Conferences

[flippikat]

If there were two NZ teams, surely it's fair for Perth to only travel there once a year though?

Mammoth trip and about 5 time zones difference...

I think the best way to schedule an NZ team going to Perth (or vice versa) is for them to play a game on the east coast the week before or after.

If the NRL still has byes when that happens, they can help too.

Another thought is perhaps scheduling a 3-week "road trip", where the Pirates play Souths in Sydney on a Friday, then the Warriors the following Sunday (a long break to adjust the body-clocks, plus Warriors always seem to have Sunday home games), followed by perhaps the Sharks on Saturday night the weekend after that, before returning to Perth for a late Sunday afternoon home game the next weekend.

It just needs some considered scheduling.

 

[Perth Red]

yeh that would help but I do find with the Farce when they diasppear for three weeks to SA they disappear from the media a bit so needs to be considered not too have 4 weeks between home games. A Saturday game in Sydney followed by a Friday game in NZ then home for a game the following Sunday would work ok, as I said the netballl girls do it regularly and seem to cope!!

Having said that you would hope given the travel a perth team would have plus the sell out crowd of a Warriors game in Perth they would not play Warriors away and just play them at home each season. Ideally we would not play Cowboys, Warriors, Newcastle or Gold Coast away to reduce travel fatigue. Also maybe if games are to be played in NT and SA then it could be against Perth. Less travel for Perth and Perth arent going to have a big following in Sydney so nothing lost for those teams taking games to new cities.

I'd love to see a game against one of the big clubs v Perth taken to South Africa in a few years!

 

[applesauce]

Problem with that, likes happen in NFL some years, you get weak team in playoffs and great teams missing out depending on the strength of your conference.

Makes divisional games more important though and keeps significant interest in the majority of teams for the WHOLE season, reducing the chance of dud games in a fixed schedule.

 

[docbrown]

Makes divisional games more important though and keeps significant interest in the majority of teams for the WHOLE season, reducing the chance of dud games in a fixed schedule.

Exactly. The rivalry games take on a whole new meaning when there's a strong chance of knocking out your opponent.

The other way of tackling the whole 'good teams don't make the finals' issue is to allow slots for wild cards.

Say if it was 20 team comp with 4 divisions of 5 teams you could have a Top 10 or 12 finals series with the best 2 teams from each division + 2 to 4 wildcards. Or some derivation of that.

 

[Loose Cannon]

Exactly. The rivalry games take on a whole new meaning when there's a strong chance of knocking out your opponent.

The other way of tackling the whole 'good teams don't make the finals' issue is to allow slots for wild cards.

Say if it was 20 team comp with 4 divisions of 5 teams you could have a Top 10 or 12 finals series with the best 2 teams from each division + 2 to 4 wildcards. Or some derivation of that.

I don't want to see anymore teams qualify for the playoffs. I think 8/16 (50%) rewards mediocrity. Until we get to 22, I personally don't like the idea of a top 10. To me, a first 40% qualification is plenty. Otherwise the first 6 months of the competition is redundant.

We are stuck with 8 now, and don't let the clubs vote on it, they are always going to vote for the easier option.

 

[DURRRHURRR]

I don't want to see anymore teams qualify for the playoffs. I think 8/16 (50%) rewards mediocrity. Until we get to 22, I personally don't like the idea of a top 10. To me, a first 40% qualification is plenty. Otherwise the first 6 months of the competition is redundant.

We are stuck with 8 now, and don't let the clubs vote on it, they are always going to vote for the easier option.

Im not a fan of half the teams making the finals, but given that we have don't have all teams playing each other twice and teams losing players over origin I think it gives some buffer for good teams that are hurt by a harsh schedule to still make the finals

Make the draw fair and I think top 6 is preferable, top 2 get the first week off, make all games eliminations

 

[pHyR3]

Im not a fan of half the teams making the finals, but given that we have don't have all teams playing each other twice and teams losing players over origin I think it gives some buffer for good teams that are hurt by a harsh schedule to still make the finals

Make the draw fair and I think top 6 is preferable, top 2 get the first week off, make all games eliminations

Current system seems to be working great in my opinion. Adequately gives the top 4 (a hard proposition over 26 rounds) a solid advantage but you can still have miracle runs like the eels, warriors or dogs which create enormous excitement.

