Could too many teams dilute the NRLs rivalry factor???

[alien]

Ultimately though, for proper expansion we need Sydney to be cut to 5 teams max, and maybe even down to 4.

roosters to perth

 

[Perth Red]

6 Sydney teams played each other this last round for a grand total of 30k fans watching. This notion of derbies and crowd boosts in Sydney is a myth. There's a handful of decent crowds (25k plus) a season, rest are no better than stand alone city teams in reality.

 

[carcharias]

6 Sydney teams played each other this last round for a grand total of 30k fans watching. This notion of derbies and crowd boosts in Sydney is a myth. There's a handful of decent crowds (25k plus) a season, rest are no better than stand alone city teams in reality.

Stop it
You are so clueless to this it is actually sad .

Eg
Let's do a comparison- same weather and time slot ( I don't count mon nights / shithouse concept)
Sharks v Tigers at shark park
V
Sharks v dragons at shark park

One is considered a local derby
Which game would get the most people?

 

[adamkungl]

People talk about conferences now - it's pretty pointless, since there are enough rounds to play every team once and then half again. It fixes a problem which doesn't exist... yet.

However, when we expand to 18 or 20 teams across a wider geographical area it is something that obviously needs to be looked at.

I think we should be playing less club games. Conferences should be considered to maximise crowds and minimise travel costs.

My ideal comp structure for right now is 18 teams and 22 (17 rounds against each other team and 5 repeat high drawing games).
Eg. For the Roosters the 5 extra games could be Souths, Dogs, Dragons, Manly, Brisbane or something.

Despite it possibly being tricky to accommodate every teams ideal draw here, I'd lean away from true conferencing at this stage. With more teams or less rounds it would become necessary.

I find it amazing that next year the Super Rugby comp is going to contain teams from 5 countries. Impressive if they can pull it off cohesively, while we still deliberate about Perth.

 

[adamkungl]

As for expansion, I see it as the following:

Firstly, no current teams need to die unless they can not keep up with top grade Rugby League any more. That said - NRL should not slow down progress to support a dwindling team. Expansion means legitimate growth, not chopping and transplanting. Expansion teams should be self supporting without decimating other teams.

Perth - 100% needs to be the 17th team.

Teams 18-20 - ready now. a fairly even call between:

Central Coast : Despite what Sydney haters think, it is a city in it's own right and would compete on numbers with any other new team. It is one of the biggest league supporting populations in Australia unrepresented by a local team, and the failure of Norths move remains an injustice.

Brisbane2 : Seemingly an inevitability for good reason. I am not a fan of a Broncos clone, but a team representing maybe Brisbane South to Ipswich would put forward a good case. In future there is probably scope for even further expansion around Brisbane.

NZ2 : Needs to happen for obvious reasons. Either in Wellington or South Island. To leave room for further expansion I'd avoid creating a wide 'Southern' team.

2 entries in 2017 with 2 more to follow 4-5 years after.

Looking forward... these are obvious next steps but still need work both within the game and out.

Adelaide: Needs to follow what Perth did over the last 10 years. Right now there is no point plonking a team in a city that doesn't give a shit.

Rockhampton/Central QLD : As population grows this will become a stronger option - obviously has the Rugby League support

Brisbane3 : Almost an inevitability.

NZ3 : ^ as above. 3 teams across NZ - Auckland, Wellington, South Island. Need to keep growing the game there before this is a possibility though.

For now, I don't entertain ideas of third world island countries entering top grade NRL. The economic imbalance would be far too much.

 

[RoosTah]

As for expansion, I see it as the following:

Firstly, no current teams need to die unless they can not keep up with top grade Rugby League any more. That said - NRL should not slow down progress to support a dwindling team. Expansion means legitimate growth, not chopping and transplanting. Expansion teams should be self supporting without decimating other teams.

Perth - 100% needs to be the 17th team.

Teams 18-20 - ready now. a fairly even call between:

Central Coast : Despite what Sydney haters think, it is a city in it's own right and would compete on numbers with any other new team. It is one of the biggest league supporting populations in Australia unrepresented by a local team, and the failure of Norths move remains an injustice.

Brisbane2 : Seemingly an inevitability for good reason. I am not a fan of a Broncos clone, but a team representing maybe Brisbane South to Ipswich would put forward a good case. In future there is probably scope for even further expansion around Brisbane.

NZ2 : Needs to happen for obvious reasons. Either in Wellington or South Island. To leave room for further expansion I'd avoid creating a wide 'Southern' team.

2 entries in 2017 with 2 more to follow 4-5 years after.

Looking forward... these are obvious next steps but still need work both within the game and out.

Adelaide: Needs to follow what Perth did over the last 10 years. Right now there is no point plonking a team in a city that doesn't give a shit.

Rockhampton/Central QLD : As population grows this will become a stronger option - obviously has the Rugby League support

Brisbane3 : Almost an inevitability.

NZ3 : ^ as above. 3 teams across NZ - Auckland, Wellington, South Island. Need to keep growing the game there before this is a possibility though.

For now, I don't entertain ideas of third world island countries entering top grade NRL. The economic imbalance would be far too much.

