If there's a balanced fixture list where everyone just plays each other home and away, I don't see the need (other than a fiscal one) for a playoff series to decide the champions. See the rugby union premiership for an example.

If you have an imbalance in the fixture list, such as in SL or the NFL, then a playoff series is the only fair way to decide the champion team.

Calm down dear, they're not. Just filling up the fixture card.

Oh they will crash and burn at the first corner, but they are still in the race and THAT IS JUST NOT RIGHT. ALRIGHT!

You mean neither Hull club is going to win to League? But I've just put a bet on. They were really good odds! Dammit.

Edit - Speaking of odds... Interesting, Huddersfield (33/1) are longer odds than both Leeds (16/1) and Catalans (25/1), despite possibly needing to play one game less. Just proves the "benefit" of finishing 4th I guess.

How did that format go again? I can only remember the top 6 format (which I think we should go back to).

League Leaders got the 1st week off as reward for finishing top.

Week 1:
Game 1 - 2 V 3
Game 2 - 4 V 5 (loser gone)

Week 2:
Game 3 - League Leader V winner of Game 1 (Winner to Grand Final)
Game 4 - Loser of Game 1 V Winner of Game 2 (loser gone)

Week 3:
Game 5 - Loser of Game 3 V Winner of Game 4 (Winner to Grand Final)

Week 4:
Game 6 - Grand Final

Before the GF the highest placed team on the ladder receiving Home advantage. Finishing position on table mattered, one team a week got eliminated, easy to follow format, no gimmicks.

I like it!

What he said.

But I'd add that 8 teams in the playoffs is, in my opinion, way too many when the league is comprised of 14 teams.
To be able (theoretically) to win the title when you've lost more games than you've won in the regular season can't be right.

If the top team finished way ahead of whoever came second, say ten or twelve points clear, it would even seem faintly unfair that they would not automatically be the champions ... but that can't be helped if you've decided the system before the season starts.

From fourteen teams, I think four is enough for the play-offs.
Granted, that means we wouldn't be in the playoffs this year ... but do we deserve to be?

< Edited to correct earlier brain malfunction >

Which league are you thinking about?

SL is bad enough with it's 8 from 14 for the reason you went on to highlight.

Lol this question.

We get this EVERY season.

EVERYTIME the playoffs come round.

I believe top place should decide champions. Then a week before the end of the season the rfl announce that in fact the bottom placed team will be crowned champions.

What?

Sounds like something Damo would suggest.

I think absolutely, the play-offs should decide the champions, and all teams know thats the way it is before the start of the season. The trick is knowing when to peak at the right time of the year, and some teams do that better than others. Plus, the play-offs add another exciting dimension to the end of the season, culminating in the GF at Old Trafford which is a special day for all supporters, and is something that this sport does so well.
The Shield is a piece of silverware, nice to have it, but not given too much recognition because winning the Title at Old Trafford on GF day is so much more special for the sides that are lucky enough to achieve it.

They do, although the sense of excitement derives from their importance relative to that of the regular rounds. Scrap the play offs and you'd probably find that league games became more exciting (well, some of them). But basically I'm in favour although, like several other posters, I found the five team format far superior to what we have now. But then again, were I a Cas/Hull FC/HKR fan, I'd probably rate the 8-team format more highly.

You're right, my reasoning was actually about 14 ... where I dreamed 12 up from is a mystery.
I think my age is affecting my brain.
Jeez.