Hello I know we covered this last year but I am still looking into writing a book about the idea of play-offs deciding the Champions in sport. I was wondering what the opinions are of fellow Rugby League fans on the play-offs. Do you think play-offs are the best way to decide the champions or do you prefer whoever finishes top being champions? And what do you think of the current format? So feel free to voice your opinion again, say whether it has changed or if you missed the post last time, take this opportunity to give your opinion. Personally I think play-offs are a great concept, sport is about peaking on the big occasion and beating your biggest rivals head to head when it matters. fantastic music, thought provoking lyrics and great merchandise from singer/song writer Sandi Thom: tiny.cc/loveablelyrics

Hello I know we covered this last year but I am still looking into writing a book about the idea of play-offs deciding the Champions in sport. I was wondering what the opinions are of fellow Rugby League fans on the play-offs. Do you think play-offs are the best way to decide the champions or do you prefer whoever finishes top being champions? And what do you think of the current format? So feel free to voice your opinion again, say whether it has changed or if you missed the post last time, take this opportunity to give your opinion. Personally I think play-offs are a great concept, sport is about peaking on the big occasion and beating your biggest rivals head to head when it matters. fantastic music, thought provoking lyrics and great merchandise from singer/song writer Sandi Thom: tiny.cc/loveablelyrics

I enjoy the playoffs because of all the drama etc... but then again, winning the league over a whole season is a better indication of who has been the best and most consistent team.

I like the idea of playoffs, but I think whoever wins the league should be champions.

It is what it is, like it or not.

If they didn't... Why bother with them?

Leagues have been in place for decades/centuries

All these play-offs are, are money spinners for the greedy (e.g. Wembley in football, and broadcasters in general)

If it is all about "peaking on the big occasion"...that's why we have cup competitions.

The league is the league, THAT is the true test of a team's quality/consistancy. I've always held this belief. Unfortunately (bar Russell Smith and his huge Christmas/New Year hamper from the RFL in 1994), we've not been good enough to be described as champions for decades, now, we are.

I'm not keen on all this GF business, never have been, never will be. If we win it this season, GREAT, but, we've proved our worth from February 12th until Friday. That'll do me.
It's just a pity we're brow-beaten by Eddie and Stevo and their Sky bosses into thinking that one night in Manchester is the "be all and end all" of every season.

Just a side point, I know there are a lot of United (spits) fans on here, but would you honestly think that when they won the league by 9 points last season from Chelsea and City, that a true reflection of the season would be to have a play off, where potentially, Liverpool or Spurs (who finished a 'distance' behind Utd) might have fluked a lucky win at Wembley to be crowned Premier League Champions....nah, thought not.

The GF is just the Premiership in another set of clothes. Too many people have been brainwashed by Sky (yes, I know they bankroll our game, before some start)

I think the idea would be that there would be no playoffs... put more emphasis on winning the league, like Football.

But playoffs draw in big crowds/viewers, works well in Basketball etc.

It needs renaming to League Title or something similar instead of league leaders shield.
It makes it sound like it should go to whoever is top at the end of each month.
Warrington are not league leaders they are league WINNERS.

Grand Final play-offs is still a good idea at the end of a season but to win 3 games on the trot and be crowned "Champions" really beggars belief.
What's the point of throwing everything into the weekly matches for league position when it means naff all to some people. You may as well just aim for a top 8 position and keep all your best players injury free for a last 3 game push for the "Title"
I still feel like we've won the best trophy this season.

I agree with some of the above comments about the team winning league deserving the tag on the basis of merit for consistency throughout the season.

But I also support the play-offs in that it gives certain teams something to play for, despite knowing that they cannot challenge the elite few teams in SL. I remember the fantastic night we had at Headingley and without the play-offs we wouldn't have had that opportunity.

Mixed reaction overall - but I think the team who finishes top deserves a higher prize, i.e automatic entry to the Grand Final.

The true champions should be decided over an entire season and a not by a mini play off series, the play-offs can be a lottery due to a number of factors.

After a long hard season clubs may pick up injuries to key players at the wrong time, as an example you may get unlucky during the last couple of games of the season and lose players to injury. So would the play-offs then be a level playing field ? Would they then decide the best team over the season or would the team with the best squad of players available come out on top ?

As an example, we finished top of the league this season but lets say we had lost both Lee Briers and Michael Monaghan in the second to last game of the season or during last game of the season, we then went on to lose in the play offs, would the team that then went onto win the play offs be a better team than Warrington in that particular year or would circumstances make them the champions ?

It would be the same if Wigan lost Sam Tomkins and Thomas Leuluai after finishing top, i doubt very much that they would go on to win the play offs with those 2 missing. Luck shouldn't come into it when your talking about champions, the team that finishes top over an entire season should be the worthy champions.

You also have the time of year that the play-offs are played being a huge factor, this time of year is notorious for poor, wet and windy weather. Thats not going to suit ball playing sides that like to throw the ball around, saints have struggled in quite a few of their recent grand final losses to play the type of rugby that they were known for. They also water the pitch at Old Trafford with sprinklers virtually all day on the day of the grand final, someone should tell them that it aint a football game being played, that may well suit slick passing footballers but it doesn't suit a game of RL as it will create a greasy ball and players struggling to keep their feet.

