Re: Should the play-offs decide the Champions? : Mon Sep 12, 2011 10:53 am  

FearTheVee wrote:

I don't think Hull (in 8th) are there to make up the numbers any more than Catalans (in 6th) are. Both are well capable of producing a shock result along the line IMO.

I think the 8 is fine TBH, and will get better and better as seasons pass and (hopefully) more teams start spending full cap. I can see the issues you highlight, but I think to label the format "embarrassing" is to massively overplay them I reckon.

Will Hull win it from 8th? No. Could they have a major say in the play-off series? Yes.

But Hull have finished in the bottom half of the league. I personally don't think they should be rewarded with a shot at winning the Super League title after havign such a mediocre season. The reason we have a top 8 is to get more money into SL and I understand that but I don't agree with that.

I imagine speaking to someone who doesn't understand RL very well and explaining to them that yes, the team who finished 8th having lost as many games as thy have won, need to win 4 straight games and they are SL champions. As unlikely as it would be, I just don't think it should be allowed. Think about other sports that employ play offs to determine a Champion. 12 out of 32 teams qualify in the NFL. 4 out of 12 in the Guinness Premiership. 8 out of 30 qualify in baseball. I just think those numbers are more realistic that 8 out of 14 in SL.

I agree with you that over time, once clubs start spending up to the cap that it should turn out better, which is why I don't have as much a problem with the NRL play offs. This season must be one of the first for a while were the top 4 have all won on the opening weekend. It's much more unpredictable over there. Until we have a stronger more equal competition I'd suggest going back to 5 or 6 teams, but that's just my feeling.

Re: Should the play-offs decide the Champions? : Mon Sep 12, 2011 11:25 am  

Having only watched Rugby League since 1999 play offs is all I've known so I can really only comment from that side of it. I'm sure those fans old enough to remember the 1996 season and before will be able to compare winning the league from 1st and from Old Trafford better.

I have always liked the play off concept and have been in favour of it because, as I say, it's what I'm used to. When it was Top 5 or even Top 6 the league games still felt important enough and the play offs felt like huge games with a magnificent occasion at Old Trafford as the climax. Each league position had a clear advantage over the one beneath it, especially with the Top 5 so there was a desire to finish as high as possible in the regular rounds. Also the intensity and tension of the play offs themselves was great in my opinion.

However, with the move to Top 8 my opinion has begun to become less fixed. Although the games can still be tense and exciting its diluting of the league has made it have more of a detrimental influence than a positive one. Teams only have to finish in the Top 4 in reality to have a potentially good chance of reaching the Grand Final and a good side might still be able to do it from outside the 4. The league games are undervalued far too much with the present system. And that's not to mention Club Call which goes against the whole ethos of sport in my view.

I would still answer Yes I think play offs are a good way of deciding champions but only if the play off system is not seen to detract from the weekly round 'bread and butter' games we watch all year. The previou play off systems just about avoids doing this but the Top 8 does have a diluting effect in my opinion.

Re: Should the play-offs decide the Champions? : Mon Sep 12, 2011 11:30 am  

Winning the League has to be the Superior success of Champions, why should a team who can lose many more matches end up as Champions, it should be just end of season play off trophy! and a format which does not allow any teams a second chance if they lose in the first round, I agree the two tops teams should go straight through to the semi, but the other four teams should be straight knock out!

Re: Should the play-offs decide the Champions? : Mon Sep 12, 2011 12:03 pm  

I get that people like the excitement of the play offs and I have no problems with that. As a PR spectical the playoffs are by far a superior product. However in terms of testing a club. NOthing beats the league system. You have to back up week after week. You have to cope with injuries but because its not knock out a period of injuries can be evened out.

During a four week knockout comp its too short to even out any injuries or suspensions.

Also you cant compare playoffs. Take the superbowl. The playoffs work there because the league system does not test all teams against each other.

If we had a divisional system then yes the playoffs is the only viable option.

The question is what do you wanty from yoursystem hype or a true test of the best team. You can call Catalans champs if you like if they wuin this year. Saints too. But it will just mean the best side is not he same as the champions.

Effectively the CC is a more validtest of who the champions than they playoffs as at leadst its an open competition to all comers.

Grand final is exactly the same as the premiership in years gone by. But are we going to take all those league wins off wigan and hand the champions tag to whoever won the premiership?

Re: Should the play-offs decide the Champions? : Mon Sep 12, 2011 12:42 pm  

The fact that a team finishing below first place can then be classed as champions goes against what most sport is all about, unless it is part of different competition as in champions league.

Re: Should the play-offs decide the Champions? : Mon Sep 12, 2011 12:57 pm  

The premiership didn't decide the league champions though, it was a competition on its own.

Re: Should the play-offs decide the Champions? : Mon Sep 12, 2011 6:53 pm  

Ask the same poll question on the dire forum this week and it will be 100% = No!

Re: Should the play-offs decide the Champions? : Mon Sep 12, 2011 8:45 pm  

Not for me, if I had my way Wire would now be Champions.

The top 8 is an absolute farce, you could lose more games than you win and technically become 'Champions'. On the other side you could be undefeated all season, lose the last game and end up with nothing.

The weekly rounds are worthless in the context of a top 8 play offs. Maybe the supporters should boycott the league games and just turn up for the last 3 weeks of the season, I think that would consign it to history.

Im not denying that the Grand Final is a great day out and fantastic when you win ( Can just about remember that now!) but top would be champions for me and that is a view I have consistently held even when we were winning the Old Trafford showpiece.

Re: Should the play-offs decide the Champions? : Tue Sep 13, 2011 8:46 am  

I'm undecided. On one hand the best and most consistent team should be regarded as the champions, but on the other the excitement and spectacle the grand final creates is a great advert for the game.

There's far too many teams in the play-offs, however. The absolute maximum for me should be 5, I though would prefer just the top 3, which is what I think they do in the Aviva Premiership.

Re: Should the play-offs decide the Champions? : Tue Sep 13, 2011 9:04 am  

The most fair system is undoubtedly first past the post, with round robin home and away fixtures. So in purely sporting terms, that is the right way to do it.

In terms of spectacle, however, I think the playoffs are great. You get some wonderfully intense matches when each side knows their whole season is on the line. Sometimes the outcome doesn't quite seem fair, but then that's part of the theatre of the whole thing. Thinking pragmatically, the Grand Final has also gone a long way, I suspect, to making the sport financially viable again. So the playoff system has got plenty going for it.

However, as people have already noted, the top eight system is an absolute farce. Besides rewarding mediocrity (over half of the clubs involved, FFS), the system doesn't provide sufficient incentive for finishing in as high a position as possible. In all reality, it made little or no difference to Wigan or Warrington whether they finished 1st or 2nd, and, similarly, while it was nice for us to secure 3rd, 4th would have been of pretty much equal value.

A top 5 (top 6 at a stretch) playoff is the way forward for me. Finishing 1st was a big deal when we had this system, as you only had to win one home game (and home advantage really mattered, as you would be playing your closest competitor) to get to OT. It was a better system, and it gave the league fixtures more meaning, as there was some genuine competition to see who was good enough to get into the top 5. Contrast that with the current situation, where we have a 7-month experiment to see who is sh*t enough not to make it into the top 8.