I have to agree, I've said on other posts about the culture of doing enough to make the 8 then hope to 'peak' for the important games. I'm not sure that gives the earlier rounds of the SL the same value as the equivalent in the Premier League.

Last year's Super League champions won 15 games, lost 11 and drew 1 compared with top of the table Warrington who won 22, lost 5 and drew 0.

The champions should be the best team throughout the campaign, although Leeds played fantastically well in the play offs and final, I don't think you could say they were the best team over the 27 rounds.

The problem is people's perception

I think Wire were the league champions last season, Leeds won the playoffs

The Grand Final works and is a great spectable and event, but the Playoffs don't really work, the crowds are poor and the top 8 concept just rewards mediocrity.

Why no have a playoff between the winners of the League and the Cup, admittedly it's a problem is someone does the double and cocks up my concept.

I suppose with the current no relegation format it does leave little interest in what goes on between 14th and 6th as you would imagine these clubs have no chance of coming close to winning it at present.

Possibly the incentive of higher financial reward per place in the final table, however you run the risk of opening up the divide between top and bottom.

I do enjoy the excitement of the play offs and the final is fantastic, just not so sure about crowning the best team over 3 or 4 games as opposed to 27.

I would agree with scrapping playoffs and bringing back relegation and promotion, I think that it's vital for the survival of the game.

I really do think that the franchise system has caused crowds to drop everywhere but for maybe the big teams at top end of superleague, but lets be honest, how do the RL expect to gain support for a London team, who play at the same ground as the RFU old boys club and every season play for nothing! they can't get relegated, they're not good enough to even challenge for a playoff spot, so what do they have to attract new fans? At least if they were fighting to avoid the drop into Championship there would be some sort of draw for the crowds. (I'm not picking on London, just using them as an example of how the licencing system isn't working).

It's the same in the Championship, it's all well and good competing for the leauge title, but when there is no promotion for a club that are probably better than at least 4 clubs in the Super League, and a team that finishes mid table get a "license" what incentive have the fans got to go and support the teams. Again, I'm not saying this as a bitter fan, I don't support Fev or Halifax, I am saying this as a Rugby Leauge fan who is increasingly concerned that the licencing system is doing more damage than good.

Come on RFL drop Super League down to 10 clubs and bring back, top of pile wins the league and bottom of the pile goes down, you know it makes sense!!

I think the biggest problem is fans only moan once their team has won the LLS, why should it be changed because they suddenly feel hard done to?

I liked the play-offs when they were the best games of the season infront of good crowds.

5 team play-off.

P+R with the bottom team in super league playing the team who wins the championship.

Yes yesterday was a great sporting day but & it is a big but! there are lots other seasons where the competition has been over four or five weeks befor the last weekend. The Scotish premier this year is an example of that. I am a fan of the play off's, we should as a game stick with our plan. The grand final is becoming a major sporting event & has been said many times it ensures that the champion won't be known untill just before nine at night on the last night of the season, the main advantage of that is that the game can be sold at premium rates to advertisers fans & sponsers. As a sport we can not turn away money. The only people who have issues are mainly fans of clubs who don't win the competition.

How about this then, keep playoffs, but have top 6 in playoffs, drop number of teams in the league from 14 to 10 and bring back promotion and relegation.

That way most seasons, everything is still to play for right until final day of season for every single team, you never know it could have some right drama where the bottom 5 teams are fighting for last playoff place and any one of them could end up going down.

I've said this myself in the past. A contingency for the situation you describe could be 1st v 2nd? Personally I agree with the many posters who say top 8 rewards mediocrity and diminishes intensity and this was certainly exacerbated by last years result. I certainly wouldn't like to get rid of the playoffs altoger as I think the GF is an amazing end to the season. We just need to find a good way of marrying the spectacle with a just reward.

Absolutely bang on

Play-offs should be top four with the top team going straight to the final, third and fourth play-off to meet the second team in the SF, third team has initial home advantage.

Bottom side in SL plays off against top side in Championship for promotion\relegation.

Simple.

The team finishing top would have three weeks between games, they'd be undercooked.

Not simple.

Top 5 is the ideal system, there is the issue of dead rubber games outside of that though.

I would like a return of [ifirst past the post[/i - imagine all the title chases of the past 16 seasons we could have had. Why on earth anyone would want to sacrifice an entire seasons worth of fixtures for 4 weeks of utter contrivance is beyond me.

If we're basing our competition of making mediocre teams feel "involved", then god help us.

So we should change the system based on the first exciting last day to a PL season in years?

Personally I would change the format of the play-offs and reduce the amount of teams to 5 or 6 but to scrap them all together? Nah. Personally I'd rather see a play-off system brought into the Premire League.

