Do you agree with play-offs?

First topic message reminder :

Personally I hate the play-off system. It seems to me totally contradictory to have a league title decided by a knock-out system. The whole point of a league is to reward the most consistent team over the entire season. And yet, according to the play-off system, it's about who is the winner after 80 minutes.

Look at the Top 14 this year. Montpellier, who finished 6th in the league, managed to scrape their way to the final and almost robbed Toulouse.

It's clearly about money. A full house at Twickenham or the Stade de France generates huge revenues for the rugby authorities. The semi-final between Montpellier and Racing Metro was held in the Velodrome in Marsielle, the second largest stadium in France. Clearly, higher forces are at work here.

So I thought I'd conduct a poll. Vote accordingly.

AlynDavies wrote:

maestegmafia wrote:I still haven't read what I would deem a solid reason to discard the play off concept at the end of the league. Hopefully next years league will be even closer than this season gone, and the relevance of a playoff at the end will be emphasised even more.

You dont think that Munster winning 19 games in a 22 game league and the Ospreys winning only 12 games and being 20 points behind Munster, is a reason why the play off's should be scrapped?

It seems grossly unfair that the Ospreys could still be champions after such a gulf in achievement over the course of a season.

Obviously you have a point.

But then again there are divisions in the league, during the league that are equalised in the play offs. Examples being loss of players to injury, international call up etc etc etc.

A team concentrating on a league playing conservative rugby will always perform over one that is fighting on several fronts. As mentioned previously.

AlynDavies wrote:

maestegmafia wrote:I still haven't read what I would deem a solid reason to discard the play off concept at the end of the league. Hopefully next years league will be even closer than this season gone, and the relevance of a playoff at the end will be emphasised even more.

You dont think that Munster winning 19 games in a 22 game league and the Ospreys winning only 12 games and being 20 points behind Munster, is a reason why the play off's should be scrapped?

It seems grossly unfair that the Ospreys could still be champions after such a gulf in achievement over the course of a season.

Obviously you have a point.

But then again there are divisions in the league, during the league that are equalised in the play offs. Examples being loss of players to injury, international call up etc etc etc.

A team concentrating on a league playing conservative rugby will always perform over one that is fighting on several fronts. As mentioned previously.

maestegmafia wrote:Obviously you have a point.

But then again there are divisions in the league, during the league that are equalised in the play offs. Examples being loss of players to injury, international call up etc etc etc.

A team concentrating on a league playing conservative rugby will always perform over one that is fighting on several fronts. As mentioned previously.

Well all teams will suffer injuries and Munster did go further than Ospreys in Europe, we were eliminated at the Pool stage. So Munster were fighting on more fronts. Yet were still quite far ahead.
I'm not sure you can include the LV Cup as it was played during the International calender and is generally an excuse to give academy players a game.
You can also argue that Munster only have 5 non Irish lads in their squad.

Not something I actually want to see come in, but what if in the semi-finals you start on however many points you finished the league season on? So the Ospreys would have had to beat Munster by 20 points to topple them. Would that have been more fair? Would that make for more entertaining play-offs?

Dislike playoffs intensely and always have. League should be league and Cup, knockout. Different beasts.

But if you like a bland sameness, go for it. I see most people do. Personally I boycott playoffs and did this year even as a Tigers supporter. (Congrats to Sarries btw)

Portnoy wrote:Nottins,

This is half the reason I'm not getting draw into this debate.

Like I said, it's comparing two entirely different beasts.

Like Turtles and Tortoises or African and Indian elephants, superficially they may look similar but their habits and breeding patterns are different.

Very wise. One is a system with clubs, the other provinces/regions. It's a profound difference even if the coaching set-ups are similar!

Bottom line, with international games played during the season robbing teams of their best players, if there weren't playoffs the league wouldnt be fair.

With teams knowing how the season is structured they can plan accordingly, and build momentum at the right time.

Finally, home advantage is huge, and this is rightly appropriated in the celtic league for semi's and final.

[quote="maestegmafia"]

I disagree and again Nottins you fail to back up your abrupt slatting slant on other people's opinions with anything vaguely based on reasonable evidence.

You disagree but can't back it up.

maestegmafia wrote:I would love to hear your examples of why money is not directly linked to success in the Aviva/Guinness premiership?

