My preferred option would be Top 6,
3rd vs 6th
4th vs 5th
Top 2 the first week off

However i don't mind the idea of the Top 8, in theory it should work as 'the top 8 teams in SL all trying their hardest and producing their best to reach GF glory'......unfortunately it's usually Leeds, Saints and Wigan with the 4 other teams going out with a whimper UNNECESSARILY and 1 going down with a fight (this year Wakefield). Catalans, Huddersfield and Warrington can all produce much much better than what they did this weekend and in the case of the Giants who had no 2nd chance the fighting spirit was non-existent with the exception of Crabtree, and when the GF is finally a close reality instead of a distant dream it really is unforgivable.

Unfortunately the outrage we see on here is often transferred to the journalists and tv people of RL who will then knock it for wider public to see. That example of Wakey beating Wigan would have left Phil Clarke crying on national tv and demanding Wigan be reinstated to the playoffs and Stevo calling it a 'farce' that we could lose the best team over the year on the first night of the playoffs.

So the game should be organised in such a way so as not to upset the biggest clubs with the most insular fans?

I always used to think William was on a wind-up but the more you think about it the more accurate his critique becomes.

When you quoted me you did miss out the part,

So no i never conflated a shock quarter final result with them becoming eventual Champions.

Nope again you've only quoted a select part. I said i'm quite happy with a top 8, i'm not one of these wanting it reduced to the same old 4 or 5 teams like several years ago when it use to be Wigan, Saints, Leeds, Bradford and another. It opens up the chances for a Wakey, KR or Castleford to taste playoff football and want more. However if you're going to have a playoff series where the points/wins difference between 1st and 8th can be 16pts/8 wins then simply giving them home advantage isn't a big enough reward especially when we see plenty of games decided by dodgy ref calls. They will come a time in a playoff series when that advantage of a 2nd chance or a week off goes (Warrington vs Leeds last year) but at least that team has won 2 consecutive knock out games first.

You said Leeds winning from 5th caused a stir, that's where you conflated a relative outsider (having gone to the league leaders and won) with becoming eventual Champions.

I don't see why Wakefield would cause anymore of a stir just by winning a quarter-final tie at Wigan by comparison.



That's because I've quoted the part I wished to respond to.

__________

Now you may wish to have a go at this part

Try to view it in the context of being an outsider looking in at our sport.

TVOC mentioned an outsider looking at our sport .If someone asked me to explain how the play-offs worked I would obtain a piece of paper and a pen and say, sit down and make yourself comfortable ,this is going to take quite a while to explain.

My thoughts:

1. Who ever finishes first should go straight to the Grand Final. Bring a bit of prestige back to coming top of the league, and prevent the likes of Warrington not giving a damn about coming 1st or 2nd in the league (performance/team v London). Also increase the prize money for coming top to give chairmen the incentive to push for 1st. No-one seems to care much so long as they are either 1-4 or 5-8 under the current system, and the lack of prestige over winning the league is ridiculous...

2. The team that comes second is the only team to get a second chance

3. The argument that having 8 teams in the playoffs gives the lower teams something to fight for toward the end of the season doesn't work for me... At present the top 4 or 5 teams have nothing much to fight for toward the end of the season. Therefore reduce down to the top 5 or 6... It was kind of embarrasing for the sport that we won last year, being the best team over the last few weeks, rather than the season - imagine if we'd come 8th in the league and won...

4. Whilst I "get" the need for licences and no relegation, make finishing bottom of the league count against future licence applications - perhaps the only teams that can be considered for ejection from Superleague are those who have finished bottom in the last 3 years - that would really re-introduce the dog fight to avoid finishing bottom at the end of the year...

5. This leaves the bottom 3 clubs fighting to avoid finishing bottom, and the top 6 or 7 battling to come in the top 5 or 6. There's only around 4 teams in positions 11 to 8 with not much to play for toward the end of the season then - but in reality there's at least that many not having meaningful games anyway...

6. Do we consider "bonus" points in the league for nilling opponents, scoring "X" number of tries etc? This would mean games that seem over by half time (ie when one team is 30-0 up) still have a meaning in the second half?

7. Give some lesser incentive to teams that do finish in top 8 but don't make the playoffs. Perhaps enter the Challenge Cup a round later the following season (with increased prize money to offset lost revenue).

Just a suggestion ready and willing to be shot down in flames .

26 rounds of League fixtures (13 home , 13 Away)
Top of the pile at the end of this are League Champions . Have always been of the opinion that League winners should be the champions .

