Conferences

[Perth Red]

With expansion eventually happening do you think we will end up with a conference system. Maybe something like 4 divisions in two conferences.


Top 2 from each division goes through to finals

National conference

North division
Cowboys
Broncos
Warriors
Titans
Brothers

South division
Raiders
Pirates
Storm
Rams
Orcas

NSW conference

Coastal division
Knights
Sea eagles
Dragons
Sharks
Roosters


City division
Panthers
Eels
Wests
Souths
Bulldogs

 

[Hello, I'm The Doctor]

I would support this just to have the first round of the finals a division play off between the top 2 teams in each group (Maybe have the very top 2 teams go through to the secong week and have some wildcard teams).

Just imagine how good that would be for the rivalries. Every final series starts with a sudden death game between Knights and Manly or Brisbane and Cowboys. Then feed that into a regular finals series.

One thing id like to see change is the pointless matches in the finals. I hate the games where teams can lose and still go through. Sure give the top teams an advantage, but put them straight through to the second week. Dont have any of this teams losing n the finals and playing on bullshit.

Edit: Warriors would have to be in the division with NZ2, Melbourne and Perth. Switch them with the Raiders.

 

[The Great Dane]

With expansion eventually happening do you think we will end up with a conference system. Maybe something like 4 divisions in two conferences.


Top 2 from each division goes through to finals

National conference

North division
Cowboys
Broncos
Warriors
Titans
Brothers

South division
Raiders
Pirates
Storm
Rams
Orcas

NSW conference

Coastal division
Knights
Sea eagles
Dragons
Sharks
Roosters


City division
Panthers
Eels
Wests
Souths
Bulldogs

Edit: Warriors would have to be in the division with NZ2, Melbourne and Perth. Switch them with the Raiders.

If we were going to go down the route of conferences, the conferences would have to look a little different for it to work and swapping the Warriors with the Raiders using this conference system would create more problems then it fixes.

I agree that the NZ teams need to be in the same conference, but putting either in the same conference as Perth (and even Adelaide some would argue) has it's problems, mainly travel. Personally what I'd do to fix this problem is swap the Orcas with the Brothers/B2 and make a couple of rounds in the season cross conference rivalry rounds to patch up some of the missed rivalry games. This would make the B2 vs Broncos game a huge once yearly event instead of a smaller more common event, which IMO would make this rivalry develop more quickly and more dynamic.

Alternatively I might swap the Orcas with the Dragons and the Warriors with the Knights, but again this would probably create more problems then it fixed.

Anyway on another note I remember having a conversation with a friend a long time ago where he suggested that the SuperLeague and the ARL should have reunited to make a competition like the NFL, one conference being the SuperLeague and the other being the ARL and ending in a 'Superbowl' game between the two competitions. Had that have been possible things may be very different now and arguably a lot better.

Personally I think we are a very long way off conferences, unless there's a sudden boom in the popularity of RL in the RSA, NZ or other similar countries that leads to large very lucrative expansion opportunities in the countries. Apart from that very, very unlikely situation I can't see it happening in the next 30 or so years.

 

[docbrown]

It all depends on which teams get included in the future expansion but divisions are integral to keeping the back end of a 20 team comp season entertaining.

Definitely focus on basing these around the traditional rivalries - Queensland, Western Sydney, Eastern Sydney, NSW/ACT regional cities etc.

I would suggest though that in a 20 team comp we need to look at a minimum 10 team finals format as 8 would mean more teams are eliminated from finals contention earlier and that leads to more worthless games in the last few weeks.

