I've seen a few debates on here and on Twitter and heard some on Sky too on whether the top 8 playoffs should be scrapped and whether we should go back to top 6 or top 5. What amazes me is everyone seems to have forgotten about the two 12s / three 8s structure that was proposed a couple of months ago. If that gets accepted then this is happening:

Two divisions of 12, play each other home & away plus a magic game = 23 league games;
Split into three divisions of 8, play each other once = 7 league games;
All home games in these fixtures included in season ticket

Then, the top 4 in each 8 playoff in a simple semi-final format, followed by a Grand Final.
Hence, if you have a season ticket, you only pay extra for the semi and the final. And there is no complicated who plays who scenarios.

The bottom 4 from the top 12 joins the top 4 from the bottom 12 to form the "middle 8" from which any promotion and relegation for the following season is sorted. The current gap between SL teams and Championship teams will be lessened by channelling additional central funding to the top clubs in the lower 12 and through them being able to generate more funds themselves from the new format.

I actually think this stucture has alot going for it:

- Total games to win SL = 32 compared to 30 or 31 under current format (with the top teams entering challenge cup one round later to compensate) so no great extra load on the top players. Total games if you miss the playoffs = 30 compared to current 27, so additional income opportunities for the lesser clubs;
- No complicated playoff structure;
- More to play for in league games as more to gain / more to lose;
- better value from season ticket for all fans;
- re-introduces promotion / relegation;
- strengthens clubs outside SL and benefits will filter down.

It does take some getting used to when you first hear it but I think its much easier to learn. Everyone still has to explain the current system to each other and to casual observers despite it having been round for a while. The new one will simply be "12 team league, then top 8 play each other in another league before top 4 semi finals and final".

The extra 7 games, how are home and away fixtures decided?
If every team say had a 100% home record, it is set up unfairly with some teams playing 3 home and 4 away and vice versa.

Why do the top four teams in the middle and bottom eight groups play off? What are their "Grand Finals" supposed to represent? Old Trafford curtain raisers? I realise the lower divisions have finals now, but they are to determine the champions of each division. What is the final between the top four teams that finished in positions 5-12 in the second tier expected to determine?

I think that system is ridiculous personally and simply creates a more uneven competition because of the home/away scenario in the extra games that Yed mentions above. Perhaps that's the idea though, as the more uneven the regular league is, the easier it is to justify play offs and silence the clamour for first past the post which still exists in some quarters.

Out of interest, how did the old top five play off system work? I know top six was week one: 3V6, 4V5; week two: 1V2, winners from week one (highest ranked home); week three: loser 1V2 match V winner other. That system wasn't perfect (I don't like any second chance matches or repeat fixtures) but was in my opinion better than the current format. Warrington never qualified for the play offs when it was top five though, so I never paid any attention and can't remember how it worked.

As I understand it, it will be the top 4 (i.e. 1 to 4) get 4 home / 3 away, next 4 (i.e. 5 to icon_cool.gif get 3 home / 4 away, next 4 i.e. (9 to 12) get 4 home / 3 away etc...

A slight imbalance yes, but something else to play for.

TL;DR

I agree that this format has a lot going for it, the only spanner in the works will be the inevitable outcries about who has an advantage in the last 7 games as HY mentions with the decision about which teams get the extra home game.

The final play off has a welcome simplicity which I think will ensure that all the games are well attended and should be competitive with the teams involved truly having earned the right to be there.

The point you raise here is one of the drawbacks of this structure and in my view one of the biggest weaknesses. Winners of the top final are clearly SL Champions, but deciding what to call winners of the other two finals (or indeed what names do you give to each of the leagues of

is certainly tricky.

Top five was:

Wk1, 1st get week off, 2v3, 4v5
Wk2, A (1st v (2v3 winners)), B (2v3 losers v 4v5 winners)
Wk3, A winners get week off, C (A losers v B winners)
Final - A winners v C winners

Still quite complicated!

So there's basically never been a system that avoided second chances and repeat fixtures then?* Since they are in my opinion the biggest cause of people thinking certain games early on are pointless and not going, you'd think they might have fixed the problem by now.

*In the Super League play off era. I know the Premiership was different before anyone points it out.

Ridiculous..stupid stupid idea

Why? What in particular is stupid about it?

The top 8 have something to play for. The middle 8 may be playing for P&R, but the reality is that the 4 SL teams, with their far more expensive squads, will make easy work of their 4 championship rivals and effectively finish 9th to 12th. The bottom 8 may as well pack up and go home.

I honestly can't see one redeeming feature from the 12/12 - 8/8/8 system that can't be implemented in other ways.

It's great to be innovative, but the RFL appear to want innovation for innovations sake.

There isn't really much more to play for for the top 2 or 3 clubs.

This is basically like the RU playoffs where the top 4 just get a semi final, so you are a game away from Old Trafford whether you finish first or finish fourth.

