The Jeff: Bigger is better?

What do you think?

Portnoy, I've gone for 'Other' simply cos I have no idea what manner of self-interest will drive the clubs' CEOs when they come to consider all the numptiness that is the agreement between RFU/PRL/clubs - sorry

AsLongAsBut100ofUs wrote:Portnoy, I've gone for 'Other' simply cos I have no idea what manner of self-interest will drive the clubs' CEOs when they come to consider all the numptiness that is the agreement between RFU/PRL/clubs - sorry

I'm asking for your opinion not to pre-empt and go along with CEOs.

Unless I misread it, you are uncharacteristically fudging.

Ah, right you are. I'm not that bothered about the numbers tbh - I think there are more pressing problems to sort out, which we've discussed elsewhere

What's the context?

If there are fewer teams and therefore fewer games, will there be an additional competition?
If there are more games does that mean the LV is canned? More teams does that mean no promotion or more promotion?

The Great Aukster wrote:What's the context?

If there are fewer teams and therefore fewer games, will there be an additional competition?
If there are more games does that mean the LV is canned? More teams does that mean no promotion or more promotion?

Fewer teams mean fewer games within IWs GtAuk. Cup and other meaningless games can pad the schedule.

Fewer teams makes JeffdivII more competitive. Highest team with ground (existing or pre-specified) gets promoted (with or without playoffs).

I think more teams is good for the clubs finances. Fewer teams is probably better for England, as it would ease the strain on top flight squads and reduce the number of games England internationals play. Since I like the idea of test rugby taking prominence, I went for fewer.

I also think reducing the number of AP teams to 10, plus increasing Englands HC representation to 8, would significantly reduce the difficulty in qualifying for Europe's top cross border competition, and level the playing field in that regard with the PRO12. Without meddling in how PRO12 teams qualify.

More games means more wonga, simples!

(I went more then 12 teams)

yappysnap wrote:More games means more wonga, simples!

(I went more then 12 teams)

More games means fewer classy sides yappy.

Portnoy wrote:

yappysnap wrote:More games means more wonga, simples!

(I went more then 12 teams)

More games means fewer classy sides yappy.

Well, considering ye Jeff lot are always droning on about how relegation and promotion makes the Jeff better than the PRO12 (its patently not) how can you even dare to ask this question?
Ergo - REDUCE the teams in the Jeff. Expanding it would be sheer folly.

I hope London Welsh win their case. Its a ridiculous situation. Sort that one out 1st, then ask the same question.

Love you.

AsLongAsBut100ofUs wrote:Ah, right you are. I'm not that bothered about the numbers tbh - I think there are more pressing problems to sort out, which we've discussed elsewhere

If Wasps, Newcastle, Bristol, London Welsh, Pirates, Leeds, Nottingham, Rotherham, London Scottish etc. can't provide a decent league with improved crowds in the Championship then I'd be enormously surprised.

I'm not an English club supporter but i reckon the Jeff should expand to 14/15 teams with relegation closed for at least 3 years.

I'm sitting on all the fences. Fewer teams would mean all games would be meaningful and less clashes with internationals. But club supporters will see through any alternative cups added to pad out the fixture list, so finances will suffer. Fewer teams would increase the quality of the championship, but it would need to be financially supported by the jeff otherwise it would just create an elite few teams.

More teams would get rid of the LV and thus make the whole season competitive and of interest. More top flight teams should impprove the quality of EQPs as more are playing in these games. But with the injury levells increasing do we actually need more competitive games?

The current set up is OK, and I have to agree with ASBO, there are more pressing issues that need to be addressed first.