I think we need to keep the play-offs, but would agree that top 8 is a nonsense. This should be reduced to an absolute maximum of 5, in my opinion.

The champions should be the league winners, yet the powers that be refer to Leeds as 'champions'. I can't wait for a GF with the 7th & 8th team contesting it.

Yet again why 'should' they be? It's been said about 1000 times but everyone knows what is considered the most prestigious to win before the season starts, it's not like they suddenly announced the play off system after the league was finished.

Because for many people there needs to be a firm, definitive link between success in the season and being crowned champions. While I wouldn't go so far as removing the playoffs altogether I would agree with many others that they need to be reduced so that the title of champions is not dissonant with the actual success they have had.

Personally I like the playoffs (as a concept, at least) because they require a team to be successful in [iboth [/ia league and an end of season knock-out, rather than just one or the other. Unfortunately the current incarnation of the playoffs means that a team actually [idoesn't[/i have to successful at both; they can in fact experience more failure than success in the league element but be crowned champions because they succeed in the knock-out element. To me that's not what the term "champion" represents.

I'm sorry, but anyone arguing that we should bring back the first-past-the-post system based on this season's PL finish is deluded!

Not every season finishes with quite the same bang? Really? I'll tell you now, it'll probably never ever happen like that ever again. It was a one off. It would be like a team winning the GF in the way Catalan beat Saints earlier this year.

How many PL titles have been won before the last game of the year? A lot.
Fortunately for them, there are the Champions League places to play for as well as the Europa League, then there's also the relegation battle. There is something happening all over the league.

You can't replicate that in RL. We don't have a European competition. We don't have relegation. If we have first-past-the-post system, the majority of the league won't be playing for anything. And the majority of seasons will end on a damp squib.

It's a tricky balance to get right this one..

If you brought back relegation based on performance then teams would go back to packing their squads with cheap and average Aussies...the youth that is being given a chance now would remain in the U20's or go and play in the lower leagues and be lost.

If you cut the top 8 down to say top 4 (like they have in RU) then although the play off matches would be harder to call and crowds would increase....you'd have 10 teams with nothing to do. It's not like we have a strong European competition that places 5 - 8 can aim to qualify for.. teams would have nothing to play for in the last 3/4 rounds if they don't sit on the edge of the 4th position.

Personally think that it should be the Top 5 or 7 and scrap the coaches call rubbish.

The League Leaders Shield should also have far more importance...as mentioned by others, the team that have played the best all year WILL finish top...so they should in my opinion go straight to the GF...with the remaining 4 or 6 teams (depending on whether its a Top 5 or Top 7 system) involved in a play off system to reach the final. That way far more importance can be placed on the effort of finishing in 1st position.

I'd also like to see the WCC extended....but slowly. No rushing into a huge 8 team competition just yet. I'd have the two finalists from each competition play on a single day...runners up in each final play each other at say 3pm and then 6pm is the main event with the two champions.

1 For every year the association football title is decided on the last day, there are 19 years when it's decided weeks beforehand.

2) So yes, Sunday's football was exciting - but it's the excitement that comes once every blue moon, most of the time, the final rounds see teams with "nothing to play for" to use the preferred phrase of this board.

3) Play-offs aren'tan NRL tradition - they're a rugby league tradition. It's how the champions have nearly always been decided: from1 1895 to 1973 and from 1998 to present. The 25 years that the title was awarded to the team who finished top of the table after the 'regular season' were the aberration and the break with traditions - and the clubs only agreed to it if the RFL agreed to a post season 'premiership' to make up for the lost play-off games.

4) I'm sorry Warrington couldn't take their 'minor premier' form into the play-offs last year, but that's the rules of the competition you entered. Frankly you're still building from the days when you were just crap - take the achievement you managed last year. Personally, as a Cas fan, I'd be happy with topping the league, even if we didn't win the title. It's a step in the right direction.

I'd like to see less teams in the playoffs, I think it really devalues the competition when more than half of the league is in it. It should be the top 6 at the very very most.

I'd also like to see more recognition for the league leaders because it's much more of an achievement that winning a few games in a knockout competition.

How? They get a trophy, despite not being champions, atm - how would give them more recognition?


... actually, just read Hear Ye's post above



That's an interesting idea (subject to whether it's an advantage or disadvantage to wait 2, 3 or 4 weeks between you last league game and the title game)

That's one way, but like you say the wait can often be a disadvantage as well as an advantage.
If we had an extended WCC, then we can at least reward them with a place in that. But other than a greater advantage in the play-offs or more money, there's not much they can get at the moment. (Although I think the trophy could be better than a tiny hub-cap!)