Also, the 2nd place team places 3rd place in week one - top spot get to play 4th place. I know with form changes and injuries it's not always a given that 4th will be weaker than 3rd, but that is an implied advantage.

I liked the old top 5 system but it did cause more "week off" problems because the team finishing top would potentially have two weeks off, they have a bye in the first week of the playoffs, then if they win their playoff game they have another bye and the Grand Final. I know people talk about the week off being an advantage, injuries etc, but it does break momentum and teams like Bradford 2005 and Leeds 2011 have come storming through playing every week and beaten teams on weeks off.

As an NFL fan its interesting to see how their fans accept the playoff concept, there are no second chances in their playoffs, which puts huge pressure on each game and they love it. Green Bay had the best record in the NFL winning 15 and losing 1 in the regular season, they lost their first playoff game and went straight out to NY Giants who ended up winning the Superbowl, their regular season record had been won 9 lost 7, but there is no big debate in the USA about how unfair that is...

Totally agree with the NFL comparison.

In the RL world of fans it is not so important, but there seems to be a big incentive on spreading the appeal to a wider audience.
But when a non RL fan watches our sport, what do they see?
They see a one league system in which the team who comes top after a long hard season gets virtually no recognition at all, and then they see a playoff system in which you can get knocked out and still have a second chance!!!

What that means for a partial fan without a team, is that the regular season means absolutely nothing, and then the playoffs mean nothing until we get to the last four.

So a partial fan will watch the last 3 games of the year, because to them that is all that matters!!!

I work with lots of people who take no interest in the sport all season untill the last 2 weeks.

We should either have the top 8 get into the playoffs and a straight knock-out quarter final system, or if 8 teams is too many that the league becomes even less relevant, you have the top 6 go through but the top 2 are straight into the semis, and the next 4 play-off to meet them there.

Whichever way you do it, the playoffs should be proper knock-out "lose and your out" games or else it just makes them pointless to outsiders!!!

The rfl are not going to go back to top 5 or 6 no matter how poor the quality of some teams that make the play-offs. If we stay at top 8 we need to extend the play-offs by a week. The first week can be the old premiership style of 1v8, 2v7, 3v6, 4v5. This results in the top ranked teams getting theoretically the easier games. After these games are played the two lowest ranked losers are eliminated (meaning neither of the top 2 can go out). You are then left with six teams which can then compete in the old top 6 format that we used to have.

That might have made some good concept games last season (Leeds having a poor run and Hull and Hull Kr having patchy seasons but always having the ability to beat the big boys) and Hull vs Wire would have been great two weeks on the bounce (win the LLS at the KC and get it presented at the HJ) and there would be some bad blood going in...

but fooking hell would it not have worked the year before!!! 2010 Wigan, one of the best teams to ever play in super league, against crusaders??? I wouldn't have watched that for anything. Although we would have drawn Hull again, which would be cool!

I will go on record and say that I don't like the play-off format in SL. I love it in the NFL and it really is the best part of the season (except the Steelers games) and I know why (and I have told people why)

Want to know why? I'll tell you! Just like the string of aussies playing for England, it is a pointless gesture that makes the game lose it's edge!

One of the reasons for a post season in the NFL, and the most important reason now, is the size of the league. 32 teams supported in 50 states (over 400 million people)- numbers that super league cannot hope to match. The playoffs are vital the National football league.

Has anyone here ever tried to explain the playoff structure of the NFL to someone who has never seen the game? I have. It's bloody hard! I won't do it now but this is very important https://2.bp.blogspot.com/__9X3UAtrH4s/TOXgXLzrZcI/AAAAAAAAAHM/9raVfwZMbAI/s1600/p3.png" >

Now explaining the Super league structure is really easy, compared. If the RFL want to make the playoffs feel worthy and meaningful and not just another, less supported, arbitrary competition on the end of the season they will need:

MORE teams (so the games will be more of a novelty)
IMPROVED teams (MORE COMPETITION)
and finally, DIVISIONS

We played Huddersfield 3 times in the season (lost 2 and won 1) but going off the post season we were almost 50-0 better than them. Also, we destroyed Leeds twice in the season and then lost narrowly to them in the post season. It doesn't really reflect the calibure of the team. I always watch the Grand final and I enjoy it but I think it is a poor way of deciding a champion

In the NFL, by its nature, you get games you haven't seen before like NY vs ATL or Ravens vs Pats and not just a repeat of games you've seen 2 or 3 times already (although you do get a few) the playoffs are necessary are, unlike, in Super league compliment the divisional league system.

The wild card spots are real races and get get really narrow at times. In super league you win the LLS (which no one cares about) and then focus on the playoffs with, as many have said, little advantage.

