Phil Clarke applauds the bold play-off change, but hopes more clubs can hit the right note in 2009.
But who's got the talent to take on Leeds and St Helens?
I have got to take my hat off to the RFL for taking a bold step.
Not only have they extended the Super League play-offs this season, but they have made a decision I don't think we have seen before in competitive sport - giving a team a choice of who they face.
The leading side after round one will get to pick their opponents and I've got to say, it's a move I applaud.
It is revolutionary and it has had criticism in some quarters from people who say it is too much of a gimmick, but I am all for it. After all, we live in an X Factor world and that is the way society has gone, so why not rugby league?
It will add an interesting strategic side to the games as well. All of a sudden, this game alone will become a chess match. Do you pick the lowest ranked team? Do you pick a side you have had the Indian sign over all season? Or do you just pick the side with the most injuries?
Or, maybe, if you are right on top form, do you try and remove one of the perceived threats? That's unlikely to happen, but I still think it adds an extra interest to the post-season action.
Innovative
Admittedly, it will only be a choice of two teams, but it is innovative nonetheless.
Personally, I am not entirely convinced about extending the play-offs to eight sides, though.
Of course I can see the commercial advantages and it should keep the season competitive for more clubs as we enter the final part of the season.
Again the RFL have taken a bold step for the right reasons, but my one concern is that by including eight of the 14 teams in the play-offs, you are lowering the pass mark.
Last season Warrington and Bradford took the last two play-off places with 14 wins from their 27 (Wigan finished fourth with 11 wins, but had three draws), which is just about right. Under the new format, Hull KR would've made it with 11 wins and for me, I am not sure that's right. You don't want a 50 per cent pass mark.
Challenge
But I can understand that it generates more interest. I do think you should have to win more than half your regular season games to qualify, but as Gary Hetherington says, expanding the league means it is right to expand the play-offs.
The move also throws down a challenge to other clubs. There is an incentive there for everyone now and that should, in theory, lead to a more competitive and entertaining Super League.
The biggest challenge facing clubs though, is how to compete with Leeds and St Helens. We are nowhere near the Premier League's 'Big Four' scenario, but there is a duopoly emerging and it is up to the rest to try and break it.
I hope clubs realise that and are doing things differently this year. More of the same will not be good enough.
I like the look of what Huddersfield Giants are doing, with Nathan Brown - one of Australia's best young coaches - and potentially a decent signing in Todd Carney.
Assessment
They have halved season-ticket prices and doubled sales and I just hope there are more clubs out their doing likewise.
After the World Cup though, rugby league in England at least, has to come back with something. I guess the World Club Challenge match between Leeds Rhinos and Manly Sea Eagles in March will be what swings it.
I wonder whether we will find ourselves back in a similar situation to 1982, when the Australian side came over here and remained unbeaten throughout their whole tour and forced the RFL into a period of research and re-assessment of the whole game.
I think the RFL should offer clubs more incentive to help the national side, but that's for another day altogether.
The new play-off structure has given them plenty to aim for and will hopefully add the X Factor to Super League XIV.
What do you think of the decision to let the top-ranked side pick their opponents? What about the play-off expansion? And can anyone catch Leeds and Saints? Let Phil know your thoughts by using the feedback form below...
