Life below Super League

[Spidey]

Thought i'd set up a poll to see what people actually want below Super League

[HawkMan]

I'd have two equal divisions, but based on regional location. It's clear regionalisation has to start from the second tier. No cross divisional games until play offs. Last two standing contest the GF,  winner promoted if various suitability factors are achieved. Bottom of SL,and ONLY bottom club, relegated if Championship GF winner meets necessary SL standards. No keeping bottom team in because they've got a nice stadium or any other factor other than playing merit.

Edited August 17 by HawkMan

[FearNothing]

I've gone for the two divisions option as the least-worst option, the bit I'm not sure of is the grouped cup. Maybe if it involved changing the 1895 to home and away group games (I e. play teams in the group home & away) that may work, and if the groupings were reasonably fair. Expecting too much?

 

Oh, and to still have a team, of course....

Edited August 17 by FearNothing

[Spidey]

2 hours ago, FearNothing said:

I've gone for the two divisions option as the least-worst option, the bit I'm not sure of is the grouped cup. Maybe if it involved changing the 1895 to home and away group games (I e. play teams in the group home & away) that may work, and if the groupings were reasonably fair. Expecting too much?

 

Oh, and to still have a team, of course....

Yeah id have the cup to be home & away in the group stage

[Prince]

2 regionalised conferences to save costs on travel for teams and supporters. 
inter division playoff at the end of season.

Equal central funding to help level up quality across teams.

Founder clubs to receive 10 point start in each game.

[Griff]

Given the criticism of this season's biow out scores, why the sudden enthusiasm for regionalised conferences?

It's a genuine question.

[Anita Bath]

18 hours ago, HawkMan said:

I'd have two equal divisions, but based on regional location. It's clear regionalisation has to start from the second tier. No cross divisional games until play offs. Last two standing contest the GF,  winner promoted if various suitability factors are achieved. Bottom of SL,and ONLY bottom club, relegated if Championship GF winner meets necessary SL standards. No keeping bottom team in because they've got a nice stadium or any other factor other than playing merit.

Ok suppose a Yorkshire team wins the play offs and meet criteria for promotion to SL replacing say a team from Lancashire. That would mean uneven regional divisions…so would we move a Lancashire team to the Yorkshire division and if so how would we choose which one?

[gingerjon]

1 hour ago, Anita Bath said:

Ok suppose a Yorkshire team wins the play offs and meet criteria for promotion to SL replacing say a team from Lancashire. That would mean uneven regional divisions…so would we move a Lancashire team to the Yorkshire division and if so how would we choose which one?

Football solves this issue in multiple leagues and divisions every year.

For a start, with teams from (for this season, next - who knows?) London, Cumbria, Wales, the Midlands and Tyneside involved, you don't call your conferences Yorkshire and Lancashire.

[HawkMan]

3 hours ago, Anita Bath said:

Ok suppose a Yorkshire team wins the play offs and meet criteria for promotion to SL replacing say a team from Lancashire. That would mean uneven regional divisions…so would we move a Lancashire team to the Yorkshire division and if so how would we choose which one?

The Conferences would be titled geographically,  East / West etc.

So if you have an imbalance you move the most westerly in the East Conference to the west or vice versa to balance things up.

As GJ says this happens almost every season in football.  Four teams are relegated from National League to League North or South,  and teams can shift between North and South Leagues depending on whether there's an imbalance of North and South teams being relegated.

[Griff]

17 minutes ago, HawkMan said:

So if you have an imbalance you move the most westerly in the East Conference to the west or vice versa to balance things up.

 

For many years, Rugby League had Yorkshire and Lancashire leagues. There were 16 clubs on the right side of the hill and 14 on the wrong side. To equalise these, one club had to play in the Lancashire league.  Apart from the extra traveling involved, they lost many fixtures against local rivals. It's always the teams near the geographical boundary who are affected most badly. Halifax got financially stuffed by this year after year.

I'd be dead against any geographical split.

Edited August 18 by Griff

[Tommygilf]

15 minutes ago, Griff said:

For many years, Rugby League had Yorkshire and Lancashire leagues. There were 16 clubs on the right side of the hill and 14 on the wrong side. To equalise these, one club had to play in the Lancashire league.  Apart from the extra traveling involved, they lost many fixtures against local rivals. It's always the teams near the geographical boundary who are affected most badly. Halifax got financially stuffed by this year after year.

I'd be dead against any geographical split.