When its a 18 comp, leave it as a top 8. 20 or 22 is when you'd start to examine a top 10 finals. But that's at least 10 years in the future so we can worry about it then.

 

[Hello, I'm The Doctor]

Makes divisional games more important though and keeps significant interest in the majority of teams for the WHOLE season, reducing the chance of dud games in a fixed schedule.

Absolutely, this is the main reason i support conferences...

Fringe finalists are already decided by a luck-of-the-draw situation; for and against around the middle of the table favours the teams that were lucky enough to play random game against teams that had a really off day.

Finals based on conferences would keep most of the season interesting and would provide opportunity those unlikely fairytale runs. (and if a team go in that didnt deserve to be there, theyd probably lose in the first round anyway)

Id like to see them go to 20 teams, 4 conferences of 5.
- top 3 from each group play off aganst each other (2sn V 3rd, winner Vs 1st)
- then, after that is decided, the winners of each conference come together for a top 4 format.

This would assure the first 8 finals games were playoffs between massive rivals (every year adding to the intra-conference rivalries) and the GF would be a diverse combination of teams ( GF would usually be sydney team vs non-sydeny team.)

 

[docbrown]

When its a 18 comp, leave it as a top 8. 20 or 22 is when you'd start to examine a top 10 finals. But that's at least 10 years in the future so we can worry about it then.

Yeah I'm not saying to consider it until we got to a 20 team comp.

The reason being is that if you have a Top 8 from 20 it means that more teams are eliminated from finals contention sooner so you usually have more games with poorer attendances.

At the moment we see 4-8 eliminated teams gates dip as we approach the last 6-8 rounds depending on the season. Imagine when it becomes 8-12 eliminated teams over 8-12 rounds.

In 1995 the Cowboys were finally eliminated mathematically after Round 16 but realistically they had no chance after Round 10.

For what its worth--

Round 16 - 3 teams out
Round 17 - 4 teams out
Round 18 - 6 teams out
Round 19 - 6 teams out
Round 20 - 8 teams out
Round 21 - 9 teams out

But -- when you consider that for about 5 weeks prior to being knocked out mathematically that the only way these teams could make the finals was for them to win every game and for all the sides above them to loose every game that's a significant percentage of the competition with nothing to play for.

If we had 4 divisions you could have something like the following:

last round - final Divisional rivalry round (effectively Divisional Finals)

Week 1- Elimination Finals
Division Winners to have week off
4 games of Division Runner-Ups vs Wild Cards

Week 2 - Semi Finals
4 games Division Winners vs Elimination Finals Winners

Week 3 - Preliminary Finals
2 games Semi Final Winners vs other Semi Final Winners

Week 4 - Grand Final

All games based on overall table rank (highest placed team vs lowest placed team), no 2nd chances & division winners get rewarded with week 1 off only.

 

[Hello, I'm The Doctor]

Id like to see them go to 20 teams, 4 conferences of 5.
- top 3 from each group play off aganst each other (2sn V 3rd, winner Vs 1st)
- then, after that is decided, the winners of each conference come together for a top 4 format.

I still stand by this "5 to a conference: 3rd v 2nd, winner v 1st > four conference champions play off for Grand Final spots", but i wonder if this conference makeup could develop its own grandfinal feel...

As in, have Championship shields that each conference winner takes home and gets to laud over the rest for the whole next year. Maybe have:

- East Sydney Conference = JJ Giltinan Shield (as a reference to the 1908 NSWRL comp)
- West Sydney Conference = Cumberland Shield (as a reference to the 1908-09 team that pioneered RL in West Sydney)
- Expansion Conference (NZ, Vic, WA) = A.H. Baskerville Shield (the bloke that put together the NZ All Golds)
- Queensland Conference = ????? (maybe one of their Founding Fathers; i dont know their history too well)

We'd bring back a lot of the local rivalry that the National expansion seems to have diluted....

