Clubs consider combining Championship and League 1 for 24-team competition

[ATLANTISMAN]

SUPER 8s anyone?

P 

[Harry Stottle]

17 minutes ago, paulwalker71 said:

Why do you think NRL isn't boring without jeopardy, yet Super League is?

Genuine Question.

The standard of rugby in the NRL compared to SL is light years ahead and is a far more interesting spectacle, but apart the setup of RL in Australia is done so that no teams will be allowed to be promoted or relegated on a seasonal basis and has come to be recognised as such, this is totally contradictory to the British ethos of our major sports P&R is part of our sporting psyche it tantilises and dissapoints it effects all the senses of joy, despair, elation and anguish depending on which side you fall, I wouldn't want to be without it.

[Harry Stottle]

10 minutes ago, ATLANTISMAN said:

SUPER 8s anyone?

P 

Yes me, being a Leigh fan we were involved in more than most, and I loved every minute of it!

[GUBRATS]

25 minutes ago, Damien said:

Surely that should mean you would find it more boring?

I do 

I occasionally watch the odd game , but that's about it , a bit like NFL , when it gets to sudden death in the play offs , my interest grows , run of the mill league/regular season doesn't really interest me 

Jeapody , it's the future

[PhilCarrington]

21 hours ago, Robthegasman said:

I am neither for or against this.I am open minded on it and prepared to look at it before saying if it is good,bad or .

 I think logically and geographically it would have to be East-West(and Wales)

East Division 

Newcastle,York,West Yorkshire clubs,South Yorkshire clubs and London Skolars(as North London based)

West(and Wales)division 

Cumbria clubs,Greater Manchester clubs, Widnes(Halton/Liverpool city region)N and W Wales,Coventry(West Midlands region)and finally London Broncos(as West London based)

 

 

 

 

Not very logical. If Broncos are in the west because they are in West London, then you've got to have West Yorkshire sides in the West.

Splitting Broncos and Skolars loses a potential local derby, as would splitting Yorkshire. Broncos are one of the most easterly clubs in the comp.

The original idea is bonkers.

[Rupert Prince]

7 minutes ago, Harry Stottle said:

That I agree with Princey the NRL is anything but boring, but you cannot compare SL to the NRL on the other hand SL without jeopardy most definatley is boring, you know without it being spelt out that after half a season 50% of the league would have nothing to play for except avoiding the 'wooden spoon' yipee isn't that exiting.

Apologies, my good chap ... You seem to want your cake and eat it.

The NRL is competitive, partly because it bring in islanders as and when they need them, but they also create their own players. And they manage it without jeopardy. What is important for our system is that we create players. 

The more players we create the more top tier clubs we can sustain. 

It seems absurd... indeed impossible ... to think that diluting the lower leagues can possibly prepare a team for promotion.  But equally its absurd to relegate a SL club following the necessary time and investment it takes to get and sustain there, only to be thrown back into a completely uneconomic and uncompetitive league.

[Wiltshire Warrior Dragon]

I have come rather late to this thread and have only skim-read previous contributions, so apologies if this suggestion has already been made.  But in the spirit of stimulating discussion, here goes.

If there is seen as merit in a geographically-based conference system, but anxiety about some potentially blow-out scores, perhaps the risk of the latter could be minimised by having a division 1 and 2, based on standard, within each geographical conference.  So there would be East 1 and 2 and West 1 and 2, with six clubs in each.

Each team could play those in its own geographical division twice (H & A), those in the other region's equivalent standard division once and those in its own geographical other division once.  That would give 22 matches, with sixteen against clubs of a similar standard (at least theoretically at the start of the season), with smaller clubs getting three home ties against bigger sides from their region.  Of course there could be other permutations if that was thought to be too few games.

There could be P&R between each region's two divisions and play-offs to determine promotion to SL, if there is to be that.

As the saying goes, just a thought.

[Rupert Prince]

2 hours ago, Smudger06 said:

A. More teams. (16 v 12) 

B. More teams that can challenge, more competitive parity, more uncertainty of outcome. 

C. Don't play each other way too many times a season. (12 home / 12 away) They don't even do a full double round Robin. 

D. Can afford the best players 

All that comes down to is we play more games and see the same teams too much.  Relegation or not is irrelevant to that.  Jeopardy destroys ambition and continuity and growth. It puts a premium on fear and survival

[Liverpool Rover]

1 hour ago, GUBRATS said:

I do 

I occasionally watch the odd game , but that's about it , a bit like NFL , when it gets to sudden death in the play offs , my interest grows , run of the mill league/regular season doesn't really interest me 

Jeapody , it's the future

With the NFL you miss out on some big games in December that that are important to the playoff picture, whether teams need to win to get the top conference seed or to get into the playoffs at all.

