How can you get a better quality super league if you make it smaller therefore reducing the genepool?. For instance a young person who is good at every sport he does is deciding which one to choose. If there are 16 teams in super league he stands a better chance in that sport,but as there are only twelve he decides to chance his arm at cricket instead because he has more chance of success, and that in my opinion is why we can't attract people to play.

No you didn't dream (well not about that

)
It was a separate competition for the top 8 clubs in the old first division (there was something similar for the lower leagues as well) and the finals day was at Old Trafford.
This was replaced with the Grand Final when we moved to the summer era.

Way back, before I started watching, the competition had the top of the old first division and some clubs from the second tier all in the same end of season comp.

There has been a Grand Final to decide the champions of rugby league in this country for 75 of the 126 years of the sport, with only 46 years where the champions were the league leaders.

So this sport had sense for only 46 years.

I see no reason to have a set number. That is completely arbitrary.

The number should be based on what is financially viable and what is in the long term interests of the sport.

You could still run this system with 14 or 16 teams.

The issue is always around the money. The SL teams want as much money as they can get for as little effort as possible. Hence the move to 12 teams.
Reducing the size of the competition has never been a system for growing a market.

If it was then the USSR would have been the standard bear for development and all sports would be a 1 team franchise.

If you had 16 teams, you'd have to have London, one French team and the Wolfpack. You'd then have to ditch promotion and relegation for a decade at least, to let the league take shape and give all teams a fair crack of the whip. Bottom line is there just isn't enough money floating around in RL.