Re: What does Leeds' victory mean for the regular season? : Sun Oct 07, 2012 1:30 pm  

BoxerTom wrote:

I think the team finishing top are the League Champions and the team winning at Old Trafford are the Grand Final winners.

The League season provides you with an opportunity to finish in the top 8 and entry into the most exclusive Cup competition in Rugby League but it should not determine who is recognised as League Champions.

I totally agree . Even as a Rhinos fan I really can't , in all honesty, agree that we have the right to be called champions after finishing in 5th (again). I will however accept the title because that is the rules .

Re: What does Leeds' victory mean for the regular season? : Sun Oct 07, 2012 1:38 pm  

I really don't get how anyone could be complaining about playoffs to decide the champions after watching both semi finals and the game last night. Three high intensity games with the added drama of all of the teams playing for their seasons. It's a fantastic way of ending the year. Being champions is as much about being able to hold your nerve against the best teams in season on the line rugby as it is being able to consistently beat the weaker teams.

I personally would rather go back to the old top 5 playoff system as teams would have to go all out every game, whether to make the 5 or to hold their place within the 5 in order to maximise their chances of getting to Old Trafford, but if we really have to have an 8 team playoff than it should look like this.

Week 1

qualifying playoffs
1st v 4th
2nd v 3rd
elimination playoffs
5th v 8th
6th v 7th

Week 2

elimination semifinals
highest qual po loser v lowest elim po winner
lowest qual po loser v highest elim po winner

Week 3

qualifying final
highest qual po winner v lowest qual po winner
elimination final
highest elim sf winner v lowest elim sf winner

Week 4
preliminary final
loser qualifying final v winner elimination final

Grand Final
winner qualifying final v winner preliminary final

Re: What does Leeds' victory mean for the regular season? : Sun Oct 07, 2012 1:48 pm  

SmokeyTA wrote:

Wigan had a Week off, and faced a Leeds side which had just come back from a bruising encounter in the south of france. To be crowned champions Leeds had to beat 8th, 4th, 1st and 2nd. For Wigan to win it they would have only needed too 4th, 5th and 2nd. Realistically, how much more of an advantage do they want?

If anything would remove the integrity of the competition it would be to make the play-offs a procession, with advantages so weighted in the favour of the top team it becomes pointless playing, The main thrust of the Wigan argument is that the play-offs arent 'fair' or 'rewarding' for the teams finishing top 2, because by the time Leeds met Wigan, Leeds werent so busted up by other teams that is was a walkover for Wigan and they had to face a Leeds team who were better than them.

If Wigan cant beat a Leeds side, when they have home advantage, when Leeds were missing Danny Mcguire, when Leeds were coming off the back of a game away in france, when Wigan were coming off a week off, when Leeds had already played in the 3 more matches that year than Wigan, a WCC, a CC final, and an away play off in france, because Wigan didnt have 'enough of an advantage' then they arent a champion side.

Wait, did you just try to factor in CC matches and the WCC into an argument about the title of Super League Champions?

Re: What does Leeds' victory mean for the regular season? : Sun Oct 07, 2012 2:14 pm  

Red Red Robin wrote:

I really don't get how anyone could be complaining about playoffs to decide the champions after watching both semi finals and the game last night. Three high intensity games with the added drama of all of the teams playing for their seasons. It's a fantastic way of ending the year. Being champions is as much about being able to hold your nerve against the best teams in season on the line rugby as it is being able to consistently beat the weaker teams.

That's the thing though, in the current format being Champions isn't "as much" about winning the big playoff games as it is about consistency, it's much more.

I personally would rather go back to the old top 5 playoff system as teams would have to go all out every game, whether to make the 5 or to hold their place within the 5 in order to maximise their chances of getting to Old Trafford, but if we really have to have an 8 team playoff than it should look like this.

Week 1

qualifying playoffs
1st v 4th
2nd v 3rd
elimination playoffs
5th v 8th
6th v 7th

Week 2

elimination semifinals
highest qual po loser v lowest elim po winner
lowest qual po loser v highest elim po winner

Week 3

qualifying final
highest qual po winner v lowest qual po winner
elimination final
highest elim sf winner v lowest elim sf winner

Week 4
preliminary final
loser qualifying final v winner elimination final

Grand Final
winner qualifying final v winner preliminary final

I think that's exactly the type of convoluted system we need to drop tbh. Seriously, what is wrong with 1v8, 2v7, 3v6, 4v5 straight knockout with home advantage always going to the highest placed side. That way the biggest advantage goes to the side finishing top, with that advantage decreasing in increments the lower down the table you finish.

Re: What does Leeds' victory mean for the regular season? : Sun Oct 07, 2012 2:28 pm  

Does anyone know the financial incentives involved? E.g. In Premiership football finishing a position higher can mean hundreds of thousands of pounds extra. Is there something similar in Super League? They must divvy up the Stobart money somehow.

Also don't players get paid for a win?

