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

hang on, wasn't this new system going to drive interest (crowds are falling) wasn't it supposed to see the investment in the lower leagues drive up standards from the bottom (clubs are giving up on their youth development, less investment in facilities) wasn't it supposed to save the lower leagues (Lower leagues clubs going bust at a crazy rate) wasn't it supposed to make the lower leagues a meaningful competitions (embarrassingly uncompetitive leagues) wasn't it supposed to drive intensity with its convoluted forced jeopardy (playing standards and intensity is at an all time low), wasn't it supposed increase interest and attendances because 'every minute matters' (it hasn't, and doesn't)

Other than you like it because you think the peak of your clubs potential is to fall lucky on a promotion and hang around for a couple of years if some local decking salesman wants to throw a bit of money for you for a little while, what are the actual merits of this system?

6 of 8 still leaves a quarter out.

You can keep asking who knows what next year will bring, but what about the year after? the year after that? the year after that? are you we going to fall lucky every year? Like it or not, maths tells us that it will only be a small minority of years that their is a realistic competition between all 8 sides for a qualification place.

My point was that there are only about 16 clubs who could realistically sustain a Super League side and then I'm being generous.

It's fair to say that "franchising" was better for the clubs that were lucky enough to get the nod but, not for the clubs in the lower leagues.
ANY system will have dead rubbers, especially towards the end of the season but, apart from 2 or 3 clubs in SL, the rest of the clubs in the Super 8's and Middle 8's still had plenty to play for.
At the top, it was all about getting a home semi-final, then there was fighting for a top 8 spot which, but for Salfords points deduction, would have been even closer and then the battle to avoid being drawn into the bottom 4.
The one thing that this season brought was unpredictability.
A new challenger (Hull FC), Leeds and Huddersfield, who's collective wheels fell off and some great rugby league.
And in a final twist, KR losing the MPG when they had the game won.
I'm still uncomfortable with the new structure, where we have the possibility (albeit a slim one) of a club getting promoted from 4th in the Championship and getting relegated from 9th in SL, both of which just seem ridiculous.
However, there is now interest at both ends of the table until the last 2 games (GF and MPG).
Just as others have posted, there have always been dead rubbers and there always will be and maybe it was the tag line of "every minute matters" that was wrong, as it clearly doesn't.
The major flaw in the system is that we have lost the drive towards clubs producing more youngsters. Indeed, the academies, the very thing that we need more investment in, are reducing in number and the best that Leigh, the newly promoted club, can manage, is to share with Salford - this has to be a backward step and let's not even think how we genuinely try to expand the game.

Dude, even by your standards that is rhetorical omninonsence. Let's look at some other possible causes of these issues, and see how likely it is that the 8s system is the cause.

Crowds are falling - we've been stuck in austerity for nearly a decade.
Youth development - offers poor return on investment to [umost[/u clubs.
Saving the lower leagues - I don't remember that specific promise, but as it was happening before the 8s, they are hardly to blame.
Playing standards - there's been a brawn drain to the relatively cashed-up NRL.

Basically you're saying that anything other than a wondrous success and cure-all is an abysmal failure.



Yes, but equally I could choose a metric of success that sets up any system I don't like for 'failure'. And point at the maths, as my supposedly independent arbiter.

The possibility of a team being relegated from 9th is no more ridiculous than what we had previously where a team who'd finished 8th could end up as champions.