I've seen a few debates on here and on Twitter and heard some on Sky too on whether the top 8 playoffs should be scrapped and whether we should go back to top 6 or top 5. What amazes me is everyone seems to have forgotten about the two 12s / three 8s structure that was proposed a couple of months ago. If that gets accepted then this is happening:

Two divisions of 12, play each other home & away plus a magic game = 23 league games;
Split into three divisions of 8, play each other once = 7 league games;
All home games in these fixtures included in season ticket

Then, the top 4 in each 8 playoff in a simple semi-final format, followed by a Grand Final.
Hence, if you have a season ticket, you only pay extra for the semi and the final. And there is no complicated who plays who scenarios.

The bottom 4 from the top 12 joins the top 4 from the bottom 12 to form the "middle 8" from which any promotion and relegation for the following season is sorted. The current gap between SL teams and Championship teams will be lessened by channelling additional central funding to the top clubs in the lower 12 and through them being able to generate more funds themselves from the new format.

I actually think this stucture has alot going for it:

- Total games to win SL = 32 compared to 30 or 31 under current format (with the top teams entering challenge cup one round later to compensate) so no great extra load on the top players. Total games if you miss the playoffs = 30 compared to current 27, so additional income opportunities for the lesser clubs;
- No complicated playoff structure;
- More to play for in league games as more to gain / more to lose;
- better value from season ticket for all fans;
- re-introduces promotion / relegation;
- strengthens clubs outside SL and benefits will filter down.

It does take some getting used to when you first hear it but I think its much easier to learn. Everyone still has to explain the current system to each other and to casual observers despite it having been round for a while. The new one will simply be "12 team league, then top 8 play each other in another league before top 4 semi finals and final".

The extra 7 games, how are home and away fixtures decided?
If every team say had a 100% home record, it is set up unfairly with some teams playing 3 home and 4 away and vice versa.

Why do the top four teams in the middle and bottom eight groups play off? What are their "Grand Finals" supposed to represent? Old Trafford curtain raisers? I realise the lower divisions have finals now, but they are to determine the champions of each division. What is the final between the top four teams that finished in positions 5-12 in the second tier expected to determine?

I think that system is ridiculous personally and simply creates a more uneven competition because of the home/away scenario in the extra games that Yed mentions above. Perhaps that's the idea though, as the more uneven the regular league is, the easier it is to justify play offs and silence the clamour for first past the post which still exists in some quarters.

Out of interest, how did the old top five play off system work? I know top six was week one: 3V6, 4V5; week two: 1V2, winners from week one (highest ranked home); week three: loser 1V2 match V winner other. That system wasn't perfect (I don't like any second chance matches or repeat fixtures) but was in my opinion better than the current format. Warrington never qualified for the play offs when it was top five though, so I never paid any attention and can't remember how it worked.

As I understand it, it will be the top 4 (i.e. 1 to 4) get 4 home / 3 away, next 4 (i.e. 5 to icon_cool.gif get 3 home / 4 away, next 4 i.e. (9 to 12) get 4 home / 3 away etc...

A slight imbalance yes, but something else to play for.

TL;DR

I agree that this format has a lot going for it, the only spanner in the works will be the inevitable outcries about who has an advantage in the last 7 games as HY mentions with the decision about which teams get the extra home game.

The final play off has a welcome simplicity which I think will ensure that all the games are well attended and should be competitive with the teams involved truly having earned the right to be there.

The point you raise here is one of the drawbacks of this structure and in my view one of the biggest weaknesses. Winners of the top final are clearly SL Champions, but deciding what to call winners of the other two finals (or indeed what names do you give to each of the leagues of

is certainly tricky.

Top five was:

Wk1, 1st get week off, 2v3, 4v5
Wk2, A (1st v (2v3 winners)), B (2v3 losers v 4v5 winners)
Wk3, A winners get week off, C (A losers v B winners)
Final - A winners v C winners

Still quite complicated!

So there's basically never been a system that avoided second chances and repeat fixtures then?* Since they are in my opinion the biggest cause of people thinking certain games early on are pointless and not going, you'd think they might have fixed the problem by now.

*In the Super League play off era. I know the Premiership was different before anyone points it out.

Ridiculous..stupid stupid idea

Why? What in particular is stupid about it?

The top 8 have something to play for. The middle 8 may be playing for P&R, but the reality is that the 4 SL teams, with their far more expensive squads, will make easy work of their 4 championship rivals and effectively finish 9th to 12th. The bottom 8 may as well pack up and go home.

I honestly can't see one redeeming feature from the 12/12 - 8/8/8 system that can't be implemented in other ways.

It's great to be innovative, but the RFL appear to want innovation for innovations sake.