Hello I know we covered this last year but I am still looking into writing a book about the idea of play-offs deciding the Champions in sport. I was wondering what the opinions are of fellow Rugby League fans on the play-offs. Do you think play-offs are the best way to decide the champions or do you prefer whoever finishes top being champions? And what do you think of the current format? So feel free to voice your opinion again, say whether it has changed or if you missed the post last time, take this opportunity to give your opinion. Personally I think play-offs are a great concept, sport is about peaking on the big occasion and beating your biggest rivals head to head when it matters. fantastic music, thought provoking lyrics and great merchandise from singer/song writer Sandi Thom: tiny.cc/loveablelyrics

Hello I know we covered this last year but I am still looking into writing a book about the idea of play-offs deciding the Champions in sport. I was wondering what the opinions are of fellow Rugby League fans on the play-offs. Do you think play-offs are the best way to decide the champions or do you prefer whoever finishes top being champions? And what do you think of the current format? So feel free to voice your opinion again, say whether it has changed or if you missed the post last time, take this opportunity to give your opinion. Personally I think play-offs are a great concept, sport is about peaking on the big occasion and beating your biggest rivals head to head when it matters. fantastic music, thought provoking lyrics and great merchandise from singer/song writer Sandi Thom: tiny.cc/loveablelyrics

Either way works for me just as long as everyone knows the deal before the commencement of the season.

Play-Offs (in one form or another) have been used in Rugby League for the vast majority of it's existence in this country to decide it's Champions so the traditionalist in me says that's the best way to go.

Of the recent play-off formats (SL Era) I prefer the first one used between 1998 and 2001 featuring the top 5 where every place higher on the ladder (in theory) made a difference to your chances and every next game towards the back end of the season was your most important of the season culminating for two teams (hopefully 1 V 2) in the Grand Final.

This.

Maybe the OP's sequel could be titled, 'Is Winning Championships In The Rain Ever Fair?'

The whole point is the mentality in which you approach the competition.

With a play-off structure in place, a team could decide to spend the first half of the year basically just experimenting in order to peak at the right time. Placing far less importance on the earlier fixtures because, well let's face it, they're less important. Players, intentionally or not, will be much less geared up for the earlier games.

Leeds are a prime example of this. We always seem to perform much better in "must win" games. (As a general rule. Obvious exceptions include the Wire CC Final.) Perhaps that's down to the lack of motivation from the coach, or just general laziness. Who knows. That's one thing I've always admired about Tony Smith, he really does seem to get people motivated for even the most meaningless of meaningless fixtures.

If it was whoever finished top of the league, then effectively every game from game 1 is a "must win" and you'd hope would be approached as such.

I'm not suggesting that anyone has ever thought "it's ok to lose this one", but subliminally I would imagine people have approached games in a somewhat more lackadaisically attitude, knowing that in the grand scheme of things, a top 8 finish was highly likely.

As long as everyone knows before the season starts what's happening, then it doesn't matter to me.

Same for me, word for word. I thought the 5 team format was the best by a long way.

I don't mind the play offs, it makes the sport much more entertaining (though strangely the crowds seem to die off).

Top flight football doesn't have this problem. Premiership clubs, for example, have the title and Champions League/Europa spots to play for, and relegation to avoid, as well as two club cup competitions.

I like the play-offs.

But by stretching it to 8 teams in a 14 team league does water it down a tad.

No team finishing in the bottom half of the table should still be in the race to win Super League.

If there's a balanced fixture list where everyone just plays each other home and away, I don't see the need (other than a fiscal one) for a playoff series to decide the champions. See the rugby union premiership for an example.

If you have an imbalance in the fixture list, such as in SL or the NFL, then a playoff series is the only fair way to decide the champion team.

Calm down dear, they're not. Just filling up the fixture card.

Oh they will crash and burn at the first corner, but they are still in the race and THAT IS JUST NOT RIGHT. ALRIGHT!

You mean neither Hull club is going to win to League? But I've just put a bet on. They were really good odds! Dammit.

Edit - Speaking of odds... Interesting, Huddersfield (33/1) are longer odds than both Leeds (16/1) and Catalans (25/1), despite possibly needing to play one game less. Just proves the "benefit" of finishing 4th I guess.

How did that format go again? I can only remember the top 6 format (which I think we should go back to).

League Leaders got the 1st week off as reward for finishing top.

Week 1:
Game 1 - 2 V 3
Game 2 - 4 V 5 (loser gone)

Week 2:
Game 3 - League Leader V winner of Game 1 (Winner to Grand Final)
Game 4 - Loser of Game 1 V Winner of Game 2 (loser gone)

Week 3:
Game 5 - Loser of Game 3 V Winner of Game 4 (Winner to Grand Final)

Week 4:
Game 6 - Grand Final

Before the GF the highest placed team on the ladder receiving Home advantage. Finishing position on table mattered, one team a week got eliminated, easy to follow format, no gimmicks.