A look at the RFL proposals - Super League restructure

I'm going to start with a quote from Tony Smith which sort of sets my stall out from the start:

“I am over the innovative tag for rugby league, that we are innovative as a sport. I’m over it. What about being stable, strong, consistent? What about those being our traits? We are judging the current systems in the midst of the worst economic crisis since the great depression. We are in the worst economic climate for decades and yet now is the time are choosing to judge our current systems." 

The RFL essentially presented clubs with four options for the future of the Super League:

1) Stay as we are - i.e. 3 year licensing, and I assume 14 team Super League, 8 team playoffs

2) Go back to the way we were before - i.e. 12 team Super League, 1 up/down promotion and relegation (P&R) with Championship

3) Go to something pretty similar to what we had before but a little different - Two 10 team divisions of Super League, I assume with P&R between the two, unsure how playoffs will work but I guess 5/6 teams

4) Do something new and innovative - Start with two 12 team leagues, after 11 games split to three leagues of 8, each has playoffs and a final, I assume 4/5 team playoffs

The first option has been rejected by the clubs, so they will now enter a consultation period before a vote on one of the other three options. Obviously, with the third option being the most radical it has seen the most press chatter, and it seems to be getting some support too. Voices of support have claimed every game will matter, it gives clubs a pathway to Super League whilst managing the rise from part-time to full-time operations, and of course, it continues to show the sport as being an innovator.

One thing is for sure, some sort of promotion and relegation is returning. I've already made my views fairly clear on this notion in previous posts (see below, Structure of Super League in March and Relegation and Player Movement in May). I, like Tony Smith, think licensing has suffered apparent failure because of the economic times it has faced. The global economic downtown has been felt fairly acutely in the parts of this country that dominate the Rugby League landscape. Add to that the economics of this particular sport have shifted in the past 12 months - exchange rates combined with TV and commercial revenue boosts in Australia have made the NRL a more dominant force over the Super League. The game has faced incredibly challenging times in the UK, with more to come, so surely some perspective would be sensible and fair? Some stability in the face of the storm perhaps?

Licensing was a decent concept, and if anything didn't take things far enough - three years isn't enough time to really find stability and I didn't see any need to put a time frame on things in such a manner. Licenses should have been indefinite but with failure criteria that clubs must avoid - if they failed then they would have their license removed and the best placed club from outside Super League would get their chance. But the current system did offer some sense of stability. You could plan medium term on your playing squad - my previous investigations have demonstrated that its preferential for stability, development and success to keep a team together and see the core of your team remain intact from season to season. There is also the impact on seeing more young domestic talent getting to play for teams because regular season pressures are reduced - there are games you can play your young players in and it not ruin your season or risk the Super League status of your club. You can give young homegrown players a chance when injuries strike, instead of looking for an overseas player not getting NRL game time and parachute them in. You can also, to some extent, plan what you do with the money you have - for example, you could sacrifice a bit of on-field spending for a couple years to help get some off-field stadium or facilities upgrades in place, knowing that in doing so you aren't going to lose your place in the league if you have one really uncompetitive year.

I see the game in four levels in this country - grass roots (i.e. junior teams), amateur open-age, semi-pro (i.e. Championships, as things stand) and professional (i.e. Super League). For me, the two most important are the bottom and the top levels. You have to get them right before you can truly support the semi-pro level and they need to be in good order to ensure that there are enough people who fall in love with the game to maintain the amateur scene. The top level is the true advert for the game, and needs to be in order for the whole thing to work well and grow - the top level inspires the bottom level and this then fuels the middle levels.

The top level maybe hasn't been doing its job well enough, because lots of people feel we're in a crisis and a crunch time for the great game of Rugby League. Financially, this is certainly the case. There is no title sponsor for the flagship competition and commercial revenues aren't at their strongest. We've seen one club fail, three come very close, and two or three others potentially on the edge during the licensing period, which doesn't exactly sell the system when viewed without perspective, as it tends to be. I think what the evidence tells us is Super League can't, in the current climate, afford to maintain 14 sides. Which is why I feel ideas to expand the Super League to 20 or 24 teams don't really make sense - there isn't enough money as it is, so where would more money come from to make more teams competitive, without completely watering things down of course (and in doing so, escalating the talent drain concerns over the future of top players and prospects). None of the proposals do anything to address the issue of insufficient revenues at a number of clubs and across the division as a whole from the governing bodies point of view. I don't see what has been suggested to help put all Super League clubs in a position to spend to the cap limit and remain sustainable whilst doing so. I don't see what has been proposed to make clubs outside the top division be put in a position where they have full-time structures and organisation in place to give them a chance of sustaining competition at that level. I haven't read or heard what will be done to maintain the stability and sustainability of the clubs that will suffer demotion from the top level. Without strong ideas on these serious pivotal issues, I can't see the positives for the sport as a whole from taking any of the routes put forward.