Top 8 clubs go forward to a knock out compitition call it what you will
Chance to bring in new / different sponsors 1 v 8 , 2 v 7 , 3 v 6 , 4 v 5 . Then highest qualifier against lowest qualifier . etc.

If we must have the Manchester weekend (I love the concept and have been to them all ) . Have a randon draw for these fixtures to make things fair and the points any club gains this weekend are not added until the League season is over making it a sort of premiminary round to the end of season knock out compitition , top 8 with these points added go through .

I now retreat to a darkened corner waiting for the bullets comming in my direction .

Regards , EW

It's the second chance I don't like. That doesn't bring any intensity. Playoffs need pressure, which needs something significant at stake, which a second chance doesn't give

Like ThePrinter, I'd go top 6. That way one and two get a week off, the top 4 all get a home game, and we don't see any repeat fixtures in the playoffs.

Second chance worked when it meant qualifying direct for the Grand Final, there was a bit more to play for than merely qualifying for a knockout game that you can qualify for next week against "easier" opposition.

I don't think anyone goes into it without being committed but it must be a thought at the back of your mind that you have that chance.

That said, there were plenty of blowouts in the old system's 1st vs 2nd game though - 1999 and 2008 spring to mind, both of which led to interesting subsequent results ... On the other hand the 2007 game was one of the most brutal and compelling games I've ever seen.

Would this really be that different to a football team losing a group game in the world cup and going on to win the tournament? I don't follow football very closely but haven't heard it said that that particular system makes the sport look silly.

Unfortunately I don't follow football at all so can't comment on any formats they use generally but in your tournament example I'd imagine the group stage is clearly defined as the precursor to the knock-out phase. You have one - gap - then you start the other. SL should have that with the Regular Rounds - gap - play-offs.

___________



I'd also open a bottle of wine at the same time as that may become neccessary.

There have been a few examples over the weekend that highlight how confusing our play-off format has become even for those in touch with the game.

1 - After Wigan defeated Les Catalans, Barrie McDermott said to Brian Carney that Les Catalans - 'would now play (if my reckoning is right) either Wakefield or Leeds.' I can only presume he felt the need to drop in the bracketed part because he's confused by the format. Clearly he was because there was no possible scenario that would have sent a victorious Wakefield to the loser of the game he'd just watched. It simply couldn't happen.

2 - The BBC kicked off their Play-Off coverage to the nation with an explanatory graphic that was incorrect. 1 - It had Hull V Huddersfield as EPO 1 and Leeds V Wakefield as EPO 2. 2 - The graphic incorrectly showed in week 2 the Loser of QPO 1 playing the winner of EPO 1 - which if both home teams had won couldnt possibly happen either as the week 2 fixtures depend on highest to lowest rankings. I'd exclude Tanya Arnold's voiceover to the graphic from criticism, as that I think, sounded correct - although obviously the two elements (sound and vision) contradicted each other. Following the graphic week 2 will now see Les Catalans V Hull and Warrington V Leeds ..... really?

3 - On Channel 5 Friday, Eddie Stobart's special projects manager Neale Burdon (preparing for the start of SL 2012 with fifteen trucks being sent to the launch at Old Trafford) stated that last year's Champions were Warrington.

So with elements of the sports two broadcast partners not appearing to understand the format or a representative of the sports title sponsor not grasping the difference between league leaders and Champions what chance is there for an outsider of the sport (and no doubt many within it) understanding the process.

I've always thought of League as the simple version of rugby - one you could explain the basics of quite quickly and that allows novices to watch or indeed play the game quite quickly. The play-off format flies in the face of that and is a nightmare to get across and within no time I find myself starting to question my own understanding of it.

When Spain won the 2010 World Cup they did lose their opening group game against the might of Swizterland 1-0, still didn't do them or the sport much harm really having the top team beaten just a few games earlier by a team probably ranked around 20-30 places lower than them at a neutral venue. Compared with that, 2nd place Leeds losing at Knowsley Road against 1st placed Saints but then beating them on a neutral venue a couple of weeks later isn't so bad.

As for the thinking by some about 2nd chance matches being the problem and the previous lazy half-a-story listing of attendences this year compared to last may i point out that in,
2011 - Wigan beat Catalans in a lose and you're out match 44-0, Att; 6,790
2012 - Wigan beat Catalans in a 'meaningless' loser gets a 2nd chance match 46-6, Att; 7,232

how does it work in ra ra?