Whereas nobody, bar Wigan fans think Wigan are the champions and the history books will agree that they arent. If you think that a league campaign forces clubs to go 100% every game, then you are wrong. The premier League winning sides will rotate their squads, playing lesser players against lesser sides, as they do now. I cant see how, a side which cant win the big games should be our champions.

To be the best you have to beat the best. We were not champions this season and quite rightly, because we couldn't come up with the goods when it mattered. Champions should be crowned at Old Trafford in front of 71K after you beat Warrington, not at Craven Park in front of 10k after you beat Hull KR.

Rubbish. There is only one way to determine who is the best team over the course of a season and that is by league position. Not by a short knock out competition that can crown a team champions when they don't even have to play teams above them in the league. By your own yardstick Leeds are not worthy champions as they didn't beat the best.

The challenge cup was always rated second to the league championship as an achievement despite the fact it got even bigger crowds than 71K. I was there in 1985 when there was 94K on at Wembley. No one was daft enough to think anything other than all that great win got us was the Challenge Cup despite the massive crowd. No one thought we should have been crowned champions because a lot of people watched the final . A cup win requires you to win a handful of games. So does winning the Grand Final. They pale into insignificance compared to the consistency required to finish top of the pile after 27 rounds.

This is what I find frustrating about debating points with you (and, in case you've forgotten, we have crossed swords before over on the Leeds board). Unfortunately you have a tendancy to rewrite history to suit your argument which, I have to say, is usually a sign that your own argument is poor. Nowhere have I said that the ONLY way to crown the champions is through the league campaign. I suggested that, in my opinion, it's the BEST way and would improve the competition; I've also said that, again in my opinion, it's the CORRECT way; but nowhere have I said it's the ONLY way. I fully understand that's it's only my opinion, albeit one I share with many other people. I also have no right to crown anyone anything. I DO, however, have the right to REGARD the team finishing top as champions if I so wish. I have no obligation whatsoever to accept the current system as unassailable just because you want me to! I will never regard a team that finishes 10 points behind the leaders as 'Champions'. Whether you like it or not. Just as I will never regard bankers getting millions in bonuses as right just because contract law says it is. Again, that's my right in a free thinking society. In fact, I'd be interested to hear your view on the banker's bonuses if you wouldn't mind. I think it might be enlightening in the context of this debate.

You use a boxing analogy to explain your standpoint but, once again, you re remarkably selective in your example. Would you say that, for example, Buster Douglas was a better fighter than Mike Tyson because he was 'able to get up for the big game' (sic) when it mattered? As a matter of fact Ali was a remarkably consistent fighter. It's believed by many that some of his losses were, shall we say, a concious decision on his part to enable him to regain the title and also (more cynically but probably none the less true for that) for 'box office'. Isn't another much touted 'best ever career record' the one held by Marciano for his 49 and 0? That was based on the consistency throughout his career, not his ability to 'get up when it mattered'. As I say, for every example you could give I could give a different one. However what ISN'T in doubt, though you try to argue otherwise, is that consistency is massively respected in sport. Indeed in ALL walks of life. Was Tiger Woods feted for his ability to win the occassional big match, or for the fact that, for a period, he was unbeatable? To use an example from your own team. The consistently high performer that is Kevin Sinfield or the 'able to get up for one big game' Leroy Rivett? I think we both know the answer.

Look, the bottom line is that I feel the current system makes a mockery of the majority of the season and, ultimately, will harm the game I love. I have no problems with the playoffs as such. I go to them, and the finals and thoroughly enjoy them. I just think the balance is wrong and is something that needs addressing. I think the 'playoffs at all costs' has a price that it too high to pay. It isn't just my opinion and, unfortunately, we are getting to the point where people are starting to vote with their wallets. That is not a situation I would like to see encouraged by the 'flat earth' brigade who see change as inherently scarey. We need change. Whether that's along the lines I outlined in the opening post or something else, I don't really mind. Just as long as it does the job of redressing the unbalanced way our game has progressed. Let's face it, the number of times the question of how clubs are no longer worried about losing games raised it's head on the Sky broadcasts this season when it's Sky who have the biggest vested interest in maintaining the status quo should have anyone with a genuine interest in the game worried! Those are the very storm clouds, along with the disillusionment among many fans, that we, as a game, should not be ignoring!

Two FT divisions of ten, 27 fixtures and a top 5 play off with P&R between divisions.
We must accept that our best will leave for the NRL until we can increase our incomes, we must therefore increase the FT jobs available especially for those we lose at 19-21 from that enviroment.
Introduce minimum spends with max as a % of retained income, eg SL1 £1.8M min spend, max 50% retained income. SL2 £1m min spend, max 50% retained income.
Reduce imports (in whatever form) to 2 in SL1 and 1 in SL2.
Licence every 3 years with the goal of reaching 12/12 within 15 years. Any club going belly up is removed from the comp and starts again in a PT league.

But it is a logical fallacy to state there is only one CORRECT way. And there is no logic to this. Doing so doesn’t make sense. There are clear logical flaws to doing this.

No, because Douglas didn’t get up for the big fights, he got up for one fight. Tyson did it against bigger names, more times. No he wasnt, the statistics show that. Leon Spinks and Joe Frazier were big enough ‘box office’ to start with. Ali struggled against Norton 3 times, and Berbick and Holmes was when he was spent at the end of his career, be realistic.
And a lot of people will argue that Ali is better than Marciano because whilst Marciano won a lot of fights against no-name fighters, Ali fought and beat some of the best fighters ever, that’s why his losses against a few average fighters are forgotten. And Sinfield is consistently good in the big games, Sinfields record in the big games is unbelievable. If Leeds had lost all the finals they have contested then Sinfield wouldn’t be the name he is. Sinfield is outstanding in big games. That’s why he is the player he is. His ability to control a big game, and to lead his team to victory in them. If he wasn’t, he wouldn’t be the player he is. When Sinfield hangs up his boots, it will the semi’s and Grand Final wins he lead Leeds to that will be remembered, no-one will care the slightest that Leeds lost against Salford or Wigan one time in mid-season.