If you rule out the bigger Super League options on this grounds - which if being sensible you might just - then you're left with what we had before and we'll see clubs expected to jump levels without much time to prepare and without appropriate structures in place - Hull KR are really the only team to have shown success in making the jump up, every other club have had to take two or more cracks at getting it right to stick around after entering Super League, or have slipped away from the competition.

One group the proposals theoretically benefit is the semi-pro clubs who now have a more straightforward opportunity to compete at the top table, as all they have to do is beat the teams at the same level as them to get a shot at the big time. As already alluded to above, how much they can prosper from this shot is questionable. P&R has brought instability in the majority of examples, from whatever angle you view things from - their are plenty of examples in Rugby League, but there are even more high profile ones in some of our biggest Rugby League city's football teams, see Leeds United and Bradford City as your points of reference.

As I've shown previously, 78% of the core Super League playing squad on average is lost when a team drops out of the top division, compared to just 30% turnover of the core of the team for clubs remaining in Super League. Hardly the basis for stability and growth. I've also previously demonstrated that during the licensing period the number of overseas players in Super League match day 17's has reduced by over a player per squad per match. This sort of long-term planning and development has also been highlighted by Tony Smith and is another unanswered issue hanging over the new proposals. On this, Smith said:

"We have been producing some really good young players, so much so that the Australians are coming here to take them. We are starting to produce some half-backs, outside-backs, types of players that we have not produced for years and yet we change the system again.We take away that production system, take away the responsibility for clubs to produce those players and we go to a system that is 'popular' by all accounts. To just throw the whole system out the window is a knee-jerk reaction."

I personally feel quite strongly that Smith has got it right on this occasion. Big decisions are being made for the wrong reasons. Popularity, perceived or real, is taking precedence over planning for the future in my view. I agree that you can't maintain the status quo as things aren't going well right now - but the main problem is a financial one. People who say not enough games matter, need to understand that all games would matter if all teams could compete with each other on a more level playing field. The key to competing with one another is having some equality in the ability to attract and develop young talent, an equality in training systems and facilities, and equality in coaching support staffs. An equal ability to pay wages up to a salary cap limit which allows for star players to be signed and retained would be the final piece in the puzzle. Once you have the top division of clubs ALL at that capability, then you can think about clubs at the next level looking to get the same infrastructure and capabilities in place, so they can join a league able to expand and still support its clubs. If you can get 20 teams capable then you can discuss P&R again, not that its needed when teams can all compete on a largely even field. The RFL should be working on getting 12 clubs in that position, then try and get to 16, then 20, but really focus on those first 12 clubs best positioned for this to work.To get into this position, money is needed - the league and the clubs in it should be doing all they can to maximise revenues, and to support each other in the quest to do so - stronger clubs need to help weaker clubs, successful clubs need to share ideas with struggling clubs, and struggling clubs need to be able to stick to the tasks at hand.

Licensing hasn't worked because of unfortunate economic timing and because it wasn't strong enough in its conviction and delivery - P&R doesn't work because there is nothing to deliver other than, by and large, the status quo - it suits the big clubs because they can watch the smaller clubs fight each other for the Super League scraps, picking off any talent they want as these clubs go by the wayside, and feeling no responsibility for the wider prospects of the game.

...

Well, there it goes, I've rambled on again about licensing and promotion and relegation, and I still feel convinced franchising would be the best way to go forward, the opposite of what anyone else seems to think. This post was actually supposed to break down some of the issues I see in the 2x12>3x8 proposal, but I've lost my way in it all a little. I'm going to try and wrap up some of my thoughts now, without going too far of track with the temptation to elaborate on the bigger picture of things.

"Every game will matter", or at least "more games will matter", is a line getting trotted out to support the radical proposed system, a system already rejected by Scottish football.