NFL has 32 teams over 8 "divisions" so straight away trying to even do anything like their playoff system over here is irrelevant and won't work.

Our system doesn't work because a team finishing in the bottom half gets a chance to be crowned champions. Now that's daft!

IMO it should be top 6, the way we used to have it not too long ago.

Or if I got my own way on the amount of teams is in SL - 10 teams with playoff system top 5 like Walter posted above.

This has only caused outrage for us though, because we fancy ourselves as being top of the league.

When it changed from 5 to 6 teams in 2002, or from 6 to 8 teams in 2008, did we really protest and complain about it?

It's like most people don't care about the 50% tax rate that kicks in when you are earning over £150k a year....but if they start earning over that, it becomes a major issue of unfairness!

It's actually really simple, and something that most fans don't know or care about. It's the clubs that vote for how many are in the play-offs, more clubs = more money as its shared out at the end of the season along with the Grand Final takings. Super League games are ruled by the RFL but goverened by the clubs, Challenge Cup and Internationals are ruled and governed by the RFL.

A club will make more money winning a Challenge Cup than winning the Grand Final.

In fairness though, whilst we mayonly have really become interested in the issue over the last couple of year, last year was the first time that the media commentators also stated that it needed to be looked at. As pointed out, neither of the two best teams in the game made the GF and the eventual champions were actually only the fifth best.

I appreciate the NFL comparison as a means of demonstrating that a play-off system can work for the public but its not really a fair comparison. In the NFL 1) you only become champions by winning something along the way (division and conference), the only exception is the wild card where a good team might be JUST pipped for a place (possibly because of easier fixtures) and are deemed as good as those who got through,
2) there is no single team which finishes higher in a single table than all the rest whilst qualifying for the playoffs.

Of the 3 versions (5, 6 and I always preferred the top6 as it seemed to give the best balance of reward/second chance for being good all season without the inclusion of "mediocre" sides.

Will it change? NO. The reason is not because its fairer/better/difference but because it means that SKY will have fewer games to televise and control.

No, see behind the stick's post above. It's voted for by the clubs. More games = more TV games = more money. 8 over 6 also gives more clubs the chance of a share.

Have you not simply just described the very McIntrye system the NRL have just scrapped because everyone hated it?

If you have a playoff system whatever format you choose there will be times when a team gets knocked out by a team that finishes below it in the league. If you want a system that means whoever finishes top in the league is guaranteed to be the champions then don't have a playoff, have a league.

Removing the playoffs would mean a big loss of revenue so we would have to accept either much higher ticket prices or clubs having smaller salary budgets which means the better players would go to RU.

I think the NFL comparison is being taken too literally here.

For me, the comparison is made to highlight the point that a playoff system works better when every playoff game is a straight knockout.

The issue that the RL has, is that you either lose playoff games if you have only have the top 4, or you have very mediocre mid table teams making the playoffs if you have a top 8.

They won't want to lose playoff games because of the revenue and sky, but at the same time we need to look at the appeal of the sport outside of the current fan base.

If you want to bring fans into the sport we have to show them just how good the game is and how exciting it is, but how do you do that when a team who could have lost more games than it has won over the season makes the playoffs because they finished 8th.
It makes 90% of the season seem pointless!

The reason that it works in the NFL is because only the elite teams make the playoffs.
The reason why the champions league works in football is because only the elite teams make it through to the knock out stages.

A point was made earlier about how the NFL have got 32 decent teams which RL doesn't, but why do we insist on have a final 8 if we don't have the numbers to justify that?

A top 4 going straight to semi finals would not generate as much revenue and it would not make Sky very happy, but ultimately it will improve the playoff system as only the top elite teams would make it.
This would improve standing of the sport to outsiders and also mean that teams would have to push to catch up with the top 4, hopefully imrpoving the overall quality of the league.

If you are a mediocre team who finish mid table, but you know that will get you into the playoffs, where is your motivation to push to be a top 4 team?

More importantly though, if you improve the opinion of the sport to outsiders, the long term goal of bringing in new fans and hopefully eventually more decent teams etc across the country is more likely to be acheived.

Unfortunately like so many things these days, it is more important to the money makers, what is best for them in the immediate future!!!

Who are the "money makers"?

Probably guys like Michael Monaghan, Adrian Morley, Lee Briers.

These guys are making good money out of rugby league and its because of that that we have to have playoffs and the like and have to rely on Sky money, because what the fans pay through ticket sales and merchandising won't cover their wages if you take out the TV money.

If we didn't have players on good salaries then we would be a lot more free to have the format the fans wanted. That's assuming a straight league competition is really what the fans want - and not just the fans of the team that fancies itself to come first at the current time wants.