Lamenting the Super 8s - by Alan

So the Super 8s are pretty much dead, with a return to a one-up, one-down approach to promotion and relegation. Putting aside the public spats over the announcement, it would be fair to say we’ve seen such a variety of systems in place since the start of Super League, I thought it would be remiss not to reflect on the merits of this departing approach.

I’m choosing to focus on the Middle 8 'Qualifiers'. As the mechanism to determine promotion and relegation from Super League, it could be argued that this is where the stakes are highest.  The Championship Shield 8s and Super League Super 8s have a relevance to the teams involved of course, especially if you are fighting relegation to League 1 or staking a claim for Old Trafford, but for some teams these games can be little more than fixture padding until next season.

I would argue that the primary measure of success is determined by the level of team movement between Super League and the Championship, with a secondary effect of providing exposure to a higher level of competition for Championship clubs.  If this could be achieved whilst maintaining a level of fan engagement - and therefore revenue generation - I’m not sure why you would seek to change the structure. So, how have those measures worked out in the three years to date?

Team Movement between divisions:

• 2015 – no movement, Bradford losing Million Pound Game (MPG) to Wakefield
• 2016 – Leigh promoted, Hull KR relegated losing MPG to Salford
• 2017 – Hull KR promoted, Leigh relegated losing MPG to Catalan

So, in three seasons we have had two years where one team went up and one came down. Indeed, the MPG in 2015 was close to the same outcome.  The better funded teams in the Championship have been able to compete with their Super League opposition and come out on top.  I think 2018 could see this to an even greater extent! It would not surprise me to see two or even three Championship teams promoted this year.

But what about the other teams from the Championship?

Championship Participants in Middle 8 Qualifiers:

• 2015 – Bradford, Leigh, Halifax, Sheffield
• 2016 – Leigh, London, Batley, Featherstone
• 2017 – Hull KR, London, Featherstone, Halifax

So, in three years, if you exclude teams that did win promotion, six other Championship teams have featured in the Middle 8s.  Whilst Bradford have faded away due to other reasons, you have seen London given a platform to test themselves to see if they are ready to step back up to Super League and the best semi-pro teams have also had the chance to go against some of the bigger names and gain additional TV exposure. In 2018 you have added Toronto and Toulouse to the mix, making qualification to, and potentially promotion from, the Middle 8s the most competitive to date.

Outside of the expansion seen with Toronto - and possibly New York to come - this is surely the best way to make steps towards establishing a larger pool of competitive teams, that could see progress being made towards a Super League of more than 12 teams, and maybe eventually we could avoid the endless debate about repeated fixtures and uneven schedules.

In effect this new proposal removes that stepping stone, and in the short term we are likely to return to the usual merry-go-round of players between the team promoted and the one suffering relegation.  As Sheffield and Bradford have proven, not every team who has tasted the Middle 8s is likely to be a candidate for promotion to Super League anytime soon, or possibly ever, but do we really want to extend a gulf between the divisions?

One factor in the decision is reportedly the uncertainty it creates for Super League teams, and the impact on revenues. So how did that effect the two biggest names to fall into the Middle 8s? In 2016 Leeds Rhinos hosted four Middle 8s matches, with an average attendance of 14,514. In 2017 Warrington Wolves also hosted four Middle 8s matches, with an average attendance of 9,300. Neither of those figures spells doom to me. They may be down slightly on their Super League averages but perhaps they should have played better during the year!

In summary, I don’t see how this reorganisation will address any of the fundamental issues affecting the game and in effect it raises the drawbridge to Super League to all but the best resourced.

But what do you think?

Alan Cale
SLP

Thanks for reading Alan's blog post, I think he's glad to get that all off his chest! If you want a bit more from SLP about the likely move away from the Super 8s, and about Robert Elstone's first press conference as Super League CEO, listen to our latest SLP Short with top RL journo Gareth Walker: https://www.spreaker.com/user/superleaguepod/slp-short-004-elstone-in-super-8s-out

Structuring the Future: a different way forward for Rugby League

Changes are coming in 2019 it seems. As ever, views are split and no-one agrees. But all the ideas I've seen are things that we've seen before already - a load of tried, tested, moaned about and moved on from structures.

