Didn't say the GF wouldn't stay, it's just the end of year play offs under another name.

With the Magic weekend, why is it any more unfair one team losing a home game, than it is unfair for a top team playing a team at the bottom of the league, when another top of the league team has to play another team on level position in the league at the time? (i.e. our fixture could be v Leeds and Hull could be v Catalan how is that fair?)

With a little more imagination, the magic weekend (stupid name really) could be used instead as perhaps a round of the Challenge cup, last 16 teams - 4 matches per day.

Last year, the first time this play off format was used, the teams in 5th to 8th place had nothing to play for after two or three matches in the play offs.

As this topic states should finishing top of the league be the true reflection of the Champion team, and as I stated, yes it should be.

I have exactly the same feelings. I don't know what it is, maybe something to do with where they're played or when (cold evening) or that it feels like there's more to lose if we've done well in the league. It might be that my memories of the occasion are clouded because I've always come away so disappointed.

Finishing top means you are consistently good. But can you win under greater pressure? Can you raise your game way past the intensity of a regular season game and still show you're the best?

Our sport started in 1895, that's 121 years, and we've had the Grand Final to name you as champions in 70 of those years. It isn't a modern concept, the first Grand Final was in 1908. We've won three in 1948, 1954 and 1955. It's a traditional way to name you as champions in our sport so why would we change that back to a way we've only had for 51 years of our history?

I do think finishing top of the league is a greater achievement than the money and crap trophy would suggest but it doesn't mean you're the best or should be called champions.

Plus our sport needs showpiece events and only the Magic Weekend, Challenge Cup final and Grand Final provide that.

Soccer aside, can you name me any other sports which use the first-past-the-post system to determine their champion? Rugby league throughout history has used a play-off system far more than FPTP.

The grand final is one of the best attended sporting finals in this country. Why on earth would a sport,which struggles for publicity, want to trade this in for the league potentially being determined weeks before the end of the season, on a wet Thursday night in Wakefield in front of 3,000 people?

The only thing I would perhaps change, is the league-leaders 'shield'. I think it is quite a nice piece of silverware but others seem to disagree, so I would suggest that we invoke the old championship trophy for this purpose.

If and when we win a Grand Final, we will chill out about this question and leave it to Huddersfield fans. The play-offs aren't going anywhere and the Old Trafford final is the ultimate test of a team's ability to dig out a result.

I went to the 1960 play off final at Odsal to watch Wakey against Wigan, it was a top 4 play off then 1st v 4th 2nd v 3rd, over the years it's had different formats, we've always had the play off' and your right they won't ever get rid of them rightly or wrongly.

There has always been play-offs in RL ever since I started following then game in the 1950's Top 4/ 8 / 16, decades before Sky Sports owned the game but the winners were never considered to be champions, that honour belonged to whoever finished top of the pile. Sky don't own the Challenge cup 100% so they do their best to ignore it, placing greater emphasis on the play-offs which to my mind is just a means of extending Sky's season and wringing the last drop of blood from the game....I still believe it's the dream of most players to appear in a Challenge Cup final at Wembley on a sunny summer afternoon than be at Old Trafford on a cold and damp Autumn night to be presented with a bling ring probably sourced at Aldi for a tenner.

I agree with you Weav' and would use the play offs as a system to sort teams out for World Club Challenge which ideally should be played as a climax to the season rather than a damp squib curtain raiser IMO

Yeah what do the soccer lads know about running sports competitions and raking in the cash?

There may have been play offs but we also had a period of first past the post.

In' the olden days' the play offs were surely a way of evening out the comp, it was before my time but everyone didn't play each other home and away and there was a split along county lines, the league was huge and parts of Yorkshire were still without electricity?

The salary capped SL of only 12 and 14 teams and the internal combustion engine might make for a fairer FPTP competition

What do the NFL know? Or the rugby union? Or the PDC? Or dare I say it, the ARL?