The play-offs is a sky created thing with all their razzmatazz bandwagon behind it, its good for the excitement factor as its knock out RL, well that aint actually the case under the present format.

In the play-offs you can have losers winning the grand final, a team can lose one of its play-off games but still be crowned champions. Personally i don't associate losing with the word champions in a knockout format.

The play-offs is exciting but to me the team that finishes top of the league over an entire season should be crowned the true champions.

See my comments on the other thread about the playoffs. It is not just a Sky thing, the concept has been around in RL since day dot, originally it was a sensible way to decide the championship due to logistics and cost making a true home/away season an unwise financial choice for the RFL to operate. So please don't lay the GF stuff purely at the door of Sky, yes they probably encouraged the RFL/"Super League, Europe" (as it was at the time) to make the choice to switch formats, but the precedent has always been there.

The playoff series, it cannot be argued, produces some of the most intense and entertaining Rugby of the year, more regularly so than the challenge cup due to the weaker sides not being involved (I don't mean this to sound patronising). In fact, this is also the reason why I wasn't too chuffed when the top 8 system came in (and not to mention the utterly ridiculous and morally appalling club call gimmick), I much preferred the top 5 layout personally.

Now, as far as it being a valid means of deciding the league champions - I have two answers, and it depends largely on the regular league structure:

Situation 1) A 'standard' home & away fixture list. Answer) No. You've just played everyone at home and away, over a season, you have already proven yourself to be the most consistent side over the course of the entire season.

Situatiion 2) A 'non-standard' home & away & "extra fixtures" list. Yes, you haven't played everyone an equal number of times, and can thus be advantaged or disadvantaged in the league table accordingly, such a situation makes it logical to then have a playoff series to round off the season.

The conspiracy theorists on rec.sport.rugby.league at the time in 1998 when we went back to the playoffs idea even suspected the uneven fixture list (with additional games against certain opposition) was known by the RFL to be their only valid justification for using a grand final series to decide who won the championship. And, to be honest, at the time the arguments being made (much more eloquently than I could ever do) were compelling.

You also have to consider that the RFL and clubs are supposed to be trying to market themselves to a wider target audience, whatever the rights and wrongs of using a playoffs series (and, I'm sorry, the argument of: "well we had it before in the 70s and earlier" is not a good argument, we used too have capital punishment too!), you have to ensure that the sport is an attractive option for people to spend their money on. I have [iimmense[/i difficulty in trying to explain why we use a playoff system in Rugby League to the people I work with, and it's a subject that comes up frequently - ultimately, they actually see the whole of Super League as, and I quote, "[ia complete joke[/i" because of this issue, this is an attitude I see very often from casual watchers.

Now, there's no guarantee that should we go back to a first past the post system that these people would flock to the sport and start watching from the stands, the attendance figures from before we had playoffs would point to that being a somewhat ridiculous statement to make, however, I find it difficult to argue that the playoffs have [iincreased[/i Rugby League's ability to bring in new fans, due to the fact that most people who engaged me on the subject see the competition as having zero credibility. Incidentally, the people I work with in particular [ido[/i make a point of watching/following the Challenge Cup with no such hostility.

Reduce the number of teams in the league,then introduce another competition.So you still have the league champions the CC Winners then the Europeon Rugby League Super cup winners or whatever you want to call it.Abit like the Champions league in football,just get Sky to jazz it up abit.

Quote ="Lupine Rob"Hello I know we covered this last year but I am still looking into writing a book about the idea of play-offs deciding the Champions in sport. I was wondering what the opinions are of fellow Rugby League fans on the play-offs. Do you think play-offs are the best way to decide the champions or do you prefer whoever finishes top being champions? And what do you think of the current format? So feel free to voice your opinion again, say whether it has changed or if you missed the post last time, take this opportunity to give your opinion. Personally I think play-offs are a great concept, sport is about peaking on the big occasion and beating your biggest rivals head to head when it matters. fantastic music, thought provoking lyrics and great merchandise from singer/song writer Sandi Thom: tiny.cc/loveablelyrics'" does anybody know if warrington received any money for winning the league?

Quote ="Lupine Rob"Hello I know we covered this last year but I am still looking into writing a book about the idea of play-offs deciding the Champions in sport. I was wondering what the opinions are of fellow Rugby League fans on the play-offs. Do you think play-offs are the best way to decide the champions or do you prefer whoever finishes top being champions? And what do you think of the current format? So feel free to voice your opinion again, say whether it has changed or if you missed the post last time, take this opportunity to give your opinion. Personally I think play-offs are a great concept, sport is about peaking on the big occasion and beating your biggest rivals head to head when it matters. fantastic music, thought provoking lyrics and great merchandise from singer/song writer Sandi Thom: tiny.cc/loveablelyrics'" does anybody know if warrington received any money for winning the league?

