Revamping the SL competition

Quote: Phuzzy "This is what I find frustrating about debating points with you (and, in case you've forgotten, we have crossed swords before over on the Leeds board). Unfortunately you have a tendancy to rewrite history to suit your argument which, I have to say, is usually a sign that your own argument is poor. Nowhere have I said that the ONLY way to crown the champions is through the league campaign. I suggested that, in my opinion, it's the BEST way and would improve the competition; I've also said that, again in my opinion, it's the CORRECT way; but nowhere have I said it's the ONLY way. I fully understand that's it's only my opinion, albeit one I share with many other people. '"

But it is a logical fallacy to state there is only one CORRECT way.

Quote: Phuzzy "I also have no right to crown anyone anything. I DO, however, have the right to REGARD the team finishing top as champions if I so wish. I have no obligation whatsoever to accept the current system as unassailable just because you want me to! I will never regard a team that finishes 10 points behind the leaders as 'Champions'. Whether you like it or not. Just as I will never regard bankers getting millions in bonuses as right just because contract law says it is. Again, that's my right in a free thinking society. In fact, I'd be interested to hear your view on the banker's bonuses if you wouldn't mind. I think it might be enlightening in the context of this debate. '"

And there is no logic to this. Doing so doesn’t make sense. There are clear logical flaws to doing this.

Quote: Phuzzy "You use a boxing analogy to explain your standpoint but, once again, you re remarkably selective in your example. Would you say that, for example, Buster Douglas was a better fighter than Mike Tyson because he was 'able to get up for the big game' (sic) when it mattered? '"

No, because Douglas didn’t get up for the big fights, he got up for one fight. Tyson did it against bigger names, more times.

Quote: Phuzzy "As a matter of fact Ali was a remarkably consistent fighter.'"

No he wasnt, the statistics show that.

Quote: Phuzzy "It's believed by many that some of his losses were, shall we say, a concious decision on his part to enable him to regain the title and also (more cynically but probably none the less true for that) for 'box office'.'"

Leon Spinks and Joe Frazier were big enough ‘box office’ to start with. Ali struggled against Norton 3 times, and Berbick and Holmes was when he was spent at the end of his career, be realistic.

Quote: Phuzzy "Isn't another much touted 'best ever career record' the one held by Marciano for his 49 and 0? That was based on the consistency throughout his career, not his ability to 'get up when it mattered'. As I say, for every example you could give I could give a different one. However what ISN'T in doubt, though you try to argue otherwise, is that consistency is massively respected in sport. Indeed in ALL walks of life. Was Tiger Woods feted for his ability to win the occassional big match, or for the fact that, for a period, he was unbeatable? To use an example from your own team. The consistently high performer that is Kevin Sinfield or the 'able to get up for one big game' Leroy Rivett? I think we both know the answer.'"

And a lot of people will argue that Ali is better than Marciano because whilst Marciano won a lot of fights against no-name fighters, Ali fought and beat some of the best fighters ever, that’s why his losses against a few average fighters are forgotten. And Sinfield is consistently good in the big games, Sinfields record in the big games is unbelievable. If Leeds had lost all the finals they have contested then Sinfield wouldn’t be the name he is. Sinfield is outstanding in big games. That’s why he is the player he is. His ability to control a big game, and to lead his team to victory in them. If he wasn’t, he wouldn’t be the player he is. When Sinfield hangs up his boots, it will the semi’s and Grand Final wins he lead Leeds to that will be remembered, no-one will care the slightest that Leeds lost against Salford or Wigan one time in mid-season.

Quote: Phuzzy "Look, the bottom line is that I feel the current system makes a mockery of the majority of the season and, ultimately, will harm the game I love. I have no problems with the playoffs as such. I go to them, and the finals and thoroughly enjoy them. I just think the balance is wrong and is something that needs addressing. I think the 'playoffs at all costs' has a price that it too high to pay. It isn't just my opinion and, unfortunately, we are getting to the point where people are starting to vote with their wallets. That is not a situation I would like to see encouraged by the 'flat earth' brigade who see change as inherently scarey. We need change. Whether that's along the lines I outlined in the opening post or something else, I don't really mind. Just as long as it does the job of redressing the unbalanced way our game has progressed. Let's face it, the number of times the question of how clubs are no longer worried about losing games raised it's head on the Sky broadcasts this season when it's Sky who have the biggest vested interest in maintaining the status quo should have anyone with a genuine interest in the game worried! Those are the very storm clouds, along with the disillusionment among many fans, that we, as a game, should not be ignoring!'"

Its nothing to do with change being inherently scary. Its that people like the championship being one by the two best teams squaring off in front of a packed crowd on a Saturday night in the last game of the season rather than a Sunday afternoon at craven park. They want the title decided by a big game, by an intense game rather than grinding out results in your run-of-the-mill games. There is no need to prize consistency over quality.