I assume it will be everyone playing everyone else in their division twice and everyone in the other division once. I saw in the article that it was League 1 clubs that came up with the idea and I would imagine that cutting gown on travel costs would be a factor, as well as trying to have more local derbies.

[Smudger06]

1 minute ago, Rupert Prince said:

All that comes down to is we play more games and see the same teams too much.  Relegation or not is irrelevant to that.  Jeopardy destroys ambition and continuity and growth. It puts a premium on fear and survival

Fear & survival?

Sounds very entertaining that jeopardy malarkey. 

[Smudger06]

1 hour ago, Wiltshire Warrior Dragon said:

I have come rather late to this thread and have only skim-read previous contributions, so apologies if this suggestion has already been made.  But in the spirit of stimulating discussion, here goes.

If there is seen as merit in a geographically-based conference system, but anxiety about some potentially blow-out scores, perhaps the risk of the latter could be minimised by having a division 1 and 2, based on standard, within each geographical conference.  So there would be East 1 and 2 and West 1 and 2, with six clubs in each.

Each team could play those in its own geographical division twice (H & A), those in the other region's equivalent standard division once and those in its own geographical other division once.  That would give 22 matches, with sixteen against clubs of a similar standard (at least theoretically at the start of the season), with smaller clubs getting three home ties against bigger sides from their region.  Of course there could be other permutations if that was thought to be too few games.

There could be P&R between each region's two divisions and play-offs to determine promotion to SL, if there is to be that.

As the saying goes, just a thought.

I see where you are coming from. But Way 2 over complicated. A concept such as this doesn't even need 2 conferences, 1 table would be simple and the problem with conferences, they'd be unfair, West sounds a breeze for instance. 

[Tommygilf]

Just now, Liverpool Rover said:

With the NFL you miss out on some big games in December that that are important to the playoff picture, whether teams need to win to get the top conference seed or to get into the playoffs at all.

I assume it will be everyone playing everyone else in their division twice and everyone in the other division once. I saw in the article that it was League 1 clubs that came up with the idea and I would imagine that cutting gown on travel costs would be a factor, as well as trying to have more local derbies.

I think you're right. If you're Hunslet, Keighley or Rochdale for example right now a campaign even with some thrashings against the Championship teams probably seems a bit more attractive than League 1. Equally for the non M62 based teams it removes the hurdle of promotion to reach the top echelons of the Championship. 

Personally I think there is a stronger argument for cutting the size of the Championship and introducing the conferences/increased league size to League 1 level. But naturally clubs won't want to vote for that.

[Tommygilf]

7 minutes ago, Smudger06 said:

Fear & survival?

Sounds very entertaining that jeopardy malarkey. 

Its more entertaining certainly but isn't without its costs.

[Smudger06]

3 minutes ago, Tommygilf said:

Its more entertaining certainly but isn't without its costs.

Nature of the beast Tommy. 

[fearnowt]

If there are 10 clubs in League 1 next year, how about all teams play each other home and away, then split the league into two groups of five, carrying the points forward into the split.

Keep the playoff format the same as it is now (top six), with the top five playing home and away to decide the champions and playoff positions from second to fifth. The bottom five also play each other home and away with the highest placed team finishing sixth overall and taking the final playoff place.

This would give a regular season of 13 home games, hopefully an exciting finish at the top and something for the bottom five to play for against similar standard opposition.

[Rupert Prince]

15 minutes ago, Smudger06 said:

Fear & survival?

Sounds very entertaining that jeopardy malarkey. 

Not when you have lost your livelihood.  Not when clubs go destitute having failed to stay up and having to spend large sums in an attempt to stay up.

And if not spending to be competitive, well then what is the point of making the numbers up in the first place, where is the excitement in that?

[Smudger06]

6 minutes ago, Rupert Prince said:

Not when you have lost your livelihood.  Not when clubs go destitute having failed to stay up and having to spend large sums in an attempt to stay up.

And if not spending to be competitive, well then what is the point of making the numbers up in the first place, where is the excitement in that?

Better off telling that to SL, they are deliberately making their 12th club uncompetitive. 

Clubs go destitute spending large sums for all sorts of reasons, not just in an attempt to stay up. 

Like in any job, if you ain't good enough there is a risk of loosing your job, why would it be any different in sport exactly? that point is overused anyhow, most players will either stay on present contract at relegated club or move to another club. 

Relegation is all part of the entertainment. Or don't you think Professional sport is part of the entertainment industry? Relegation is in Europe in this sport at present and for about half its history, it is in football and it is in union.

