2 Clubs Short

[Lowdesert]

27 minutes ago, iffleyox said:

absolutely, but how are they in the world of 20/21...?

genuine question as well as making a point, by the way

They are in Elite 1 with a new coaching team and Pettybourne in the squad.  Started quite well.

[Smudger06]

Villeneuve XIII RLLG ? 

[Hela Wigmen]

If there is spaces vacant for clubs, it all really hinges on what the plan is for The RFL moving forward.

What does the league structure look like, are we going to look at one division, as per the reports a month or so ago, or are we keeping two leagues and if we are, what do we want those leagues to look like geographically, what purpose is each league going to serve and how an extra couple of teams are going to be funded. 

We’ll probably just go for the pins in a map approach, just as we have done for years. We’ll expect different results but will act shocked when we get the same results as before. 

[GUBRATS]

Toronto ?

[Man of Kent]

Do we need League 1 anymore?

<grabs coat and flees>

[Eddie]

Get Red Star Belgrade, Valencia, Rhodes and Wisla Krakow in, maybe teams from Jamaica and Ghana too. 

[snoopdog]

Carlisle Border Raiders ?

[Scotchy1]

Merge l1 and the championship. Split it in to 3 seeded conferences of 8 based on last years positions.

Conference 1 has last years top 8, then conference 2 the next 8, conference 3 the next. 

Play the other teams once which is 16 games. Everyone in your conference twice for another 14.

Top 4 in conference 1, top 3 in conference 2, top 2 in conference 3 qualify for a 9 team play off. Those that qualify for a play off move up for next year replacing the bottom 2 or 3 in the conference above. 

pretty much a seeded 'super group' a la the World Cup but everyone get games against everyone else, but the blowouts are mitigated because the top only plays the bottom once. Creates a more gradual structure up and down. 

I'd love to be wrong but nobody will join our leagues for at least the next 5 years imo. We have been pretty clear we don't really want them.

[Tommygilf]

8 minutes ago, Scotchy1 said:

I'd love to be wrong but nobody will join our leagues for at least the next 5 years imo. We have been pretty clear we don't really want them.

This is a key point, the aura around RL right now doesn't appear to be overtly open and welcoming, whether you're a heartland based team or not.

[LeytherRob]

5 minutes ago, Scotchy1 said:

Merge l1 and the championship. Split it in to 3 seeded conferences of 8 based on last years positions.

Conference 1 has last years top 8, then conference 2 the next 8, conference 3 the next. 

Play the other teams once which is 16 games. Everyone in your conference twice for another 14.

Top 4 in conference 1, top 3 in conference 2, top 2 in conference 3 qualify for a 9 team play off. Those that qualify for a play off move up for next year replacing the bottom 2 or 3 in the conference above. 

pretty much a seeded 'super group' a la the World Cup but everyone get games against everyone else, but the blowouts are mitigated because the top only plays the bottom once. Creates a more gradual structure up and down. 

I'd love to be wrong but nobody will join our leagues for at least the next 5 years imo. We have been pretty clear we don't really want them.

30 games is too many, especially considering you add playoff games and challenge cup to it. Also, what is the point of 9 team playoff spanning 3 divisions? That's just nuts.

[Scotchy1]

Just now, Tommygilf said:

This is a key point, the aura around RL right now doesn't appear to be overtly open and welcoming, whether you're a heartland based team or not.

If you had a few million to spare why would you set up a pro RL club. You aren't really wanted and will always seen as an interloper.

[langpark]

To be honest, I don't think a few years of consolidation will be such a bad thing, especially now after the pandemic.

People seem to forget, expansion is a constant talking point in Australia, every season, yet NRL has not actually expanded since 2007.

[Eddie]

13 minutes ago, Scotchy1 said:

Merge l1 and the championship. Split it in to 3 seeded conferences of 8 based on last years positions.

Conference 1 has last years top 8, then conference 2 the next 8, conference 3 the next. 

Play the other teams once which is 16 games. Everyone in your conference twice for another 14.

Top 4 in conference 1, top 3 in conference 2, top 2 in conference 3 qualify for a 9 team play off. Those that qualify for a play off move up for next year replacing the bottom 2 or 3 in the conference above. 

pretty much a seeded 'super group' a la the World Cup but everyone get games against everyone else, but the blowouts are mitigated because the top only plays the bottom once. Creates a more gradual structure up and down. 

I'd love to be wrong but nobody will join our leagues for at least the next 5 years imo. We have been pretty clear we don't really want them.

That’s a bit complicated tbf. 

[Scotchy1]

Just now, LeytherRob said:

30 games is too many, especially considering you add playoff games and challenge cup to it. Also, what is the point of 9 team playoff spanning 3 divisions? That's just nuts.

The NFL has 14 teams across 8 divisions. Its not that different.

If 30 games are too many. Go to 4 × 6 9n the same principle which would give you 18 cross divisional games and 10 divisional games. 

[Eddie]

Just now, langpark said:

To be honest, I don't think a few years of consolidation will be such a bad thing, especially now after the pandemic.

People seem to forget, expansion is a constant talking point in Australia, every season, yet NRL has not actually expanded since 2007.

