Two Games Too Much? Super League's Easter fixtures by the numbers

This debate seems to get trotted out every year now. An overseas coach will come out in the media and criticise the Easter schedule, and a home grown representative of the game will come out and defend the Easter double header.

The main argument against the fixtures is player welfare and whether its right to put these athletes out there for back to back matches in the physically intense sport of modern rugby league. Other concerns are also raised about how good an advert for the game the second fixture is - the feeling is they will lack the intensity of the Friday games and the other weekly rounds, you might see a drop off in performances and end up with very one sided fixtures, which isn't good for the sport.

The supporters of the double-header often hark back to the tradition of the Easter weekend in the sports calendar. Its seen as being positive for the games to be on bank holidays during school holidays as it should have a positive impact on crowds. The best defence of the fixtures I've seen came as 'tackle two' of Guardian journalist Andy Wilson's most recent 'Set of Six' blog - that these games give youth their head as senior players don't have the time to recover and the matches are a bridge between academy competition and the usual intensity of other Super League rounds.

However, I'm not going to go over what other people have said, I'm going to look at the numbers - two numbers in particular: 1) attendances and 2) points difference in the games. I've looked at the last 10 seasons and compared Good Friday (GF) fixtures, including ones played Thursday nights, with Easter Monday (EM) fixtures, including the odd Tuesday night games, and also included the season averages (for 2013, this is averages after first 10 rounds). The numbers are summarised in this table:

The boxed figures indicate best of all figures. Bold indicates the better of the two that year. Red indicates the figure is worse that the average for that season. Obviously, the higher the attendance the better, the lower the points difference the better.

Attendances
The crowds have always been better on Good Friday, apart from the highest figure being 2007's Easter Monday. The best explanatory factor is that the first proper Hull derby for years was staged at the KC on that Easter Monday. Wigan also travelled the Leeds, so the best two supported clubs met on that Monday, and four of the five worst attended clubs that season hosted Good Friday games, which weren't all derbies in this year.

Since 2008, four or five genuine derby matches have taken place in each set of Good Friday fixtures, whereas 2005 and 2007 were the only years where Easter Monday saw a derby take place. The influence of derby games in the crowds being high is clear - teams tend to get their highest crowds against their closest rivals, particularly in the big derbies Wigan-Saints, Leeds-Bradford and the Hull derby, that make up the bulk of the aggregate attendance at Easter and see similarly strong crowds in reverse fixtures.

A noteworthy observation is six of ten Easter Monday rounds have seen lower average attendances than the season average, including all of the last five years - two years are significantly lower, 2010 and 2012. This goes against one of the common defences of the Easter fixtures, as Easter Monday games are no more popular in general than average weekly rounds - although its worth noting the weekly round figures benefit from the inflationary Magic Weekend, but even taking this into account 2010 and 2012 were below average and 2004 had no Magic Weekend.

Looking beyond average attendances for the whole round and focusing on the crowds at the individual games gives some more perspective. Not including 2013 as the season isn't over yet, on the Good Fridays I looked at there were 58 games. In 41 of them, the crowd was bigger than the home team's average for that whole season. 9 of those games weren't derby matches, and the 8 that were below the home team's season average all were not derby matches. On the Easter Mondays, 26 of the 58 games (including 1 derby) saw higher crowds than the home team's season average, 32 games (including 1 derby) saw lower crowds than the home team's season average - more than half.

Maybe that second game on Easter Monday isn't as big a deal with the fans as the game's administrators think.

Points difference
The general trend is Good Friday games are closer than Easter Monday games. Seven of the ten years saw a closer average points difference in Good Friday games over Easter Monday games. Also, six of the ten years sees a higher average gap between winning and losing teams than the season as a whole saw for Easter Monday, some a number of points wider, when that is only seen in two of ten Good Fridays. The overall average for Easter Monday also suggests less competitive matches in general than all regular season matches during the entire period.

