Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Honor James

New-look Championships ready for an Extraordinary 2013

106 posts in this topic

RL used to have a very good one too with 4up/down which created lots of interest, sadness and joy.

It was fun I remember it very well, it shook everyone up.

The good old days.

Hope your not suggesting it for today when clubs will have to unload the re-buy whole squads year by year and some clubs wouldn't win a game in SL, and take 90 point hidings.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I didnt say the team couldn t be moved. They can and they do get moved as do the Crusaders, the Broncos and the most famous, the Wigan, Liverpool, London, Huyton, Runcorn, Prescott team in RL. The Sonics, the Colts and any others that moved were never removed from the league.

The minor league teams you quote are the equivalent of Conference and Barla teams over here . All member teams of the NFL, NBA, NHL and major league baseball are in conferences of their requisite leagues . All are equal, there are no lower divisons and hence no need for p and r. If new teams want to join the league, they apply, and, if accepted, join and are equal to the others. They expand without removing existing teams.

The minor league teams you quote are like the current twinned CC teams except that they are not members of the major league but have a working relationship with a major league team to play and develop their young prospects. They are true feeder teams.

RL has neither p and r nor conferences, so whilst all teams are members of the RFL,they are not equal, they are divided into divisions based of playing standard and there is no movement into the top league without a current top tier team being removed. The removed team may not have finished at the bottom, they are just unlucky.

The logjam of teams wanting to be in the top flight is holding back the aspirations of the better Championship teams. This can be resolved in the typical British fashion by p and r. This creates problems for the relegated team. It can be resolved by licencing although this is a slow and tortuous process and the removed team still has problems, or may have because it has never actually been done yet so we don t really know..

The americans resolve this by having licencing or franchising but link it to conferences so that they create seperate but equal divisions within the league and can expand and admit qualified teams but not boot out an existing member team.

I think this is a good way to go to solve the problems the top CC clubs are experiencing in moving up to he top tier. There are no more than three or four CC teams that can even be considered for top tier status and I would let them all in and create a two conference top tier SL. The remaining CC clubs could compete in a lower tier competition and be admitted to the top tier as and when they were ready. The big drawback is that the money is not there to support a conference style expanded SL, so we are left with p and r as an alternative. However we dont have that either and our top Cc clubs are stuck in limbo as regards any ambitions for SL.

I am sorry I am rambling a bit as i am very tired but that is my take on the p and r versus conference solution to the top tier ambitions for non included teams problem.

thats ok mate nothing wrong with going into detail to make your point, but you reaching to make a point. Those supposedly conference level teams are professional outfits playing in pretty large cities. They are excluded because they can't satisfy purely financial considerations. The system doesn't care about tradition, passion or a sense of a team belonging to a place. The fact that the rfl have adopted elements is hardly a strong endorsement! I love Yankee sports but apart from some elements of revenue sharing its a vicious unsentimental one that I rather we leave to our cousins!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What is to stop any SL owner from moving his team to another City. It has been done recently when Crusaders moved from South Wales to North Wales.

sure thing but why do you think I'm arguing that the rfl has a perfect system or even that it contrasts entirely with the yank one? I'm arguing that the yank one which you seem to want to emulate is a pretty mental one. Although ice hockey in Los Angeles is pretty cool :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No four upand four down was too much. it created major yo yo itis

Not all teams were yo-yo, but even if they were, so what? It was far better to be a fan of a youo team back then, than be forever stuck in the second division nowadays

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There's been one GF and one CCF in all of the SL era to feature Leeds vs Wigan. The same number as Hull vs Saints. In fact Leeds vs Wire equalled that in just one season. So to talk like Leeds vs Wigan is some kind of monotony is off the mark.

On top of that, you've tried to get out of this by saying that the big clubs never change, and that Wire aren't included because they've only appeared in one GF. It's weird how we can easily ignore 3 CC victories out of the last 4 years, but when we need to find an extra final to push Leeds vs Wigan to a massive 2 it's ok.

The favourites for the title are Wire. I'll start with them as having a better chance of being in the GF than Wigan. That kind of goes against your monotony that isn't there.