Personally I'd stick as we are, with very minor tweaks, but if change is in the air my suggestion is one we haven't tried yet, but is hugely successful in America. Here it is!
--------------------------------------
Super League

• Super League to be made up of two conferences of 8 each
• Sides play within their conference home and away (14 games)
• Sides play inter-conference opponents once - rotating the home/away game in alternating years (8 games)
• Magic Weekend will see sides play the other conference side who ended the previous year in the same position, i.e. 1v1, 2v2 etc. (1 game)
• Playoffs: 1v4 and 2v3 in each conference, winners playoff in conference finals, then winner of each conference play Grand Final.
• Promotion & Relegation can be retained, if desired, by having the bottom side of each conference playoff. They would be replaced by the winner of a Championship Grand Final. (I wouldn't allow P&R in Year 1, to let things settle)

Here's an idea of how it might look, based on current league placings and ability to run as full time clubs in 2019. I'm not a marketing guy, so the conference names are just me spit-balling, but you get the idea.

One thing you'll notice from this structure is there's a lot less games than we currently play. Super League sides currently play 23 regular season games, 7 'Super 8s' games, then potentially a semi and a Grand Final. 30 to 32 games, plus up to 5 in the Cup. In my structure they play 23 league games, then potentially 3 finals games, as well as up to 5 Cup games.

That opens up the schedule for some extra games. Those games could be:

• Additional 'On the Road' rounds, as part of the actual season of course - inter-conference games between say the top 4 from each and bottom 4 from each, other than your Magic opponent, so 3 more regular season games. They could be played as double headers in places like the Midlands, London, South West, Cardiff, Dublin, Edinburgh etc.
• An expanded World Club Series (although we might struggle to get NRL buy-in!)
• International games, with France, New Zealand or Pacific Island nations all possibilities.
• An Origin Series - Lancashire v Yorkshire, with Cumbria v the South or something as a curtain raiser.
• You could also work in an 'All-Star' game, with players from each conference other than the Grand Final sides, as a Grand Final curtain raiser maybe, to further encourage fans of all sides to attend.

--------------------------------------
Championship

At the moment I'm not convinced we have the depth of quality below the full time clubs to have the same structure in the Championship as in the Super League.

I would suggest for the Championship:

• A 12 team league, featuring based on current clubs and current standings:
• Featherstone, Halifax, Batley, Sheffield, Dewsbury, Rochdale, Swinton, Oldham, Bradford, Barrow, Whitehaven, York
• Top 4 playoff, 1v4 and 2v3, followed by promotion final at neutral venue - potentially as Super League Grand Final curtain raiser or part of some other 'event'.
• Bottom side will go down to League 1.
• Fixtures would be made up of:
• Home & away v all (22 games)
• 'Summer Bash' fixture against closest finishing opponent previous year (i.e. relegated side v final loser, losing semi finalists, 5v6, 7v8 etc.) (23 games)
• I would strongly consider reinstating a cup competition for this level if clubs feel 11 home fixtures isn't enough to sustain required revenue levels to compete.

--------------------------------------

League 1

It's really tough to make a call on what to do with League 1 right now, with a some uncertainty surrounding the existing clubs like All Golds and Oxford.

If we assume no change for now, we're left with 12 teams: Doncaster, Keighley, Newcastle, Workington, London Skolars, Hunslet, North Wales, All Golds, Coventry, Oxford, Hemel and South Wales.

The obvious solution is to copy the Championship set up. That would work well in some ways, but with such low central funding - and crowds - at this level, I think it needs a unique solution given the distances travelled. 

I would have a north and a south division, with inter-division play, to help the Southern teams progress still. 

• Sides would play their own division 3 times, with 7 home games, 7 away games and 1 to be decided - it could be neutral for example. (15 games)
• Sides would play once against the other division - 3 home and 3 away, based on odd or even finishing position the year before. (6 games)
• The playoffs would consist of 3 North sides, to reflect their generally stronger capability to compete if promoted, and 2 South sides. The top finishing North side gets a 1st round bye. In the 1st round QF1 sees South 1 hosts North 2, and QF2 sees South 2 hosts North 3. In the 2nd round, SF1 sees North 1 hosts winner of QF1, and SF2 sees loser QF1 hosts winner QF2. In the 3rd round, Loser SF1 hosts winner SF2 for the right to face winner SF1 in the Promotion Final. 
• With Promotion & Relegation to/from the Championship, the make up of the divisions will have to be fluid.

It would look something like this:

--------------------------------------

Entry to the League

New entrants can enter in one of three ways. All have to be approved by a majority of member clubs.

