While we're at it, why don't we guarantee that one of the "big four" appears in the Challenge Cup final.

Perhaps we should decide who the SL champions are by using this method1)12,000 capacity stadium

2) 10k average gate

3) Average gate that fills at least 40% of your stadiums capacity

4) A turn over of 4 million or more per annum

5) Solvency

6) Top 8 finish in each of the last 3 years

7) A reasonable junior development in the last 3 years

8/ A stadium meeting the standard of a premier sporting competition...in accordance with detailed criteria

9) Geographical location

10) salary cap


All decided by an independent RFL committee of course.

Near enough, the first 10ish seasons were first past the post (although about half of them were county leagues with no national champion) and they used first past the post for two years in the early 60s when they had 2 divisions, but yes playoffs is traditional not first past the post

a tradition in soccer. not RL.

Nope. Traditionally the champions have been the team that won the championship final
… an ]nvented add-on competition created because the clubs and fans moaned that ending the championship play-offs and giving the title to the team at the top of the table after the end of the regular rounds robbed the top teams of games and therefore income.




include Bowes, saints35 bulls0, Pepe and a number of other posters on this thread. But not, apparently, you

(eg in 69 we nearly did the double: winning the Cup Final and appearing in the championship final (but losing to Leeds iirc) )

Regardless of what method has been used for how long, the team which finishes top of the league after everyone has played everyone else home and away has proven themselves to be, over a sustained period of time, better than every other team, and are worthy of being called the champions.

The winner of a post season cup competition involving maybe two or three games and a fraction of the teams in SL is simply the winner of a post season cup competition.

The reason Sky trump up the play offs is a transparent attempt to dislodge the Challenge Cup final as the single most important game in British Rugby League.

The reason SKY/Super League/RFL want the play off's is that no one knows who the champions are until around eight o'clock on a Saturday night in late September give or take ten or twenty minuets & with a full house at old Trafford & large numbers watching on TV, prior to that eight teams have been in with a chance their fans have had something to look forward to (especially the lower placed sides who may have had a bad injury spell early season). The grand final is slowly making its mark as an occasion in the British sports calender which is good for revenue & the games exposure to a larger audience. The other thing that most people forget is that if the finances permit we can add more teams to Super League & we will then need a play off system to sort out the champions like the NFL in America & that is the system we all enjoyed prior to 1973 (those of us old enough to remember) We can then keep the number of games each player has to play down to a sensible level.

Wouldn't argue with most of that but I would hate to see a return to the play-off system we had immediately prior to 1973 - ie, top 16, seeded but no second chances for anyone.

FWIW, my views are actually very close to the ones Pepe expressed in his 1st post in this thread [not the 2nd, err, tongue in cheek one !]

How bitter are you.

Maybe putting the first place team straight into the final would be sufficient reward for finishing top, but the argument against that is they'll be sat twiddling their thumbs and losing match sharpness whilst the others battle it out.

I'd never get rid of the play-offs because it gives (nearly) every SL club something to play for, but I do agree topping the table does not bring the rewards or plaudits the feat deserves.

The fixture list is uneven, what makes the person finishing top more worthy than the person who wins the playoffs.

BTW I think it's amazing how the Saints fans come up with this after two grand final defeats and the prospect of no silverware this year...

I can't understand why people think a team should be crowned champions part way through the competition. Do they also think the team that won their semi final match by the largest margin should be declared the challenge cup winners? It makes as much sense.

It would also be crazy to say the champions are a team that failed to win the biggest game in the competition.

The first poster is Spot on ,the team that finishes top in my eyes are the champs they have been the best team all year ,its only Sky that down grade it and its a dissgrace to call it the Hub Cap ,there is no way a team finishing 8th should be anywhere near been crowned as champions.