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

One up and one down is definitely NOT the answer.

I must be stupid because I don't follow what you are saying, can you clarify why this system in place for two seasons so limited data is a failure, is it to be judged in your eyes on minimising or eradicating dead rubbers (my earlier question)?

It seems so.

It's a strange one.
I watched the original million pound game back again last week (Wakey/ Cas) and during the commentary and after the match, Stevo and his pals in the commentary box were saying just how dramatic it had been to come down to the all or nothing decider but, that it wouldn't be right to have that sort of game on a regular basis and yey, 9 years later, it becomes a deliberately staged event.
Mind you, at the time, there was automatic relegation, albeit Cas were relegated from 2nd bottom that year (due to Catalan being exempt from the drop).
There is a strong possibility that Toulouse and possibly Toronto wil be fighting it out in the Middle 8's over the next few years and if so, will the current system still be the best way of deciding who should be in the top flight and should there be any type of exemption for these 2 expansion clubs.
Now would be a good time for those in charge to think about what could/should happen.

The bloody system that they have now is not the answer and if you think 1 up and 1 down is not name what you think is

It depends on how you define 'rare' and how closely matched the teams in a league are, and where any gulfs in quality lay.

But the proportion of the combination of possible results that would provide an interesting middle 8s is not unusually small. And the 'problem' you identify would have equivalents in any other system.

A straight forward league championship could come down to the last minute of the last game or it could have a runaway leader and be effectively over two-thirds of the way through the season.

The RFL's mistake was possibly in over-promising that 'every minute matters'. Any league system will have dead rubbers. I actually think this system does an okay job of minimizing the risk of a very large number, when you consider other imperatives and realities.

This system is convoluted, and the RFL does seem to have a bit of fetish for complexity.

On the other hand...

One up, one down was a very tough leap to make for clubs heading in either direction. This system softens it a little.

Top 5 play-offs meant a lot of teams were out of the running early, Top 8 meant some had effectively qualified by midseason. The second chances some teams got in the play-offs felt a bit like missing the point of a play-off system to me, and was itself convoluted. Top four semi-finals, then final is a step in the right direction IMO.

Licensing, as it was implemented, created a catch-22 for those outside SL who aspired to join. The manner in which it collapsed leaves the whole concept severely discredited. It ultimately looked like a self-serving breakaway by SL. The opportunities for growth it supposedly offered, were often an excuse for stagnation.

On this occasion I have to agree with you, it was a bit naive expecting you to answer to a perfectly reasonable question.

You win and I hope that you fully enjoy all of your self gratification that your 'clever' use of the delete button deserves. I will lick my wounds and think twice about taking you on again that's for sure...OUCH!!!

its is pretty small. It is exceedingly rare that there wont be a significant gap somewhere in that 8 after 23 rounds. The chances of each team still competing for something pretty mucg disappear during the 8s because those teams play each othet Other systems weren't designed to address that problem (in as much as it is a problem)

1 up 1 down doesn't even address the problem at the top of the league. However the problems of it are obvious and much discussed and comparatively stagnation looks like an achievement compared to a system which has seen the number of academies fall hugely, the quality of the competition nosedive, the number of overseas players rise and 3 of the 4 championship clubs in the middle 8s last year on the brink of extinction within 1 year and the lower leagues entirely uncompetitive. The fact is without Derek Beaumont throwing money at Leigh this concept wouldn't have even made it this far. It is an unmitigated disaster.

What would have been the point in me explaining it to you again.

You haven't explained anything to anyone.

Mild Rover on the other hand puts forward a view that at the start of the 8's it isn't, or might not be as rare as you seem to imagine and that 8th could make 4th and therefore whether you like it or not, there is a competitive structure somewhere. Last year I think that 5th and 6th could make 4th which was an improvement on the previous year, who knows what next year might bring?

I understand that as each post 23 round takes place, the likelihood that all 8 will still be in the mix in all probability diminish.

You don't want to accept any of that as it doesn't fit with your view, or clarify the position on which you base your argument as it might fall apart.

I will definitely leave it there this time oh and thanks for the lesson on forum 'banter'

Personally a 16 team league such as the NRL.
One up, one down would bring more problems than this system does.

If you have a 16 team league, I don't think you'll need promotion and relegation.

But it would include HKR , how convenient

So how many ' dead rubbers ' would we see in that ?

Excellent post , whatever system has its problems , there is no ' fix all , suit all ' structure

Best to limit ' debate ' with Smokey to just a couple of posts or he'll just use the ' Baffle with bullpoop ' tactic until frustration gets the better of you

He never actually answers anything , but as you suggest it will make him ' happy ' , good job it doesnt make you blind

Don't know, don't care. Pointless trying to come up with a system without them.

Franchising was in place for how long? Did that have a different result? Did that lead to academys galore, no teams in administration, no second tier teams struggling to pay the bills? Under what system did the Bulls first go into Administration? Under what system did Leigh struggle to survive only four years ago? Under what system did Widness get promoted on the basis of an outstanding academy setup only to see nobody come out of that academy in several years?

Not a single thing you mentioned was caused by the middle eights concept, but that doesn't stop you using it as pathetic justification for making SL a closed shop once again.

You just don't understand , you're stupid