I don't know

Perhaps there own self respect to perform for there teams and supporters?

is that not the essence of sport?

The league / championship wasn't all important. There was something to all to play for most of the season - Lancashire Cup, Floodlit cup, Players trophy, League leaders, Lancashire league, Challenge cup, championship play off (top 16 in the latter days).

Hence you had clubs like Barrow, Workington, Fev winning cups and boosting interest in those areas.

As well as a county championship and full tours.

In fact the Challenge cup was seen as the one to win in those days.

So the same reasons as under a play-off system then.

Not this lame old argument again. Why exactly is that a problem? It's called sport and at the moment the philosophy of the top eight play off resembles that behind school sports day where no one is allowed to lose! Everyone a winner. It seems we can't have any losers in RL. Where, given the top eight is so easy to get into, is the incentive to improve so you finish higher up the league?

If you want to give teams who at some point in the season end up no longer being able to win the league an incentive to play on then do as they do in other sports. Offer more prize money for the higher you finish up the league. Or devise another competition they can qualify for and call it, err, the Premiership.

The idea a league is fundamentally flawed and so we have to have a play off system is ridiculous.

make the incentives to finish as high as possible, greater prize money for the higher up the league. Also if you keep the top 8 as it is, then make it that the higher placed team always plays at home as a reward and the home team keep all revenue from the games apart from the final... That way teams will want to finish as high as possible for the financial rewards.

I can. I am surprised you don't know the answer.

In 1973 there was one large division of 30 teams but only 34 regular league fixtures. So a home and away program was out of the question as 58 fixtures would have been required. A play off system was the only way to decide who were champions in such a large league with a lop sided fixture structure.

The whole idea of doing it that way seems totally bonkers to me which is probably one reason why the playoffs ceased in 1974 and we ended up with two separate divisions where a home and away fixture format became possible.

I am sure the RFL recognized that when you have that structure you don't need a play off to decide who was the best team in each division over the course of a season in the same way other sports who operate the same kind of league structure don't.

So you have two systems for two different kind of league structures. If you have a large league where you have an very uneven fixture list you need a play off system. The ARL in Oz was similar also not operating home and away fixtures so it made sense there as well. If you have a smaller league which allows a home and away fixture format then a play off doesn't make sense.

Now the key point is that with the old pre-1974 championship decided by playoffs the league didn't rival the playoffs as the final arbiter of the best team. It couldn't given its structure so I am sure the fans accepted it for what it was. That is not the situation today. Today we have the daft situation where we have a league based on home and away fixtures and yet we use a system designed for a different league structure to decide the champions when it is not needed. Yes I know about the MM weekend but today teams still play each other home and away so despite the extra fixture finishing top of the league is still a more appropriate way to decide things than a play off.

You end up with things like this when you let people like Nigel Wood run the sport.

The problem is the fundamental hypocrisy in claiming that we shouldnt have a league/play-off system because it leaves large swathes of the season 'meaningless' then proposing replacing it with a simple league structure even though it makes more of the season meaningless for more clubs.

There are many fundamental flaws in a league system, the new vogue in Wigan that it is the ideal is ridiculous, it isnt, there are clearly failings in it. Like there is any system. But as we are picking imperfect systems why not pick one which keeps things interesting for more clubs, judges teams on quality as well as consistency, finishes the season with the best teams playing each other and concludes on a high profile night in front of 70k+ rather than as would have happened last year, with the season being over for most of the teams for a few months and the title being decided in a pretty poor quality game, in front of 8k by a game against a team which finished in the bottom third of the league.

Yes I knew how the system worked, its similar (albeit with fewer fixtures) to the NFL where it is not a case of everyone plays everyone in the league. However in the NFL every game counts and is huge for the fans.

What I was asking was before 1973 did fans regard the league fixtures as pointless and just start watching in the playoffs? Not sure if Rogues actually is old enough for that one, but he could surely answer if he was.

It seems that Wigan fans are still so bitter because Leeds stuffed it up them, massivley against the odds, they are blaming the competition, rather than their own team. You have no evidence whatsoever that teams or players are taking it easy as the top 8 is a stroll. I played a lot of amateur RL at various levels, also pro at a crap level, & not once did we go out to give less than we could. The idea that 'fans' are not attending as games don't matter I also dismiss. If they can't get up for Wigan v Wire then the game is better off without them. They just don't want to see their team get beat.

Sally, sadly I am "old enough" to go remember those days.
There was a reason for the top four play off back then.

Because there were so many teams every team didn't play each other in the league games.

The Lancashire based teams would play every team in Lancashire plus three or four from Yorkshire on a home and away basis.

The Yorkshire based teams would play every team in Yorkshire plus three or four from Lancashire on a home and away basis.

From the final League table the top four system was 1 v 4 and 2 v 3 with the two winners going through to the final.

What you must also realise is that the Championship Final played second fiddle to the Challenge Cup as the competition most clubs wanted to win.

The other thing to remember is that there wasn't the same season ticket culture then as today. Most people were used to paying on the gate, so playoffs and Cup games were better attended.

True, yet due to the departure of the tourists, the 1950 Championship Final win over Huddersfield is considered by many 'experts' as one of Wigan's finest ever victories.

Since that isn't the argument, you don't have a point here.