[DEANO]

19 minutes ago, Rupert Prince said:

Not when you have lost your livelihood.  Not when clubs go destitute having failed to stay up and having to spend large sums in an attempt to stay up.

And if not spending to be competitive, well then what is the point of making the numbers up in the first place, where is the excitement in that?

If they are good enough they will go straight back up or change clubs

[FearNothing]

1 hour ago, fearnowt said:

If there are 10 clubs in League 1 next year, how about all teams play each other home and away, then split the league into two groups of five, carrying the points forward into the split.

Keep the playoff format the same as it is now (top six), with the top five playing home and away to decide the champions and playoff positions from second to fifth. The bottom five also play each other home and away with the highest placed team finishing sixth overall and taking the final playoff place.

This would give a regular season of 13 home games, hopefully an exciting finish at the top and something for the bottom five to play for against similar standard opposition.

err... isn't that what it was a couple of years ago with the "best of the bottom half" shield-thingy?? 

I think the most obvious thing would be split the teams almost in half (13 ch and 10 L1) so have a 12+11 whichever way round, and even out the central funding a bit.... let's face it, the top Ch clubs have the support to make up for a bit less central funding anyway, and a more even funding split could well make both divisions more competitive and compensate the smaller league for fewer fixtures.

[Harry Stottle]

12 hours ago, Rupert Prince said:

Apologies, my good chap ... You seem to want your cake and eat it.

The NRL is competitive, partly because it bring in islanders as and when they need them, but they also create their own players. And they manage it without jeopardy. What is important for our system is that we create players. 

The more players we create the more top tier clubs we can sustain. 

It seems absurd... indeed impossible ... to think that diluting the lower leagues can possibly prepare a team for promotion.  But equally its absurd to relegate a SL club following the necessary time and investment it takes to get and sustain there, only to be thrown back into a completely uneconomic and uncompetitive league.

You need to go further back than the pro leagues to substansiate your argument Princey it is the community, amatuer and Schools that need a good dose of looking at to "create more top tier clubs", how does the British production line compare with that of Australia is a far far better measure than P&R from our pro leagues.

[Harry Stottle]

11 hours ago, Tommygilf said:

I think you're right. If you're Hunslet, Keighley or Rochdale for example right now a campaign even with some thrashings against the Championship teams probably seems a bit more attractive than League 1. Equally for the non M62 based teams it removes the hurdle of promotion to reach the top echelons of the Championship. 

Personally I think there is a stronger argument for cutting the size of the Championship and introducing the conferences/increased league size to League 1 level. But naturally clubs won't want to vote for that.

Not just the clubs Tommy neither will the fans of the better clubs vote for it, except most probably with their feet for the 'mismatch' fixtures, I have always had a season ticket but if it was going to be populated with less interesting fixtures the club would miss out on my contribution, I would pay through the gate for the games I want to see.

 

[RP London]

1 minute ago, Harry Stottle said:

Not just the clubs Tommy neither will the fans of the better clubs vote for it, except most probably with their feet for the 'mismatch' fixtures, I have always had a season ticket but if it was going to be populated with less interesting fixtures the club would miss out on my contribution, I would pay through the gate for the games I want to see.

 

Out of interest.. what does the Maths look like on that for you? average season ticket price compared to paying on the gate.. honest question as i;ve never really thought about it like this.. how much from you, for example, would be lost? could money be gained by you going less but paying more on the door? 

As i say, its an honest question.. 

[Harry Stottle]

11 hours ago, Tommygilf said:

Its more entertaining certainly but isn't without its costs.

I want to be entertained Tommy, that comes in all shapes and forms, and believe me being a fan of a club like Leigh who have had more downs than ups in the 50+ years I have watched them I know all about the costs.

[Tommygilf]

4 minutes ago, Harry Stottle said:

Not just the clubs Tommy neither will the fans of the better clubs vote for it, except most probably with their feet for the 'mismatch' fixtures, I have always had a season ticket but if it was going to be populated with less interesting fixtures the club would miss out on my contribution, I would pay through the gate for the games I want to see.

 

You could say that for a lot of people in any scenario though H. There are more and less interesting fixtures in every season, though I agree such a major extension would exacerbate it. For a club like Leigh as it is aren't you at that stage already?

[Harry Stottle]

1 minute ago, RP London said:

Out of interest.. what does the Maths look like on that for you? average season ticket price compared to paying on the gate.. honest question as i;ve never really thought about it like this.. how much from you, for example, would be lost? could money be gained by you going less but paying more on the door? 

As i say, its an honest question.. 

It depends on how many games I would choose to miss RP, A 'concession' season ticket for 2021 is negligible at £175 for 13 games, about £13.50/game, pay per game through the gate is £15, those are for the popular North Stand area.