As such I'd forget about the conference and look at something like 5 divisions of 4 teams each -

North - 4 Queensland teams - Broncos, Titans, Cowboys, Brisbane 2
West - 4 Western Sydney teams - Eels, Panthers, Bulldogs, Tigers
East - 4 Eastern Sydney teams - Sea Eagles, Rabbitohs, Roosters, Sharks
Central - 4 region NSW/ACT teams - Raiders, Knights, Dragons (illawarra) & (c/c) Bears
South - the 4 non NSW-QLD teams - Pirates, Storm, Warriors & NZ 2

This does mean WA needs to travel to NZ twice each year and each NZ team needs to travel to WA once but in the overall scheme of travel in the competiton it can be smartly accomodated (say WA plays in Sydney then the next week in NZ) to break it into a 2-leg trip.

Week 1 could be 5 finals matches determining the divisonal winners then the 5 remaining teams could play a top 5 format perhaps. The beauty of the division system is that you'll have 5 teams in Week 2 that are well spread around Australia & New Zealand which equates to large national audiences.

Or alternatively have 6 week 1 finals - 5 divisonal finals + 1 wildcard final for the teams ranked the next highest on the overall league ladder (effectively teams 11 & 12). That leaves 6 winners for the rest of the finals - say top 2 ranked teams from the overall league ladder then go through to Week 3 and the next 4 play off in Week 2.

So

Week 1 - Divisional Finals
Week 2 - Semi Finals
Week 3 - Preliminary Finals
Week 4 - Grand Final

Under that system you've got an extra 2 week 1 finals games to sell to television.

 

[Hello, I'm The Doctor]

Im just wondering if the teams could ever agree on conferences or if the NRL would just make an executive call.

But you right, if it gets to a 20 team comp conferences would be the only way to keep it interesting.

I think youd have to crunch some numbers based on past seasons just to see how few wins teams could have and still make it. like could a team with 8 wins and 14 loses ever make it, and would that be a bad look. Thats the only real downside i could see.

 

[CC_Roosters]

Would be easy to have 3 x 6 team divisions if we go to 18 teams. Play everyone in your div home and away then every other team once for 22 games, has a nice balance to it. I would not have Sydney only conferences as the travel differences between divisions just would not be fair.

 

[docbrown]

Just thinking about this again, if in the scenario -

North - 4 Queensland teams - Broncos, Titans, Cowboys, Brisbane 2
West - 4 Western Sydney teams - Eels, Panthers, Bulldogs, Tigers
East - 4 Eastern Sydney teams - Sea Eagles, Rabbitohs, Roosters, Sharks
Central - 4 region NSW/ACT teams - Raiders, Knights, Dragons (illawarra) & (c/c) Bears
South - the 4 non NSW-QLD teams - Pirates, Storm, Warriors & NZ 2

You could look at 3 divisional regular season rivalry rounds -

Broncos vs Brisbane 2
Cowboys vs Titans
Bulldogs vs Eels
Panthers vs Tigers
Rabbitohs vs Roosters
Sea Eagles vs Sharks
Knights vs Bears
Raiders vs Dragons
Warriors vs NZ2
Pirates vs Storm

Broncos vs Cowboys
Brisbane 2 vs Titans
Eels vs Panthers
Bulldogs vs Tigers
Rabbitohs vs Sea Eagles
Roosters vs Sharks
Knights vs Dragons
Raiders vs Bears
Storm vs Warriors
Pirates vs NZ2

Broncos vs Titans
Cowboys vs Brisbane 2
Eels vs Tigers
Bulldogs vs Panthers
Rabbitohs vs Sharks
Sea Eagles vs Roosters
Knights vs Raiders
Dragons vs Bears
Storm vs NZ2
Pirates vs Warriors

Obviously these games would be played a second time each season (spread through the rest of the season) but these 3 rounds could become big drawcards in their own right as they help determine the fate of the finals.

 

[Dogs Of War]

Im just wondering if the teams could ever agree on conferences or if the NRL would just make an executive call.

But you right, if it gets to a 20 team comp conferences would be the only way to keep it interesting.

I think youd have to crunch some numbers based on past seasons just to see how few wins teams could have and still make it. like could a team with 8 wins and 14 loses ever make it, and would that be a bad look. Thats the only real downside i could see.

