I really don't get how anyone could be complaining about playoffs to decide the champions after watching both semi finals and the game last night. Three high intensity games with the added drama of all of the teams playing for their seasons. It's a fantastic way of ending the year. Being champions is as much about being able to hold your nerve against the best teams in season on the line rugby as it is being able to consistently beat the weaker teams.

I personally would rather go back to the old top 5 playoff system as teams would have to go all out every game, whether to make the 5 or to hold their place within the 5 in order to maximise their chances of getting to Old Trafford, but if we really have to have an 8 team playoff than it should look like this.

Week 1

qualifying playoffs
1st v 4th
2nd v 3rd
elimination playoffs
5th v 8th
6th v 7th

Week 2

elimination semifinals
highest qual po loser v lowest elim po winner
lowest qual po loser v highest elim po winner

Week 3

qualifying final
highest qual po winner v lowest qual po winner
elimination final
highest elim sf winner v lowest elim sf winner

Week 4
preliminary final
loser qualifying final v winner elimination final

Grand Final
winner qualifying final v winner preliminary final

Wait, did you just try to factor in CC matches and the WCC into an argument about the title of [uSuper League[/u Champions?

That's the thing though, in the current format being Champions isn't "as much" about winning the big playoff games as it is about consistency, it's much more.


I think that's exactly the type of convoluted system we need to drop tbh. Seriously, what is wrong with 1v8, 2v7, 3v6, 4v5 straight knockout with home advantage always going to the highest placed side. That way the biggest advantage goes to the side finishing top, with that advantage decreasing in increments the lower down the table you finish.

Does anyone know the financial incentives involved? E.g. In Premiership football finishing a position higher can mean hundreds of thousands of pounds extra. Is there something similar in Super League? They must divvy up the Stobart money somehow.



Also don't players get paid for a win?

No, i was pointing out how pathetic it was to try and pretend Leeds had it easy and Wigan didnt have the odds stacked in their favour enough already.

But we get it, you want more of an advantage because you couldnt beat Leeds.

Why not the team finishing 1st gets 15 men on the field, 2nd gets 14 and everyone else stays with 13?
Or 1st can get an 8 point head start in every game and 2nd 6?

Like it or not, right now, and traditionally, Rugby League has found its champions as not only those able to be consistent, but those able to stand the bright lights of the heavyweight showdown, its not just being consistent enough to rack up the points , not only about keeping your motivation whilst facing the lesser lights in midseason, but about standing up when the stakes get higher and the hits get bigger, Wigan were sized up, weighed, measured and found wanting, they lost because they were the inferior team. Whatever format the play-offs take is irrelevant, if Wigan were the better side, they would have won. They werent, so they didnt, so they didnt win the competition, so they arent champions.

Its not complicated or unfair, it just doesnt fit with your narrative that Wigan are the bestests ever.

Mate, if anyone is

it's the sour graped obsessed wiganer

Your not champions, get over it !!!!

As a supporter of a club that comfortably manages to make the play offs i find the weekly rounds very dull, lacking in intensity. I'm sure the teams that are fighting to make the play offs have a much more exciting season.

This is NOT a dig a Leeds - they've played the format perfectly, turned it on in the last month and played some outstanding RL, especially in defence.

But - the current system is badly flawed. No-one can doubt the two best sides [iover the season[/i were Wigan and Warrington, yet to all intents and purposes they finish with nothing. A side that loses 11 games and scrapes into 5th place on points difference should not be labelled 'champions' of the entire 2012 competition when all they've done is win short knock-out competition. But our current format says otherwise and bafflingly, Leeds will go down as 2012 Champions.

Top 8 is too much. The theory was sound (bottom clubs fighting for a place), but what actually happens is too many teams know they'll be in the top 8 whatever happens, and after a few months, a few more teams that are comfortably in the pack. Too many meaningless games. A top 4 or 5 system means more teams fighting it out to get into the play-offs, rather than merely maintaining their position in them.

Yes, the poorest teams are left playing for nothing, but that's what happens in sports leagues, and is perhaps an argument for reintroducing relegation, or a relegation play-off against the Championship winners. Motivation at both ends of the competition.

Further, putting the league winners straight into the final is additional motivation to fight for top spot, with 3-4 teams left to fight it out in a couple of play-offs. Would Wire have rested so many against London if top spot meant an automatic trip to Old Trafford? Teams should not be offered the opportunity to put out sub-strength teams and the fact it happens is testament to the lack of intensity in the fight for league position.

Anyway, well done Leeds, you played it perfectly and got your momentum going at the right time. The spirit in the camp was plain to see.

Gary Hetherington has said something similar to this, I would love it to happen.

If Wigan had been beaten by Leeds having had a path straight through to the final we would have simply heard moaning about how the 2/3 games extra Leeds had played in the build up had left them battle hardened whilst Wigan were rusty after their rest.

Wigan could have done any of the things Leeds did, or Warrington did. They could have rested players, hell they got their hooker banned for three games by going all out in game that under any system made no difference. Thats their fault, their failing.

Might have known you'd turn it into a Wigan vs Leeds argument.

My post is talking about the flaws to the current format, and why there are too many meaningless and low-intensity games, and why I don't (and never have) believe that the winners of a short knock-out competition can be called champions of the entire season. But like I said, our current format says otherwise. If a team wins it from 1st or 2nd, or perhaps even 3rd, at least they've done it as one of the best teams throughout the competition.

Yes, of course if Wigan had lost to Leeds in the final there would be arguments for and against being rested before the final. The same argument happens every year during week 2 of the play-offs. But for me the team that wins the league has been the best over the competition and has won their place on merit.

As this article says, [url=http://www.loverugbyleague.com/blogpost_554-leeds-are-champions-after-a-good-month.html?utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter"Leeds are Champions after a good month."[/url