They are 'named as champions' . So the rounds prior to the play-offs are actually only qualifying games then , and as such are really meaningless . A team that wins 17 games can be named champions over a team that has won possibly 30 games but loses at the GF. I know which team I would consider to be the champions .

I don't care much for the GF . I will attend because it is a good day out . I hope we can get there and win it again so we can sing 'that's why we're champions' again next season .
I actually started singing it at Hunslet when we were losing

Here we have the common misunderstanding of the "insular" attitude of the yanks in having a "world series".
It is usual to put the sponsors' name in front of the title of the competition. The series of games was sponsored by "World" and therefore became known as the "World Series".

Thanks for that . You learn something new every day .
So do 'World' sponsor the WCC as well ?

Nope, because its "Carnegie World Club Challenge".

That answer that for you?

I know that . So when are the rest of the world going to be invited to contest it and make it a proper 'WORLD' Club Challenge ?

The other leagues aren't strong enough to be considered plus there a is another nationality in it namely the New Zealand warriors!
The event is recognition for the 2 GF winners(CHAMPIONS) from the 2 toughest comps to play a 1 off decider for the status of WCC champs.
SIMPLES.

England , Wales , France , Oz , and NZ in wtih a shout then .
Not really a 'World' thing is it when there are only 5 countries from 2 continents contesting it . Surely there are other countries that could , and would , enter their 'champions' in the competition if they were invited to do so .

The most consistent team (and some would say this makes them the best) wins the hub cap. The Champions are the team who win the GF.

A real champion side is the side who wins both and doesnt choke when it comes to the grand final.

Rex hunt would be proud!!

this is the first season in a while,because of the strange fixtures, that the team who ends up top can be considered the most consistent.

Surely it has always been the most consistent team that finishes top .
Or am I missing something ?

a brain for a start

Back in which day?

You've mentioned recent newcomers to the game but shown a lack of respect for the history of the sport.

The championship was decided by a playoffs long before it was decided be the league table. In fact, its' only been a rather brief period in the games' history that it was decided by the league table.

We had playoffs and a final to decide the champions long before Sky sports were ever thought of.

Can't disagree with you on that one .
Care to explain what you mean't above that though ?

Not really, there's always vagaries to consider.

Eg, Saints play Celtic away early in the season when they're buoyant. We play them late in the season when they're decimated by injury and deportations.

We get Huddersfield when they've loads to play for. Saints play them after the semi when they field a team of kids.

The only way is to treat a league season as a qualifying playoff, reward the higher finishing teams with incentives, then let the best play the best for the prize and the cream will rise to the top.

You know, like we have right now.