Do you agree with play-offs?

Personally I hate the play-off system. It seems to me totally contradictory to have a league title decided by a knock-out system. The whole point of a league is to reward the most consistent team over the entire season. And yet, according to the play-off system, it's about who is the winner after 80 minutes.

Look at the Top 14 this year. Montpellier, who finished 6th in the league, managed to scrape their way to the final and almost robbed Toulouse.

It's clearly about money. A full house at Twickenham or the Stade de France generates huge revenues for the rugby authorities. The semi-final between Montpellier and Racing Metro was held in the Velodrome in Marsielle, the second largest stadium in France. Clearly, higher forces are at work here.

So I thought I'd conduct a poll. Vote accordingly.

I voted yes. I think it keep the season interesting right to the end and the season finishes with a climax rather than peter out.

I think it has really enhanced the Magners and this years final was as big as any HEC game I've seen.

It keeps the chasing pack interested too and there is still the incentive to finish at the top of the league to secure a favourable draw in the play offs.

The only downside is that the best team over the season doesn't always win but the pros far outway the cons.

I say yes. Leagues can be boring. Competitions are more fun. As Rodders says pros outweigh cons.

Always pro's and cons. With the Magners league this year the team that won the league won the play offs too which is great for Irish rugby. Not only will the Leinster players be going into the world cup full of confidence but so too will players like ROG from Munster

In my opinion if the team that wins the league doesn't win the play-off, they've been totally robbed. The current system is a disgrace. Can't we for once take a leaf out of the wendyballers book?

I like them as long as the team topping the league gets home advantage in the playoffs.It gives some reward for being consistent throughout the season.

I don't agree with play-offs. However i do see the point of them to improve competition within the leagues, especially at the mid table area. However I still can't quite see why they don't make them a stand alone trophy as opposed to the league toppers having to prove themselves in a set of one-off matches in order to be crowned League Champions. I much prefered the way the Celtic League and Celtic Cup were done originally than the play-off nonesence.

ScarletSpiderman wrote:I don't agree with play-offs. However i do see the point of them to improve competition within the leagues, especially at the mid table area. However I still can't quite see why they don't make them a stand alone trophy as opposed to the league toppers having to prove themselves in a set of one-off matches in order to be crowned League Champions. I much prefered the way the Celtic League and Celtic Cup were done originally than the play-off nonesence.

The problem with this Scarlet is that the play off then becomes secondary to the league. The whole idea with the play off is that the winner is the over all champion. This gives the season a climatic finish and keeps everyone playing their best rugby until the end.

Roddersm - does it though? The format of the cup was exactly the same as that of the play-offs, as in 1st place plays at home against 4th place and 2nd place at home against 3rd place, with the final at the home of winner of 1st/4th. I can't really see why teams would not take any interest, after all silverware is silverware.

I say no.

Playoffs are a pointless excercise unless it is done like the NHL or Wendyball with home and away legs.

Playoffs are not a true representation of how good a team is, and can be won by luck instead of a sustained period of good rugby.

I think it works well in the ML/Pro12/Nesbitt because of the highest seeded team in the final gets to host the game. They get the advantage they deserve.

But the Jeff and Top 14 way of playing it in the national stadium kills this.

RuggerRadge2611 wrote:Playoffs are a pointless excercise unless it is done like the NHL or Wendyball with home and away legs.

<off topic>
Now that's something that annoys me, home and away matches in rugby!
</off topic>

RuggerRadge2611 wrote: instead of a sustained period of good rugby.

They are . . . .80 minutes!!

Scarlet yes I really think it does. I remember when then they brought in the play-off system in RL. Initially it was just an end of season trophy but the champions were the League winner. It was only after they revamped SL and made the champions the Grand Final winners that the play off system really took of. There's still an incentive to win the league but ultimately it's about peaking for the final.

I understand what you are suggesting but that would make the celtic cup simply a consolation or bonus prize.

Think about this season. Munster had the league wrapped by January. The 2nd half or the season would have been a dead rubber. Instead this was by far the best season yet. The play off spots were still up in the air up until the final weekend and then the Final was superb.