Agree almost completely with all that. The Central Coast is an interesting one though isn't it? 300,000 people, but spread over an area the size of Sydney and they haven't been turning up in numbers to the games we've taken there, so I do wonder about the overall appetite for the game now.

 

[alien]

The Central Coast is an interesting one though isn't it? 300,000 people, but spread over an area the size of Sydney and they haven't been turning up in numbers to the games we've taken there, so I do wonder about the overall appetite for the game now.

maybe because they want a fulltime team there, and not just watch other teams play there every now and again

 

[mongoose]

No way to Central Coast unless a Sydney team relocates or dies.

 

[Ojlovednicole]

Traditionally, I've never been in favour of the conference Idea.

Now I have come around to it.

FACT: the game is sydneycentric. Deny all you like but with 9 teams that evidence is clear. Deal with it.

There are alot of old hard nuts that miss the appeal of the local derbies of the Old NSWRL. This will bring that old school local feel back into it whilst keeping it national at finals time.

The game will benefit with more intra QLD rivalries and more dogs/souths and dogs/parra games.

No one really cares about a Nth Qld v Cronulla game here in Sydney. Why subject the comp to small crowds.


Tjhere are two conditions for me that need to happen.

1. The idea is only explored upon expansion to 18 teams. Even split 9/9. The comp is ok as is, but this will be an issue moreso with Perth and Brisbane2.

2. There is still the opportunity for an all sydney grand final. A good finals system will need to be in place. Perhaps even an expanded one.

3. As per Bunniesman, there will need to be a little sumpin' sumpin' for the non sydney conference to make it appealing for players to play. 10% salary cap concession? More slice of an NRL grant? The way i see it now is a player of Tyrone Peachey ilk would be hard pressed leaving Parra for Canberra for the same money that Parra would offer, due to transport etc.

 

[Diesel]

I don't mind conferences but if they go with Sydney and others, the Sydney conference has the advantage of not travelling out of their own city as often as the other non-Sydney conference which is a distinctive advantage. So why not reward the other conference with more chances to make the finals like a 5-3 split... Rediculous concept but a Sydney centric concept just goes to show how unfair it is

 

[alien]

I don't mind conferences but if they go with Sydney and others, the Sydney conference has the advantage of not travelling out of their own city as often as the other non-Sydney conference which is a distinctive advantage. So why not reward the other conference with more chances to make the finals like a 5-3 split... Rediculous concept but a Sydney centric concept just goes to show how unfair it is

but the sydney conference teams would only play the non-sydney conference team during the finals, right? so during the normal season, there is no advantage because they don't play against each other

 

[Bulldog Force]

No. More teams means more rivalries. Look at the Titans... they've had a rivalry with the Broncos. More teams will have more rivalries based on location - Central Coast will have one with Newcastle... you can see it from here.

 

[siv]

but the sydney conference teams would only play the non-sydney conference team during the finals, right? so during the normal season, there is no advantage because they don't play against each other

No not if done right

18 teams means 17 games where everyone plays each other once

Then you play your conference again for 8 more games

So you play your conference home and away over 1 year

And you play the opposite conference home and away over 2 years

It would still be a Top 8 as per normal. Not a US style conference finals system

Basically similar system that was used in 1995

 

[Perth Red]

25 games is too many. Maybe three sixes are better. Many inter Sydney games have ordinary crowds so just keep it to the games that can actually draw. Wests v Cronulla etc is hardly going to draw many than say Wests v Melbourne.

Mix the 6 confetences between Sydney and Qland clubs and Others. Makes the travel etc fairer and means fta doesn't just show the Sydney conference

Eg

Conf1
Manly
Newcastle
Cronulla
Brisbane
Brisbane2
Warriors

Conf2
Wests
Parra
Penrith
Perth
Bulldogs
Melbourne

Conf 3
Cowboys
Gold Coast
Roosters
Sts
Souths
Canberra

Play your conference home and away plus other 12 once. 22 round comp. top 2 from each conference plus two wild cards (best win/loss).

 

[Bulldog Force]

Would people stop talking about conferences FFS? It's NEVER going to happen. This is NOT America.

 

[RoosTah]

In a comp with less than 20 teams and all within almost one country, a conference system is simply unnecessary.

If we get to 18 or 20 teams within the next decade, I think the obvious solution is just to play each team only once per year, with home ground advantage being alternated year to year.

I personally don't like the current system of playing half the teams twice anyway, and with all the talk of player fatigue and the NRL Finals, Origin and now internationals being worth the bulk of the TV contract, there ought to be a case for trimming the competition a little. Indeed, by reducing the games it might actually lead to better attendances due to the scarcity principle.

 

[The Engineers Room]

Would people stop talking about conferences FFS? It's NEVER going to happen. This is NOT America.

The appeal of the conference system is that rivals will play each other twice a year every year.

 

[RoosTah]

The appeal of the conference system is that rivals will play each other twice a year every year.

But it's also a system that necessarily makes the competition less fair depending on the form of some teams and strength of one conference over another.

The current conference system in Super Rugby makes sense because it reduces travel time and focuses on more revue generating intra-conferance battles, but it's also not terribly fair.

There's no need for the NRL to employ such a system unless it grows to the point where there's another 8-12 teams spread through Queensland, NZ and the rest of Aus.