A lot of people hate on them but I think the excitement of the play-offs are awesome. It can be unfair sometimes, see Saints in 2005, being the best team all season then going down in the play-offs due to injuries but I wouldn't change it at all. When you look at football then most seasons the title is decided before the last week and then the end of season is so anti-climatic, whereas the grand final is a fitting end and a great occassion.

I agree with the clubcall thing, that is pretty cringeworthy.

First past the post is boring. Grand Final all the way.

Grand Final all day long.

Grand Final but stop the top 8. It's embarrassing having teams with as many losses as wins being rewarded with an end of year slot. I'd personally go top 6 with teams 1 and 2 earning the week off and then having home ties to reach the GF. I'd possibly consider team 1 going straight to the GF but that would then put them at a disadvantage in not playing for 2 weeks between winning the league and the GF. Tricky, but the top 8 is embarrassing for me.

I don't think Hull (in 8th) are there to make up the numbers any more than Catalans (in 6th) are. Both are well capable of producing a shock result along the line IMO.

I think the 8 is fine TBH, and will get better and better as seasons pass and (hopefully) more teams start spending full cap. I can see the issues you highlight, but I think to label the format "embarrassing" is to massively overplay them I reckon.

Will Hull win it from 8th? No. Could they have a major say in the play-off series? Yes.

But Hull have finished in the bottom half of the league. I personally don't think they should be rewarded with a shot at winning the Super League title after havign such a mediocre season. The reason we have a top 8 is to get more money into SL and I understand that but I don't agree with that.

I imagine speaking to someone who doesn't understand RL very well and explaining to them that yes, the team who finished 8th having lost as many games as thy have won, need to win 4 straight games and they are SL champions. As unlikely as it would be, I just don't think it should be allowed. Think about other sports that employ play offs to determine a Champion. 12 out of 32 teams qualify in the NFL. 4 out of 12 in the Guinness Premiership. 8 out of 30 qualify in baseball. I just think those numbers are more realistic that 8 out of 14 in SL.

I agree with you that over time, once clubs start spending up to the cap that it should turn out better, which is why I don't have as much a problem with the NRL play offs. This season must be one of the first for a while were the top 4 have all won on the opening weekend. It's much more unpredictable over there. Until we have a stronger more equal competition I'd suggest going back to 5 or 6 teams, but that's just my feeling.

Having only watched Rugby League since 1999 play offs is all I've known so I can really only comment from that side of it. I'm sure those fans old enough to remember the 1996 season and before will be able to compare winning the league from 1st and from Old Trafford better.

I have always liked the play off concept and have been in favour of it because, as I say, it's what I'm used to. When it was Top 5 or even Top 6 the league games still felt important enough and the play offs felt like huge games with a magnificent occasion at Old Trafford as the climax. Each league position had a clear advantage over the one beneath it, especially with the Top 5 so there was a desire to finish as high as possible in the regular rounds. Also the intensity and tension of the play offs themselves was great in my opinion.

However, with the move to Top 8 my opinion has begun to become less fixed. Although the games can still be tense and exciting its diluting of the league has made it have more of a detrimental influence than a positive one. Teams only have to finish in the Top 4 in reality to have a potentially good chance of reaching the Grand Final and a good side might still be able to do it from outside the 4. The league games are undervalued far too much with the present system. And that's not to mention Club Call which goes against the whole ethos of sport in my view.

I would still answer Yes I think play offs are a good way of deciding champions but only if the play off system is not seen to detract from the weekly round 'bread and butter' games we watch all year. The previou play off systems just about avoids doing this but the Top 8 does have a diluting effect in my opinion.

Winning the League has to be the Superior success of Champions, why should a team who can lose many more matches end up as Champions, it should be just end of season play off trophy! and a format which does not allow any teams a second chance if they lose in the first round, I agree the two tops teams should go straight through to the semi, but the other four teams should be straight knock out!

I get that people like the excitement of the play offs and I have no problems with that. As a PR spectical the playoffs are by far a superior product. However in terms of testing a club. NOthing beats the league system. You have to back up week after week. You have to cope with injuries but because its not knock out a period of injuries can be evened out.

During a four week knockout comp its too short to even out any injuries or suspensions.

Also you cant compare playoffs. Take the superbowl. The playoffs work there because the league system does not test all teams against each other.

If we had a divisional system then yes the playoffs is the only viable option.

The question is what do you wanty from yoursystem hype or a true test of the best team. You can call Catalans champs if you like if they wuin this year. Saints too. But it will just mean the best side is not he same as the champions.

Effectively the CC is a more validtest of who the champions than they playoffs as at leadst its an open competition to all comers.

Grand final is exactly the same as the premiership in years gone by. But are we going to take all those league wins off wigan and hand the champions tag to whoever won the premiership?

The fact that a team finishing below first place can then be classed as champions goes against what most sport is all about, unless it is part of different competition as in champions league.

The premiership didn't decide the league champions though, it was a competition on its own.

Ask the same poll question on the dire forum this week and it will be 100% = No!

Not for me, if I had my way Wire would now be Champions.

The top 8 is an absolute farce, you could lose more games than you win and technically become 'Champions'. On the other side you could be undefeated all season, lose the last game and end up with nothing.

The weekly rounds are worthless in the context of a top 8 play offs. Maybe the supporters should boycott the league games and just turn up for the last 3 weeks of the season, I think that would consign it to history.

Im not denying that the Grand Final is a great day out and fantastic when you win ( Can just about remember that now!) but top would be champions for me and that is a view I have consistently held even when we were winning the Old Trafford showpiece.

I'm undecided. On one hand the best and most consistent team should be regarded as the champions, but on the other the excitement and spectacle the grand final creates is a great advert for the game.

There's far too many teams in the play-offs, however. The absolute maximum for me should be 5, I though would prefer just the top 3, which is what I think they do in the Aviva Premiership.