Because fans don't see it the same way as coaches and administrators. Winning a week's rest and home tie might mean a lot to a coach, and it's probably very significant...however, the average fan doesn't get quite so hyped about "we simply MUST win, that week's rest is just SO important".

So often, we hear comments about what fans ought to like, what they ought to get passionate about, etc. but it's a completely fruitless exercise. No matter what administrators like to *think* is exciting, they have to go with the evidence. I'd write down the top 200 attendances of the last 10 years in order and ask against each "what made that game special?" and start building some real evidence about what attracts fans. Intuition is often wrong, we need to work from evidence.

The current format is an over-the-top attempt to solve one of the riddles of professional sport - how to balance 'best team should win' versus the need to keep people interested through the season. It's typically a long way into the season before you're out of the running for a top 8 slot and thus it's *supposed* to keep things exciting for lower teams. It's been an absolute flop.

The Premier League has found itself in a pretty good place with this problem - it's very late in the season before some clubs start to run out of things to play for - namely because of relegation and European qualification.

The 3 team WCC is a good start in this direction - but it won't have sufficient impact unless and until it rises to be regarded as the ultimate club prize that everyone is desperate to win, like the Champions League (i.e. even bigger than winning your domestic title). It's at the wrong time of year and not taken seriously enough right now to have to impact it needs on domestic competition (i.e. making teams desperate to finish in the top 3 or or hopefully soon, 4).

I'd like to see a WCC played in a similar format to the Champions League, with the group games (two groups of four, two Aus/NZ, two Eng/Fra in each) spread through the season to create those 'big international nights' on a regular basis, not just all crammed into a weekend. Followed by semi-finals and finals after the regular season grand-finals.

I've been told this is impossible because of the travel distances, but it doesn't sound too hard to me. You have 6 group matches in total to play, but you just play both your 'overseas away' fixtures in one 10 day trip abroad. This is great for fans too, because they can make a nice trip of it and get to see two games. Likewise, at this end, 4 times a year, one of the Aus/NZ club sides would be over to play two fixtures. Some really big games.

As for "how are teams supposed to cram in another 6 matches?". Tough, get used to it. We want to make the competition more equal right? Well those clubs who made the top 4 last season are going to have to play (at least) 6 more (very tough) games the next season, a kind of 'handicap'.

Not difficult to work out which games top that SL attendance list.

Wigan V St Helens
Hull V Hull KR
Leeds V Bradford (only when Bradford are competitive/winning silverware)
Wigan V Warrington (only when Warrington are competitive/winning silverware)
Some Wigan V Leeds games at JJB or Headingley.
Some Leeds V Wigan or St Helens or Castleford games at Headingley.
Followed by daylight.

So, lots more local derby games involving top clubs and a Super League consisting of 8 clubs max.

Hmmmm... sound familiar?

Hull KR need to lift their game obviously.

Nah we don't care about Cas. But Leeds v Wakefield 2013 drew 18,387.

Doesn't do anything to shift your local derby theory though.

NO we do not have to lift our game this season we beat hull 2 out of 3 games and finished higher in the league then them only just but we did

Several thousand freebies given away to schoolkids and their parents for that particular Leeds V Wakefield fixture in 2013. It is surrounded by attendances of 13,969 in 2014 and 12,272 in 2012 which are more realistic. Leeds V Cas attracts 2k to 3k more on average.

Why should a Wigan home game be used to prop up a failing club like Bradford?

My point exactly.

As it stands, we have play-off games that are marketed very poorly. The clubs don't want to market the games, because they get no return. That leaves the responsibility for marketing four games this week largely with SLE / the RFL.

In my view, play-off revenue should be completely seperate from regular central funding. The clubs should get their cut for the 27 regular season games, with the play-off participants keeping their gate revenue for their play-off fixtures. Heck, even let away clubs keep 100% of ticket sales through their ticket office if it helps enocurage visiting support. That'll put the onus for marketing the games back onto the clubs.

The kids might get in free if it's for an event on the pitch like playing at half time etc but the parents don't get in free.

Unless its changed I,m almost sure its not an equal share and its based on where you finish in the league.

The prices at Saints were less for a playoff game than a league game, so it will take more fans just to cover the costs.

Why do players not turn up to games that mean somthing? If I was a cas or hudds fan and had forked out a hundred quid to get to those games I'd prob never bother again! If the comp was more even, the salary cap was imposed properly, refs were consistent for nboth teams and the lower playoffs teams actually had a chance of going through then I suspect more people may turn out?

So were Huddersfield spanked because of a dodgy ref or a dodgy salary cap?

For the top 4 teams the first round doesn,t mean all that much, because the losers get another chance.
Top 8 is a bit of a joke, is should be a knock out stage top 5.