(I have started a new thread on this, even though the 'bored' thread touches on the subject.)

The two systems of play offs vs league leaders as trophy winners can be considered to be two extremes of the same system; So the system is that everyone plays in a league and at the end of year there is a play off to decide who are the champions.

Extreme 1
The playoffs are 'top 14'. So in other words, the competition is only a knockout, as the league games are meaningless.

Extreme 2
The playoffs are 'top 1'. So no playoffs take place as the league leader wins.

If you have a system that includes a large number of the teams in the league, you run the risk of one of the teams finishing low in the league, winning the competition. That is a major problem, because 1) people will start to question the value of playing the league games at all, and 2) people will question the worthiness of the champions. So if the team finishing 10th were to win, imagine how that would be received. The 'papers would be incredulous, and SL would be a laughing stock.

But is it realistic to expect 10th place winning ? It is very, very, unlikely. In fact it's about as likely as planes being flown into the twin towers in NY. It's the Black Swan' that Sally talked about; it is so unlikely as to be dismissed by the competition organisers as impossible. 'So SL Europe' decided to have the cut off as 'top 8', because it would retain the interest of the supporters of the lower teams in the league. They saw it as a 'win win' to include a large number of teams.

And then Leeds won from 5th, and the criticism started. I suspect quite a lot of neutral fans felt 'uncomfortable', even if they couldn't quite put their finger on why. After all, everybody knew the rules of the competition beforehand. And it was quite a feat to win from 5th. And then we had the Black Swan. Leeds won it from 5th for the second year running. It shouldn't have happened, it was not in the statistical model, but it did.

So for the system to be 'acceptable' to fans, the winner of the competition needs to come from very close to the top of the league. The ideal, is first or second. But how much lower can you go before you run into the 'league games are meaningless / not worthy winners' bracket' ? I think that will vary according to the individual. Some people would still prefer the 'top 1' (old league leaders), but I am going to go with Horatio Yed's suggestion of top 4 being the limit. Even at this point, I think there will still be some criticism. It can be achieved through a combination of reducing the number of playoff teams or providing a bigger disadvantage for teams finishing below 4th (ie all the variants that people have suggested over the past 18 months).

Regardless of whether SL acts or not, the damage has now been done. Although the recession is certainly a factor, it looks as though there is now a sizeable group of fans that are foregoing their season tickets, and picking their matches. Even for fans, there is a limit to the amount of money they are prepared to spend on their team, and it has to include a credible competition.

I think in both seasons, for various reasons, Leeds have realised very early in the season that they arent going to top the table, or even finish in the top 2/3. The result of this was that their intensity and quality of performances tailed off during the regular season, taking beatings off the teams above (and below) them in the table. They focused on getting all their key players fit and in form for the last few weeks of the season and the ensuing playoffs.

This has of course lead to the other teams realising that you don't have to try your hardest every week to win the big prize. Weakened teams here and there, defeats to teams you should be beating... who cares? doesnt matter... We did this last season very well and almost came up with both the big prizes. We are doing it again this season.. Hopefully we will see the Briers and the Morleys come back into full fitness by the time the playoffs come round at the end of the season.

So whats wrong with the playoff system? absolutely nothing... it gives a great end to the season with all the good teams playing each other. Its certainly better than the first past the post system excitement wise.

But people have to realise that the weekly rounds are now viewed with a certain level of apathy within the game.

League games will be viewed as boring sometimes... atmospheres will be flat. Thats just the way the game is now.

League games will be viewed as boring sometimes... atmospheres will be flat. Thats just the way the game is now.[/quote]

I think that is the problem. And because the game is essentially all about money ( SL wouldn't exist without it), I imagine the club executives are very worried about the loss of ST's. We are lucky because we are a fairly rich club, but I suspect we have probably gone from 8000 ST's last year to around 7-7,500 this year.

Said it before, the league leaders after x number of rounds are the true champs. The playoffs are a totally different comp. IMO, the top 8 should go into a draw to decide the fixture and may the best team win.

I had no problem with Leeds winning it from fifth in either 2011 or 2012. I was shattered that it was at our expense (in the semi and the final respectively) both years, but I didn't believe that it detracted from the competition in any way, and I still don't.

I still see the weekly rounds as important because I believe Wire will have a far greater chance of winning the Grand Final from first or second - or at an absolute push third or fourth - than from fifth or lower.

However, since so many people seem annoyed by Leeds' success I think the obvious solution is the old top six format. That format guaranteed that either first or second HAD to be in the Grand Final (which didn't happen in 2011 when both ourselves and Wigan were eliminated beforehand), and the other "top two" team has a one off home game second chance after missing the first opportunity. That's why 1v2 was such a common Grand Final for a few years. The advantage was well and truly stacked in their favour. The top two positions still have a better chance than anyone else (at home first, with a second chance), but nonetheless the advantage isn't as great as it used to be, and also no longer guarantees that at least one of them will definitely be in the final.