1. Application to join League 1 as a new part-time club. They join the most appropriate division and fixture scheduling is adjusted as appropriate. No club will be forced from the structure. 
2. Application to join Championship as a full-time club. Their will be a requirement to financially compensate the club displaced into League 1. No club will be forced from the structure.
3. Buy-out an existing club at any level, directly replacing that club in the structure.

I would say 1 & 2 type of entrants need to be ratified by kick off of the season before the one where entry would occur, to allow for confirmation on any structural adjustments. Type 3 entrants will need to be ratified by Super League Grand Final day of the season before the one where the entry/change will occur.
--------------------------------------

Anyway, that's my idea, if we have to change things. I actually think you could apply my Super League structure to the NRL too. Let me know your ideas too!

Mark
SLP

System Overload - Should we rethink the Super8s?

As a straightforward question, for me it has a simple answer: No, we should not rethink the Super8s at this point.

It is a little bit more complicated than that of course, but as this is an opinion piece I thought I'd make mine clear from the start.

If you asked me if the Super8s was my preferred league structure I'd have to say no as well, but there is no perfect structure for British Rugby League - us, the fans, won't let one exist.

Let's go through the options we've seen in my lifetime:

• 16 teams, play each team twice (home & away), first past the post wins, 3 relegated
• 14 teams, play each team twice (home & away), first past the post wins, 3 relegated
• 16 teams, play each team twice (home & away), first past the post wins, 2 relegated
• 11 teams, play each team twice (home & away), first past the post wins, none relegated
• 12 teams, play each team twice (home & away), first past the post wins, 1 relegated
• 12 teams, play each team twice (home & away) plus one neutral round, winner comes from 5 team play-offs, 1 potentially relegated
• 14 teams, uneven schedule (15 home & away games each), winner comes from 5 team play-offs, 1 potentially relegated
• 12 teams, uneven schedule (14 home & away games each), winner comes from 5 team play-offs, 1 potentially relegated
• 12 teams, uneven schedule (14 home & away games each), winner comes from 6 team play-offs, 1 relegated
• 12 teams, uneven schedule (13 home & away games each) plus one neutral round, winner comes from 6 team play-offs, 1 relegated
• 14 teams, play each team twice (home & away) plus one neutral round, winner comes from 8 team play-offs, no relegation (3 year license review)
• 12 teams, play each team twice (home & away) plus one neutral round, top 8 play each other once, winner comes from 4 team play-offs, bottom four play top of second tier for place in next year's top tier, 4 potentially relegated

A couple of those were contrived for bigger changes to happen or because teams dropped out of the league for whatever reason, but I'm 31. That's a new league system for every 2.5 years I've been alive.

Broken down though, there's four main types of system, or roughly one for each decade I've lived in. 

• First past the post league with promotion & relegation
• Play-off format with promotion & relegation
• Licensing
• Super8s

None have been universally popular. All have their supporters and their detractors, because all have their strengths and their weaknesses.

Before then play-offs it was argued that too many seasons were done too long before the business end, and the eventual winner was becoming too predictable. That started to become the case with a 5 team play-offs too. Plus, the new teams that came up invariably struggled to compete.

The play-offs can be called contrived or artificial. In their 6 and 8 team versions there was criticism that average teams could win the competition and you didn't have to perform all year to be winners. 

Now, in the Super8s, the system is again being slated for too many dead rubbers, with a couple of teams in each of the 8s not having much left to play for with a number of games left. Unsurprisingly the leading calls for change come from clubs in those positions.

I'm not saying I love the 8s or that they're perfect. There are too many games played by our top players for a start. And I'm no real fan of promotion and relegation as a way to strengthen the top level of sport. But they do smooth out some of the problems seen by other systems. They combine being where you end up on merit with drama and excitement of one of occasions. They provide a rounded test for teams and offer an opportunity for staged progression up the leagues. They're not perfect for anyone, but they're not absolutely bad for anyone either.

What people have to realise though is there is no magic formula. There is no perfect fix. We should allow the system we have to settle in, become the norm, find a pattern, before we make wholesale changes again as a sport to the way our competition is formatted.

To be honest, all this fiddling ignores the the fundamental problem in the sport. There isn't enough money and there aren't enough well-run, well supported clubs.

The challenge I feel is for those clubs with 'dead-rubbers' to come up with inventive ways of selling these games to their fans. The challenge for them then is to be better next year, take more points more consistently off the teams ahead of and around them, so that they don't leave their fans with games at the end of the season that have relatively little hanging on them.

