In principle it's a good idea, Though I don't think they give enough benefits to the higher placed teams...

Playoffs are better in my opinion.

League only formats may prove consistency over a given period, but they don't prove who is the best all-round team. For instance a 'great' team needs to not only be consistent, but they also need to be able to handle pressure games and turn it on when it is needed the most.

Plus, they also say that to be the best, you need to BEAT the best - so if you either ARE the league leaders, or can BEAT the league leaders in order to win the competition outright, then surely the playoffs are the right way to decide who the best team is.

You also have to ask yourself would NFL get the worldwide coverage it gets if it was not for the Superbowl? So, surely there is a marketing lesson in it somewhere too.

I like the playoffs, but I still don't think the GF should be the premier prize, in fact I think it should be third behind the League Leaders trophy and the CC (mainly because of the number of games necessary to win it).

I also think top 8 is too many - I don't see why teams with losing records should be able to qualify.

Agree with that Geoff, think it should go back to 6, or better still 5

It keeps things interesting and I think it would be a lot more boring if we didn't have a final. This particular play off system is a bit rubbish though. I'd like to see a top 6 like so:

Week 1:
3rd v 6th
4th v 5th

Week 2:
1st v Chosen week 1 winner
2nd v Other week 1 winner

Week 3:
Week 2 winner v Other week 2 winner

Big incentive to finish in the top 2 (only need to win 1 home game against 3rd-6th to get to the final) and no game can be played twice because every game is knockout.

Playoffs are a good idea, BUT the team that finishes first should have a massive advantage over the rest. The team that finishes second should have a smaller (but still significant advantage).

I have said this ever since the playoff system was introduced. Ironically the RFL has steadily drifted towards a worse and less equitable playoff system.

Also under the playoff system the league leaders shield means nothing other than giving an advantage to the team that "wins" it.

That's a good thing, though.

The less prestige that is attached to the League Leaders Shield, the more prestige remains attached with the Grand Final - and it's the Grand Final we all want to win, isn't it?

If coming top is seen as 'the' achievement, then the Grand Final will be no more prestigious than the old Premiership - a post-season afterthought.

In seasons where one team gets quickly away to a good lead in the league, one has to question how much pressure there is on the top team on a weekly basis. That's why I like a Grand Final. That said, like many posters here I find the current system rewards mediocrity too much. The top 5 system was a perfect example of mathematical elegance - each team had a concrete advantage over the team immediately below them. Winning from 5th was a near impossibility, as that team would have to beat the top 4 in consecutive weeks away from home or on a neutral ground. That system should never have been abandoned.

It's a good way in prinicipal, but the current system isn't the best

It is a brilliant way to decide champions, having to win 2 or 3 games in a row against top opposition after a tough league and cup campaign proves you are champions but I just think more should be done to reward the top placed team.

However, our minority sport needs as big and exciting play-off series as it can get.

The play offs and the Grand Final have been a shot in the arm for rugby league. They must stay and the top eight format is fine, just needs tweaking so that its 1 v 8, 2 v 7 etc.
The weekly rounds are superb entertainment, but the excitement and intensity rise significantly in the play offs.
Also to compete with the Aussies we have to play at a higher intensity than we do in games against the likes of Wakefield & Quins, so the play offs are vital in that respect as well.
Conclusion - very good idea.