Jump to content





Photo
- - - - -

Playoff system


  • Please log in to reply
38 replies to this topic

#21 bewareshadows

bewareshadows
  • Coach
  • 1,084 posts

Posted 07 September 2010 - 06:02 PM

QUOTE (giwildgo @ Sep 7 2010, 06:43 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
Sounds a better bet than the current system and well justified by your points, but I'd still be concerned about a two week layoff for the League Leaders in terms of match sharpness.


I think only the American system really justifies a playoff system. However you then have to break up the league into divisional system.

Which would bring on the moans of, there are not enough players there are too many easy beat teams.

However the divisional system allows for almost unlimited expansion of the game without having to sacrifice the traditional clubs. It also justifies the licence system properly. If you tick the boxes your in, if not your out. No need to fiddle the criteria to fit some arbatary league limit of clubs.


Also clubs need not complain about not having enough derbies and no complaining about too many games in a season.

However I think this boat was missed at the Start of SL and as turkeys don't vote for Christmas and SL clubs control how the Christmas pudding is split. I can't see it happening unless SKy pull the plug on the funding or strangely offer a huge increase in funding.
Super League the only place in the world where people still believe that less competitors and a closed market to new competition will improve the quality of the product.

Even the Chinese and the Cubans gave up on these marxist principles years ago.


SL with a reduced number of competitors and a closed market = North Korea.

#22 Finn

Finn
  • Coach
  • 375 posts

Posted 07 September 2010 - 06:11 PM

QUOTE (Wellsy4HullFC @ Sep 7 2010, 04:11 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
And you make it sound like their has never been a repeat game in the play-offs. 1998, ,1999, 2000, 01, 02, 04, 06, 07 and 08 all had one repeated fixture in them. In fact if you look at it like that, there have only been 3 out of 12 years without a repeat game. Did you whinge all them years as well?


Presumably most of those rematches were in the top 5 / 6 systems and occurred in the final which is ok as the best 2 teams gravitate there. What I was winging about are rematches in weeks 1 and week 3 which begs ask what is the point of week 1?

I didn't winge at all with the top 5 system but have winged consistently ever since, even more so with this daft top 8 one which Nigel Wood thought up when he was presumably drunk.

#23 Wellsy4HullFC

Wellsy4HullFC
  • Coach
  • 10,034 posts

Posted 07 September 2010 - 06:14 PM

QUOTE (T Dub @ Sep 7 2010, 06:35 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
Yes it would under the existing formula, but this is longwinded and over complicated, and when 8th is involved open to ridicule.

Everyone has a preference, mine would be:-

Week 1 - 1 bye, 2v5, 3v4 (ie 2 eliminators)
Week 2 - 1 bye, 2 v 3 (one eliminator)
Week 3 - final

Top 5 are involved, 6th downwards dont deserve to be
Fewer games so our best players are less knackered by the time the internationals come round
Use the exta week gained for something useful (week off before 4N, mid season international, WCC)
Removes games that arnt eliminators
Obviates preposterous 'club call'
Saves rehashing the same 'big' fixtures to the point where they are routine
Most importantly, gives real value to finishing top

Why do 6th not deserve to be in but 5th do? Where is the limit?

It's basically a "how long is a piece of string?" situation, with the RFL's string being 8 teams long and yours being 5. There is no right and wrong answer.
Posted Image

#24 Finn

Finn
  • Coach
  • 375 posts

Posted 07 September 2010 - 06:19 PM

QUOTE (Wellsy4HullFC @ Sep 7 2010, 07:14 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
Why do 6th not deserve to be in but 5th do? Where is the limit?

It's basically a "how long is a piece of string?" situation, with the RFL's string being 8 teams long and yours being 5. There is no right and wrong answer.


The string should not be long enough to reward mediocrity. Finishing outside the top half of the table and winning less than 50% of ones games hardly deserves a shot at being acclaimed Champions.

#25 bewareshadows

bewareshadows
  • Coach
  • 1,084 posts

Posted 07 September 2010 - 06:21 PM

QUOTE (bewareshadows @ Sep 7 2010, 07:02 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
I think only the American system really justifies a playoff system. However you then have to break up the league into divisional system.

Which would bring on the moans of, there are not enough players there are too many easy beat teams.

However the divisional system allows for almost unlimited expansion of the game without having to sacrifice the traditional clubs. It also justifies the licence system properly. If you tick the boxes your in, if not your out. No need to fiddle the criteria to fit some arbatary league limit of clubs.


Also clubs need not complain about not having enough derbies and no complaining about too many games in a season.