Only once in NFL history has a division ever had a winner with a losing record. Either way, it rewards the other divisions as you would suspect all the wildcard teams would come from them.

Anyway, before focusing on 20 teams, we really should just focus on the format for 18 teams, and that is where the game will be next. No way would they add 4 teams at once again. I like the idea of 3x6 team divisions. Just getting the makeup of them right. With nine sydney teams, I would expect them to be split evenly but it doesn't make sense for a western division, as you would prefer to have the Bulldogs, Eels, Panthers and Tigers in the one division.

So a quick go at 3 divisions

Bulldogs
Eels
Tigers
Panthers
Raiders
Perth

Saints
Sharks
Brisbane 2
Broncos
Cowboys
Titans

Roosters
Rabbitohs
Sea Eagles
Warriors
Knights
Storm

 

[docbrown]

Either way, it rewards the other divisions as you would suspect all the wildcard teams would come from them.

I guess it depends if we want the % system or top 2 teams from each division playoff format or some other variation.

Anyway, before focusing on 20 teams, we really should just focus on the format for 18 teams, and that is where the game will be next.

True though I guess it's hard given that the location of the next 2 teams are still not 100% certain.

Here's a question - if 3 divisions of 6 is unworkable - which given the current composition of teams may very well be - should we look at a 2 x 5 + 2 x 4 format or is that too revolutionary a jump for the old timers?

South - WA, VIC, ACT, NZ
North - 4 QLD teams
East - Newcastle + 4 Eastern Sydney clubs (so 5 NSW clubs)
West - 5 other Sydney clubs (5 NSW clubs)

or

South - WA, VIC, ACT, NZ
North - 3 QLD teams, Newcastle, Central Coast
West - 4 Western Sydney clubs
East - 5 other Sydney clubs

or

South - VIC, ACT, NZ, Dragons
North- 4 QLD teams
East - Newcastle, Central Coast + 3 Eastern Sydney clubs
West - 5 other Sydney clubs

etc

 

[Hello, I'm The Doctor]

Only once in NFL history has a division ever had a winner with a losing record. Either way, it rewards the other divisions as you would suspect all the wildcard teams would come from them.

Didnt think of that. good point.

Anyway, before focusing on 20 teams, we really should just focus on the format for 18 teams, and that is where the game will be next. No way would they add 4 teams at once again.

I doubt they would add 4 teams at once, but i imagine it would be more likely the brought in divisions going from 18 to 20 than 16 to 18. A conference system would be all about creating a new finals format so we dont just have 12 teams missing the finals.

I like the idea of 3x6 team divisions. Just getting the makeup of them right. With nine sydney teams, I would expect them to be split evenly but it doesn't make sense for a western division, as you would prefer to have the Bulldogs, Eels, Panthers and Tigers in the one division.

I just dont see how a 3 conference finals system would work. Id love to hear if you had an idea, but im still partial to 4 (5 groups would only have 4 teams each, too easy to top that.)

 

[Hello, I'm The Doctor]

Ok, i think ive figured out my favourite conference finals system (I get nerdy when im bored)...

So have 4 devisions of 5 teams. The highest placed team in each division is the division champion and the 2nd and 3rd placed teams play off for a challenger spot (i guess youd call it the wlid card or something).

So the first week is 2nd at home to 3rd in every devision (so 4 games). the winner of this goes on to challenge the first place team for a spot in the finals (thats another 4 games).

From here you could split it in a few different ways, but a winner from a devision plays off against another division finalist for a place in the Grand Final.

I like this system because:

• there are no second chances if you lose, but it does reward success during the season.
  
  The devision playoffs would create awesome rivalries because every year it is the other teams in your own division that ends your season if you get knocked out.
  
  This system would eventually end the debate we have every year about the minor premiers deserving the premiership more but the finals being unfair
  
  We'd have 11 vital sudden death finals games every year, instead of the current 7 sudden deaths and 2 dead rubbers

What do you think?

