They could up the ante a little by awarding 3 points for a win in the super 8s. This would at least prolong the illusion that 8th could become 4th.

The point is that this system exacerbates that.

It's all very well saying that team needed to perform better, but every game that team wins is a game another team loses. It's only a few specific run of results that can possibly produce a situation that keeps it competitive.

We have extended the length of the competition but for the majority of teams the majority of times the majority of those games are dead rubbers.

It's not the majority of teams which have deadrubber games, the majority of games in the S8s mean something. The only games which are deadrubber games are the ones played between teams who can't mathematically make the top 4 (eg Widnes vs Wakefield this season) and even they still have pride and finishing position to play for. Games such as Hull vs Wakefield in the S8s are far from being dead rubber for one of the teams (had Wakefield won then Warrington would have been awarded the LLS a week earlier).

The teams who find themselves in the middle 8 need to concentrate for all of their games so they have no deadrubber games. Roughly 10% of all the games during the super 8s this year had less meaning, I don't think that's too bad

From the point of view if Wakefield and Widnes all their games were dead rubbers and as we went on Cas and then Les Catalans were realistically out of the race, pretty early too. We had 8 teams playing a round Robin so 4 of them could decide who played at home. The season ended with 20 points between 4th and 8th and 9pts between 4th and 5th.

Meanwhile in 'progressive school sports day land' where there are no losers and little consequence for performance and no ones feelings get hurt, everything is absolutely fine I think that the majority would soon tire of that particular type of dead rubber if they had to put up with it week in week out?

Of course you know this

What on earth are you talking about?

I think you should ask yourself the same question from time to time it was you that stretched the thread Super 8's to relegation from Championship 1 and potential oblivion

FWIW it was trying to make some sense of your 'for every winner there is a loser' piece of wisdom/dead rubber argument so I will leave it there thanks on the understanding that my initial point was meant to reflect that I was pleased that Leigh had the opportunity of getting promoted after putting in a bit of effort over a number of years and also a fair minded post from a KR fan saying pretty much the same thing

At the risk of (but who cares) repeating what I have touted over & over ....

There are too many games in a SL Season & not enough Internationals, therefore to alleviate this issue & avoid the potential of rewarding a season of mediocrity with a Grand Final, this should happen ....

Top 4 go straight to Semi-Finals, P1 v P4 & P2 v P3.
Winners to GF.

Middle 4 play in the Dead Rubber Cup P5 v P8 & P6 v P7
Winners play curtain raiser for GF in the Blue Peter Sticky Back Plastic Shield.

Bottom 4 Join Top 4 Championship for Q8's as now but with no MPG
P9 > P12 Qualify.

Overall, a reduction of games & create a space for an extra International & training camp.

Quite amazing that they don't have any ' dead rubber ' games in the NRL

I didn't make some philosophical argument regarding the nature of winning. It is a mathematical argument about the inherently rare set of results which can produce a competitive super 8s.

Did the NRL introduce a convoluted structure with competitive unfairness with the aim of minimizing dead rubbers?

The Super 8s are as they were described by an SL chairman earlier this year, a commercial disaster without any merits at all.

Of course a Super League chairman said that, he doesn't want to loose access to his precious old boys club that is SL.
Several years of franchising resulting in more and more "dead rubbers" year after year. How many season did Wakefield, Hull KR etc have nothing to play for after August ?

Are you really so arrogant that you think teams shouldn't have to justify their place in the elite league?

I'll apologise for giving you some credit that you didn't perhaps deserve then if that is the case and for those outside the top four last year please try and win more games next season as it might just make the whole season more interesting

If you are going to patronise, make sure you understand the point first. Otherwise you will end up looking stupid. Because had you understood, you would be aware that what you are asking for can only happen in a very rare set of circumstances. Which is the point that was made. Which you missed. Which was then explained to you. Which you missed again.

I don't believe that 'having something to play for' through some convoluted, manufactured, 'jeopardy' helps anyone. It is a lazy and failing substitute for actually doing the hard work necessary to build the game.

I think everyone should justify their place in the elite league, in a wide range of areas.

Relying on the bounce of a ball to decide which clubs make SL has left us with the team which is promoted not bothering to run their own academy, the team which was relegated not bothering to run their own academy, the team which survived the million pound game not bothering to run their own academy. And of the 4 clubs from the lower league making the middle 8s last year, one is in administration right now, the other has been surviving on handouts and begging bowls all year, and the other is in so much financial strife it has needed to ask its players to all take a pay cut.
It also left us with 2 of our 3 pro/semipro leagues as absolute walkovers which saw the teams who finished first in league 1 and the championship lose a grand total of 1 game between them in the regular season.

What rare set of circumstances ?

You don't half talk some complete bolloxs , you do realise everybody just thinks you're a muppet

Declaring for every winner there is a loser like its some insightful statement nobody had realised beforehand

Try googling ' competitive unfairness ' ? Another Smokey bull5hit invention

Then again at least you give us all a laugh

a competitive 8's. If you weren't (pretending to be) stupid, you would know that.

No a competitive 8 s is the aim , not the rare set of circumstances , all that is is the clubs down to 8 th after 23 games to be closer , which is down to the clubs players and coaches

Anyway you've entertained enough today I'll leave it there

No, it isn't down to the clubs, players, or coaches. Its down to maths. Only a rare set of circumstances can produce a competitive 8s. Even if every team is the best in the world. Even if you imported this system to the NRL. Even if every team was exactly evenly matched and results were decided randomly. There are only so many points to distribute and only a few set of results can distribute them evenly.

Everyone that appears to have a view contrary to yours is stupid or pretending to be or have I missed something again

This rare set of circumstances and just so I don't miss what you are trying to say and look stupid, are you saying that the only way that the system can be deemed to be a success in your eyes is for every team to be in with a shout on day of the final round so that there are no dead rubbers?

If a system was put in place with the expressed aim of minimising dead rubbers, only to fail to fail to do that then yes. Like this one, it would be a failure.

This system is the worse one I have ever known in rugby league all the time I have been watching it and that's 55+years 1 up and 1 down is the answer not this pile of crap