A 14 team Super League is common sense says Kear

[M j M]

16 minutes ago, Big Picture said:

Playoffs which don't crown a champion?  Why would anyone ever want such a stupid thing?

Maybe it appeals if your team has a very strong record of losing Grand Finals?

[Chris Taylor]

13 hours ago, HarrogateKnights said:

Fev be fuming if they don't get promoted if 2 slots are opened! 

Too right, and so would any other club who would just miss out.

Bonkers at the moment. 

[Liverpool Rover]

A 14 team league with a top 6 playoff would mean that the teams in mid table would be in contention for 5th and 6th place, maybe down to 10th in a close league. Ideally Super League would have 12 teams but as it apparently can’t happen without the loop fixtures then 14 teams would be better and would at least reduce the number of games played by a couple.

[Sir Kevin Sinfield]

Yes to a 14 team Super League. I’m yet to meet someone in favour of loop fixtures.

A top 4 playoff is best IMO. When Leeds won it from 5th people complained they shouldn’t be in the playoffs, people then suggest a top 6 playoff.

[M j M]

The top 8 system made winning from 5th rather less difficult than the classic, and still the best, top 5.

I think Leeds could still have won in 2011 and 2012 given the nature of that team but it would have been very challenging indeed. e.g. in 2011 the route to the final was Hull at home, Huddersfield away and Warrington away. Under top 5 it would have been something like Huddersfield away, Wigan away, Warrington away.

[Tommygilf]

10 minutes ago, M j M said:

The top 8 system made winning from 5th rather less difficult than the classic, and still the best, top 5.

I think Leeds could still have won in 2011 and 2012 given the nature of that team but it would have been very challenging indeed. e.g. in 2011 the route to the final was Hull at home, Huddersfield away and Warrington away. Under top 5 it would have been something like Huddersfield away, Wigan away, Warrington away.

I find the way top 5 is done just a bit over complicated for my liking.

[Oxford]

Did John Kear actually use the word common sense and TGG in the same sentence, just to be clear?

[Hela Wigmen]

1 hour ago, Sir Kevin Sinfield said:

Yes to a 14 team Super League. I’m yet to meet someone in favour of loop fixtures.

A top 4 playoff is best IMO. When Leeds won it from 5th people complained they shouldn’t be in the playoffs, people then suggest a top 6 playoff.

So what do 5th downwards play for?

[Sir Kevin Sinfield]

13 minutes ago, Hela Wigmen said:

So what do 5th downwards play for?

26 regular rounds home and away to make the top 4 is what they play for 

[Hela Wigmen]

20 minutes ago, Sir Kevin Sinfield said:

26 regular rounds home and away to make the top 4 is what they play for 

So, nothing then. 

I give it three months before fans of clubs marooned in the middle are moaning about having nothing to play for. 

[Hela Wigmen]

27 minutes ago, scotchy1 said:

On the specifics of 14. Its an odd number to choose. 

why 14? its an odd number that limits the schedule. 

Does it really fit our position? Not really in my opinion. We dont really have a reason to go to 14. Sure there are clubs you can make arguments for in terms of expansion of growth like Toulouse and London but there is no expansion plan and cant be one under P+R. Then if you look at the heartland clubs and want to make an argument for Leigh you can make that argument for Bradford probably more so,  if you make that argument for Bradford, you can make it for Fev.

So why 14? if having these teams in SL is good, then its good to have more of them. So why not 16? or 18? or 20? 

If the argument is that Sky wont pay for 16 or 18, or that we dont have the money or players for 16 or 18, where is the evidence that we have it for 14? or even 12? 

What position does 14 leave the championship? Take two of the bigger teams out of the championship and its a less attractive league. Do we end up seeing the top of the championship getting further away from SL?  All things being equal each SL slice is worth less, the crowds are lower in the championship, the clubs that come down are smaller. Does that make the step up much harder? 

We went to 14 in a global economic downturn about a decade a go and it didnt work. Why will it work this time? 

 

The only reason people want 14 is because Super League chairmen say they need 13 home games a year and they get that with 14 and it gets rid of loop fixtures. Nothing to do with any bigger picture about the game at Super League level or Championship level. 

[Toby Chopra]

4 hours ago, Tommygilf said:

I find the way top 5 is done just a bit over complicated for my liking.

I agree. I don't mind if 5 or 6 get into the playoffs, and I suppose there is some merit in rewarding the top couple of teams somehow. But one of the few things I miss from the 8/8/8 period is that we had a proper semi-final round, and it was always a cracker. Last 4 teams standing, all with a shot at the title going for it on the same weekend, and a great lead-in to the GF. Better than the final in some ways. Now we have a dud 'losers final' just before the grand final, which is a really anticlimax, and the favourite not playing. 

In the same way, in many ways I love the NFL's Championship Sunday more than the Superbowl, two games back to back, 4 potential champions at the peak of form, and it's all about the sport, not dominated by the showbiz of the final. 

I'd simplify our playoffs: teams 3-6 play quarter finals, with top two having a bye, and then hosting the semis. Would love to see them back to back on a Saturday or Sunday evening, but probably be stuck on Thursdays and Fridays... 