 

[flippikat]

Just thinking about this again, if in the scenario -

North - 4 Queensland teams - Broncos, Titans, Cowboys, Brisbane 2
West - 4 Western Sydney teams - Eels, Panthers, Bulldogs, Tigers
East - 4 Eastern Sydney teams - Sea Eagles, Rabbitohs, Roosters, Sharks
Central - 4 region NSW/ACT teams - Raiders, Knights, Dragons (illawarra) & (c/c) Bears
South - the 4 non NSW-QLD teams - Pirates, Storm, Warriors & NZ 2

These are the most logical for a 20-team competition, once Brisbane2, Perth, NZ2 & Central Coast are added

However the West & East conferences have far less travel for their divisional match-ups, because they're Sydney only divisions.

North is better, but having Brisbane, Brisbane2 & Gold Coast in the same division is still pretty kind to those teams.

It's just too hard to draw up a travel-balanced set of divisions without casting-off a local derby somewhere. Maybe it's another argument for a Sydney team or two to relocate (joke joke)

 

[Perth Red]

Yes fta covg and travel impact means you have to mix the national teams in with Sydney/Brisbane or it won't be fair.

Dogs of wars 3 divisions isn't bad

 

[Springs]

If we get to 20 teams again one day I'd like to see a two conference system.

Conference A - Sydney, South Sydney, Wests Tigers, Canterbury, Parramatta, Manly, Cronulla, Penrith, St George Illawarra, Central Coast

Conference B - Brisbane, Brisbane2, Gold Coast, North Queensland, Newcastle, Canberra, Melbourne, West Coast, NZ, NZ2

Then they would split again
Roosters, Rabbitohs, Sea Eagles, Sharks, Bears
Bulldogs, Panthers, Eels, Tigers, Dragons
Broncos, Brisbane2, Titans, Cowboys, Knights
Storm, Pirates, Warriors, Raiders, NZ2

Ideally I'd have a Sydney team fold and move Newcastle into the NSW division.
Each team would play the teams in their group twice and every other team once, plus an extra game for Rivalry Round. Top 4 of each conference go into a similar finals system we have now.

 

[Hello, I'm The Doctor]

If we get to 20 teams again one day I'd like to see a two conference system.

Conference A - Sydney, South Sydney, Wests Tigers, Canterbury, Parramatta, Manly, Cronulla, Penrith, St George Illawarra, Central Coast

Conference B - Brisbane, Brisbane2, Gold Coast, North Queensland, Newcastle, Canberra, Melbourne, West Coast, NZ, NZ2

Then they would split again
Roosters, Rabbitohs, Sea Eagles, Sharks, Bears
Bulldogs, Panthers, Eels, Tigers, Dragons
Broncos, Brisbane2, Titans, Cowboys, Knights
Storm, Pirates, Warriors, Raiders, NZ2

Ideally I'd have a Sydney team fold and move Newcastle into the NSW division.
Each team would play the teams in their group twice and every other team once, plus an extra game for Rivalry Round. Top 4 of each conference go into a similar finals system we have now.

This is the bit that i disagree with. The most important part of a conference system is the finals system.

The problem we would face if we had the current finals system is that after only a few weeks, we would already know the 3 or 4 team bottom teams could not make the finals.

i do like those conferences you suggested, but imagine this:

the team that comes first in a conference gets the first week off. The teams that came second and third play off for a challenger spot.

The winner from that game plays against the team in first, and the winner from that goes into a top 4 with the 3 other division winners.

My favourite thing about this system is that every single year, the first 2 weeks of the finals would be derby matches against teams in your own conference. Just imagine the rivalries after a few years.

 

[I Bleed Maroon]

It's a shame about those time zones, because if we're gonna do conferencing, it would've been interesting to unify the NRL and Superleague. An Aussie or NZ team vs. a popular British team like Leeds fighting for the Premiership would be a marketing floodgate and would really help International Rugby League.

