NFL style Division System in the NRL

[unforgiven]

The problem that we have with the system now as is (as likely to occur as the problem you are worrying about) is that one team could win every regular season game they play and every other team could have the exact same win loss record as the other teams and thus only win, what, half their games. Then a team with only 10 wins (same as the team that came last) could go on to win the comp - against the team that won all their games. So really the present system is like a bomb waiting to explode. That so unfair. Lets go to minor premiers takes all EPL style.

Except that, wait, finals rate well and draw good crowds....so stuff that. And stuff your hypothetic fear mongering. There may be good arguments against going to conferences but yours isn't one of them.

You do understand if that were to occur no team with a better record misses the final, plus they won 50% of their games, we occasionally have that now. The problem with divisions is it is possible for a team with a far inferior record to make the finals. All teams finish on 10 wins and some making it and some missing out is not the same as a team on 10 wins missing the finals and a team on 3 making it. which is possible under the system you are pushing for.

 

[T-Boon]

The problem with divisions is it is possible for a team with a far inferior record to make the finals. All teams finish on 10 wins and some making it and some missing out is not the same as a team on 10 wins missing the finals and a team on 3 making it. which is possible under the system you are pushing for.

The problem with the system now is it is possible for a team with a far inferior record to make the GF and then win the GF against a team with a perfect record. Its just not fair on that team or the other teams that the number 8 team beat in the semi final.
We really need to rip up the whole idea of a semi final and GF system and go with a EPL system. Or we can recognise that semis and GFs are awesome so who gives a damn if there is a little bit of "thats not fair" in the system.
If conferences equal big crowds then do it.

 

[unforgiven]

The problem with the system now is it is possible for a team with a far inferior record to make the GF and then win the GF against a team with a perfect record. Its just not fair on that team or the other teams that the number 8 team beat in the semi final.
We really need to rip up the whole idea of a semi final and GF system and go with a EPL system. Or we can recognise that semis and GFs are awesome so who gives a damn if there is a little bit of "thats not fair" in the system.
If conferences equal big crowds then do it.

The team with the inferior record has to beat the team with the better record in finals football. That's not the case in a divisional system. They make the finals over better quality sides just because they are in an inferior division.

 

[siv]

The problem with the system now is it is possible for a team with a far inferior record to make the GF and then win the GF against a team with a perfect record. Its just not fair on that team or the other teams that the number 8 team beat in the semi final.
We really need to rip up the whole idea of a semi final and GF system and go with a EPL system. Or we can recognise that semis and GFs are awesome so who gives a damn if there is a little bit of "thats not fair" in the system.
If conferences equal big crowds then do it.

Maybe Minor Premiers shpuld have the right to challemge the GF winner if they lose or are knocked out in the finals

 

[siv]

Anyway a finals system is always a seeded knockout

I prefer that any team team in.7th or 8th must beat everyone rlse before they can play the #1 team

WEEK 1
1 - bye
2 - bye
3 v 4 (winner ranked 3)
5 v 8 (loser out - high placed winner ranked 5)
6 v 7 (loser out)

WEEK 2
1 v 2 ( winner ranked 1)
3 v 6 (loser out - higher ranked winner is 3)
4 v 5 (loser out)

WEEK 3
1 v 4
2 v 3 (losers out)

WEEK 4
1 v 2

 

[alien]

You want a fair comp . . . increase the teams to 20 and they play each other once.

Yep.

 

[big hit!]

id do it like this. split it into 4 divisions and split via region. so each division gets a QLD or NZ team. Then each gets one of Canberra, Melbourne, Newcastle and St George Illawarra. Then 4 West Sydney teams. then the remaining Sydney teams.

Division 1
Broncos
St George
Wests
Souths


Division 2
Cowboys
Newcastle
Parra
Roosters

Division 3
Gold Coast
Canberra
Panthers
Manly

Division 4
Warriors
Melbourne
Bulldogs
Cronulla

You play Your division at home and away so that's 6 games.
You play everyone else once, and these games alternate each year so one year you get the home game the next year you get away.
You then play 18 games. Bye weeks for Origin.

So for arguments sake the sharks would have a schedule of

9 home games vs Warriors, Melbourne, Dogs, Panthers ,Gold Coast, Parra, Newcastle, Souths, Dragons
9 Away games vs Warriors, Melbourne, Dogs, Manly, Canberra, Roosters, Cowboys , Broncos , Wests

the drawback of this is less derbies. but anyway.

those groups (can we f**k off the division and conference references - there is no old leagues' or college associations basis for any groupings in the NRL) make no sense from a regional, rivalry or historical aspect. You may as well have drawn them out of a hat FIFA world cup style.

 

[big hit!]

Because the way you look at these things is to look at the worst possible outcome. Yes it is highly unlikely but the dumb system you guys are pushing has the potential for the team with the equal worse record in the competition to make the finals. Its actually possible under this system for a side to win 7 games from 26 and win the entire competition. Why would we implement a system that has that possibility? even if it is extremely unlikely.