This is the problem though. If you're issue is that the teams you are against aren't in the North thats not great for a national comp. If your issue is that none of the teams are in the West subdivision of your county, that really is a bigger issue about the standards and levels. It really calls into question whether this sort of organisation should be having any say over the national direction of the game.

[Blind side johnny]

35 minutes ago, Griff said:

For many years, Rugby League had Yorkshire and Lancashire leagues. There were 16 clubs on the right side of the hill and 14 on the wrong side. To equalise these, one club had to play in the Lancashire league.  Apart from the extra traveling involved, they lost many fixtures against local rivals. It's always the teams near the geographical boundary who are affected most badly. Halifax got financially stuffed by this year after year.

I'd be dead against any geographical split.

It didn't work quite that way though as, in some seasons, there were also occasional "inter league" games. In addition, for most seasons there weren't actually two league tables, only one. Not forgetting the confusion that clubs from Westmorland/Cumberland caused.  

[Griff]

1 hour ago, Tommygilf said:

This is the problem though. If you're issue is that the teams you are against aren't in the North thats not great for a national comp. If your issue is that none of the teams are in the West subdivision of your county, that really is a bigger issue about the standards and levels. It really calls into question whether this sort of organisation should be having any say over the national direction of the game.

The point I was making was that the burden was not being shared.

Geography doesn't make much difference to the outliers.  The away trips are all long, the home games are poorly attended by away fans.

[Griff]

54 minutes ago, Blind side johnny said:

It didn't work quite that way though as, in some seasons, there were also occasional "inter league" games. In addition, for most seasons there weren't actually two league tables, only one. Not forgetting the confusion that clubs from Westmorland/Cumberland caused.  

The 34 game season was made up of 28 county league games and three cross-county opponents, home and away. You didn't play the other twelve clubs at all.  There were three league tables, Yorkshire League, Lancashire League and Northern League.

Teams from Westmorland were before my time.

[Tommygilf]

1 hour ago, Griff said:

The point I was making was that the burden was not being shared.

Geography doesn't make much difference to the outliers.  The away trips are all long, the home games are poorly attended by away fans.

Why is it a burden and why should it be shared?

If the answer is, this isn't very cost effective for clubs, given the still small travel distances of said "burden", then its legitimate to question what the level of competition is.

[Joe Aitcheson]

2 hours ago, Blind side johnny said:

It didn't work quite that way though as, in some seasons, there were also occasional "inter league" games. In addition, for most seasons there weren't actually two league tables, only one. Not forgetting the confusion that clubs from Westmorland/Cumberland caused.  

What confusion? And what clubs from Westmorland?

[Griff]

13 minutes ago, Joe Aitcheson said:

What confusion? And what clubs from Westmorland?

Kendal Hornets.

[Griff]

23 minutes ago, Tommygilf said:

Why is it a burden and why should it be shared?

 

  You think we should just pick on one club then?

[Tommygilf]

4 minutes ago, Griff said:

  You think we should just pick on one club then?

No.

[Griff]

Just now, Tommygilf said:

No.

Tommy, at admin level, of course we should even out financial matters as much as we can.  Whilst clubs have their own interests at heart - possibly more than they should - they do recognise that they need opponents or there's no game at all.

[up the robins]

Two leagues with promotion and relegation with minimum standards to help push clubs to keep on top of facilities.

Would also like to see more help given to help new teams in potential growth areas, things like development officers going into schools giving them equipment and help with the amateur set ups in the area.  

We have had interest in new areas like Cornwall,Midlands,Wales and Newcastle but as a sport we don't try to help development in the areas and often treat the teams as a inconvenience for travelling too and from. 

Any new investment at the top of the sport should be filtered down for growth of the sport.

The promotion relegation will allow teams to develop with clear achievable objectives.

[Tommygilf]

8 minutes ago, Griff said:

Tommy, at admin level, of course we should even out financial matters as much as we can.  Whilst clubs have their own interests at heart - possibly more than they should - they do recognise that they need opponents or there's no game at all.

Absolutely.

Its appropriate also to ask what level that is operating at, and where that should fit into the pyramid.

[Griff]

18 minutes ago, Tommygilf said:

Absolutely.

Its appropriate also to ask what level that is operating at, and where that should fit into the pyramid.

We don't have a pyramid.

[Tommygilf]

12 minutes ago, Griff said:

We don't have a pyramid.

There's the problem

[Griff]

Just now, Tommygilf said:

There's the problem

It's not going to change so we have to live with it.