If they care about the game then they should, if you only care about your team winning then no I don't suppose they would.

More than twice for some TV masts.

Since they've never yet crowned any team NRL champions from outside the Top 4 whilst utilising the Top 8 play-off system, then I doubt they would care as much.

[u14 seasons of Top 8 play offs down under[/u
1st has been crowned champions 4 times, runners up 6 times.
2nd has been crowned champions 4 times, runners up 3 times.
3rd has been crowned champions 3 times.
4th has been crowned champions 3 times.
5th has been runners up 1 time.
6th has been runners up 3 times.
7th has been nowhere.
8th has been runners up 1 time.

Given the level of competition and intensity in the NRL, I'm not convinced it's possible for any NRL team to spend their entire regular season tossing it off, safe in the knowledge they are guaranteed to qualify for the play-offs.

The issue isn't about winning from 5th or 1st - its about what makes a team the Champions from that year - and the answer is winning the Grand Final.

Arguing that another team was the 'best' despite NOT winning the GF is playground stuff. Sts 2005-07 were the 'best' side ever in SL according to quite a few. Oddly enough the records show they were the best for one year only. Those same records clearly show that Leeds were the 'best' team for most of the nine years 2004-2012.

Mid-season form has been shown to be an unreliable predictor of the eventual Champions. All that matters now is whether Leeds extend the above record to 2013 and beyond. Maybe Wigan will take up the mantle as best team from this year onwards. The only measure that matters is whether they win the GF.

... a champion team who failed to win the CC.

Not that there's anything wrong with losing 6 successive CC Finals.

All in the interests swings, slides, roundabouts and playground balance of course




Regards,
Patrick Ronald Ising (not from Brisbane this time).

Last year we finished 10pts behind the League Leaders......the same amount Bradford trailed Saints by when they won in 2005. If Bradford had won in 2004 from 2nd people wouldn't have complained about a 2nd place team winning it yet they were 9pts behind the League Leaders.

My point isn't about who is the best. It is about whether a team that wins the GF can legitimately CLAIM to be the best. To take another sporting monolith that is run only for profit without any regard for true competition, Does anyone seriously think that Chelsea were the best team in Europe last year? The Champions League that they won despite not being champions in their own country was so highly regarded even by their own chairman that he sacked the manager six months later.

And my argument is that it doesn't matter WHO wins the Super League trophy under the present system (Leeds, Wigan or London Broncos) they can't legitimately claim to be the best team if they lose a third of their matches in the season. Yes you win the GF - that makes you Champions - I get it - Yes all teams know the rules before the season starts - I get that too- and yes you can condition your team to peak at season end - I get that too. But ultimately if all of that is reasonable then the regular season is rendered meaningless. How do you get fans through the turnstiles without cheating them. No fans equals no money. Do you think Sky will want to persist with the game if the regular season is meaningless (that they have engineered anyway)?

I get the impression from reading the boards here that I'm far from the only one who thinks this way, although I admit to being in a minority, even amongst Wigan fans, who think I'm a dinosaur.

Take away the competitive weekly element from the game - and the game dies. And if you think that's playground stuff then I'm taking my bat and ball and playing elsewhere.

Why do you think a playoff series renders the regular season meaningless?
A good playoff system does exactly the opposite.

You are right it doesn't necessarily.

THIS playoff system is in danger of making the regular season meaningless. In a14 team competition only the top 4 or 5 might make the season a bit more competetive as some people have argued on here already. I'm not against playoffs per se, I just think that we should all sit down and decide how to get a competetive competition from first game to last which has the ultimate aim of finding the best team and crowning them champions. I don't think the present system does that.

I'm not knocking Leeds they might well have won under whatever system was played. And I'm not running around thinking that Wigan are the best team this year just because they seem to be walking the league. I strongly suspect that Leeds aren't that bothered and neither are Warrington.

The top 8 imo rewards teams who lose more games than they win and that's a farce that should change back to a top 6 or top 5.
However when we've gone back to back from 5th we've done so playing every week and twice getting picked to play away by the GF "favourites" and dispatched them both times fair and square.
Also the fixture list has 27 games which makes the season unbalanced the regular season is clearly there for teams to get the best possible league spot for the play offs then the Comp becomes about qualifying for and winning the GF to be crowned Champions.
Finishing top and winning the most regular SL season games makes you the most consistent and you get the hub -cap it doesn't make you the best imo i hold the same opinion with the CC its about getting to the final and winning not who you've beaten to get there.
Ultimately i'd like to see a 12 team SL with a top 5 play -off and some sort of promotion/relegation whether that means play offs for the bottom 2 playing the top 2 Championship teams or 1 v1 etc.

