Yep. A point reset would make the first 23 rounds pointless as you could just coast in and rest players at various points if you were secure, why would fans want to pay to see that.

I still say going back to the old top 5 place play off system would work, rewarding the top 2 yet giving 6th 7th and 8th a shot at the play offs at the time of Super 8's.

Definitely don't think we should reset the points. I could understand awarding double points for super 8s games so that teams 6, 7 and 8 still have a chance but not a total reset. Don't care either way about the LLS, it's meaningless

If you reset the points after 23 rounds, you have two separate competitions. That could be a good thing.

The first 23 rounds determine the SL Champions, making the Shield properly meaningful. It also determines who qualifies for Super 8s Premiership, with the Premiers being crowned at the Grand Final.

ATEOTD there's only so much kudos to go around, and this would slightly diminish the prestige of the the GF, but I think it could boost the league - which is currently just an elongated qualifier.

I do like the one we currently have, can be tweaked and improved upon with options like losing the MW and moving the cup schedule but it's certainly more interesting than others mooted which I personally think are rubbish.

If money were no object, I'd go with 20 teams in two conferences (say east and west). Home and away vs the other 9 teams in the same conference, home [ior[/i away against the 10 in the other conference, giving 28 fixtures. Conference Champions play-off against the runner-up from the other Conference in the semis.

Everybody accepts that in any league format there will be some games that might only make a difference to your chance of finishing sixth instead of seventh, for example, but that any game is worth winning in of itself. I can dream!

We sadly don't have anywhere near 20 SL sides.we don't have the players, the stadiums, the infrastructure.

We should go with conferences because it opens up so many options and frees us to structure a season around what is best and what works.

If we did move to a conference structure there are 16 other sides we could involve, as well as allowing us to grow as and when we can.

If money were no object. Two conferences of 6. Player your own twice (10games) the other once (6games) split the NRL in to 2 conferences of 8 each team plays 8 international games 4 home and 4 away. So 24 games in total Top 6 qualify for a top 6 play off to win the SL grand final.

In the NRL two conferences of 8 play each in your own conference once. 6 international games. (20 in total) plus 4 cross conferencengames. Top 8 go in to play offs for NRL GF

A week later the NRL champs play the SL champs for the world championship.

Bundle the rights together for both leagues, play international games in staggered blocks of 4 and you could end up.scheduling pretty much continuous live RL in both hemispheres from Friday to Monday from may to August which would miss most of the harsh Australian summer but take advantage of our limited window for good weather(With the huge added bonus that each broadcaster wouldn t really have much additional broadcast costs because most of the additional games would be being filmed by the other broadcaster anyway)

For the lower leagues we are told that the games against the SL sides are necessary, then fine expand the challenge cup to include a group stage, include it on season tickets and those clubs will be guaranteed SL opposition every year.

If the RFL do persist with resetting the points, which I don't agree with but think they will, it more or less creates two competions and I'd like to see more done to make the first competition (the first 23 rounds leading to the league leaders shield) more meaningful. I know there can't be a day out at Old Trafford for the winner of the leaders shield, but more of a financial incentive could be made to even things up and make teams take the first 23 rounds seriously.

I've no idea how much a team wins for winning the leaders shield, or how much for winning the Grand Final, but make it so say 40% of the prize money goes to the shield winner, and 60% for the winner of the grand final. Still makes the grand final the bigger event, but means it's not just a hubcap and a handshake from big Nige for the shield winner!

We could just go back to having the league champions crowned, after everyone had played each other twice (once at home and once away) and then have a play off competition for the top 8 and possibly a plate competition for the bottom 4 (plus the top 4 from the Championship), which could also be used to decide any promotion/relegation.
There is so much ing about with our game that, it's becoming meaningless TV fodder.

As for more Thursday games, search meaningless TV fodder.

Spreading the matches over 4 days is stuffing the actual paying fans big time and we wonder why attendances are dropping.

Nobody minds an occasional change to their weekly "habit" but, Trinity for example have only 5 games at their "regular" Sunday kick off time and we dont like playing on Thursday nights

I can speak has someone "looking in" this season on how superleague fans are treated with disdain by Sky TV.
Matches re-scheduled a very little notice, been expected to travel across the country on a Thursday night, never been able to plan away days until the last minute and more.
This season we are playing on a Sunday, boy have I missed regular Sunday rugby, time for travel, been able to take young family members to new venues, no late nights home,
book transport in plenty of time, and having time to spend money in the local area before and after games.

We all like to see our game on the telly, but fans needs have to be taken into consideration when these pay masters are been allowed to dictate when our teams have to play.
It's about time fat Nige and co grew a pair and learnt to say no.

Regarding the talk of the Magic event being a 9's tournament.

How many speccies do we seriously think that this would attract 8000/10000, it certainly would be nowhere near the numbers that we currently get.
For mie, this is an absolute non runner.

9s shouldn't replace the magic weekend. It makes money and sky love it.

I admit it is aspirational (<cough> pipedream <cough>icon_wink.gif and based on a premise of having more money than we do.

But on the other hand Bradford, London and Hull KR have all been SL teams in the recent past, and it'd be nice to think that there's potential in places like Sheffield, Toulouse and Toronto, for example.

Even football struggles with Sky and their demands wrt scheduling and kick off times so it's not just us that struggle to grow a pair. Whilst I understand the frustrations let's not forget how crucial tv money is.

I'd personally just go with: 23 league rounds seems Magic will be kept. Get rid of the Easter double header. That means less games and no double up weekends - better for the players. 12th place goes down, top 5 playoffs, league leaders automatically through to the Grand Final - they get 2 weeks off while the 4 remaining play to join them at Old Trafford. Add in mandatory reserve teams too.

That cuts down on the number of games played and a reduced season meas you can have a week or 2 off for internationals mid season too.

Indeed.
Despite Jamie Peacocks fantasy, that a 9's competition would be good for the game, it just isn't/ wouldn't be a big enough draw.
Peacock, when he was at Leeds, wanted SL cutting to 10 clubs and yet strangely, he now wants an increase



THere also needs to be some serious thought given as to how we accommodate Toulouse and Toronto in the top flight, assuming that they would be "good for the game".

Less games = less money. Gates, Sky, Sponsors etc.

Doesn't need to mean less money. The game is being sold short, they just need to grow a pair and stop doing that. Sell the game for what it's worth.

P & R will keep the game stuck in the heartlands. Expanding to new areas likes Toronto needs licencing / franchising to work. Personally I think that decision has already been made.

Or less games = more quality, more gates, Sky, Sponsors etc...

Of course it'd be less money. Why would Sky pay the same if you're offering them less content with several less weeks of tv?

You can't guarantee the quality increasing. If gates + tv audiences increase its negated by less games.

E.g. 15,000 avg for 14 games = 210,000
17,000 avg for 11 = 184,000

I think 9's has a market but i don't necessarily think its the same market as MW. The thing with 9's is that it is different and needs more than a once a year half an attempt. It needs probably 3 weekends at least.

The system we have is incredibly unsuitable for accommodating Toulouse and Toronto. Any structure with P+R is unsuitable for a game trying to expand but this one particularly bad.

Why would it necessitate less content?

Because the season is shorter. We get 2/3 games a week and take 6/7 weeks off and that's 20 less games on tv.

Or have bye weeks and spread fewer games over a longer time.