I've tried explaining this myself many times in the past but people simply aren't receptive to it I'm afraid. Tradition trumps all and they're not interested in the original logical reasoning behind using a playoff system to determine the champions, it simply always was a playoff system and that's all they care about.

Considering in many other areas history and the reasons for things being the way they are (broken time payments, the social divide, the fact Northern clubs routinely handed the southern teams their asses, etc) is a subject of interest to lots of RL fans, it's pretty sad really.

I have to say though that, as the rules stand, I think the sport has an absolutely fantastic end of season show piece (if you ignore the fact that the qualifying games attendances are poor), which really lets the sport end the season with a bang. But, also as the rules stand, I'm having a hard time defending the sport to casual observers who are interested in RL but simply won't stop saying "You decide your champions with a playoff system? Well what's the point of an even home&away fixture list then?" - I've simply stopped defending it now and started shrugging my shoulders.

57?

Not necessarily. Those of us who point out the tradition behind playoffs are usually (just like on this thread) responding to suggestions that they are a new fangled gimmick invented by Sky.



It's quite simple. A neat home&away fixture list (plus one neutral match) provides equal opportunity for clubs to attract revenue. If, for example, saints got a home match v Hull (who generally bring a good number), but we got one v Hudds instead (who don't), then that is unequal financially. That was less important in the old days when the clubs were less reliant in income.

Whoops, yes fair point, I should have included that one. I was there and remember it well.

And you will remember that it poured down all day



And to make matters worse the flag that I bought..the colours ran in all the rain £ 1.50 totally wasted



But it was our first Old Trafford appearance and despite losing I thought that we were at last becoming a" big player " in our wonderful game

"The season ends in a giant crapshoot. The play-offs frustrate rational management because unlike the long regular season, they suffer from the sample size problem". So wrote Michael Lewis in [i Moneyball[/i, regarding the baseball season in the US. The same argument could equally be applied to all the other major American sports, and indeed rugby league both here and in Australia.

Oh they're certainly not new fangled. But the original reasoning behind using them was very much because of the logistical implausibility of running a true league fixture list in an era where overnight stays/journeys would be required, where said travel and stopovers would be very expensive and would very much conflict with the 'day jobs' of the players. This is a fact that should not be lost to the discussion. You simply can't point to the history of something without mentioning the history of something.

I'm quite happy to accept that we use playoffs, even in a manner for which they were not initially devised in the sport, if the structure is right. For me, the best structure we've used since 1998 was the initial Top 5 one.



Yeah, I get the economic arguments for it - what I'm referring to is a fundamental problem for Rugby League - selling itself. It's a difficult sell to a lot of the public. We can all sit here and call the uninitiated unpleasant names, and say that they're blinded by football, and so on and so forth (as has happened here previously when I've tried to make this point), but the fundamental fact is that in order to sell a product you have to produce a product that people want. I'm afraid that of the people I know and meet who have a passing interest in Rugby League, most regard the current system as a joke. They get that it's entertaining, they get that it's a great spectacle, but they continually argue to me (and I can never find a good counter-argument to this one) that it renders the majority of the 26 game season leading up to the playoffs as totally inert in the context of the championship.

I share this view. RL is a reasonably sized sport in the UK behind Footy, RU, Cricket, Golf, athletics and F1. It probably sits ahead of Snooker and Darts. We need to give over on the World domination ideas.

Remember more people tonight will be watching Man U at home than watch an entire SL round fixtures of a typical weekend.

As for Sky viewing figures - The big opening weekend game of Wigan vs Leeds this season attracted 220,000 Sky viewers*. Meanwhile I hear today Time Team on Channel 4 is being axed for falling to the 1M level. Sort of puts things into perspective.


*www.code13rugbyleague.com/2012/02/21/super-league-viewing-figures-hit-top-10/

It should have been axed for being plain dull.

Our other 'problem' is a comparison with the 15 a side game and their TV deal. Like it or not, they have a product that appeals to a broader spectrum geographically in European terms, with top teams in Paris, London, Glasgow, Cardiff, Dublin, and all points in between as well as the ABC1's that advertisers are after unless it's Tetleys Bitter and Hollands pies youre trying to flog. Sorry a bit off topic there but Wires 71 got me started

It's an unfair comparison putting up sky figures against a terrestrial channel. Premier League games on Sky average 1.2 million; not far from Time Team's audience.