I currently look at a league where pretty much each match has some sort of playoff implication. Of course the big-game-ability of the experienced Leeds squad has made people think it doesn't matter where you finish in the playoffs. The current system doesn't offer the most incentives, granted, but there is still incentive and for your club it should matter to finish in the top two, or the top four, and obviously the top eight. Like I say, pretty much every game has some playoff implication. Even when the top eight might be decided, the placings won't be. Ok, by the last third of the season there are a numbers of teams effectively out of the reckoning, and there are some games in the earlier parts of the season you don't need to win and you can recover from, but that wouldn't change in the 2x12>3x8 system.

How the playoffs would work haven't been fully revealed, but if there are more than 4 teams involved then you'll have the same criticisms that currently exist about bottom half teams being involved when its questionable if they deserve to be after being below par in a full home/away schedule. Plus, we've never had an 8 team league to draw comparisons from. For these reasons I can't really assess how many games in that second part of the season will matter, but its safe to say some won't have to be won early on and some won't matter in the final shakedown.

The first section we can consider based on some evidence. There have been twelve 12 team Super League seasons, on which detailed results and statistics are available from my usual source, the Rugby League Project. Over those seasons the first 11 rounds haven't always seen teams play the same number of home and away games, and it hasn't always seen all teams play each other once, and most notably the incentives on the games wasn't exactly the same as they would be under the new system. However, what we can gleam from this is the closest indicator we have of how many games might matter.

I decided that the first 8 games would matter equally as each other, because as noted above, you can lose some early games and have the chance to make up for it - none of the games would be must win, bar a few occasions where a team might lose the first 7 straight. In rounds 9, 10 and 11 there would be must win games and games close to that status with chances for points running out. Obviously as the games move on, fewer teams will have anything to play for - either they can't reach 8th or they've sealed a top 8 place already. Here are the results:
Over the three rounds, in 12 years combined, 45 games meant absolutely nothing at all - that's one fifth of games at the supposed exciting part of the this league section not mattering at all. One year, none of the games in round 11 meant a thing, on average less than one game per year will have something on the line for both teams in this round, and in three quarters of round 11 games at least one team had nothing to play for - imagine trying to sell that Magic Weekend if that is where it would fit in the new proposal, as seems likely. Imagine that one of the apparently most decisive weeks of the season only actually has ONE game that really really matters at the top of your structure. Then of course you get the lull for the opening rounds of the second half of the season, where early matches can again be recovered from so don't matter so much - this system gives you that twice, remember that all you 'every game matters' folk out there.

And remember a good number of these games that appear to matter in round 9 only matter beforehand, with the future untold. With hindsight we can see a clearer picture. On average in the 12 seasons you needed 8.5 points (so, 9) to be in 8th or higher after 11 games, and in only two years was 9 points not enough to guarantee top 8 succession. That was a mark that 42% of teams had already reached after 8 rounds - 47% had reached the final points total needed for the relevant season to be in the 8.

Using the same data set, I could make some observations on what would happen in Super League 2 in the fight for the top four as well. On average 13.5 points sees you get 4th (so, 14). By the end of round 8 in the 12 seasons, no matter what happened in the last three rounds, 46% of teams couldn't get to this points total, and 41% couldn't make it to the actual points totals they would need in the respective seasons to rise to the mid-tier for the rest of the season. There are games that do not matter.

Oh, and do any games in the third level in part two of the season matter at all? We'll have 8 teams playing for not very much, knowing they have next season to look forward to but nothing to really get them going for the rest of this season. It isn't it's own standalone competition, it is part of Super League, so winning it means pretty much nothing, you've already lost, you lost in week 11 (or week 8!), you're already one of the worst.

Now, these figures are not perfect, I'm not even sure if they are robust, but we know that form and luck make the observed picture likely in the new reality too. Plenty of outcomes will be decided with no must win games having been played, and plenty of games will not matter in the 2x12>3x8 format. Quite frankly, there isn't a sporting league structure where the outcome of all the games matters - what you need to do is make the quality and outcome uncertainty of every game high for your regular season play - see NFL and NRL as your examples.

I know this is a long one, but I don't feel like breaking it into two or three smaller ones now I've got going, but please stick with me for one final point. This to me is THE CRUCIAL FAILURE of the 2x12>3x8 system - teams will lose revenues in this system.

