Argument against it - Uncompetitive games (1 v 8 and 2 v 7 would be walkovers every year, 3 v 6 most years too). Plus you can finish top then get knocked out after one game that way.

Under top 5 2nd and 3rd play a harder first game than 4th and 5th.
Under top 6 1st and 2nd play a harder first game than 3rd - 6th.

Having the chance to lose one play off game against a top team and still end up champions has been a recognised advantage of finishing near the top ever since we started using the play offs. We just need to get rid of top 8 play offs full stop, and they presumably are when we go to 12 teams anyway

There were plenty of games which the "great" Wigan team lost, through coasting in the less important matches. Different story in the big games.

The main argument against is that 8 teams shouldn't be in the playoffs.

Check the Wigan results the week before the 1989 and 1991 Challenge Cup finals.

The NRL used this system until a couple of years ago and those finishing first would never be out in round 1 - the two lowest ranking losers go out in round one. The 1st placed team just loses it's ranking and home advantage and has to play in round two.

So that leaves 6... Do the top 2 ranking winners get a bye then? Anyway, point remains, 8 is too many

Yep top two winners go to round three. Now the NRL use pretty much the same system as we do now, madness.

One year Melbourne finished top and lost to thier bogey team Auckland who finished 8th. Melbourne's reward was an away trip to Brisbane who had finished 4th I think. Don't think the Aussies are happy with 8. I went there a few years back and watched one of the freeview NRL profs (Sunday roast?) and it was more or less an hours debate on the top 5 system should be brought back.

I couldn't believe it when the NRL switched inline with what we use. The system they had previously (McIntyre system I think it's called) was heavily criticised in Oz but seemed a much fairer system than what we have. The playoffs are a little more meaningful than they are over here in that not all of the teams have played each other an equal amount of times before they start.

The weekly rounds of SL would become much more meaningful if every position higher you finished gave you a genuine advantage in the playoffs. At the minute this is nowhere near the case, you only have to look at who the week one favourites would be to see this. 8 teams is too many for a 14 team league as it is, but then splitting the 8 in to two 4s is nothing short of ludicrous IMO. I guess nothing will change next year but I really hope they go with nothing more than a top 5 once SL becomes a 12 team league.

Well, be interesting to see this evening if Wigan can follow Wire/Leeds in the mad scramble to come 4th this year and play Huddersfield, and avoid each other in the first playoff game!

I agree with you and Grimmy but was pointing out the inadequacy of the current system. I get the reason the RFL want to keep 8 in the playoffs But don't see why 5th gets to play the weakest team at home. It's still tough to win from 5th but that's not the point. For me, a top 5 or 6 is the way to go making sure that any winner has to beat every team above them, something else that doesn't happen under the current system.

If we are to have a play off system then top five is by far the best and fairest.

agreed

But without relegation leaves far to many teams with nothing to play for by mid table.

Like Widnes & HKR?