Unfortunately, I seem to recall that during the SL licence announcements Richard Lewis said that the Challenge Cup will stay as it is for the foreseeable future.

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!

It's all opinion, not fact. Your 1st point is subjective. The quality of the teams in each position will vary year on year.

The fact is, finishing 4th you have to win 2 games to get to old trafford finishing 5th you have to win 3. Therefore finishing 4th is better than 5th.

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.