It was clearly sarcasm, the OP however is one of the daftest things ever to be posted on a forum

Top 5 was the best system

However, if we are to keep the top 4 playoffs I really don't understand why we dont do it as follows:

Week 1

1st v 2nd - Winner to GF
3rd vs 4th - Loser out

Week 2

1st/2nd vs 3rd/4th - Winner to GF

Week 3

Grand Final

no we should never of had this super 8's gimmick in the first place it was always a crap idea.

14 team super luge to 5 or top 6 was the best system, personally the top worked best for me. the top 8 out of 14 teams was too much. if we must have p&r then straight one up bottom down.

The irony of a Leeds fan saying that teams in 5th don't deserve a place in the Grand Final after winning it from that exact position twice is astounding! Maybe Leeds should have those GF wins eradicated from their history to placate the atrocious notion.

i don't think he is a Leeds fan.

Rather than trying to make things complicated, how about a 14 team SL, everyone plays everyone home and away plus Magic weekend. Top of Championship plays off against bottom of SL for promotion/relegation (MPG). Top of SL goes straight to Old Trafford with 2nd, at home, playing 3rd to see who plays them for the Title. This would also then create a few extra weekends during the season so that the Challenge Cup could be structured better and also give more time for the England Elite Training Squad to spend more time together on these weekends 'off'. Yes it reduces the amount of games, but not by many and I think there are a few too many games played anyway. The real issue with increasing though is 'do we have 14 clubs strong enough to compete in SL'? At the moment we have 10 current clubs that are/could be strong enough (I'm excluding Salford and Widnes as they have had enough years trying and still failing). Out of Toronto, Toulouse, London, Leigh, Featherstone, Halifax and Bradford (controversial, but look at the crowds they still get), which 4 could potentially compete in SL with the correct guidance, structures etc..

My only problem with the 8’s system is that it’s too many games (7th/8th not still being in with a shot at this stage isn’t a problem at all).

The number of games I believe is why the on field product is struggling. Teams look knackered, players playing half fit because another 6/7/8 of their teammates are already in the stands. Drop it down to 27 games and start the season 3 weeks later at the end of February rather than the start of it where most matches are poor and take a lot out of the players because of the poor weather conditions.

An extra 3 weeks to recover from all the injuries and wear & tear of the previous season, 3 extra weeks to work on fitness for the new season, 3 extra weeks to work on individual and team skills and setplays.....all these I think would see an improvement in play on the field.

^^ I agree Printer. Yes, some clubs will say they need the extra games for revenue, but the counter to that is that if they got more people through the gates then it would counteract that. Clubs need to take responsibility to get more people through the gates on matchdays and not rely on away support. Every SL club should be able to get at least 6000 (as a conservative figure) home fans on game day. Having a better product on the field by reducing games should play its part in increasing attendances. 27 games is plenty in a sport as physical as ours.

It always should have been 2 separate competitions.
With the league leaders Shield going to too top team after 23rds.
Then the 8's all points should be wiped. With the top side starting on 7pts; 2nd on 5ps, 3rd 4pts, 4th 2pts. The bottom 4 0 pts. Then do the 8's.

Wasn't it the clubs who wanted to maintain this number of games when they voted in the current system ?
Any reduction would see a massive drop in income for the clubs and last time I looked, there weren't many who could afford to lose much income.

Was this the vote decided on because 2 clubs were bribed?

Obviously there are a lot of posters on here that do not fully understand to concept of the super 8`s otherwise they would not be posting some of the tripe that they are.

We split at round 23, all teams know this - It comes as no surprise that if you are in that bottom 4 that you will be in the middle 8`s competition with the top 4 of the championship - This is the reason the split happens, so points for these teams are reset and the middle 8`s can be played.

The top 8 in Superleague carry on as they were... Yes it is called the super 8s, but in actual fact there is nothing different? No points get reset, 8th position don`t all of a sudden have a better chance than they did before to make the actual play off games (In the top 4). What would actually be the difference with the top 8 not splitting at round 23 and just playing there remaining fixtures? There is no difference? I see the argument behind scrapping the 8`s structure as a whole but this post is just pointless?

What a load of rubbish, we won when they were the rules. It isn’t ironic that I don’t think we should go back to that system.

It is however ironic the number of fans who talked down Leeds 5th placed Grand Final wins and even claimed Leeds weren’t real Champions, and then go on to say they are in favour of a top 5 or top 6 play off.

Only if those clubs don't increase their revenue from the fixtures that they do have (not to mention generating more non-matchday revenue).

The focus should be on doing more with less, not flogging our talent and diluting the quality of the product.

But of course, that sounds too much like hard work, so we'll continue as we are.