Playoffs in the Jeff

Just to put an occasional toe in the water.

With a final round of matches to be contested simultaneously (Sat 2pm)

did you not do this before??

The playoff winners are the Champions.

Not on this board cao.

Maybe on v1. I'm just testing opinion.

But if you have any concern about any voting option bias or missing options, I'll do my utmost to address them.

The rules are set in advance of the tournament starting. Teams then play according to those rules and the champions will be declared on 26th May.

Yeah, this all seems like deja view all over again.
Play the season to qualify for the playoffs.
Win the playoffs, win the league.
Win the league, get a kiss from Pippa.

LondonTiger wrote:The rules are set in advance of the tournament starting. Teams then play according to those rules and the champions will be declared on 26th May.

We all know the rules LT.

This post is clearly a heart matter.

Personally i think the league winner should be the winner.

you have to admit though that the playoffs do add a bit of excitement. Also all teams know at the start of the season that you need to get into the top 4 and lets be honest thats what they all aim for.

This really seems to cut deep with Portnoy I don't know why.

I think the only side who can feel aggrieved is Gloucester.

If you are that annoyed why not petition a shield being given to the league winners like they do in rugby league?

beshocked wrote:.........If you are that annoyed why not petition a shield being given to the league winners like they do in rugby league?

This happens now in the National Hockey League - the top team at the end of the season gets the President's Trophy. But, in reality, no one cares. The only goal (pardon the pun) is winning the Lord Stanley's Cup. And I think this is the way Rugby, at least in the Premeirship, the Top 14, the RaboPro12 and Super Rugby have moved. The finals are now big events.

Agree with beshocked - why not an award for winning the League and an award for winning the playoffs ?

Am I right in that the reason there are playoffs was to allow for the loss of players during the 6N/AI period so that if a team who didn't have many players away on international duty got a lead the playoff allowed teams who had put players into the international side to have a chance of still winning ?

beshocked wrote:This really seems to cut deep with Portnoy I don't know why.

I think the only side who can feel aggrieved is Gloucester.

If you are that annoyed why not petition a shield being given to the league winners like they do in rugby league?

Why? They were one of the sides who were instrumental in the inception of the play-offs.

beshocked wrote:This really seems to cut deep with Portnoy I don't know why.

I think the only side who can feel aggrieved is Gloucester.

If you are that annoyed why not petition a shield being given to the league winners like they do in rugby league?

Not quite only Gloucester 'shocked. That was the one that the Tigers snitched in the playoff (although it was due to a registration error one point penalty).

Check back to see how may times Wasps topped the regular season,

This really seems to cut deep with Portnoy I don't know why.

Maybe it's playing a season of games in all weathers, injuries and *international call-outs* and not taking it down to a top-four k-o is more a rational method of deciding a champion.

p.s. the

*international call-outs*

is relevant if you want to follow-up.

Irish Londoner wrote:Agree with beshocked - why not an award for winning the League and an award for winning the playoffs ?

Am I right in that the reason there are playoffs was to allow for the loss of players during the 6N/AI period so that if a team who didn't have many players away on international duty got a lead the playoff allowed teams who had put players into the international side to have a chance of still winning ?

The rationale is exactly as you have stated - to account for and not punish any particular team for the length and vagurities of the season. The real reason is playoffs bring in a lot more excitement to the end of the season, bring in more fans to the playoff matches, especially the finals, and bring in a lot more money. All of which is fine by me.

In 2003 after a 33-3 drubbing they were the worst idea ever implemented to the game!

...But we all knew the rules beforehand. The big hang up is still relating this to being a league, it's not, it's a cup competition. Despite the fact Glaws have topped the league 3 times since its inception I am in favour of it. There is no doubt it creates a climatic finish, rather than what could be a damp squib. Similarly, whilst internationals are staged at the same time it allows teams that are heavily effected to claw back any disadvantage.

Ultimately there is often a team that is hard done by. Glaws have been that team 3 times and I have feared for a while that Quins got out of the blocks too early. I hope it's not for their sake as despite the fact it's not a league, sitting at the top of the table it is hard to disassociat yourself from being top of the league!

