Good point that Smokey.
Although having wanted a top 8 playoff I'm really liking the look of some of the top 7 ideas touted round. The current system doesnt reward finishing first over second reeeally. The top 7 idea gives a large advantage to finishing first and still allows for two semi's as opposed to that waste of time that was the top 6.

That's why I've come to think that playoffs are a better way of determining the champion team. Real champion teams are able to beat their rivals when they really have to and when the stakes are at their highest, not because they were bigger flat track bullies than everyone else. The most appealing thing for me about the Grand Final is that when the two teams get there they then have to put their entire season on the line for that one shot at becoming champions, and stakes don't get any higher than that. Playoffs also get rid of another issue that I have with a league which is that a team can be so far ahead at the top of the table that they can then afford to lose games and still win the title, which IMO is a luxury that teams shouldn't be allowed to have.

So what if you win all 27 games then get a flu bug the night before the Grand Final?

If you have won more than the rest, surely you can still be allowed to lose the odd game, provided you lose less than the rest?

Very bizarre way of looking at it, is this, captain!

What a load of crap. typical attitude from a team which doesnt really have a decent chance to win the comp. I love the GF but not the play off concept.



Well then bloody cacth up to us!!!!

?

How can anyone say the playoffs are a better way of determining the Champions? It may be more entertaining but it isn't better. The team that has the best win:loss ratio over the course of the season should be champions. Excitement and 'knock out' rugby, where you win big, one-off games, is what the Challenge Cup is for.

With playoffs you can have a win:loss ratio of 29:1 and not be champions. One word. Joke.

As for people saying if you finish 8th, but win the GF, you deserve to be champions... come on, you being serious? If i murder 10 people, but get away with all 10, do i derserve to be free cos i haven't been caught?

What if a team tops the league all season, right up to the final round when they then get a flu bug and end up losing, meaning that they lose the top spot for the only time that season and end up not being champions because of it?

Hmmm.....flu? Maybe Brian McDermott could have used that as an excuse for another poor season (or maybe he's saving it for his first year as Head Coach of the Rhinos in 2012)icon_wink.gif
Any way the RFL can think of different ways to get a Leeds v Saints final has got to be good for the game

If we use Warrington and St Helens as a running sampleSt Helens 30-12 Warrington @ Home Game (St Helens)
Warrington 12 -36 St Helens @ Cardiff Game
Warrington 18 - 28 St Helens @ Home Game (Warrington)

St Helens top the league having beaten all the top sides and due to injury lose 2 games to the bottom clubs.
Warrington finish 4th due to not winning any of there 6 games against the top teams, but have beaten all the bottom teams.

ST Helens beat Warrington in the 1st week of the plat offs convincingly.
Warrington beat St Helens in the 3 rd week of the play off by a controversial try.

thenreal true champions.


This is just a running scenario sample, unlikely to happen, but is a principal one.

That would be very hard on saints is there anyway we can tell them the rules before the season starts?

I totally agree, and we are currently sitting in 8th spot. It should be top 5 if anything. The whole system is a joke

Top 5 would be far better, based on results there'd still be a lot of competition for 4th and 5th. Plus the play-off format would be much better (real advantages to finishing higher up the league and genuine legitimacy to be champions from any of the top 5, with all teams having a good win:loss ratio).

The football don't pander to the lower teams like SL does. But if we really had to (for the money an expanded end of season competition brings). Why not have a top 5 for the SL trophy and then 6 - 10 to play-off for a different trophy?

St Helens this year perhaps highlight the fault in the top 8 season. They have been trailing Wigan & Warrington all season but yet are likely to finish 2nd at the last minute and they'll end up with exactly the same reward as Wigan will get for finishing 1st. Their is no difference between 1st and 2nd in this play off system. The "club call" is an hinderance rather than a benefit for 1st place in my view. Leeds got lucky that Catalans progressed so far last year.

Perhaps a better idea would be to allow 1st to anyone they want straight away (probably 8th) BUT if they choose to do so they have to play in an elimination scenario. They'd still get a week off with a win but should they lose game over.

If they picked 8th the other games would be 2nd v 3rd, 4th v 5th, 6th v 7th. The two highest ranked winners would get the week off.

An idea I've just come up with elsewhere to offer a better reward to 1st place.

This way 1st taking a gamble but it's perhaps a gamble worth taking?

what if two teams both win 26 games all season and then one team gets a flu bug the night before round 27?

what if Team A and Team B are level on points with a very close points difference but Team C (who play Team A in round 27) get a flu bug the night before round 27? Why is how good Team B are relative to Team A dependant on how much Team C (with a flu bug and nothing to play for) can be bothered to put in?

think of it like Ali, he wasnt the champ by consistantly beating the Coopers and the Wepners but by the Foremans and the Fraziers