We shouldn't even be thinking about competition structure again until we have at least 16 full-time clubs all reasonably capable of recording double figure wins in a 'Super League' season. What we should, as a sport, be worrying about is getting to that point.

Increasing the cap for full-time second tier clubs is a step in that direction. What would be a better step is open and widespread knowledge sharing between clubs. What works well for one club in increasing revenues should be discussed with other clubs. The clubs should all recognise that they are not competing with each other off-the-field, they need to work together in that area for the good of the league and the sport in this country.

We should also be looking for a way in increase revenue sharing and look at ways of spreading out young talent distribution around the full-time clubs - these might be harder to achieve as they would have more impact on the on-the-field competitiveness of sides. Owners would be more reluctant to share things out in this area. Maybe if they had a chat with some of the club owners in arguably the best run and best off sports league in the world, the NFL, they might get a more rounded picture.

So back to my opening question. No we should not be rethinking the way the Super8s work right now. There are more fundamental issues that we should address that would make the system work how the RFL are looking for it to, but in a fair way, taking into consideration merit as well as excitement and competition.

Thanks as always for reading. Please let us know what you make of it and make sure you listen to our show every week to keep up with the latest from SLP!

Mark
SLP

#RLNewEra - Salary Cap and Central Funding

Last time we covered off how the Challenge Cup will work out in the new structure. Now we're turning our attention to something less clear cut and surely more controversial - heck, its been controversial for long enough already it didn't even need the restructure to stir things up!

The salary cap in the Super League has been a source of much recent debate, with some wanting to scrap it, many wanting to tweak it, and others giving it their full backing to remain as is. Funding is another issue that is central to the whole idea of having a salary cap.

Here's what the RFL New Era Q&A said on these topics:

Q. What changes will be made to the salary caps for Super League and Championship clubs? A. There will be no change to the Super League Salary Cap Regulations in 2015.The Championship Salary Cap regulations are substantially changed for 2015. The major changes to the Regulations are:The move to a “live cap system”. This represents a significant change from the approach taken under previous salary cap regulations, in that compliance is now to be monitored on a ‘live’ and ongoing basis, enabling breaches to be investigated, determined and sanctioned without delay.The increase in the Finite Salary Cap to £1 million. 

Q. How will the financial distributions change to facilitate the return of meaningful and sustainable promotion and relegation? A. The change in structure has seen a significant increase in the central funding available to those clubs relegated from Super League in 2014 and the top clubs in the Championship in 2014. This should allow for more full-time professional clubs in the championship competition in 2015, ensuring that the gap between the teams in the Super League and the Championships is narrower than ever before.

Q. Will the clubs relegated from Super League receive a ‘parachute payment’? A. No, but there is increased annual central funding to those clubs relegated from Super League in 2014.

Q. What changes will be made to the way in which clubs are funded? A. There is a widespread recognition that the return of meaningful and sustainable promotion and relegation between the sport’s two competitions requires significantly increased investment in the Championship. A Championship club receiving a share of central distributions at current levels would have little chance of competing against Super League opposition over a sustained period. The new structure allows for that increased investment and sees the best performing Championship clubs receive up to £750,000 per season from 2015, which will enable them to recruit a competitive squad and invest in the player development pathways needed to achieve sustained success. The top Championship clubs will also receive funding increases at the end of 2014. League 1 clubs will also receive an increase in central distributions and face a more flexible salary cap that allows them to spend an additional £100,000 per season (as long as the total does not exceed 50 per cent of turnover) if they can provide evidence that the spend is manageable.

Here's what Mark makes of all this:

First of all I'm a fan of salary caps in sport as a general position. Some of the most competitive and enjoyable sports leagues have them. They aren't, as some critics will say, a mechanism for bringing the the top clubs down to the level of the bottom clubs. They should in theory even out the talent distribution to a greater or lesser extent depending on how they are organised, so that no one club can stockpile all the best talent and all clubs should have a number of high quality players. Poorer players playing with better players can help improve their game. Closer standards should lead to a greater level of professionalism and intensity. This should then advance the league with the salary cap, with a gradual increase in talent league wide. That should, as seen in other sports leagues outside ours, start to increase interest, sponsorship, revenues and the ability to attract more talent in to the game - so the cap level can increase along the way.

For salary caps to work at their best, though, you really need equal funding at least to give all teams the ability to spend close to the same. Without that, talent and intensity remains unbalanced. Sound familiar?