It is rather ironic that the one team that didn't want this format has probably gained the most from it, but you could definitely argue they were just playing the system rather than just trying to top a cup group.

Equo Troiano why can't you ever saying anything constructive?

Portnoy why would Wasps be aggrieved? They have benefitted the most.

Why should Tigers moan? How many trophies do you need? Be happy with what you have - a very strong and consistent side.

beshocked wrote:Equo Troiano why can't you ever saying anything constructive?

Portnoy why would Wasps be aggrieved? They have benefitted the most.

Why should Tigers moan? How many trophies do you need? Be happy with what you have - a very strong and consistent side.

You really don't like opposing opinion do you?

It was a perfectly rational question in response to what was actually, a rather ill informed observation, since Glaws WERE instrumental in the inception of the play-offs after a number of seasons as 'nearly men'. In my opinion (and the opinion of many), Glaws reaped what they sowed, their fans might weel have felt agrieved, but it was partly the club's fault in the first place.

beshocked wrote:Equo Troiano why can't you ever saying anything constructive?

Portnoy why would Wasps be aggrieved? They have benefitted the most.

Why should Tigers moan? How many trophies do you need? Be happy with what you have - a very strong and consistent side.

'shocked,

Either you misread me or merged two paragraphs into one and drew a (wrong) inference.

Equo Troiano wrote:

It was a perfectly rational question in response to what was actually, a pretty daft/ill informed (take your pick) observation, since Glaws WERE instrumental in the inception of the play-offs after a number of seasons as 'nearly men'. In my opinion (and the opinion of many), Glaws reaped what they sowed, their fans might weel have felt agrieved, but it was partly the club's fault in the first place.

Sorry, but that is completely misinformed. We certainly didn't have a number of seasons as nearly men. Pre-professionalism there was 1990 losing the double, but after that it was very lean. The tag of nearly men has very much come after 2003. We were also not the driving side for the play offs, just 1 of 11 that wanted it.

beshocked wrote:No I don't mind opposing opinion I just don't like you. You never have something constructive to say.

Love it.

HongKongCherry wrote:

Equo Troiano wrote:

It was a perfectly rational question in response to what was actually, a pretty daft/ill informed (take your pick) observation, since Glaws WERE instrumental in the inception of the play-offs after a number of seasons as 'nearly men'. In my opinion (and the opinion of many), Glaws reaped what they sowed, their fans might weel have felt agrieved, but it was partly the club's fault in the first place.

Sorry, but that is completely misinformed. We certainly didn't have a number of seasons as nearly men. Pre-professionalism there was 1990 losing the double, but after that it was very lean. The tag of nearly men has very much come after 2003. We were also not the driving side for the play offs, just 1 of 11 that wanted it.

Thats true, it was after 2003 when the label 'chokers' was often used. Having been part of the group of teams that agreed the play-offs, I (and many others) feel that Glaws mismanaged their chances of a title for varying reasons and that although the fans had every right to feel agrieved, the club was pretty much completely at fault for the ultimate results. It was then (as it is now) important for teams to remember that come the end of the domestic season, two games may possibly remain and to plan accordingly.

I have no axe to grind with Glaws, but cannot see why 'they' should feel hard done by. Still, the way things are going, it'll be a while before 'they' have to worry about it again ;-)

By finishing top of the league the team is installed as one of the favourites to win, therefore, to not win there is a sense of being hard done by as with any team that loses at that stage. That doesn't make the system unfair, but there is no doubt that Glaws were hard done by in 2003 as it was from our experience they changed it to the top 4 to ensure the top team didn't lose momentum.

HongKongCherry wrote:It is rather ironic that the one team that didn't want this format has probably gained the most from it, but you could definitely argue they were just playing the system rather than just trying to top a cup group.

I thought Wasps voted for the play-offs?

