Re: Four points separating the top six : Wed May 30, 2012 2:54 pm  

FevGrinder wrote:

Griff, well I’m glad your maths is better than ours.

You are quite right, in that the systems you mention above would make no difference to the overall league positions, however we are not using any of these systems, we are using a 3-2-1-0 system that does make a difference.

Dave - you're maybe missing my point here.

1. You agree that 3-2-1 is the same as 2-1-0. We'd all just have 18 points more at the end of the season under the former. Fair enough ?

2. The next step is 3-2-1-0. Only teams who lose by 12+ are affected. They lose one point for each of those games.

3. Therefore teams who lose by 12+ have one less point for each of those games and, again, I ask, what's up with that ?

Re: Four points separating the top six : Wed May 30, 2012 3:00 pm  

E.S.O wrote:

No it's not.

Well, you're just too selective about what constitutes success.

Re: Four points separating the top six : Thu May 31, 2012 12:06 pm  

griff1998 wrote:

In $uperleague, the gates justify it. In CC and CC1, I'm not sure they do.

Tell that to Batley, who would not have had a home game in the play-offs last year had it been a top 4 play-off comp only. I am not saying I believe that a top 6 play-off system (or top 8 in SL) is a good idea, just that I suspect that the club charimen believe it generates extra cash.

As for the gates, well its a shared gate so what do you expect? I was at the Eagles v Fev league game and the Eagles v Halifax play-off game last year and know which one I thought had the bigger crowd. To me there is a big issue about the crowds anounced for shared gates across all leagues and it's an issue I don't know how to solve.

Re: Four points separating the top six : Thu May 31, 2012 12:28 pm  

griff1998 wrote:

Yes, 2-1-0 makes a difference. Compared with 3-2-1-0 it favours teams who get beaten by more than 12 and nobody else.

So ... why would anyone think that's a good idea ?

Who said that I thought it was a good idea? I said you can decide if the differenece in the systems makes an significant differance. Maybe I'd like a 4-2-1-0 system, but am not telling you how you get the bonus point

griff1998 wrote:

Dave - you're maybe missing my point here.

1. You agree that 3-2-1 is the same as 2-1-0. We'd all just have 18 points more at the end of the season under the former. Fair enough ?

2. The next step is 3-2-1-0. Only teams who lose by 12+ are affected. They lose one point for each of those games.

3. Therefore teams who lose by 12+ have one less point for each of those games and, again, I ask, what's up with that ?

I never said there was anything wrong with it did I?

There are other differences to the ones you highlight above, for example team A wins a game by 24-10 and then losses a game 10-24, they end up with a 3 league points and a zero points difference, whereas team B draws a game 10-10 and draws a second game 24-24, they end up with 4 league points and a zero points difference. is this fair? And should there be a bonus for winning a game by lots of points? And does it really matter anyway?

You said there was no difference in league placings using the old system and the current system, all I did was point out that there is a difference, one that could have meant that Dewsbury could have been relegated rather than Hunslet last year (as it happens neither got relegated because Barrow had a points deduction). Though above you do reconise that there is a difference now and that our math skills ain't so bad after all.

Personally I do not care what the points system is, 3-2-1-0, 2-1-0, 4-2-1-0, 4-3-2-1-0, 100-99-98 or whatever just as long as every club knows what it is before we start the season, that is fair in its application to every team and that it does not change during the season. If these are in place then before the season starts every club know what they need to do during the year to finish as high as they possibly can during the season. Why do you care so much?

Re: Four points separating the top six : Thu May 31, 2012 12:48 pm  

To be honest, I don't care about the points system. I'm happy to run with what the rules are.

What does irritate me is people coming on here and talking tripe.

Re: Four points separating the top six : Thu May 31, 2012 1:29 pm  

griff1998 wrote:

To be honest, I don't care about the points system. I'm happy to run with what the rules are.

Please mention that at the start next time, it will save everyone a lot of time.

Re: Four points separating the top six : Thu May 31, 2012 9:47 pm  

E.S.O wrote:

Please mention that at the start next time, it will save everyone a lot of time.

Like it

Re: Four points separating the top six : Fri Jun 01, 2012 8:40 am  

So you're going to stop talking tripe ?

Re: Four points separating the top six : Fri Jun 01, 2012 12:49 pm  

griff1998 wrote:

So you're going to stop talking tripe ?

What tripe did I talk Griff, please enlighten me?

Re: Four points separating the top six : Fri Jun 01, 2012 4:22 pm  

FevGrinder wrote:

Now this doesn’t appear on the face of it to be that material, in that Hunslet are a couple of places higher than they would have been using the old 2-1-0 system, since it has not affected the play-off places or relegation places.

That is until you consider what would have happened if Barrow had not had any points deduction applied, in this case it would have been Dewsbury being relegated under the current 3-2-1-0 system, whereas the old system would have meant Hunslet would have been relegated.

Bottom line is that it does make a difference whether you use the current 3-2-1-0 or old 2-1-0 system and you can debate the merits of both systems. Does this make a "BIG" difference and does it mater I'll let you decide.

However for me as long as everyone knows at the beginning of the year what the system is and it is consistent and the criteria doesn’t change during the course of year, then it shouldn’t matter, since we all know what we are being judged on from the off and what we have to achieve.

Here - misses the point. Yes 3210 is different to 210 but who benefits ?