National Leagues 2007

[terracesider]

The 2007 fixtures are out. First league games on 6 April. The structure is just as Bowes told us. No NL3 as such, it has become the RL Conference National League, or whatever, but some of the sides will still be making a group (7) in the Northern Rail Cup: Hemel; Bramley; Dewsbury Celtic ; and Warrington Wizards.

 

[Jeffles]

The NL's will have a new points system

Win - 3 pts
Draw - 2pts
Loss by 12 or less points - 1 point
Loss by 13 or more pts - 0 pts.

What a crap bloody system. Talk about rewarding losses. Someone on totalrl.com did a mock up and this makes huge differences to the points table. Eg. if the system was applied to last year's table, Rochdale Hornets would have slipped three spots to sit below a club that won two less games than Hornets did in 2006.

NL1 is be the second best competition in the UK. it is elite. It should not be treated as some pissy school carnival, everybody gets a trophy day competition. This points system, which has the potential to rank, "good losers," above, "real winners," is a disgrace to the RFL.

 

[terracesider]

If you scroll down to mav's post on here he's produced tables for last season using the new system.

I blame Nigel Wood.

 

[bartman]

Strange system. I guess it's meant to put some distance between losing teams that aren't far off the mark and losing teams that are woeful, down the bottom end of the table?

Would make some sense, perhaps, in making the odd clear relegation where thoroughly deserved, but they're moving away from promotion/relegation in a few years aren't they? Can't really see the benefit or reason in this change...

 

[bowes]

Not sure they're going away from it between NL1 and NL2, at least not yet (they should be, no promoted team has ever stayed up) so it would have an effect there

 

[bartman]

Fair enough, I thought come 2009 SL franchises they might try and lock in the NLs on three year terms as well. We'll wait and see.

I just don't get what the future benefit of changing the points system like this might be, would be happier if there was some long term desire for something behind it, but it just comes across as a tinker rather than a reasoned debated change.

 

[jed]

I know it's not coming in for SL, but if the new system was applied to last year's table, all 12 teams would have finished in the same positions after 28 rounds.

 

[terracesider]

I just don't get what the future benefit of changing the points system like this might be, would be happier if there was some long term desire for something behind it, but it just comes across as a tinker rather than a reasoned debated change.

Tthere does not appear to have been any debate, fans at NL clubs have been taken completely by surprise.

Nigel Wood, the RFL chief operating officer, said: "We believe this is a progressive move and will generate increased levels of competition and interest in the National Leagues and Northern Rail Cup.

"The RFL believes it will encourage an exciting, attacking brand of rugby league for spectators to enjoy throughout the forthcoming season.

Sporting Life


I go for the tinkering theory. I suppose Wood has to show he's doing somthing for his salary.

 

[langpark]

The NL's will have a new points system

Win - 3 pts
Draw - 2pts
Loss by 12 or less points - 1 point
Loss by 13 or more pts - 0 pts.

What a crap bloody system. Talk about rewarding losses. Someone on totalrl.com did a mock up and this makes huge differences to the points table. Eg. if the system was applied to last year's table, Rochdale Hornets would have slipped three spots to sit below a club that won two less games than Hornets did in 2006.

NL1 is be the second best competition in the UK. it is elite. It should not be treated as some pissy school carnival, everybody gets a trophy day competition. This points system, which has the potential to rank, "good losers," above, "real winners," is a disgrace to the RFL.

pretty stupid i think.

BUT, who knows, could there be less blowout scorelines under this system i wonder? The incentive is there for a team to not lose by more than 12, but there's no incentive for the winning side to put more than 12 on their opponents. I personally feel this new system is more prone to match fixing, not quite match fixing, but "pre-match agreements" lets say

 

[Jeffles]

The incentive is already there to put up a good performance because it preserves the reputation of the club, helps a player keep their spot AND we already have points difference as a measure to separate teams.

What bugs me is that you now have a system where good losers can be ranked above proper winners. Rewarding sh*t is not the way to go. There is a lot at stake with promotion and relegation.

Say you have two bad teams - teams that finish in the bottom two.

One manages to win 5 games by 12 points, lose 2 by 1 point and lose the remaining 11 by 13. That's 17 points with a differential of -85.

Alternatively, you have a team that loses all its games by 12 points. That's 18 points and a differential of -216.

The new system allows this team finishes above the other team - a team with superior points difference and a greater win percentage gets relegated! What a joke.

The same scenraio can exist with making the finals - a financial boom for the clubs in question.

 

[Evil Homer]

Indeed.Awful,awful idea.

 

[deluded pom?]

Come on boys. We've been tinker free for a few years now. How long did you think it was going to last for?

 

[bowes]

Come on boys. We've been tinker free for a few years now. How long did you think it was going to last for?

Not quite. Last year they increased promotion and relegation between NL1 and NL2 from 1 team and a playoff for a possible 2nd promotion spot to 2 automatically despite A. no promoted team having ever stayed up (and this change prevented York being the first to stay up) and B. no NL2 team having ever won the playoff for a 2nd promotion spot.

The cynic in me thinks it was to try get the Crusaders promoted more easily

 

[KalgoorlieRed]

Sometimes being a cynic isnt always a bad thing.