Just for the record, i was not defending the 8 team playoffs, i think they do damage to SL as a whole. I would be happier with a 5 team playoff, but still think that the Hubcap is a bigger prize, and more difficult to win.

And before someone says anything YES I KNOW WE ALL KNOW THE RULES WHEN THE SEASON STARTS.

----------------------------------------------------
i know,i was actually agreeing with what you said,i must have put it wrong,i meant all the ppl that defend the present format,not yourself!

Exactly. It's because of the system Leeds can afford to do it. And why the regular season in pointless. If Leeds had to win more games to qualify then that would raise the standards

Which season would Leeds have had to win more games to qualify for the play-offs?

None

But you and I both know it would have been harder for them to do it from 5th under the old system so they may have tried a little harder to finish higher up the ladder?

By beating a lot of teams who had nothing to play for? That will get the fans flocking in.

Leeds beat 8th, 4th, 2nd, and 1st in knockout games, thats a tough run in anyones book. St Helens, the only top 4 club Leeds didnt play were comfortably beaten by Wire, it wouldnt have had a big effect, if any.

We are not disputing that Leeds are champions. We are saying the regular season could be improved by making the top teams deliver a higher intensity to qualify for the playoffs.

Apart from pride, their fans, their futures, their international career etc. etc.

Yes, Nothing to play for.
Why dont we include teams 9-14 in the play offs as well?

I'm sure you can as you have been doing dress this up as a Wigan fan Peed off at not winning it from top last year
Fair enough, but have a look around at what a lot of the fans have been saying for the past 3/4 years and tell me there's not a worry out there.

The games between the top sides seem to have been pretty close and intense to me so far this season. The fact that sides at the bottom are getting flogged by the teams at the top isn't a problem of structure, its a symptom of the fact that some of the teams at the bottom are frankly rubbish at the moment. This happens in most sports and isn't likely to ever be eliminated, the only way we can improve the comp is by improving the teams involved in it, the more good teams we have the batter the games will be. Even when we had a top 5/6 play-off we had one sided games.

and missing the obvious point that when 9 or so clubs of the 14 are out of the running with a 1/2/3months left of the season, the league isnt going to deliver high intensity games.

Taking last season as an example, out of Leeds last 10 games, only two would have been against teams with anything to play for, the games Leeds played against Bradford (18pt win) Wakefield (20pt loss) and Hull KR(1pt win) instead of being against teams striving to get into the 8, they would have been dead rubbers against teams with no chance of the top 5.

Indeed, exactly the same things the top teams have to play for when they have qualified.

Fairly obvious reasons only a moron would need explaining.
I dont disagree there is a lack of intensity in some games. In fact i have said it numerous times on this thread. But that lack of intensity stems from such a large disparity between top and bottom, not which play-off structure we have.

How about this one then?
(Just throwing this out, but expecting flak from at least one side of this argument nonetheless).

For clarity, I am against the fake knock-out version of a league that is the GF

In order to make every game count, have both formats simultaneously:

Top of the league at the end of the regular season are crowned champions - Simple.

However, you ALSO have 5, 6 or 8 teams qualifying for the end-of-season playoffs, which determine the Grand Final winners.
This is treated like a second cup competition, that only the "best" have access to.

The World Club Challenge is played by 4 teams - Champions + GF Winners from both Aus and UK.

You have a knock-out round (Aus v Aus + UK v UK) that determines which 2 teams play the WCC Final (that way, you are guaranteed UK vs Aus).

The champions of each continent are then TRULY the champions (as in, they finished top of the pile after playing everyone else) and if Champions win the GF, 2nd place in the league takes the second spot in WCC.

For this to work (and my belief in general) you cannot have the made-up third match that is the Magic Weekend.
If you want to have it, replace with the last 16 stage of the Challenge Cup - 8 games over 2 days.

Lastly. Why not have the WCC at the end of the season?
At least that way, you have:
a. The actual teams that won/qualified
b. Teams that are in form and well drilled - Not a pre-season hit-up.

Congratulations if you got this far.
Cookies all round.

