Dewsbury did win it from 8th in 1972-73. That year it was top 16 straight knock out play-offs.

There's all sort of systems we could adopt, and when RL realises that none of them is a silver bullet, maybe we'll stop trying to test them all, and stick with one for a while.

It does often come down to the bounce of a ball. That is the joy and pain of following a team. This isn't professional wrestling - sometimes the outcomes might not be optimal for the next sponsorship deal, or TV rights. But if you try to manipulate outcomes to remove uncertainty, you destroy what makes sport a compelling spectacle.

The problem, potentially and IMO, is that the RFL doesn't seem to have the stomach for negative consequences. To the point that they don't even like to think about them in advance ('no but seriously, what if a club like, I dunno - Bradford, just as a crazy example - ran into financial difficulties?'). And every choice is a sacrifice. One year, I dunno - Saints, just as a crazy example - will finish 9th [uand[/u lose a couple of games in the 8s, imperilling their SL status. Then we'll most likely have another change in the interests of 'fairness', and managing Eddie's concerns that things are not as they should be.

I enjoy the Super 8's concept. It means the top 8 SL teams have a lot more competitive games at the back end of the season. Yes.......a few games may be 'dead rubber' but those games still influence how the top 4 looks? For example, Wakey finish 8th, no chance of getting Top, yet could beat Wigan which means Wigan cannot now get top spot? So they all have an effect.

Middle 8's is probably the best thing to happen in a long time. Automatic P and R does not work. A team coming up could never hope to compete in SL. This system allows Championship clubs to build and maintain a good squad. It means they have to beat SL sides in order to get to SL. Which for me is key. The SL sides are supposed to be better so they come into this competition as favourites which has been proven right over the past 2 years.

MPG game is great for the sport. If you finish 9th in SL and end up 4th or 5th in the Super 8's, tough luck. Only yourselves to blame. For the Champ clubs it's a great opportunity to get promoted. People have been wanting promotion and relegation back ever since it was discontinued. It happens in pretty much every sport. Except this is a second chance saloon, without the MPG Salford would be relegated. They took their chance in a dramatic finale.

As the supporter of a team who dominated SL and won 3 World Club Challenges nigh on 10 years ago, it breaks my heart to see us where we are. But that is part and parcel of the game. We don't deserve to be in SL, we didn't take our chance in 2015. We murdered Salford but then lost to Halifax?? That sort of consistency isn't worthy of an SL place. And we also didn't take our second chance in the MPG either.

In regards to people inquiring about relegation from League 1 and promotion from NCL, my opinion is that no semi pro/pro club should be relegated to the amatuer leagues......come on, that just doesn't make sense? However if a top NCL team decided they wanted a crack at being semi pro then they should have to win the NCL Premier Division for 2 seasons in a row and then have a season in League 1 to see if they can compete. That way there is a pathway from NCL up and it helps to grow the game.

I really like the Super 8's concept.

Yes, there are dead rubbers at the end of the season, but so what? That happens in pretty much every league structure in the world, there will always be teams that year who are not good enough to challenge, but too good to go down. Look at the EPL; Stoke, Everton, Southampton fall into this category this season, no danger of going down, but they won't make the Champions League either.

The only way to combat the dead rubbers is to reward mediocrity in some way, usually via an extended playoffs. Granting the 8th placed team a playoff spot like we saw in previous years is a joke.


Another joke is the way Smokey attributes falling crowds and other negative aspects he's put forward, directly to the Super 8's concept, whilst taking into account no other variables or outside factors. We get it smokey, you were for franchising, but it was fkn boring.

I didn't choose these metrics of success. These where the justifications for this system. Why wouldn't we judge the system on its stated aims, objectives and justifications?

The man/woman has a point

Not really.

If when measuring the success on those aims and objectives the only changing variable was the league structure, then they'd have a point.

But, it's not as simple as that. There are many other factors and variables at play which will effect those measures.


Crowds for instance, you have to factor in competition for peoples time & money, ticket prices, the teams involved, the day and time of kick off, the quality of players involved, whether it's on Sky etc etc. Even if you just isolated one fixture, it'd be nigh on impossible to attribute any crowd movement to any one variable.

Youth Development - is the closure of a couple of academies due to the league structure, or due to the player pool available at local amateur clubs? Has the non-fed/quota going up had an effect? Are the coaches at local clubs not up to scratch? When did the quality/quantity of talent start to diminish, or was it overnight when the league structure was changed?