 

[Hello, I'm The Doctor]

last round - final Divisional rivalry round (effectively Divisional Finals)

Week 1- Elimination Finals
Division Winners to have week off
4 games of Division Runner-Ups vs Wild Cards

Week 2 - Semi Finals
4 games Division Winners vs Elimination Finals Winners

Week 3 - Preliminary Finals
2 games Semi Final Winners vs other Semi Final Winners

Week 4 - Grand Final

All games based on overall table rank (highest placed team vs lowest placed team), no 2nd chances & division winners get rewarded with week 1 off only.

Heeey!!! I never saw this post. This is exactly what i was trying to say (great minds and all that ;-))....

The sentiment is perfect; it assures rivalry matchups in every game of the first 2 weeks, and by the time the matchup are two random opponents the stakes are high enough that the even itself will draw attention.

(Doc, am i right to say this would be for a 20 team comp with (effectively) a final series of 12??)

 

[CC_Roosters]

Current system seems to be working great in my opinion. Adequately gives the top 4 (a hard proposition over 26 rounds) a solid advantage but you can still have miracle runs like the eels, warriors or dogs which create enormous excitement.

When its a 18 comp, leave it as a top 8. 20 or 22 is when you'd start to examine a top 10 finals. But that's at least 10 years in the future so we can worry about it then.

Forget finals as they are now, if the league ever gets to 20 teams i want to see it split permanently into 2 divisions called say premiership and championship with promotion and relegation between them. Have a 4 team semi final and then grand final in the premier division only.

Otherwise in general i think a conference system is manageable. Workable configurations i can see with expansion is a 3x6 model. Which would involve home and away within the conf. and everyone else once for a total of 22 games. Finish the season with the top 2 from each conference into a 6 team finals series.

 

[Pears]

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.

All hail the mightly Glasgow Rangers!!! WE ARE THE PEOPLE!!!!!!!! FTP!

 

[Last Week]

One thing I'm not in favor of with a finals system based on conferences, is that we aren't going to see a Grand Final with two locals in it. We're not going to see Brisbane V Nth Qld, no Souths v Easts, no Parra v Bulldogs, etc etc. Which I think is something very important. In saying that, I don't think we need to ensure that there are division based finals or qualifiers as I feel it could over do it.

I don't think conferences are required until we get to 20 teams. Possibly they could be used now and for 18 teams, but only for draw purposes.

Once we get to 20 teams, keeping it simple I think is best.

4 divisions of 5. Winner of each division gets the first week off. 2nd hosts 3rd of an opposing division, with the winners going through to play the 1st place teams.

Continual straight knock out. 1st of each division gets the advantage of having the first week off and keeps the possibility of a local derby in the GF.

 

[Hello, I'm The Doctor]

One thing I'm not in favor of with a finals system based on conferences, is that we aren't going to see a Grand Final with two locals in it. We're not going to see Brisbane V Nth Qld, no Souths v Easts, no Parra v Bulldogs, etc etc. Which I think is something very important. In saying that, I don't think we need to ensure that there are division based finals or qualifiers as I feel it could over do it.

I don't think conferences are required until we get to 20 teams. Possibly they could be used now and for 18 teams, but only for draw purposes.

Once we get to 20 teams, keeping it simple I think is best.

4 divisions of 5. Winner of each division gets the first week off. 2nd hosts 3rd of an opposing division, with the winners going through to play the 1st place teams.

Continual straight knock out. 1st of each division gets the advantage of having the first week off and keeps the possibility of a local derby in the GF.

I disagree on this...

The GF is a big enough event to draw interest on its own regardless of the match-up, and if we ensure it is 2 random teams playing off on that stage, it will be the beginning of a lot of new rivalries.

As well as that, a division-based finals series would ensure that EVERY game of the first 2 weeks would be a massive rivalry (that would only get bigger each year)

Plus, even if clubs dont win the Premiership, they do get bragging rights for winning that conference over those 4 other teams (again, greater rivalry).

As for "over doing it", it would effectively be a once a year event. Origin have a pretty limited variety and it is going gangbusters.

 

[Last Week]

I disagree on this...

