Win 2 games to get to the final instead of 3. 2 bites at the cherry. The opportunity to get a home semi final. That's alot of advantages right there.



Leeds didn't need it last year. They won to make and put themselves in the best possible position to make the grand final. Wigan showed what worthy champions they were by playing an extra game then de-throning the 3 times champs on their own patch.



5th have a knockout home game. 2nd places game isnt knockout and if they win it they go through to a home semi whereas 5ht place if they win have to go away from home and win 2 more times to make the final

Yes. That's a positive. Should it all be suicidal misery unless you finish in the top 2 at which point you get an armed escort straight to old trafford?



That's opinion not fact. The facts were they could have made the final in 2 games, one being at home. That's a definite advantage over 5th.





Complete and utter speculation. Didn't we lose to crusaders last year? Whos to say we'd have won? and we'd have been playing wigan after 2 tough playoff games.

You might as well just say if my auntie had balls she'd be my uncle.



I respect your opinion but the facts show that it's wrong.

Does any of this even matter anyway?

Every season bar 1 the winner has come from the top 2, no matter what system we've had. If a team ever wins it from lower down, i thin their peformances over the playoffs will warrant it.

1st-3rd = Good Teams
4th-6th = Average Teams
7th-8th = Poor Teams

To make the final Huddersfield (4th) will have had to play two good teams and one average team.
Leeds (5th) will have had to play one poor team, one average team and one good team.

I would 100% rather finish 5th than 4th. Which is just crazyness!! Either way... the fact that we're even debating, and that some people will agree with me, even if others don't proves my point.

There should absolutely no question at all, that under no circumstance it would be BETTER to finished lower down the table. Whether you agree with my theory or not, the point is, at the moment, it's DEBATABLE (because here we are debating it!), and there should be 100% no doubt, no debate, no argument that every position higher you finish is better for you.

IMO it matters that the best two teams as determined over the course of a credible Regular Round season get to contest the Grand Final in the game to decide the Champions.

Under the present system a team from outside the top two (just as occurred last season also) have gained home advantage in a Elimination Semi-Final that their regular season did not warrant.

A situation that couldn't occur during the play-off formats used from 1998 to 2008.

Under this format there is an increased possibility that the best two teams as decided over the course of the season may not meet in the final to decide the Champions and IMO that prospect diminishes the importance and integrity of the Regular Rounds and the season as a whole.

People often refer to the Challenge Cup as Mickey Mouse and this play-off format is in danger of doing the same to the SL.

What about clubcall happening every round. First place gets first pick, 2nd gets 2nd pick unless they were picked etc.

To throw a spanner in too, whoever wins each game takes over the higher seeding, so if 1st chose 8th and lose 8th become top seeds and get first pick next time. You are only as good as your last game and all that!

Top two dont get knocked out after the first round. They get to be the "little snotty kid with the glasses who gets picked last" in the next round.

For everyone else its win or bust.

You could even have a 14 team playoff!

Then just have 1st vs 2nd grand final and scrap the playoffs.

Top 5 was my favourite format for the quality of teams we had in the competition.

Extending the playoffs only works if you have [iat least [/i6 teams who are realistically capable of (and deserving of) winning the GF. I'd love to see a situation where we had several quality teams jostling for the advantage of home playoff games and second bites etc. This would be more credible if there was little between top teams and [iany[/i advantage in the playoffs could be crucial, even a home game. This is not the case and the top 8 system we have seems to be more about levelling the playing field and keeping crap teams in the frame for longer. An attempt to artificially project our competition as something it isn't.

In a more even competition I don't see why the system should be overly biased towards 1 and 2 getting to the final, but we haven't got a more even competition.

Having said all that I'll laugh my "cock off if (as small a chance as it is) the Goons get eliminated next round. A veritable tsunami of trolls would overwhelm even the uber-moderators of Cherry&White. They'd have to switch the board off completely.

Yeah, they'd have gone from apocolyptic inducing worldwide dominance, to errr, just the 1 title on the trot.

Warrington fans will be the same when they win it this year - 'decade of domination' etc etc.

That was supposed to be the general idea as laid down by the RFL 1998 to 2008, in creating formats that favoured higher League placings and ensured a home semi-final for the clubs finishing 1 and 2 and why not as those placings were earned over the preceeding 23 to 30 rounds depending on the League format at the time.

Sure, pretend it's something more, sell a few tickets and fill a few evenings on Sky Sports but ultimately it was all geared to deliver 1 V 2 at Old Trafford for the final showdown.

Move away from that basic concept and IMO run the risk of invalidating the worth of the bread and butter weekly rounds.

Why do you want to reward a team for losing. I repeat. Because Wigan could not beat Warrington they finished 2nd. Because they could not beat Saints at home they lose home advantage in the semis. If they do not beat your "dross" Catalans they will be out of the competition. How much more advantage do you want them to have for losing?




The reward is a home game semi final. You could say what is the reward for coming 3rd? An away game against a very dangerous opponent who only finished one place higher! You either have a playoff or not.



There has to be some advantage for winning, for the teams below 2nd place otherwise the competition would have no excitment. To date the various play off rules have not produced a Champion from your "dross" And if one of them does overcome the handicap then they will have deserved it.