A 25 game season means 12 home games (12 away, 1 magic, is the proposal). In these 12 home games you might not get any against your big local rival or any against Leeds or Wigan - one of these three fixtures is every teams highest crowd of the season. Super League, unlike other 'top level' sports leagues in the world (Premier League, NFL, MLB, NRL as examples), still has a large importance on ticket sales and gate receipts - the league and it's governing body just doesn't make enough money from the other sources to marginalise this source of income.

You're now getting fewer home games and potentially none of your biggest home gates, yet are expected to produce a team that can compete. In fact, you have to produce a team that can compete to try and get into that top 8 league for part 2 of the season to ensure you can get the revenues to survive. All this trying to survive might just see you fail to develop, as we've seen before and elsewhere.

The only way to maintain ticket revenues is to try and further exploit your loyal supporters with yet higher ticket prices. Fans have already shown they are so price sensitive these days in austerity times that they won't pay for the extra knockout games, with playoff and cup crowds being low in recent seasons. These games really do matter - they're the most must win you could get - but fans can't afford to spend more money. This is the reality, so higher prices isn't really an option.

Beyond this, TV opportunities might reduce. Firstly, you'll get a smaller slice of what I suspect will not be a much bigger (if at all bigger) pie. Ok, the smaller teams that are currently miles away from competing will do better, but the teams who could get competitive with just a little more help, actually get less.

Secondly, there is what live TV games do for you. If you're 1 of  24 teams, your chances of getting live games is less than when you are 1 of 14 or 1 of 12. Less TV exposure means less chance to sell your 'brand' to a wider audience and significantly it will make you less attractive to large scale potential sponsors. The best way to sell your club to a shirt sponsor is plenty of nationwide TV exposure. That will be reduced now. Even if, as I suspect would happen, we see 3 live 'Super League' games per week, you still have less chance of being shown than in a 14 or 12 team Super League as any contract will have a requirement for all teams to feature live a certain amount of times - odds of being picked for TV of 2/6 is better than 3/12.

In terms of revenues, this system offers less for clubs in a position close to being able to compete and they will end up losing further ground on the top 4 or 5 clubs who have better structures in place. People feel it will benefit smaller clubs. It might do, but they won't become big clubs in this system. There will just be more medium sized clubs, with that 'medium' size becoming relatively smaller to the top as years go by. I appreciate this is just speculation, and this system has never been seen before so nothing is set in stone, but European football offers all the omens you want, even if their system isn't as innovative, if you look close enough you'll see the similarities. This sort of approach will always favour the big teams really. Trust me. And I support a big team, so in a way it makes my opposition more commendable...no?

If you've read all of this long rant then I thank you heartily. Agree or disagree, please leave a comment, or better still tweet me, and please share my views with your friends.

Structure of Super League

This is something I've wanted to write about for a while, and thinking about for even longer. It's a hot topic in Rugby League circles, it feels like it always has been, and it is as relevant as ever in 2013.

There are three main issues - (1) Promotion/Relegation or Licensing, (2) How many teams should be in the league, (3) How the playoffs should work. I have an opinion on all three, but I don't really like just going with my opinion, I like looking at the numbers too.

The first time I ever considered the structure of sports leagues was in my undergraduate dissertation. Rugby League only played a minor role - the open structure of European Football leagues was compared to the closed American sports leagues. The main thrust was a more competitive league is better supported and more economically successful - these assumptions were deemed reasonable based on a review of the extensive literature on the topic. My previous study can inform the issues raised above - mostly so for issue (1) which I see as the biggest consideration facing the game's administrators, though maybe not the most difficult.

Competition can be broken into three areas - short-term competition of individual matches, medium-term competition within a season, and long-run competition over a number seasons. A lot of short-run measures can be complex and time consuming, but a very basic number to demonstrate how competitive games are is the average winning margin (Ave. WM) - the lower this figure is, the closer individual games really are. Medium-term competition is conventionally shown by win-percent ratios (WPR) - a full explanation is given if you follow the link to my old work above, but basically the lower the number the closer the season has been between the top and bottom teams. Long-term competition can be measured by any standard measure of inequality or a simple concentration analysis of the number of teams that win titles in a given period - it's been a long time since I've thought about gini-coefficients so I've just done a simple concentration analysis and converted the data into a comparable figure where basically the closer to 0 it is, the fewer teams have won the titles available (or finished bottom as the case may be). In this measure, closer to 1 suggest more competitive balance then closer to 0.