[tms]

1 hour ago, Toby Chopra said:

I agree. I don't mind if 5 or 6 get into the playoffs, and I suppose there is some merit in rewarding the top couple of teams somehow. But one of the few things I miss from the 8/8/8 period is that we had a proper semi-final round, and it was always a cracker. Last 4 teams standing, all with a shot at the title going for it on the same weekend, and a great lead-in to the GF. Better than the final in some ways. Now we have a dud 'losers final' just before the grand final, which is a really anticlimax, and the favourite not playing. 

In the same way, in many ways I love the NFL's Championship Sunday more than the Superbowl, two games back to back, 4 potential champions at the peak of form, and it's all about the sport, not dominated by the showbiz of the final. 

I'd simplify our playoffs: teams 3-6 play quarter finals, with top two having a bye, and then hosting the semis. Would love to see them back to back on a Saturday or Sunday evening, but probably be stuck on Thursdays and Fridays... 

just go back to old system 

first  round 1 plays 8 at home 2 plays 7 etc 

semi highest ranked at home against lowest 

final  

from  1978

first round 

HKR 1 v Bradford 8 

Warrington 2 v c%s 7

Leeds 4 v Saints 5

Widnes 3 v Wigan 6

semi 

Warrington 2 v Bradford 8 

Leeds  4 v Wigan 6

final

Leeds 4 v  Bradford 8 

simples

[Saint Toppy]

18 hours ago, Big Picture said:

Playoffs which don't crown a champion?  Why would anyone ever want such a stupid thing?

That isn't what I said at if you bothered to read my post properly.

I said we should just play league games and crown the league champions as the team who finished top of the league. Then to create extra games and hence the extra income reintroduce the old premiership trophy (which is separate to the league champions).

There will still be an Old Trafford final, it just wont be to crown the league champions, it would be for the premiership trophy winners.

[Saint Toppy]

18 hours ago, Big Picture said:

Playoffs which don't crown a champion?  Why would anyone ever want such a stupid thing?

That isn't what I said at if you bothered to read my post properly.

I said we should just play league games and crown the league champions as the team who finished top of the league. Then to create extra games and hence the extra income reintroduce the old premiership trophy (which is separate to the league champions).

There will still be an Old Trafford final, it just wont be to crown the league champions, it would be for the premiership trophy winners.

[Saint Toppy]

18 hours ago, Big Picture said:

Playoffs which don't crown a champion?  Why would anyone ever want such a stupid thing?

That isn't what I said at if you bothered to read my post properly.

I said we should just play league games and crown the league champions as the team who finished top of the league. Then to create extra games and hence the extra income reintroduce the old premiership trophy (which is separate to the league champions).

There will still be an Old Trafford final, it just wont be to crown the league champions, it would be for the premiership trophy winners.

[Big Picture]

5 minutes ago, Saint Toppy said:

That isn't what I said at if you bothered to read my post properly.

I said we should just play league games and crown the league champions as the team who finished top of the league. Then to create extra games and hence the extra income reintroduce the old premiership trophy (which is separate to the league champions).

There will still be an Old Trafford final, it just wont be to crown the league champions, it would be for the premiership trophy winners.

Yes I did read it.  Post-season playoffs which don't crown the league champions would be pointless and stupid.

[DEANO]

On 10/05/2020 at 16:17, scotchy1 said:

And it would be as popular as the old one was.

The GF is one of the few things the game has successfully built in the last 30 years. Why would you want to get rid of it?

Because it can reward mediocrity in a one off game

[Hela Wigmen]

7 minutes ago, DEANO said:

Because it can reward mediocrity in a one off game

How is finishing in the top five and winning games mediocrity?

[ojx]

I have changed my mind on this issue, 14 teams is too many for the quality of players. Having 12 team with no loop fixtures and a real summer season (later start) would be a better option, quality over quantity. That leaves 22 games + Magic +  Play-offs and the CC, that is really enough games for such a high impact sport. In fact, it is still probably too many games.

[The Dude]

14 teams play 26 games. top 7 make the playoffs. 1st place gets a bye. 2 v 7, 3 v 6, and 4 v 5.

[Tommygilf]

10 hours ago, Hela Wigmen said:

How is finishing in the top five and winning games mediocrity?

Because its in SUPERGREED 

Some folk are just warped

[DEANO]

20 hours ago, Hela Wigmen said:

How is finishing in the top five and winning games mediocrity?

I would say finishing 5th in a 12 team league is pretty average

[tms]

It makes you laugh when coaches come out detailing their  thoughts about the league structures now kear as the bulls coach says A 14 team Super League is common sense but at wakey he  was very much against promotion as apparently there weren't any teams outside of SL that could improve it.   

at leeds daryl powel said there was no room in Super League for clubs in the championship at FEV all of a sudden FEV deserved a crack at Super League. Then he had a reverse 'road to Damascus enlightenment' when her went to Cas?After 5 years of advocating a return to promotion and relegation, he had a spiritual conversion to licencing?

[Snowys Backside]

14 teams, top 6 and 2 down  .  26 games, no frills, no stupid loop games and a proper comp both ends of the table.

 

Will it happen ?  Will it heck because it makes perfect sense. Magic weekend can be a nines comp.