Murder, rape you know stuff like that.

Not a minority sport trying to raise revenue and interest to end their season.

Agree with the original post, lots of fans have an interest until the end of the season, works for me but for anyone who doesn’t like it just sit tight as it’ll probably change again within a few seasons anyhow.

top 6 was reasonable, top 5 was better
top 8 is a very poor idea and rewards mediocrity

The SL this year is taking on the look of 2 leagues with the top 7 being well clear of the bottom 7.
Looking at it like that a top 8 playoff league looks wrong.

It's only for a year or so more, crusaders have made a massive improvement and Salford should have a few more wins next season.

It might not be long before it's as close as the nrl.

If it was top 6 we would be seeing a great battle for the last few spots. How good would it be with Hull KR, Hudds and Leeds and maybe Hull FC all battling to stay in the play offs. That would be better then the battle between Crusaders and Cas for 8th spot.

all those 4 clubs are battling for home advantage.

It would be if case, crusaders and wakey were just completing their fixtures with nothing to play for.

No it wouldnt. Why dont we increase it further because Bradford and Wakey have nothing to play for. Battling for home advantage is hardly the same as one of those missing out on the play offs.

Isn't it? So hudds and hkr aren't hitting good form? has anyone told them there's no point till the playoffs?

What? I never said they wernt hitting form, I said that battling for home advantage is not the same nor is it as exciting as those 4 teams battling to stay in the play offs. IMO the current system rewards mediocrity. I think Crusaders have done well but they certainly shouldnt be in the play offs, as they will finish in the bottom half of the table and they could gain a play off spot with a record of 11 and 16!!!

I always thought 8 was too many and I still do really and last year I think fans voted with their feet in the first week of the play-offs with crowds just over half what the corresponding fixtures would have been in the regular season.

However, there were some great games later on in last year's series as all the games were sudden death. I don't think it's perfect but we just have to stick with it and there are sure to be some exciting matches again this year. There are flaws in it such as the possibility of repeat fixtures in week 1 and week 3 so it's not the best play-off format we've had but it didn't work out as badly as I first thought last year.

This is my annual moan about the play offs:-

Why should a team (8th) who have lost almost 70% of their superleague matches, who have a massive negative points difference and whose league points are closer to the bottom of the league than the top have the opportunity to become Superleague Champions and given a further opportunity of representing the best of superleague in a world club challenge.
The possibility of this happening from 8th is very remote but the opportunity by principle is wrong.

The extreme scenario, which won,t happen but the principle is there is that:-

A team can go unbeaten in Superleague and play a team(8th) in the final who has lost 16 games. The result is 8th beats 1st, which means losing 16 games is far more rewarding than losing 1 game.

If crusaders beat all the best teams, in successive weeks, and win the grand final, then they deserve to win the comp.

They knew the rules at the start of the season, thats how we decided champions you need to be consistent enough to get enough points to qualify for the playoffs, then you need to be good enough to win the big games against the big teams.

Yes the extreme scenario above is a possibility, but with a league system you have a similar extreme scenario where the Wigan team this season for instance is likely to win the league having won 21/22 games and lost 5/6 games, so very conceivably the could lose all their games against Saints, Leeds/hull and Warrington and still win the league having not been able to beat any of the top 4 teams.

Is a team who have lost every game against the top 4 and won every game against the bottom 10 sides more of a 'champion' side than one who has lost more games, but had the ability to beat all the best sides when it came down to it?