In the last six seasons the gap between 1st and 4th has ranged between 6 points and 14 points. There will be a big incentive for finishing fourth but for the strongest clubs once you are fairly well clear of the battlers in 5th or 6th then how much will league fixtures really matter? Your mind turns all to the one off must win game. And all you are playing for, in terms of difference between 1st and 4th, is home advantage.

As for the difference between 1st and 2nd, assuming both clubs got a home game then all it means is it changes the opponent you play in the semi. Again one loss and you are out.

I prefer our current playoff format because it does give some rewards for finishing higher, eg week off or a second chance.

The reason people started to kick off about our current playoff format is because of Leeds winning it from 5th. Under a 1v4, 2v3 semi final format, one year we will have 3rd and 4th in the Grand Final and that will start everyone discrediting it so we will start looking for a different playoff format again...

That isn't reality, it is assumption based on recent conditions. The idea is that more funding (mostly from cutting top flight from 14 to 12) will be put into the top clubs in the second 12. And those clubs ought to be able to generate more funds themselves through season tickets and sponsorship and bigger crowds due to having a chance of promotion plus playing 4 SL clubs. The intended reality is that there should be a much smaller gap between the quality of the squads at the bottom of the top division and the top of the second.

As for the bottom 8 - for their last 7 fixtures they will be playing for the chance to appear in a final and win silverware (whatever it may be called) - why wouldn't they want that? They may also eventually be playing to avoid relegation.

Seeing as we splitting the league 8/8/8, then the top 4 might as well go into another league

Week 1
1v4
2v3

Week 2
1v3
2v4

Week 3
1v2
3v4

Top 2 in the final

What difference will funding really make to the difference between SL and Championship (or whatever they're going to be called)? There is already a huge difference in squad quality between the top and bottom of SL despite the clubs (Bradford excepted) theoretically already being on the same funding. Whilst Championship clubs can cause the occasional shock in a one off game in the cup, doing it 2 or 3 times in a league situation simply isn't going to happen.

And the idea of silverware competed for by the bottom 8 of 24 is just about the most farcical thing the RFL have ever come up with. You can come up with the ridiculous situation where a team battling for 4th in the second division may well prefer to lose and go into the 'Best of the Worst competition' rather than win have their backsides handed to them for the last 7 games of the season.

Maybe it's me simply not seeing this (and I am trying) but I truly cannot see anything good coming out of the proposed setup.

I'm loath to slag off something I don't fully understand, but that's the reason I'm going to slag it off! I consider myself fairly savvy in understanding these things (I can run you through any SL play-off system we've had, or even something like the NFL league/play-off structure), so take the view if I don't get it, most others won't (more from the fact that I take interest in understanding these things, and most are more casual observers, who just won't bother!)

I don't think there's anything wrong with the current fundamentals-league of H&A, plus Magic, with play-offs (I'll come back to that though).

However, by making the league complicated, you're risking confusing fans for a far longer period than just when the play-offs are happening! And this system is complicated, no doubt. Fans, clubs, the media, don't like uncertainty when buying/selling tickets or advertising/supporting events. Here your last 7 league games could be anything.

The thing I don't get is the middle 8-given your first 23 games will be against different opposition (ie half will have played top 8, other half bottom 8.), I assume all points are scrapped, and you start at nil? Therefore, you've effectively got a 7 game mini-season the determine our first 23 games of next season??

I could rattle on for ages as to why I don't like it, but I can sum it up easily-it's just too complicated, and potentially unfair, whilst offering little reward for relatively higher finishing in the league to secure play-off spots.

I've said it before, I'll say it again: we need to generate more interest/kudos back into league positions, and IMHO only a top 5 play-off system does that.

Whatever the structure of the play-offs, I still believe the team that ends up top of the pile after the end of the regular season should automatically go through to the GF.

It may yet be as follows for play offs

week 1.
A) 1 v 2 winner to final
B) 3 v 4 loser out

week 2.
C) Loser A v Winner B

week 3.
FINAL
Winner A v Winner C

therefore finishing 1st or 2nd gives an advantage of 2 attempts to make the final

www.therfl.co.uk/news/article/28 ... -on-policy

www.therfl.co.uk/news/article/28 ... -on-policy

Thats a better system if we go to top 4, its quite similar to the old top 5 playoff which a lot of fans have been calling to come back.

If it has to be explained and explained again its a fecking stupid idea.....

Our game used be simple with relatively few rules. the format was very simple, and it was easy to understand who was the best team.

it makes a mockery of our sport and you just couldnt explain it or defend it to a non fan that may have an incling to start following the sport...

the split 3 leagues will go through

we will become nothing short of a circus...

video refs at some game not at others
different rules for club games and internationals
a league structure not easily understood
Club call... will that be ditched...? that might sway a few people......

anyway it'll all turn to .......

I'm not a fan of the RFL