So you deserve to be there when you finish in the bottom half of the table? This is why rugby league cant be taken seriously. We always have to strive to keep the small teams happy and reward mediocrity. Hardly working fine when you see the attendances of the plays offs.

Go back to top 6 and it becomes something that actually has a meaning.

Top 5 would be far better, based on results there'd still be a lot of competition for 4th and 5th. Plus the play-off format would be much better (real advantages to finishing higher up the league and genuine legitimacy to be champions from any of the top 5, with all teams having a good win:loss ratio).

The football don't pander to the lower teams like SL does. But if we really had to (for the money an expanded end of season competition brings). Why not have a top 5 for the SL trophy and then 6 - 10 to play-off for a different trophy?

St Helens this year perhaps highlight the fault in the top 8 season. They have been trailing Wigan & Warrington all season but yet are likely to finish 2nd at the last minute and they'll end up with exactly the same reward as Wigan will get for finishing 1st. Their is no difference between 1st and 2nd in this play off system. The "club call" is an hinderance rather than a benefit for 1st place in my view. Leeds got lucky that Catalans progressed so far last year.

Perhaps a better idea would be to allow 1st to anyone they want straight away (probably 8th) BUT if they choose to do so they have to play in an elimination scenario. They'd still get a week off with a win but should they lose game over.

If they picked 8th the other games would be 2nd v 3rd, 4th v 5th, 6th v 7th. The two highest ranked winners would get the week off.

An idea I've just come up with elsewhere to offer a better reward to 1st place.

This way 1st taking a gamble but it's perhaps a gamble worth taking?

what if two teams both win 26 games all season and then one team gets a flu bug the night before round 27?

what if Team A and Team B are level on points with a very close points difference but Team C (who play Team A in round 27) get a flu bug the night before round 27? Why is how good Team B are relative to Team A dependant on how much Team C (with a flu bug and nothing to play for) can be bothered to put in?

think of it like Ali, he wasnt the champ by consistantly beating the Coopers and the Wepners but by the Foremans and the Fraziers

Ok, but only if Keighley are in that 8.

Nah

We will be winning the NRL on a regular basis by then