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.

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

that's not the next sentence.

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

Overall, 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 massive 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.