I like the play offs. All this talk about a team that finishes on the highest points but loses at a play off are being robbed I don't agree with. They know the terms of the competition/league before it starts, it's up to them to do their best to win the whole thing.

Already in the Magners/Pro12 the play-offs have made it so much more exciting, right down to the last week. There are some negatives to it, but for me the positives far out weigh them.

roddersm - the lower sides like the Ospreys (had to get that in), Blues, and Scarlets would still have been battling out for the final cup slot come teh end of the season though. However I can see your point about Munster storming the League though, and Leinster did it last year. However Munster managed to win the final, whereas Leinster lost one game at the end of the season and were robbed of their title as top celtic side.

I don't like them but I think they are an unavoidable evil when the season is disrupted by international call ups as it is.
If the clubs all had equal use of their players all season then I would like to see the play offs go but until then they have to stay.

I'm not a fan of the concept of the "real" champions that some people who are opposed to play offs drag into it either - teams play to win the play offs, not the league and so finishing top doesn't indicate the best team. The last point is also why I'd like to see some kind of trophy given for finishing top though - to give sides an incentive to try to finish top rather than just aim for a top 2/4 spot.

I voted yes though was originally against them.

This season however it certainly meant more interest through to end of season where right down to 7th were still mathematically in contention.

BUT I think there should be a trophy for league winner over the whole season then another one for the Play Offs.

red_stag wrote:

They are . . . .80 minutes!!

Agreed, but you miss my point.

World cups and the Heineken cup are a differant kettle of fish, and to be honest require play offs by necesity.

But the Pro12 or the Aviva should not have play offs.

Lets just say for arguments sake that in the pro12 next year Munster are top all season, they absolutley thump everyone in the league and then have to face another team in the play offs who dump them out in the 1st round. Fair Stag? I don't think so!

RuggerRadge2611 wrote:
Lets just say for arguments sake that in the pro12 next year Munster are top all season, they absolutley thump everyone in the league and then have to face another team in the play offs who dump them out in the 1st round. Fair Stag? I don't think so!

Of course it's fair those are the rules!

Just because it's in the rules does not make any given situation fair.

Can't you remember what happened to you guys in the Millenium Stadium during the 6N.

It was in the Rules that what Phillips did was illegal, but the rules also state that if the Referee did not see what happened play on!

You would be hard pressed to call it fair though.

Rugger that is a competely different issue so I'm not going to bite.

If Munster storm to a League victory and then get dumped out in the play-offs the that is totally fair. Leinster lost in last years finals to the Osprey's. Thats why the play off system is exciting.

Both the Jeff and Magners would have been snoozefests this season if it wasn't for the play-offs. Munster and the Tigers would have won at a canter.

Well that's not the fault of Munster or the Tigers is it?

It's surely up to the rest of the teams to play better instead of just "doing enough" to reach the play offs and then try to steal a win?

RuggerRadge2611 wrote: Lets just say for arguments sake that in the pro12 next year Munster are top all season, they absolutley thump everyone in the league and then have to face another team in the play offs who dump them out in the 1st round. Fair Stag? I don't think so!

Radge it came very close to happening this year. I was quaking that we'd lose it all going into the playoffs but I hadn't considered we had won anything at that stage.

Its a competition whose format we all knew about in September.

Love the playoffs. Great for the fans, great for the league, great for TV- no downside for me.

Teams know at the start of the season it's about qualifying and trying to pick up a home quarter-final by finishing in the Top Two.

All winning the league part means is you're top seed. Northampton were top seed after the league part of the Heineken Cup last year, didn't win, and there were no complaints! Why should a playoff final be different? I know the argument that the team who is top all the way through deserves it, but thats just a qualifying round. The real Championship Rugby starts in May.

Despite that, the postponement of the serious business has not damaged the competitiveness of the former Magners League one bit. If anything, it has hugely enhanced it. The chasing pack of teams behind Munster this year was comprised of five teams- Ulster, Leinster, Scarlets, Blues and Ospreys- and they were all in the mix with 3 or 4 games left to go. That pushed the competitiveness of the league up significantly. And with teams from that chasing pack knowing a Top Four finish was within their grasp all season the league as a whole became much more competitive every weekend, the quality of rugby was higher and that's what will sell this league to audiences in Scotland, Wales and Italy.