I would have preferred some increase in the salary cap personally. I'm not talking about a massive lift, I accept at the moment that isn't financially viable. But we can't have a cap that is, although slightly remodelled, effectively the same as it was a decade ago. 

The main reason for me thinking there should be an increase is simply that there are more games to be played next year. Excluding the cup which is hard to guess how many games each team will play and an expanded World Club Challenge, we're still going to see an increase in the average amount of games clubs at all levels will play next season compared to this. In Super League teams on average will play 2 more games than in 2014. It translates to an 8% increase in games, so why not an 8% increase in the cap - that would take it to £1,971,000. 

It strikes me as unfair on clubs (and/or players) that they need to play more games but can't sign more players without forcing pay cuts (or play more times for the same money). 

From the club's perspective, if you have to manage more games on the same cost of playing squad then you will possibly have to lower quality for greater quantity to cover injury, or it may force the greater use of players not really fit, a player safety and welfare issue.

From a player's perspective, I'm not saying that the average Super League player isn't better paid than the average Super League supporter, but if you were told you would possibly have to do more work (however privileged you feel to do that work) for the same money (however good that money is) you probably wouldn't be happy. You may even look for a career change. It could encourage top players away from our league even more than the relatively low cap already might be doing.

I would also introduce a marquee player rule (though I don't like that particular name for it). I've spoken about it on the show and written before on the topic. Having one - or even two or three off-cap players, as long as their is a contributory aspect that encourages home grown players available for England selection (or France, or other home nations of course) - can only be a good development for the sport and the league. I've shown that it shouldn't have a massive skew on competitive balance previously and if you restrict them to clubs/owners who can financially support them then it won't impact the financial sustainability aims of the New Era. 

Regarding the impact on competitive balance, my response to this would be one player doesn't make a team. When Warrington signed Andrew Johns for the season climax in 2005 they didn't win the league, they lost heavily in the first playoff round. Wally Lewis' spell at Wakefield in 1983-84 didn't stop the club from being relegated that year. Outside rugby league, Ballon d'Or holder Cristiano Ronaldo's Portugal couldn't make it out of the 2014 Soccer World Cup group stages and NBA league MVP LeBron James wasn't enough on his own to even win any conference titles with Cleveland, before joining a dream team set up at Miami. Because of the restrictions that will apply, the biggest wallet can only buy so much still, but what it can buy (or retain) might have that little bit more star quality.

Regarding the financial aspect, I would point out you don't have to sign a high salary marquee player if you don't want to or can't afford to. Many teams reportedly already don't pay to the full salary cap limit yet knock off other teams in a pretty close and full of surprises Super League XIX. Rugby League fans by and large, I'm sure, accept the financial realities their club faces and would accept if their club can't afford a big name. Especially if the rule means the league can grow a bit, attract some new investment and sponsorship, which will potentially benefit their team too (as long as they aren't relegated!).

The reintroduction of the 50% revenue clause is a good step in regards sustainability. What isn't clear is if there is a cap on the amount of money owners can contribute from their own pockets - I asked the RFL if there is a limit on that (there is under the Football League's financial fair play regulations for example) but didn't really get an answer. However, if cash rich owners at revenue shy clubs can personally underwrite the cost of marque players (Marwan, I'm thinking of you!) then I don't see a problem with it.

Then, outside Super League, there is a big change. A change that you have to say was needed in a return to promotion and relegation. It should be quite clear I'm not in favour in general of this, but to be fair to this new system, there is a degree of sustainability in the logic of the new and frankly tough pathway that is set for any club to enjoy a spell at the top level. We've seen the odd cup upset over the years where part-time Championship clubs with a maximum allowed spend of £400,000 (if special dispensation was awarded) topple Super League opponents, but to compete over effectively a quarter of a season there would need to be better parity in spending ability, so the increase to £1,000,000 for Championship clubs makes sense. Of course, with the 50% revenue clause all 12 won't be able to spend to that level. That actually sort of leads neatly to funding, because this is where eyebrows for me are raised as to whether anyone has fully thought through this new structure.

Average Championship crowds between 2004 and 2012 (the years I have the best info for) were 1,763. Limited, although at least some again, TV coverage definitely impinges on sponsorship earning potential. The central funding will be a maximum of £750,000 for the foreseeable future (although its £788,000 and £787,000 for Bradford and London for 2015). The sliding scale looks to be £750,000 down to £150,000, with the majority getting closer to £150,000 that £750,000. In short, revenue generation in the second tier will not be great. It seems unrealistic that the 2015 'Qualifiers' will feature anyone outside the two relegated sides and the sides that finish in the top two or three of this season's Championship.