Facilities - utter nonsense from Smokey, and nothing to back it up. Hull FC have invested heavily in facilities for 2017 for example.

Save the lower leagues - again, there's no basis to attribute the situations at Bradford or York to the new league structure, but a fair amount of blame can be thrown at the owners/directors of those clubs.

"playing standards and intensity at an all-time low" - subjective and there's nothing for smokey to measure against. Even so, did this suddenly happen with the structure change overnight or was it setting in way before that? Does it have anything to do with salary caps and money available in the NRL/.Union? No, surely not.


What you have to remember when reading one of smokey's posts about the Super 8's structure, is that they were a massive supporter of the franchise system, and are coming at the argument with a very one-eyed view and see it in either black or white vs seeing the bigger picture.

No, but you've interpreted them, and your interpretation is neither definitive or even, IMO, sensible.



Firstly I don't recall many of these justifications - at least I don't remember them being presented as absolute and guarantees of an glorious upsurge in fantasticness. And I think I would have remembered laughing that hard.

Then, y'know... realism.

Even if you take 'every minute matters' literally, reading at as written rather than intended, what 'matters' is a subjective judgement.

When I was critical of licensing for abandoning its most fundamental and basic tenets, you were quick to defend despite that. Now you're upset over a little bit of spin?

I mean, if they'd actually launched it with '1 up, 1 down was a very hit and miss, and licensing as we implemented it was an abysmal and embarrassing failure, so we've scratched around for something new, and this is what we've come up with. It's a bit complicated, but apart from that it should be just about alright.', there may have been complaints the sport was underselling itself.

Why be so stringent with NCL sides applying to League 1? There's no need for them to be the best NCL side, as the best may have no ambition of ever playing in League 1 due to off-field factors. IMO any NCL Premier side is already good enough to finish in the top half of League 1, even before you give them the ability to attract better players by being allowed to pay them. See this year's challenge cup for prime examples of this:

Featherstone Lions finished 4/12 in NCL Division 1, beat South Wales Scorpions who finished 13/15 in League 1.
Castleford Lock Lane finished 11/12 in NCL Prem, beat Oxford who finished 14/15 in League 1.
Pilkington Recs finished 8/12 in NCL Prem, beat London Skolars who finished 8/15 in League 1.
Kells finished 7/12 in NCL Prem, beat Hemel who finished 15/15 in League 1.
Siddal finished 1/12 in NCL Prem, beat Newcastle who finished 9/15 in League 1.

The question is, what happens then, do you expand League 1 to 17? Split into two Leagues? If you get rid of a team, who goes? The bottom half of the table is made up of expansion teams. It wouldn't seem just to get rid of the lowest finishing heartlands team - in this case Hunslet Hawks, who finished 7/15 with an overall winning record.

Your argument relies on these metrics being vague and subjective and it being my interpretation and opinion of them falling to meet them. But your argument is wrong these aims and objectives were specific and set down. The RFL'S aims and objectives for the new system was for it to provide SL with attendances of a set figure over 1 5m. It failed to meet these it then aimed for 5% growth per year from last season up to 2021. Instead of 5% growth we got a 1% fall. It aimed for 10 sell outs in 2015. It failed. It also aimed for an increase of 5 per year. Meaning we should have had 15 sold out games last year. It failed. The RFL did say the new system would improve intensity and quality. Whilst a subjective opinion I don't think we have seen many people claiming that. The RFL did claim we would see an increase in the pro youth player pool. We have seen it shrink. The RFL did claim it would secure the lower leagues and clubs are going bust at a crazy rate. The RFL did aim for an increase in visibility. It just hasn't happened.

These metrics are all measurable. They are definitive not because they are mine but because they are the RFL'S.

Your argument is akin to buying a second hand car and being told it can do 0-60 in 3seconds it only has 15k on the clock, it has electric windows and air con, then finding out it has none of these things and the salesman saying 'well you shouldn't judge it on these metrics, your interpretation of them isn't definitive'.

If not these metrics. What metrics do we judge the system by?

It was just an off the top of my head idea when I was typing pal! I'm all for your suggestion. I guess I still had franchising on the brain

But yeah if any NCL Premier team wanted a crack there should be a process at least to make sure they are viable to do it first. It would be nice to see an NCL team have a crack at League 1! They would receive a bit of money for it too like.

Is the change in league structure the ONLY variable affecting your "measurements"?

Have you done any of these "measurements" based on every other factor, except the league structure change, being exactly the same?