Its nothing to do with change being inherently scary. Its that people like the championship being one by the two best teams squaring off in front of a packed crowd on a Saturday night in the last game of the season rather than a Sunday afternoon at craven park. They want the title decided by a big game, by an intense game rather than grinding out results in your run-of-the-mill games. There is no need to prize consistency over quality.

He didn't

He said in his opinion it's the correct way.

Your quote that "Whereas nobody, bar Wigan fans think Wigan are the champions and the history books will agree that they arent." isn't correct either.

I'm a Wigan fan and I don't think were champions? In fact I'd guess that 99% of Wigan fans understand they're not champions.
I'm sure that there are many Warrington fans who thought they were champions in 2011 (And the majority realised they weren't)? So I'm assuming those people thought that Wigan were champions in 2012 so why not mention them?

Basically they are arguing that they would rather see the team that finishes Top be crowned champions and they are given their reasons as to why they think it's the best way.

Your defending the way it's done now

Both of you have a vested interest in defending their stance and your both entitled to it However I think some of your twisting of words/statements to back up your argument is a bit Rich.

Just remind me, how many Challenge Cups has he won again? International series? Or aren't they big games?

He won a challenge cup as part of the 99 squad even though he didn’t play in the final, and he has one international series win and one other international series 'victory' which was in reality a draw.

there isnt a 'correct' way. There are many different ways, which one you prefer is an opinion, but it is wrong to suggest the others arent correct.
Because they dont seem to exist, If there were a lot of Wire fans who thought they were champions last year, or St's fans who thought they were champions in 07 or 08, they werent particularly vocal about it.
My vested interest is purely that i think the champion side should be proven in the heat of battle. I think our champion side should be the one which is able to perform to the very highest level, the one which is the best, not the one which is the most consistent. I certainly think that the Leeds sides in 2005, 2007 and 2008 were superior to the one which in 2009 lifted both the LLS and the SL trophy despite the fact the 2009 one was the most consistent.

My vested interest is purely that i think the champion side should be proven in the heat of battle. I think our champion side should be the one which is able to perform to the very highest level, the one which is the best, not the one which is the most consistent. I certainly think that the Leeds sides in 2005, 2007 and 2008 were superior to the one which in 2009 lifted both the LLS and the SL trophy despite the fact the 2009 one was the most consistent.'"

If you don't think there weren't Wire fans suggesting the same thing this time last year you couldn't be more wrong. In fairness once again it wouldn't mean that ALL Warrington fans thought the same (Unlike your genaralisations about Wigan fans earlier) just that there were lots of musings around the same subject.

In Wigans instance however I believe the debate is more to do with how we as fans see how the competition SHOULD be set up, not in the main that we have been robbbed of a title (There may be the odd fan who thinks that but they are the minority).

FWIW my opinion is not too disimilar to yours in terms of how the competion should be won, I too also believe the Play offs would (If set up correctly) provide a true test of a teams ability to win the most important games "When it matters" HOWEVER (And before anyone jumps down my throat defenidng the 1st past the post method) what I think is proving a hard balance to find is rewarding both parts of the same competition.
IMO currently there is very little reward for "Busting a gut" through the 27 rounds and I belive this is leading to a lot of disillusion with some fans regarding the set up.
It would be very difficult to argue that this LEEDS team of the last 2 years could have in fact finished even lower in the regular rounds and still won the GF as to be honest they would in all likelihood have still won there 2 lead up games to the Qualifying Semi and it would hardly have affected there Semi final chances.
This means to me there is little if no reward for Leeds finishing 5th over 8th? Which again is just another extension of the argument of finishing 3rd/4th to finishing 5th.

If the competion set up was that anyone finishing 5th or 6th would have to play 3rd or 4th away from home and then if they lost had to play 7th/8th at home whilst they'd had a week off in essence you could argue they'd be better off finishing 7th or 8th?

That's the problem IMO

As Grimmy alluded to earlier, the only way to put more meaning into the regular season games and then again find out the Team that can win "When it Matters" is IMO to Reward the team that is consistent throughout the season by and Handicap significantly the teams that couldn't do that throughout the year to really test their ability to "Win when it matters" by making it as hard as possible (Pro rata for how low you finish in the Comp) for them to do so.
The current set up doesn't do that IMO.

There are plenty who make the point that a team finishing the regular season in 5th then winning the grand final reduces the sport's credibility. Illogically, plenty of them then make the case for devaluing the WCC by opening it up to the top 3 or 4. Personally, I've no problem with a team winning from 5th but I agree with those who suggest that the regular season should be given greater importance. So why not have a 4 team WCC featuring the GF winners and hubcap winners against their Australian counterparts? And if any team does the double, the team finishing the regular season in 2nd participates.
That would give GF and hubcap winners some sort of parity, retain the elite nature of the WCC and avoid the sort of fixture overload that would occur if a 6 or 8 side WCC format was adopted.

I don't have a problem with the play offs as a concept and accept that it gives interest up to the last day of the season. I don't think Billy Boston would give up his Championship winners medal from 1960 when Wigan finished fourth in the league some 14 points behind the leaders Saints.

What I can't accept is that the team who finisher 5th gets the EASIEST game in Round one, and then gets to play the team who have had the HARDEST game in Round one in the next round.

I also don't think that the team finishing second should get exactly the same benefit as the team finishing top.