Third Cup Competition? (Just an idea)

[Wellsy4HullFC]

2 minutes ago, Padge said:

Super League is just a rebranding of the Rugby League First Division, it was not plucked out of a tree in 1996, it had been around since 1973 as a divisional format and since 1895 as a league contest (with a couple of other ventures into divisions).

Pretty much what I was going to say. That's why I didn't get his point.

[sam4731]

19 minutes ago, Wellsy4HullFC said:

I'm not sure what point you're trying to make here?

That everything has to start somewhere.

16 minutes ago, Padge said:

Super League is just a rebranding of the Rugby League First Division, it was not plucked out of a tree in 1996, it had been around since 1973 as a divisional format and since 1895 as a league contest (with a couple of other ventures into divisions).

OK but the Grand Final as the event it is now, is relatively new and is extremely popular in such a short time span.

[DEANO]

Don’t you think playing each other up to 5 times a season is enough

[Padge]

44 minutes ago, sam4731 said:

That everything has to start somewhere.

OK but the Grand Final as the event it is now, is relatively new and is extremely popular in such a short time span.

It isn't, it was previously the Championship Final and then the Premiership Final and the venue for it became Old Trafford in 1987.  The change to Grand Final was again a marketing exercise and not inventing a new competition, just changing the emphasis.

Edited January 24 by Padge

[sam4731]

1 hour ago, Padge said:

It isn't, it was previously the Championship Final and then the Premiership Final and the venue for it became Old Trafford in 1987.  The change to Grand Final was again a marketing exercise and not inventing a new competition, just changing the emphasis.

The premiership final was not was not what the GF is now. The premiership final did not determine the champions.

[Padge]

13 minutes ago, sam4731 said:

The premiership final was not was not what the GF is now. The premiership final did not determine the champions.

My last four words were "just changing the emphasis", it is still an end of season play-off series as per the previous end of season play-offs. There was no change other than a marketing emphasis, it was still the same as it had been for years, the Grand Final was not a new competition, new name, new emphasis but not a new competition.

I presume you were born after 1990 and believe Rugby League was invented in 1996.

Edited January 24 by Padge

[Just Browny]

You could introduce new competitions without necessarily introducing loads of new fixtures.

For example, you could use the SL results* between Yorkshire teams over the course of a season to produce a Yorkshire mini-league, and then play a final between the top teams for the Yorkshire Cup as part of the next pre-season. Might add a bit more interest to pre-season games and doesn't mean try to squeeze lots more fixtures in.

 

 

 

*or maybe just the first home and away games between relevant clubs, and exclude loop fixtures

[Griff]

17 minutes ago, Just Browny said:

You could introduce new competitions without necessarily introducing loads of new fixtures.

For example, you could use the SL results* between Yorkshire teams over the course of a season to produce a Yorkshire mini-league, and then play a final between the top teams for the Yorkshire Cup as part of the next pre-season. Might add a bit more interest to pre-season games and doesn't mean try to squeeze lots more fixtures in.

 

 

 

*or maybe just the first home and away games between relevant clubs, and exclude loop fixtures

Seriously - no.

[up the robins]

Surly rather than creating a new cup competition still using the same teams you would see in loop fixtures is not the answer, the answer is and always has been expanding the league to 14 with a aim of eventually having 16 teams. 

Variety is the spice of life.

[M j M]

8 hours ago, Padge said:

My last four words were "just changing the emphasis", it is still an end of season play-off series as per the previous end of season play-offs. There was no change other than a marketing emphasis, it was still the same as it had been for years, the Grand Final was not a new competition, new name, new emphasis but not a new competition.

It was a lot more than just a change in "marketing emphasis". It was a change in substance and transformed the event. The Grand Final has a very different feel and level of importance compared to the old Premiership Finals Day.

[Griff]

9 hours ago, Padge said:

My last four words were "just changing the emphasis", it is still an end of season play-off series as per the previous end of season play-offs. There was no change other than a marketing emphasis, it was still the same as it had been for years, the Grand Final was not a new competition, new name, new emphasis but not a new competition.

