I haven't read this all the way through but can pretty much guess it's content.



The Grand Final is here to stay. Its a great concept and is a huge success. The play offs are the most intense games of the season where the pressure steps up a level to the regular rounds. If we want to develop a National team where the players are able to cope with the intensity of fixtures against NZ & Australia these games are what it's all about.



The RFL will not consider devaluing the Grand Final just because Warrington or Wigan fans are upset their teams didn't win.

I agree that perhaps the play off format isn't ideal with a top 8, but the whole idea of increasing the number of teams in it i'm sure was to get players uses to the step up in intensity. Perhaps we aren't their yet but in the interests of the British game we want more quality teams.



Just to put things into perspective, we've always been happy and never questioned the NRL Champions being the winners of their Grand Final but just because your own team didn't win your putting the blame on "the system" not the failures of your own team.

NOPE, increasing the play-offs to 8 teams was literally to provide SKY with more RL games to try and "sell Superleague" (and Sky Sports) to more viewers

didn't happen last year at Wembley

That would be fine if this was a thread about the challenge cup which you no longer hold, but its not,



its about the Superleague. Cheers for the input though

I kind of like the idea of the play offs, just not happy with the format and the "weighting" (or lack of) for coming 1st in the league.



My suggestions would be either:



Separate out League & play offs. Whoever finishes top at the end of the regular season is crowned League Champions. There is then a separate play off series for the top 8, with 1st playing 8th, 2nd playing 7th etc. This culminates in the Final at OT. This is pretty much how things started off years ago, with te Stones Bitter Premiership at the end of the season. There's then also 3 prestigious trophies to go for. (sorry, but the league leader's shield is not really viewed as prestigious)



OR:



Play-offs involve top 5 teams only. 1st goes straight to the final (there's your reward for finishing top) 2nd - 4th play off to see who meets them.

Present system seems ok to me.



PS Thanks to wire fans for great banter in London on the Thursday prior to the semi. Told you it was a mistake to choose Leeds

That option WONT happen as not enough games for Sky.

Preferred old system as 8 team play-off de-values the comp.



Really tough on you guys this year and can't believe you weren't voted team of the year.



Maybe the only way forward is to ban Leeds and Stains from the play-offs to give someone else a chance

Turn it into top 7, top half of the table gets you in the play offs.



1st place has week 1 off, other 6 play 3 knock out games (usual format) to get into the semi finals.



Every game is a knockout.



Won't play same team twice.



1st place gets a noticeable benefit for finishing top.

come on lets stop this now........its fine the way it is.



even the toffs in the rugger world cup are saying France shouldnt be in the world cup final because they lost 2 games in the group stage.



Wales lost they go out, the other team go through whats the problem..?



We lost Leeds went through. Stop Whinging its bleedin Embarrassing not once have we questioned the playoff format in every other year of superleague. (except to discuss increasing the number of teams in the playoffs when we missed out by one place...)





total nobery of the highest order

I agree with the above but...



If we [ihave[/i to decide the Champions via a play off system, maybe this would be fairer.



Only teams that finish within, say, 8 points of the top are eligible with a maximum of 4 teams. If that's only one team then 1 & 2 would go straight into the GF.



If it's two then 2 & 3 play each other. Winner plays 1 in GF



If it's three then 1 v 4 and 2 v 3. Winners straight into GF

with all you lot going on about being 'rewarded' for finishing top, you seem to forget that the problem is any 'reward' has to be proportional to the margin by which you finished first, which is completely unknown at season start.



It's entirely possible next year you could have Leeds & Wire win 25 games, draw twice against each other and one finishes top on PD. Any massive 'reward' for finishing 1st would then be egregiously unfair.



It also devalues the GF when you could have a team with 3 weeks rest behind them going against a side which has had to win 3 straight away games.



Personally, I don't think there's anything wrong with the current system, given my additional preference for a 16 team superleague as opposed to 14.



I would, however, remove the club call and simply revert to highest v lowest in week 3.