The Top 8 Disaster

With the Super League fixtures for 2026 being announced this week, we will likely learn whether we will be returning to having a top 8 play off system. This is the system currently used by the NRL and used by us between 2009 and 2014. In this blogpost, I will explain why I believe this would be a terrible move.

It isn't very Rugby League to mention this (as we often value entertainment over equity) but fairness is a real issue under this system. Of course, these things are a balance and many believe it is right to prioritise entertainment. 

In my view, any system with an uneven fixture list is also inequitable. As is the side finishing top of league potentially seeing a season's work go up in smoke with one bad performance (which can happen under our existing system).

As a sport, we have made the decision to sacrifice elements of equity in the pursuit of entertainment. That is a legitimate aim, even if you do not agree with it.

A top 8 system amplifies the unfairness to an extent that I see as unjustifiable. Next season will see 14 teams in Super League. If we have a top 8 system, that means you can finish in the bottom half of the league and have a chance to call yourselves champions.

In every year of this play off system in the past, no side finishing in 8th spot has won more matches than they have lost (Hull FC and Widnes did have 50 / 50 records).

The most egregious example saw Crusaders in 2010 finish with a record of 12 wins and 15 losses and saw that pretty mediocre return rewarded with a play off spot.

In Rugby League, we are guilty of structuring our leagues so that the teams at the top are an afterthought and those in the middle of the table are the centre of attention. That is the nature of a minor reward for a first placed finish versus the lore of claiming one of the final play off spots.

A league which values a match between 8th and 9th place as the season draws to a close over a match between 1st and 2nd has its priorities wrong.

It is just one example how this system causes a race to the bottom. The system also rewards a side who finished 4th with a second chance in the play offs and a side who finishes 6th with a home play off tie. Both are grossly undeserved.

Under the top 8 system last time, Super League was won on one occasion by a side who finished in 4th and on two occasions by a side who finished in 5th. Put another way, on 50% occasions that we used this play off system, a side outside of the top 3 were called champions.

That percentage is too high. The top 5 and top 6 play off systems that we have had, whilst not perfect, made it harder for the teams finishing lower down the league. Under the top 8 system, there is little difference between finishing 1st and finishing 4th. 

If you listen to Super League chairmen and CEO's who have been taking to podcasts, Sky Sports and elsewhere talk about the expansion to 14 teams, you won't need to listen too long before you here them go "ah, but loop fixtures" as a defence to any ill of the expansion.

Guess what this play off system would introduce? You guessed it. Loop fixtures. If everything runs to form, in week 1, 1st play 4th and 2nd play 3rd and these *exact* same fixtures are then repeated in week 3 of the play offs.

That begs the question. What is the point of week 1 of the play offs? You can watch some also-rans fight it out in knockout matches and then watch the top 4 play against each other in a match that you very well may see again in a fortnight, except the result of the latter one actually matters.

When we had this play off system last time, fans agreed and voted with their feet. In 2009, a paltry crowd of 6,157 watched St Helens face Huddersfield in round 1 of the play offs. 4,008 saw Catalans beat Wakefield in the same year, 8,869 for Wigan v Castleford, 4,263 for Catalans v Huddersfield.

In 2011, there were 6,759 present to see Wigan defeat Catalans (improved to 7,232 the next year) and just over 9,000 at Leeds v Wakefield (more attended the Boxing Day friendly between the sides at the same venue, the previous year). 7,323 for Warrington v Hull FC in 2012. 4,970 for Hull FC v Catalans in 2013. I could go on with many other examples.

You may think I am cherry picking. So here are some wider figures.

Under our current play off system, crowds have been higher than the home club's season average on 90% of occasions. When we used a top 5 system in 2019, this figure was 40%, when we used a top 4 system in 2014-2018, that figure was 50%. When we used the top 8 system previously, that figure was a miserly 29%. 

This led to the very sorry spectacle of us trying to tell our own fans and the wider public that they were witnessing the highlight and pinnacle of our season.

Contrast this with empty stands, terrible atmospheres and matches which attracted less interest than regular season matches. If this was the peak of our season, new fans may have wondered what the trough looked like.

The top 8 system is an expansion of the play offs. Every side, in order to win at Old Trafford, must play at least three matches (some would have to play four). Four matches is roughly 33% of a teams home matches in a season.

These matches are not on season tickets. That makes it very expensive to fork out for these tickets week-by-week. Combine that with an opening week with little jeopardy, who could blame any fan for choosing to watch on TV?

We have long since struggled to attract crowds to play off games. Finally, with this current top 6 system, we get higher than average crowds. It avoids the problem of the top 5 system in having repeat matches. Each game is a knockout so there is something riding on it. More importantly, there has been fan buy-in.

As imperfect as any play off system is, this is as good as we are going to get. And we may decide to throw that in the skip for something inferior, tedious and that fans have roundly rejected in the past.

Let's hope when we finally confirm the play off structure for next year, we learn from the mistakes of the past, rather than repeat them.