Menu
Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
New posts
Latest activity
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles and first posts only
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Help Support The Rugby Forum :
Forums
Other Stuff
The Clubhouse Bar
Second Place = First Loser..?
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="gingergenius" data-source="post: 394458" data-attributes="member: 33219"><p>It's very easy to say that a straight up league system like the FA Premiership is the fairest. But even the attribution of points depending on a result is highly subjective. In the old rugby 1st division, it used to be 2pts for a win, 1 for a draw. The Premiership values winning more and gives 3 points. There's already a difference here, between two systems that are almost identical.</p><p></p><p>And with the systems above, margin of victory is not accounted for in anything other than points difference. Some people might say that winning 20 games in a season by 50 points and losing 2 by 1 point is more impressive than winning all 22 by 1 point, others would say an unbeaten record is the most valuable.</p><p></p><p>Bonus points redress this imbalance to some extent - so teams are rewarded for big wins/ narrow defeats. Personally, I think both systems have their pros and cons - but I'll always say, each team plays by the same rules, so know how to approach things differently.</p><p></p><p>Playoffs are more controversial for obvious reasons. I'll throw in three arguments for them: 1) If you call yourself the best team in the league, then beating the other better sides one more time shouldn't be a problem. 2) Domestic seasons were traditionally structured around a league and at least one knockout competition. In England there's the LV Cup which is pointless, and so playoffs have replaced the knockout drama you got with the Tetley's Bitter/ Pilkington etc. 3) As has been said before, all internationals are available for the playoffs, which they're not for the rest of the season. They can redress the balance from the 6N & the AIs.</p><p></p><p>------------------------</p><p></p><p>On to excitement. If you're 3 goals up in the Prem with 10 minutes to go, all you need do is sit back and see out the match. If you've got 3 tries, then you're still going to want to go for the jugular and pick up the BP. Equally if you're 13 points adrift, you're always gonna lose but the game's still alive because you'll be going for the Bonus.</p><p></p><p>For playoffs, they're obviously exciting.</p><p></p><p>Personally, I don''t have a strong opinion either way, but in the pro era bonus points and playoffs do add to the excitement of a league, so I'm not completely against.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="gingergenius, post: 394458, member: 33219"] It's very easy to say that a straight up league system like the FA Premiership is the fairest. But even the attribution of points depending on a result is highly subjective. In the old rugby 1st division, it used to be 2pts for a win, 1 for a draw. The Premiership values winning more and gives 3 points. There's already a difference here, between two systems that are almost identical. And with the systems above, margin of victory is not accounted for in anything other than points difference. Some people might say that winning 20 games in a season by 50 points and losing 2 by 1 point is more impressive than winning all 22 by 1 point, others would say an unbeaten record is the most valuable. Bonus points redress this imbalance to some extent - so teams are rewarded for big wins/ narrow defeats. Personally, I think both systems have their pros and cons - but I'll always say, each team plays by the same rules, so know how to approach things differently. Playoffs are more controversial for obvious reasons. I'll throw in three arguments for them: 1) If you call yourself the best team in the league, then beating the other better sides one more time shouldn't be a problem. 2) Domestic seasons were traditionally structured around a league and at least one knockout competition. In England there's the LV Cup which is pointless, and so playoffs have replaced the knockout drama you got with the Tetley's Bitter/ Pilkington etc. 3) As has been said before, all internationals are available for the playoffs, which they're not for the rest of the season. They can redress the balance from the 6N & the AIs. ------------------------ On to excitement. If you're 3 goals up in the Prem with 10 minutes to go, all you need do is sit back and see out the match. If you've got 3 tries, then you're still going to want to go for the jugular and pick up the BP. Equally if you're 13 points adrift, you're always gonna lose but the game's still alive because you'll be going for the Bonus. For playoffs, they're obviously exciting. Personally, I don''t have a strong opinion either way, but in the pro era bonus points and playoffs do add to the excitement of a league, so I'm not completely against. [/QUOTE]
Verification
Post reply
Forums
Other Stuff
The Clubhouse Bar
Second Place = First Loser..?
Top