One notable exception is 2008, where Easter Monday saw the closest games of any Easter round in the period. Actually, that season, both rounds saw mostly close games - 8 of 12 ended within two scores - but the difference was two one-sided results were seen on Good Friday and only one, with a smaller points gap too, on Easter Monday that year.

I've broken it down a bit further to see how close individual games were, beyond the averages (as these can be skewed by massively one-sided games like Warrington at Salford in 2010 and Wigan at Hull KR this year). Categorising a close game as one that finishes with a two score (12 point) difference or less and a blow-out as 30 point or more difference between the teams, gives these results:

2004 to 2008 had six games in each round, 2009 onwards had seven games each round.

Good Friday sees more close games and fewer blow-outs than Easter Monday, supporting the averages. More than half the Good Friday games are close, and I'd note 12 of these close games weren't derbies. Of the 11 Good Friday blow-outs, 6 were derbies. Nearly half of the Easter Monday games were close. Only two traditional derbies were played on Mondays during the 10 years - one was a close game, one was a blow-out. These figures suggest that a game being a derby doesn't have a great deal of influence over how close a match might end up being.

All of this suggests games aren't as close on Easter Monday, which is less exciting for the fans and it's not a great advert for the sport that over a quarter of the games are one sided blow-outs over the years. The average points difference, number of close games and number of blow-outs all support the commonly held notion that Easter Monday games lack the intensity and competitiveness of Good Friday games, or of the average weekly round.

A lot of observers also point out that it isn't just the second game in three days that causes players and competitiveness to suffer, but it's also that third game in little over a week that suffers too. In seven of the nine years 2004-2012 (inclusive), the weekend after Easter has seen an average points difference for the round of 19 points or more, so the average game is decided by more than three converted tries. This shows that round suffers for competitiveness too - again, not a great advert for the league.

Edit: I've decided to throw in the figures from looking at the 'third' game of the Easter schedule, the rond after Easter Monday. I'll let you draw your own conclusions from it...


Summary
Overall, I think it's reasonable to conclude that if we were to lose the Easter Monday fixture it wouldn't be the worst thing for the sport. The crowds aren't brilliant, the games can quite often be a bad advert for the league, and it extents that effect to the week after too.

I'm not saying it should be taken from the calendar, but I do think the RFL should have a proper think about whether this scheduling is worth keeping. I feel the drawbacks out weigh the positives. A re-think could be to get Sky buy-in to have a extended televised schedule of games but only play one round over the weekend - say, Leeds-Bradford on the Thursday night every year, Wigan-Saints on the Friday afternoon, Castleford-Wakefield on Friday night, London-Catalans Saturday, Huddersfield-Salford Sunday, Hull derby Monday lunch time and Warrington-Widnes Monday evening - still televise four games like they do at the moment, or all of them would be nice.

...and finally...
Whilst I've been looking at these numbers I'll just make another couple of points.

1) The crowd numbers for this season are concerning, only averaging 8,718 as it stands. We have the Magic weekend, the reverse derby fixtures and the important games at the season end to help get that figure up. Plus, it has remained wintry cold to this point of the season, meaning many fans may have chosen to or been forced to miss games due to the weather. Lets hope for a dry and warm summer to bring fans in.

2) Whilst the RFL Chief Exec Nigel Wood came out after Good Friday to proclaim this as the most competitive year in Super League history, the current average points difference per game of 19.6 is actually higher than seen in 13 of the 17 completed seasons (as all figures shown, this is correct as of 2013 round 10). On the flip side, with another 17 rounds to be completed there have already been 7 drawn games - the record for a whole summer season is 8 in 2003. Also, when Wood came out with his words it was after round 9, when the difference between the top club and bottom club was the narrowest margin ever seen at that stage of a Super League campaign (10 competition points). Of course, this just shows that you can chose the numbers you want to support your argument, and in reality, for all the entertaining close games we've seen this season so far there have still been plenty of one-sided affairs - I just think the weaker teams are more capable of beating the stronger teams in one off games now, which compresses the league table.

Should Super League have a 'Designated player' rule?

