To me, the play-offs give to many teams a chance, making to many games, and making each game not as special as before. But, what's the best system to go with?

Whoever finishes top , wins

Then have a separate comp like we used to do , unfortunatley that doesn't make much money for the RFL , so expect it to stay the way it is

But 9 Games is too many, it should be the Top 5 max.

Top 5, gives the league winners more of an advantage.

I'd cut down to top 6 - the number should be half the teams in the league or one less than that.
Apart from that, this years format was pretty good. It removed the fact that the GF could be the replay of an earlier playoff game, which I never liked.
I'm not overly keen on "second chance" playoff games, where a team can lose and stay in.

Top five was the best system.

top 7.
Minor premiers straight into the semis where they play the weakest of the 2-7 knockout games winners.

Best system? I think so

Top eight as at present with P & R for bottom two to keep the season alive for all concerned IMO

except, of course, that for most of the game's 115 year history, play-offs and a championship final [iwere[/i the way we decided the title. The separate competition of the premiership was only introduced in 1973 as a bribe to get clubs to agree to the 20+ year experiment of table topper equals champions and make up for the lost play-off games, and attached income.

Gives a closer playoff battle as well, and should avoid any dead rubbers.

This year would have seen Saints v Wire and Leeds v Hull for the first week.

Top 5, without a doubt.

It gave a great advantage to the team that came 1st, which is as it should be, and made it fiendishly difficult to make it from 5th, which is also as it should be. The way it was structured also meant that all of the fixtures were very evenly matched on paper.