The LLS is recognition of the best team in the League over the length of the season, having played all their opponents several times. The Challenge Cup is quite obviously a straight knockout competition. The GF is the outcome of yet another knockout competition where the entrants are the top clubs in the League at the end of the season. This has been boosted by Sky as the 'Major Trophy' because that's where they've spent all their cash and a Knockout Final always boosts the ratings!!
Would be a valid point but most SL teams try to place themselves in the top8 to be in with a chance of getting to gf so performances on a weekly basis are geared to positioning ourselves into the back end of the season with as strong a squad available so it's a fair assumption to make that some teams don't try to finish top or will take a loss or two to rest players etc as it is very few teams actually aim to finish top of the league all it means now is that the team in top spot was the most consistent over a season and has been relatively lucky injury wise.
Premiership football brings in plenty of money from tv rights and the winner of the league at the end of the comp gets the trophy. SL is a pauper by comparison and contrives ever more complicated systems: 'top six playoff', 'super eights' etc etc ( we know it will change again next year) in order to keep the fans coming through the gate and the money rolling in. If clubs didn't need the gate money we would still be playing 'first past the post'.
Its only advertising that makes the "SUPER LEAGUE TROPHY" the one to win. Lets face it, if you put a million pound advertising campaign behind a bag of dried rabbit turds people would be fighting at the tills to get it. How many Syrian refugees are coming over here and then investing in a pair of ripped jeans to keep the cold out in their Glasgow squat ?
The reason the LLS is played down is because the RFL / clubs don't want it to become coveted by the fans - because then there would be no need for the Super 8's and a few more money generating games would there ?
If clubs didn't need the gate money we would still be playing 'first past the post'.
It's probably about TV money more than gate money. Maybe first past the post would be better for gate money as it would place more meaning on league fixtures for the top clubs which can start to become a bit immaterial towards the end of the season when you know you're likely to make top four.
The important money in the game is the TV contract which is based on how many subscribers the game can draw in as a product - and some of these will be people that watch multiple sports and aren't hard core rugby league fans affiliated to a team but will value the overall TV subscription higher because it has these games on it - and RL is a very attractive television product because it's easy for a newcomer to pick up and has a lot of action. Having the season build up to a crescendo of big games makes the TV product more exciting for a casual watcher who is less bothered about the fairness of the best team over the season getting rewarded, but wants an exciting product to watch on TV.
In countries where there are huge distances between sporting teams, like USA, Australia, there isn't the same culture of being an "away fan" as there is in the UK, so TV is really the key market for their sports, and they tend to have all of their sports based around playoffs and Grand Finals.
It's probably about TV money more than gate money. Maybe first past the post would be better for gate money as it would place more meaning on league fixtures for the top clubs which can start to become a bit immaterial towards the end of the season when you know you're likely to make top four.
The important money in the game is the TV contract which is based on how many subscribers the game can draw in as a product - and some of these will be people that watch multiple sports and aren't hard core rugby league fans affiliated to a team but will value the overall TV subscription higher because it has these games on it - and RL is a very attractive television product because it's easy for a newcomer to pick up and has a lot of action. Having the season build up to a crescendo of big games makes the TV product more exciting for a casual watcher who is less bothered about the fairness of the best team over the season getting rewarded, but wants an exciting product to watch on TV.
In countries where there are huge distances between sporting teams, like USA, Australia, there isn't the same culture of being an "away fan" as there is in the UK, so TV is really the key market for their sports, and they tend to have all of their sports based around playoffs and Grand Finals.
I do agree that TV is a key driver to SL having a play-off system to decide the champions, but I think you're missing the the point with your last paragraph. In Aus the two dominant codes of football were, until relatively recently, based almost solely in the two major cities, so the travel distance for most away fans was actually less than in the UK. And in both the US and Aus, play-offs to decide the champions were established long before TV was the dominant media. Tony Collins writes (in I can't remember which book) at some length about the relationship between sport and the media, and his exploration of this theme is very interesting; for anyone wanting to criticise Sky too much or pine for 'the good old days', it's worth a read.
The fact is professional sport is an entertainment business, now more so than ever, and to generate revenue organisers will exploit whatever means they can. The football reference always makes me laugh, as people completely overlook the convoluted way promotion is decided when saying 'football doesn't need to use play-offs'.