I think it odd to argue that Wigan and Leeds winning trophies doesn't represent "business as usual". Sl has been utterly dominated by four clubs to the extent that there have only ever been two losing finalists from outside these four. And of those four, Bradford are screwed and no better than Huddersfield and Saints are off the boil.

Wire might win SL but it would be a breakthrough if they did, not "just another season".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So in days of yore when Huddersfield won everything it was perfect, then again Widnes (the cup Kings) and Hull in the good old days just shared the spoils,

Bradford are now, it seems, out for a while and another team will step up.

I wasn't contrasting SL with "the good old days". I was contrasting it with the Championship(s). Some folk think SL rugby is the be-all and end-all, I don't. The Championship may not have the crowds but it does have more variety than SL.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think it odd to argue that Wigan and Leeds winning trophies doesn't represent "business as usual". Sl has been utterly dominated by four clubs to the extent that there have only ever been two losing finalists from outside these four. And of those four, Bradford are screwed and no better than Huddersfield and Saints are off the boil.

Wire might win SL but it would be a breakthrough if they did, not "just another season".

SL has had 6 different teams in the GF - thats almost half of the teams.

There have been some extraordinary records (Leeds) but the fact they have done it from 5th shows the unpredictability when nobody could look past Wire and Wigan for the last two years.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think it odd to argue that Wigan and Leeds winning trophies doesn't represent "business as usual". Sl has been utterly dominated by four clubs to the extent that there have only ever been two losing finalists from outside these four. And of those four, Bradford are screwed and no better than Huddersfield and Saints are off the boil.

Wire might win SL but it would be a breakthrough if they did, not "just another season".

I can argue that Wigan in the Grand Final or winning trophies wouldn't be business as usual.

In 10 years they've only made it to 2 GFs.

They've won the LLS twice, SL once and CC once. Hardly a dynasty of trophies in recent years.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

SL has had 6 different teams in the GF - thats almost half of the teams.

There have been some extraordinary records (Leeds) but the fact they have done it from 5th shows the unpredictability when nobody could look past Wire and Wigan for the last two years.

It is most definitely not "almost half the teams" when you include teams that have been in SL but aren't currently such as Gateshead, Crusaders, Leigh, Sheffield etc

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We aren't the problem though are we, we will support our clubs come what may. We will go the extra mile, sponsorships, season tickets, lottery, ISA etc

We know we watch a great comp, we know Thursdays/Premier contract are a joke, but how do we attract new/lapsed fans who say 'whats the point when you win it and go nowhere?'

bang on owd cocker!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It is most definitely not "almost half the teams" when you include teams that have been in SL but aren't currently such as Gateshead, Crusaders, Leigh, Sheffield etc

You can make up whatever criteria you want to suit your argument. There are 14 teams in SL - almost half of them have been in the Grand Final - irrespective of what you say.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

thats ok mate nothing wrong with going into detail to make your point, but you reaching to make a point. Those supposedly conference level teams are professional outfits playing in pretty large cities. They are excluded because they can't satisfy purely financial considerations. The system doesn't care about tradition, passion or a sense of a team belonging to a place. The fact that the rfl have adopted elements is hardly a strong endorsement! I love Yankee sports but apart from some elements of revenue sharing its a vicious unsentimental one that I rather we leave to our cousins!

I take your point but surely the continued denial of p and r to SL and the very slow and difficult licencing process is a vicious and unsentimental method of keeping the CC clubs from joining the SL party as nasty as anything the Americans have done. At least, under the American system the league can be expanded without existing teams becoming casualties. For instance baseball never used to be further West than St Louis but when the Pacific Coast and other mid west and southern teams wanted to join the party, they allowed them in and went to conferences to solve the numerical and geographic problems this entailed.