Now I'm just talking from a 'Celtic perspective'. I can't speak for rugby fans in France and England about what is best for them, for their competitions, nor would I pretend to. But for us- it's the best thing that's happened to our competition in many years.

It's the best thing to happen to it ever Notch!

The playoffs are entertaining but I don't think it works when it is placed on top of a single league setup.

If we are to go down the playoff route, then I think a Pro12 should be split into two divisions of 6. Those divisions play home and away to decide who wins each division, then the top 2 or 3 (3 if you were to give the top team a bye through the first round of the playoffs) would compete in the playoffs. Something akin to many of the US formats for baseball/basketball/NFL though not as complex as there are not as many teams. At least that way a playoff game brings something new as there is interdivision rivalry whereas in the setup we have for Pro12 and the others means it is a 3 meeting between sides in the league. But then that kind of system reduces the wear and tear on professional players by reducing the number of games, an idea that would never work as it limits the ticket sales from having fewer games.

Divisions and confrences and pools are pointless to me when you have only a dozen or so teams. It works in Heineken Cup as it is a large competition with ever changing pools. We don't need them in domestic Rugby.

The playy offs are stupid.

After 22 games etc whichever league, whoever is at the top are champions, end of.

westisbest wrote: end of.

Oh dear. How can we ever argue back

I can't believe so many people have voted yes. You're all just corporate slaves. There's one reason why the RFU implemented play-offs: money.

The whole point of a league is to recognise the most consistent team over the entire season. Play-offs totally undermine that.

Lol we don't agree with you so we're wrong,you've convinced me!

ruggerbyplayer wrote:I can't believe so many people have voted yes. You're all just corporate slaves. There's one reason why the RFU implemented play-offs: money.

The whole point of a league is to recognise the most consistent team over the entire season. Play-offs totally undermine that.

Thanks for telling me why I like the playoffs.

My other reason (apart from being a corporate slave) is that it combines both aspects of competition rugby, long term and pressure games. The best team in the competition should be able to perform over the long run AND win the pressure games. Regardless of the 'real' reasons they were brought in that's may reason for liking them.

Of course Sky just told me to say that


I don't understand the logic that they're ok for cup games because they're 'needed' but not long term competitions (I'm avoiding the term "league" as it's missleading in this case)

I'm not a corporate slave, I get paid.

I'm a corporate whore.

ruggerbyplayer wrote:I can't believe so many people have voted yes. You're all just corporate slaves. There's one reason why the RFU implemented play-offs: money.

The whole point of a league is to recognise the most consistent team over the entire season. Play-offs totally undermine that.

Good point. Let's call off the World Cup and give the trophy to New Zealand ...

The team that can raise their game on the one off game should be cup champions.

The team that is the most consistent over the course of a whole season should be the league champions. It makes no sense to be the best team over 22 games then lose the league because you have an off day or get unlucky. I understand the excitement of the play offs and I understand the need to keep things interesting, but it's wrong if the team who finished top arent crowned league champions.

AlynDavies wrote:The team that can raise their game on the one off game should be cup champions.

The team that is the most consistent over the course of a whole season should be the league champions. It makes no sense to be the best team over 22 games then lose the league because you have an off day or get unlucky. I understand the excitement of the play offs and I understand the need to keep things interesting, but it's wrong if the team who finished top arent crowned league champions.

Spot on AlynDavies. Leicester finished top of the league, ergo they deserved to win the league trophy. They must have felt absolutely robbed. If I was Richard Cockerill I'd be doing my nut after that shoddy match in Twickenham. I think the RFU need to have a serious sit down and discuss whether they should continue to put profits over the integrity of the league.