I presume you were born after 1990 and believe Rugby League was invented in 1996.

There's been a post season play off competition of some kind for over 100 years. But to suggest that these competitions were much of a muchness is a stretch.

[gingerjon]

14 minutes ago, M j M said:

It was a lot more than just a change in "marketing emphasis". It was a change in substance and transformed the event. The Grand Final has a very different feel and level of importance compared to the old Premiership Finals Day.

Agreed.

The previous end of year series was a nice wind down after the crowning of a champion, the current actually crowns the champion.

It is not a change of emphasis. It is a change of purpose.

[Just Browny]

55 minutes ago, Griff said:

Seriously - no.

I don't care that much but why are you so opposed? I think my proposal involves organising pre-season games between Hull KR and Leeds and Wigan and Salford and handing a trophy to the winner.

Edited January 25 by Just Browny

[Griff]

32 minutes ago, Just Browny said:

I don't care that much but why are you so opposed? I think my proposal involves organising pre-season games between Hull KR and Leeds and Wigan and Salford and handing a trophy to the winner.

There are already too many games.

If clubs want to play a preseason game with a cup at stake, that's fine. There have been dozens of these over the years - Lazenby Cup, Eva Hardaker Trophy, South Yorkshire Cup for instance. Nobody takes them seriously. There are no open top bus rides for winning these.

But setting up some kind of qualification? Some "obligation" to play? Won't work. It'll be devalued the instant a team drops out, saying they'd prefer warm weather training in Portugal.

[Padge]

5 hours ago, Griff said:

There's been a post season play off competition of some kind for over 100 years. But to suggest that these competitions were much of a muchness is a stretch.

The Champions were first decided by an end of season play-off competition in the 1906/7 season. The top four at the end of the regular league season would enter a knockout play-off system and the winner of the final was declared champions.

Apart from breaks for wars and a failed attempt at two divisions in the early 1960s, the champions were decided by a play-off final. In 1938 Hunslet and Leeds made it to the final which was to be played at Wakefield, however the championship play-off was so popular and seen as the pinnacle that the match was moved to Elland Road to satisfy demand, the switch was justified with a record crowd of over 54,000 attending.

After the two division experiment failed the play-off system was reinstated to decide the champions but the play-offs were for the top 16 teams. This continued until 1973 when a divisional system was introduced and the championship winners were the end of season leaders of division 1. This system was used until 1998.

At the advent of the Grand Final the champions had been decide by a play-off more than twice the number of times it had been decided by being league leaders.

Using play-offs to decide the champions is an inherent feature of rugby league more so than it being by league leaders,

 

 

 

Edited January 25 by Padge

[sam4731]

19 minutes ago, Padge said:

The Champions were first decided by an end of season play-off competition in the 1906/7 season. The top four at the end of the regular league season would enter a knockout play-off system and the winner of the final was declared champions.

Apart from breaks for wars and a failed attempt at two divisions in the early 1960s, the champions were decided by a play-off final. In 1938 Hunslet and Leeds made it to the final which was to be played at Wakefield, however the championship play-off was so popular and seen as the pinnacle that the match was moved to Elland Road to satisfy demand, the switch was justified with a record crowd of over 54,000 attending.

After the two division experiment failed the play-off system was reinstated to decide the champions but the play-offs were for the top 16 teams. This continued until 1973 when a divisional system was introduced and the championship winners were the end of season leaders of division 1. This system was used until 1998.

At the advent of the Grand Final the champions had been decide by a play-off more than twice the number of times it had been decided by being league leaders.

Using play-offs to decide the champions is an inherent feature of rugby league more so than it being by league leaders,

 

 

 

But you have to take things for what they are. The Premier League is not the first division, the champions league is not the European cup and the GF is not the Championship final.

They may be the same thing remarketed but they have fundamentally changed what those events are.