As an aside, in your earlier post you mentioned the many cities with 100, to 150,000 populations which are too small to sustain American major league teams. I think those places are an opportunity for American RL to move in and kick start the game in the US. Our expenses and wages would not be in the mega millions range of big time US sports and such cities should be able to sustain a semi pro RL side. In the area I am most familiar with, New Engfland I can think of Providence, Hartford, Worcester, Springfield, New Haven, Portland and Manchester and Fall River all in that range and within easy distance of each other, perfect for a conference type of league. Soccer has gone this route somewhat with franchises like Columbus, San Jose, Salt Lake City etc.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not all teams were yo-yo, but even if they were, so what? It was far better to be a fan of a youo team back then, than be forever stuck in the second division nowadays

I remember Fulham and York winning promotion from 1st or 2nd place, and a few others, who eventually were relegated in the 4th from bottom spot in the top division. This set them back big time. If they had been promoted as one of two teams they would have survived if they had finished in that position, although I recognise there would not have been two other teams who were promoted along with them to keep them out of the bottom two.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I remember Fulham and York winning promotion from 1st or 2nd place, and a few others, who eventually were relegated in the 4th from bottom spot in the top division. This set them back big time. If they had been promoted as one of two teams they would have survived if they had finished in that position, although I recognise there would not have been two other teams who were promoted along with them to keep them out of the bottom two.

Two things:

1/ Some teams went up in third or fourth and stayed up. Sheffield are one example

2/ The benefit of 4 up meant that if you went down in 4th from bottom you had a great chance of bouncing back the year after. This made relegation sad but tolerable back then. Fulham did actually bounce back the year after they were relegated first time. It is a shame they didnt manage to stay up but that was part of the excitement. Many new teams actually got a taste of life in div 1 because we had 4up 4down and this probably attracted a lot of new fans who are still supporting RL to this day. I cannot see the new teams having mass appeal unless we widen the promotion spots to SL in the next few years

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I take your point but surely the continued denial of p and r to SL and the very slow and difficult licencing process is a vicious and unsentimental method of keeping the CC clubs from joining the SL party as nasty as anything the Americans have done. At least, under the American system the league can be expanded without existing teams becoming casualties. For instance baseball never used to be further West than St Louis but when the Pacific Coast and other mid west and southern teams wanted to join the party, they allowed them in and went to conferences to solve the numerical and geographic problems this entailed.

As an aside, in your earlier post you mentioned the many cities with 100, to 150,000 populations which are too small to sustain American major league teams. I think those places are an opportunity for American RL to move in and kick start the game in the US. Our expenses and wages would not be in the mega millions range of big time US sports and such cities should be able to sustain a semi pro RL side. In the area I am most familiar with, New Engfland I can think of Providence, Hartford, Worcester, Springfield, New Haven, Portland and Manchester and Fall River all in that range and within easy distance of each other, perfect for a conference type of league. Soccer has gone this route somewhat with franchises like Columbus, San Jose, Salt Lake City etc.

as I've said many times I support p and r, I'd be happy to see it back next season. Thought the champ grand final before licensing came along were developing into an amazing event but I understand why they moved away from it, nothing pernicious just a strategy which I think is mistaken.

I think the usarl are showing how to develop in the states, a long hard slog but with plenty of potential. But as I've said it's worth understanding that where we see gaps may be filled by college/minor league, even high school sport which enjoys a large amount of support and operates very professionally.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You can make up whatever criteria you want to suit your argument. There are 14 teams in SL - almost half of them have been in the Grand Final - irrespective of what you say.

Now compare how many sides have won NFP / NL1 / CC.

1996 Salford

1997 Hull

1998 Wakey

1999 Hunslet

2000 Dewsbury

2001 Widnes

2002 Huddersfield

2003 Salford

2004 Leigh

2005 Cas

2006 Hull KR

2007 Cas

2008 Salford

2009 Barrow

2010 Halifax

2011 Fev

2012 Sheffield

Rather more than just four winners, isn't it?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Now compare how many sides have won NFP / NL1 / CC.

1996 Salford

1997 Hull

1998 Wakey

1999 Hunslet

2000 Dewsbury

2001 Widnes

2002 Huddersfield

2003 Salford

2004 Leigh

2005 Cas

2006 Hull KR

2007 Cas

2008 Salford

2009 Barrow

2010 Halifax

2011 Fev

2012 Sheffield

Rather more than just four winners, isn't it?

