Jump to content

The never-ending League Restructure debate (Many merged threads)

League Express
 Share

Recommended Posts


  • Replies 4.7k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Popular Posts

JohnM
JohnM

Page 157, post #3127  Think we'll beat "Cas Vegas is Ace"?

Keith T

Keith T

Posted
Posted

The play-off for the SL title is the top four of the first group of 8 not the top four in the 23 matches prior to the split into groups of 8.

 

The play-off in the middle group is between the 4th and 5th teams to decide the last promotion place in SL the following season.

 

The play-off for the Championship Shield will be the top four of the third group of 8 (i.e. the 5th to 12th placed teams in the Championship after 23 games).

I remember when .............................

"It is impossible not to feel a twinge of sympathy for Workington Town, the fall guys this season for the Super League's determination to retain it's European dimension, in the shape of Paris. While the French have had every assistance to survive, the importance of having a flagship in a heartland area like West Cumbria has been conveniently forgotten." - Dave Hadfield - Independent 25th August 1996.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
GIANTSTRIDES

GIANTSTRIDES

Posted
Posted

The play-off for the SL title is the top four of the first group of 8 not the top four in the 23 matches prior to the split into groups of 8.

 

The play-off in the middle group is between the 4th and 5th teams to decide the last promotion place in SL the following season.

 

The play-off for the Championship Shield will be the top four of the third group of 8 (i.e. the 5th to 12th placed teams in the Championship after 23 games).

 

 

Dare i ask about the season almost upon us, is it still 8

Dont expect anything from a pig but a grunt

Link to comment
Share on other sites
bobbruce

bobbruce

Posted
Posted

don't know if this has been mentioned before, why did catalan not vote? if they had voted against the vote would have been 7 each and this thread would be locked by now.

and has it been mentioned that the play offs will be between the top 4.

I don't think it would be locked as I thought the RFL also had a vote. I suppose this allows them to come out in the press and say the clubs have voted in favour of the changes.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
JCrabtree

JCrabtree

Posted
Posted

You are playing for points and final standings and to say you finished higher than last year - thus improved - as Widnes did in 2013.

In 2015, Widnes could finish bottom on P23 L23 and start on 0 points in 2x8 and survive. In 2016 they could finish in 9th, P23 W11, miss out on the play-offs on points difference and start on 0 and get relegated. So in 2016 where have they finished 9th or 13th? Did they make progress on 2015 or go backwards?

The system rewards mediocrity sadly, and will be exploited fully be those clubs who want to keep their hands on the SL cash - season in; season out,.

What about a seeding structure for the middle 8? For example, the top ranked club of each division's 4 clubs (9th & 1st) could play the bottom ranked club of each division's 4 clubs (12th & 4th), home and away. 3rd and 4th would then do likewise and where you finish in the four would be important, as could secure you theoretically easier fixtures.

This is just an example of a seeding system, but I agree the initial leagues rounds need to count. Something like this could be the answer, but obviously funding and the cap are essential to anything working.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
GIANTSTRIDES

GIANTSTRIDES

Posted
Posted

As far as I know the changes don't come in until 2015. The only difference this season is 2 SL clubs get relegated and 5/6 champ clubs get relegated.

 

So you knew the answer all the time ,

 

And good riddance to em an all, if they aren't millionaires they should have been  kicked out years ago. :P

Dont expect anything from a pig but a grunt

Link to comment
Share on other sites
thundergaz

thundergaz

Posted
Posted

So you knew the answer all the time ,

And good riddance to em an all, if they aren't millionaires they should have been kicked out years ago. :P

Yes but I wasn't 100% on that. Plus seen as though your a giants fan I wanted you to have a change from last season and see what waiting and sweating was like lol.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
GIANTSTRIDES

GIANTSTRIDES

Posted
Posted

Yes but I wasn't 100% on that. Plus seen as though your a giants fan I wanted you to have a change from last season and see what waiting and sweating was like lol.

 

I could write a book about wooden spoons and relegation, I have paid for my time in the Sun.

 

I am one of the famous 300 who stood on the terrace in the rain you know, Me and the other 3,000 who claim to have been there that day, Actually it was one of our better crowds.

Dont expect anything from a pig but a grunt

Link to comment
Share on other sites
The Parksider

The Parksider

Posted
Posted (edited)

There were more than two options.  The status quo was always an option.

 

OK so the 2x12=3x8 had six against, and the 12 and two down had seven against, but in both cases, those who voted "for" either system weren't against the other system as it was nearly as good?

 

So either way everyone would have been happy with both systems. Yet the average vote against a system was 6.5 and the average vote for a system was  also 6.5. It is clear that all 13 clubs who voted did not vote against staying at 14 with two up and two down?

 

That therefore means none voted against the status quo so clearly they were all happy with it. Given that Les Catalans didn't vote in either vote then they must have wanted the status quo? Therefore everyone was for it so the Status Quo actually won unanimously?

Edited by The Parksider
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Wellsy4HullFC

Wellsy4HullFC

Posted
Posted

So either way everyone would have been happy with both systems. Yet the average vote against a system was 6.5 and the average vote for a system was also 6.5. It is clear that all 13 clubs who voted did not vote against staying at 14 with two up and two down?

If 13 clubs vote on two items, the average will always be 6.5 you know. Whether it's 13-0 or 4-9, the average is always the same.