LondonTiger wrote:

HongKongCherry wrote:It is rather ironic that the one team that didn't want this format has probably gained the most from it, but you could definitely argue they were just playing the system rather than just trying to top a cup group.

I thought Wasps voted for the play-offs?

I thought that the Tigers were the only side to vote against them.

Mind you that vote was taken after four consecutive premierships.
After that the wage caps were introduced.
After which the EPS payments were made to each side equally irrespective of player contributions.

The whole ethos of the Jeff has been to cut off its nose to spite its face.

The result?

Nothing much.

Apart from not winning European pots.

Not sure how 'The Jeff' has cut of its nose to spite its face Portnoy.

Enlightenment please my friend.

I'm for the playoffs. I'd be for the playoffs if the league wasn't played during the internationals. I'm for the playoffs in general.

The main reason being you have to be able to win the long haul (get into the top 4) AND win big one-off games (2 knockout games). If you can do both you're the best team. If you fail then you're just not good enough.

Given the current set-up and structure, playoffs are the fairest solution imo

Ozzy3213 wrote:Not sure how 'The Jeff' has cut of its nose to spite its face Portnoy.

Enlightenment please my friend.

Erm.

I thought that I'd already explained that PCP.

If nothing else, I am celebrated for my consistent posting of my opinions about the Jeff rules and dire predictions about the consequences. Both on 606v2 and v1.

And if you can just list a few instances which can celebrate the success of the Jeff I'd be pleased to read them.

p.s. the playoffs are fair only in the sense that minimal contributors to the English cause are benefited maximally for their relative contributions.
Nothing. Nothing. Nothing has been done to encourage any Jeff side (not just the Tigers) to maintain a flow of England players and to generate serious European competition.

The whole experiment has produced a self-regulating market designed to ensure mediocrity.

The Premiership is an entity in it's own right Portnoy. It is not there for the betterment of any particular team, including the national one. I understand your objections to the play off system, and other things, although I do not agree with you, but I still don't understand what you mean by cutting off its nose to spite its face.

The Premiership is self fulfilling, it exists independently. Would success for English sides in Europe have any benefit for the Premiership itself? I would say not, that is why I do not understand the comment.

What is right in turning the Jeff into the rugby equivalent of a bog-standard comprehensive school Oz?

Wales have just introduced wage caps (albeit with state subsidies). And have probably said goodbye to any realistic club success in any year soon because of the excessive free-to-air coverage of a game based on artificially restructured elite domestic game that has not exactly universally caught on in the hearts and souls of the Welsh public where national success is the king and the manufactured regions have apparently still (ten years on) not taken off.

My point being that this nanny-state that is the Jeff which is structured to weak and poor to survive at the expense of the talented and successful.

In a recent (albeit unscientific) straw poll I initiated ( https://www.606v2.com/t26574-club-country-lions-priorites?highlight=lions+poll ) , the modal vote was Country/Club(Euro)/Club(domestic)/Lions.

That suggests that Euro success is important to rugby folk.

Portnoy wrote:What is right in turning the Jeff into the rugby equivalent of a bog-standard comprehensive school Oz?

Wales have just introduced wage caps (albeit with state subsidies). And have probably said goodbye to any realistic club success in any year soon because of the excessive free-to-air coverage of a game based on artificially restructured elite domestic game that has not exactly universally caught on in the hearts and souls of the Welsh public where national success is the king and the manufactured regions have apparently still (ten years on) not taken off.

My point being that this nanny-state that is the Jeff which is structured to weak and poor to survive at the expense of the talented and successful.
In a recent (albeit unscientific) straw poll I initiated ( https://www.606v2.com/t26574-club-country-lions-priorites?highlight=lions+poll ) , the modal vote was Country/Club(Euro)/Club(domestic)/Lions.

That suggests that Euro success is important to rugby folk.

Portnoy, what would be your evidence for this statement? And just to illustrate your balanced reasoning, can you think of anything that would counter your bold statement?

Erm that's all too easy Asbo:

The essential PRL votes that created the nanny state:

Absolute value wage caps
EPS payments distributed equally irrespective of contribution
Voting decisions which created the situation where (especially this season) to press forward with Jeff contests without reference to club International (particularly English) losses.

