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.

red_stag wrote:What like the LV Cup glas. What is it about welsh fans obsession with the premiership.

Because for over 100 years Anglo Welsh games were the norm.

You know what I mean anyway. The Nesbit 1st place would play the Jeff 2nd place at home and the Jeff 1st place would play the Nesbit 2nd at home. This year therefore:

Munster v Saracens
Leicester v Leinster

Munster v Leicester Final at the Millenium, come on Stag you can see the benefit.

No I can't. We have the ERC competitions for that. Why don't we play Top 14 winners instead. We have no unique relationship with the English teams.

Well if its to determine who the best team is- is the best football team the league winner or FA Cup winner?

Both formats are really quite rare- FULL knockout, or FULL league.

Most rugby tournaments follow the hybrid of both- everyone play everyone or almost everyone then have a top 4 or 6 etc knockout series.

Satisfies both those who want to support a team 90% of the season (which you dont get in knockout) and those who want a climax! A winner- a sporting moment to celebrate- a League doesnt guarantee that.

I think play offs are the best way to decide a trophy.

Why?

Well if one team dominates a round robin season to such an extent that halfway through the season noone can catch them then the season is over and everyone loses interest.

The other factor is also that if you want to have a league cup for the league winner, that is justifiable as a team winning the league should be rewarded in some manner.

But the problem with having the league leader be the champion team is that during a season there are many factors that can influence a log.

Conditions : The two top teams play the weakest team at different stages of the season, one team gets a bonus point for scoring tries as they had good running conditions, the other team does not get a bonus point, because they played in a mudbath.

Injuries: The log leaders played a team with half their stars on the injury list, and another team didn't.

There are probably a few more examples.

Hence having the teams play of, it is over a shorter period of 2 weeks if there are semis and a final only, same conditions for those qualifying, and no excuses.

So perhaps having a trophy for a team winning the log as well as a championship trophy is the best middle ground.

red_stag wrote:No I can't. We have the ERC competitions for that. Why don't we play Top 14 winners instead. We have no unique relationship with the English teams.

I agree stag. We don't need any more competitions, there are already enough fixtures. I think we have a very good competition going with some top teams and I don't think there is any need for us to prove ourselves against the English prem. The HEC already provides the facility to play the best in Europe.

I understand the history and rivalry for the Welsh against the English but I think we should all just focus on our league.

The thing is, Wales have more in common with England than any of the other countries involved in our tournament.

They're more Saxon than Gaelic. Or, um, Italian.

Scotland is hurtling towards further devolution. Ireland always had it's own parliament and identity even before it achieved home rule in the 1920s which led to complete independence for a large part of the country in the 1940s. Wales, on the other hand, is more integrated into England both culturally and in sports.

Welsh football teams play in the English league, England and Wales share an international cricket team (just called 'England' by the way). They pine for the English in Rugby.

biltongbek wrote:Hence having the teams play of, it is over a shorter period of 2 weeks if there are semis and a final only, same conditions for those qualifying, and no excuses.

Problem is say that Team A have trounced the whole league all season long, but then get a serious tight-head crisis (leaving them with their third and fifth choice tighthead) for the last three weeks of the normal league. This would not effect them winning a straight league structure, however it would put them at a serious disadvantage come the Play-offs. So play-offs do not stop injuries being a deciding factor at all, if anything they can actually make it worse.

Notch wrote:Welsh football teams play in the English league, England and Wales share an international cricket team (just called 'England' by the way). They pine for the English in Rugby.

The football teams based in Wales played their part in founding th FA (i believe), whereas the talk a few years back about Celtic and Rangers joining the FA Prem would imply the Scots want to be English, going by that logic.. As for the cricket, Wales wanted to enter a side into the minor counties cricket competition, and in order to do so they had to be members of the English Cricket Board, so in order to play they had to sell their souls. We are on the road to independance ourselves, and had a overwhelming Yes vote recently with regards to the devolution of more law making powers to the Welsh assembly (with Monmouthshire being the only ones to vote No).

So whilst we may have the closest ties to the English among the RamboPro sides I would say we are doing our best to separate ourselves.

Thats true Scarlet Wales are doing best to separate themselves and such a system as Glas is proposing would undermine that.

Scarlet if team A have the league won with 3 weeks to spare then it's not much of a League then is it? The fact that Team A can trounce the opposition all season but still not win the competition makes it far more exciting in my book.

