Quite apart from being factually incorrect, this assumes that all clubs would have played exactly the same had there been no playoff system in place at the beginning of the season. Ignoring reality in favour of personal preference simply isn't rational. Like it or not RL is currently using it's traditional method of selecting the champions - the playoffs.

It's worth pointing out that for quite a large part of the time SL has been in existence the playoffs have been a far fairer method than top of the tree anyway, as the fixture list was lopsided and not all clubs played the same mix of fixtures.

I don't really have a problem with the playoffs. I'd prefer the number of sides involved to be fewer but the mechanism employed pretty much guarantees that nobody outside the top 4 stands much chance of a GF appearance anyway.

That element of luck can still be a factor in a straight league competition. In fact it pretty much always is. Look how close it was between Wigan and Wire this season for instance.

How I see it too provided the fixtures were configured so that every team plays every other team twice.

Not disputing that Kosh,but say,if by some miracle Hull won the G.F. can we honestly say we are better than Wire this season?

if you win the league fixtures, you win the league, if you win the playoffs you win the playoffs, two separate competitions IMHO.

The original play offs back in the old days were due to the size of the league.

With only 14 teams it's crazy that a team finishing in the bottom half of the league could go on to become Champions (albeit very unlikely).

By the rules of the competition we're all in? Yup.

You're as good as your results make you.

Thats why coming first is better than 8th.

Anyhow,lets agree to disagree on this one.