Teams finishing 5th or 6th SHOULD NOT have a chance to win SL

[The Daddy]

Up to a few weeks ago Leeds and Salford were near the relegation zone, now Leeds are in the grand final and Salford still have a chance to get there. 

Wigan have played decent for the majority of the season while Leeds have been terrible for most of the season but Leeds are in the final based on a single match. Is that fair? 

Giving the 5th and 6th place teams an opportunity to get to the grand final demeans the integrity of the regular season games....and we wonder why attendances aren't as high as we want them to be. 

Because Leeds have been average for most of the season it detracts from the grand final in terms of excitement, coz in my eyes they've not been the 1st, 2nd or even 3rd best team in SL this season. 

There's also a wider argument to be had about whether the play offs and grand final devalues regular season games. 

 

[Tommygilf]

Just shows how close 5th to 10th has been this season. At any point Leeds, Salford, KR, FC or Cas could have made strong play off cases.

Guess I'm not glass half empty about it.

[Damien]

I think it's a really poor system and have always said so. The league is not strong enough for such a system and there are too many meaningless games.

However it is the system that is set out at the start of the season and teams play to that. Therefore if a team takes advantage then fair play to them and I have no complaints with that. Similarly I don't think it necessarily follows that a team that finishes top under this system would have done so if the top team were champions as other teams are playing accordingly.

To me it is simply another RL mechanism, like the salary cap, that just breeds and encourages mediocrity.

[meast]

Blame the game not the players.

I try hard to explain to people who don't follow the sport closely how a team who finish mid table in the league and were in a relegation battle not long ago can be champions by virtue of winning a few games at the end of the season.

Personally, I don't particularly like the play offs as a way to determine champions, unless it's the top 2/3.

The fact that a team can win the league by winning 3 or 4 games at the end of a season has never sat right.

Fair play to Leeds and Salford for playing the hands though, it doesn't mean I have to like it.

Edited September 16, 2022 by meast

[Chris22]

I do, largely, agree.

I've never been against the idea of each side playing every other team once at home and once away and the team finishing top wins.

I enjoy the Magic Weekend and Grand Final and both are money spinning events so despite my views, we must be pragmatic.

The reason a first past the post system works well in football is because there's a genuine prize for top 4, a worthwhile prize for top 6, an entertaining relegation battle where the losers don't face oblivion.

As a Saints fan, the regular season doesn't get me excited. I don't get particularly excited by wins or despondent by defeats because ultimately they mean little.

It's a tricky position and balance, but 27 weeks which mean little isn't great.

[Ray Cashmere]

I’ve made my point elsewhere but this is the appropriate thread: the play offs reward the best teams over the course of the season. That is a statistical fact. 
 

And for those calling it ‘contrived’. That is, ironically, exactly what a regular season format in rugby league would look like. Rugby league would be out on its own in having zero incentive for teams to finish in any position that isn’t first/not last.  The Premier League has CL and EL spots to compete for, the rest of the footballing pyramid has play offs. 
 

Just be very aware of what you are asking for: no competitive incentive to go and watch your team if they aren’t competing for top spot. How does that help to grow attendances and engage new audiences? 
 

Salford and Leeds won just over half their games this season. This narrative that all they had to do was win a couple of games in August to make the play offs is counter-factual. 

Edited September 16, 2022 by Ray Cashmere

[Damien]

11 minutes ago, Ray Cashmere said:

I’ve made my point elsewhere but this is the appropriate thread: the play offs reward the best teams over the course of the season. That is a statistical fact. 
 

And for those calling it ‘contrived’. That is, ironically, exactly what a regular season format in rugby league would look like. Rugby league would be out on its own in having zero incentive for teams to finish in any position that isn’t first/not last.  The Premier League has CL and EL spots to compete for, the rest of the footballing pyramid has play offs. 
 

Just be very aware of what you are asking for: no competitive incentive to go and watch your team if they aren’t competing for top spot. How does that help to grow attendances and engage new audiences? 
 

Salford and Leeds won just over half their games this season. This narrative that all they had to do was win a couple of games in August to make the play offs is counter-factual. 

Shock, horror - The best teams finish higher in the table and as they are better are thus more likely to get to the final. No **** Sherlock. It is still a poor and contrived system. Indeed in terms of the play off systems we have had this current one doesn't reward a league placing as much as say the top 5 McIntyre system.

Salford and Leeds winning just over half their games isnt an achievement. Most teams finishing in the top half of a rugby league table would win at least half their games.

[Pie tries]

19 minutes ago, Ray Cashmere said:

I’ve made my point elsewhere but this is the appropriate thread: the play offs reward the best teams over the course of the season. That is a statistical fact. 
 

And for those calling it ‘contrived’. That is, ironically, exactly what a regular season format in rugby league would look like. Rugby league would be out on its own in having zero incentive for teams to finish in any position that isn’t first/not last.  The Premier League has CL and EL spots to compete for, the rest of the footballing pyramid has play offs. 
 

