I really don't think artificially making the 8's more competitive is the way forward, as it then devalues the preceding 23 games. It's the job of the teams that finish 5-8 to make sure they are still in touching distance of the top 4 by the time the split comes round. I don't understand why people think that we need every team to be competing for the league until the end of the season. Every league in every sport has mid table teams that are out of contention well before the end of the season. We had years of rewarding mediocrity with the old top 8 system, at least this gets rid of that.

Hopefully if we can add a more competitive Leeds and possibly Huddersfield to the mix next season, and teams like Cas and Hull continue to improve, then there might be less of a gap at the top next season.

As to the league structure for over 75% of our games existence we have had a play off system to decide "the champions" IMO it started to get diluted when we went from 5 to 6 and then to 8 to try and make the competition inclusive rather than merit based exclusive.

The old top 5 system worked in that it meant if you finished top you had two chances (both at home) to get to the final, whereas if you finished fifth you had to play every game away. If we could keep that system PLUS a stepped financial incentive for the top 5 that IMO would work well.

They could implement a similar system from a top four to be fair, it would only add a week on. The problem is that we re-introduce the element of teams having a week off, which some argue is actually a hindrance:

Week 1
A - Qualifying Final - 1st v 2nd
B - Elimination Final - 3rd v 4th

Week 2
C - Final Eliminator - Loser A v Winner B

Week 3
Final - Winner A v Winner C

The eighth placed team should not have a cat in hells chance of making the semis and why does finishing 5th, 6th or 7th mean we should contrive a points system that keeps them in it longer?

Your suggestion epitomises what is wrong with the whole stupid playoff concept. Poor teams get another chance and how well you do in the preceding twenty odd league games means naff all.



No we don't. Sport is about losing as well as winning and contriving a system where everyone is still in it is a a bit like a politically correct school sports day where no one loses. If you make it as easy as this what incentive is there to improve? You can just carry on and hope with a bit of luck you might face a bunch of injury depleted sides and win the thing when in fact you are a poor side.

If you want a system to guarantee total antipathy towards the league games your suggestion is it. The fact the current super 8' format reduces the season to that competition is bad enough as it is.

If we must have a playoff system go back to the old top five system. Yes if you are on for finishing, 6th, 7th or 8th your season is over but that is because you lost! And yes if you finish 5th it's a very hard path to the final but that is your own fault for finishing fifth.

I'm not a fan of the current structure, but it's only just been introduced, and it has achieved what it was meant to do to some degree as a championship team has won promotion, and the LLS has been decided in the final game of the season both years. All this talk about overkill is rubbish, teams used to regularly play each other 3 or 4 times a year in winter.
The fact is, any structure would work if we had enough quality players to play in the teams.

One simple reason points shouldn't be culled: they have been earned! Every 2 points you deduct makes an earlier match completely redundant. Just lost a game to your closest rivals? Don't worry, they'll have those points deducted soon to make it a bit easier for you to catch up. Madness.