 

[Joker's Wild]

If we get to 20 teams again one day I'd like to see a two conference system.

Conference A - Sydney, South Sydney, Wests Tigers, Canterbury, Parramatta, Manly, Cronulla, Penrith, St George Illawarra, Central Coast

Conference B - Brisbane, Brisbane2, Gold Coast, North Queensland, Newcastle, Canberra, Melbourne, West Coast, NZ, NZ2

Then they would split again
Roosters, Rabbitohs, Sea Eagles, Sharks, Bears
Bulldogs, Panthers, Eels, Tigers, Dragons
Broncos, Brisbane2, Titans, Cowboys, Knights
Storm, Pirates, Warriors, Raiders, NZ2

Ideally I'd have a Sydney team fold and move Newcastle into the NSW division.
Each team would play the teams in their group twice and every other team once, plus an extra game for Rivalry Round. Top 4 of each conference go into a similar finals system we have now.

The traveling cost differential between those 2 conferences would be astronomical

There is no way the clubs would go for that

 

[shiznit]

Yeah... It would be incredibly tough for the NZ sides and Perth.

The difference in travel miles for the non-sydney teams and the sydney teams would make it really unfair.

It would make it tough for recruitment also.... You would have to give decent size cap concessions to the non-sydney teams so they can pay extra to attract players with that massive travel schedule.

 

[Springs]

The traveling cost differential between those 2 conferences would be astronomical

There is no way the clubs would go for that

The travelling cost difference between Sydney clubs and others would already be huge. The draw would hardly be any different than it is now. The draw would be every team plays each other once and the 4 other teams in their group twice, plus one more game for rivalry round. For a team like Parramatta for example, they would play every team once then Bulldogs, Panthers, Tigers, Dragons twice (which they already do play twice), plus a rivalry game.
For a team like Brisbane, it would be play every team once, then all QLD teams twice (plus Knights maybe), plus rivalry round game. This figures out to be 12 home games, four more games in QLD/Newcastle plus 8 interstate/international games like everyone else.
The only difference between the conferences would be the NSW conference would be four more inter-Sydney games, while the other conference would be 4 more travelling games, which is honestly not that much more different than we have now.
At the moment we have Warriors travelling to Australia every second game, while Sydney teams get around 16 or so games in Sydney, around the same amount they would have in this conference system.

The problem we would face if we had the current finals system is that after only a few weeks, we would already know the 3 or 4 team bottom teams could not make the finals.

It would be hardly any different than we have now :?
And after a few weeks, any team can still make the finals if they win enough games.
And your system still had this problem. Unless you meant top 3 in each group which means a 12 team finals series :crazy:

 

[Springs]

Yeah... It would be incredibly tough for the NZ sides and Perth.

The difference in travel miles for the non-sydney teams and the sydney teams would make it really unfair.

It would make it tough for recruitment also.... You would have to give decent size cap concessions to the non-sydney teams so they can pay extra to attract players with that massive travel schedule.

What massive travel schedule?
The Warriors for example would play:
1 game vs Roosters, Rabbitohs, Sea Eagles, Bears, Sharks, Eels, Bulldogs, Tigers, Dragons, Panthers, Broncos, Brisbane2, Cowboys, Titans, Knights
2 games vs Storm, Pirates, Raiders, NZ2
1 game Rivalry Round
12 home games, 11 trips to Australia including Perth, Melbourne, Canberra and ~5 Sydney games, 1 trip to Wellington/Christchurch

This year they had:
12 home games (1 in Wellington), 12 trips to Australia including Brisbane, Melbourne, Canberra, Wollongong, Melbourne, Perth and 6 Sydney games.

So essentially it will be the same as this year was.

While Parramatta for example had 17 games in Sydney this year, plus they took a home game to Mudgee. Their away trips were Canberra, Brisbane, Newcastle, Gold Coast, Melbourne and Wollongong.

I fail to see how my draw has any more difference between travelling times of Sydney teams and interstate teams than there is this year.