Portnoy wrote:What is right in turning the Jeff into the rugby equivalent of a bog-standard comprehensive school Oz?

Wales have just introduced wage caps (albeit with state subsidies). And have probably said goodbye to any realistic club success in any year soon because of the excessive free-to-air coverage of a game based on artificially restructured elite domestic game that has not exactly universally caught on in the hearts and souls of the Welsh public where national success is the king and the manufactured regions have apparently still (ten years on) not taken off.

My point being that this nanny-state that is the Jeff which is structured to weak and poor to survive at the expense of the talented and successful.

In a recent (albeit unscientific) straw poll I initiated ( https://www.606v2.com/t26574-club-country-lions-priorites?highlight=lions+poll ) , the modal vote was Country/Club(Euro)/Club(domestic)/Lions.

That suggests that Euro success is important to rugby folk.

So in essence you would like to see a Premiership where half the teams were cut adrift at the bottom with no realistic prospect of success, whilst those who can afford it, namely Tigers, Saracens, Bath and Saints form a kind of domestic elite and ultimately therefore win a few European pots.

The other effect being that stories like Exeter Chiefs will be non existent as the AP becomes like the Barclays Premiership with the boring monotomy of the same 4 teams at the top each year and no likelihood of anyone breaking into that group unless some middle eastern businessman ploughs a shed load of cash in.

You often claim to yearn for the amateur days and for level playing fields, yet you are increasingly frequently arguing for a playing field that benefits the rich (not just financially but in terms of history and therefore ability to draw in players) clubs, of which the team you support happen to be one.

Nothing like a bit of wanting to load the dice in your own favour eh mate?

Tell me a league in football, rugby - any elite sport which doesn't have a a dominant set of sides.

And once again you you put words in my mouth. And automatically assign my personal views as being based on club bias.

There will always be dominant sides, you are correct, there are under the current structure, namely in recent years Saracens and Tigers. The difference is that as things are currently structured, other teams have the opportunity to break their stranglehold on things.

Changing the structure to meet your proposals will mean that that becomes even more unlikely to happen and realistically over a period of time the gap between the haves and have nots will enlarge and ultimately more clubs will go to the wall as they overspend in a vain attempt to reduce the gap.

Portnoy wrote:Erm that's all too easy Asbo:

The essential PRL votes that created the nanny state:

Absolute value wage caps
EPS payments distributed equally irrespective of contribution
Voting decisions which created the situation where (especially this season) to press forward with Jeff contests without reference to club International (particularly English) losses.

I wouldn't disagree with some of those, particularly the distribution of EPS payments irrespective of contribution - I guess the academy players excluded from the wage cap is an attempt to balance that one out indirectly. I'ad also agree that wage caps could be created in a better way than simple absolute value, but that's not to say that there wouldn't be problems with your preferred alternative (% of turnover) either. I note that you, as usual, make no comment on the inequitable distribution of 'P' shares (it doesn't affect the Tigers, so not relevant in your world?), which forces Exe to play with c.£1m less income than the rest of the AP.

But I notice you ignored the other part of my question: if you'd like to be thought of as holding a balanced view, how about posting some examples to support the other side of the argument? For example, relegation/promotion creates an incredibly competitive league with players constantly used to high-intensity, meaningful games

You see Oz (and As), Is it you that try and twist my every comment with the intention of turning it back on me.

Each of you respectively support fading and rising stars in the Jeff firmament.

But whichever way you read it, you'd rather have mediocrity than excellence.

Country first
European success second.
Domestic competition third.

Would be my list of priorities.

AsLongAsBut100ofUs wrote:

Portnoy wrote:Erm that's all too easy Asbo:

The essential PRL votes that created the nanny state:

Absolute value wage caps
EPS payments distributed equally irrespective of contribution
Voting decisions which created the situation where (especially this season) to press forward with Jeff contests without reference to club International (particularly English) losses.