The flip side is that team B is far better than team A but has an injury crisis or is disrupted by international call ups. They then fall too far behind team A to catch them in the league. A play off system allows them to still stay in the competition if they can secure a play off spot.

Just my opinion stag.

Sorry if it doesnt agree with yours

ScarletSpiderman wrote:

biltongbek wrote:Hence having the teams play of, it is over a shorter period of 2 weeks if there are semis and a final only, same conditions for those qualifying, and no excuses.

Problem is say that Team A have trounced the whole league all season long, but then get a serious tight-head crisis (leaving them with their third and fifth choice tighthead) for the last three weeks of the normal league. This would not effect them winning a straight league structure, however it would put them at a serious disadvantage come the Play-offs. So play-offs do not stop injuries being a deciding factor at all, if anything they can actually make it worse.

That is true. However things a team can control is management of players, where as during the season they cannot control conditions, opposition injuries etc.

I get where you are coming from, that's why perhaps a trophy for league winners is as important as a championship trophy end of season. It is possibly the best trade off, where regardless of conditions and quality of opponents over a long season, the league winner is rewarded and those teams in the play offs are rewarded for the opportunity to still win the championship trophy.

westisbest wrote:Just my opinion stag.

Sorry if it doesnt agree with yours

Don't be sorry. Its just an opinion How boring would 606 be if we all agreed on everything.

Seems like we all agree that the come the end of the normal season the team that finish in the top league slot deserve a trophy or some sort, and that there is a need for some form of tornament/competition at the end of the regular season involving the top handful of sides in the league. Its just the fine tuning of those ideas that we all differ on.

I would like to offer the esteemed Mr. Notch a point of order - not germane to the conversation, unfortunately.

For Cricket, the combined England and Wales Cricket Organisation is properly named the "England and Wales Cricket Board". But your rightly say, most people simply call it England. I am sure no offence is intended..........

ScarletSpiderman wrote:Seems like we all agree that the come the end of the normal season the team that finish in the top league slot deserve a trophy or some sort

Sorry but I don't. If we're going to devalue the play-off system, which this would, then I'd rather not have it all. The winner of the final should be crowned champions not the winner of the league.

roddersm wrote:

ScarletSpiderman wrote:Seems like we all agree that the come the end of the normal season the team that finish in the top league slot deserve a trophy or some sort

Sorry but I don't. If we're going to devalue the play-off system, which this would, then I'd rather not have it all. The winner of the final should be crowned champions not the winner of the league.

+1

Don't see the point of rewarding the side that comes top. If you're doing that why not the one that got the most wins? Saracens only lost 4 games in the Jeff, out of 24. Leicester lost 7. Bonus points skew the whole thing if you're trying to identify the 'best' side from a league format. why not just use the league format with BP to identify the best four teams and then have a mini-knockout competetion for the champions? Much fairer and a decent competition structure.

I believe the reward for finishing top should be a home Semi (as is the case in ML and S15) and maybe a financial windfall such as €100,000 or some such figure. A trophy would COMPLETELY undermine the Play-offs as a concept.

As a Munster fan I was not thnking Munster were ML(Rabo) Winners (or the 'real' ML Winners) until the final whistle 3 weekends ago. And living in Dublin none of the 1000's of Leinster fans I know claimed such a thing last year. The season is 24 games now and in order to win the Rabo you must win the last 2 games. We all know this. And the Top side is rewarded with a home Semi and should the make the Final, it too is in their back yard. I don't think that could be any fairer to them. and, given 1 played two in this years Final, and the same last year a well, there have been no 'false' results either.

So I ask all of the remaining unemployed brickies in Ireland to undertake construction of a Bridge so the anti- playoff brigade can get over it (and attend the Grand Final!)

I appear to agree with the majority here that playoffs are a good thing, both for Rugby, and for supporters. I did start in opposition, but like the Lib Dems, I have been co-opted. Only difference I am completely comfortable going over to the playoff side. I will elucidate my scholarly rationale:

1. Playoffs are a BIG EVENT
Rugby is still a relatively small sport. The AP, Celtic League, Top 14 and Super 15 Finals are Big Events. In general, BIg Events bring a lot of attention, in the media and on the street. Rugby needs this. The more attention Rugby gets, the greater the chance someone will decide to pick up a ball and join in. Or at least go down to their club and buy a ticket. And that helps Rugby grow.