All that said, there's a prize for finishing top, and those rubbishing it are predominantly in the 'Smith out' camp (not that it's a campaign, mind), and it undermines their argument that we won this last year, so bizarrely they have to downplay our success.
All that said, there's a prize for finishing top, and those rubbishing it are predominantly in the 'Smith out' camp (not that it's a campaign, mind), and it undermines their argument that we won this last year, so bizarrely they have to downplay our success.
This is getting tiresome. I could easily say the "Smith In" camp (not that it's delusional blind faith, mind) use the winning of an award that is not coveted by any of the teams that do not win it, to attempt to obfuscate what has been a steady decline since 2012, masking the fact that we have 0 GF wins from 7 attempts since the 2010 season. At least this season that white elephant will not be available.
I just don't understand how people idolising Smith are blind to how we are playing currently. We are rank.
I cannot believe people still debate the gf win vs LLS shield nonsense. 1 is THE prize to win....the other a little bonus (no more). It doesnt matter who or what made the GF the thing to win....but it is the thing to win, and we havent yet. Sport is cyclical and great teams make hay when it's their time in the sun and they even grab the odd trophy when they're in the shade. The last six/seven years shouldve seen us win a lot more than we have done. 3 challenge cups is ok but we really should have at least 1 championship in there. The worst thing is we are awful to watch....as we were last season bar sandow. I could put up with the turgid rugby if it grabbed that first GF win....but that's not gonna happen.
This is getting tiresome. I could easily say the "Smith In" camp (not that it's delusional blind faith, mind) use the winning of an award that is not coveted by any of the teams that do not win it, to attempt to obfuscate what has been a steady decline since 2012, masking the fact that we have 0 GF wins from 7 attempts since the 2010 season. At least this season that white elephant will not be available.
I just don't understand how people idolising Smith are blind to how we are playing currently. We are rank.
Perhaps the first thing that you need to understand is that many people supporting Smith aren't "idolising" him and by and large they aren't "blind to how we are playing currently", they just have a different view to you and others of what to do next? Sorry if it's "tiresome" particularly as I think that most of the "tiresome" posts come from people with a different opinion to you.
Quite rightly, I would suggest that they may be working to a different set of criteria to you when measuring what success is. We may each have differing views on why a particular success or failure has happened...excuses if you like and some may be don't lay all of that 'failure' at Smith's door. There are those that accept that life isn't black and white, more shades of grey. If you don't win the GF, but, do something else positive in a season, say win a "white elephant", appear in two finals, bring some exciting prospects through, improve upon the previous season then it might be disappointing, but, is it a sack-able offence after five games in the following year because we didn't win the GF last time out?
Sure, ultimately the 'buck stops' with TS, people recognise this and playing in the middle 8's this year might see Smith's support evaporate, even those with seemingly blind faith recognise that Smith's race will eventually be run.
Perhaps the first thing that you need to understand is that many people supporting Smith aren't "idolising" him and by and large they aren't "blind to how we are playing currently", they just have a different view to you and others of what to do next? Sorry if it's "tiresome" particularly as I think that most of the "tiresome" posts come from people with a different opinion to you.
Quite rightly, I would suggest that they may be working to a different set of criteria to you when measuring what success is. We may each have differing views on why a particular success or failure has happened...excuses if you like and some may be don't lay all of that 'failure' at Smith's door. There are those that accept that life isn't black and white, more shades of grey. If you don't win the GF, but, do something else positive in a season, say win a "white elephant", appear in two finals, bring some exciting prospects through, improve upon the previous season then it might be disappointing, but, is it a sack-able offence after five games in the following year because we didn't win the GF last time out?
Sure, ultimately the 'buck stops' with TS, people recognise this and playing in the middle 8's this year might see Smith's support evaporate, even those with seemingly blind faith recognise that Smith's race will eventually be run.
I think, Uncle Rico, if you take a big step back, what you'll see is that certain posters/people on here, will criticize the club, no matter what. Some people are just pre-disposed to it. The Leeds board for example, has had people adamant about sacking McDermott, for years and years, and were quite happy last season to go "HA HA, i told you so!"
I can guarantee you that the same people on here were criticizing the club back between during our time winning trophies, as its more important for them to be right in their own minds. The club can do no right whatsoever in their eyes.
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: Google Feedfetcher and 93 guests
REPLY
Please note using apple style emoji's can result in posting failures.
Use the FULL EDITOR to better format content or upload images, be notified of replies etc...