I'd agree with that.

The present playoff system is just too random, there is no meaningful reward for coming top. All team should really aspire to this.

Top 3

First goes into gf, 2nd and 3rd playoff for the final, home advantage to second?

You'd get the top teams going hell for leather week in week with that.

Problems with that are the loss in revenue from such a reduction in games. Sky are the paymasters and they've driven an expansion in the playoffs with more games each time, i doubt they'll be happy with only 2 playoff games. If you expand it further on the premise 1st goes straight into the GF you then have them kicking their heels for 2/3 weeks which then becomes an unfair disadvantage to them for finishing top.

It's a nice idea but 1st into the GF would never be feesible in reality.

I still reckon the best way for a play off format is for the top three.
League Leaders go to the Grand Final whilst clubs 2 & 3 play off.
Larger prize monies for both comps.

C Cup.
I did think that with a fourteen team SL that the SL clubs should come in at the last 16 stage rather than last 32 as now.
Stage the last 16 at the Magic Weekend with 14 SL clubs and 2 champ clubs. Eight games over two days with the draw televised after the last match.
I did think that would have brought a far greater intensity out of the C Cup and reduced the luck element which my club Wigan did have this year. Wont apply now if we go down to 12 SL clubs.
I was happy enough with the easy draw as the last time we won the Cup it was Leeds in the Final, Saints in the semi and Wire at their place in the quarters.
It wasn't said that Wigan had a tough draw which did think so at the time. Luck of the draw can be with or against you. Maybe a tougher draw and Wigan may still have won the Cup? We'll never know!
Just that we just beat the other three teams in the top four to win the GF, so you never do know really.

I have no problem with Wigan winning the play-offs; There would be no point having a Play-Off System if only the Top 2 can be called 'Champions' if they win. What does grind on my gears, however, is the huge amount of hypocrisy from certain posters who last year whined for weeks about how finishing 5th meant there was no way we deserved to win the Super League Title, yet those same posters are happy to go on and on about how Wigan are Champions with just 1 place difference? Luckily only the sensible Wigan fans have posted here so far, and it is okay to be happy that you won while recognising fault in the system (I felt the same the last couple of years) - just don't expect your hypocrisy to go unnoticed. If Leeds weren't Champions to you last season, Wigan are not champions now.



I do find it amusing how you spent all year bleating on about how easy it was to win from 5th compared to 4th, yet now that already weak assumption has been disproven, you change your complaint to how easy it is for 'Genuine SL contenders' - why were St. Helens not Genuine contenders, finishing 5th? By Genuine SL contenders, do you just mean Leeds?

__________

I agree the system needs an overhaul, but I don't think players pick and choose games to win in order to finish in a certain League position. I know it's difficult for some to comprehend, but it's a lot more difficult than getting to a certain week and saying 'Yeah we're going to let Huddersfield win tonight'. Oh and let's not forget that they also discuss with the other Top 5 coaches to ensure everyone else wins/loses in order to keep their 5th place position. Of course.

People forget the impact of cup runs has on the final league placings nowadays. No LLS winner has reached Wembley since the top 8 started.
2009 - Leeds (4th Round)
2010 - Wigan (Quarters)
2011 - Wire (Quarters)
2012 - Wigan (Semis)
2013 - Hudds (Quarters)

In all those years the team who finished 2nd had longer cup runs. Does anybody think if Hudds reached Wembley this year and Wigan had got knocked out in the quarters that the league positions would've stayed the same.

Look at Leeds, when we've reached the final we've finished 4th (2010) and 5th (2011 & 2012). Lose in the 4th round in 2009 and finishing with LLS, lose in 5th round this year and get highest placing since our last non-Wembley appearance.

Not sure how I can be accused of hypocrisy for being happy that my team won yet pointing out the flaws in the system and indeed arguing consistently that the current playoff system doesn't produce genuine champions. (I just don't see how a team finishing in 8th could be classed as Champions if they won it - and represent SL against the NRL champs as the BEST in SL - and I know that the NRL has a similar system, but that's their concern, not mine)

I suppose if it makes you feel good slagging Wigan fans off then go for it. But I'm not on here for a ing contest - there is usually pretty decent informed debate. I think that most posters recognise that the system needs an overhall, that a top 8 playoff is too random and that the playoffs and GF are obviously here to stay.

None taken.

I want a competition where every week every game is intense. Then, when the playoffs start, the intensity goes up a notch. I'm not in the slightest bit hung up on won loss records and league placings. If every team in the league was capable of beating every other every week we'd have champions with far more losses and that would be great.

I'm not saying we have that. We don't. But that is what we should be aiming for and too many people who watch and run the game think tinkering with formats and league structures will provide the easy fixes. It wouldn't.

Imagine a playoff series where all 8 teams went hell for leather to win it all. How good would that be? This year I thikn the top 5 went for it with the others (certainly the Hull clubs) happy to make up the numbers. If someone won it from 8th that would send a great message to the other teams and then every playoff series would be intense.

I watch a lot of NFL. Nobody cares how the teams qualify for the playoffs. In fact, it's celebrated as an acheivement if a Wild card team (the "weakest team" in the playoffs) manages to win a super bowl.

Good post. You make some really good points. Not sure I want to copy the yanks - they have a strange view of sport (World Series for the only country that competes!). Completely agree about the amount of tinkering. Let's try to keep it simple. It helps people like me!

Not so long ago I was hearing RL people like John Kear and the usual media commentators saying SL is improving so much it won't be long when a team from 6th place wins the SL and how great for the game that will be?

Said it last year that it should be a top 3 sort of tri nations event.
1st v 3rd
2nd v 3rd
1st v 2nd

Team finishing top of the regular rounds get home advantage in both games and a week off in the second week.
Team finishing top of the tri tournament are crowned chapions, simple.

Plenty of incentive there to finish top or at least top 3.

It would be none sensical to scrap the Grand Final.

Do you always disagree with my posts
Didn`t notice you disagreeing with the other poster who did away with the GF.

But to make you happy at the end of the 3 team series the top two could play off in a GF held in Manchester.
What do you reckon Les?

I think the 5 team format worked really well. Sadly, when promotion and relegation went, it had to go as there were just too many meaningless matches in the last quarter of the season.

I still think, therefore, that the top 8 system is a symptom of a league structure which needs two (or at least one and a half) competitive tiers but barely has one. Fix the real problem, then we can fix the symptom.

The Grand Final is the best event on the calendar now IMO (much as I love the carnival atmosphere of the CC final, it lacks the intensity of the GF) and I wouldn't want to go back to first-past-the-post for all the tea in China. Where I gather they have a lot of tea.

Agree with this 100%.

I really don't see the issue.