There seems to be mixed opinions.
Firstly I understand people are worried about player burnout but if it were 16 teams that would mean 15 matches, with 2/16 teams playing an extra four matches. The thing is though THAT IS PART OF THE GAME! You have to a have a great manager who can juggle his team to do the best in Cup and League. It's about maximising all your players, certainly if you are near the top of NRL and thus want to do "the double". You've got to juggle the team to give the best possible chance of winning both. Or alternatively you could play the same team and see how far you can push them. IT adds an extra dimension to both league and cup this way. I know at the start of Super League some teams target the Cup over the League, or the League over the Cup, although most obviously target both.
Secondly I personally don't know how good the likes of Queensland Cup and NSW and NZ teams are. Would they be competitive enough? Obviously the NRL clubs with always go into the match as favourites but there needs to be a few shocks! Although that can come from lower NRL teams beating higher ones to be honest. (sorry iturner I've just read you post now)
Oh and what about costs?? Would a team in North Queensland be able to fly to Melbourne or Auckland. Again I don't really know how much money these clubs have. Then again in the Challenge Cup we have teams from five countries playing including Russia and France, and Moscow Locomotive and Vereya Bears have flown over to Britain to play. French teams Pia, Villeneuve etc too.
The 1998 Final at Old Wembley is generally regarded as the biggest upset in British rugby league as Sheffield Eagles, formed in 1984, beat Wigan Warriors despite odds of 33-1! More recently Toulouse (when they were semi-pro) got to the Semi-Final in 2005 and of course Catalans Dragons became the first non-English side to get to the Final in 2007.
Some more positives that could be achieved if the competition is seem as legitimate and worthy of winning. A decent cup, players who want to win, the governing bodys who treat it as equally to the league competition:
* A second final - This would be the same as the Grand Final but probably a month- 6 weeks apart. It could be in Brisbane every year or could rotate with Sydney getting the Cup Final one year then the Grand Final the next.
* More television money/exposure - Super League is on Sky Sports, the Challenge Cup is on BBC One. Obviously the cup would have separate television rights to the NRL. You could have a different channel bidding for the cup rights, but either way you'd be getting much more money. If it were the 16 NRL teams then that would mean 15 matches which would certainly suit a terrestrial channel more than a pay-per-view one.
* Knockout rugby - Is a totally different ball game! Teams really do go for it in a way that I don't see in league rugby. It's do or die. You could say the same about individual NRL matches but hey that's just for points, whereas this is to get to the next round. Teams will put everything on the line, even the possibility of a thrashing, to get the win. In this respect it's like Play-Off rugby, not individual round rugby.
* A second team of Champions - Everyone likes a winners. I don't know the ins and outs of when individual teams realised they hadn't a hope in hell of getting to the Grand Final but you got to feel sorry for fans of North Queensland Cowboys, Cronulla, Melbourne, Canterbury who are languishing at the bottom of the league. Near the end of the season they probably thought, whats really the point now? Super League recently had relegation which meant there was a battle at the top of the table, and a battle the bottom, it was something for these teams to play for. Having a cup competition gives all teams another chance to have a successful season. Yes they might have finished 13th in NRL, but if Canterbury won the Cup then there fans and players would be going wild, just like St George when they won the Grand Final.
Teams, players and fans should be given the right to win TWO things in a season, not just one.
