Wouldn't the finalist that finished 1st have to wait two weeks until the final?

Don't forget, the clubs voted for this top 8 system as its all about money. In the above system the team finishing top would lose out due to not playing in the play offs, the team finishing 2nd will play two games at home.

It's all about money, the clubs want itcasvit makes them money.

If we all campaign hard enough to make the RFL accept Wigan as the champions maybe they will listen.

They've probably already done it as part of the ridiculous concessions to keep Sam Tomkins in the sport, like waiving the salary cap.

It's Warrington's job to restore some credibility to the play-off system if people think the 5th placed team shouldn't be crowned champions.

Though Wigan won the most games they were beaten by us and Leeds towards the end of the season so obviously couldn't take their so-called consistency all the way.

It's high-profile, it makes money and for that reason I support whatever play-off structure is best for the sport as a whole.

Doesn't it VINDICATE the play-off system if a team so lowly-ranked can still make the grand final? Otherwise what's the point of allowing so many teams to have a chance?

For me, if it was to stay as a top 8, it would make more sense to use the old NRL format with 1st v 8th, 2nd v 7th and so on...more rewarding for higher placed finishers.

I think the current system has shown that for the majority, winning the first week and getting a week off for the top 4 teams can be a disadvantage to playing and this year backs that up, with Leeds and Warrington coming from the back of playing to beat Wigan and Saints with a week off - dont think that does much good overall