The argument that lead to this thread being started was that the league is a 27 round qualifier is of no meaning. That is the league in our current play off format is in its entirety, meaningless.

So given in the old system a league is [inever[/i meaningless for [iany[/i of the clubs for quite some time it must be by your own criteria of "meaningfulness" the better system.

Of course if you want something to be meaningful for all the clubs using your criteria you ought to be arguing to include all the clubs in the competition not just 8, 6 or 5. So that would be a 14 team play off at the end of the season. I'd be interested to know why you think that might be a bad idea (assuming you do). It's the logical extension of what you are saying.



Given the play offs extend the season for two clubs by a grand total of one game you really are stretching it a bit by saying they are a means to keep it interesting for most clubs. The most games a team can play is four games by which team interest has ended for all bar one other club. Fans are also not thick and know if they finish seventh or eighth the can't expect to be extending their season much longer. The idea a short end of season play off does any better at extending the season in a meaningful way is crazy.

Sport goes out of the window because we have to "keeps things interesting for more clubs". And you know very well a league decider could be the result of any two clubs facing each other.

What is funny though is you forget that league decider v HKR last year saw Wigan under the cosh and losing the game. It was in many ways akin to Man City's epic last gasp winner in Premiership soccer as Wigan had to come from behind and bust a gut to win the game and secure top spot. One of the most exciting games of the season so a pretty poor example to pick on. What that lead to of course was complaints we had tried too hard to win a meaningless competition and tired ourselves out just prior to the playoffs. Such is the negative impact of the current system.

We also have the Challenge Cup (which has also suffered devaluation IMO in the face of the GF PR machine) that gives us the 70K+ crowds so that is not really a big argument in favour either..

It's quite obvious a league can and does deliver exciting competitions and that are the most legitimate way to decide who are the champions. However if you want a playoff and you don't want people to start thinking of the league as a waste of money and effort you need to change the system from what it is now to one that has far greater value on where you finish in the league not because someone says so but because it actually does.

Some of the league games in the old system - ie Wigan v Huyton, Leeds v Bramley may not have set the heart racing. But a club could play almost 60 games in a season so there were plenty of big games to go around.
The real big crowd pullers were the cup rounds - 30,000 would be drawn to Central Park for a decent tie and some of the smaller grounds would see all ticket sell outs.

They still have a system that means a play off is more sensible way to decide matters so there isn't the conflict we have here where we play home and away in the league. They have also always used better play off systems using the top 5 system for years meaning the league games did matter as there was the well understood benefits of finishing higher in the league. Their top 8 version as not as much liked as the older system.



I know what you were asking and I know why you were asking it. Although I am not old enough to comment as to how fans regarded the league fixtures, like anything else historical, context is all important when you ask that kind of question. You can't say just because the fans may not have thought the league back then wasn't meaningless the same should apply now because the system back then and the circumstances were different.

BTW just out of interest I was under the impression the 1973 playoffs were between the top 16 teams out of 30. Not a top 4.

Yes it is.

you contradict yourself in the same sentence. The league campaign has meaning, it is a qualifier for the play-offs. That is the meaning of it.

that seems a ridiculous conclusion from your previous sentence. There is actually no logic behind it just two statements which dont really bear much relation to each other. And again you contradict yourself. You state firstly that in a league system a game is never meaningless for any clubs, then go on to admit that for some clubs (in the majority of seasons that would be the majority of clubs) games are meaningless for some of the time (in the majority of seasons this would be for the majority of the time, for a sizeable proportion of the clubs)

No, because that would make the league season 'meaningless' and possibly make your argument make sense. But as it isnt my argument, simply a nonsensical straw man you have created to strengthen your argument it isnt the logical extension of my argument.

It is quite obvious that there is a difference between having a qualifying competition that means most clubs, have a chance to qualify for the next stage of the competition, and keeps them interested in the competition and having a qualifying competition from which everyone has already qualified. You know there is a difference, its why you invented that ridiculous straw man.

have a look back at the Wakefield, Bradford, and Hull KR forums over the last couple of weeks of last year and see if qualifying for the competition wasnt the primary focus. Look at their forums now, and see if the minimum aim for this year isnt qualification for the play-offs. You are demonstrably wrong.

a league campaign deciding the champions isnt the default situation for deciding champions under 'sport' outside of European football it is infact a minority way of deciding champions.

And nobody cared, and nobody watched it. The league had a round left which without the play-offs, would have been entirely pointless and meaningless for the whole entire league and would have been entirely pointless and meaningless for all clubs bar two for a month and the season for all but 4 clubs would have ended in may.

Quite honestly, that is the poorest argument I have seen on anything, ever. Just because the challenge cup gets 70k+ attendances doesnt, in any way, mean that it isnt a very good thing that we get one for the GF too.

Except it doesnt. If you want to judge the league by a different criteria to everyone else, that is fine, nobody is going to stop you. If you want to judge it by points scored, metres made, most 40/20's whatever that is fine, you are entitled to do so. But just because you say most consistent=best doesnt make it so. And just because you think that a league is the most legitimate way to decide champions, in spite of most of the rest of the world, including 7 out of the 10 biggest sports by average attendance and all 5 of the top 5 by total attendance, doesnt make it so.