3 Conference 18 Team League & Expansion

[The Great Dane]

Agreed, rabbits and chooks, despise each other, sharks and dragons aren't much better, and parra wants to be BFFs with Penrith, but we all think they are missing a chromosone, and want nothing to do with pawwa.
Not to mention the northern eagles merger fk me, that was doomed from the start, see the better ideas have been tigers/wests and dragon/Illawarra
The distance works someway, now if the chooks and parra merged and souths/penrith
These work on some level but geographicaly are a mess,
Gold coast and Hunter Mariners was a great one that never happened, Easts and Balmain would have been the best idea out of the lot, and a Canterbury/Wests merger would have sealed south western sydney better than what the tigers are doing now

personally, I see zero reason for any more mergers

The original SL proposal wasn't for the Sydney clubs to merge, it was for them to own shares of new "super clubs" that would be largely independently operated by News, while they (the Sydney clubs) would continue to exist as independent entities in a second tier NSW competition which would also be broadcast.

In other words the suburban Sydney clubs would have effectively become the feeder clubs for the new super clubs, but they'd also own shares of those super clubs which intern would help fund their operations in the new lower tier competition.

The original plan for SL was basically the best possible set up for RL in this country, it would have been perfect, except for one thing, it was going to be controlled by a broadcaster that would have put their interests before the sports.

 

[Perth Red]

Better than fly off the seat of your pants twiggy forest

a strange choice of comparisons. Twiggy’s a billionaire individual making a point with a hobby. A better comparison would be afl and their willingness to to take risks to grow their business.

 

[Perth Red]

The original SL proposal wasn't for the Sydney clubs to merge, it was for them to own shares of new "super clubs" that would be largely independently operated by News, while they (the Sydney clubs) would continue to exist as independent entities in a second tier NSW competition which would also be broadcast.

In other words the suburban Sydney clubs would have effectively become the feeder clubs for the new super clubs, but they'd also own shares of those super clubs which intern would help fund their operations in the new lower tier competition.

The original plan for SL was basically the best possible set up for RL in this country, it would have been perfect, except for one thing, it was going to be controlled by a broadcaster that would have put their interests before the sports.

news only wanted control of the top division, and was willing to share it with arl, the ARL would have kept control of all other elements of the game. With the clubs owning the super clubs they would have also had decision making powers in the new league,

 

[Perth Red]

It would have killed the game over night

I have more faith in the game than you.

 

[The Great Dane]

news only wanted control of the top division, and was willing to share it with arl, the ARL would have kept control of all other elements of the game. With the clubs owning the super clubs they would have also had decision making powers in the new league,

The top tier is the most valuable part of the sport, giving away control of that is effectively giving away control of the sport it's self.

They were offering to share control with the ARL in name only, when the rubber hit the road News were going to be the ones making the decisions, and News is a big multinational, when there was a choice to be made between profit and/or cost cutting and what was in the best interests of the sport, most of the time they were going to go for the former.

 

[MugaB]

a strange choice of comparisons. Twiggy’s a billionaire individual making a point with a hobby. A better comparison would be afl and their willingness to to take risks to grow their business.

Nope in my opinion, nrl and afl are not similar at all, rugby is a better comparison, and NRL being super conservative verses Twiggy pissing cash up a wall is a perfect exmple

 

[siv]

In the past we had pools

But these were decided on last years table position

That didnt go well

 

[applesauce]

Whats the advantage over what we have now?

More teams in finals contention for longer.

 

[siv]

More teams in finals contention for longer.

How so

All we have is really a pool concept with table merged

Still a Top 8 finals system

 

[applesauce]

How so

All we have is really a pool concept with table merged

Still a Top 8 finals system

Sorry, made and assumption.

IMO the top 2 from each conference advance to finals. Last two spots taken up by teams with the next best record (wild card teams).

Resembling the NFL.

Conference (actually ‘division’) games become more valuable, adding to rivalries. And more teams have a mathematical chance of finals for a greater proportion of the season.

 

[MugaB]

Conference (actually ‘division’) games become more valuable, adding to rivalries. And more teams have a mathematical chance of finals for a greater proportion of the season.

This is correct, best part about it is the teams and fans within the conference only really have to focus on their own pool, it shrinks the competition in a way.
With my idea of the 4 conferences, it can dail the pools back to BRL days with the northern conference, then have eastern and western conference be somehat the NSWRL, with perth and Auckland added.
And southern conference a more regional comp

Simplicity in seperation can make the game thrive

 

[siv]

Sorry, made and assumption.

IMO the top 2 from each conference advance to finals. Last two spots taken up by teams with the next best record (wild card teams).

Resembling the NFL.

Conference (actually ‘division’) games become more valuable, adding to rivalries. And more teams have a mathematical chance of finals for a greater proportion of the season.