However I think this boat was missed at the Start of SL and as turkeys don't vote for Christmas and SL clubs control how the Christmas pudding is split. I can't see it happening unless SKy pull the plug on the funding or strangely offer a huge increase in funding.



eg

Saints
Wigan
Warrington
Widnes
Leigh
Salford
Wrexham
Cumbrian franchise
Toulouse
Catalan

Leeds
Bradford
Cas
Wakey
Hull
Huddersfield
Hull KR
Gateshead
London Quins
London Skolars


I know people say there is not the quality in depth but saying a smaller league improves quality is a very poor argument in my humble opinion. I use the Scottish football top division as my example.


As more teams want to join, you expand the leagues until they are too large and then create a 3rd division.

Those who Id consider for additional teams when the timing was right for them.

Doncaster / Sheffield / South Wales team / Milton Keynes / Featherstone / Midlands franchise / Halifax / There are others such as Oldham, Dewsbury , Keighley, York etc

But with any of these they would have to be able to get the franchise criteria.

I would also amend the franchise criteria to have a break even clause , over 3 or 5 or 10 year financial cycle. Not never ending losses, with the hope of a rescue from generous chairmen.

Edited by bewareshadows, 07 September 2010 - 06:22 PM.

Super League the only place in the world where people still believe that less competitors and a closed market to new competition will improve the quality of the product.

Even the Chinese and the Cubans gave up on these marxist principles years ago.


SL with a reduced number of competitors and a closed market = North Korea.

#26 Jill Halfpenny fan

Jill Halfpenny fan
  • Coach
  • 4,450 posts

Posted 07 September 2010 - 06:21 PM

From an attendance point of view for first round games they've come up smelling of roses with 3 of the 4.
Just because you think everyone hates you doesn't mean they don't.

#27 bewareshadows

bewareshadows
  • Coach
  • 1,084 posts

Posted 07 September 2010 - 08:09 PM

QUOTE (Jill Halfpenny fan @ Sep 7 2010, 07:21 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
From an attendance point of view for first round games they've come up smelling of roses with 3 of the 4.



Maybe Cas v Huddersfield would have been a better result attendance wise.

However if it was a home game for Wrexham I think they would run huddersfield close in terms of attendance. I think it's more to do with both clubs having a poor away following rather than not having a solid home fan base.
Super League the only place in the world where people still believe that less competitors and a closed market to new competition will improve the quality of the product.

Even the Chinese and the Cubans gave up on these marxist principles years ago.


SL with a reduced number of competitors and a closed market = North Korea.

#28 Big Picture

Big Picture
  • Coach
  • 1,164 posts

Posted 07 September 2010 - 08:48 PM

QUOTE (Finn @ Sep 6 2010, 08:31 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
I'm hoping that the playoffs go to form, in which case we will be looking forward to 2 semis in 2 weeks time, Saints/Wire, Wigan/Leeds, sound familiar?

Hopefully the outcry from such a repeat set of fixtures (what was the point of them playing in week 1) will cause the playoff system to be reviewed, as the current system is ######.

The simple answer to the repeat games is to have the teams cross over in the Preliminary Finals like in the system used by the AFL, as follows:

Week 1

A 6th vs. 7th
B 5th vs. 8th
C 2nd vs. 3rd
D 1st vs. 4th

Week 2

E Loser C vs. Winner A
F Loser D vs. Winner B

Week 3

G Winner C vs. Winner F
H Winner D vs. Winner E

Week 4

I Winner G vs. Winner H

That way the only possible rematch is in the Grand Final.

#29 Dave T

Dave T
  • Coach
  • 15,724 posts

Posted 07 September 2010 - 08:51 PM

QUOTE (Finn @ Sep 7 2010, 07:11 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
Presumably most of those rematches were in the top 5 / 6 systems and occurred in the final which is ok as the best 2 teams gravitate there. What I was winging about are rematches in weeks 1 and week 3 which begs ask what is the point of week 1?
I don't really understand your point here. There is an absolutely clear point to Rd1.

My team Warrington have a clear chance this Friday to tip the scales in their favour if thy beat Saints. It isn;t just a case of going through the motions and there is a guarantee of the same games repeated. Warrington actually have the opportunity to gain home advantage, send Saints into a tough 2nd round game and get the chance for clubcall. That is what teams are playing for in the 1st round.


#30 RP London

RP London
  • Coach
  • 12,678 posts

Posted 08 September 2010 - 08:33 AM

QUOTE (bewareshadows @ Sep 7 2010, 06:02 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
I think only the American system really justifies a playoff system. However you then have to break up the league into divisional system.

Which would bring on the moans of, there are not enough players there are too many easy beat teams.

However the divisional system allows for almost unlimited expansion of the game without having to sacrifice the traditional clubs. It also justifies the licence system properly. If you tick the boxes your in, if not your out. No need to fiddle the criteria to fit some arbatary league limit of clubs.