Or, have you rather simplistically looked at before and now, applied your massive bias towards the franchise system and against the RFL, and arrived at a conclusion that the Super 8's system is solely responsible?


Plus, an "aim" is aspirational, it's setting targets. You're daft analogy about buying a second hand car and not receiving what was promised makes no sense in this context.

It doesn't matter if there are other variables. This isn't a claim of cause and effect. Your excuses are irrelevant. The system has failed to do what was promised.

Gotta love narrow mindedness





There are ALWAYS variables and outside factors.

There we go.

If you had managed to struggle to the next sentence you would understand why.

Not really, you first called them "aims & objectives", now they're "promises".

No there aren't. Binary tests and classifications are pretty simple and common.

that's not the next sentence.

Is it better or at least as good as sensible alternatives?

[uOverall[/u, I think it possibly is. Bordering on probably.

define better. And also define your independent baseline. And define your metrics for measuring all sensible alternatives, and also how you can compare ones which operated in different circumstances or may never have happened? Seems like a recipe for obfuscation to be honest


The simplest question is, what does success look like? Surely it is right to expect that before making this change we knew what success looked like. The RFL have told us what success looks like but apparently it is wrong to use that as a benchmark for success despite that being it's literal purpose.

So I'll ask you. What does success look like? You think the change has been a success. What results since the change look like success to you?

I like the 8's format, having seen both the top and middle 8's + involved in MPG as a Wakey fan.

The middle 8's are great, with the ultimate sanction hanging over your club as a punishment for not making the top 8. Each game was vital and a nice change of pace to be a favourite in a few games, as well as getting to play some in form clubs from the league below.

The 2015 MPG caused me a sleepless night the night before, a morning of wondering if we were finished and a game that was only decided on the hooter... and I loved it. The relief and joy was like a cup final (but arguably more important), something that us smaller teams don't get to experience that often.

Obviously I realise that had we lost, I would have been gutted but that's sport and I have come to terms with Wakey probably being relegated many times over the years.

We didn't win a single game in Top 8's, which was disappointing but didn't overly bother me, because we had achieved our objectives for the season. Now we have had chance to build a squad nice and early and I'll be disappointed if we don't make the top 8 again this season.

Success for a system of selecting fixtures for a league competition?

1. Be balanced and fair. Excepting the magic weekend which we had under previous systems, this system more or less meets that criterion (now the cap is better aligned between divisions).
2. Be clear and understandable. Bit of a weakness - it is a bit contrived. But not a [umassive[/u problem, IMO.

That's pretty much it.

I don't have a problem with 1 up, 1 down. I wouldn't have a problem with a fair and honest licensing system. Nor would I expect either to deliver what you regard as success, by themselves. Out of interest would you? Is there a system that you think could do all the things you mention? Or do you accept that success as you define it is unachievable with only adjustments to how fixtures are structured? If the latter, would you also then accept that it isn't a very meaningful way of assessing this or any other system.

Yet even if we judge the system purely on the very limited merits you choose. Even if we ask nothing more of our structure than provide a balanced and fair, clear and understandable selection of fixtures, this system manages to fail terribly. It offers different amount of home and away fixtures for different teams, it weights different fixtures differently (as Hull KR learned last year) and creates uncertainty over when, where and who against a quarter of the fixtures will be played.

Your arguments have been that we should judge this system on it providing a fair and balanced, clear and understandable process for selection fixtures, and we should judge its success in relation to other alternatives. You cannot seriously be arguing here that the fixtures are fairer and more balanced, clearer and more understandable than the systems we have had before or others we could have?

I accept entirely and would argue strongly that success for the game is unachievable down to solely a change in fixtures. It is crazy to expect that. An argument that the structure in and of itself will create success is entirely idiotic. Yet the argument was that 'jeopardy' would do exactly that. That it would be 'jeopardy' that would drive attendances, 'jeopardy' that would drive intensity and improvement, 'jeopardy' which would be the catalyst for growth in SL and in the championship. 'jeopardy' deliberately manufactured by this system. If we accept that 'jeopardy' and the convoluted system introduced to manufacture it cannot do this and in fact is so irrelevant to this it isn't a meaningful way of assessing it. Then what justification can there possibly be for introducing a competitively unfair, poorly balanced, convoluted system which introduces uncertainty which cannot be addressed until the very last moment in to the absolute basic function of a system for selecting fixtures for a league competition i.e the when, where and who of the fixtures.

Finally, took you a while though.

I haven't at any stage argued any system would do this. Perhaps if you improved your ability to read past the first sentence of a post you would know this.