Dont like the NFL style regional breakdown as the best teams do not play in the finals

While a Sydney and regional conference NFL style could lead to 2 x 4 team finals series

With a guaranteed Sydney Final guaranteed Regional Final at Lang Park then a Superbowl playoff

Not sure if this is what we want to end up with

Thats why I still prefer a combined table and a open Top 8 but I can see the crowd merits in a split finals

If you go to 3 or 4 conferences you loose this

 

[applesauce]

Dont like the NFK style regional breakdiwn as the best teams do not play in the finals

While a Sydney and regional conference NFL style could lead to 2 x 4 team finals series

With a guranteed Sydney Final and a guranteed Regional Final at Lang Park then a Superbowl playoff

Not sure uf this us what we want ti end up wuth

Thats why I still prefer a combined table a open Top 8 but I can see the crowd merits in a split finals

If you go to 3 or 4 conferences you loose this

I wouldn't an all Sydney division. I also corrected conference to division. Conference playoffs suck with 18 teams. The finals wouldn't differ from the current format. It would just be the makeup of the top 8 based on winning or coming second in division and the 2 next best records. Seeding of the top 8 based on record.

 

[Wily Ole Dog]

Foundation
Souths.
Roosters.
Parramatta.
Dogs.
Dragons.
Manly.

Late to the Party....I’m sure there’s a better name...lol
Cronulla.
Penrith.
Broncos.
West tigers.
Canberra.
Newcastle.

Raiders/ Invaders
Perth
Melbourne.
Cowgirls.
Titans.
NZ.
Brisbane 2

 

[siv]

Foundation
Souths.
Roosters.
Parramatta.
Dogs.
Dragons.
Manly.

Late to the Party....I’m sure there’s a better name...lol
Cronulla.
Penrith.
Broncos.
West tigers.
Canberra.
Newcastle.

Raiders/ Invaders
Perth
Melbourne.
Cowgirls.
Titans.
NZ.
Brisbane 2

Parra and Newcastle could be considered as foundation clubs all playing in 1908

And I would never split the Qld group plus Melbourne

 

[MugaB]

Parra and Newcastle could be considered as foundation clubs all playing in 1908

And I would never split the Qld group plus Melbourne

Tigers are more of a foundation club than parra or Newcastle, they're a merger of wests and Balmain both who began in 1908.
Besides splitting conferences by date of admission is pointless it doesn't advance anything towards the competition, and when/if a side folds then what? How do you justify adding a team into the "traditional conference"

 

[Wily Ole Dog]

Tigers are more of a foundation club than parra or Newcastle, they're a merger of wests and Balmain both who began in 1908.
Besides splitting conferences by date of admission is pointless it doesn't advance anything towards the competition, and when/if a side folds then what? How do you justify adding a team into the "traditional conference"

All very true

that guy with the Gillian icon would say promotion, eg, Newcastle

 

[MugaB]

All very true

that guy with the Gillian icon would say promotion, eg, Newcastle

If your creating a conference you need to establish why they are being split, my reasoning was geographicaly to section off the sides who can travel to similar pockets of the country for their home and away matches within the conference, thus creating new rivalries and strengthening current ones, as winning those games matter more within your own conference, people seem to look at historical rivalries or admissions entries and think that would make for a good collection of clubs, when geographicaly it would make it more even and less bias

 

[siv]

Tigers are more of a foundation club than parra or Newcastle, they're a merger of wests and Balmain both who began in 1908.
Besides splitting conferences by date of admission is pointless it doesn't advance anything towards the competition, and when/if a side folds then what? How do you justify adding a team into the "traditional conference"

Parra are the rebirth of Cumberland - Parra took their colours and location after first appearing as Parra in 1914 in 3G

Newcastle were there also in 1908 left in 1910 and rejoined in 1988

 

[MugaB]

Parra are the rebirth of Cumberland - Parra took their colours and location after first appearing as Parra in 1914 in 3G

Newcastle were there also in 1908 left in 1910 and rejoined in 1988

Yes I've read up on this, but still the tigers and magpies are more a foundation club than the rebels and fruitpickers as they were done within a season or two And tigers and magpies have always been in the comp from the very start, either way its moot
And if you want to get technical gold coast giants started in 1988 along with broncos and knights, so they'd be in the late the party conference.

If i was basing the competition into conferences via historical admissions
Conference 1 (08-35)
Souths, Wests, Easts, StGeorge, Canterbury.
Conference 2 (47-82)
Manly, Parramatta, Penrith, Cronulla, Canberra,
Conference 3 (88-95)
Newcastle, Brisbane, GoldCoast, NorthQLD, SouthQLD,
Conference 4 (95-now)
NZ, Perth, Adelaide, Melbourne, NZ2