2. People really do like them:
Look at the attendance for playoffs and finals. In the AP, played at Twickenham, the stadium is usually sold out or nearly so. And these are not at the cheap prices we sometimes see for in-season club matches at Wembly or Twickenham. The people have voted, and are voting with their feet. They choose to go. As a mate said, 80,000 people can't be wrong. And its not the same 80,000 every time.

3. TV like them
We do have to be realistic. TV does like to televise Big Events. Finals in large stadia show well on TV. I wish I had the ratings to compare against in-season matches, but I would bet it is much higher. The networks give them a lot of attention, have more people at them, which indicates a higher level of investment for which they obtain returns (viewership).

4. People plus TV equals revenue
These matches must bring in serious dough. Both from the gate and TV. I mentioned somewhere else that our sport is neither big enough nor financially strong enough to look askance at this kind of revenue stream. This kind of funding helps support our clubs and Rugby in general.

5. It is a fair way to decide a champion
There are so many things which happen over the course of a season. Injuries, International call-ups, cancellations forcing mid-week matches, and so on. The top-of-table leader is really the organization which manages to survive the best. I like the idea of a team which can raise themselves to win with all on the line, as in the playoffs. And, as I said, I am a convert.

There needs to be two trophies. One for the league winners and one for the play off winners.

I think play offs are a great idea for the reasons that the others have outlined, but i still want the team that tops the league to be given something for their achievement.

Intotouch wrote:There needs to be two trophies. One for the league winners and one for the play off winners.

I think play offs are a great idea for the reasons that the others have outlined, but i still want the team that tops the league to be given something for their achievement.

The NRL in Aus recognises the Minor Premiers (league winners) and Premiers (playoffs winners). Of course the NRL doens't have a full home and away so on occasion the Minor Premiers have gotten there with some help from a good draw. Which usually gets "corrected" by the (massively complicated) playoffs.

In the National Hockey League in US/Canada there is the Presidents Trophy for the best regular season record. But, the reality is doesn't get much attention. Its all about the Stanley Cup. I would think a trophy can always be awarded for the best regular season record. But eventually the playoffs will come to dominate.

For me a trophy for the regular season winner would undermine the whole point of creating playoffs and the climax to the season that you are trying to build.

In the now Rabo league this season Munster would have been crowned Champions with 3 games to spare. Instead they had the reward of a home semi (and the gate receipts as a result) and should they win that, which they did, a home final. I think their success over the first 22 games was paid back by these two advantages. And like last season 1 played 2 in the Final, so the 'right' teams ended up facing eachother in terms of league performance.

I say all of the above as Munster fan btw, so I fully accept the gamble of Munsters' below par season could have been even worse had Ospreys or Leinster beaten them, but everyone knew the rules going in to it; the Champions are the team that wins the Grand Final.

If you want to further reward the top league position team then a prize of say £100,000/€110,000 (rounded before peeps get precise!) would be good, but a trophy would be counter productive as the season for the winners is 24 not 22 macthes. These are the facts. And such a reward would definately be beneficial in a real way to the winning team, beyond the home semi/final.

I think it adds a new edge.

The team that topped the League are accoladed with enough praise for that as it stands, but a team who say had many injuries earlier in the year, still have a shot at some glory.

Strangely, as a person stubbornly and wholeheartedly against the play-off system in the Jeff, I haven't voted.

That is because I can see the case in the Magners - where there is no threat of relegation.

In a league structure, there are minimal 'dead rubbers' and so it's different.

So I can't view the polling figures. How's the voting going?

35- Yes
19 - No

Portnoy, 35 Yes votes, 19 No

Edit: Dreamer's quick off the mark this morning!

Oops. Sorry yes I can read the figures.

Pillock Portnoy.

Thanks.

But I still won't vote - as it's like comparing apples and oranges.

C'mon Port, jump in. The water is fine. This is a good debate:
I voted yes. Others thimk this opinion is rubbish. But a good civilised debate on the topic. Obviously, the more civilised agree with me...........

Kiwireddevil wrote:Portnoy, 35 Yes votes, 19 No

Edit: Dreamer's quick off the mark this morning!

She did well in the state she's in

Hmm, Portnoy makes an interesting point. If I were English or French I MAY have a different opinion but my 'Yes to Playoffs' is predicated on the league I follow.

Hard to see how I'd feel if I were a fan in England and France.

