thats why i said at the start that i agree with the new proposals which go towards more emphasis on winning the league.

I can never understand why people are so adverse to the Grand Final deciding the Champions.

For the majority of the history of our sport, that's how the title has been decided, and it creates a finish to the season which (obviously) results in it going to the final game.

It's good enough for the NRL, NFL, NHL, MLB etc. and I never see the issue with it.

The new proposals give the team winning the league a game at home versus 4th place. Just like now, but with no second chance.

For the majority of the history of our sport we had two separate divisions [Lancs and Yorks leagues] represented in one table. Since, if we had both Yorks and Lancs teams in the top four, they would not only have not played each other, they would have played a totally different set of fixtures throughout the season. A play off was obviously the only fair way to decide which was the better side, and it also made a bit of extra money.

When two totally separate divisions were brought in all teams played each other home and away, so RL dropped the now unnecessary play-offs for deciding the championship but retained them as the Premiership, so they continued their secondary role of providing some extra income. I guess Sky was the driver of the current set up and I can't say I blame them to be fair, they're just maximising what they get, but when you already have the 'Rolls Royce' system for deciding which is the best team, it all seems so false and more than a bit contrived.

and that is one of the things that is currently WRONG with the game in this country.
It's becoming more elitist than Rugby Union ever was!

The Grand Final is a "Made for Television" production!

Not sure how saying you are the champions for winning the grand final, something which has been true for the entire time I've ever watched rugby (and I have a degree, moved out of my parents house and now have a job so I'm not exactly a toddler) is elitist - do we change what competition makes you the champions half way through? No. Did we choose who to crown champions out of the 2 because one was more "elite"? No. Did everybody know going into the season to be crowned champions you have to win the grand final? Yes.

To be champions you need to show not only consistency (ie get into the playoffs, or at least supposedly if we actually had a top 5 playoff system instead of an and the ability to win the big games (ie win the playoffs) in my opinion - how can you be a champion side without either of those things? Wigan proved they could win the big games, and were consistent enough to be in the race, and Huddersfield proved they couldn't win the big game - simple as. Maybe next year it will be different - it's the beauty of sport ... But it has nothing to do with elitism :s

It's funny how when saints won it 5 years on the bounce or whatever it was it was called the hub cap and there was none of this debate

not the clubs proposal... they are wanting the winner of the league to go straight through to the grand final.

Have you considered the logistics of that?

It's not realistic. It put's the grand finalists at an immediate disadvantage because they end up kicking their heels for 2 or 3 weeks with no game, unless the playoff format becomes extremley watered down at which point the vast reduction in games also becomes a disadvantage for the game as a whole.

Still, you think huddersfield are the real champions so i wouldn't expect a clueless person like you to grasp these type of issues.

WTF are you going on about?

Are you suggesting we want our champions to [inot [/ibe elite??

The team finishing 1st the last three years has had to face in the playoffs.....
4th - 5th - 4th - 5th - 4th - 6th - 2nd
add to that the two previous years when 1st won
4th - 8th - 2nd(GF) - 4th - 7th - 4th - 2nd (GF)

Only once in 12 none GF games has the LLS winners had to face anyone higher than 4th on the way to Old Trafford.

Compared to the previous years 5 years the League Leaders faced......
2nd - 4th - 2nd(GF) - 2nd - 3rd - 2nd - 2nd(GF) - 2nd - 2nd(GF) - 2nd - 2nd(GF)

So does the format really stack the deck against the 1st place teams nowadays?
Whilst it may be slightly longer, does the path the LLS winners have to face look tougher?
The last time we had a 5 team playoff in 2000, Wigan had to face 2nd Saints - 3rd Bradford - 2nd(GF) Saints, to try and win the playoffs, much harder than any run any of the LLS winners have faced in the Top 8 years.

In 5 years of Top 8 and the previous 5 years (as Top 6), both experienced only 2 LLS winners lifting the GF, and only once each did the LLS remain unbeaten throughout the playoffs and not require a 2nd chance.

Don't forget that for a large number of seasons SL also had teams playing different fixtures even though they were all in the same league, so the play-offs as the final arbiter of best team made sense.

I

ah the usual '3 weeks break' drivel... you can look at it that way or you can look at it as a reward for winning the league. The playoffs being a separate comp.
You win the league and you deserve to go straight to the grand final with the chance to do the double. The way it is now, whats the point in going to the league games, the team that finished top then supposedly only finished top because the other teams didnt want too or see it as important, this is where the problem is and it needs changing, the clubs now recognise that and i am pleased.