We now have 14 full time clubs and should have at least 16 in 2015. How many more could afford to join that number with the way funding is laid out is questionable. I would also ask how long it is sustainable if the reality we see is little movement between the top two divisions. 

And then if you drop to League 1 - which two clubs will do each year - you find yourself with a salary cap limit of £200,000 and central funding of around £75,000 from the TV deal. Any benefits you've developed from the Championship times will be gone surely. Any youth you've brought through or coaching staff you've developed will be at serious risk of being lost from the club before finishing the job of securing a strong full time future.

It makes me wonder what the objectives really are and whether that has really been understood in this 'whole game approach'. Of course, I'm painting a somewhat worst case scenario, that supports my anti-P&R viewpoint, but remember two clubs will go down to League 1 every year, but no clubs are guaranteed to go up to Super League. When you flip it around like that I wonder if the sustainability, growth and development that the above RFL answers suggest is really in-built in the new system.

I'll talk now briefly about the One Million Pound Game in all this funding. Giving it that title, bestowing it with so much financial significance, really emphasises that there is still a large funding gap. A massive disparity. And if the RFL don't effectively run the 50% clause, like you might argue they didn't effectively police licensing, then we could still see overspending and an arms race element to things that undermines the whole process. Again, this is worst case, and I genuinely don't want this to fall flat on its face in failure. I don't want my prophecies to be realised. I just hope all the ducks are in a row and any lessons of the past have been well and truly learned.

As we're getting this now (and so should fully back it whilst its there!) its kind of irrelevant what I would do. I would say the most successful changes or additions to the top league have been the carefully thought through, planned and prepared ones - the introduction of the Catalan Dragons and the accession of the Widnes Vikings being the prime examples. If I was going to tell you what I would do it would involve greater central planning and much wider sharing of revenues, resources, expertise and information - it is the sport/leagues that is competing with other sports/leagues much more so than it is the teams competing against each other, that is something we should never lose sight of, but that is another much longer story that I will one day write in full I'm sure.

Ultimately, I'm all for giving the structure a chance and I'm all for salary cap regulations. I'm just not sure we've landed on what cap is best for the immediate future or, more importantly, addressed the funding issue yet. That is the key to sustained success, not what system we play under. Someone at the top needs to understand that, someone who can get all the others to buy into that mindset. What use is an outstanding product that you can't afford to package and sell properly.

Hopefully you've enjoyed Mark's thoughts on this part of the New Era announcements. In time we'll add Tom's contribution on this topic. 

We also want your thoughts too - it isn't something we got much input on when we asked on social media, which is surprising given its importance and relevance to the future of our sport. 

Give us your thoughts on Twitter or Facebook (links in the sidebar) and we'll add them in, or why not just leave a comment. And whatever you do, don't forget to keep listening to the show where we'll be filling you in on any changes and updates in the New Era every week on Super League Pod!

#RLNewEra - The Challenge Cup

There are a number are individual areas to look at in the new structure of rugby league. We aim between now and the end of the season to bring you a comprehensive look into all of these.

We're going to start with one that is fully confirmed and finalised, no outstanding questions or gaps to be filled in. That is the Challenge Cup.

This was the RFL Q&A on this topic:

Q. How will the new structure impact on the Challenge Cup?
A. The 2015 Challenge Cup will be aligned to the new competition structure with the main change being that the eight clubs contesting the Super League play-offs in 2014 (and Super 8s from 2015 onwards) will enter the Challenge Cup at the sixth round stage.
The 14 League 1 teams will enter at the third round stage, joining the 10 survivors from the 40 clubs invited to participate from the first round (12 ties)
The 12 Championship clubs will then enter in Round 4, joining the 12 third round winners (12 ties).
The bottom four Super League teams enter in Round 5, joining the 12 fourth round winners (eight ties).
The top eight Super League teams enter in Round 6, joining the eight fifth round winners (eight ties)
The sixth round is followed by the quarter-finals, semi-finals and final at Wembley Stadium.

On the face of it, this means the Cup will have one more round than we are used to but the top clubs will face one less game in their run to Wembley. That at least is the simplified version of what the change means, clearly the rounds have been reshuffled a lot for this change.