They are successful because of what they now are, not what they once were.

[dkw]

Rather have a mid season 2 or 3 day RL festival for all teams in the pro ladder to be invited to.

7s or 9s competition(s) with international invite teams.

Lancs/yorks/Cumbria exhibition games.

Maybe even some amateur involvement. 

Do it in somewhere with multiple stadiums close by that can be used.

[Padge]

1 minute ago, sam4731 said:

But you have to take things for what they are. The Premier League is not the first division, the champions league is not the European cup and the GF is not the Championship final.

They may be the same thing remarketed but they have fundamentally changed what those events are.

They are successful because of what they now are, not what they once were.

Exactly the bit in bold. The Grand Final, is the championship play-off under a different title, we already had a play-off final being played at Old Trafford, no new competition was required, we never had the championship play-off and grand final. One just seamlessly became the other but re-packaged and retitled. In 1997 we had 3 senior domestic trophies, League, Challenge Cup and Play-Off champions and what we have now believe it or not are 3 senior domestic trophies. The only real change is the bit of tin that is picked up at the end of two of them. 

[sam4731]

42 minutes ago, Padge said:

Exactly the bit in bold. The Grand Final, is the championship play-off under a different title, we already had a play-off final being played at Old Trafford, no new competition was required, we never had the championship play-off and grand final. One just seamlessly became the other but re-packaged and retitled. In 1997 we had 3 senior domestic trophies, League, Challenge Cup and Play-Off champions and what we have now believe it or not are 3 senior domestic trophies. The only real change is the bit of tin that is picked up at the end of two of them. 

But you've just ignored what I said. I'm saying that I don't agree with that. You're massively downplaying the marketing element. It's OK to say it's just been remarketed but that is what's made the event what it is today.

[Sports Prophet]

My problem with loop fixtures (and I think it’s a major peeve for the majority of the loop fixture haters) is the lack of exclusivity any particular match up in a year may turn out to be.

Your tournament does nothing to change that. 

I’m sorry @sam4731, it’s a no from me.

[sam4731]

1 minute ago, Sports Prophet said:

My problem with loop fixtures (and I think it’s a major peeve for the majority of the loop fixture haters) is the lack of exclusivity any particular match up in a year may turn out to be.

Your tournament does nothing to change that. 

I’m sorry @sam4731, it’s a no from me.

Ok so the solution to that would be to expand SL but failing that, surely making the loop fixtures more meaningful is preferable.

[Griff]

2 hours ago, Padge said:

Using play-offs to decide the champions is an inherent feature of rugby league more so than it being by league leaders.

Thanks for the history lesson.  But you've failed to change my opinion.

[DEANO]

The league is flawed with loop fixtures so needs a play off to find a champion. That said you would really need a play off to get in the playoffs and a play off for relegation

[Griff]

54 minutes ago, DEANO said:

The league is flawed with loop fixtures so needs a play off to find a champion. That said you would really need a play off to get in the playoffs and a play off for relegation

A league competition is always going to be flawed, isn't it ?

To be completely fair, each team would have to play all the others with exactly the same players, all of whom are at the same level of fitness for every game, in the same weather conditions.  It's never going to happen.

[DEANO]

31 minutes ago, Griff said:

A league competition is always going to be flawed, isn't it ?

To be completely fair, each team would have to play all the others with exactly the same players, all of whom are at the same level of fitness for every game, in the same weather conditions.  It's never going to happen.

lol that’s no

 

33 minutes ago, Griff said:

A league competition is always going to be flawed, isn't it ?

To be completely fair, each team would have to play all the others with exactly the same players, all of whom are at the same level of fitness for every game, in the same weather conditions.  It's never going to happen.

 

33 minutes ago, Griff said:

A league competition is always going to be flawed, isn't it ?

To be completely fair, each team would have to play all the others with exactly the same players, all of whom are at the same level of fitness for every game, in the same weather conditions.  It's never going to happen.

Now that’s been silly that how sport works