Must note that every top-level professional club/franchise competition (Pro12, Premiership, Heineken Cup, TOP14, SupeRugby, Currie Cup, ITM Cup etc.) has a knockout/playoff format. Every one.

Portnoy wrote:Strangely, as a person stubbornly and wholeheartedly against the play-off system in the Jeff, I haven't voted.

That is because I can see the case in the Magners - where there is no threat of relegation.

In a league structure, there are minimal 'dead rubbers' and so it's different.

So I can't view the polling figures. How's the voting going?

Is relegation really that relevant in the Aviva though?

Even though it is available the wealthier English clubs have ring fenced themselves in the league so that they are almost untouchable, the bottom of the league are un likely to play in the HEC making the bonus money that brings, and those who may earn promotion are likely to get relegated soon after if they're not backed by a billionaire financier spending most of the season either getting whipped by the richer sides or playing relegation battle dead rubbers that bare little relevance to the competitive top of the league.

Most teams looking for promotion don't have stadiums that fit the premiership criteria. The whole thing covers up what the big club owners wanted originally, a premiership league with no relegation.

maestegmafia wrote:
Is relegation really that relevant in the Aviva though?

Yes

maestegmafia wrote:Even though it is available the wealthier English clubs have ring fenced themselves in the league so that they are almost untouchable
Most teams looking for promotion don't have stadiums that fit the premiership criteria. The whole thing covers up what the big club owners wanted originally, a premiership league with no relegation.

Northampton and Harlequins have been relegated in recent years. I think you'll find that both of those are "big clubs"

They are big clubs who were lacking budget.

The league is based on who has the cash and little more.

I can't see the highly financed teams like tigers, London Irish, saracens going down in the foreseeable future.

Can you?

In an ideal world the team with the best record over the course of a season should be considered champions.

However, if they are the best, they should be able to win a playoff final with all the pressurized conditions that come with it.

Plus there's the fact that it's a professional game, and it's all about the bums on the seats, and not only do playoffs themselves generate extra ones, they also do for more matches towards the end of the regular season.

Also in rugby in particular, with league matches going on during International series, it's better to have playoffs at the end of the season so as a team that doesn't have many internationals don't gain an unfair advantage.

So as I guess you can probably tell, I voted yes!

maestegmafia wrote:They are big clubs who were lacking budget.

The league is based on who has the cash and little more.

Again you're wrong. Did you see the players in both sides that got relegated ? I think you'll find that several other clubs had smaller budgets those seasons. Please stop continuing to peddle the untrue myth that more money equals success.

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.

nottins wrote:

maestegmafia wrote:They are big clubs who were lacking budget.

The league is based on who has the cash and little more.

Again you're wrong. Did you see the players in both sides that got relegated ? I think you'll find that several other clubs had smaller budgets those seasons. Please stop continuing to peddle the untrue myth that more money equals success.

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.

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

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


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.

Similarly with Quins who had over spent on their new Lexus stand and had to turn to a merger with London Broncos to re finance.

They make the league more exciting and entertaining. The Magners in particular, needed them to stop the season peetering out without any drama. And in the Magners, topping the league gives you home advantage in the final (if you make it) as well as the semi final. Which is a very important reward for coming top.

Feckless Rogue wrote:They make the league more exciting and entertaining. The Magners in particular, needed them to stop the season peetering out without any drama. And in the Magners, topping the league gives you home advantage in the final (if you make it) as well as the semi final. Which is a very important reward for coming top.

I agree it makes it more exciting but if Munster hadn't won the league after finishing so far ahead of the rest of the teams after 22 games it would of been grossly wrong.
However a league is won by the most consistent side, and it's really up to the rest of the teams to keep pace with the leader NOT for everyone to handicap the leader to bring them down to their level.
I understand how it makes things interesting but I dont think it's fair to the team that finished top after 22 games played to have to defend their right to be champions.

But Munsters great league season gave them home advantage in both matches. Which meant it was theirs to win or lose. I'm a Leinster fan. We blew a home final the season before. But it was our own fault. We didn't perform for the big occasion and let the Ospreys take a trophy we should have won.

AlynDavies wrote:

Feckless Rogue wrote:They make the league more exciting and entertaining. The Magners in particular, needed them to stop the season peetering out without any drama. And in the Magners, topping the league gives you home advantage in the final (if you make it) as well as the semi final. Which is a very important reward for coming top.