I'm bemused as to why so many people have voted Yes in this poll.

ruggerbyplayer, you should be able to countenance that someone might have a different view based not on their own idiocy, but on a simple difference of opinion! Yes, we disagree with you no, we're not brain dead or corporate sell-outs (not all of us... there must be a few who aren't. Right?)

Just thinking about bandwagons idea

thebandwagonsociety wrote:The playoffs are entertaining but I don't think it works when it is placed on top of a single league setup.

If we are to go down the playoff route, then I think a Pro12 should be split into two divisions of 6. Those divisions play home and away to decide who wins each division, then the top 2 or 3 (3 if you were to give the top team a bye through the first round of the playoffs) would compete in the playoffs. Something akin to many of the US formats for baseball/basketball/NFL though not as complex as there are not as many teams. At least that way a playoff game brings something new as there is interdivision rivalry whereas in the setup we have for Pro12 and the others means it is a 3 meeting between sides in the league. But then that kind of system reduces the wear and tear on professional players by reducing the number of games, an idea that would never work as it limits the ticket sales from having fewer games.

Trying to imagine how this would work in practice.

Division 1;

Munster
Connacht
Ospreys
Dragons
Edinburgh
Aironi

Division 2;

Leinster
Ulster
Scarlets
Blues
Glasgow
Treviso

Or you could do it by nationality to preserve those local derbies;

Division 1;

Leinster
Munster
Ulster
Connacht
Aironi
Treviso

Division 2;

Ospreys
Blues
Scarlets
Dragons
Edinburgh
Glasgow

Now my groups are just examples of course, but I don't like either of them. In the first example, the biggest selling, most anticipated games- the local derbies- are kept apart. Ask Leinster if they fancy a regular season without Ulster and Munster bringing their traveling fans. Interpros sell tickets to home AND away supporters. The second example works better, but it's more unbalanced with Leinster and Munster- the two leading lights of the league- dominating one conference.

And, as much as it is important for us to find ways of reducing the wear and tear on players, reducing the number of games is going to hit the teams as businesses. That hits wages and the French and English clubs, the apex predators of the rugby finance world, are always going to be looking to tempt players. Can we afford to lose money, therefore losing players overseas? It's a finely balanced line. Ireland may be able to adapt with good central contracts in place. The other nations don't have that safety net.

I'm torn.

On the one hand, having a league system in which there is no advantage to finishing first rather than second seems ridiculous to me. On the other hand, the more I get used to the playoff system, and the more I watch the Heineken Cup, and other sports like American football, the more I start to wonder why we should consider a long, drawn-out slog of a single league to be the default mode of deciding the national champion of a given sport.

I like the idea of the country's two best teams facing each other in a winner-takes-all clash. I don't like the idea of a team winning the title when they're not even playing, as can happen with a straightforward league system.

If we're to take the Premiership as an example, I think the best system from a fan's point of view would be a conference set-up:

You could have two conferences of six teams, say. Each team plays other teams in their conference twice and all the teams in the other conference once (alternating home and away season by season), then the top four play off against each other for the superbowl, sorry the Aviva Premiership – conference winners at home, runners up away. And the teams at the bottom of each conference oculd also play off to see who gets relegated.

You could have fewer games this way, which would reduce player burnout, reduce the percentage of meaningless games and keep the excitement of knockout rugby.

Of course the problem is, clubs don't want fewer games, because they'd go broke, so this will never happen.

ruggerbyplayer wrote:Spot on AlynDavies. Leicester finished top of the league, ergo they deserved to win the league trophy. They must have felt absolutely robbed. If I was Richard Cockerill I'd be doing my nut after that shoddy match in Twickenham. I think the RFU need to have a serious sit down and discuss whether they should continue to put profits over the integrity of the league.

I'm a Tigers fan but I recognise that all the teams used different strategies for the season - Saracens might have picked up the extra points they needed to top the league if they're aim had been to finish top rather than top two and then win a play off. Sensible coaches will pick the strategy that they think will win the title, not just go flat out all season if it only gains them a squad of tired players when they need them most.

