Yeah that's been suggested before but I don't like it because I think it'd be highly unrealistic. If these legends were still willing to play every week and were still good enough to compete with a team, why wouldn't they just sign up for other teams? Why would they stay unsigned?
You're forgetting Flack. Flack, Diggler and Harps would certainly be a better pace attack than anything you could put together at the moment, yes. Even if Doog does sign (which I doubt).
They don't want to train in a professional capacity. Just turn up mid-week and have a hit around against a decent side. If they did start 'training', I'm sure they'd be picked up by a side, for example.
Like the idea of 4 of the 9 teams qualifying for finals - cuts down on the dead rubbers and all that - but I quite like the finals themselves as they are now, with the top side going straight to the final. Having effectively no difference between the 1st and 2nd place finishers seems unfair. On the bye weeks - inter-club North v South matches.
Well if I ran a top four I'd do it properly and go 1 v 2 - winner to final 3 v 4 Loser of 1/2 v Winner of 3/4 - winner to final And the 1 v 2 game would be a home game for 1st, so there'd be some advantage there. Alternatively I could still send 1st straight to the final, and have: 3 v 4 2 v Winner of 3/4 - winner to final 1 - straight to final Which would be just like the current top 3 system but with basically a "play off" for third place between 3rd and 4th.
I prefer the latter. In general I'm not a massive fan of finals anyway - if you're good enough to win the most points over 16 games the you're the best team imo. So the minor premiers only having to win one game to be champions is better than having to win 2.
I prefer the former tbh. Not a fan of 1 going straight to the final - probably the only one here who thinks that.
Personally prefer the first way. As much as anything for realism. The 2nd way would mean that 1st place would be sitting about for say 2 weeks doing nothing, which would give their opposition the advantage of having more momentum coming into the fixture. Giving home advantage to 1st still makes it valuable to win the league.
Major/minor semis. 1 vs 2 (1's home ground) 3 vs 4 (3's home ground) Winner of 1 goes into the final, loser hosts winner of 3/4
I'm still not sold on actually moving to a top four in the first place. I kind of like the latter if we do go down that route though, as it'd mean that if you did finish fourth you'd have to win three finals in a row to win the comp; two of them away from home and the other against the minor premiers. I seems a compromise to me between the top three we have now and a more traditional top four.
g1: 1 v 4 g2: 2 v 3 losers moves into lower brackets g3:W1 v W2 (winner of this to final, loser to lower bracket) g4:L1 v L2 g5: L3 v W4 (winner to final) G6: W3 v W5 if W5 wins this game then another game must be played g7: W3 v W5 Winner is..........
I think either keep it as is or do the 1v2 3v4. Makes no sense for one team to have to win 3 games while another team only has to win 1.
