The more teams you have able to qualify for the playoffs the more the regular season rounds are seen as not mattering much as it doesn't take much to qualify. Instead of having teams at the bottom with nothing to play for the more you have in the playoffs the sooner teams qualify and then you even get the fans not wanting the coaches to play their best sides in the remaining rounds in case of injury. As soon as your team qualifies you may as well not bother going until the playoffs start.

If we have to have a playoff I'd revert to the top 5 because that is the only one that combines a playoff system with the encouragement to finish higher in the league. When we had the top 8 playoffs because of the stupid way it was organised the best place to finish was 5th! You got to play the bottom team at home in the first round while the top team was playing 4th (and of course 4th got "rewarded" by finishing higher than 5th by an away trip to the top team, pure idiocy).

As to teams having nothing to play for or facing an impossible task to qualify, so what? I just do not see how it possible to solve that problem without creating one at the other end of the table such as I described above where once you qualify teams start resting players and/or the games are seen as equally pointless.

This notion we have to do something to keep teams at the bottom interested seems a pretty modern invention to me. The concept of wanting to win a game of RL for its own sake and put one over on your rivals despite your team being out of the running for a trophy this season seems to have vanished. Far better to accept the fact that no system can prevent teams being out of the running at some stage and revert to those finishing top being crowned as champions. The fact by about half way through the season half the teams will be out of the running should not be an issue. They could still affect the destination of the trophy and this idea we have to give them something to play for is like the idea everyone has to be a winner at school sports day.

I'm agreeing with most of what you are all saying and I feel the momentum of the rivalry and the stakes carried over from the pre summer rugby era has well and truly evaporated. The current structure is like a spread bet, a hybrid system that doesn't know what it wants to be and something that viewers cannot identify with.

I’d be happy with a top 5. It takes us back to 4 weeks of finals and a great build up to the GF. It also reasonably exclusive and doesn’t contain half the league.

I disagree with you about the battle at the other end being about everyone has to be a winner. The issue at the other end and keeping fixtures meaningful isn’t just about the players. Fans too need a reason to turn up. If your season is over many fans drop off. That is their choice of course but it affects revenue and atmosphere at games.

I believe if you keep more teams involved in some way, whether that is playing for the title or survival, there is more intensity in the games and therefore more reason for fans to turn up. Didn’t that used to be the joy of the CC? Especially when the lower league was closer in standard to the top flight. Just look at the Championship and League 1 in football, even games at the bottom end get good crowds at the end of the season because the team have something to play for. Surely getting attendances up has to be a priority. Using Australia as an example Parramatta got 25,000 for their first home game of the season, they are now down to 8,000 with nothing to play for. Admittedly The Cowboys have maintained their crowds even though they are down at the bottom, but they do still have a hope of making the finals.

So not every team has to be involved in winning the title. It would be criminal if a team won from 8th in a 12 team competition. If we do even up the number of games played and therefore the final table is a true reflection of everyone performance we should reward the tap toppers more than we do currently. Call them league champions and give out more prize money. We can still have the GF to decide the champions.

It is all very well to give preferences but can anyone tell me 1) How many games are we contractually obliged to provide for Sky? and 2). How many games do we realistically need for a reasonably well run club to break even?
Aussie clubs play fewer games but are cash rich and we need to make up the shortfall by playing more games. 22 rounds then a play off will always benefit richer clubs.

The irony is what we had before solved the problem to a large extent. We had the Premiership playoffs which involved the top 6. They key difference was the emphasis was that the league leaders were champions. So while teama drop out of contention for being champions as the season progresses in a 12 team league the premiership ought to be enough to do as much as possible to keep teams interested. It seems perfectly logical to me if you drop out of contention for the main prize while you are still in contention to get into the premiership playoffs it is viewed as a lesser competition but still worth doing. When they went to the GF as deciding the champions they fixed something that was not broken and since then we have changed the format multiple times and still can't decide what is right.

Relegation keeps interest at the very bottom but that is a whole other issue due to the viability of P&R between such disparate leagues. It's no use saying clubs can still pay to the full salary cap (which they can now) in the lower league, the crowds are paltry and the financial side of relegation is disastrous.

The other thing is fans are not thick. Trying to come up with artificial constructs to add meaning to games where there is none are soon called out.

Now there are reports that Disney is going to make a bid, in addition to the bid for Fox TV in the US, for SKY TV. This could make things interesting.

Hetherington’s men doing their best to get relegated it seems! Can we add to their pain next Thursday?