I don't think there's any doubt that the league would be ultra competitive next year if there were 12 teams instead of 14.

Im not a fan of 2 leagues of 10, I think we have 10 teams who are comfortably able to compete at this level, and a couple more getting there. I think 10 would be too small and a couple of clubs who are going in the right direction would lose that by being relegated. I think 12 was the right number but I think we should stick with 14 now we have it. Those 14 should be in in perpetuity being added to rather than replaced. However the 4 or so clubs we have who are “failling” need clear targets to hit.

Im not a fan of central contracts, I dont see what it acheives other than putting the decision over which players we need in the game in the hands of the RFL rather than the clubs who are paying them. Central academy contracts make even less sense, though I can see the argument in favour of the a central body taking control of youth development but I can also see some downsides.

I think we can do better: Firstly I would cut the Sky grant in half. £600k a season. Clubs can then earn that money back by having players eligible for the home nations in their top 25 earners, between £20k per player that play more than 15 games in a season, and £20k per player who represents one of the home nations (with an expanded international game) that year. In return the RFL would get more access and control over those players. This would encourage teams to look to the other home nations and encourage players to play for the other home nations. It would also reward clubs for good youth development. A club with 20 british players in their top 25 would earn £400k, with the possibility of up to another £400k if they become internationals. Whereas a club with 10 overseas players would only bring in another £200k and have a max of £300k they could earn through internationals.

Secondly I think we need to reformat the SC completely. I don’t think it works, it is far too blunt and instrument. Our players are woefully underpaid, there is no getting around the fact they deserve to be paid more, but we need a competitive league and the disparity in income would make that impossible in a completely free market. WE can look at the “points system” mooted in Australia or things like developed players being off the cap, “marquee allowances” etc because if there is one thing the SC actually does achieve and achieve well its stopping us competing for the very best. I would also get rid of the ridiculous rules around companies sponsoring players, we restrict it when we should be encouraging it as much as possible. We need our players getting more money, its better that that money comes from outside the game and it also has the side-effect of increasing the profile of the players, also a positive. As part of this I would also make all players play a maximum of 22 games a year plus any internationals.

Thirdly I think the RFL need somebody whose sole job is to improve the standard of RL in this country, He needs responsibility for improving the standards of coaching, of sports science, of youth development throughout the game. I would want him doing things like setting up partnerships with universities like Loughborough and Leeds met where the best and brightest in sports science are working with and working toward improving RL players, get their students and their professors unfettered access to top quality professional sportsmen so we are at the very cutting edge, even going further a field to players like America or France. If a sprinting coach at the University of florida has discovered how to increase an athletes speed by 5% using a new training programme, the next person to learn its should be the RFL “director of RL” and I want him delivering a course on it open to all RL clubs (not just SL). I would also want him leading a team of the very best coaches in RL having them work with our Elite players and Youngsters. How is a young winger supposed to learn how to catch an Andrew Johns kick when nobody in England can kick a ball like Andrew Johns? How is Kallum Watkins supposed to learn top quality centre play when he plays opposite Carl Ablett? There is a wealth of experience, a wealth of knowledge and a wealth of talent that Australian youth and Elite players can tap into that our youth don’t. Of the few world class players we did have, even fewer are involved in the game in a capacity where they can pass their knowledge on.

Fourthly, I would look at the actual game itself. Id be really interested to see how a change to 4 x 20mins quarters instead of 2x40min halves would change the game, I think too much of our game focuses too much on stamina. Teams can run away with games and a game is decided and becomes a procession all too often within a 10/15 minute spell. I think 15 min quarters would make the game more attacking, teams would need to take more risks, skill and explosive speed and power would be prised above stamina. It would also, I think keep games closer making them more exciting and an upset more likely.

Until we address these issues I don’t think the league will equal by any great degree

How does that belief fit in with your idea of having 20 FT teams spread over two divisions particularly given the fact that we haven't enough good British coaches to fill maybe a couple of spots?

OP, your use of statistics is laughable. You have presented no valid evidence suggesting either that the league is becoming more competetive , or that it isnt.

If you want some statistics that acually tell you anything about the state of the league as a whole, maybe try looking at a time period longer than 3 years, this isnt nearly long enough to assess a proper trend. especially when the first year you look at was the disasterous first season in SL of the Crusaders - this with the fact that you mainly compare top with bottom, obviously would massively skew your results) If you are looking at a small enough time period, and if you pick your starting and finishing points carefully enough, you can find pretty much any trend you want

Compare the standard deviation of league points gained by the teams throughout each season, rather than cherry picking certain positions and comparing them, then deciding this must be representative of the league as a whole.

Looking at points for and against over the season doesn't tell you anything of importance, i suggest comparing the standard deviation of the points difference of each team, for each season, again rather than assuming cherrypicked results are representative.

Cas being a perfect example.

In the 1st 13 rounds of the season Cas lost 4 games, 1 of which was by more than 2 points.

In the 2nd half of the season Cas lost 9 times, 5 times by margins of 30 pts or more and a further 2 by 20 pts or more.

In the first 13 rounds we had on average 3 or 4 players missing through injury. In the 2nd half of the season we had upwards of 8 players missing each week.

Thanks for the feedback. I’m not sure why you have to describe my post as ‘laughable’ when I am only trying to generate some healthy debate. I didn’t actually ‘declare anything' by the way, I thought there was evidence for both the for and against argument

What is it about the internet makes people so obnoxious (or maybe you are like that internet or not)

No.

"The business end of the season".

"Pinnacle of the sport in this country"

Two nils in two games...

Catalans and HKR played 27 games each in the league and ended up three league points apart and a for and against difference of 43 points. Let’s not say that the Super League is uncompetitive just because of the scoreline tonight (although I do agree that a review of the play off’s is warranted to see if top 8 in the play off’s is too many)

You have to include in that the number of home games Cas had at the start of the season. It was something like seven of the first nine were at home wasn't it? That's going to influence the scores as much as squad depth because it's harder to get results on the road.

The original poster provides us with some valid Statistics which indicate the improving competitiveness of the
Super League.

Regardless of this since the start of SL in 1996 only four teams have won the Grand Final Bradford, Leeds, Saints and Wigan and only one other club outside of these four clubs, Hull have been in the final. No different this year then.

From that perspective theres no evening up of the league at all.

And yet we have clubs that finished 3 rd and 5 th in the final , however a top 8 play off is quite ridiculous in a 14 team competition

That's just one measure of competitiveness and because it only measures the winners it is hardly a comprehensive way of measuring competitiveness.

Maybe the fact that 5th beat 1st and 3rd beat 2nd in the semi’s to reach the Grand Final is some evidence of a more competitive competition. I know that Leeds and Saints are the same names as many previous finals but you would have got long odds on this Grand Final only a couple of weeks ago

Nope. Generally a pretty disappointing season on the pitch in that respect. Particularly the second half of season after Cas and Hudds decided they'd become sh*te. Les Cats gave some hope for some freshness, but then they also decided to be incredibly sh*te in the biggest game of their season.