It doen't make it dysfunctional and the 6th place will still have to play away to the 2nd place. What it means is form is the key. Any play off competition becomes a knock out cup event and so is about form on the day and not previous performances. For this to work there has to be the chance of a lower team winning despite the inbuilt handicaps - otherwise its pointless.

As I have previously stated IMO the "Hub Cap" should have the most status and be for the team that finishes top of the table as a true Super League Champions Trophy.

To allow a team that didn't finish top to become champions is in itself a flawed idea, or indeed for a team to lose at home and still have the chance to be called Champions is a bit flaky.

The playoffs should not be for the Championship Trophy but be for what it is - an exciting revenue producing Cup competition for the Top 8 (or 6 or 5 or 4 etc) with a handicap in favour of the top finishing teams.

Fans who have been around since before 1998 need to try and let go of the importance of league placings. The league campaign is a qualifying campaign. Is it unfair if a formula 1 driver doesn't win a race having qualified from pole position?

Before season start everyone knows that to acheive the goal of a championship they will need to defeat the other teams who qualify for the playoffs in a pre-determined format.

Goal 1 is to qualify as high as possible to garner the rewards that come from that. Goal 2 and, perhaps, more important, is to hit your straps at the right time of the season.

Wigan and Huddersfield are sufficiently rewarded with a 2nd bite of the cherry and a home tie against a lower placed team. That is sufficient reward. If they want to earn the right to be champions they should be able to overcome the teams around them. If they can't find form when it matters why find alternate playoff formulae to accomadate them?

If a team ever does win it from outside the top 3 or from within the lower half of the top 8 they will be fully deserved champions having timed their run perfectly and overcome the odds that finishing in the bottom half throws up against them.

In the NFL wild card teams (lowest placed playoff qualifiers) have won the Superbowl and it's not even a topic for discussion. They appreciate the season is merely to qualify for the playoffs.

............but I would lose the silly club call

The same as was afforded all teams finishing the regular season in positions 1 and 2 from 1998 to 2008. If you can find a reference of mine to Les Catalans as dross perhaps you'll be kind enough to post a link to it.




In what way was Sunday's game at the DW Stadium a semi-final? It wasn't so I'm sure you'll now have to agree that rightfully earned reward has been denied them.

You don't need three teams for a Grand Final just the two and preferably they should be the ones that have shown themselves over the season to be most deserving. The RFL shouldn't care about teams finishing 3rd to 5th, 6th or 8th depending on the format as they haven't earnt the right. Getting the teams finishing 1st and 2nd is what they require for the integrity of the Regular season to be maintained.



If ever a dross team (7th or 8th) become Champions they will have little credibility and nor will the format that allowed a team that lost more games in the Regular Season than they won to become Champions.

At that point there should be little interest in 27 Regular Rounds as it appears they will have counted for practically nothing other than avoiding finishing in the bottom 6 of 14.



Agreed on the form part but the answer is not to deprive the higher placed team in the regular season with the loss of home advantage when facing a team that finished lower on the ladder. That's simply not equitable to me and it's only appeared since 2009. It's the biggest difference from the formats that have gone before and served the game well IMO in giving the best opportunity for the season to finish with a flourish and not some hopelessly mis-matched, tired out, damp squib.




Not with an inbalance in fixture lists. The current Leeds V Bradford Millenium Magic fixture in 2011, in theory handed Leeds a distinct advantage over both Wigan and St Helens where the Champions could be decided on less than the two points on offer.

I'm comfortable under either system (first past the post or Play-Offs) for deciding the Champions as long as it's agreed before the season starts. The fact the vast majority of RL Champions have been decided by the latter convinces me that it's the correct method to use once the format is sorted. Unfortunately only RL can come up with a progessively worse format as the years go by.

__________



You appear to be describing the position of a pre-match favourite in RL. In sport (even F1) it's all on the duration of the event.

In F1 the driver (Vettel - obviously) who collects the most points over the course of 20 individual events is declared the Champion. F1 is first past the post as determined by a League table at the end of the 'Regular Rounds' (with no Play-Offs) but carry on using the analogy if you think it's useful to the debate on which play-off format best suits RL.

Sorry you did state your dross teams were 7th & 8th and not 6th.

Not to give an incentive to the 3rd and 4th teams if they win away in the first round made it far too easy for the top 2. It now gives has the first round more edge.



I said "Because they (Wigan) could not beat Saints at home (in round1) they lose home advantage in the semis" A home semi was the reward for the winner of the first round at the DW. Wigan knew that and lost. Wigan rightfully earned a home tie in round 1 only but a home loss meant they then didn't deserve a home semi



The playoffs are a handicap knock out and should be won by the most deserving in this competition and not prior competitions otherwise why have it?

The top 4 get a handicap advantage to start with but must make the most of it otherwise they are no longer the most deserving. For the competition to have credibility every team in it has the right to win it. The odds are heavily in favour of the top 2 winning it as history shows. If a team that is awarded a 2nd bite, after losing at home, and cannot win away they do not deserve to be champions.



I think if this were to happen they will have great credibility as they would have knocked out all above them.



The "Hub Cap" is a separate competition. The top 2 & top 4 start with great advantages and opportunities.



The higher placed team only loses home advantage if they are beaten at home by a lower team which is fair. If they don't risk losing something in the first round why are they in the first round?



I agree this has never been fair and should revert to just one home and away game.




I thought the majority of RL Champions were decided by first past the post!

But I agree the system could be better and even include home and away ties,