I dont think it would....what is the point in playing a game against a abetter team where you are already 14 points behind efore kick off?

Indeed

Its a mad scenario on the present set up, 8th place scrapes into the playoffs who might have won only 40% of there league games beating 1st place who have won 90% of there league games.

8th place become superleague champions play NRL champions get hammered out of sight, then we start changing the rules again.

Even madder would be having champions who, in the biggest game of the season, can't beat the team that scraped in 8th place only winning 40% of their league games. Some champions they'd be.

Surely that is exactly what we ARE trying to achieve

When the RFL achieve this scenario will they be called Champions Invertion.

Another scenario is a team in 1 st place has achieved this using all there best players and are totally exhausted.
8th place use a lot of loan players and second string players to scrape into the play off, they then start to use there best players for the playoffs and win the grand final easy.

Champions who lose in the grand final? It's not what I'm trying to achieve and is contrary to the rule that says the champions are the team who win in the grand final. The teams that don't make the play-offs or fail in the play-offs are not good enough to be the champions, they are the losers. I don't know why people struggle with such a simple concept.

We could make the play ofsf the top ten, then we won't have enough teams who are not good enough.

No , the aim is surely that any team finishing in the top eight can if they play to their full potential can and will win the GF and become the Champions

Like a big qualifying comp

That doesn't make any sense. The number of teams who are not good enough will always be one less than the number of teams in the competition. The teams that fail will be all of them except the champions.



Aye, and if they do they will be, rightfully, the champions.

Surely 1st place have played to there full potential and 8th place have failed.

So why give a failed team another chance in 4 play off games if they cant achieve it over 27 games.

Now if we talk about a top 3 where there is only 1 point difference and not say 16 points (8th place)......... now we are talking a quality competition.

Why were the play offs introduced into the RL competition ?

No cheating

I'll bet it wasn't for £££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££
£££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££
£££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££
££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££

NO

Try again

Because there was a Yorkshire and Lancashire League running side by side with results compiled into a single table but with clubs having different fixture lists through the season (roughly.... everyone in your league home and away and some from the other of your ability)

Close but no bannana

nrl use to be 1st past the post

a champion team no better than average? It seems some are trying to acheive that!

But only an idiot can't see what a terrible thing that would be

Because we had a 30 team single division and a single club didn't play every other club home AND away, only those from the same county. Manningham (i think) won the league having only played the Lancs teams once, when at the time it was genrally considered that Lancs had the stronger teams and therefore had to play each other twice and drop more points. They then decided that it would have been fairer if Manningham had beaten these teams again, in a top 4 playoff, to prove if they were really the best.

and in the modern era, not everybody played each other equally either. First passed the post does not work when you play each other twice and then throw in a few more games. Some easier than others as has been for last few years.
The Aussies used to have byes in their league so again League didn't work quite right for them.
Also, in the Wigan days the final places were pretty clear well before end of season so nothing to build up to. No end of season finale.
Grand final gives us both those things......and lot of money to rugby league from both gates and much better sponsorship.

The only question for me is how many teams make it. 8 is too many for me, however, we haven't even got to the end of the first season trying it. No point changing it now. Lets see what happens.

I've been going to Wembley every year since the early 70s and saw most of the Premiership Finals. Grand Final Day is a great occassion that covers both, the Wembley hype and the end of season finale carnival atmosphere.
I'm all for it.......just would prefer it if Wakefield were there but I'm not exactly holding my breath

Close again

Season 1906 leigh ' won ' the championship with an 80 % success rate but were accused of ' avoiding ' some of the better teams

Year after that they brought in a play off system

So there you go , it's all our fault

So thats play offs and the introduction of franchising

So you see something wrong with all the teams having to perform at their maximun to beat any other team in their competition ?

How strange , I really thought that is what we were hoping to achieve

as i said, only an idiot

I think a top eight should be reduced slightly, probably to a top 6.

But anyone who dislikes the ideas of a playoff system is a fool. Shorten the season by all means, although not drastically, but the playoff system is not what prevents teams from appearing sluggish in some games. That is a little known thing called "form." Every team in every sport has form dips at some point in the season.

Scrapping the system would mean creating an exciting means of deciding the championship, which generates a load of interest and big crowds as the best teams are pitted against each other in a pressurised environment, but then deciding to revert back to the "old" system, with the championship decided on who could beat the poorer teams in the division most often.

Surely the idea is to have less poorer teams , then you dont need a play off system