Just be very aware of what you are asking for: no competitive incentive to go and watch your team if they aren’t competing for top spot. How does that help to grow attendances and engage new audiences? 
 

Salford and Leeds won just over half their games this season. This narrative that all they had to do was win a couple of games in August to make the play offs is counter-factual. 

Great post - next subject !

[Roy Haggerty]

I do see the point, although I still support the playoffs as a concept. The problem, it seems to me, is we have too many teams qualifying for the playoffs from such a small competition. Top 6 out of 12 means that statistically, you're very likely to get at least one club who've lost at least as many as they've won. So you reward mediocrity and open the door to a lucky run which makes a bit of a mockery of the whole season. The week off and home advantage seem a fairly poor season's reward for the teams finishing 1st and 2nd.

My view is that the playoffs need to be more exclusive. I would have the top 5 play-off back. Firstly, it means you have to do better than just break even to qualify, and secondly, the league leaders get a bigger advantage: not only home advantage and a week off, but a second bite at the cherry if they lose their first playoff game. That rewarded consistency better than the current system of half-in-half-out.

Mind you, I'd also prefer to have a top 5 playoff in a league of 14 clubs, so that the top 5 had to be better than the other 9, making even 5th place a worthy achievement.  But I may as well wish for the moon on that one.



 

[bobbruce]

1 hour ago, meast said:

Blame the game not the players.

I try hard to explain to people who don't follow the sport closely how a team who finish mid table in the league and were in a relegation battle not long ago can be champions by virtue of winning a few games at the end of the season.

Personally, I don't particularly like the play offs as a way to determine champions, unless it's the top 2/3.

The fact that a team can win the league by winning 3 or 4 games at the end of a season has never sat right.

Fair play to Leeds and Salford for playing the hands though, it doesn't mean I have to like it.

So you’ll be cheering Saints on to win then. 

[Liverpool Rover]

That it has only ever been done twice, and by the same team, shows that it isn't that easy to win from as low as 5th. In Australia a team would be praised for being able to turn their season around in the second half of the season when the chips are down and then come out on top in big playoff games away from home to get to the Grand Final, here all they will get is "They devalued the league!".

IMO the Grand Final is one of the best things Super League has done. One thing many of the great moments in sport have in common is that they happen when you have to perform on the day when everything is on the line, that Rob Burrow try for example wouldn't be as famous if it was in a regular season game. To be champions you should be able to to show both consistency and that you can also win when the season depends on it. People will say that there is the Challenge Cup for winning when it counts but the season isn't on the line in the Challenge Cup in the way that it is in the playoffs.

[paul hicks]

16 minutes ago, Liverpool Rover said:

That it has only ever been done twice, and by the same team, shows that it isn't that easy to win from as low as 5th. In Australia a team would be praised for being able to turn their season around in the second half of the season when the chips are down and then come out on top in big playoff games away from home to get to the Grand Final, here all they will get is "They devalued the league!".

IMO the Grand Final is one of the best things Super League has done. One thing many of the great moments in sport have in common is that they happen when you have to perform on the day when everything is on the line, that Rob Burrow try for example wouldn't be as famous if it was in a regular season game. To be champions you should be able to to show both consistency and that you can also win when the season depends on it. People will say that there is the Challenge Cup for winning when it counts but the season isn't on the line in the Challenge Cup in the way that it is in the playoffs.

in super league terms yes, it's only been done twice but the game did exist before 1998.  in 1973 a team won from 8th, and nobody complained indeed the losing team's fans stayed to applaud the winners.

1973 leeds were beaten by 8th place Dewsbury.

playoffs have been around since 1907 yet people want to get rid of them because boo hoo they don't think it's fair. well get over it life's not fair either. it's a great system indeed good enough for the NRL so get over it.

[Toby Chopra]

I'm not even going to get into the debate about whether we should keep the playoffs as it's so obviously yes for me.

If Salford and Leeds make the GF in no way will it feel devalued to me, it'll be quite thrilling in fact. 

I'm agnostic about whether it should be 5 or 6 from 12 in the playoffs - 4 would be too few though. Whatever we do though we MUST keep a proper semi-final round a week before the GF, as that's so crucial for building momentum and stories. 

When we've had a system where the penultimate week has been a single 'lucky losers' game, while one finalist sits idle has always taken the air out of the series. 

In the NRL/NFL the prelim/conference finals weekend is in some ways better than the final itself - 4 potential winners going head to to head, and it's all about the football, not any of the razzmatazz of thr final. 

I'd love it if we could play our semis back to back on a Saturday afternoon/evening like the NFL do - 4 hours of top class sport. (at the two club grounds, not a double-header) 

[gingerjon]

7 hours ago, meast said:

I try hard to explain to people who don't follow the sport closely how a team who finish mid table in the league and were in a relegation battle not long ago can be champions by virtue of winning a few games at the end of the season.

"You know the NFL? It's like that. The Grand Final is our Super Bowl."

Job done. 