Rugby Union have a decent concept in that they can keep the regular season competitive by having a top 4 playoff semi finals (where top 2 get home advantage) and the spots down to about 7th compete for a place in Europe. Then of course the bottom team face relegation.

Now obviously we don't have that luxury to offer a European competition which is why the RFL have decided to just offer the playoff spot to the top 8 instead... and yes, it's flawed.

I can understand the reasoning behind it but maybe alternatives need to be sought. Perhaps the top 8 receive a bye for the challenge cup next season or change to qualify for the new world club challenge format (merely examples) or something but at present yes I think I agree with you, it's not the best format.

And up until last season haven't they used a different format for the top eight play offs to the one we use over here?

Agreed. I would revert to the top 6 system which I think gave the top 2 a much better reward for finishing high up the league. I'd also expand the WCC to 3 teams from SL and 3 NRL.
The 2 GF winners would play each other in the World Club Challenge but run a World Club Plate (or whatever you wanted to call it) alongside it of the other 4 clubs. The other 2 SL clubs being the Challenge Cup winner and then the next highest placed in the league. So if you finish 1st you're guaranteed to be in the WCC next year, along with a decent cash prize and a much better trophy that is continuous like the SL & CC trophy.
I know some people will say it doesn't give the other clubs a reason to play but I don't think that's true. Last year 8th placed Wakefield were only 2 points off Huddersfield in 7th who were only 4 points off Leeds and Hull in 5th and 6th.

I feel we've almost exhausted this one. To attempt to put into words what I have learned -
Most fans like the playoffs but are concerned about 8 from 14
Most fans don't care about the regular season although there are a minority that are concerned about meaningless games.
Most fans don't care less about winning the regular season 'hubcap' although again some would like to give it more credibility
Most fans think that the GF is all that matters. If you win that you are the best, nothing else counts. The coach who conditions his team to peak at the end of the season is the best coach.
There is absolutely NO luck involved. People don't really belive in luck in sport, the best team are always champions no matter what system they play under. (Have a read of Moneyball or Soccernomics for a reasoned arguement about luck in sport - better than I could do)
When Leeds beat Wigan it's down to 'bottle', when Wigan beat Leeds (even in the CC Final) it doesn't really matter because Leeds weren't peaking then.
Fans are happy to call any team champions regardless of how well they do in regular season. So if Saints win it this year, they are Champions and therefore the best.
And what I've also learned - most Leeds fans on here enjoy a good discussion/argument without resorting to name calling and abuse - so thanks.
I'm going to lie down now - see you at Old Trafford - maybe!

Pretty much, yes.

It's definitely the European rugby that keeps the league season interesting, along with the bonus point scoring system which can massively effect league placings.

Simple fact is that you can't make the season interesting and exciting for all clubs, all season.
There was more to play for I believe when I started watching the game in the early 80's. But that was at the cost of 3 up/3 down relegation, having a county cup competition, the JP/Regal Trophy, the CC, the League and the Premiership.
Back then the Premiership was top 8, so basically come April you were either playing for a top 8 or desperately trying to avoid relegation.
Players would, if involved heavily in all competitions, play in the region of 40-45 games a year.

The real issue isn't the validity or non-validity (or intensity - take your pick) of league fixtures these days, it's the fact that very few teams outside a core few have troubled the engravers on the SL trophy. For all the b!tch!ng about certain teams "to$$ing it off" during the regular season, the underlying dissapointment is the innability of many clubs to mount anything resembling a serious challenge when it matters. The intensity and the quality through the competition is the real issue. Nobody cares about there being a top 8 playoff in the NRL because it's seen as being a "better" competition (although as Mr Eve posted nobody outside the top 4 has won it and several clubs have not been contenders for year - so maybe not so different after all).

Reduce imports dramatically (British half backs are an endangered species), make the salary cap amenable to running A teams rather than farming out players to Championship clubs, introduce more incentives to develop and keep young players. Change the playoff system back to a top 5 and relegate rubbish teams. But relegation could have a different criteria - set a points minimum rather than a league placing. If you win fewer than "X" games then you go down. I don't think it's unreasonable to expect a SL team to score a minumum number of points. If they can't then they just don't deserve to be in the competition. So you would have a situation where even though a team is stone cold bottom of the pile they still have something to play for each week. It could also be fluid, so two or even three teams could find themselves going down if they fail to meet the points total.

What makes the regular season ‘meaningless’(well as meaningless as professional sport can be) isn’t the play-offs or its structure, it’s the standard of some of the clubs at the bottom of the league.

Winning lots of weekly rounds at the expense of the big prize - repeatedly - doesn't make you the best. It makes you a bit thick.

