2 Clubs Short

[Oxford]

5 minutes ago, LeytherRob said:

so I don't know why you suddenly think it would be a good idea further down the pyramid.

Admit it Rob, you were just here checking Leigh weren't one of the missing clubs, weren't you?

[Scotchy1]

11 minutes ago, LeytherRob said:

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.

The conferences don't but the fixtures does. I really don't think it would cause much an issue if the conferences changed sides. 

With regards to blow outs, it would be more than having split leagues. Less than if there was one league. 

But yes, you would swap 8 fixtures  4 home and 4 away against the bottom of the championship to l1. Would swapping a game against batley for a game against Doncaster make that much difference?

Having playoffs with teams from different divisions happens all the time. Its far more common than having 1 league and then play offs. See the NFL, NBA, NHL, MLS, UCL, Euros, World Cup  etc etc etc.

As for SL. You are wrong. I think SL even now should split in to two leagues of 6 and you rebrand 'loop fixtures' as comference games (moving back to 27 fixtures) i wouldn't necessarily even be against a seeded group system for them

Where perhaps you are seeing this wrong is seeing it as a pyramid system. It isn't its a seeded group structure. Like the world Cup. 

[Hela Wigmen]

24 minutes ago, LeytherRob said:

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.

It wouldn’t be ideal at all and you’d see three or four “mini leagues” in each competition, exacerbated more than it is in competitions we have now. 

[LeytherRob]

Just now, Hela Wigmen said:

It wouldn’t be ideal at all and you’d see three or four “mini leagues” in each competition, exacerbated more than it is in competitions we have now. 

I was responding to Tommy's specific issue regarding loop fixtures, not regarding the competitiveness.

[iffleyox]

38 minutes ago, 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.

It's never been that welcoming to outside fans anyway unless they've done the work IMO... I don't mean that too badly, but as a public school southerner who keeps turning up in RL towns to watch matches we've actually had overt hostility in pubs until it's clear we're genuine*. I don't mean that most people on here couldn't knock my knowledge of the game into a cocked hat without breaking sweat, but with the exception of Wakefield and Batley, who seemed to be falling over themselves to thank us for coming, it's got a bit gritty almost everywhere else in the last 10 years** and would have been worse if we'd not been able to demonstrate a basic grip of the sport to an angry drunk looking to pick a fight. Castleford and St Helens, I'm looking at you in particular. In the case of Cas we were actually rescued by an apologetic group who insisted on meeting us the next day and walking us to the ground... and it's since become one of my favourite weekends.

IMO with RL you have to work to be accepted as a fan unless you were born to it. That's a source of incredible strength and a massive weakness simultaneously.

 

 

*It's pretty well always ended up with mutual buying of rounds and everyone happy to be fair

**and yes, I have considered that the problem is us - but honestly, 2-3 people obviously not from round here and sounding a bit 'posh' is hardly the Bullingdon Club

[Hela Wigmen]

1 minute ago, LeytherRob said:

I was responding to Tommy's specific issue regarding loop fixtures, not regarding the competitiveness.

The answer to loop fixtures isn’t to swap them to more teams competing in the league. While you get fans now bemoaning loop fixtures, they’d soon be bored of too many meaningless, one sided games.

[Eddie]

33 minutes ago, 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 

Comparing RL in England with NFL is bizarre. 

[LeytherRob]

4 minutes ago, Scotchy1 said:

The conferences don't but the fixtures does. I really don't think it would cause much an issue if the conferences changed sides. 

It does when you are changing based on league positions to have all the strongest in one group

4 minutes ago, Scotchy1 said:

With regards to blow outs, it would be more than having split leagues. Less than if there was one league. 

There would be less than if there was one league, but that's an equally bad idea.

4 minutes ago, Scotchy1 said:

But yes, you would swap 8 fixtures  4 home and 4 away against the bottom of the championship to l1. Would swapping a game against batley for a game against Doncaster make that much difference?

Yes, absolutely. Would Leeds swapping a game against Salford for a game against Halifax make much difference?

 

8 minutes ago, Scotchy1 said:

Having playoffs with teams from different divisions happens all the time. Its far more common than having 1 league and then play offs. See the NFL, NBA, NHL, MLS, UCL, Euros, World Cup  etc etc etc.

In a conference system yes. But you haven't proposed a conference system, you've proposed 3 divisions with promotion and relegation between them. Your suggestion is just Championship, League 1 and League 2. You won't find a sport elsewhere that has interdivisional games in a structure like that for good reason.

 

10 minutes ago, Scotchy1 said:

As for SL. You are wrong. I think SL even now should split in to two leagues of 6 and you rebrand 'loop fixtures' as comference games (moving back to 27 fixtures) i wouldn't necessarily even be against a seeded group system for them

That isn't what you are suggesting below SL though, the equivalent would be merging championship and SL into 3 divisions and playing interdivisional fixtures. The gap between SL to C and C to L1 is pretty comparable.

 

12 minutes ago, Scotchy1 said:

Where perhaps you are seeing this wrong is seeing it as a pyramid system. It isn't its a seeded group structure. Like the world Cup. 

You've described 3 leagues with promotion and relegation between them, it's the very definition of a pyramid. 

[LeytherRob]

9 minutes ago, Hela Wigmen said:

The answer to loop fixtures isn’t to swap them to more teams competing in the league. While you get fans now bemoaning loop fixtures, they’d soon be bored of too many meaningless, one sided games.

Again, I wasn't commenting on competitiveness, only an answer to loop fixtures. If you remove this element, in an **ideal** world 14 teams would solve RL's loop fixture issue giving 26 regular season games + magic/bash/whatever.

[Hela Wigmen]

1 minute ago, LeytherRob said:

Again, I wasn't commenting on competitiveness, only an answer to loop fixtures. If you remove this element, in an **ideal** world 14 teams would solve RL's loop fixture issue giving 26 regular season games + magic/bash/whatever.

It’s not the right answer though. It’s merely an alternative and, without wanting to have a dig at you (you’re not the only one to say this), it’s not a very good one and only adds to the existing issues the game has, whilst barely getting rid of one. 

 

[Scotchy1]

2 minutes ago, LeytherRob said:

1.It does when you are changing based on league positions to have all the strongest in one group

2.There would be less than if there was one league, but that's an equally bad idea.

3.Yes, absolutely. Would Leeds swapping a game against Salford for a game against Halifax make much difference?

 

4.In a conference system yes. But you haven't proposed a conference system, you've proposed 3 divisions with promotion and relegation between them. Your suggestion is just Championship, League 1 and League 2. You won't find a sport elsewhere that has interdivisional games in a structure like that for good reason.

 

5.That isn't what you are suggesting below SL though, the equivalent would be merging championship and SL into 3 divisions and playing interdivisional fixtures. The gap between SL to C and C to L1 is pretty comparable.

 

6.You've described 3 leagues with promotion and relegation between them, it's the very definition of a pyramid. 

1. Not really. You can't on one hand complain that there are too many blow outs and on the other hand complained that teams are seeded to play clubs closer to their level more often. 

2. Is it? Not sure why, other than you seemingly not wanting to play West Wales once a year.

3. Not really. 

4. Don't get hung up on nomenclature. I described the as conferences but whatever you name them doesn't matter. Its a seeded group/play off system. 

5. The gap from the top of SL to the championship is much much bigger. But SL is not the championship. Merging the semi pro competitions in to a league of 24 makes far more sense than a half pro half semi pro elite competition. 

6. No it isn't. Its a seeded group system. 

[LeytherRob]

Just now, Hela Wigmen said:

It’s not the right answer though. It’s merely an alternative and, without wanting to have a dig at you (you’re not the only one to say this), it’s not a very good one and only adds to the existing issues the game has, whilst barely getting rid of one. 

 

If the question is "how do we get rid of loop fixtures?" then it's pretty much the only answer. As you'll see in the original post I made though, it's currently unworkable through a lack of funding to make it competitive and clubs to fill the gaps.

[Griff]

50 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.

We should be starting in March at the earliest.  

Not having our big start to the season in the depths of winter.

[Scotchy1]

11 minutes ago, Eddie said:

Comparing RL in England with NFL is bizarre. 

I didn't compare them.

[Whippet13]

13 minutes ago, iffleyox said:

It's never been that welcoming to outside fans anyway unless they've done the work IMO... I don't mean that too badly, but as a public school southerner who keeps turning up in RL towns to watch matches we've actually had overt hostility in pubs until it's clear we're genuine*. I don't mean that most people on here couldn't knock my knowledge of the game into a cocked hat without breaking sweat, but with the exception of Wakefield and Batley, who seemed to be falling over themselves to thank us for coming, it's got a bit gritty almost everywhere else in the last 10 years** and would have been worse if we'd not been able to demonstrate a basic grip of the sport to an angry drunk looking to pick a fight. Castleford and St Helens, I'm looking at you in particular. In the case of Cas we were actually rescued by an apologetic group who insisted on meeting us the next day and walking us to the ground... and it's since become one of my favourite weekends.

IMO with RL you have to work to be accepted as a fan unless you were born to it. That's a source of incredible strength and a massive weakness simultaneously.

 

 

*It's pretty well always ended up with mutual buying of rounds and everyone happy to be fair

**and yes, I have considered that the problem is us - but honestly, 2-3 people obviously not from round here and sounding a bit 'posh' is hardly the Bullingdon Club

Try to stop ordering Dom Perignon at the bar mate, they won't think your are a RFU scout and you'll fit in much easier.

Seriously, I think this is a wider social issue rather than RL specific, sadly there are plenty of ignorant people around in the "friendly" north just like anywhere else. I hope the unplesantness was from a minority and please don't let it put you off.

[LeytherRob]

1 minute ago, Scotchy1 said:

1. Not really. You can't on one hand complain that there are too many blow outs and on the other hand complained that teams are seeded to play clubs closer to their level more often. 

2. Is it? Not sure why, other than you seemingly not wanting to play West Wales once a year.

3. Not really. 

4. Don't get hung up on nomenclature. I described the as conferences but whatever you name them doesn't matter. Its a seeded group/play off system. 

5. The gap from the top of SL to the championship is much much bigger. But SL is not the championship. Merging the semi pro competitions in to a league of 24 makes far more sense than a half pro half semi pro elite competition. 

6. No it isn't. Its a seeded group system. 

1. I haven't complained of too many blowouts, in fact on multiple other threads I've said that I believe the Championship is more competitive now than at any point in it's history. Clubs are already seeded to play teams closer to their level, that's what a pyramid structure is.

2. Yes, obviously so. This just displays a lack of knowledge of the relative strengths between clubs below SL.

3. You are seriously trying to say that you would be happy with SL teams being lumped with C clubs to play interdivisional fixtures and play league fixtures against Halifax, Fev, Leigh, Widnes etc, and that it would make no difference?

4. Seeded groups involves spreading the seeds out to engineer the best clubs move to the next phase of competition, typically a knockout system. None of them involved putting all the best teams in one group, playing games against the other groups then having teams that are have huge differences in size/ability competing for the final prize.

5. It really isn't, you only have to look at CC fixtures between SL/C and C/L1 over recent years. More L1 clubs are getting knocked out by NCL clubs than beating C clubs. https://www.seriousaboutrl.com/top-10-challenge-cup-upsets-of-the-last-decade-28680/

6. See point 4, it's not a seeded group system, it's some Frankenstein's monster that combines the worst parts of all the systems, it's like the Super 8's on crack.

[Smudger06]

50 minutes ago, Scotchy1 said:

The conferences don't but the fixtures does. I really don't think it would cause much an issue if the conferences changed sides. 

With regards to blow outs, it would be more than having split leagues. Less than if there was one league. 

But yes, you would swap 8 fixtures  4 home and 4 away against the bottom of the championship to l1. Would swapping a game against batley for a game against Doncaster make that much difference?

Having playoffs with teams from different divisions happens all the time. Its far more common than having 1 league and then play offs. See the NFL, NBA, NHL, MLS, UCL, Euros, World Cup  etc etc etc.

As for SL. You are wrong. I think SL even now should split in to two leagues of 6 and you rebrand 'loop fixtures' as comference games (moving back to 27 fixtures) i wouldn't necessarily even be against a seeded group system for them

Where perhaps you are seeing this wrong is seeing it as a pyramid system. It isn't its a seeded group structure. Like the world Cup. 

Its 16 games not the 14 you said and yes some fixtures are based on last seasons Divisional Standings, but only 2 out of 16. 6 of the fixtures are generated by playing home & away vs the other 3 teams in your Division which never changes and the other 8 are gotten through a set in stone rotation system of the Divisions facing off....

[Smudger06]

43 minutes ago, Eddie said:

Comparing RL in England with NFL is bizarre. 

It depends if they go for one big league jobby....then you'd need fair and transparent systems to generate fixtures for 30+ teams because you can't play 58 times in the season, so worth having a look at how other leagues do it right. 

[Oldbear]

49 minutes ago, iffleyox said:

It's never been that welcoming to outside fans anyway unless they've done the work IMO... I don't mean that too badly, but as a public school southerner who keeps turning up in RL towns to watch matches we've actually had overt hostility in pubs until it's clear we're genuine*. I don't mean that most people on here couldn't knock my knowledge of the game into a cocked hat without breaking sweat, but with the exception of Wakefield and Batley, who seemed to be falling over themselves to thank us for coming, it's got a bit gritty almost everywhere else in the last 10 years** and would have been worse if we'd not been able to demonstrate a basic grip of the sport to an angry drunk looking to pick a fight. Castleford and St Helens, I'm looking at you in particular. In the case of Cas we were actually rescued by an apologetic group who insisted on meeting us the next day and walking us to the ground... and it's since become one of my favourite weekends.

IMO with RL you have to work to be accepted as a fan unless you were born to it. That's a source of incredible strength and a massive weakness simultaneously.

 

 

*It's pretty well always ended up with mutual buying of rounds and everyone happy to be fair

**and yes, I have considered that the problem is us - but honestly, 2-3 people obviously not from round here and sounding a bit 'posh' is hardly the Bullingdon Club

I encountered similar back in the 1980’s when I first got into the game, and I am neither Southern nor posh, but my first team was Fulham so I guess there was an automatic assumption amongst the more brain dead elements of our sport. Funnily enough Batley were the most welcoming back then too, Rochdale the least. Either way you are right, the sport hardly welcomes newcomers unless they really work at it, guess there’s a reason we fail to attract major investment.

[Scotchy1]

4 minutes ago, LeytherRob said:

1. I haven't complained of too many blowouts, in fact on multiple other threads I've said that I believe the Championship is more competitive now than at any point in it's history. Clubs are already seeded to play teams closer to their level, that's what a pyramid structure is.

2. Yes, obviously so. This just displays a lack of knowledge of the relative strengths between clubs below SL.

3. You are seriously trying to say that you would be happy with SL teams being lumped with C clubs to play interdivisional fixtures and play league fixtures against Halifax, Fev, Leigh, Widnes etc, and that it would make no difference?

4. Seeded groups involves spreading the seeds out to engineer the best clubs move to the next phase of competition, typically a knockout system. None of them involved putting all the best teams in one group, playing games against the other groups then having teams that are have huge differences in size/ability competing for the final prize.

5. It really isn't, you only have to look at CC fixtures between SL/C and C/L1 over recent years. More L1 clubs are getting knocked out by NCL clubs than beating C clubs. https://www.seriousaboutrl.com/top-10-challenge-cup-upsets-of-the-last-decade-28680/

6. See point 4, it's not a seeded group system, it's some Frankenstein's monster that combines the worst parts of all the systems, it's like the Super 8's on crack.

1. You did complain that there would be too many blowouts. That is mitigated by seeding teams

2. The relative strength issue would be mitigated by seeding the groups. 

3. I don't think SL has enough sides. I want more sides in SL. If there were enough sides capable of being proper fully pro sides I would welcome them in to SL. I don't think simply adding those clubs right now would provide us with more proper fully pro sides unfortunately. But again. Scale matters. SL.and the lower leagues are significantly different. 

4. It can do. It doesnt have to. I hate to mention it again but see the RLWC world Cup.

5. Yes it is.

6. It is a seeded group system. It contains none of the worst parts of the 8s system namely the short run up for selling games and the focus on the bottom end of an elite competition, the dead rubbers etc.

[Scotchy1]

8 minutes ago, Smudger06 said:

Its 16 games not the 14 you said and yes some fixtures are based on last seasons Divisional Standings, but only 2 out of 16. 6 of the fixtures are generated by playing home & away vs the other 3 teams in your Division which never changes and the other 8 are gotten through a set in stone rotation system of the Divisions facing off....

I'm not sure i mentioned how many NFL games there were. 

But I agree, that sounds awfully convoluted and complex but in practice. Its pretty simple. Win your division or be the best of the rest and go to a play off.

[Eddie]

4 minutes ago, Smudger06 said:

It depends if they go for one big league jobby....then you'd need fair and transparent systems to generate fixtures for 30+ teams because you can't play 58 times in the season, so worth having a look at how other leagues do it right. 

They won’t do that though will they, the RL set up is completely different to the NFL. Nobody with an iota of sense would even consider it. 

[Smudger06]

3 minutes ago, Scotchy1 said:

I'm not sure i mentioned how many NFL games there were. 

But I agree, that sounds awfully convoluted and complex but in practice. Its pretty simple. Win your division or be the best of the rest and go to a play off.

Correct, its a decent enough system. 

[Smudger06]

3 minutes ago, Eddie said:

They won’t do that though will they, the RL set up is completely different to the NFL. Nobody with an iota of sense would even consider it. 

About half of the 125 years of our history has been done like that. 

[Scotchy1]

Just now, Smudger06 said:

Correct, its a decent enough system. 

Its fine. I'm not sure why people here think it's somehow unachievable. Its just a way of putting a fixture list together.

One thing that the NFL system does really well is that it creates a play offs that isn't just the same teams playing each other again. The superbowl is, more often than not, the first time those teams have played