Mark's opinion is that this is a good change. The reason being, the new league structure increases the amount of games most teams will play but this change potentially reduces the amount of games our to teams will play - let's face it, the trophy hasn't been won by a side who aren't one of the best for some time. The top teams feature the top players, the top players feature in the internationals, the more opportunity they have for rest in the season the better for home nation international prospects.

Tom's opinion was different. He felt this removed some of the magic of the Cup. The amateur and League 1 sides will miss out on opportunities to play against these top sides as they will already likely have been knocked out by the second tier clubs before the chance to be drawn against the best was reached.

We also had a bit of interaction on Twitter about this when the new structure was announced.

London Faithful ‏@LondonFaithful @SuperLeaguePod I think they're just making it easier for the top teams to get to the final.

AntMack ‏@AntMack76 @SuperLeaguePod just 3 games to get to the Final? Devalues the Challenge Cup a bit for me. Seems like its going to be even more weighted in favour of the bigger clubs.

Thats the opinions covered. Lets look at some facts and figures to see what they might tell us.

First of all, we'll start at the entry level with the clubs outside the professional and semi-professional ranks. From now on, 40 invited clubs from the amateur, student and wider European scene will be invited to Round 1 of the Cup -  in recent years its been 44 teams, with a few also getting to join in Rounds 2 or 3 in different years. So yes, there is an entry level reduction of potential for real 'magic of the cup' ties.

Ultimately, in the most recent past 13 other clubs would get to join the 23 semi-professional Championship and Championship 1 clubs in Round 3, making up 36% of the round and seeing a slim chance to get to Round 4 where Super League clubs joined. Now 10 will get to Round 3, where the 14 League 1 clubs will join, a group that is likely to feature some famous names of former Cup winners (Swinton, Hunslet, Rochdale and Barrow all should feature in 2015 Round 3 for example). There will be less of them but they now make up 42% of the round, so in theory more chance for the other clubs to get a favourable draw to move on to Round 4.

The only thing then is Round 4 doesn't mean Super League clubs. It does however mean some more big names of previous winners (Bradford, Leigh and Halifax in 2015 for example). This round is made up of 50% of teams from the round before, so there is still a good chance of some romance with the lower tier clubs facing a reasonable chance of a favourable draw.

Then in Round 5 four Super League clubs enter. They only make up 25% of the round, so 75% of clubs still in from the Championship and below do face a chance of a magic day out at one of the top clubs in Round 6, and at least 4 will do so. That means at least 25% of Round 6 teams will be drawn from outside Super League, so a team like Keighley or Leigh still face a reasonable chance of making it to the quarter finals.

Tom is clearly right in that the path for the teams outside the semi-pro ranks to play a dream tie at a Wigan, Leeds or St Helens is even tougher now with the extra games they must face (although not impossible, if amateur clubs are drawn against each other through the first 5 rounds, for one to make it to Round 6). 

It isn't conclusive though that there couldn't be magic ties featuring the Championship and potentially League 1 clubs by the time the very top sides enter the competition (if League 1 clubs get the most favourable draws, in theory six could make Round 5 and three Round 6 - it could even be one in the quarters where they would likely face a top top club).

Now, what about the business end where the winners are likely to come from? Well the first fact to note is the last time a winner came from outside the previous year's top 8 clubs was the 2010 Challenge Cup, won by Warrington who ended 2009 in 10th place - the caveat to that would have to be the Warrington club were the reigning Cup holders. Before that you have to go back to the 1986 Castleford team that finished 12th the previous championship season. Basically, it shows that the Cup winner has been likely to come from that top 8 the year before under the old format.

What about the old Round 5, that is sort of the new Round 6? Well, members of the previous year's top 8 teams have made up Round 5 spots 99 of 120 times over the last 15 seasons (82%). And, of those 21 times the top 8 side didn't make Round 5, on 16 occasions they only didn't do so because they lost to another top 8 team in Round 4 (76% of the time). In the other Round 4 games where a top 8 side played a non-top 8 side the average score was 49-11 to the top 8 side. 

Whilst they do have to play one game less to potentially win the Cup, this evidence doesn't really suggest that extra game disadvantaged the top 8 sides over the recent past.

There you have it. What the RFL say, what SLP say, what some of our listeners have said and what the stats say. Get in touch with your say and hear more of our discussion on the New Era in Episode 28 of Super League Pod.