True. But this is improving - just ask Saints and, maybe, Bradford. Only London and Salford are complete basket cases this season.

I disagree. In any competition there is a spread between the top and bottom. Consider the following for a minute -

One of the best games I've seen this season was Cas away when they gave us a hell of a fright
(seem to recall they did the same to you?)

Another great game was Wakey away when they should have won and were without Tim Smith and Paul Aiton

People might point to games like the drubbing of London, but that was on the back of three straight victories for them (one over Saints another over Bradford in the cup).

Most of the teams at the bottom given a run of luck with injuries can compete with anyone on their day.

What make the season meaningless is if no-one values the regular season and isn't bothered about coming first.

Therefore the problem would be the teams at the top not the teams at the bottom.

But that isn't the case though is it?

All the teams are striving to finish as high as they can. The do value it, it's just the value it in perspective.

Rugby League has, aside for a very brief period in it's history, decided it's champions this way. I suspect the majority of Rugby League Champions throughout the sports entire history have not finished first in the league table.

No, that makes finishing first in the qualifying competition relatively meaningless. What effects the entire season isnt the lack of reward for the 1 or 2, possible 3 sides who would contest 1st place, its the fact that the 2nd team of the team in 1st can score 33 points against the team in 11th. Its that Leeds can put out a 2nd team with players all out of position and beat castleford, its that St Helens can have their worst season in probably more than 20 years and they are still comfortably better than a third of the league.

We bring up the standard of the bottom and we narrow the gap, so that the difference between first and 9th is ten points rather than 20, the difference between 14th and 8th is 5 points rather than 14, and then, every game means something because if you dont win, you dont qualify for the play-offs.
If the difference between top and out of the play-offs is only 5 wins instead of 10, and the difference between bottom and play-offs is 3 wins instead of 6. Then everyone, all season long, will have more to play for.

Why is finishing 1st less of a reward now?

In a 5/6 team playoff they would have to face the 2nd place team at home (followed more than likely by playing 3rd or 4th at home if they lost). Now they have to beat the 4th place team at home followed by a team ranked anywhere from 4th to 8th.

For all the talk in the past about Leeds' great 2004 season, it effectively became meaningless as soon as we lost to Bradford in the Playoffs and became the '2nd Placed' team to reach the final.

I can also recall claims that the new top 8 system made it TOO EASY for the top 2 in 2009 when Leeds needed to only beat HKR & Catalans to reach the GF. People also didn't like to see the GF being a re-match of what took place 2 weeks earlier, which it often did under 5/6 teams with 1st vs 2nd usually reaching the GF. This would kick up a bit of fuss and "making the sport look bad" if the team who lost the first game went on to win the GF re-match and more "how can they call themselves the best?"

You're right. It is fairly easy for the top 2 if they turn up and perform, and if they don't have to get past Leeds of course.

Exactly, the margins under which we've not seen 1st vs 2nd in 2012 (Jack Murphy dropping a bomb) and 1st vs 3rd in 2011 ( Myler getting caught offside) are so small that when people make out that the Top 8 is too unfair on top teams and kind on bottom teams a laughable claim. Two individual errors have been the difference between the record of Top 8 GF's looking like this

2009 - 1st v 2nd
2010 - 1st v 2nd
2011 - 1st v 3rd
2012 - 1st v 2nd

And as I said before, how is the top 8 format less kind to the team finishing 1st? This is the route they've had to take

2009 - home vs 4th & 8th
2010 - home then away to 4th
2011 - home vs 4th & 5th
2012 - home vs 4th and 5th

That looks much better than having 2nd place visiting you as in 5/6 playoffs, no games against anybody higher than 4th. All that has happened is Leeds have been involved in the majority of them and have shown up more than others in those games (5 wins from 6). If someone would've said 5 or 6 years ago that the 1st placed team only had to beat teams around 4th and 5th place, people would've complained it was too simple for them.

Basically Wigan and Wire had a great chance to reach the GF in the last 2 years and blew it, and I'm not buying "they took the regular season more seriously, hence couldn't get up for the Playoffs" as any kind of excuse. Despite their below par performances at times by Leeds they would keep with the same players more than any other of the contenders (its been the major gripe on SouthStander about lack of rotation) and we were involved in more games where we had to keep going for the full 80 unlike the other 2 who could often take their foot off the gas after 40/50 mins played. If any of the 3 teams (Leeds, Wigan, Wire) were fatigued heading into the last 2 Playoff series it was Leeds.....the difference was they looked much more hungrier for the title than the other 2....but I guess its easier to claim a flawed playoff system rather than the team didn't have the fight in them when it came down to the deciding moments.