If it is a top 4 I'd go:

Week 1 (Qualifiers)
A - 1st v 2nd
B - 3rd v 4th

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

Week 3 (Final)
D - Winner A v Winner C

It gives an obvious advantage to finishing in each position:
1st - One home game to get into the final with a week off to rest players. You also have a second chance if you lose in week 1.
2nd - Same as above but you're away in week 1.
3rd - You have to win twice in a row to make the final but at least you're at home in week 1.
4th - Same as above but you're away in week 1.

I'd definitely prefer either a top 4 or a top 5 play off system

I like this

Me too. After being a touch skeptical at first over the 2x12 3x8 system, I've really started to warm to it. If we implement the playoff system that Grimmy suggests, I can see a lot of teams placing more emphasis on the start of the season allowing for a good build up towards the split and then the playoffs. Teams will be reluctant to have a bad start to the season and risk being out of the playoffs. Or worse, being in SL1B/2A (or whatever catchy name the RFL/Sky will undoubtably come up with). For the stronger teams like ourselves, Wire, Hudds, Leeds and Sts it will be a battle to finish in a high a position as possible and not play catch up to the others. I hadn't considered 1v2 and 3v4, but it does seem very logical as it allows Sky to have an extra week of playoff rugby that they wouldn't have under a straight 1v4 and 2v3 system. Plus, it would be mighty unfair to finish top, have a bad day at the office in week 1 and suddenly find yourself out of the title race.

Also, it would be interesting if they had the last round before the leagues split as the Magic weekend rather than have it as a seemingly arbitrary round mid season (granted the May bank holiday has been good timing weather-wise the past 2 years and I'm aware City's PL considerations would have to be taken into account too). Suddenly Bradford v Castleford actually has something riding on it, rather than the inevitable snoozefest it would otherwise have become.

+1
It rewards the top most and the 2nd next.

Week 1

(A) 1 v 4
(B) 2 v 3

Week 2

Rest

Week 3

Winner (A) v Winner (B)

I think Sky will want three weekends.

IF we rewarded the top 3 with a mini World Club Challenge v Aussie top 3 then under your system you could have the two losers from week 1 play off for that 3rd spot on week 2

Not enough advantage to finishing top there IMO. Under my system they are guaranteed either a week off while everyone else plays, or a second chance if they lose. Under yours it's basically the same for all the top 4 teams and form will largely dictate who wins the trophy. For example under that system I'd want us to finish 4th rather than 2nd/3rd because it's a straight choice between playing Hudds or Leeds/Wire. Under mine I'd want us to finish 2nd so we can beat them and get straight to the final, or at least have a second chance at home to Leeds/Wire, who will have just knocked 7 bells out of each other.

That's the RU format and I'm a massive fan of it. The WCC idea would be good.

To add to the number of games you could even re-introduce the old Premiership for the sides lower down the table so they've always something to play for. (I'm against rewarding mediocrity though)

The advantage is that you have a home playoff against the lowest ranked team. Don't forget that the league could look very different under those rules and Hudds could indeed be 4th thus meaning you wanted to finish top. The two winners get a week off and so have no excuses come the final.

You get a home play off against the lower ranked team under the current system and teams aren't that bothered where they finish within the top 4, why would it change? Fair enough it gets rid of 4 teams which means teams will have to work hard for longer during the season for fear of missing out of the play offs, but later in the season there's no way they would be busting a gut to make the top 2 like they would under the system I propose. Home advantage is fine but we can see right now that it's not enough incentive on its own, otherwise we would be pushing for 2nd spot. I think the standings would look almost exactly the same under that system.

Under your system, once teams know they're in the top 4 (About 20 games in for some, which is handily just before the CC quarter finals) the top team would start resting players and focusing on the cup, and the other three would follow suit further along as they become safe. My way the top 4 teams will only start resting teams once they know whether they'll make the top 2 or not, which basically means one game if that. Right now we would be aiming to beat Hull and Leeds so we could finish 2nd rather than throwing in the under 19s.

It's good that the points accrued in the original 23 game regular season will be carried over into the top 8 split league. That's means that every single minute of every single game will count for something. Then we'll play the extra 7 games against the top 8 then the top 4 after what will be 30 league games will contest the playoffs.

I'm actually looking forward to 2015 and the return of every game mattering.

Out of interest, what are the bottom 8 playing for? The top 8 are playing to be SL champions, the middle 8 play to be in the Super League, will the best bottom 8 team just be billed as friendlies? It's not like you can say the best of them won the Championship when they didn't even finish in the top 4 before the split.