This is what I posted on the Wigan board

I love the play offs as can be seen from the regular season with no disrespect the likes of CRusaders, Wakey and to a lesser extent Bulls over the lasst couple of years. There have been to many one sided results. A good exampole of this is the recent Wolves Wigan match, not to take anything away from the Wolves performance but would they have played that well if they had to play the Saints the week before just like Wigan had to play Leeds? IMO I doubt it.

The play offs ensures that the the champion now has to put in the work and be constantly tested to be at the very top of the game. Although I do like the club call concept I wouldn't have it. I like the top 8 format as it would work ideally like this. The team that finishes 1st plays the 8th team, 2nd team plays 7th and so forth. One chance loser knocked out. This way the top two teams in theory shouldn't play each other until OT.

From reading the posts on here some people do not like the play offs for what ever reason every one to there own. However I want to know what the feelings would be if last year Wolves had won the GF after finishing third?

I have always thought whoever finishes top should go straight to the GF and the teams that finished 2 - 5 should playoff to decide who plays them. so 2nd plays 5th and 3rd plays 4th with the semi being at the ground of the team that finished highest.

Grand Final system is established now and I can't believe this is being brought up again. A book on the use of play offs in sport eh? Fascinating.

Finishing top is the hardest thing to achieve but we have had this system for years now, and we all know how to be crowned champions and whether you like it or not its winning the GF that counts. I'm glad some of you now understand the achievement of finishing top, because last year it was a completely different story with some Wire fans (not all). I'm sure if Wire had won the GF last season from 3rd you wouldn't be saying this. I know its the same with many fans but opinions on this changed very quickly with a change in circumstance.

Still cant see past you guys, and think you will be champions come October.

I knew embarrassing threads like this would appear if we came top, just as I knew the embarrassing comparisons to football would be thrown in for good measure.

Championship finals/Grand Finals are the traditional way of deciding the league winners and the game needs the money generated by the play-off games. There's no point arguing that it could be a separate competition because that competition would slowly die off through lack of interest.

We came top knowing the rules, but it counts for nothing unless we win the Grand Final. Being consistent is one things, but for 13 years clubs have been gearing their preparation up in order to peak at this time of year. Those are the rules and rightly so, let's go and win the trophy rather than being precious.

The 'league' we have now isn't a proper league anyway. If you want to regard the league leaders as champions, you would have to have games against each team without the extra fixture thrown in that we have now.

And as I've mentioned on here throughout the season teams no longer go all out to win every game, they have an eye on the long term and the goal is no longer trying to finish top, but to ensure they go into the play offs in the best form and the best condition.

FPTP in Super League this season would have meant everyone below Wigan going through the motions for 6 months of the season.

FPTP & No Relegation = Nothing to play for, for most teams.

Quite correct.

I posted last season after Wigan finished top, that the real champions are whoever sits at the top after 27 games.
That view still holds good.
The play offs should be a separate knock out competition with first playing 8th etc. Maybe for the Sky Superleague trophy?
Why teams have to play off after 27 gruelling matches when every team has played each other at least twice, and then in a knockout formula is beyond me.
If Hull happened to win at OT, would they truly be considered the best team in the league, and henceforth, Superleague champions? No offence to Hull - just using you as an example.

Yet another person saying "well we've had it before" without any attempt to say [iwhy[/i that was the case in the first place. The playoffs were originally a fixture in league in this country because of the logistics, time and cost involved of arranging costly and timely travel to away fixtures across the pennines at a time when the players had full time jobs to work and transport was slow. This was the reason why it happened, and that is no longer an issue in modern times.

If you're going to argue for the playoff system being kept please at least give valid reasons, and there are some, 2 of which are
1) We don't play each time an equal number of times home & away
2) It's bloody good entertainment and is exciting.




And that's another valid reason in favour of the playoffs.

It doesn't alter the fact I find it difficult to justify the playoff system to people who are not already RL die hards. I've already had two conversations this morning where people have expressed to me what a joke it is that a team that finishes top of the pile now have to win a sudden death knock-out tournament to be deemed champions.

Rugby League - shooting itself in the foot commercially since 1896.

Yes, why not? If Warrington aren't capable of winning the Grand Final this season, it means they are not really suitable for the Champions crown doesn't it.

Being able to handle the pressure generated by the playoffs and Grand Final is exactly the kind of test that identifies the strongest squad in SL. If a team isn't up to that test they are not the Champion side they thought they were.

Can you explain then, why winning the Challenge Cup is looked upon as a lesser title than the main league title, because, to quote many fans (and I include people who have been trolling the Wigan forum too this year): "all you have to do is win a few games, not be consistent over a whole season".

My only problem with the current playoff format is that too many teams are involved. If Hull FC or Hull KR go on to win the Super League this year, then they will quite rightly be crowned champions as the rules allowed them to be so, but I would be embarrassed to proclaim my love of RL (for the first time in my life) to people who know nothing of the sport and want an explanation as to why the team that finished 8th were suddenly deemed champions.

Two separate competitions.....the league and the playoffs. Even coaches will say that from this point on, its a completely different competition and they are starting from scratch.

Well that makes at least 2 of us.