Also clubs need not complain about not having enough derbies and no complaining about too many games in a season.

However I think this boat was missed at the Start of SL and as turkeys don't vote for Christmas and SL clubs control how the Christmas pudding is split. I can't see it happening unless SKy pull the plug on the funding or strangely offer a huge increase in funding.


can i please applaud this.. i love the idea of conferences, this helps expansion and you can always have cross division matches if you want the derbies etc.. the less derbies there are in the season the bigger that match becomes..

cross division matches which are derbies in two "magic" venues on one weekend (warm one!) would be great.

#31 Finn

Finn
  • Coach
  • 375 posts

Posted 08 September 2010 - 08:45 AM

QUOTE (Dave T @ Sep 7 2010, 09:51 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
I don't really understand your point here. There is an absolutely clear point to Rd1.

My team Warrington have a clear chance this Friday to tip the scales in their favour if thy beat Saints. It isn;t just a case of going through the motions and there is a guarantee of the same games repeated. Warrington actually have the opportunity to gain home advantage, send Saints into a tough 2nd round game and get the chance for clubcall. That is what teams are playing for in the 1st round.


Why don't Wire field a weakened team Friday, then play the winners of the Hull derby (a match that will have taken a lot out of the winners) at home the following week then go into a semi at Knowsley Road all guns blazing. This would give them a better chance than the alternative of having to beat Saints twice, which looking at the history of such clashes you would have to say is a difficult proposition. An even worse scenario would be to put a great effort in on Friday and come up just short.


#32 Dave T

Dave T
  • Coach
  • 15,724 posts

Posted 08 September 2010 - 08:59 AM

QUOTE (Finn @ Sep 8 2010, 09:45 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
Why don't Wire field a weakened team Friday, then play the winners of the Hull derby (a match that will have taken a lot out of the winners) at home the following week then go into a semi at Knowsley Road all guns blazing. This would give them a better chance than the alternative of having to beat Saints twice, which looking at the history of such clashes you would have to say is a difficult proposition. An even worse scenario would be to put a great effort in on Friday and come up just short.
I'd rather we put full effort in and win on Friday. Ok, we have a poor record against Saints, however we also had a shocking record in the Cup until last year and now we are back-to-back winners.

If we were to win, and Leeds were to win at Wigan, then we suddenly become the top seeded team. We get a week off and get to choose who we want to play. Say like last year and we get a shock in rd 2, and we could be picking from the likes of Crusaders at home.

I don't see the benefits of playing the system like you say, as you are pretty much sacrificing any potential benefits that this first round offers.


#33 RP London

RP London
  • Coach
  • 12,678 posts

Posted 08 September 2010 - 09:09 AM

QUOTE (Finn @ Sep 8 2010, 08:45 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
Why don't Wire field a weakened team Friday, then play the winners of the Hull derby (a match that will have taken a lot out of the winners) at home the following week then go into a semi at Knowsley Road all guns blazing. This would give them a better chance than the alternative of having to beat Saints twice, which looking at the history of such clashes you would have to say is a difficult proposition. An even worse scenario would be to put a great effort in on Friday and come up just short.


what if Wire put out a full team and beat saints.. saints then lose to a Hull side on a roll then Wire dont have to face them again anyway.. or they win, Saitns pick up a couple of injuries in their next match making them even weaker and letting wire win..

Huddersfield IIRC took the "doenst matter if we lose" view last year and look how far that got them!

#34 Wellsy4HullFC

Wellsy4HullFC
  • Coach
  • 10,034 posts

Posted 08 September 2010 - 03:50 PM

QUOTE (Finn @ Sep 7 2010, 07:11 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
Presumably most of those rematches were in the top 5 / 6 systems and occurred in the final which is ok as the best 2 teams gravitate there. What I was winging about are rematches in weeks 1 and week 3 which begs ask what is the point of week 1?

I didn't winge at all with the top 5 system but have winged consistently ever since, even more so with this daft top 8 one which Nigel Wood thought up when he was presumably drunk.

The top 8 system is fine. It is used in the AFL (which does pretty well for itself I'd say). They don't have the club-call thing, which we introduced to remove the flaw in the third week of their fixtures.

So you don't like the Top-8 because there could be a repeat fixture in the third week, but like the Top-5, and hope that this year's goes on form to expose it as ######? OK, let me rip your logic up here..

If this year was a Top-5 system and it went on form...

Week 1 - Saints beat Warrington. Leeds beat Huddersfield.
Week 2 - Wigan beat Saints. Warrington beat Leeds.
Week 3 - Saints beat Warrington.
Week 4 - Wigan beat Saints.

Notice something about week three and week 1?