As Leeds winning from fifth twice seems so unpalatable to some and is the root cause of this debate, then I believe the old top six format is the simplest way to solve the problem. It also weeds out the poorly attended 1v4 and 2v3 play off week one fixtures, which are seen as fairly unimportant with all teams involved having another home game to come either in week two or week three. That understandably results in supporters saving their money for the next match. Although the old 1v2 game also had a "second chance" attached to it, the fact that the winner went straight to Old Trafford gave it a lot more excitement and got people interested. Week one for the top four teams is now a bit of an inconvenience before the knock outs start.

Out of interest, is anyone on here young enough to remember the 1972/3 season? If so, I have been wondering what was the reaction to Dewsbury winning, and why did we switch to FPTP the following year?

I agree that the top 6 was best. Under the top 8 a team can win every game of the season and week 1 of the playoff and then get knocked out thanks to an inconsistent penalty call 90 seconds from the end of the semi-final (not sour grapes....honest ).

Under the top 6, one of the top two teams is only 1 more game from the final BUT IMHO a more interesting point is that the other team has to lose two games in a row to go out. It would seem fairer to be able to say "well you had two goes at it as your reward for doing well all season" if they didnt make it. Dont think its going to happen any time seen though as for 2013 the championship have moved form the top 6 to follow SLs top 8.

Leeds' route from fifth for the last two years has still been extremely difficult, but the same level of advantage isn't quite there for the top two teams as it used to be. You now need to win two games from first or second to make the final rather than just one, and that has made the week one games between the top four teams are bit more mundane than they really should be. It has also created an idea that top four is just as good as top two, because the only difference is home advantage in week one.

Finishing second used to have a big advantage over finishing third, whereas now fourth and fifth is the cut off point which lowers standards. Leeds have done it the hard way twice and fair enough - there's no point having them in it if they're not allowed to win it - but the advantages for top two need to be restored.

Restructure to 2 leagues of 10 with P&R

League 1
Top 4 playoffs, something you actually have to work hard at and earn.

Bottom 4 playoffs, this keeps the bottoms clubs from tailing off and keeping the intensity up.
Loser of this goes into a P&R playoff game.

That is still 8 clubs with meaningful (even if 4 is for the wrong reason) games to play
-------------------------

League 2
top 6 playoff, winner goes into P&R playoff game with League 1, Winner plays in league 1 loser in league two following season.

It's quite difficult to compare what happened in '72 with today. Forty years is a long time and attitudes to the game were different. For a start there were lots of competitions. I can not remember when they all started or were closed, but there was the Regal trophy, Captain Morgan, BBC Floodlight, Lancashire cup etc. Today we only have two, so there is much more focus / scrutiny of these and I suppose there is a bigger disappointment if you don't get to the final.
The Challenge Cup was (I think), the major cup that everyone wanted to win. Because I am an old fart, I still view the CC as equally important to SL - quite different to most supporters probably.
We were much more 'tribal' in those days. It was essential to beat Saints and Wigan and Widnes, they really were the enemy. Nothing to do with 2 points at all, that was just a by-product of winning.
League games were not just another step towards winning / qualifying for the trophy at the end of the season, they were the heart of the sport, and you wanted to beat the opposition each week.

So if you look at all those points, you will see that most are about peoples attitude to games, rather than the structure. If you find this hard to believe, then think about the challenge cup. Its one of the oldest competitions, it has always existed and has a fantastic heritage. But it is now considered by many to be second class to SL. Why ? I would maintain the overriding publicity to SL has changed peoples attitudes, just as advertising shapes peoples attitudes to brands. So for me, its very difficult to make meaningful comparisons with the past because of peoples attitude. It was a different era.

It isn't the play offs that are the problem, whatever the format - top 4, 6 or 8 - or who wins and from what position in the table. If you've qualified to play in them then you have every right to win.

The problem is with the preceeding 27 rounds and how to make them more competitively contested and therefore of greater interest.

A radical, but easily implimented solution would be to simply change the points awarded for each game played in the weekly rounds.

For example; 1 point for a draw, 2 points for a home win, but 4 points for an away win.

Now that would liven things up.

Attendances during the playoffs, comments from certain parts of the media and the fact that these threads keep popping up (and not just on the Wire site) would suggest that there is a problem.


Apathy and boring is hardly going to entice the punter to put their hand in their pocket and buy tickets for regular league games. Many clearly can't be bothered (for whatever reason) for playoff games. The clubs, or SL in general, cannot survive on one 70,000 game a season and allow the rest to go into decline.

Thanks, very interesting. Difficult for me to imagine as I have grown up with the SL era and all the marketing etc that came with it as a child. I got the history of RL DVD a few months ago and wondered why so much of the focus was on the cup, that would explain it.

I agree with both points.

To be fair , most of the posts on this thread have merit , the one I agree with most is about the 1st week non elimination games , they really do appear to be pretty pointless .

Speaking as a Leeds fan , whilst it was great fun winning the thing from 5th , there was a worry even amongst plenty of us that the league season was devalued , to do it again just really compounded it . Of course we will revel in being called " champions " who honestly wouldn't ?

The real damage to the league structure is probably only just starting to be realised .