I did say that the chances of Sky getting rid of the playoffs are pretty much zero.. I was asking what do people prefer?
The best team over a season crowned champions or the team in 4th potentially being crowned champions.. Or even lower under the old playoff format .

Our defeat against Wakefield today is a veiled god send.
Our loss effectively makes our GF playoff hopes two steps closer. After losses this weekend for Leeds and Huddersfield, the win for Wakefield was practically a 4 pointer against both of them and practically makes it extremely unlikely that either of them will qualify for the top 8.
With our position at the top this week consolidated, it made little difference taking the loss.

The problem is, we simply should not be losing matches like that if we have aspirations of winning anything this year. It reveals a soft underbelly that will encourage other teams to believe they can beat us. We need to be ruthless in every game we play.

I agree with your last sentence but I can't help but put forward the excuse that we are quite low on key players at the moment.. Saying that, I think we only needed Ratch playing for us to win that game. Here's hoping he's overcome his illness for Saturday and Toby King can cover for Evans.

I don't know what the NFL know, but, one thing I do know is that we can't model our structure on theirs, 30 plus teams, a number one sport for TV playing across a continent fully franchised by big $$$ backers with someone waiting in the wings to take up the slack should there be a failure or a better offer on the table.

As it's a great idea, we could divide our 12 elite teams into 3 Conferences West, East and Central top two go through automatically plus two Wild Cards (the highest placed runners up) to give an 8 team play off system top get to the SuperLeague Bowl a OT....

I've no idea no idea what the PDC is and you've half a point with RU and the ARL, but, would their models be any less successful if the operated a Football Association League system?

BTW I understand that it won't be changing anytime soon. IMO RU isn't popular and attractive to TV because of it's League structure, it's probably more to do with the demographic of people watching, a strong international game with regular dates and of course a true competitive European Competition a bit like football's Champions and Europa Leagues, something I alluded to in my other posts, that need to be fixed.

Matches like what? Tony Smith is quite honest in saying that during a season there will be occasions when we (any team) will play below par, be a bit off, don't have the right attitude. I don't think it does reveal a soft underbelly. What does Wigan's thrashing there reveal? Or Hull's battering at Widnes earlier in the season? I wasn't there yesterday, so am not saying that was the situation yesterday and I don't want to disrespect Wakefield either. However, it's likely we'll see more "matches like that" and still finish in the top 4. As long as our "matches like that" don't come in the play off or the Grand Final, I can accept that sometimes we won't win.

Ah, so you are happy to accept defeats by middle to lower table teams, providing they are not in the play offs or Grand Final. And how do you propose to avoid these defeats ? On the one hand you seem to accept they are inevitable, on the other hand they are not allowed to happen in important matches.

The problem in accepting that 'there are going to be matches like that' lowers the expectation of the team from winning to second best. And before you know it, there have been several 'matches like that', team morale has started to fall, and all of a sudden you are no longer in the top four. A winning mentality is just as important as assembling a team with top class players like Sandow, Gidley, Hill and Clark.

only in 2013 it meant you were champions

That format actually ended in 2011

On the other hand ,"matches like that" could give the impression ,real or imagined, that the salary cap is working.

I agree with most of this, and am never 'happy' to lose. However, I don't remember a team ever playing through a season undefeated, it's really not something any side can expect, even when they go into every match believing they will win. Facing that reality, it's actually less damaging to lose to an 'outsider' than to a rival for the top four.

Shirley, it depends what you mean by "damaging"? Getting a beating from an outsider could be construed as a 'bad day at the Office', or the underdog raising their game in a one off, 'playing in their cup final'. On the other hand, losing by the odd point to one of your rivals, perhaps last minute away, might just give a team the belief that they are themselves worthy of being a contender. It's about how you react, hopefully we will bounce back.

IMO it's never clear cut especially it seems this season.

You know Rico, you could be right that Saints victory over us earlier in the season could have been their cup final.

I thought, with the way their fans go wild after each victory, that every game against us is their cup final.