I wouldn't disagree with some of those, particularly the distribution of EPS payments irrespective of contribution - I guess the academy players excluded from the wage cap is an attempt to balance that one out indirectly. I'ad also agree that wage caps could be created in a better way than simple absolute value, but that's not to say that there wouldn't be problems with your preferred alternative (% of turnover) either. I note that you, as usual, make no comment on the inequitable distribution of 'P' shares (it doesn't affect the Tigers, so not relevant in your world?), which forces Exe to play with c.£1m less income than the rest of the AP.

But I notice you ignored the other part of my question: if you'd like to be thought of as holding a balanced view, how about posting some examples to support the other side of the argument? For example, relegation/promotion creates an incredibly competitive league with players constantly used to high-intensity, meaningful games

ffs. I do. Have you never read any of my recent articles ?

No, I would rather have a system whereby those who are not have the top are inclined to strive to be better as the gap between them and the summit is not an insurmountable one.

You advocate a system which would make it nigh on impossible, which would remove that inclination to strive to achieve and would therefore render the Premiership uncompetitve and then by definition unentertaining. Yes I want my team to win, but I want to be entertained on a Saturday afternoon at the end of a tough working week.

Christ.

This whole diatribe isn't just about naked jealousy/envy is it?

Maybe that sums up the whole PRL attitude. I can't have it, so neither should you.

Ozzy3213 wrote:No, I would rather have a system whereby those who are not have the top are inclined to strive to be better as the gap between them and the summit is not an insurmountable one.

You advocate a system which would make it nigh on impossible, which would remove that inclination to strive to achieve and would therefore render the Premiership uncompetitve and then by definition unentertaining. Yes I want my team to win, but I want to be entertained on a Saturday afternoon at the end of a tough working week.

A forlorn hope as a LI supporter....

Shut up equo.
That kind of remark is not helpful.

Go away

Portnoy

Not jealousy. I am relaistic about my own team and where we stand in terms of likelihood of success. I just don't see that allowing a situation where a handful of teams are the only ones with any chance of success at home or abroad is good for rugby in this country.

Nor do I Oz. The Jeff is an extremely greasy pole (like all competitive professional sports) but what has been the ultimate result of this past ten years but to have reduced English clubs' record in Europe.?

The ultimate irony will be (putting my Tigers hat on) if Leicester win the regular league next Saturday despite all the PRL hurdles placed in their way.

I'd say that currently the system is designed to pull all the top clubs down to the middle/bottom level. A better system would be to pull the lower teams up to top level (not sure if such a system even exists).

The 'best' thing for the England international side would be for 4 top clubs to suck up all the best English players, maybe loan out younger players to the lower teams, and have the same teams competing at the top level year on year. Whether that's the best thing for English rugby is another matter.

I'm not massively against the current system but some of the things Portnoy suggest must happen (in my view). Namely EPS payments. Also having a cap that has an absolute cap AND some sort of turnover part would stop billionaire buyout problem (not sure on the details). However we've got to admit we're attempted to limit our best clubs. The stable ones, with good infrastructure, support, training and academies. Currently only really Tigers and Saints. Chiefs are on their way, along with Gloucester and Quins.

Portnoy wrote:

AsLongAsBut100ofUs wrote:

Portnoy wrote:Erm that's all too easy Asbo:

The essential PRL votes that created the nanny state:

Absolute value wage caps
EPS payments distributed equally irrespective of contribution
Voting decisions which created the situation where (especially this season) to press forward with Jeff contests without reference to club International (particularly English) losses.

I wouldn't disagree with some of those, particularly the distribution of EPS payments irrespective of contribution - I guess the academy players excluded from the wage cap is an attempt to balance that one out indirectly. I'ad also agree that wage caps could be created in a better way than simple absolute value, but that's not to say that there wouldn't be problems with your preferred alternative (% of turnover) either. I note that you, as usual, make no comment on the inequitable distribution of 'P' shares (it doesn't affect the Tigers, so not relevant in your world?), which forces Exe to play with c.£1m less income than the rest of the AP.