The following table summarises the data I'll be referring to throughout:

It shows data for different time periods and league structures. The reason for a starting point of 1981 is because this is when extensive data is available - I've taken the raw data straight from the brilliant rugby league resource that is Rugby League Project - I urge you to visit it as your first port of call whenever researching Rugby League.

I've compared all the data from the 1980-81 Championship season to the 2012 Super League season - a total of 33 years, 15 of which have included play-offs and the grand final and 26 of which featured relegation (or the threat of relegation) to at least one club - pre-Super League the number of teams varied between 12 and 16, the number of teams relegated each season could be as high as four, two years had no relegation due to league restructure - during Super League league size has been 12 or 14 teams, with one normally facing relegation but not always being relegated, until 2008 when the league was restructured to the current three year licensing system that came into effect from 2009 where a league place isn't just based on on-field factors. The data is open to criticism simply because I only have small sample sizes to draw conclusions from, but I'm just using what is available.

My basic assumptions are fans want to see closely contested high-scoring matches, in tightly contested league seasons, with no one team dominating over a number of seasons - fans want some uncertainty over the outcome of matches, seasons and title winners. Other factors are relevant to demand too and need to be touched on as attendances are considered independently to uncertainty of outcome - club's history, location, ticket prices and wider economic conditions would be expected to influence demand.

Licensing vs. Promotion/Relegation
I'll start with the big one first. Licensing was supposed to bring stability to clubs, see Super League full of shiny and safe modern stadia and see more young British (and French) talent come through the ranks. The push for greater uncertainty of outcome and competitive balance would come from an extended play-offs and the desire to have competed well enough to earn a new license at the end of each three year cycle. The theory is teams have a little more stability so can develop a stronger squad without a boom or bust arms race style approach that might happen if you only have one year to build your team. It was somewhat radical when compared to the tried, tested and traditional promotion and relegation we see across most major British and European sports leagues, though not quite the 'closed' franchise structure of American leagues or the NRL.

We're all used to promotion and relegation. It's traditional, which means some people simply think it's better regardless. It works pretty well in football, Britain's top team sport, and a lot of league fans think our sport is somehow comparable to football so the system is the best one. The argument for competitive balance comes from the idea that all teams will work harder to avoid the dreaded drop, meaning the final league situation will see all teams having a closer spread of the points available. There is a suggestion poorer teams will be willing to spend more on talent to help them avoid the drop, meaning team strength would be more equal.

Now, we haven't seen the kind of off field stability or development we would want during licensing. Wakefield, Crusaders, Bradford and Salford have suffered serious financial troubles and the bad state of Super League finances has been given lots of press exposure. St Helens and Salford have moved into shiny new stadiums since licensing began. Others have seen some improvements in facilities, but there are still a number of clubs with outdated stadiums. On that front you would say things haven't had the success that would have been hoped. There is a major mitigating factor here - the financial crisis that has hit the world since 2008 has been felt acutely in the already struggling heartland towns in northern England. This is bound to impact on incomes and loan possibilities for league clubs. Also, it's fair to note financial troubles are nothing new. Oldham, Gateshead and Widnes are all teams who suffered serious financial hardships following spells in the Super League.

Despite the financial troubles, attendances are as high as they've ever been for the much maligned regular season fixtures - tell these fans they mean nothing! Only 2007 has seen higher average crowds than 2012 and for the licensing period crowds are 16% higher than the average for the whole Super League period. The years where there was no threat of relegation see crowds averaging 26% higher than where there was this threat. Better stadiums may have helped some, but this figure suggests fans aren't turned off by the lack of promotion and relegation.

During the Super League years, there is nothing between the figures for points per game and winning margins whether there was relegation as a threat or not. Pre-Super League both figures are lower, but a different scoring system until 1983 and winter conditions could explain some of this difference. Its fair to say on average it doesn't matter if there is a threat of relegation when it comes to closeness of games.

You would expect the gap between the top and the bottom during promotion/relegation years to be smaller because of the incentives to avoid relegation. Pre-Super League, its fair to say seasons were relatively quite competitive - 1.990 is lower than the average for the whole period of 2.067. However, during Super League the closest seasons have been where immediate relegation out of the league wasn't a threat. All five years from 2008 are below the overall average - five of the eight Super League seasons this feat applies to. The average for 2008-2012 of 1.928 is notably lower than 1996-2007 (2.228) when relegation was a threat. In fairness, this promising situation for medium-term competition has been seen from 2006 onwards, so started when relegation was in place.

