Jump to content

Loopy Fixtures


Recommended Posts


In my view they are not fair and they should not exist.

As stated many times by many people on this forum, I think the fairest alternatives are either fewer games or a 14 club SL.

I do prefer the loop fixtures to the Super 8s however, which although fairer just seemed extremely dull every year.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Simple solution - fewer clubs , fewer league games , more cup games , more internationals .

But then chairmen will say 'we need more games to cover costs ' but if you're playing fewer games won't costs be reduced ?

Don't give players massive contracts , go back to the win bonus system .

Simples .

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Sir Kevin Sinfield said:

They are fair, the just shouldn’t exist. 

Whatever else they are, they simply can't be 'fair'

Any system where not every club plays every other club an equal number of times cannot, by definition, be 'fair'.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

London’s fixture list included three games against Saints, for example, while other sides only had to play us twice. I’m sure London wouldn’t, at the time of the fixtures being released, have targeted those three games as games they’ll win and could have had an argument about fairness in the fixture list. 

However, they’ve gained 4 of their sixteen points against Saints, so I don’t suppose they’ll argue now. 

They certainly aren’t fair and while we’re having quite an entertaining season in Super League with a few things unanswered at this stage of the year, that isn’t because of loop fixtures. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, scotchy1 said:

A simple solution would have been to split the league in to two conferences. 

You play everyone in your conference twice, everyone in the other conference twice.

Then everyone in your conference will have played the same games against the same opponents

Would we have to have a conference on that proposal first to see if all the clubs agree?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, Private Baldrick said:

Would we have to have a conference on that proposal first to see if all the clubs agree?

Rather than a conference it would be classed as a symposium 

- Adepto Successu Per Tributum Fuga -

Link to comment
Share on other sites

44 minutes ago, Essai Machine said:

Simple solution - fewer clubs , fewer league games , more cup games , more internationals .

But then chairmen will say 'we need more games to cover costs ' but if you're playing fewer games won't costs be reduced ?

Don't give players massive contracts , go back to the win bonus system .

Simples .

Literally the opposite of a simple solution then......

Link to comment
Share on other sites

38 minutes ago, scotchy1 said:

A simple solution would have been to split the league in to two conferences. 

You play everyone in your conference twice, everyone in the other conference twice.

Then everyone in your conference will have played the same games against the same opponents

So, a 22 game season? Why not just play all eleven Super League opponents home and away rather than just making it overly complex for little reason? 

You only need to start considering the introduction of Conferences, IMO, if you have a large competition of 16+ sides and a H&A structure becomes less possible due to the increased fixtures it would require.

A simple thing to do would have been to vote for a 14 team Super League when the vote happened last year, with a simple home and away structure (26 games - 13 home, 13 away) and a Magic Weekend, 27 overall. Why this didn’t get voted in still bemuses me now, especially given we voted for loop fixtures, which is one thing we wanted to get away from after Super 8’s. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 minutes ago, scotchy1 said:

A simple solution would have been to split the league in to two conferences. 

You play everyone in your conference twice, everyone in the other conference twice.

Then everyone in your conference will have played the same games against the same opponents

Is that a slip of the pen (or finger on keyboard), Scotchy?  If you play every other team twice, why do you need conferences?

What you could do is have two 6-team conferences with conventional H & A fixtures against each of the other 11 clubs, but with Magic Weekend featuring three clashes within each conference, six fixtures in all, as now.  That gives a 23 game season.  If that is not enough matches to satisfy SL chairmen, then you could play your conference opponents three times, with the 'extra' five games being two at home, two away and one at Magic Weekend.  That gives 27 matches.

The play-offs would then feature the top two or three in each division, for instance, A1 v B2 and B1 v A2 (in a four team format) or A2 v B3 and B2 v A3, followed by the introduction of A1 and B1 (in a six team format)  If P&R remain, A6 and B6 would play off for the right to avoid the dreaded drop.

With current SL membership, you could have a Yorkshire Division and an Other Areas Division. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Essai Machine said:

Simple solution - fewer clubs , fewer league games , more cup games , more internationals .