But I notice you ignored the other part of my question: if you'd like to be thought of as holding a balanced view, how about posting some examples to support the other side of the argument? For example, relegation/promotion creates an incredibly competitive league with players constantly used to high-intensity, meaningful games

ffs. I do. Have you never read any of my recent articles ?

I asked you to list a few here? If you can't be orsed, no worries

AsLongAsBut100ofUs wrote:

Portnoy wrote:

AsLongAsBut100ofUs wrote:

Portnoy wrote:Erm that's all too easy Asbo:

The essential PRL votes that created the nanny state:

Absolute value wage caps
EPS payments distributed equally irrespective of contribution
Voting decisions which created the situation where (especially this season) to press forward with Jeff contests without reference to club International (particularly English) losses.

I wouldn't disagree with some of those, particularly the distribution of EPS payments irrespective of contribution - I guess the academy players excluded from the wage cap is an attempt to balance that one out indirectly. I'ad also agree that wage caps could be created in a better way than simple absolute value, but that's not to say that there wouldn't be problems with your preferred alternative (% of turnover) either. I note that you, as usual, make no comment on the inequitable distribution of 'P' shares (it doesn't affect the Tigers, so not relevant in your world?), which forces Exe to play with c.£1m less income than the rest of the AP.

But I notice you ignored the other part of my question: if you'd like to be thought of as holding a balanced view, how about posting some examples to support the other side of the argument? For example, relegation/promotion creates an incredibly competitive league with players constantly used to high-intensity, meaningful games

ffs. I do. Have you never read any of my recent articles ?

I asked you to list a few here? If you can't be orsed, no worries

Start from https://www.606v2.com/t26601p100-the-jeff-run-in which celebrates the fact that dead rubbers are minimised.

If anyone can quote me any post that has me criticising the relegation system as opposed to supporting it then I'd like to be reminded.

By the way there are some clubs resident in the Jeff that would no pass their own PRL determined entry requirements.

Portnoy wrote:Shut up equo.
That kind of remark is not helpful.

Go away

Love it.

No need to get your panties in a twist, just because everyone else has taken your arguments to the cleaners.

There wasn't anything wrong with my remark to Oz just a light hearted comment.

Portnoy wrote:

AsLongAsBut100ofUs wrote:

Portnoy wrote:

AsLongAsBut100ofUs wrote:

Portnoy wrote:Erm that's all too easy Asbo:

The essential PRL votes that created the nanny state:

Absolute value wage caps
EPS payments distributed equally irrespective of contribution
Voting decisions which created the situation where (especially this season) to press forward with Jeff contests without reference to club International (particularly English) losses.

I wouldn't disagree with some of those, particularly the distribution of EPS payments irrespective of contribution - I guess the academy players excluded from the wage cap is an attempt to balance that one out indirectly. I'ad also agree that wage caps could be created in a better way than simple absolute value, but that's not to say that there wouldn't be problems with your preferred alternative (% of turnover) either. I note that you, as usual, make no comment on the inequitable distribution of 'P' shares (it doesn't affect the Tigers, so not relevant in your world?), which forces Exe to play with c.£1m less income than the rest of the AP.

But I notice you ignored the other part of my question: if you'd like to be thought of as holding a balanced view, how about posting some examples to support the other side of the argument? For example, relegation/promotion creates an incredibly competitive league with players constantly used to high-intensity, meaningful games

ffs. I do. Have you never read any of my recent articles ?

I asked you to list a few here? If you can't be orsed, no worries

Start from https://www.606v2.com/t26601p100-the-jeff-run-in which celebrates the fact that dead rubbers are minimised.

If anyone can quote me any post that has me criticising the relegation system as opposed to supporting it then I'd like to be reminded.

By the way there are some clubs resident in the Jeff that would no pass their own PRL determined entry requirements.

Ah, so you can if you try!

Just don't wum in this debate Equo.

The one reason that this article has not collapsed is that arguments have been sensible and not irrational.