Long-term, we've seen a more even distribution of League Leaders winners and wooden spoon 'winners' since promotion/relegation was scrapped. This reflects favourably compared to the overall averages also. Leeds dominance in play-off situations and the big one itself at Old Trafford means the Super League Champions title hasn't been widely shared, but that isn't much different to what has been seen before. Statistically speaking, a play-off system does introduce greater randomness to the probability of particular teams winning the title, so Leeds should be credited for what they've done in the play-offs, even if you can knock them for the inconsistent showings in the regular season - the odds would suggest they shouldn't have won five of the last six finals like they have done.

One more area to touch on is the amount of overseas players. One hope for licensing was that the amount of average overseas players filling Super League pitches would reduce. To look into this fully would have been incredibly time consuming and not worth the effort for a blog piece quite frankly, so what I've done is look at a few seasons (2002, 2007 and 2012) to get some sort of indication at how things have gone in this regard. The table below summarises what I found - overseas players are categorised as players born outside of Britain or France, the data wasn't perfect but this is just for indication so I'm happy with the analysis to this end.


The suggestion is during promotion/relegation we saw higher numbers of overseas players. We're now seeing more British and French players across the league. This effect of licensing appears to have paid off, though again, other factors could be partly responsible (e.g. economic conditions, exchange rates, increases in NRL salary cap). In 2007 before licensing, on average, more than 6 players in every match day 17 was born overseas. Some would be able to represent the European teams by now, but its still a hindrance to the important development of young talent. This number is notably lower in 2012, when less than a third of players come from overseas.

One interesting insight is the number of overseas players is typically higher outside of the playoffs than it is for teams making them. In 2002 playoff teams fielded 30% overseas players, compared to 36% outside the top 6. In 2007 it was 33% in the top 6 and 41% in the bottom 6. In 2012, the 8 playoffs teams had only 25% overseas players and the 6 non-playoff teams fielded 35% overseas players. That suggests the general quality of overseas players we're seeing hasn't been very high. The best situation is to have a smaller number of higher quality overseas talent and combine this with homegrown talent, brought through the system if possible - Leeds being the example with title wins in 2007 and 2012 after fielding the lowest and 2nd lowest overseas numbers respectively in the regular seasons.

So, if anything, the stats show Super League is more competitive and equal with licensing than it was with promotion/relegation. Less overseas players are taking places away from homegrown talent and some stadiums have seen improvement. Economic stability and league wide improvement of facilities hasn't been seen. Attendances are up and I've read viewing figures are likewise up, but there are teams that still need to build crowds. Basically, I think Licensing hasn't gone far enough. Informed by my previous work, I think we need to close the league fully. Set strict entry criteria to the start up and enforce this. Make clubs buy into the league and share revenues more equally.

The obstacle is tribalism and history. Previously, attempts to force mergers have been met with resistance and controversy but under the new system clubs may have to consider that if they don't satisfy criteria independently. Many will fear the cutting off of the lower clubs and some breakdown in the rugby league community as a result. I'm not saying closing the league membership means permanent exile from the elite level for other clubs though, there should be ways for new/more clubs to potentially see Super League play, but not in the current format that is basically extended promotion/relegation period that gives clubs outside Super League a degree of false hope of license based promotion - results so far suggest RFL resistance to mess with the clubs already there regardless of results on criteria. There is nothing to strongly say clubs like Hull KR, Castleford and Wakefield are more deserving or capable of succeeding than Leigh, Halifax or Sheffield for example. But more on the future vision below...

How many teams? 
Although this is also a massive issue and a very big decision would need to be made, a decision that the RFL will fear a massive backlash over from within the sport, I don't have as much to say on it as the first issue.

The main decision is really 14 or 12 teams. Pre-Super League a number of seasons had 16 teams at the top level, but since the move to summer there have been 12 or 14 teams. Other than 1999, it has been 12 teams when we had promotion/relegation and 14 teams since the 2009 move to licensing.

Looking at the numbers will bring a similar conclusion on competitive balance as the discussion above. This is because the licensing years are the 14 team years too, 1999 aside (which wasn't a very competitive year as it happens - it has the worst win percent ratio of any year looked at). The peak year for Super League in closeness of the league table was 2007 (WPR of 1.449, 2nd in all years looked at). The average winning margin was also relatively low - the figure of 15 being 2nd best in the summer rugby years. This was a 12 team year, though on average the 14 team years from 2009-2012 fare better than the 12 team years for competitive balance. A larger sample size for 12 team years means more chance of outlying results, both good and bad.