The GF is a big enough event to draw interest on its own regardless of the match-up, and if we ensure it is 2 random teams playing off on that stage, it will be the beginning of a lot of new rivalries.

I know the GF is big enough, but it's the exact opposite of random when you're immediately ruling out the possibility of playing half the teams that qualify.

As well as that, a division-based finals series would ensure that EVERY game of the first 2 weeks would be a massive rivalry (that would only get bigger each year)

I know that, but the divisional play offs would be the third game of the year between those two teams. I can see it taking away the prestige of said matches.

Plus, even if clubs dont win the Premiership, they do get bragging rights for winning that conference over those 4 other teams (again, greater rivalry).

That's fair.

As for "over doing it", it would effectively be a once a year event. Origin have a pretty limited variety and it is going gangbusters.

Don't think it's fair to compare it to a representative match.

I don't hate docbrown's idea. I actually like the idea behind it. I just don't want to rule out the possibility of seeing a local derby grand final.

My suggestion would be this.

Week 1- Elimination Finals
Division Winners to have week off
4 games of Division Runner-Ups vs Wild Cards
* To determine who plays who, I would seed the division runners up by their overall rankings.
* I would then determine the 4 highest ranked teams who didn't qualify as wild cards.
* The highest ranked division runner up would play the lowest ranked wild card. Second highest ranked divisional runner up would play the second lowest ranked wild card. Etc etc.
*The only flaw I can see here which I think happens in the NFL occasionally, is that it's possible that a divisional runner up could end up hosting a wild card team with a better record.

Week 2 - Semi Finals
4 games Division Winners vs Elimination Finals Winners
*Again I would seed the divisional winners by their over all rankings.
* The highest seeded divisional winner would play the lowest ranked winner of the Week 1 finals.


Week 3 - Preliminary Finals
2 games Semi Final Winners vs other Semi Final Winners
*Finally, same process. Highest ranked team still in contention hosts the lowest ranked team.

Week 4 - Grand Final

Now, I can see similar complaints as with the McIntire system about not having a clear path as to who you're going to play. But one thing the McIntire system did well was reward the teams that finished 1st and 2nd. And I believe that seeded finals in this format, similar to the NFL, does just that. Which I think is important in a 20 team competition. They get to play the lower ranked teams on the way to GF and also are guaranteed to host their matches before the GF.

 

[Wellsy4HullFC]

If they're going to change the format, go with a world format for the play offs. It would increase the price of the NRL deal in Europe by making it more relevant to fans up here as well as sponsorship rights.

4 x 5 groups in NRL:
NSW Division:
NSW North - Newcastle Knights, Manly Sea Eagles, Canterbury Bulldogs, Penrith Panthers, Parramatta Eels.
NSW South - South Sydney Rabbitohs, Sydney Roosters, Wests Tigers, St George Illawarra Dragons, Cronulla Sharks.
Oceania Division:
North - Brisbane Broncos, Brisbane Bombers, Gold Coast Titans, NQ Cowboys, PNG Hunters.
South - Canberra Raiders, Melbourne Storm, Auckland Warriors, Wellington Orcas, West Coast Pirates

Everyone in your division once and in your group twice (15 games).

Top two into World Club Championship with top four of SL. Two groups of 6. Play each other once (extra home game to highest ranked side). 2nd and 3rd into quarters, 1st bye to semis.

3rd and 4th into Intercontinental Championship with 5th-8th from SL. Same format.

5th into National Cup with NSW and QLD Cup winners. One group of six. Top two in final.

Mid season international break to give time to organise fixtures.

Rugby league - the world game.

 

[applesauce]

We just need 3 by 6 team divisions (assuming expansion). Play 5 other teams in your division home and away. Play one of the remaining divisions away and the third division at home (swap H and A each year). Total of 22 rounds.

Winner and runner up of the 3 divisions get into the top 8 regardless of record. Winners get 1-2-3 based on record. Runners up get 4-5-6 based on record and spots 7 and 8 are teams regardless of division that get in based on their record.

That way finals are not limited by potential match ups but a divisional system can make the most of rivalries and get home and away for the best drawing teams.