I agree it makes it more exciting but if Munster hadn't won the league after finishing so far ahead of the rest of the teams after 22 games it would of been grossly wrong.
However a league is won by the most consistent side, and it's really up to the rest of the teams to keep pace with the leader NOT for everyone to handicap the leader to bring them down to their level.
I understand how it makes things interesting but I dont think it's fair to the team that finished top after 22 games played to have to defend their right to be champions.

That applies if the team at the top deserved to be there at the end of the league.

For example if a side, let's say munster, concentrate their efforts on the league more than the Heineken Cup they may exploit their position, taking the league whilst other teams fighting on several fronts, HEC, LV= and Magners can't compete against until the play offs when their efforts are freed up.

Feckless Rogue wrote:But Munsters great league season gave them home advantage in both matches. Which meant it was theirs to win or lose. I'm a Leinster fan. We blew a home final the season before. But it was our own fault. We didn't perform for the big occasion and let the Ospreys take a trophy we should have won.

I'm an Ospreys fan and whilst I was proud of the effort and commitment our boys showed out there, I think most of our fans felt we didn't deserve to be champions. Though of course winning a trohpy is always nice and another chance to see Brian O'Driscoll looking upset, hard done by, and miserable in general is always welcome

Alyn,
You are where I used to be. I was converted by watching the excitement at Premeirship semi-finals and finals, let alone the Heineken Cup playoffs. In America, over the years I have been lucky to have attended Stanley Cup finals, a couple of World Series games and NFL playoffs. The energy and excitement is absolutely off the charts. Regular season matches pale by comparison for that excitement and energy. In Rugby, as in most sports, occasionally we get great in-season matches. I was at Franklin's Gardens last season for Saints-Munster, and the place was electric. But those types of matches are not really the norm.

Add in the financial benefit, the massive media exposure, and seeing players going hell-for-leather in a last match convinced me. This is the way to go. I do agree, its a shame the team with the regular season record will recieve only an acknowledgement. But now its about the team which put themselves in position to have the opportunity to raise the play for that one special 80 minute moment. And having a very good season is still critical.

Perhaps i'm just old school and havent adjusted with the times.

Though I wonder if everyone would be saying as much if Munster had lost the final, after winning the league by 11 clear points, and the Ospreys who barely finished 4th had won it this year!

Alyn,
Yeah, I guess you are an old fart. But, proudly being one myself, I'll give you a pass.

I'm not a Munster supporter, but I see your ppint. It would be interesting to see what they say on that point. But, again as an old fart, maybe my vision is worse than I thought: Did you mention Ospreys actually winning??????

doctor_grey wrote:Alyn,
Yeah, I guess you are an old fart. But, proudly being one myself, I'll give you a pass.

I'm not a Munster supporter, but I see your ppint. It would be interesting to see what they say on that point. But, again as an old fart, maybe my vision is worse than I thought: Did you mention Ospreys actually winning??????

I was talking hypothetically of course!

Basically what I'm saying is the Ospreys scraped into 4th spot in the play offs on the last day of the season thanks to a last minute penalty from Hook against Aironi for a 10-12 win.
That potentially gives them a chance to be league champions and as the Ospreys finished 20 Points behind Munster in the League it seems grossly unfair they should have the oppertunity to call themselves the best team in the Magners league after such a gulf in class over the course of a season. for the record Munster won 19 of 22 games, the Ospreys won 12! Yet the Ospreys can still be the champions???

AlynDavies wrote:

doctor_grey wrote:Alyn,
Yeah, I guess you are an old fart. But, proudly being one myself, I'll give you a pass.

I'm not a Munster supporter, but I see your ppint. It would be interesting to see what they say on that point. But, again as an old fart, maybe my vision is worse than I thought: Did you mention Ospreys actually winning??????

I was talking hypothetically of course!

Basically what I'm saying is the Ospreys scraped into 4th spot in the play offs on the last day of the season thanks to a last minute penalty from Hook against Aironi for a 10-12 win.
That potentially gives them a chance to be league champions and as the Ospreys finished 20 Points behind Munster in the League it seems grossly unfair they should have the oppertunity to call themselves the best team in the Magners league after such a gulf in class over the course of a season. for the record Munster won 19 of 22 games, the Ospreys won 12! Yet the Ospreys can still be the champions???

The ospreys scraped to fourth place as it was a very competitive league, bar munster who were the most consistently victorious.

Though that said the ospreys scored a lot of tries, more than their counterparts...!

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.

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.