True, but NRL don’t necessarily need to expand as it’s a massive wealthy competition which dominates two states. In England we don’t have that luxury. 

[Griff]

2 hours ago, Smudger06 said:

The RFL has acknowledged a lack of 2 Clubs from competition structures and in particular is having discussions with L1 about this issue. 

Where can they find 2 Clubs to step up to the plate? 

The Championship.

If 12 is right for $uperleague and Div 3, it's right for Div 2 as well.

Job done.

[Tommygilf]

7 minutes ago, Scotchy1 said:

If you had a few million to spare why would you set up a pro RL club. You aren't really wanted and will always seen as an interloper.

That has always struck me as a major problem for the "professional" game

[Scotchy1]

Just now, Eddie said:

That’s a bit complicated tbf. 

Its not that complicated. Less complicated than most American sports.

Its just a seeded group/play off structure.

[LeytherRob]

Just now, Scotchy1 said:

The NFL has 14 teams across 8 divisions. Its not that different.

If 30 games are too many. Go to 4 × 6 9n the same principle which would give you 18 cross divisional games and 10 divisional games. 

NFL has geographical conferences, you are allocating based on league position which just adds another division to the existing structure along with a few extra blowout games. Then you are taking the playoffs, which is supposed to be the pinnacle of the year when if comes to competitive games and just sprinkling random clubs from all over in there. It's a really poorly thought out idea. 

[LeytherRob]

4 minutes ago, Griff said:

The Championship.

If 12 is right for $uperleague and Div 3, it's right for Div 2 as well.

Job done.

This, why do we always have to try and make things more complicated than they need to be?

[Tommygilf]

6 minutes ago, Griff said:

The Championship.

If 12 is right for $uperleague and Div 3, it's right for Div 2 as well.

Job done.

Its not really "right" for Super League though is it? Hence loop fixtures.

Its not "right" for the Championship, which is why they brought up 2 from League One when the super 8s ended. 

In pushing two teams down from the championship you've solved 1 problem by creating 2 more.

[LeytherRob]

2 minutes ago, Tommygilf said:

Its not really "right" for Super League though is it? Hence loop fixtures.

Its not "right" for the Championship, which is why they brought up 2 from League One when the super 8s ended. 

In pushing two teams down from the championship you've solved 1 problem by creating 2 more.

The ideal would be 14s across the board, but to do that you need more money in SL(and a willingness from other SL chairmen to share the pot) and more clubs cloming into league 1. We have neither of those so 3x12s is the best way to go for now.

[Scotchy1]

12 minutes ago, LeytherRob said:

NFL has geographical conferences, you are allocating based on league position which just adds another division to the existing structure along with a few extra blowout games. Then you are taking the playoffs, which is supposed to be the pinnacle of the year when if comes to competitive games and just sprinkling random clubs from all over in there. It's a really poorly thought out idea. 

The NFL fixture list is decided by league position. 

The closer comparison would be a larger nations league  or as I said the seeded group/play off system we used in the world Cup.

There would be fewer blowouts than a straight league as clubs would.play more games.against clubs closer to themselves, clubs would have something to play for, either promotion or avoid relegation which is apparently super important. A more gradual curve for clubs to move up and down (promotion isn't a mountain to climb, relegation is less of a cliff edge)

The playoffs would still be the pinnacle. Based on last years positions you could have a play offs of Toronto, york, toulouse, leigh, swinton, batley, widnes, Newcastle and Doncaster. That seems like a decent competition 

[Scotchy1]

8 minutes ago, Tommygilf said:

Its not really "right" for Super League though is it? Hence loop fixtures.

Its not "right" for the Championship, which is why they brought up 2 from League One when the super 8s ended. 

In pushing two teams down from the championship you've solved 1 problem by creating 2 more.

There is no right number. Whether we have 12 or 14 or 20 or 40 or 80 clubs isn't really the issue. Its do we have that many clubs at that level 

[LeytherRob]

Just now, Scotchy1 said:

The NFL fixture list is decided by league position. 

The closer comparison would be a larger nations league  or as I said the seeded group/play off system we used in the world Cup.

There would be fewer blowouts than a straight league as clubs would.play more games.against clubs closer to themselves, clubs would have something to play for, either promotion or avoid relegation which is apparently super important. A more gradual curve for clubs to move up and down (promotion isn't a mountain to climb, relegation is less of a cliff edge)

The playoffs would still be the pinnacle. Based on last years positions you could have a play offs of Toronto, york, toulouse, leigh, swinton, batley, widnes, Newcastle and Doncaster. That seems like a decent competition 

NFL conferences don't change based on league positions and have promotion/relegation between them. Also, the nations league doesn't involve teams of different levels playing each other.

There would absolutely be more blowouts, because you have the top of the championship playing the bottom of league 1 in league fixtures. Championship teams already play 2 games against each other, all you are propsing is to swap 1 fixture against the likes of Swinton/Batley with a fixture against West Wales or Coventry. 

Having different teams from different divisions from a pyramid structure is nuts. It's equally as nuts as someone suggesting Championship teams should play cross divisional games against SL and be involved in the playoffs. I don't even need to ask what your opinion on that would be, so I don't know why you suddenly think it would be a good idea further down the pyramid.