how many competitions around the world use this format anyway? i think there are some american "sports" that do this, but honestly who cares about the americans?

rugby league fixed something that wasn't broken in the first place for me.

Soccer, all international comps use a play off format with a 'final showdown', the Champions League, UEFA cup, and others. All the American sports (i.e. the biggest sports in the world), all Australian sports, snooker, rugby union, darts, various formats of cricket around the world...and many more no doubt.

Its only really domestic club soccer around the world that uses a first past the post system to decide its champions, (and some of the different forms of cricket).



as already alluded to, the play off style format was used in RL long before the first past the post system. At a guess, I would say that in the history of RL more teams have been crowned champions through a play off system than through a first past the post system.

Most of those you just alluded to are the equivalent of the World Club Challenge though, where the winners of competitions face each other.

Cricket uses a league system domestically, for everything but 20/20.

Snooker and darts have recently started leagues, so they are moving away from the knockout type competitions.

Personally i'd rather have the top 4 from SL in a playoff competition with the top 4 from Aus. That would provide a lot more entertainment and purpose imo. That would be the equivalent of a champions league or Europa league.

I know. I still think (always have) it's a daft way to decide who are champions. I like the idea in the post above of the top 4 in the UK v the top 4 in Aus (with whoever finished top here in the league being league champions). I think this would be a far better competition than letting the 8th placed team here have a tilt at getting the champions accolade. They don't even have to beat all the teams above them to do it title (as the old top 5 play off system made any team do).

Dave

Champions League, yes - although that is the 'one' that all the big clubs want to win.



and 20/20 is by far the most popular, commercially succesful and generates the most publicity across the world. the rest of the cricket season is played out in front of 3 men and a dog.



...a league followed by a play off and Final - so not sure what your point is?

I know this might sound a bit old fashioned but at the end of the day there are 3 trphies on offer each season. Unfortunately we have beeen nocked out of the Challange cup but we are more than likely going to win the league Leaders Trophy. The first trophy for far too long so perhaps as a team winning 1 of the 3 trophies on offer we should make something of this achievement.

If we win it, then it's entirely up to us how much we make of it. Okay, it doesn't carry the 'Champions' title. But despite what some folk say, it still registers as a significant achievement - winning more points than anyone else in the league is pretty difficult to dis - especially given that we were relegation fodder three years ago.

All the above comps do not have a system were every single team in the comp plays each other once at home and once away. That is why that have a 'cup style' final.
American sports don't have a league were they play each other once home and away. The NRL doesn't either. Prior to 1973 we didn't in British RL and that is why a playoff was needed. In today's Super League we play each other once home and once away, a playoff isn't needed. We already have an accurate way of determining our Champions, the playoffs are here because we are not rich enough to say no to Sky.

Apart from Englands 2 biggest football clubs......

Precisely! I await the but what about the MM weekend response (the extra game) but that still doesn't get away from the fact we do the home and away thing. For us this year the extra game was against a hard team to beat but even if it was Salford that is 1 game out of 27 so its not significant.

Dave

I can't believe anyone could argue that a playoff system is a 'fairer' way of deciding the champions.

I agreed a few years ago, under the 12 team league, 6 extra artificial fixtures system, it made sense to have a playoff. How can you accurately say the champions are the team finishing top with 6 extra artificial fixtures?? You can't it isn't fair, but now, bar the MM, there is simply no need and the team at the top is accurately the champions.

I worry that in years to come people will stop attending 'regular' season fixtures because they 'don't matter' especially if teams from 3rd and 4th regularly win the GF.

double post

The play offs are great firstly the season would be ending in a couple of weeks time if it wasn't for them.

Secondly it gives most of the teams something to strive for put yourselves in the shoes of Cas, Wakey, Bulls, Crusaders, Hull to name some there is nothing to play for and this keeps the season going for them.

Looking towards international reasons where else can our players gain big match experience?

However I don't agree with the format. I think the team finishes top should play the team in 8th, team finishing 2nd plays 7th etc. Winners of these matches go through to the semis. With a similar format for the semis and the winners playing it out for the final. This will stop all the crap about choosing teams and all the other crap. But also rewards the teams that do well in the league.

And we could call it 'The Premiership'.

'any presentation of the League Leaders Shield will not take place until after the final home game of the regular season against Bradford Bulls on the 3rd September.'


rlhttp://www.wiganwarriors.com/WContent.aspx?id