The very enjoyable recent BBC 5Live Rugby League hour featuring Dr Marwan Koukash and apparently his fantasy line up of potential Salford recruits (Brian Noble and Adrian Morley) has highlighted and contributed to an ongoing issue for debate in Super League - that of the Salary Cap.

Koukash with his millions wants the cap increased. There are some reasonable arguments for doing just that, beyond the personal motives of Koukash wanting to spend more money on top players to lead his club to silverware.

The 2013 salary cap rules say that basically the top 25 earning players can't be paid more than a combined total of £1.65million (for full details, click here).

It's fair to say all clubs don't currently spend to the cap, but the ones that do are predominantly the ones at the top - although rumoured full cap spending at London in the past couple of years hasn't seen them compete. Results suggest Koukash's comments that those who can't afford to spend to the cap are already struggling to compete so it shouldn't matter if the cap were increased are reasonable, though not entirely convincing.

He's proposing an increase to £2.5 or £3 million, pushing it closer to that of the NRL (for 2013 this is A$4.4m £3m), but leaving it way behind the RFU Premiership cap figure still (£4.26m for 2012-2013 season). It means that Super League would be able to retain more of its stars and have the potential to have some star pulling power to bring in some big name overseas players or exiles back from the other code. This should in theory attract media attention, fans and sponsorship to the game in the UK, putting it in the position it deserves to be in higher up the larger public consciousness.

An interesting sidestep to increasing the cap limit is the 'Designated player' rule (DP), nicknamed the Beckham rule, that has applied in Major League Soccer (MLS) since 2007 as a workaround to signing big names within salary cap constraints. This is what Adrian Morley suggested during the 5Live show.

This rule allows MLS clubs to sign up to three players whose salaries exceed their budget charges - a charge of US$368,750 for a DP on a US$2.95m cap that applies to top 20 earners. (I would note the RFU Premiership operates a similar rule called the Excluded Player rule, but as the player has to have recent international pedigree, they will likely miss a number of games in a season anyway). If Super League brought it in, such a rule could see top paid players cost maybe £250k a piece towards the cap and then paid what the teams want on top of that.

The MLS rules limit teams to two DPs and they can 'purchase' a third from the league, with the money paid being distributed around the clubs who don't have three DPs. If the rule is brought into Super League then I'd propose letting teams have up to two British DPs - the second dependent on evidencing affordability - and also the ability to 'purchase' one overseas DP. The reason for this is it would help keep homegrown talent in the sport rather than see them go to Union. Financially clubs would be allowed compete on wages for big name players with the NRL, so the league could still field some big names to draw fans but it means no one club could hog the talent available and injuries can still be that great leveller during a season.

The theoretical advantages of applying a salary cap are the promotion of greater competitive balance (i.e. equality) between teams as well as a control on costs to prevent overspending to achieve success at the cost of long term financial stability. Any such rule change if applied to the Super League would need to maintain the advantages of a cap rather than erode these - though the extent to which the current cap has been successful could be questioned, we have seen improving competitive balance particularly in the share of trophy wins and we were seeing a degree of stability and growth before the global economic crisis changed the way things worked financially.

Financially, the ability to hold on to or bring in higher profile players might well see attendances and viewing figures increase. There is certainly some credibility to the argument that audiences want to see star players. This would in turn see more money coming into the sport through TV deals, ticket sales and sponsorship deals, so as long as clubs don't bankrupt themselves to get DPs in the team then it should help with financial stability and growth. In the MLS, the league appears to have strengthened since the rule came in. More teams have entered the league and average attendances are up across the league - 15,378 for 2002-2006, 16,763 for 2007-2011.

