To me, the play-offs give to many teams a chance, making to many games, and making each game not as special as before. But, what's the best system to go with?

Whoever finishes top , wins

Then have a separate comp like we used to do , unfortunatley that doesn't make much money for the RFL , so expect it to stay the way it is

But 9 Games is too many, it should be the Top 5 max.

Top 5, gives the league winners more of an advantage.

I'd cut down to top 6 - the number should be half the teams in the league or one less than that.
Apart from that, this years format was pretty good. It removed the fact that the GF could be the replay of an earlier playoff game, which I never liked.
I'm not overly keen on "second chance" playoff games, where a team can lose and stay in.

Top five was the best system.

top 7.
Minor premiers straight into the semis where they play the weakest of the 2-7 knockout games winners.

Best system? I think so

Top eight as at present with P & R for bottom two to keep the season alive for all concerned IMO

except, of course, that for most of the game's 115 year history, play-offs and a championship final [iwere[/i the way we decided the title. The separate competition of the premiership was only introduced in 1973 as a bribe to get clubs to agree to the 20+ year experiment of table topper equals champions and make up for the lost play-off games, and attached income.

Gives a closer playoff battle as well, and should avoid any dead rubbers.

This year would have seen Saints v Wire and Leeds v Hull for the first week.

Top 5, without a doubt.

It gave a great advantage to the team that came 1st, which is as it should be, and made it fiendishly difficult to make it from 5th, which is also as it should be. The way it was structured also meant that all of the fixtures were very evenly matched on paper.

I refer you to my earlier post

Top eight on a straight knock out basis over three weeks.
First week 1st v 8th, 2nd v 7th, etc.
Second week the four winners play each other leaving the two finalists for
Week Three, the Grand Final.

Now now, TB, you know facts and reasoned argument have no place on threads like these.

Now just make like everyone else and wish we could have a return to the halcyon days of the 1980s

Ah the 1980s - winter rugby in front of meagre crowds in dilapidated stadia.

Back before the likes of Richard Lewis got hold of the game and ruined it for everyone.

Top 5 in Super League.

Bottom Super League team plays off against the Championship Grand Final winners for a Super League place.

If it was me id have the team that finishes top going straight to Old Trafford (spit) then the teams that finish 2nd and 3rd playing each other (2nd placed team gets home advantage) for the right to join them in the final

The RFL would never cut if down this far (not when theres a cash cow to be milked) but can you imagine how much credibility we'd lose as a sport if the team that finished 8th out of 14 was ever crowned champions?

Credibility!!!!

Play off's only work when teams don't play each other home and away, very much like Aus and NFL.

In SL they all play each other home and away & once (money grabbing) in a token gesture to "marketing"

If SL followed the NRL model then yes, but otherwise no. GREED still rules!!!

In 1973, Dewsbury, captained by one Michael "Stevo" Stephenson, finished 8th and went on to beat Leeds in the play-off final to be crowned champions. The sport has never recovered from the resulting loss of credibility



As a Warrington fan, you should already know that. It's the closest your club has come to being league champions in the last 50 years

Top 5 for sure, the league would be far more exciting.

It is daft, though.

I think it should definitely be a top 5/6 play-off and then it becomes more of an achievement just to qualify.

Yes, I agree. Think the old Aussie top 5 system worked very well.

When the system is too complicated to explain to your non-RL following friends, it's gone too far.