A Numbers Game: What the First 12 Rounds Tells Us About the RFPL Future

The Russian domestic league came into existence after the fall of the Soviet Union, and has undergone many changes to become the competition we see today, the Russian Football Premier League (RFPL). Name and sponsorship changes of the league itself, the number of points awarded for a win, the place a team needs to finish in order to earn European football, the number of games played coupled with the number of teams in the league, the number of relegated teams, and the type of relegation format have been among these changes in particular years.

After analyzing these yearly changes, the league tables of years past were studied to see if any patterns could be related to the current season, 2016/17. To relate to this year’s competition of 16 teams playing a 30 game season where wins are worth three points, any previous years where this was not the case had to be disregarded.

The first season in 1992 had 20 teams in the top flight, while 1993, 1996, and 1997 had 18. The 1994 season had 16 teams, but wins were worth two points for this season. 2011/12 also had 16 teams, but this season, the league was 44 games due to Russia’s transition to a schedule running from autumn to spring starting the following season. This left me with league tables for 1995, 1998-2010, and 2012/13-2015/16.

But there was an issue within these three eras: each had a different relegation format. Only one team was relegated in 1995, while two were relegated in each season from 1998-2010. 2012/13-2015/16 have the bottom two teams (15^th and 16^th) get outright relegated, while 13^th and 14^th go to the relegation playoffs against two teams from the second tier, the FNL. The 13^th placed RFPL team plays the 4^th placed FNL team, while the 14^th placed RFPL team plays the 3^rd placed FNL team. These matches are home and home played over two legs, with the winners earning a place in the following year’s RFPL.

Due to these differences in relegation formats (and also potential yearly changes regarding European qualification), it is conceivable (although cannot be said for certain one way or the other) that certain teams might play differently once their place for the RFPL or European football is clinched for the following year. As a result, the data had to be further divided into the three eras of 1995, 1998-2010, and 2012/13-2015/16. Here are the average point totals for each place in these three eras:

Now that we know the average point totals for applicable seasons, the concept of sample size must briefly be addressed because it will be touched on later as well. Look at the 1995 season, the top six point totals are much higher than the averages from 1998-2010, and most importantly, 2012/2013-2015/2016. This matters because numbers compiled over longer periods of time will yield much more accurate results.

With these averages in mind, we can see how they relate to the 2016/17 season. One sixth and one third of the way through this season, the league table is as follows:

The numbers line up nicely to find where the teams are on pace to finish at these particular points in the season. But remember, five and ten games is a small sample size, which means we will have a better gauge of where the teams stand and their skill level when they play more games.

Nearly every team was on pace for a different point total after five games when compared to ten. Not surprisingly, after five games, some of these on pace numbers were close to unrealistic. There was almost no way Spartak was going to finish with 78 points or that Krylia was going to finish with 12 points out of a maximum of 90. This is why sample size matters.

To get a relatable gauge for this season when compared to the data, the “On pace” category should be compared to the average point totals for each place in the table from 2012/13-2015/16. Both Spartak and Zenit are on pace for 66 points, which is what first place averaged out to, while CSKA is on pace for 63 points, higher than the second place average of 62.

Can these three examples keep their form over the next five games? It would appear likelier thanks to the bigger sample size. For Spartak, after ten games when compared to five, all signs point to it being more realistic that they can stay on pace for 66 points when compared to their initial pace of 78.

The season is continuing to take shape, and now we obviously have a better look at every team and their skill level. These point averages at the conclusion of the season should be viewed as such, a reasonable attempt to gauge where teams will finish. And only a reasonable attempt because each season is different; other factors can come into play, such as how European qualification is achieved for the following season, or domestic cup success and European play this season, meaning the potential for differing numbers of total games played for each team.

Factoring this in, there is no reason to be alarmed if, as an example, you are a Rostov or Krasnodar supporter. After five games, both were six points behind first place, while the same can be said after ten games (even though both are now on pace to finish with 48 points, an increase of six when compared to the first five games of each).

Another example is Rubin Kazan, who have picked it up after having a rough first five games with no wins and a pace of 18 points. They have since won three of their next five, and have doubled their pace to finish with a speculated 36 points as of the conclusion of week ten.

Going into week 13, it is clear that no matter the club, there is still time to move up or down the table, but consistency is what will determine where the teams will finish. The point averages tell the story, and almost certainly, the terms “overachieve” and “underachieve” will be done away with at some point.