He certainly ' ages ' you

How about you play every other team once at home, once away, 2 pts for a win, 1 for a draw. The team that amasses the most points after all the games is the Champions. Where you finish in the league defines your season.
Knockout games shouldn't decide the season as the games are more prone to be decided by a refereeing error or player injury or suspension.

No one would complain that the team finishing top is the rightful champions. As long as we have playoffs people will always question it unless the team finishing top wins it.

We have a comp to decide the best cup team and thats the Challenge Cup, let the other comp decide which is the best league team.

The sport cannot afford to work this way unfortunatly

Finally, someone talking sense

I don't know, I don't work for them.

My personal opinion is that the team who finishes top are the champions.

I also believe the team finishing bottom should be relegated and replaced with the team who top the Championship.

I dont disagree, but as I pointed out, the sport cannot afford this system , football can

I agree, its hard for our sport to turn its back on a attendance of 70k every year at the GF. My only other option would to let the top 2 teams qualify for the GF, nobody else involved. Don't think anyone would argue with that????

Then week after GF, the Premiership trophy playoffs start, top 8, straight knockout, final at Elland Rd.

Thus we keep GF, we keep a 70K crowd, the top 2 are sufficiently rewarded, competition to finish top 2 makes sure no meaningless games for big clubs as they are desperate to finish top 2, also we have top 8 meaning comp for rest of league with top 2 rather burned out after the GF giving teams 3-8 an increased chance of trophy then perhaps another 30k plus crowd in Prem trophy final.

Thoughts?

More complicated, and less ' credible '

I think a salient point to be made about this. Is if we had a straight league of 14 teams playing each other twice, with the team on top being crowned champions - no-one would be making a thread stating that a) the team on top didn't deserve to win and b) it was unfair that the teams who finished 4th or 5th were denied a chance to beat 3rd, 2nd and 1st.

how is just top 2 qualify for GF more complicated? it would mean we keep the GF, a 70k crowd, a big night at OT but we won't ever get a team finishing lower then 2nd being champions.

Champions would always be super consistent and a inconsistent team would never be champions. The regular season becomes meaningful, you HAVE to finish top 2 to be champions.

Then week after GF, the QF's of the Prem Trophy 1v8, 2v7 etc, leading to final at Elland Rd.

Very, very good point.

My only drawback on scrapping the playoffs to decide the Champions is the loss of a 70k crowd at OT every year as it would only be a 30k crowd(IMO going on previous atts). What i have said on my other posts keeps the GF and also includes the Prem Trophy final.

I think Leeds know how to win it when it comes to play offs and credit to them, but Leeds winning it from 5th for the past two years has really questioned the respect for the play off system, how can a team who didn't even finish in the top 4 be champions ? Surely it should be the top 4 clubs that have more of a chance of winning it.I think the RFL made a mistake when they changed it from 6 to 8 there was nothing wrong with top 6 and if it was brought back it would make teams to be a little more consistant threw out the regular season.

Isn't the real problem not Leeds at all but the abject failure of the other clubs to beat them when it counts? Had Cats, Wigan or Warrington beat Leeds this and other similar threads wouldn't exist.

Correct, if you have a play off system in place, then it is irrelivant which club wins the GF, the only discussion should be the number of teams involved and the formatt , and the relative benifits, problems it produces