Play-offs, good or bad idea? : Tue Sep 07, 2010 10:23 am  

Hello, I am 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?
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.

Re: Play-offs, good or bad idea? : Tue Sep 07, 2010 10:43 am  

The playoffs serve to increase competitiveness in the game and despite many people's assumptions that they're a fabrication of the summer era, they've been part and parcel of rugby league for many many years. In the days where the top flight consisted of 30-odd teams, playing an unbalanced number of fixtures, and perhaps making limited journeys across the Pennines each year, the playoffs were essential in fairly determining the champions.

It could be argued that with a more balanced fixture list, there is no longer any need for this, however we still have an uneven number of games in Super League and play against some teams more than others. The teams finishing higher up the table earn home advantage for playoff games, whilst those finishing further down have a much harder path to success. It can, however be slightly unnerving to think that a team that doesn't finish in the top half of the table might walk away with the league title. You could argue, however, that such an achievement would reward good coaching, conditioning, player pride and ultimately consistency towards the end of the season, when it's widely acknowledged that it matters most.

Re: Play-offs, good or bad idea? : Tue Sep 07, 2010 11:19 am  

I love them, rewards teams for both consistency and the ability to perform on the big occasion.

Re: Play-offs, good or bad idea? : Tue Sep 07, 2010 12:48 pm  

Bonzo wrote:

The playoffs serve to increase competitiveness in the game and despite many people's assumptions that they're a fabrication of the summer era, they've been part and parcel of rugby league for many many years. In the days where the top flight consisted of 30-odd teams, playing an unbalanced number of fixtures, and perhaps making limited journeys across the Pennines each year, the playoffs were essential in fairly determining the champions.

It could be argued that with a more balanced fixture list, there is no longer any need for this, however we still have an uneven number of games in Super League and play against some teams more than others. The teams finishing higher up the table earn home advantage for playoff games, whilst those finishing further down have a much harder path to success. It can, however be slightly unnerving to think that a team that doesn't finish in the top half of the table might walk away with the league title. You could argue, however, that such an achievement would reward good coaching, conditioning, player pride and ultimately consistency towards the end of the season, when it's widely acknowledged that it matters most.

Bonzo wrote:

The playoffs serve to increase competitiveness in the game and despite many people's assumptions that they're a fabrication of the summer era, they've been part and parcel of rugby league for many many years. In the days where the top flight consisted of 30-odd teams, playing an unbalanced number of fixtures, and perhaps making limited journeys across the Pennines each year, the playoffs were essential in fairly determining the champions.

It could be argued that with a more balanced fixture list, there is no longer any need for this, however we still have an uneven number of games in Super League and play against some teams more than others. The teams finishing higher up the table earn home advantage for playoff games, whilst those finishing further down have a much harder path to success. It can, however be slightly unnerving to think that a team that doesn't finish in the top half of the table might walk away with the league title. You could argue, however, that such an achievement would reward good coaching, conditioning, player pride and ultimately consistency towards the end of the season, when it's widely acknowledged that it matters most.

I agree that the play offs are a good money spinner and add to the excitement for the end of season fixtures but to say the team that wins the play off's are the champions is absolutely ridiculous. That was ok when the teams were never playing the same opposition over the season but now we have a balanced league the champions should be the team that has been the best team throughout the whole season.
How can anyone say that Leeds have been the best team if they win the Grand Final again when they have finished the season 9 points behind Wigan. I also think that the play off's should revert back to the old system of 1 playing 8, 2 playing 7 and so on and it should be a straight knock out tournament with no second chances. It has ben stated that teams playing the best at the end of the season should be rewarded but if they have been defeated in the play off they cannot be playing the best and so should not get a second chance. I also think that the system whereby a team gets to choose their opponents is among the daftest ideas we have ever had, if a team has several injuries or players suspended then obviously they are going to be the choice to play. This is about as level a playing field as the teams getting promoted without earning the right and being allowed 17 foreigners in the squad. It is high time that the competition was played at the same criteria for everyone without exception and my own opinion is do away with the Magic Weekend as thie figures for attendance or below normal league figures for the same games and these are highly inflated due to the give away prices of the tickets.

Re: Play-offs, good or bad idea? : Wed Sep 08, 2010 8:15 am  

I agree to an extent...Although I love playoff rugby and everything it brings with it, I find it odd that despite Wigans dominance this season they could still end up not being champs...Surely being league leaders should be enough to be crowned champions??

Re: Play-offs, good or bad idea? : Wed Sep 08, 2010 8:24 am  

I agree that they are an exciting way to end the season but Champions should be measured over the regular weeks, an evening up of the fixtures (1 home+1 away) needs to take place.
Its like replacing the league with a cup competition.

Re: Play-offs, good or bad idea? : Wed Sep 08, 2010 8:47 am  

The play offs are a good idea as they keep the season alive for so many teams and their supporters, although as a poster has already pointed out, they are not a new concept and have been with us for many years.

I believe the last play off final where the winners were not crowned Champions was Cas v Wigan, this was the old Premiership competition (the FA then stole the title for what was the old 1st Division and now of course RU have their Premiership).

I do think the team at the top of the league should be crowned champions, but giving this title to the winners of the play offs does seem to add a lot of value to the play offs (especially in the eyes of Sky) and most people do believe that the league leaders are the best team in the comp, so maybe it doesn't hurt too much using the term "Champions" to describe the play off winners.

Re: Play-offs, good or bad idea? : Wed Sep 08, 2010 8:53 am  

danny boy1 wrote:

I believe the last play off final where the winners were not crowned Champions was Cas v Wigan, this was the old Premiership competition (the FA then stole the title for what was the old 1st Division and now of course RU have their Premiership).

If you're referring to 1994, wasn't there one the year after that? Leeds v Wigan, and a really bad day at the office for Leeds IIRC.