Yeah, a system where finishing third is probably more likely to result in you getting ti the Grand Final than finishing second is clearly the best way to go.

jdvirgin strikes again.

bring top 6 back

1 v 2 ---- winner to GF

3 v 6
4 v 5

winners play off and the winner of this play off gets to play loser of 1v2 for place. Benefit is teams will push for top 2 place as a) you only need one more win to get to OT and b) you at least get a second shot if you fail the first time.

After both Wigan and Warrington failed to make it to OT last year, it was this syetm that the RL press were crying out for to return. I think it was still used in the championship until last year. This year (if I heard correct) the RFL have adopted a SL playoff style system for the championship. ..........Well at least we already get to play at the HJ!

That's the best format IMO.

How did the top 5 work? (I'm sure we had top 5 play off at some point)

To be fair dont think that would work,as if it was as simple as that other sports like football maybe might do something similar!!

Where does this idea come from that the play-offs come from Sky?

We had play-offs to decide the champions before BSkyB was a twinkle in Rupert Murdoch's eye.

Top 5 is the best system, the people who slag off the very idea of playoffs are bitter Warrington fans who can't get over the fact we bombed out last year.

Perfecto

Echoing my sentiments exactly, on a post from Friday night.

With this system, you get 2 games of high intensity, and a game or so less, for the players who will be involved in the end of season 3-4 nations/world cup..

What you don't get, is flotsum and jetsum like the teams in 8th who've lost half their games, involved in a competition that's "supposed" to be for the elite.

Everyone's a winner

You're a very angry and confused man, aren't you?

Although your simplistic and petty swipe had some merit, my point was that the 1 vs 2 winner will get a rest week. But if you think that rest weeks are overrated, fine.

You could incorporate a leg system for the lower teams. Aggregate scores maybe. Less benefit to lower placed teams and encourages a more competitive league.

Well if finishing third meant you had to win two home games against lower ranked opposition to get to the final and finishing second meant you had to win an away game against the best team in the league I'd rather finish third than second. Indeed given that the second placed team is likely to be better than the teams that finished no higher than fourth then finishing third is arguably better than finishing first under your system in terms of having an easier passage to the Grand Final.

Yeah it is no where near a perfect system (I would prefer a 5 or 3 team play off structure). My idea was trying to tick a lot of boxes (including length of playoffs, competitiveness and making the league relevant) I thought that one game between the best and second best and then a break would be favorable to two games and then the GF in the mindset of the teams- I could be well off base.
There is something small to play for in coming first- home game
coming top 2- a direct line to the GF
and top 3- a home game.


Maybe if we tried a practical example...

As things stand now (admittedly not necessarily an indicator of the final standing) the playoffs would be...

Week 1-
Wigan at home to Warrington
Catalan at home to St.Helens
Huddersfield at home to Leeds

All competitive games, would you agree? And in my opinion all worthy winners of a Super league title.

Let's play it out at random:

Week 2
Say it is Wigan that win and are in the GF
and then it is Sts vs Leeds with sts at home

Week 3- GF
Wigan vs Saints

Wigan come in fresh and Saints have had 2 very hard games

But it could be any combination and, excluding Catalans, there could be a chance of a previous final from the past 3 years.

It isn't perfect but I would argue it is an interesting idea and, between me, you and anyone who isn't the RFL, it is more likely to incorporate viable and competitive teams.

Teams like Crusaders won't be in the playoffs.


Even if this idea is just not worth thinking about, specifically. The idea of a sudden death concept and a smaller pool is something that I think could, and maybe should, be thought about and incorporated/

Top 4 mini league

Week 1
1v4
2v3

Week 2
1v2
3v4

Week 3
1v3
2v4

Highest seed always has the home game, top 2 after week 3 in final. All the teams play the same amount of games

Where's the benefit of finishing top of the league though? Give them an extra point?

3 home games rather than 4th who have 3 away games

only the top 4 play off i.e. 1v4 and 2v3 over 2 legs winners thru to final

I can tell you you are wrong on this.