In competition terms, the best thing to look at is how this has affected the MLS competitive balance since it's inception in 2007. In terms of win-percent ratios that show within season competition, so are a medium term measure (explained more on page 22 of this), in the five years before the DP rule was introduced the average figure was 0.991 and for the five seasons following the rule coming in it was 1.110. So win-percent ratios increased by 11%, meaning seasons were less competitive by this measure after the DP rule was introduced. However, it's fair to note that DP doesn't fully explain this change as another factor that must be considered is the league size increased every year - traditionally, new teams in a league are less competitive in their first years, so the addition of less competitive teams would make seasonal competitive balance weaker and probably have a greater influence than the DP rule, which if anything would allow new teams to bring in some star players (in 3 of the 5 seasons 2007-2012, the team with the worst record was a new team for that season). In terms of title winners, a longer run measure of competition that shouldn't be affected by weaker new teams, for 2002-2006 eight teams took top spot in the two conferences and for 2007-2011 seven teams made up the ten conference topping spots, though in terms of MLS Cup wins (equivalent of the Grand Final) there has been no difference between the two periods. So, a notable drop in medium term competition may be due to other factors and a very small reduction in long term competitive balance has been seen, but over such a small data sample this isn't significant enough to say the DP rule has had a negative effect on competitive balance in the MLS.

The two leagues obviously aren't like-for-like so a firm conclusion can't be drawn, but from what theory and evidence there is, the introduction of a Designated Player rule in Super League wouldn't be a bad idea and is certainly something the game's administrators should consider.

Whilst I'm on the subject of the Salary Cap, there are some other changes that I would like to see made to what we currently have in Super League, separate to the major change considered above. These in no particular order are:

• Recognition for producing international players for the England team. Say, for every player that featured in the most recent end of season England squad, their club gets 10% of the player's salary added to their Salary Cap limit the following season. Maybe as well, alter it to include some benefit conveyed on the club that developed the player as a youth. Drawback would be that it doesn't really benefit long term planning as cap limit will change each year for the team.
• Extend the benefits conveyed on long-term players. Currently, any player who has played for the same Club for at least ten consecutive seasons will have half their salary excluded from the Salary Cap for his eleventh and subsequent seasons, subject to a maximum of £50,000 for any one club. I'd increase the amount, say to £200,000 for ten year serving players, with the £50,000 limit applying for players giving five years service. Fans identify with one club players and whilst player movement shouldn't be restricted, clubs should be rewarded for long-term investment in players. As well as extending its value, I would restrict it only to players who made their first grade debut whilst registered at that club. This promotes attention to youth development as well as retaining players.
• Special dispensation for injured players. I must admit, I don't know what actually exists in this area, but if nothing exists then something should. Where a player is injured for large periods of time in a season clubs should be able to remove his salary from their cap amount, whilst still paying the player his contracted salary compensation. This will allow them to temporarily sign a replacement to keep squad strength up. This would have to be regulated so that the injured player must miss a certain amount of the competition - say minimum 8 games - and is de-registered from playing for the amount of time set at the start of his injury period, and once that pre-set period expires he applies to the cap again. Maybe something like this already exists, and if so then fair enough.
• Change the rules for players outside the top 25 earners. Currently in Super League, clubs can spend a maximum of £50,000 on players outside the Top 25 earners who have made at least one first grade appearance for the club during the year, though costs for players outside of the Top 25 earners, who do not make a first team appearance, will be unregulated. I feel this limits how many of your young players you can blood into first team games and hampers a club when the squad is stretched by injury. I would prefer something akin to what operates in the NRL, where a Salary Cap of $250,000 for the top 20 players who qualify for the under-20s competition and don't sit in a club’s top 25 earners, each club can spend an additional $50,000 on players outside the under-20s top 20 who qualify and play in the competition. The only benefit I can see to the Super League rules is teams can't stockpile all of the junior talent on the cusp of breaking into the top grade, but I think clubs should be encouraged to develop scouting systems and identify talent for themselves rather than poaching from other team's youth grades.
• An alternative to the DP rule and increasing the cap level is reducing the number of players it applies to. Say keep it at £1.65m but this only applies to the top 17 earners, with a further cap to apply on the next 17 earners at £825k or something.

These are just suggestions that would need much more work on before being applied in practice, and the clubs would need to work harder themselves along with the RFL for higher wage spending to become affordable.

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.