For anyone claiming that Wigan fans never complained about the GF structure when we won - I have been against the "Champions" being declared on the back of a couple of knock-out games all along.

Don't get me wrong - I enjoyed us winning it and was at Old Trafford.

However, when we won under Madge, I never managed the full on celebrations of winning the CC, as my overriding emotion was simply relief at having retained what should already have been ours, by right of being the best team in the league all year.

The best analogy for me is that they might as well have a sprint-off to declare the champions:

The top x teams all submit their fastest player and the cup is placed at the end of a 100m track.
Whichever team's player gets their first are the champions.

If there's a tie, the winners are determined via a ball-kicking competition (and I don't mean rugby balls)
Whoever curls up in the foetal position first, loses.

Makes about as much sense as the current system.

You've been against it all along? So you've been against it since the early 1900's then?

There seems to be a misconception that play-off rugby has only come about with the intro of superleague, where by far more often than not through the history of our sport, and many others the champions are decided through a play-off format.

Are you a professional fùckwit, or is it just a hobby?

Should I translate your post as "I don't have any point or argument to any of the above, so I'll try a cheap-shot"?

Funny you edited your post to cover that up

I have no interest in people who result in ad hominen attacks on internet message boards.

Funny that the only thing I edited was to add a couple of lines at the bottom.

Nothing else changed.
Try reading

Ok, but without resulting in personal attacks and failing to acknowledge what I posted can you answer my question. If you are against this system all along have you been against it since it's inception decades ago?

(I don't care about scoring points with you and constantly trying to be correct over everything. I'm not sure what incited your aggressive response.)

OK, maybe the aggression had something to do with my posting what I consider to be a reasonable argument prior to the one that you replied to, which you completely chose to ignore, instead choosing to focus on a minor point or grammar.

What happened in the early 1900's means nothing to me, being born in the 1970's.

If you want to go back that far - Why not go a stage further and insist that we re-join the RFU and stop paying the players?

Basically, having grown up with ENGLISH sport (i.e. not American, with their Superbowl, or "World" Series which only includes a single nation), I am far more used to a first-past-the-post system.

The fairness of that system is there for all to see - Whichever is the best team over the entire season is deemed to be the champion team.

The current format creates a 27-round pre-season, which determines nothing more than the starting position for a 4/5 week "season", after which anyone from the best to the 7th worst team over the prior 27 rounds can lay claim to the title of "champions".

Its not really English sport though is it. Its English football. RU, Basketball, Ice Hockey, Speedway, and most cricket comps all, in the UK all use a league play-off system.

Football is bigger than all the other sports put together. Considering football has got it right and all the rest are poorly attended, which format would you consider the best?
You'd think you was a Leeds fan with the way you want to keep a top 8.
If the league was reduced to 10, would you still think a top 8 is the best format? And if not, why not?

What a daft analogy. Have you any proof that football is popular because it operates a first past the post system?

Also, how can NFL be possibly the second biggest sport, globally, but operate a play off structure?

It's asinine to say 'Well Association Football do it, so it must be the right way of doing it'

I'm sorry, but the NFL should not be held up as a successful implementation of a play-off structure for a single league.

The reason that they need the Superbowl and the play-offs is to determine 1 winner from 6 separate leagues (AFC and NFC East, West and Central).

I will admit that I am (occasionally) a fan of Superbowl, and have been known to stay up till 4am to watch it, but at the end of the day, it is NECESSARY - Ours is a made-up gimmick.

To the people quoting the fact that RFU have followed us in to this mistake - I work with a lot of RU fans and I have yet to find a single one who wouldn't switch back to first-past-the-post tomorrow.
RFU, just like RFL is simply trying to stretch the seaon to make more money.

Am I the only one who really likes having play offs and a grand final to look forward to? Let's not forget the purpose of the sport is to entertain the fans first and determine the best team second. They play offs as a concept balance those two needs IMO. They just need revamping at the moment. Let's not throw the baby out with the bath water

Yes, but we can have both; just make the LC a real prize instead of an afterthought...and allow all three trophy winners into a 3-way World Clup Championship at the end of season, against the three best NRL clubs.