So far there have been 10 games between last year's top 6 and bottom 5 + Widnes in place of Crusaders. (Leaving the mid-table KuH clubs out of it)

The 'better' teams have won 10 from 10, scoring 424 points, with only 134 in reply. I spent part of last week saying that cutting SL to 10 teams was stupid on the VT, so I'm kind of here with my tail between my legs.

Is SL now too predictable, with too much deadwood? Looking at my own motives, do I actually like the deadwood as it gives us a good shot a winning some games? Probably 'yes'.

OT - I thought Deadwood was overrated.

The top clubs are far stronger than the bottom clubs - simple. The top clubs have spent top dollar on their teams whilst other teams have not. The top clubs can afford to do this. Other teams can't or choose not to do so. The gap is growing all the time.

I assume by deadwood you're looking @ Wakefield/Widnes/Salford? Maybe London? Let's face it, we would no doubt be part of this group of 'deadwood' had we not consistently spent to the max - thanks to the personal efforts of the board. As we know, this can't continue indefinitely.

I'd also say - there would be a strong backlash to two sides from Hull making up a 10 team league.
So I'm all in favour of this 'deadwood' group - as too, P & R. Promotion and relegation would almost force these sides into action tho' and make them stronger. However, relegation could spell financial meltdown to a club. But then so does losing a license. Pros and cons both ways but (imo) licenses have a detrimental effect on the standard of the lower ranked sides. It's all about where they are in 3 years time vs how well they're doing in the current season. Thus, competing isn't always the be all and end all to some clubs.

Even in a league of 10 somebody has to be at the top and somebody has to be at the bottom.

Does the bottom team then become deadwood?

I made that very point on the VT the other day.

I don't mind that there are winners and losers, that's the point of competitive sport - it's when their identities become very predictable and are generally confirmed in the first halfs of matches that I worry.

When the average score when top 6 play bottom 6 is 42-13, that doesn't generate much excitement for those games, IMO.

It's nothing new, I guess. At least we're seeing some mobility, with Catalans (wooden spoon in 2010), Warrington (long-time under achievers), Huddersfield (perenially rubbish either side of the millenium) making strides and Bradford dropping away.

Personally I believe that the competition has got less competitive since the start of Super League, even in the old 16 team Division One there were not as many one sided games as we get in the current set up.

There are pro's and con's for the argument of more or less teams, I think the main factor those in charge consider when making this decision is what makes the most money and is most interesting to the public, sponsors, and Sky TV. Clearly they feel our current format is the best as this is the direction the game has gone in recent years, who knows what will happen in 5 or 10 years time

problem with super league is simply down to the gap between the top teams and the lower teams being too large..... safe to say that widnes will get smoked by everyone this year, or it certainly looks like it anyways.......
you only have to look at the handicap betting on superleague from last week.... at one point wire where -26 and leeds -24...that just doesnt happen in the nrl..most games are off scratch, -2, -4 etc etc.....