Crowds also peaked in 2007. Though they have averaged higher in the 14 team era, signs were good in the 12 team era from 2004 onwards. A dip from 2007 and 2008 was actually seen in 2009-2011, before a good jump in 2012. The positive pattern of average attendances before the switch to 14 teams means this doesn't get a significant thumbs up over the 12 team option.

The main drawback of the 14 team league is the feeling that there just isn't enough money and talent to go around, especially with overseas imports reducing in numbers and sponsorship availability waning. I do think these factors outweigh the impact of greater competitive balance in this debate. Despite the numbers I've highlighted suggesting 14 teams is a decent option, I think a temporary return to 12 teams in my closed league would allow the opportunity to give greater stability, with the league then looking to increase numbers as finances for the sport improve.

How should the playoffs work?
There have been three main playoff systems in the Super League - 5 teams, 6 teams and 8 teams. The first two saw an easier route to the Grand Final for the League Leaders winners that the latter method. It's felt that the 8 team format doesn't give enough advantage to the team topping the league ladder - they could end up playing three playoff games and lose the advantage of playing the weakest team in the semi-final draw. Rather than making fans see the playoffs as having a more open feel to them allowing for more upsets or shocks, a team winning two years in a row from 5th place has made fans feel the system devalues the regular season - maybe because the same team has been the one to pull off the feat though.

Higher average winning margins actually suggest the 8 team format is producing less competitive playoff games. With it being the much hyped 'business end' of the season, you'd expect closer games than the regular season. You still see this in the 8 team format, but the winning margins are higher than before - maybe because you have teams that finished in the bottom half of the table in the post-season.

Average attendances are also down, quite notably actually from 13,385 in the 6 team years to 10,041 in the 8 team format. This suggests the fans don't enjoy this playoff format as much as those before.

The 6 team format was the best attended and produced the closest outcomes. There was still some opportunity for upsets, but the top team was given a bit more advantage than the 8 team format gives and teams had played less playoff games to get to the final so players would theoretically have more to give.

The facts suggest a return to the 6 team format. In the closed 12 team league I'm proposing this would make sense anyway - certainly 8 teams wouldn't work, and 5 teams maybe just doesn't keep the playoffs open for as many teams for a competitive run in to the regular season (a far higher average win percent ratio was seen in the 5 team seasons than 6 teams, despite relegation as a threat).

My vision
From the above consideration I think a change to a properly closed league with strict initial entry requirements that consider history but focus on current performance, facilities, future plans and potential for development is the way to go. Clubs who are hesitant to consider progressive ideas should be cut adrift, and clubs that have very little potential to ever compete at the highest level should be strongly encouraged to tie themselves in with the Super League clubs and follow a different business strategy.

Start this off as a 12 team league with a 6 team playoff, but aim for growth to 14 teams with a 6 or 7 (if a sensible one can be devised) team playoff format after a few years of consolidating, with an end goal after a number of years growth and development of a 16 team competition split into two conferences of 8 with some inter-conference play and separate playoffs of 4 teams each, winner from each side competing the final. Instead of playing all teams twice, you would play the seven teams in your conference home and away, play four home and four away from the other conference (alternating seasons in a 6 Nations style), leaving room for the Challenge Cup and development of more representative game opportunities, without potential burn out of the top players. If you keep a 'Magic Weekend' you could play the team that finished in the corresponding position in the other conference, making this a more even playing field for all teams than the 'derbies' format. How teams would be allocated (along with who to cut when it drops to 12, this will be the RFL's toughest decision) and what you would call the conferences would be a matter for the time it starts and for this to become a reality the game would have to find a lot more money. Maybe if we had a Dr Koukash for every club...

Of course, the fans of the game will need to modernise too. They need to see the future of the game as more important that cherishing the history of their own club. Why a fan can't follow two clubs or support the game wider than just one club I don't understand - you can have your Super League club and your semi-pro club. The bitterness felt by some fans towards larger clubs needs to be lost, although the clubs with ambition and potential that currently sit outside the Super League should be given equal opportunity to gain entry to the new elite level competition at start up and will have the chance to prove they would offer value as an expansion team. The fans will have a big part to play in that process as they contribute significantly to club revenues and so the ability of the club to compete.

One can dream.