[David Dockhouse Host]

6 hours ago, Roy Haggerty said:

I do see the point, although I still support the playoffs as a concept. The problem, it seems to me, is we have too many teams qualifying for the playoffs from such a small competition. Top 6 out of 12 means that statistically, you're very likely to get at least one club who've lost at least as many as they've won. So you reward mediocrity and open the door to a lucky run which makes a bit of a mockery of the whole season. The week off and home advantage seem a fairly poor season's reward for the teams finishing 1st and 2nd.

My view is that the playoffs need to be more exclusive. I would have the top 5 play-off back. Firstly, it means you have to do better than just break even to qualify, and secondly, the league leaders get a bigger advantage: not only home advantage and a week off, but a second bite at the cherry if they lose their first playoff game. That rewarded consistency better than the current system of half-in-half-out.

Mind you, I'd also prefer to have a top 5 playoff in a league of 14 clubs, so that the top 5 had to be better than the other 9, making even 5th place a worthy achievement.  But I may as well wish for the moon on that one.



 

True, I like the system but the numbers are wrong, 6 from 12

[Tommygilf]

4 minutes ago, David Dockhouse Host said:

True, I like the system but the numbers are wrong, 6 from 12

How about 6 from 14?

[Just Browny]

Silly thread. The problem we have isn't that we have a play off system, and people have already made the point that a champion team shows its ability by winning the big games.

The problem we can't and won't confront is that we have far too many games to get there. Consequently we have a league phase that drags on longer than it needs to to determine the 6 teams who make the playoffs, and teams are battered and bruised by the end of it - meaning it is as much about which teams avoids serious injuries as it is about skill. The NRL and NFL, for whom playoffs and grand finals are bread and butter, play shorter seasons and don't have other significant competitions alongside.

[Blind side johnny]

8 hours ago, Damien said:

I think it's a really poor system and have always said so. The league is not strong enough for such a system and there are too many meaningless games.

However it is the system that is set out at the start of the season and teams play to that. Therefore if a team takes advantage then fair play to them and I have no complaints with that. Similarly I don't think it necessarily follows that a team that finishes top under this system would have done so if the top team were champions as other teams are playing accordingly.

To me it is simply another RL mechanism, like the salary cap, that just breeds and encourages mediocrity.

Just like the mediocre NRL, you mean?

[Wellsy4HullFC]

[Damien]

1 minute ago, Blind side johnny said:

Just like the mediocre NRL, you mean?

The game in this country is not the NRL. Its amazing how people always think copying tiny parts of the NRL is a magic bullet. The NRL is fundamentally stronger for a whole host of reasons.

[Wellsy4HullFC]

46 minutes ago, Just Browny said:

Silly thread. The problem we have isn't that we have a play off system, and people have already made the point that a champion team shows its ability by winning the big games.

The problem we can't and won't confront is that we have far too many games to get there. Consequently we have a league phase that drags on longer than it needs to to determine the 6 teams who make the playoffs, and teams are battered and bruised by the end of it - meaning it is as much about which teams avoids serious injuries as it is about skill. The NRL and NFL, for whom playoffs and grand finals are bread and butter, play shorter seasons and don't have other significant competitions alongside.

How do we combat this problem then? 

I keep hearing the suggestion of "the season needs to be shorter", but will in bring in enough money? All other major sports in this country play longer seasons and more games. How will the game bring in enough revenue if they're playing such a short season?

If it's a case of player welfare, wouldn't larger squads and a set number of games per season be another way?

Edited September 17, 2022 by Wellsy4HullFC

[Wellsy4HullFC]

5 minutes ago, Damien said:

The game in this country is not the NRL. Its amazing how people always think copying tiny parts of the NRL is a magic bullet. The NRL is fundamentally stronger for a whole host of reasons.

Yet the Grand Final has been a great success

[JohnM]

6 minutes ago, Wellsy4HullFC said:

How do we combat this problem then? 

I keep hearing the suggestion of "the season needs to be shorter", but will in bring in enough money? All other major sports in this country play longer seasons and more games. How will the game bring in enough revenue if they're playing such a short season?

If it's a case of player welfare, wouldn't larger squads and a sweet number of games per season be another way?

Exactly. 

[Damien]

Just now, Wellsy4HullFC said:

Yet the Grand Final has been a great success

Yes it's a great event and as a one off game its a fantastic occasion to be at. There is absolutely no denying that.

However that event has come at a cost and to the detriment of other things imho.

[Just Browny]

8 minutes ago, Wellsy4HullFC said:

How do we combat this problem then? 

I keep hearing the suggestion of "the season needs to be shorter", but will in bring in enough money? All other major sports in this country play longer seasons and more games. How will the game bring in enough revenue if they're playing such a short season?

If it's a case of player welfare, wouldn't larger squads and a sweet number of games per season be another way?

If it was dead easy we would have done it. For me you have to confront the 'Michael Carter' type thinking that all what we've got is all we ever can have, and boldly believe in the idea that with fewer games you have higher quality and therefore a product that people (broadcasters and sponsors) are going to see as more valuable.

I think the domestic union or cricket seasons involve much fewer games than ours byw, although neither is easy to compare directly.