each team plays each other once (13 games). Some teams would have 7 home and 6 away but that’s not too big a deal if it alternates each year like in the 6N.

Then split the league in a similar way to the Scottish Premiership (football): each team in the top 7 plays each other once, each team in the bottom 7 plays each other once and the point tallies from both the first and second half of the season are totalled together. (6 games + one week for a bye for each team, so 7 weeks)

This gives 20 weeks in total so is better for player welfare (2 less weeks) but still gives a good amount of games (13 is just too few) and is fairer than some teams arbitrarily having more games against certain teams than others. Sure so it’s not completely fair but no system is, not even the one we have now.

One idea I had is that the top 4 in the top half would still have playoffs like usual, but also perhaps the 6th and 7th teams in the top half and the 1st and 2nd teams in the bottom half could have a similar playoff system for the last Champions Cup place? It would keep the bottom half exciting as Champions Cup matches are such a financial boost for a team and are what the fans want so much (for instance see Quins v Northampton this year or any of the playoff games)

I must say that being laughed at and/or swore at is not necessarily a bad thing, or even reflective of an ideas merits, more a reflection of the ignorant, or the change-averse. If there is not some opposition to a change then its probably not much of a change anyway.

That said I believe that the idea of choosing the teams is something that would need sensible consideration to provide an application of fairness, but as there would be no relegation, would it make that much difference across 23 (ish) games?

You shouldn’t forget that there is an element of today’s system can be argued as unfair, in that some teams play strong teams at weak times (International periods). Alternatively Sarries needed to rest players against Wasps (because of Europe) which arguably affected their league season. Is that not also unfair that they had no rest time?

The flip side is that to win the league you need only to finish in the Top 4, so this lessens this unfairness (or luck of the fixture draw) across the season.

There is a league (in some sport) that has this system today – although I do not recall what league/sport it is.

In fact i do not propose anything, I am merely floating an idea. I have given it very little consideration but it does not seem unreasonable to play, say, 10 teams twice, and 3 teams once

I understand the argument around maintaining competitiveness right to the end of the season, but there are also downsides to relegation, not least the movement of players away from the relegated club. I do not blame the players of course, as they are quite right to seek to maintain their own top-level status. Very often, they move up from a lower standard, or the club’s academy, prove themselves capable of playing in the top tier, and would then be foolish to step back down.

The RFU support the academies of 14 clubs, and it is across these 14 academies that the cream of the English youth comes, so it would make perfect sense to maintain a top-tier status for these clubs, so that these players have a clear Premiership path – if they are good enough.

I suspect the list of Academy graduates from Bristol, London Irish, Worcester and Leeds that are now in other Premiership clubs is quite a lengthy one. Newcastle too – although their successes of late would appear to slow this somewhat.

I used to be against ring-fencing but have now swayed having seen the fortunes of London Welsh (last year) and the struggles of Bristol this year.

Frankly, most clubs do not have the infrastructure to support a top team. More (and most importantly) do not have the support base to do the same, so frankly it is ridiculous to think that the likes of Ealing, Jersey, London Scottish, Doncaster or Rotherham could ever support a successful Prem side. Arguably; Leeds, Newcastle and Sale too, but I understand fully the geographic need of the RFU to encourage these teams to continue.

Exeter will remain to exception but this is almost entirely due to its geographic position in a strong rugby part of the country. I accept that they are also very well run and coached, but this really is what takes them to the Prem Final, as opposed to scrapping for survival. A few years back it could have been Plymouth, or (at a stretch) Penzance who made the jump up before Exeter, and thus would have cornered the SW market.

Competitiveness? Well 12 teams qualify for European competition today. This could remain with a 14 team Premiership.
Too many games? The teams do not have to play each other twice.

I’m an advocate of expanding the Prem by two and ring fencing but I can certainly see the downsides.

Scrapping the Championship playoffs is a good move for a side like Bristol who can prepare and spend without risk of ‘Welshing.’ What about other teams without their resources though? They’d have more opportunity to recruit, but might end up overstretching because of it.