Its a watered down play off system se we get watered down attendances. First round play off matches for the top 4 is a complete waste of time, sometimes you have to beat the same team twice to ge to the grand final, surely once is enough.
Suspect that the drop in attendances will migrate to the sky viewing figures, its only in the semi final eliminators the play off has great credible value and attendances are acceptable.
Which suggest we should have a top 4 or 5 in the first place. Can't accept 8th place should be given the chance to be superleague champions making 4 play off games having greater value over 27 previous games, no wonder we have seasons with less intensive games since the top 8 play off has been introduced.

Agreed,

Top 5, 12 team league.

The play off system has too many teams in it, it has that number of teams to attempt to keep interest longer in the season, so reduce the number of teams involved and you reduce the interst in the regular season, there is no answer other than to improve all the clubs until like in Australia there are different teams in the play offs every year

Whilst the play off format clearly needs addressing there appears to be a supposition that under the old top 5 or top 6 systems crowds were rather better. I'm not sure they were - or at least they were still not fully comparable to the equivalent regular season attendances. So whilst going back to something more elite is important, I'm not convinced it will fully address some of the underlying issues - foremost of which is that Rugby League fans are tight and are happy to watch on TV!

It reinforces the often posted perception that RL fans are less affluent than their Union counterparts, and that is the reason it cannot draw the equvilant TV money

For me back to the Top 5 system, the playoffs only really get interesting next weekend.

Or a Top 2 championship with the team finishing first automatically selected for the WCC, a mid-season break for internationals/origin or whatever with another competition thrown in at the end of the season.

To be successful the new comp would have to be radically different from the CC - Maybe RL nines knockout comp? I also like the idea of a comp of based home grown players only, to foster youth development.

i can only assume its cost, people with ST go to home games as they have already paid for them so maybe they feel that having to pay for a home game is alien to them and cant/wont find the money.

Success costs, that has always been the case , as has been suggested, RL fans are inherently tight fisted, especially the Yorkshire ones

There's a comparison of play-off attendances between 2000 (Top 5 system) and 2011 (Top 8 system) [url=http://www.redvee.net/forums/showthread.php?22521-State-of-the-game-part-2&p=448922&viewfull=1#post448922[uHERE[/u[/url which indicate that attendances were better under the Top 5 system.

This.

I can only assume that this forum is populated by nobody other than those who worked in the Bradford Bulls marketing office. Every single thread about crowds results in a call for cheap or free tickets.

When you bought your season ticket at the start of the season, you bought something that you knew was only good for 13 home Super League fixtures, plus a few other perks that your club may have thrown in. Why then, all of a sudden, this clamour for free entry or discounts to something that you never paid for?

The onus is on the RFL to turn the play-offs into a premium product and that means turning them into an 'elite' competition that people will pay for. After all, how often do you see Apple or BMW discounting their products? How many empty seats do other sports have at 'all-pay' games - the UEFA Champions League or the Heineken Cup?

That means making the play-offs at most, a top six competition (and probably a top five). Forget all of this "everybody can join in" attitude because we're worried that teams "won't have anything to play for" (for some reason, the concept of professional pride is no longer something to turn up to work for) - the play-offs is an elite competition and if that means becoming a bit "elitist" to make a quality showpiece, then so be it.

Friday night's Catalans - Leeds match is something that every single Super League game should be - intense, gripping and competitive. We need to encourage more games like that and if it means letting go of some of the clingers on, so be it. Super League will be a better place without teams who can't meet the standard we expect.

Then if, IF, Super League achieves that and the fans are still staying away, then I'd suggest that RL is simply appealing to the wrong audience or an audience that simply isn't there.

When the Leeds v Bulls games were posting full house signs did people say "well that's rubbish, almost everyone there got in for a fiver"

Or did they say "brilliant, how do we replicate it"


When the RFU get 40k in Wembley for a league game, or 80k at Twickers for a double header do we say "but they all got in for free" or do we wring our hands and wonder how to replicate it?

If you want mass market it's simple
1. Pile it high
2. Sell it cheap
3. Make it easy

Once you've got bums on seats then think about "brand value"

everyone who buys a season ticket get a free CC ticket to any match bar semis and the final - at any ground

And the same for the playoffs

Bloody simple
All it needs is clubs to stop messing about and have some vision and will.
Stop being small time shop keepers and start being national CEOs.

Are you gerald Ratner...

No

I value the product of RL.

HTH.

A good summation that from the redvee forum (never thought I'd say that!).

The crux of the matter is that every game mattered in 2000 with a tangible reward at the end of it (i.e. - you're out, or you're in the GF). Little wonder the gates were higher.

I have my doubts that 2000 was randomly picked for that poster - and they also have the Bradford Leeds crowd wrong; the prepondernce of big rivalry games between the best supported clubs in SL history was always going to have the highest attendances; but my point was that they were still in most cases materially lower than regular season - and this is the case:

St Helens v Bradford
Playoff: 8,864
Regular season: 10,128

Leeds v Castleford
Playoff: 13685
Regular season: 14,492

Wigan v St Helens
Playoff: 19186
Regular season: 17,428

Bradford v Leeds
Playoff: 15,077
Regular season: 19,623 & 21,237

Wigan v Bradford
Playoff: 14,620
Regular season: 17,737 & 17,365

Ticket prices alone are not the issue. Warrington get 7000 paying £20 each (approx). If they reduced the price to £10, yes they would get more bums on seats BUT would they double the attendance. At £15, would they get the necessary extra 3000ish to reach the same point

Completely agree with RL13 and Bramleyrhino. All season we get fans whinging about meaningless games, then once we get meaningful ones, they want them cheaper than the "meaningless" ones.




Why does this not appear to be a problem in Australia where crowds surge for play off games?

I'm confused -

Many posts this season have been about how the regular season is pointless becasue it's all about the play-offs, yet now we have a situation where fans are apathetic towards the play-offs ?

The reflection on Austrialn crowds is interesting, as this would suggest to me that either many 'neutrals' watch the play-offs over there (which I don't think happens here) or much of the repective club's fan base can't be bothered to turn up to regular season games.

The format definitely needs changing

Top 7 would be a minor tweek, all knockouts, no chance of repeat fixtures and knock a week off the season.

Top week off to semis

2v7
3v6
4v5

Then semis and finals as now.

I would also have a wooden spoon match for franchise purposes - bottom v second bottom

it probably doesn't help that a huge proportion of the teams (esp at the top) are effectively guaranteed to make the play-offs year after year, with only one or two changes at the bottom end of the 8, so they just seem like routine games against someone they have already played 4 times this year, that don't create the excitement that they should.

Marketing of the game is a disgrace, have you ever seen an ad or promo outside of the Sky game coverage. Woods doesn't have a clue, his marketing heads are football people.

Who exactly are you suggesting they should be ' marketing ' to?

That's the problem, for the most part you're preaching to the choir. If you market at people who don't have a rugby league team to go and watch, you won't achieve anything. Marketing in places like Wigan and St Helens, where (mostly) everybody is already aware of the local RL team, and you might get a few more bums on seats, but it probably won't be cost effective.

The RFL should be marketing at people who live close to RL strongholds, but who aren't really that aware of them. Target places like Bolton, Chorley or Preston to attract people to Wigan matches for example.

The rfl should advertise in these areas for people to go watch RL not just your precious clubs.