Of course you are. The lack of any substance in your reply suggests the penny may have finally dropped and you've realised nobody is falling for your attempts to tell others what their arguments are just so that you can argue against what you've made up.

Why not? there is an argument to do so. It probably doesnt hold much water but it is there.
Yes, there is a balance, and thats the balance we are trying to achieve. I think half-way is an easy balance, most people's points seem to be about teams losing more than they win, or teams finishing in the bottom half qualifying, which is understandable. I would prefer if we did have half way as our cut off point, but top 7 systems are largely rubbish.

I think this is all a bit redundent really, the size of the league will change, and so will the play-offs. I think at either 16 or 18 teams we will split to conferences, with top 4 in each conference playing.

You can hide behind whatever frame you want to put your argument in, its transparent, you arent as subtle as you think you are.

Having read this entire thread, I can confirm that SmokeyTA is completely correct in stating what he has. Who can blame him for no longer wishing to engage with such obvious, bitter drivel.

Hiding behind a frame? Er... ok pal! Frankly, the idea that my argument is one thing but I'm pretending it's something else is about one of the most bizarre claims I've seen on an internet forum. I mean why wouldn't I just present my real argument instead of this so-called fake argument? Bizarre!

...and log out... now log back in... job done.

Thats the problem, superleague is dumbed down to keep 5th to 8th ticking over, where quantity displaces quality.
Should be top 3 in my opinion, top straight to final 2 v 3 for the other final spot.
It just might mean the 27 games might be more competitive, create a minor trophy play off for 4th to 8th if the RFL are clever enough to convince Sky.
Bring back credibility to league position.

How many teams qualify for the CHAMPIONS league?

Well maybe the teams who aimed for a "top 8 " spot would try a little bit harder. I agree with a top 6 format. REAL reward for aiming for the top (one game from GF or you have to lose 2 in a row to be out).

Just a bit of fun working out all the win ratios during the regular season from the eventual grand final winners:

1998 Wigan 91.3% (1st)
1999 St Helens 76.6% (2nd)
2000 St Helens 82.1% (2nd)
2001 Bradford 78.5% (1st)
2002 St Helens 82.1% (1st)
2003 Bradford 78.5%) (1st)
2004 Leeds 85.7% (1st)
2005 Bradford 64.2% (3rd)
2006 St Helens 85.7% (1st)
2007 Leeds 66.6% (2nd)
2008 Leeds 77.7% (2nd)
2009 Leeds 77.7% (1st)
2010 Wigan 81.4% (1st)
2011 Leeds 55.5% (5th)
2012 Leeds 59.2% (5th)

For some perspective - Warrington finished with a 81.4% winning ratio in 2011, and Wigan finished top this year with a ratio of 77.7%

Q/ Did Bradford winning it from 3rd in 2005 cause much uproar?

(edit: thanks judd)

RL13 - Edit the 2007 season before you get jumped on it was won by Leeds.

It's generally all sour grapes.

I still go to as many league games as I can because I enjoy watching rugby league. It's sport it's entertainment and I like to go. I know quite well one of the Leeds players who assures me that they don't aim to be poor at the start of the year and they want to win every game, they do aim to peak in September and as a result of training might be a bit off the mark but they do NOT sit around and think we will aim for 5th as its easy. People know the rules and Leeds are the rightful champions.

No because it was Saints and Leeds who finished above them not Wigan



Both sides took it on the chin, nuckled down and dominated the subsequent years (well ignoring 2006 in Leeds' case)

I agree with going back to this.

Still,Leeds could finish 5th again in that system and if they perform like they did in the last 2 playoff series, just as easily walk away with the crown.

Leeds know what it takes to get through the playoffs and win a grand final.Its up to the other teams to raise to that level when it Matters also.Which they have been unable to do the last 2 years.

No amount of tweaking with the system will change this fact.

Just to add some context, here's the NRL
1998 Brisbane 75% (1st)
1999 Melbourne 67% (3rd)
2000 Brisbane 69% (1st)
2001 Newcastle 62% (3rd)
2002 Sydney 63% (4th)
2003 Penrith 75% (1st)
2004 Canterbury 79% (2nd)
2005 Wests 58% (4th)
2006 Brisbane 58% (3rd)
2007 Melbourne 88% (1st) - stripped of title
2008 Manly 71% (2nd)
2009 Melbourne 58% (4th) - stripped of title
2010 St George 71% (1st)
2011 Manly 75% (2nd)
2012 Melbourne 71% (2nd)

Thanks for that HIM. Interesting to compare.