Re: What does Leeds' victory mean for the regular season? : Sun Oct 07, 2012 2:57 pm  

TheElectricGlidingWarrior wrote:

Wait, did you just try to factor in CC matches and the WCC into an argument about the title of Super League Champions?

No, i was pointing out how pathetic it was to try and pretend Leeds had it easy and Wigan didnt have the odds stacked in their favour enough already.

But we get it, you want more of an advantage because you couldnt beat Leeds.

Why not the team finishing 1st gets 15 men on the field, 2nd gets 14 and everyone else stays with 13?
Or 1st can get an 8 point head start in every game and 2nd 6?

Like it or not, right now, and traditionally, Rugby League has found its champions as not only those able to be consistent, but those able to stand the bright lights of the heavyweight showdown, its not just being consistent enough to rack up the points , not only about keeping your motivation whilst facing the lesser lights in midseason, but about standing up when the stakes get higher and the hits get bigger, Wigan were sized up, weighed, measured and found wanting, they lost because they were the inferior team. Whatever format the play-offs take is irrelevant, if Wigan were the better side, they would have won. They werent, so they didnt, so they didnt win the competition, so they arent champions.

Its not complicated or unfair, it just doesnt fit with your narrative that Wigan are the bestests ever.

Re: What does Leeds' victory mean for the regular season? : Sun Oct 07, 2012 3:08 pm  

TheElectricGlidingWarrior wrote:

Wait, did you just try to factor in CC matches and the WCC into an argument about the title of Super League Champions?

Mate, if anyone is it's the sour graped obsessed wiganer

Your not champions, get over it !!!!

Re: What does Leeds' victory mean for the regular season? : Sun Oct 07, 2012 3:17 pm  

As a supporter of a club that comfortably manages to make the play offs i find the weekly rounds very dull, lacking in intensity. I'm sure the teams that are fighting to make the play offs have a much more exciting season.

Re: What does Leeds' victory mean for the regular season? : Sun Oct 07, 2012 3:21 pm  

This is NOT a dig a Leeds - they've played the format perfectly, turned it on in the last month and played some outstanding RL, especially in defence.

But - the current system is badly flawed. No-one can doubt the two best sides over the season were Wigan and Warrington, yet to all intents and purposes they finish with nothing. A side that loses 11 games and scrapes into 5th place on points difference should not be labelled 'champions' of the entire 2012 competition when all they've done is win short knock-out competition. But our current format says otherwise and bafflingly, Leeds will go down as 2012 Champions.

Top 8 is too much. The theory was sound (bottom clubs fighting for a place), but what actually happens is too many teams know they'll be in the top 8 whatever happens, and after a few months, a few more teams that are comfortably in the pack. Too many meaningless games. A top 4 or 5 system means more teams fighting it out to get into the play-offs, rather than merely maintaining their position in them.

Yes, the poorest teams are left playing for nothing, but that's what happens in sports leagues, and is perhaps an argument for reintroducing relegation, or a relegation play-off against the Championship winners. Motivation at both ends of the competition.

Further, putting the league winners straight into the final is additional motivation to fight for top spot, with 3-4 teams left to fight it out in a couple of play-offs. Would Wire have rested so many against London if top spot meant an automatic trip to Old Trafford? Teams should not be offered the opportunity to put out sub-strength teams and the fact it happens is testament to the lack of intensity in the fight for league position.

Anyway, well done Leeds, you played it perfectly and got your momentum going at the right time. The spirit in the camp was plain to see.

Re: What does Leeds' victory mean for the regular season? : Sun Oct 07, 2012 3:22 pm  

RLBandit wrote:

First up, we can take nothing away from Leeds, who won the competetition according to the rules it was set up by.

Whether the competetion is set up correctly is another matter, and I'm pretty sure it's not, for the following reason:

RLs biggest challenge is, as it always has been in my living memory, media attention. From which follows sponsors, more fans, growth. The fact that we face clear bias isn't an excuse, as some suggest, to forget about it and accept defeat, rather it just increases the scale of the challenge in getting RL somewhere near the profile it deserves.

Here's the thing - its very hard to get attention without a steady stream of important games to keep interest up. If we only have one or two important games per year, no big media outlet will retain an RL reporter and even on the one day a year when League gets in the mainstream news, the fact that there's been no stories for a year means that people outside the game don't even know who the players are. It's like if I suddenly read a big piece about UK basketball's grand final ( presumably there is one ).

The most pressing thing RL's marketing needs to look at, is how to keep steady attention throughout a season. In this respect, a "Champions League", between the top fours of the NRL and SL, with group stages ( playing your two overseas away games in one trip, but otherwise fixtures spread out over months as in soccer) would be excellent.

Sadly, I think that's dreamland stuff. However in the mean time, the last thing we can afford is for the regular season to be reduced in importance. It's media suicide. Leeds have now twice in a row exposed the problem. Maybe its just end of season blues, but being honest I can't say I'm that enthusiastic about the new season...you see your team start to build what looks like an excellent playing unit, but those League points you get from a win don't matter all that much.

Gary Hetherington has said something similar to this, I would love it to happen.