Not really comparing like for like though. Championship has had teams winning the league and then moving out of that league. Id suggest that had Hull stayed in the Championship after 1997 then we may have seen them dominate the league like Saints, Bulls and Leeds have in SL.

When a team was dominant in div 1 they were taken out of that league. When a team was dominant in SL they were in there again the next year.

Btw - none of this is a criticism of the Championship, its great that its competitive, but we dont need to praise one division by criticising another.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Two things:

1/ Some teams went up in third or fourth and stayed up. Sheffield are one example

2/ The benefit of 4 up meant that if you went down in 4th from bottom you had a great chance of bouncing back the year after. This made relegation sad but tolerable back then. Fulham did actually bounce back the year after they were relegated first time. It is a shame they didnt manage to stay up but that was part of the excitement. Many new teams actually got a taste of life in div 1 because we had 4up 4down and this probably attracted a lot of new fans who are still supporting RL to this day. I cannot see the new teams having mass appeal unless we widen the promotion spots to SL in the next few years

We can't even get the powers that be to agree to one uo, one down. I can't see them even discussing 4 up 4 down.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@DaveT

I know it is not like for like and never could be. I am also not particularly criticising SL; it is varied and interesting if you compare it to the EPL. I'm just saying that it is very odd to claim that CC is like groundhog day - always the same when there have been so many different winners. Even when the winner hasn't been promoted, they have never retained their title.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not really comparing like for like though. Championship has had teams winning the league and then moving out of that league. Id suggest that had Hull stayed in the Championship after 1997 then we may have seen them dominate the league like Saints, Bulls and Leeds have in SL.

When a team was dominant in div 1 they were taken out of that league. When a team was dominant in SL they were in there again the next year.

Btw - none of this is a criticism of the Championship, its great that its competitive, but we dont need to praise one division by criticising another.

You mean they didn't get relegated the following season? After all we're constantly being told that clubs can't step up from the Championship to SL.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not really comparing like for like though. Championship has had teams winning the league and then moving out of that league. Id suggest that had Hull stayed in the Championship after 1997 then we may have seen them dominate the league like Saints, Bulls and Leeds have in SL.

When a team was dominant in div 1 they were taken out of that league. When a team was dominant in SL they were in there again the next year.

Btw - none of this is a criticism of the Championship, its great that its competitive, but we dont need to praise one division by criticising another.

In addition Oldham, Barrow , Whitehaven, Leigh and Crusaders have been in the final.

Now p and r has been removed, however, dominant teams will not be removed so we will see if that theory holds water going forward.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It was fun I remember it very well, it shook everyone up.

The good old days.

Hope your not suggesting it for today when clubs will have to unload the re-buy whole squads year by year and some clubs wouldn't win a game in SL, and take 90 point hidings.

It was sh***! 4 up and 4 down (a quarter of div one teams were relegated!) was a disaster for the game. I watched Hornets during that yo-yo period and I think it knocked the stuffing out of the club (and I don't think it really ever recovered). It was a constant chasing promotion, battling relegation, chasing promotion - no development as a club, dispiriting for the fans, and, financially, very costly.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@DaveT

I know it is not like for like and never could be. I am also not particularly criticising SL; it is varied and interesting if you compare it to the EPL. I'm just saying that it is very odd to claim that CC is like groundhog day - always the same when there have been so many different winners. Even when the winner hasn't been promoted, they have never retained their title.

I agree that it is a very odd claim about the Championships - but lets be honest here, nobody is saying that because of what actually happens, they say it because it suits their P&R agenda.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It was sh***! 4 up and 4 down (a quarter of div one teams were relegated!) was a disaster for the game. I watched Hornets during that yo-yo period and I think it knocked the stuffing out of the club (and I don't think it really ever recovered). It was a constant chasing promotion, battling relegation, chasing promotion - no development as a club, dispiriting for the fans, and, financially, very costly.

I totally agree but one up one down would give clubs hope without devastating the SL too much.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You mean they didn't get relegated the following season? After all we're constantly being told that clubs can't step up from the Championship to SL.

Not by me you're not - speak to the person who claims that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.