Ah, you have selective reading, I never mentioned money and success and failure in the AP, you did that.

maestegmafia wrote:Otherwise I think we will continue to peddle it as a FACT.

Not sure how you can say that when you actually haven't provided one single fact.

maestegmafia wrote:With regards to Saints they were relegated due to financial constraints and management disputes that resulted in owner Barwell selling land owned by the club to re finance. Due to this their relegation season actually saw an increase it profit but only because of the land sale otherwise they were in serious difficulty. The difficulty was due to playing poorly early season and loosing gate receipts, they also concentrated on competing at European level where they didn't have enough budget to compete.

No, Northampton got relegated because they finished bottom, nothing to do with financial matters. Whether he refinanced or not, the players still received the same salary.

Alyn,
I would agree it would be something for a team with only 12 wins copping the league title. But the question would become why couldn't Munster (naturally presuming it would be them) raise themselves for the Big Moment?

Looking at American sport where playoffs are a completely accepted part of the sports championship process, there are examples of upsets where teams with significantly weaker records beat the teams with much better records for league championships. These are great stories. But these examples are rare. Many times the lesser teams make it to league finals (World Series, Super Bowl, Lord Stanley's Cup) but in the end quality and form usually prevails.

I can certainly see how you would feel this is unfair. In a way, it probably is. But upsets are another thing which drives sport. And because they are rare, it creates even more media attention. The question is still why couldn't the favourite raise the game on the day?

By the way, I know you were tongue-in-cheek when referring to yourself as old fashioned. Nothing wrong with that. All in fun, eh mate? However, I do that in my work, and I guess a lot of things. I still hold a door for women, for instance. I visited a university the other day to make a presentation and these clods wouldn't hold a door for girls carrying books. Unable to restrain myself, I had to explain to these mutton heads what it takes to be a man. My daughter then called me a dinosaur, but she smiled as she did so.........

Alyn,
By the way, I remember a pub in Bridgend caleed the Five Bells, Is it still there? Not a rocking place, but a nice place to grab a pint.

asoreleftshoulder wrote:I like them as long as the team topping the league gets home advantage in the playoffs.It gives some reward for being consistent throughout the season.

logie: That's a fair point and one I hadn't considered enough.

Hmm.

doctor_grey wrote:Alyn,
By the way, I remember a pub in Bridgend caleed the Five Bells, Is it still there? Not a rocking place, but a nice place to grab a pint.

#

Doesnt sound familiar I'm sorry mate. Though Bridgend is like a morgue these days most of the places you would know have closed down and if you see 20 people out on a Sayrday these days it's a busy night.
Funnily enough I used to go to Bridgend all the time, but these days Port Talbot is a good place to go out it's often busy, with a decent amount of ladies to men ratio. In Bridgend it seems like it's 20 guys to 1 girl, and 18 of those guys are roiders from Maesteg...

Thanks, mate. Times change. Haven't been out your way in a while. I guess come Rugby season, its probably time for a road trip.

doctor_grey wrote:Alyn,
By the way, I remember a pub in Bridgend caleed the Five Bells, Is it still there? Not a rocking place, but a nice place to grab a pint.

I might know which one your talking about Doctor, is it the clubhouse of Bridgend Atletic Rugby club, because I remember a great after match meal and sing song there if it was....

Yes you did

nottins wrote:
Ah, you have selective reading, I never mentioned money and success and failure in the AP, you did that.

nottins wrote:Please stop continuing to peddle the untrue myth that more money equals success.

You refute that even with examples. You are attempting to TROLL

Give me example of where I said money buys success and lack of money equals failure in the AP.

We all agree that clubs in the Top14 have had the most money in the last 5 seasons, yet only one French club has won the HEC in that time.

I think you'll find I'm finding examples that prove you wrong.

nottins wrote:Please stop continuing to peddle the untrue myth that more money equals success.

nottins wrote:Give me example of where I said money buys success and lack of money equals failure in the AP.

Trolling again nottins...

maestegmafia wrote:

nottins wrote:Please stop continuing to peddle the untrue myth that more money equals success.

nottins wrote:Give me example of where I said money buys success and lack of money equals failure in the AP.

Trolling again nottins...

This has been a wonderful thread so far, if we can keep it on track that would be fabulous. That's a message for everyone by the way Thank you.

Also in the USA the have the long play offs for the finals so its not won or lost on one bad game