But then chairmen will say 'we need more games to cover costs ' but if you're playing fewer games won't costs be reduced ?

Don't give players massive contracts , go back to the win bonus system .

Simples .

The clubs arguing that they need more games and to flog the talent more and more are working on a zero-growth mindset. 

You don't need more and more games to remain viable. You instead need to sell more of the games you do have. Not only is that more cost-effective, it increases your customer base and it keeps the value of the product high. 

Since 2011, Wigan and Warrington have played each other 30 times. They're guaranteed to play each other once more and they will more than likely meet in the play-offs at some stage. In that same period we have has 26 Hull derbies, despite the two teams not even being in the same division for one of those years. 

So we have Wigan and Warrington playing each other 32 times in eight years and then the organisers and club owners wonder why attendances across the board, but particuarly at cup games and Magic Weekend is down. At least, they pretend to wonder, and then they just throw cheap tickets at the problem. 

Any chairman or club owner arguing that they 'need' loop games, or even that they 'need' a 14 team league, is taking the easy way out. The way to improve this sport is to get more people to buy it, more people to buy tickets, more people to watch it on TV and online and more people to buy the merchandise. But that's a lot harder than just selling more of the same to punters who have made it clear that they're bored of it. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, scotchy1 said:

It was, you would play every team in yours twice every team in the other 3times which would give 28 game

You're right, you could.  However, it would not maximise local derbies and I suppose I was also suggesting a very mild solution to the 'too many games' point of view (though probably too mild to merit being called a 'solution' at all!).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Whippet13 said:

In my view they are not fair and they should not exist.

As stated many times by many people on this forum, I think the fairest alternatives are either fewer games or a 14 club SL.

I do prefer the loop fixtures to the Super 8s however, which although fairer just seemed extremely dull every year.

If we look at 2 hugely popular and profitable competition, NRL & NFL, they do not have clubs that play each other "fairly".   Both have playoffs which legitimise the fact that not everyone plays evenly.   And both competitions have been successful in expanding.

If we hark back to the good golden olden days of 50s, 60s & 70s, we had 30 clubs and nor all played equally, and of course we had a play off system.

So frankly, what we have now is not particularly different from what we used to have.   The awkward issue is the loop fixtures.  If only the game could expand... that is as much expanding in quality clubs not simply geographically ... then we can remove loop fixtures and limit the overall number of games.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, scotchy1 said:

The amount of games is a slightly different argument but to keep the number we have now we could use that structure and all we would be doing is showing the table a bit differently.

If we chose to maximise the number of derbies then you just put the 'derby clubs' in other conferences.

I.e Leeds, Wakefield, Hull KR, St Helens, Les Catalans in conference 1

Warrington, Hull, Wigan, London Hudds, Cas in conference 2 

This would give you Leeds v Wigan, Leeds v cas, Leeds v Hull, Hull v Hull KR, Wakefield v Cas, Wigan saints, saints wire, 3 times per year

Yes, good solution!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

54 minutes ago, scotchy1 said:

A simple solution would have been to split the league in to two conferences. 

You play everyone in your conference twice, everyone in the other conference twice.

Then everyone in your conference will have played the same games against the same opponents

Why have two conferences if everyone is playing everybody else twice anyway?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, scotchy1 said:

The amount of games is a slightly different argument but to keep the number we have now we could use that structure and all we would be doing is showing the table a bit differently.

If we chose to maximise the number of derbies then you just put the 'derby clubs' in other conferences.

I.e Leeds, Wakefield, Hull KR, St Helens, Les Catalans in conference 1

Warrington, Hull, Wigan, London Hudds, Cas in conference 2 

This would give you Leeds v Wigan, Leeds v cas, Leeds v Hull, Hull v Hull KR, Wakefield v Cas, Wigan saints, saints wire, 3 times per year

Too many derbies takes the shine off them too, one home and one away a year is still mouthwatering, four times a year gets dull. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A fourteen team Super League has always been my preference, keeping the simple home and away structure and having a Magic Weekend, that leaves us with a 27 game season.