QUOTE (Finn @ Sep 7 2010, 07:19 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
The string should not be long enough to reward mediocrity.

Which again isn't a finite number. It's an opinion, of which people will have differing ones. How do you measure mediocrity?

QUOTE (Finn @ Sep 7 2010, 07:19 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
Finishing outside the top half of the table and winning less than 50% of ones games hardly deserves a shot at being acclaimed Champions.

But it's possible to finish well inside the top half and have lost more games than you have won.
It is also possible to finish well outside the top half and have won more games than you have lost.

In fact, you can finish as low as 13th and still have won as many as you've lost, and as high as 2nd and have lost as many as you have won.
Posted Image

#35 Wellsy4HullFC

Wellsy4HullFC
  • Coach
  • 10,034 posts

Posted 08 September 2010 - 03:56 PM

QUOTE (Finn @ Sep 8 2010, 09:45 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
Why don't Wire field a weakened team Friday, then play the winners of the Hull derby (a match that will have taken a lot out of the winners) at home the following week then go into a semi at Knowsley Road all guns blazing. This would give them a better chance than the alternative of having to beat Saints twice, which looking at the history of such clashes you would have to say is a difficult proposition. An even worse scenario would be to put a great effort in on Friday and come up just short.

If you think it's that simple then you are being very mistaken.

If Wire lose, they could also run the risk of losing in week 2.
If they manage to win that, they also run the risk of losing in week 3, and they might not even be playing Saints.

On the flip side, they could win in week 1 and get the chance to pick their opponents in week 3. For all we know, Leeds could beat Wigan.

You can't just go "yeah, we'll turn up this week" in the play-offs. If it were that simple, Wigan would just beat everyone and there would be no point.
Posted Image

#36 Dave T

Dave T
  • Coach
  • 15,724 posts

Posted 08 September 2010 - 03:56 PM

QUOTE (Wellsy4HullFC @ Sep 8 2010, 04:50 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
Week 1 - Saints beat Warrington. Leeds beat Huddersfield.
Week 2 - Wigan beat Saints. Warrington beat Leeds.
Week 3 - Saints beat Warrington.
Week 4 - Wigan beat Saints.

Notice something about week three and week 1?
Yeah, those bastards beat us twice again!!!


#37 Wellsy4HullFC

Wellsy4HullFC
  • Coach
  • 10,034 posts

Posted 08 September 2010 - 04:08 PM

QUOTE (Dave T @ Sep 8 2010, 04:56 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
Yeah, those bastards beat us twice again!!!

biggrin.gif
Posted Image

#38 Big Picture

Big Picture
  • Coach
  • 1,164 posts

Posted 08 September 2010 - 04:45 PM

QUOTE (Wellsy4HullFC @ Sep 8 2010, 03:50 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
The top 8 system is fine. It is used in the AFL (which does pretty well for itself I'd say). They don't have the club-call thing, which we introduced to remove the flaw in the third week of their fixtures.

Their system doesn't have that flaw. They have the teams cross over in the third week so the only possible rematch is in the Grand Final, as follows:

Week 1

A 6th vs. 7th
B 5th vs. 8th
C 2nd vs. 3rd
D 1st vs. 4th

Week 2

E Loser C vs. Winner A
F Loser D vs. Winner B

Week 3

G Winner C vs. Winner F
H Winner D vs. Winner E

Week 4

I Winner G vs. Winner H

It's simple, but the RFL just made things more complicated than they needed to.

#39 Wellsy4HullFC

Wellsy4HullFC
  • Coach
  • 10,034 posts

Posted 08 September 2010 - 06:33 PM

QUOTE (Big Picture @ Sep 8 2010, 05:45 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
Their system doesn't have that flaw. They have the teams cross over in the third week so the only possible rematch is in the Grand Final, as follows:

Week 1

A 6th vs. 7th
B 5th vs. 8th
C 2nd vs. 3rd
D 1st vs. 4th

Week 2

E Loser C vs. Winner A
F Loser D vs. Winner B

Week 3

G Winner C vs. Winner F
H Winner D vs. Winner E

Week 4

I Winner G vs. Winner H

It's simple, but the RFL just made things more complicated than they needed to.

It is flawed, because if 1st and 2nd win in week 1, and 3rd and 4th win in week 2, then 1st has to play 3rd and 2nd has to play 4th. Why should the team in 2nd get an easier game than the team in 1st?

In this instance, it would be BETTER to finish 2nd. You would have to beat the exact same two teams to reach the GF But if you finish 2nd, you get a lifeline against the harder team so that you get to play the easier team in sudden death, whereas finishing 1st would mean you get a lifeline against the easier team, and then have to play a harder team in sudden death.

It's a pretty big flaw the week before the Grand Final.
Posted Image




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users