Again, a completely useless and pointless stat.

Wells%20Motors%20(Signature)_zps67e534e4.jpg
Link to comment
Share on other sites
gingerjon

gingerjon

Posted
Posted

It's just been pointed out over on the NCL board that that league appears to be moving to divisions of 12 all the way through from 2015.

 

Are we possibly seeing a ladder from SL to community via semi-pro forming?

 

Or just coincidence.

Build a man a fire, and he'll be warm for a day. Set a man on fire, and he'll be warm for the rest of his life. (Terry Pratchett)

Link to comment
Share on other sites
gingerjon

gingerjon

Posted
Posted

I'm hoping that we'll eventually have more than 1up/down to the third division if we are to have enhanced mobility for non heartland clubs. It could take a long time for clubs to get out of the third division. This year is critical for clubs to stay in the second division

 

There's virtually no money trickling down to the third tier so, from 2015 onwards, it's going to be blinkin' hard work for any team to come up from the third tier to the second and stay there.

Build a man a fire, and he'll be warm for a day. Set a man on fire, and he'll be warm for the rest of his life. (Terry Pratchett)

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Griff

Griff

Posted
Posted

OK so the 2x12=3x8 had six against, and the 12 and two down had seven against, but in both cases, those who voted "for" either system weren't against the other system as it was nearly as good?

 

So either way everyone would have been happy with both systems. Yet the average vote against a system was 6.5 and the average vote for a system was  also 6.5. It is clear that all 13 clubs who voted did not vote against staying at 14 with two up and two down?

 

That therefore means none voted against the status quo so clearly they were all happy with it. Given that Les Catalans didn't vote in either vote then they must have wanted the status quo? Therefore everyone was for it so the Status Quo actually won unanimously?

 

How do you know that "12 and two down" had seven against ?

 

As far as I know, that never made the vote.

"We'll sell you a seat .... but you'll only need the edge of it!"

Link to comment
Share on other sites
The Parksider

The Parksider

Posted
Posted

How do you know that "12 and two down" had seven against ?

 

I don't. I just thought I'd join in contriving an argument to suit a desired outcome, however it didn't work. It got my club Hunslet no nearer Superleague. The views on the various schemes are so heavily tainted with self interest from "brilliant scheme it will last forever" from the Cas CEO, to "load of rubbish" from the Bradford head coach.

 

I blame the RFL, SLE and KPMG for a proposal with a stated outcome - "bigger crowds" - which in turn has been broadcasted to us in a PR fashion all without a shred of published analytical evidence to back it up.

They only tell you the bits they want you to hear. That's fair enough it's their business and I have no say nor right to be told anything. But I do think that if we debate PR guff and further slant our own interpretations of why the club representatives talk so differently about the same thing (Cas CEO "help were skint and need releasing gently from SL".....Bradford coach"Help we're useless and don't want relegating") then we drift.

 

I personally like the idea from Craiq and Gaz that no matter what, opening up the leagues like this can find people out.......

 

1. Let's see if London can swim without licensing to protect them?

2. Lets see if certain SL clubs really deserve to be in there?

3. Let's see if certain CC clubs really can be better than SL clubs

4. Let those with the wallets either open them up and stop threatening to invest or shut them and go

5. Lets see if KPMG were right or wrong

 

My predictions? London and Featherstone to quickly swap places, Bradford to regain past glories, Cas Fev and Wakey to all be outside the eight, and Sheffield to finally fade.

 

Still to come - the central funding issue, and the reaction to that in terms of which chairmen will continue to invest in light of central funding because I think the less central funding the more standing down we will get.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Griff

Griff

Posted
Posted

I don't. I just thought I'd join in contriving an argument to suit a desired outcome, however it didn't work. It got my club Hunslet no nearer Superleague. The views on the various schemes are so heavily tainted with self interest from "brilliant scheme it will last forever" from the Cas CEO, to "load of rubbish" from the Bradford head coach.

 

I blame the RFL, SLE and KPMG for a proposal with a stated outcome - "bigger crowds" - which in turn has been broadcasted to us in a PR fashion all without a shred of published analytical evidence to back it up.

They only tell you the bits they want you to hear. That's fair enough it's their business and I have no say nor right to be told anything. But I do think that if we debate PR guff and further slant our own interpretations of why the club representatives talk so differently about the same thing (Cas CEO "help were skint and need releasing gently from SL".....Bradford coach"Help we're useless and don't want relegating") then we drift.

 

I personally like the idea from Craiq and Gaz that no matter what, opening up the leagues like this can find people out.......

 

1. Let's see if London can swim without licensing to protect them?

2. Lets see if certain SL clubs really deserve to be in there?

3. Let's see if certain CC clubs really can be better than SL clubs

4. Let those with the wallets either open them up and stop threatening to invest or shut them and go

5. Lets see if KPMG were right or wrong

 

My predictions? London and Featherstone to quickly swap places, Bradford to regain past glories, Cas Fev and Wakey to all be outside the eight, and Sheffield to finally fade.

 

Still to come - the central funding issue, and the reaction to that in terms of which chairmen will continue to invest in light of central funding because I think the less central funding the more standing down we will get.

 

London and Featherstone swapping places may well mean them both staying in the same division.

"We'll sell you a seat .... but you'll only need the edge of it!"

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share
Go to topic listing

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.