Please explain to me why we should be happy with a system that allows a 7 and 19 team to win the comp?

I also don't care if it has never happened in the NFL, I am as big an NFL fan as anyone here. I actively support an NFL team as much as I support my NRL team, but that does not mean that we should adopt everything they do. I used to like the idea conferences and the rivalries they create, AFCN conference games are intense, but the disadvantages far out way the advantages for the NRL. The NFL have no choice as there are more teams than games played so they are hamstrung and use an inferior model to most other sporting leagues.

only two NFL teams have ever won their div and qualified for the post-season with a record below .500 - Seattle 2010 (7-9) & Carolina 2014 (7-8-1). that's in over 80 years of competition.

furthermore, the NRL is a 24-match per club season, not 26. and under this 4-group format, the season would be shorter - 18-match per club. That would be the biggest drawback of it, not your fear of a 3-15 club making the finals.

 

[myrrh ken]

If the only benefit of the conferences is eliminating undeserving finalists, then leave as it is and return to top 5 finalists. I never understood how half the bloody comp gets a crack.Its all about $$ I guess.

5 was the best as it gave the minor premiers a reward:

1 - bye, straight to major semi
2 v 3 - winner to major semi, loser to minor semi
4 v 5 - winner to minor semi, loser gooone

Major semi - winner to gf, loser to prelim final
Minor semi - winner to prelim final, loser gooone

Prelim final - winner to gf, loser gooone

 

[Russell Crowe's Band]

those groups (can we f**k off the division and conference references - there is no old leagues' or college associations basis for any groupings in the NRL) make no sense from a regional, rivalry or historical aspect. You may as well have drawn them out of a hat FIFA world cup style.

i did
that's so you have kinda even travel across the league

 

[T-Boon]

If the only benefit of the conferences is eliminating undeserving finalists, then leave as it is and return to top 5 finalists. I never understood how half the bloody comp gets a crack.Its all about $$ I guess.

5 was the best as it gave the minor premiers a reward:

5 is better in terms of a reflection of the teams in the comp that deserve to be given a chance but the main argument for 8 teams is that the TV ratings and crowds for finals are higher and so TV wants it.

The main appeal of conferences is increased rivalries and therefore TV ratings and crowds.

 

[T-Boon]

furthermore, the NRL is a 24-match per club season, not 26. and under this 4-group format, the season would be shorter - 18-match per club. That would be the biggest drawback of it, not your fear of a 3-15 club making the finals.

Maybe you could play the teams in your division 3 times taking it up to 21 rounds.

 

[myrrh ken]

The main appeal of conferences is increased rivalries and therefore TV ratings and crowds.

Rivalries change over time. Lock them in now and you'll lose the ones that develop naturally.

eg Our traditional rivals are St George, then we had more intense rivalries with Manly. Now its probably Melbourne.

 

[ed-grimley]

I hate this idea. How can you be the best in the comp when you only play certain teams. That's why I think the Super Bowl is stupid- champions of 2 comps play off...

Or certain teams once and others twice.

 

[T-Boon]

Rivalries change over time. Lock them in now and you'll lose the ones that develop naturally.

eg Our traditional rivals are St George, then we had more intense rivalries with Manly. Now its probably Melbourne.

Good point, though I think if you want big crowds then you want your rivalries to be easily identifiable by the fans. You mix that old, long term feud with the fact you are also fighting for one final spot with that rival and people are just going to be more keyed up for it and more likely to attend.

 

[siv]

Maybe just expand to 24 teams and play each othe once over 23 rounds

That should cover all of the dots

 

[alien]

Maybe just expand to 24 teams and play each othe once over 23 rounds

That should cover all of the dots

There is not enough talent for 24 teams. The quality of the comp would be much weaker. 18 teams would be fine (bring in Perth and Adelaide).

 

[POPEYE]

I hate the fact that NFL and NRL are mentioned in the same sentence . . . what does watching f**king grass grow and risking heart failure from over excitement have in common

 

[POPEYE]

There is not enough talent for 24 teams. The quality of the comp would be much weaker. 18 teams would be fine (bring in Perth and Adelaide).

20 teams . . . one more from Qld and one bivouacked here from ESL . . . 19 rounds

 

[juro]

The team with the inferior record has to beat the team with the better record in finals football. That's not the case in a divisional system. They make the finals over better quality sides just because they are in an inferior division.

What about the fairness of the current comp. You have 16 teams playing 24 games. They play 9 teams twice and 6 teams once.

So what if you have a team play all the weaker teams twice, scraping to messy wins in 13 out of those 18 games, then getting smashed by the 6 strongest teams by 50+. They finish the season in 8th place on 30 points with a minus 200 F/A.

Meanwhile, you have another team play the strongest 9 teams twice and the 6 weakest teams once. They smash the 6 weak teams by 50+ and battle to close results but only win 6 of their 18 games. They finish on 28 points with plus 200 F/A, but miss out on the finals.

Sure, I'm picking an extreme scenario, but so are you. Surely you realise that our current system is anything but perfect!