Whilst we're on the subject (sort of) - is any one of age to know why they dispensed with the play off system in 1974-75? What is merely down the creation of two divisions, bearing in mind that division one still had 16 teams? Was the championship final as it was then, no longer the great pinnacle of the season?

The NRL is far more competitive though. A team that finishes 5th in the NRL (not that anyone has won it from 5th) has had a better season than a team who finishes 5th in SL. I don't think anybody--not even Leeds themselves--would claim Leeds had a good domestic season.

Don't pretend im someone else, its pretty easy for the mods to check and prove you again to be a bit of a moron.

Yeah, a team from 5th in the NRL can call themselves champions. The NRL is more competitive isn’t it, anyone can beat anyone on any given day. Where a team from 4th or 5th or even 8th can get in the play-offs and get to the Grand Final, and then who knows, anyone can beat anyone, teams qualify for the play-offs but need to win the play-offs to be champions

Not like SL, which isn’t competitive, where only the top teams win and it is disgusting that a team from 4th or 5th, god forbid 8th, get to a Grand Final, it makes the whole season pointless. Why bother with the rest of the season if you only need to win the play-offs to be champions.


after all [iA team that finishes 5th in the NRL (not that anyone has won it from 5th) has had a better season than a team who finishes 5th in SL[/i

To add some context here, we have only had the top 8 play off's since 2008 ? , previously it had been top 6 and prior to that top 5.

There are 2 things that are becoming more evident :

1. If you qualify for the 8, you have a chance to win the top prize
2. Leeds are an excelleny play off/ cup team.

The one sure thing is that the top teams realise that they need a full strength, fit squad at the business end of the season and if this means
sacrificing a few points earlier in the season so be it.
Does this detract from the weekly rounds, probably ?
Is iit worth it to have the spectacle of the Grand Final, yes.

Leeds peaking during the play-offs is to the detriment of their league campaign, but the benefit of their performance in the play offs, Wigan peaking during the regular season meant they won more regular season games, but didn’t play that well in the play-offs.

Both those two clubs made a choice, Leeds won.

The difference in quality between the respective leagues is irrelevant. The argument put forward is that a team winning from low in the playoffs with a "low" percentage of wins "ruins" the regular season. That has categorically not been the case in the NRL where teams have won the Grand Final from lower in the league more often than in SL and with teams with lower win % than Leeds.

What part of this discussion is confusing some of the idiots on here?

Which team or How a team wins the GF and becomes Champions is not an issue to anyone ..... 14 teams looked at the rules, and Leeds played the overall game better than anyone else, and so are rightly hailed as Champions. The disturbing fact of the matter is teams (not just Leeds) are tailoring their season around qualifying for, and being at their peak for, the playoffs. But it doesn't say on my season ticket "Warning: You will be charged full price for ALL games, regardless of whether your team put any effort into the game or not."

So, if the team are only going to try in 20 of the 27 games, how about instead of putting 100% of my financial effort into every game by buying a season ticket for £240+, I (and many others) will choose to put 70% financial effort into paying to watch? ..... Is that OK? If league games aren't that important to clubs (and some very clearly aren't) then why should I pay to watch them all? And it's not like the clubs need the money, is it? The game is obviously swimming in excess cash!!!

Please dont buy one then and encourage a few thousand more to do likewise, them maybe another team can take your teams place as revenue plummets.
Then lets hope if it is my team I do not become as smug as you.

You can do what you want, it's a free country. It's a little pathetic though. There is some sort of bizarre attitude going around that for some reason it's a disgrace if a club doesn't win every single game. As if clubs having poor games somehow entitles the supporters to their money back. Well rugby league fans need to snap out of it because it's utterly ridiculous.
For a start there aren't 27 games in a season, Leeds played 37 this season and won 25 of them (a win ratio of 68% by the way). Is winning 2/3rds of games unacceptable? If so I'd suggest you're not going to enjoy any kind of competitive sport.