I wouldn't want to finish top under that system. If league winner is going to go straight through then it should be 2nd vs 3rd for the other grand final place. Doubt we'd go for that as it doesn't give enough games.

I'd go:

2 v 5
3 v 4
1st then plays the lowest ranked winner of those two games and that gives you the semi finals.

5 is great. To finish in the top 5 is a real challenge and good teams could miss out.

At the moment, its far to easy for some clubs to qualify. Look at my club - Nathan Brown is cocking about something royally with his selections. I assume that he's just taking the oppotunity to experiment with all his players, knowing that if they pull the tripe out towards the end of the season, they'll still get in the 8 and have a reasonable chance.

Also, the beauty of the 5 team play off is that where ever you finsihed, you had to beat EVERY team that finished above you to take the title.

In the past two years have been rubbish from my point of veiw as Saints in 2011 played Wigan twice in a row and in 2012 played Warrington twice in a row. It was just very odd.

Top 5 is best.

Agree with Saddened on bonus point too, as a Championship club fan I get home after a defeat and only realise we've got a bonus point hours later, it's rubbish and you don't think about it when you're at a game.

Smith is probably right.

Top 5 or 6 is ok but, at the moment there is a theoretical chance that a team below half way could be crowned champions, a reward for mediocrity.
The bonus point thing is just a gimmick, get rid.

The old top five worked well and should be reinstated. I remember Castleford's run in this format some years ago and they took it right to the wire from fifth place, every game full of intensity.

I thought 5 or 6 was fine, however some RL fans have very selective short term memory. Their was many people who found fault with the old systems and even asked for change back then

People complained about the 5/6 team playoffs......

- 1st vs 2nd usually played in the GF....this was apparently becoming "tedious" and not helping the playoff format.
- 1st vs 2nd would play 2 weeks before at home of 1st place team....this was "silly" to have the same game twice and people actually were happy when Top 8 was introduced because it lessened the chance of the GF being a repeat fixture.
- if 1st beat 2nd first time around but then 2nd beat them in the GF.....thos made the sport look "daft" to the outside world.
- that only once (2005 with Bradford) did a team outside the top 2 reach the GF......people complained it was too difficult for other teams (3rd-6th) to compete in playoffs.....wanted something that gave them a chance......whilst actually complaint that the winner of 1st vs 2nd had it too easy (now some want 1st to go straight to the GF)
- that the top 2 would only contest 3 games in the playoffs.....people thought it was better to see more of the year's best team instead of the teams who finished 4th or 5th......you could have 4weeks of playoff rugby and the best team of the year could only feature on two of those weekends.

I'm not fussed how many we have in......i just wish we'd stick to one format......but I doubt it. If we do see a change to 5 it'll only be a couple of seasons until changes are wanted again in typical RL fan way.......

- "12 teams aren't enough, we need more to compete with the Aussies"
- "we could do with an 8 team playoffs to expose more clubs and players to big games to compete with the Aussies"
- "we could do England playing a team of the best Exiles in SL because France is too easy a game......to compete with the Aussies!"

Note the last one, people are now calling for a Yorkshire vs Lancashire match instead.....something we had 10 years but people again complained when we had it.

God bless the selective short memory, constant format changing, grass was greener RL fan.

I like the idea of a top 3, means a a couple of big clubs miss out and gives the regular season a meaning and also gives the lower clubs more to aspire to instead of just getting In the top 8! If a lower club ala Salford can get a good investor on board it becomes very interesting.

It all come down to giving the regular season a meaning!

Second idea, whoever finishes top wins the league that's it, no playoffs, have a top 4 qualification to play in a champions league style competition with the top 4 of the nrl. On where a team finishes in the league their is a bonus payment from SL to each club to split between the players, the higher you finish the more you get, again this gives an incentive for the lower clubs to go all out to finish as high as they can.

Wishful thinking but hey it works for the premier league and hopefully eliminates this bad mentality from fans of the top clubs that the season starts in October which as it stands is true.

Smith makes a fair point. A system where 66% of the teams qualify for the finals (and 30% of those teams are usually complete no-hopers) is one which hardly encourages intense weekly rounds.

It's ridiculous that Saints can be having as disastrous a spell as they are having at the moment, yet still be fairly secure in the knowledge that they will be in the finals.

Time for a change.

The Playoffs are killing RL in this country so it seems.

I've never seen as much intensity in RL as I have when it was a top 5 play off and none of those games involved the wire.

We all want to see top class rugby and when you think of those epic encounters between wigan, saints, leeds and Bradford it's a no brainer. Top 8 equals mediocrity and a dilution of the weekly league rounds.

Lets remember the top 8 play off system doesn't seem to have a negative affect on the intensity in the NRL. The problem isn't with the format its the lack of quality teams in it to start with.

Agreed but, the NRL does have a couple of extra teams so, you still have to finish in the top half of the table to qualify.
If we add Fev and Fax to SL, problem solved

I would like to try a top 7 as its not going to cause much upheaval.

Week 1
League leaders get a week off
2 plays 7
3 plays 6
4 plays 5

Week 3
League Leaders Clubcall
Next highest ranked team at home v other team left

Week 3 Final

Knocks a week off the season, rewards a higher finish, gets rid of the dead rubbers and no-ones under done.

Only one place less than now.

Also Id consider replicating this system in the NL with the top 5 NL and two bottom placed SL teams seeded 5 and 6 in their draw.

I've suggested this system in the past also and really think it would work. Ideally I think a top 5 with a similar format "rewards mediocrity" much less, with the highest placed loser from week 1 playing top who have had a week off. But I don't think Sky would go for such a large drop in playoff fixtures (from 9 currently to 6 with a top 7 or 5 with a top 5).