up with our sport having month after month of games every season that are nowhere near as important as they should be. When we play Wigan or Wire it's big for us tribally, but does a fan in Leeds or Hull really care? When Leeds play Hull do we really care? And if not, why not? Why aren't the games between the biggest clubs as important as they used to be? Could it be because we have a league structure that diminishes the value of 2 points and diminishes the value in fighting for top spot? If we don't care why should anyone else? If Sky are telling us that it's boring if the same teams win the GF every year and that it'd be great if a team won it from 8th (which they said often), and then told us that it was wonderful that Leeds won it from 5th and told us with a straight face that it meant they were the best team in the league that year, why would anyone get invested in the weekly rounds? There are long time fans who shrug off a regular season defeat now as if we've lost a friendly, and there are loads on here who will put up with boring RL every week as long as we win the GF. If the system and the structure inspires apathy from some of us, what chance do we have getting others involved. We had a chance in the mid-90s to take all the good bits about the RL we grew up with, to modernise it, professionalise it and build from it, with clubs that had history and gravitas that could grow even bigger with a tv deal and a move to summer. But we blew it, because we stopped prioritising the best bits of the competition in favour of the mediocre bits. There has to always be mediocre bits, that's life, and we should never want a comp where everyone wins 50% and loses 50% because that would frankly mean everyone was mediocre. Some will thrive, some will struggle, but the ones that thrive will generate the crowds and the tv revenue much like Leicester, Bath, Exeter and Saracens generated tv revenue for RU even if Newcastle and London Irish went up and down every season in front of poor crowds.

    When you prioritise the mediocre they became the thing everyone obsesses over, and so the make up of the mediocre becomes the thing that we think drives the success of the game. So we get worked up over whether we have Featherstone in the league when in reality it should be irrelevant if Saints, Wigan, Leeds, Hull and Warrington are playing huge games every weekend in modern stadia in front of decent crowds in a league structure that prioritises the top of the league and not the bottom. But, it's all counter-factual I know, but it was there for us and we ballsed it up.
    This is a great post. I wonder how much my memories of seasons like 1996 are clouded by nostalgia, but games like London/Warrington just don't happen anymore. I remember Wigan drawing with London as well, and it being a huge result in the title race. Doesn't matter anymore.

    I also remember games like Leeds at home, I can't remember which year it was. Bailey injured Faasavalu and Graham came on looking for him. We just don't have games like that anymore, and I do wonder why. Personalities?

  22. #172
    In The North Stand With All The Old Folk
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Macclesfield
    Age
    46
    Posts
    8,427
    Rep Power
    33

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by SaintJose View Post
    This is a great post. I wonder how much my memories of seasons like 1996 are clouded by nostalgia, but games like London/Warrington just don't happen anymore. I remember Wigan drawing with London as well, and it being a huge result in the title race. Doesn't matter anymore.
    We lost to Wigan three weeks ago and the main issue was it cost us £100k. People argued it was a good run-out before the play-offs when that and many other games could be so much more important under a FPTP system. I remember Wire in 1996, with Wire having the penalty from the half-way line after the hooter had sounded. Our entire title bid resting on it, and the sheer delight when it fell short. London was another, we had week after week of nailbiters and at the end when we won it we had all those games that contributed to it, all worth loads. I walked out of OT last year delighted we'd won the GF but it didn't feel like a journey to me. There were no landmark victories over the 29 weeks, nothing that I looked back on. It was all about two play off wins after 7 months of qualifiers.

  23. #173
    In The North Stand With All The Old Folk
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Macclesfield
    Age
    46
    Posts
    8,427
    Rep Power
    33

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Tez the Saint View Post
    I think that’s about right, I’d go with that. You could even have a semi final between 2 and 3 whilst 1 goes straight through.

    One issue with a FPTP league IMO would potentially be player welfare, they’d need to look at that. The game is physical enough and tough enough as it is but the shot clock, the interchanges and the six again have obviously sped the game up even more and it would be asking a lot of the players to play absolute must win games every week. James Roby for example missed a couple of games last year with his groin but in a FPTP system I suspect that he’d have played through it and who knows what effect that would have had.
    That's fair enough, but the counter argument is that players are getting flogged now because the season is simply too long. 29 league games is ridiculous when we then have a play-off system after it. Why play that many games when 22 (for example) would provide the same end result? If we had a 12 team league and had a simple 22 game home and away league system wouldn't that remedy the issue somewhat? And to be honest, even in a FPTP not every game will be played at breakneck intensity. We'd still win half our home games quite comfortably, and I think most seasons the champions would lose at least 4-5 games.

    Now, the argument against a 22-game season is money, I know. Clubs won't want 11 home games when they can have 14, and that would be the main sticking point. But in the long run the game would benefit. A FPTP system would lead to more non-ST holders going to the bigger league games, and more away fans travelling because every game mattered. This would mean that instead of 11,000 at home to Leeds or Hull it'd be 13,000 with a thousand away fans. Wouldn't that be better for the game and for the visible look of the league to outsiders and tv? No play offs or GF would lead to more people going to Cup games, with Cup SF's being played infront of 25-30,000 at Anfield or Elland Road instead of sticking them together at Bolton which makes the sport and the Cup look small time. And of course, no GF or MW would lead to loads more going to Wembley. All of this would make the Challenge Cup a bigger deal in future tv contracts and for sponsors. And overall the game would be able to sell itself to advertisers and tv partners as a sport where big games take place every weekend, where we had a league title that 4 or 5 teams could win every season where every game counted, where we had the premier cup competition in England that was taken more seriously than either football cup competition, etc.

  24. #174
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jul 2019
    Posts
    4,739
    Rep Power
    0

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by mufcsaint View Post
    Give the CC to sky ? They wouldn't get the veiwing figures the BBC do for one and what about people like me that don't have Sky ?
    Get Sky.

  25. #175
    Banned
    Join Date
    May 2015
    Posts
    547
    Rep Power
    0

    Default

    Even if I could afford to I wouldn't have Sky

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •