Jump to content

Recommended Posts

20 hours ago, Hela Wigmen said:

Go for 2x10’s. 

Fans don’t like loop games but clubs do. You either go for playing everyone three times (27 games) and Magic or you play everyone home and away (18 games) and then have the Challenge Cup made up of those twenty clubs split into four groups of five (8 group games and 18 league games plus Magic), with the format as clubs are split into five pots based upon their final league finishes the year before. Top two from each group progress. Games can be as part of a season ticket and clubs can use a third shirt for cup games/Magic. 

Top four play-offs in both leagues.

Bottom of Super League relegated. Championship Grand Final winner takes their place. 

All twenty clubs get the same amount of funding. That’s whether you finish as Super League champions or bottom of Division 2. Controversial, I know. 

Some clubs don’t have the ambition to reach Super League. That’s fine. But why are we pulled back by these clubs. Send them off to play at their own level and allow those who have ambition to compete at a level that befits them as clubs. 

You move in a plausible direction, but no relegation from SL2.

But funding?  The only way to make it work would be to abolish the Cap.  Otherwise the thin spread of funding would poach best players to RU and/or NRL.

We can all play the game of pin the tail on the donkey.  There are several types of league structure...  where we run into the sand is the number of viable clubs and the creation, the development, of players.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Replies 393
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

I hope not, a ten team SL (or championship) would be woeful. 

2x10 just smacks of trying to please everyone, whilst at the same time not really pleasing anyone.  For starters, calling it "SL2" just cheapens the Super League brand. You may as well call it "S

This. I want 14 and a bit of variety. 10 just doesnt do it for me.

8 hours ago, Hela Wigmen said:

We fund 36 as a sport now. 

Yes.  This has been the problem.  If we had spread all the TV funding 4 or 5 years ago into a 20 team competition then more of those 20 teams would be more viable now.  Always of course that 'giving' those 20 teams required strings attached.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Damien said:

Sorry that makes absolutely no sense and doesn't answer the question.

Again please explain how giving 20 teams equal funding does not mean a reduction on what 12 or indeed 14 teams would receive?

You said it doesn't and I'm intrigued to see how. If you cant answer the question then that's fine.

It usually goes along the lines of a small reduction for SL teams a massive increase for selected championship teams and #### everyone else. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
56 minutes ago, Damien said:

Quite simply cost. Of course everything you say is quite correct. Games can certainly generate very positive exposure, a cult following and fans for life. However unless RL struck very lucky with a team of die hard RL fans, who are also fantasticly talented developers, it would cost millions, tens of millions for a Madden or FIFA quality game. Development is an expensive business.

I am sure it could and most probably would, but most of the game mechanics could be lifted from Madden, for example if Ea were in control.

2k sports released arguably the best nrl game ever released, certainly in terms of playability back in 2005. Maybe, it wouldn't be quite as costly as we think? It would not be an easy nut to crack. But it would be certainly one of the best routes to market to increase exposure.

The question posed by Gubrats was how do we reach our target market? I believe the answer is to Schmooze and sell the sport to big game developers. Take them to the big occasions, GF, Wembley and the big derby games, let them soak up the atmosphere and passion of the game.

We have a really good product to sell, we just need the world to see it, and play it without losing teeth or the feeling they have just been run over.

Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, DOGFATHER said:

I am sure it could and most probably would, but most of the game mechanics could be lifted from Madden, for example if Ea were in control.

2k sports released arguably the best nrl game ever released, certainly in terms of playability back in 2005. Maybe, it wouldn't be quite as costly as we think? It would not be an easy nut to crack. But it would be certainly one of the best routes to market to increase exposure.

The question posed by Gubrats was how do we reach our target market? I believe the answer is to Schmooze and sell the sport to big game developers. Take them to the big occasions, GF, Wembley and the big derby games, let them soak up the atmosphere and passion of the game.

We have a really good product to sell, we just need the world to see it, and play it without losing teeth or the feeling they have just been run over.

If only it were that simple. I would love this as much as anyone but I've worked in development teams and so have a fair idea whats involved. Decent developers aren't cheap and neither is the whole process that is involved. You talked about big budget and to get a game up to a decent standard, which will appeal to the masses, that game needs that big budget. There are far more profitable avenues for the big software houses than Rugby of either code, which has a limited audience and appeal.

The trouble is Rugby would be far more complex than either Football or American Football. There are absolutely loads of variables at play that make it hard to get realistic. There is a reason that any RL game I have played have glitches and faults aplenty. The long established EA series have built and built over the years with small refinements and improvements and the odd major upgrade. Madden works so well because of the turn based nature and short sequences of play. Fifa works so well because EA have spent a shedload of money on it and Football is a relatively simple game. Its not just a case of lifting and shifting code from these. 

What would be far simpler and achievable is a top quality Football manager type game. A games engine for that wouldn't be too difficult at all. Or even simple phone type apps, kicking challenges, try scoring situations where you run a play (Madden with a twist)etc. Those are much easier to achieve and do well.

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Damien said:

Sorry that makes absolutely no sense and doesn't answer the question.

Again please explain how giving 20 teams equal funding does not mean a reduction on what 12 or indeed 14 teams would receive?

You said it doesn't and I'm intrigued to see how. If you cant answer the question then that's fine.

Which is higher 20 clubs sharing £100m or 12 clubs sharing £20m

  • Haha 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

Last few posts of personal insults removed.

Everyone knows we don't tolerate that sort of stuff on here.

Don't do it.

Attack the point, not the person.

And if you can't engage with someone with basic civility, use the ignore option to avoid engaging with them at all.

  • Like 2

.

Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, Damien said:

If only it were that simple. I would love this as much as anyone but I've worked in development teams and so have a fair idea whats involved. Decent developers aren't cheap and neither is the whole process that is involved. You talked about big budget and to get a game up to a decent standard, which will appeal to the masses, that game needs that big budget. There are far more profitable avenues for the big software houses than Rugby of either code, which has a limited audience and appeal.

The trouble is Rugby would be far more complex than either Football or American Football. There are absolutely loads of variables at play that make it hard to get realistic. There is a reason that any RL game I have played have glitches and faults aplenty. The long established EA series have built and built over the years with small refinements and improvements and the odd major upgrade. Madden works so well because of the turn based nature and short sequences of play. Fifa works so well because EA have spent a shedload of money on it and Football is a relatively simple game. Its not just a case of lifting and shifting code from these. 

What would be far simpler and achievable is a top quality Football manager type game. A games engine for that wouldn't be too difficult at all. Or even simple phone type apps, kicking challenges, try scoring situations where you run a play (Madden with a twist)etc. Those are much easier to achieve and do well.

You are probably correct, but in terms of limited audience, skateboarding had probably less of a following than rugby does now, prior to Tony Hawk, yet it took off and reached all corners of the globe.

Nothing worthwhile in life is easy, as the saying goes. It would be nice to think the RFL had at least tried to explore this avenue and tried to sell the game to the execs and decision makers at these big software houses. You never know they might become fans.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Wow John, you've wiped out 12 hours of debate.

For what? Just because the posters opinions differ?

We are moving so far, from the concept of free speech its frightening.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, John Drake said:

Last few posts of personal insults removed.

Everyone knows we don't tolerate that sort of stuff on here.

Don't do it.

Attack the point, not the person.

And if you can't engage with someone with basic civility, use the ignore option to avoid engaging with them at all.

Damn I missed them all.

Reminds me of school, someone yells `fight` and by the time we all got here it was over.

Edited by The Rocket
  • Haha 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, DOGFATHER said:

You are probably correct, but in terms of limited audience, skateboarding had probably less of a following than rugby does now, prior to Tony Hawk, yet it took off and reached all corners of the globe.

Nothing worthwhile in life is easy, as the saying goes. It would be nice to think the RFL had at least tried to explore this avenue and tried to sell the game to the execs and decision makers at these big software houses. You never know they might become fans.

 

Skateboarding isn't a sport , it's a pastime 

Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, DOGFATHER said:

I quite agree with you, nevertheless it's in the Olympics, whether you or I agree or not. But then again,  so is gymnastics and dressage etc.

Exactly , anything that requires a subjective judging to decide the winner isn't sport 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
52 minutes ago, GUBRATS said:

Exactly , anything that requires a subjective judging to decide the winner isn't sport 

Time to get shut of referees then.

  • Haha 2

Sport, amongst other things, is a dream-world offering escape from harsh reality and the disturbing prospect of change.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Blind side johnny said:

Time to get shut of referees then.

Now now Johnny you know that is completely different , they don't score on a performance , , as was pointed out , is ' dancing horses ' really a sport ? 

Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, GUBRATS said:

Now now Johnny you know that is completely different , they don't score on a performance , , as was pointed out , is ' dancing horses ' really a sport ? 

OED definition of 'sport'.

"an activity involving physical exertion and skill in which an individual or a team competes against another or others for entertainment"

So, yes, it is.

  • Like 2

Build a man a fire, and he'll be warm for a day. Set a man on fire, and he'll be warm for the rest of his life. (Terry Pratchett)

Link to post
Share on other sites
32 minutes ago, dkw said:

So boxing isn't a sport?

But Darts most definitely is? Despite his own protestations otherwise? This is confusing now!

I think this is sounding more and more like silly ravings of someone desperate to deny their short and terse comments aren't in fact, "facts".

Edited by Tommygilf
  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
44 minutes ago, GUBRATS said:

It's a sport yes , but there'd be too many draws , I'd suggest when it started they didn't have judges , it was whoever was left standing 

No it wasn't, the Referee decided who won after a draw from at least the adoption of Queensbury Rules (1867).

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.




×
×
  • Create New...