While 27 isn’t a massive reduction in terms of games, I simply can’t see the competition dropping to 22 regular league games anytime soon. I know people have proposed convoluted Challenge Cup structures to ensure additional fixed fixtures each year but I can’t see Super League willing to drop its fixtures by that amount. 

I know some will argue that some teams will have little to play for in an extended league system but unlike what we were told, not every minute matters. It doesn’t in other sports and I don’t see why we should be so insistent on trying to force every game into being some sort of do or die game.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, Eddie said:

Too many derbies takes the shine off them too, one home and one away a year is still mouthwatering, four times a year gets dull. 

Agreed. 

When you also consider that the bigger teams are also likely to compete at least once in the cup or play-offs, you can very quickly milk that teet until its dry. 

I think we waste a lot of time in this search for an arbritrary ideal number of teams and structures is missing the point. I would much rather see fewer games involving the best possible teams and players that we can get.

To me, at present, that number is 12, playing home and away, plus Magic.

We moved from 14 to 12 because of concerns around the talent pool and since then, we have seen falling participation and have found it harder to attract talent from the NRL. Address those issues and then talk about increasing the league. 

We're not going to make this sport more attractive to audiences (both ticket-buying and TV) by diluting the product so that every team that thinks they deserve a place can have one. SL is supposed to be an elite competition and there's no harm in being a bit elitist. We need to make what we have more valuable, not stack it high and sell it cheap. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Oliver Clothesoff said:

A fourteen team Super League has always been my preference, keeping the simple home and away structure and having a Magic Weekend, that leaves us with a 27 game season.

While 27 isn’t a massive reduction in terms of games, I simply can’t see the competition dropping to 22 regular league games anytime soon. I know people have proposed convoluted Challenge Cup structures to ensure additional fixed fixtures each year but I can’t see Super League willing to drop its fixtures by that amount. 

I know some will argue that some teams will have little to play for in an extended league system but unlike what we were told, not every minute matters. It doesn’t in other sports and I don’t see why we should be so insistent on trying to force every game into being some sort of do or die game.  

Agreed, though tbf (and it may be a one off) there hasn’t been a meaningless fixture yet this season and probably won’t be until the last couple of weeks. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As soon as London gained promotion SL should have announced a 14 team league for next season, I cannot see there would have been any downsides to this. No relegation from SL so we keep London, then league leaders from Championship straight up (so Toronto) then 2-6 playoff for the last spot in SL.

In fact I think they should still announce that, I still don't see any downsides that counter the upsides.

A few would get upset about changing the rules part way through a season, but so what? it would be forgotten about by the start of next year and the SL would look a lot better as a 14 team league.

I would also guarantee all teams SL status for 3 years but I realise that is a far more contentious ussue.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Chrispmartha said:

As soon as London gained promotion SL should have announced a 14 team league for next season, I cannot see there would have been any downsides to this. No relegation from SL so we keep London, then league leaders from Championship straight up (so Toronto) then 2-6 playoff for the last spot in SL.

In fact I think they should still announce that, I still don't see any downsides that counter the upsides.

A few would get upset about changing the rules part way through a season, but so what? it would be forgotten about by the start of next year and the SL would look a lot better as a 14 team league.

I would also guarantee all teams SL status for 3 years but I realise that is a far more contentious ussue.

It would also guarantee less money for the clubs in SL 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

32 minutes ago, GUBRATS said:

It would also guarantee less money for the clubs in SL 

This answer has been known for a long time.

When Bradford were docked half of their cut of the Sky TV money the other clubs got a taste for cannibalism and so the 14 became 12 again. Not with the original (1995/6) laudable aim of improving quality and increasing crowds, but with the mentality of self-survival with least demand on the old grey matter and least effort. (Remember the aim for earlier this year was a 10 club SL!)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

46 minutes ago, paulwalker71 said:

... is the correct answer as to why it won't happen

So the answer to Loop fixtures is ?

More genuine SL quality clubs , and what primarily decides a SL club ?

Money , and which non SL club has that ?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

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

  • 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.