The best example is when Exeter won promotion - they were neck and neck with Bristol all season, then when they'd made sure they would finish in the top two they rested key players ready for the play off while Bristol still went all out. The end result was Exeter conceded the league since it didn't matter if they finished top, their aim was to win the play offs as that was what mattered.

ruggerbyplayer wrote:

Spot on AlynDavies. Leicester finished top of the league, ergo they deserved to win the league trophy.

No they didn't deserve to win it as they rules state that the side that wins the play off final wins the "league trophy". I don't agree with playoffs, but that's the system that is in place.

ruggerbyplayer wrote: They must have felt absolutely robbed. If I was Richard Cockerill I'd be doing my nut after that shoddy match in Twickenham.

Why would Cockerhill or Leicester feel like that ? They knew the rules, which have been in place since 2003. Did Leicester think the other sides were robbed wihen they won the title in 2005 and 2007 when they didn't finish top of the league ?

ruggerbyplayer wrote:I think the RFU need to have a serious sit down and discuss whether they should continue to put profits over the integrity of the league.

It's nothing to do with the RFU, its PRL that is responsible for the running of the Aviva Premiership.

ruggerbyplayer wrote:I'm bemused as to why so many people have voted Yes in this poll.

Because they have an opinion to which they are entitled, just like you.

Why don't the top two of the Nesbit and Jeff play off against each other for a inter league championship. That way the top teams in the league remain champions, but you enhance the competitive edge and there is a higher prize. And no it would not undermine the ERC, it would complement it as the disperate finals do now.

Although I can understand why people don't like them the play-offs do enhance the league competition imo. One thing I don't like about play-offs in rugby is how they are done. The credibility of the play-offs is taken away if there are too many teams involoved, RFU Championship is a prime example of this, jokeshop.

When they are done properly they do add some extra excitement and an extension to the season, they offer the chance for people to see their club play in a larger environment that most normal league games can't provide and, importantly, they attract big money.

Aye you can argue that the team at the top after the regular season can be considered champions by default, but, play-offs seperate the men from the boys- you may have been consistent throughout the regular season but a knockout competition where you can't afford to lose even once is a completely different kettle of fish. And it also gives the fans of the knocked out clubs something to whinge about and provides a talking point.

What like the LV Cup glas. What is it about welsh fans obsession with the premiership.

It's Vicky Pollard question - yeah-but-no-but-yeah...

I like the play-offs because it adds some tension to the end of the season and usually means most games in the last round of the season actually have something at stake.

I don't like the play-offs because the team that tops the league through consistent points gathering over the duration of the season can end up potless.

For the AP my solution would be to have two cups - one for the champions based on league performance, and one for the play-off champions based on the current two semis and a final - with the semis played at neutral venues though and the final remaining at HQ.

The team that tops the league at the end of the season are LEAGUE CHAMPIONS, why would you want extra games, why bring a Cup type element into it at the end.
Also in the Semi Professional leagues, the team that finishes top could be in a position where they have a lot of injuries, suspensions, work commitments, plus the opposing teams can bring in payers from their Senior set up.
If you want extra money spinners, introduce a end of season Knock Out Cup competition.

Well with an 85% win record the AB's would have all 6 world cups if they were decided by a league, so yep im all for a league...

The play offs allow the best teams to play with their best players which does not happen throughout the season because of international call ups/central contracts in the Jeff.
Most fans want to see a final between the 2 best teams containing their best players.
In football the league games stop during International weekends unlike rugby.

This season will be affected even more because of the WC.

AlynDavies wrote:It makes no sense to be the best team over 22 games then lose the league because you have an off day or get unlucky.

Exactly the same can happen under the league system. This year there was a 2 point difference between Tigers & Saracens and a 4 point difference between Toulouse & Racing Metro. That's the result of one game seperating the top 2 teams, quite possibly due to an off day or getting lucky.


I'd be happy for the play-offs to be removed, but first I'd want the various club and international competitions/series moved into non-competing windows.

ruggerbyplayer wrote:
It's clearly about money. A full house at Twickenham or the Stade de France generates huge revenues for the rugby authorities.

I presume a full house at Murrayfield or the Millenium Stadium also generates huge revenues ?