Register a free account today to become a member of the world's largest Rugby League discussion forum! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
miccle said:
Lockyer4President! said:
salivor said:
hindmarsh4pm said:
I don't understand. Why is there any link between the number of teams and the length of the season? We currently play 24 rounds stretched over 25 weeks and the game's financial plan is based on providing 25 weeks (plus finals) of content to television networks and 12 home games for each club. To make 16 teams fit that structure of 24 games, every team plays every other team once (15 games) and another 9 teams a second time. If we go to 18 teams then we'll probably have every team play every other once (17 games) and another 7 teams a second time. If we go to 20 then it'll probably be every team once (19 games) and another five teams a second time. Expansion is almost totally irrelevant to the question of season length. The season lasts as long as it does because that's what the game can afford. If at the time the next television deal is signed the game can afford a shorter season then regardless of the question of expansion we may end up with one (but still unlikely IMO).byrne_rovelli_fan82 said:
Based on what criteria? Population, corporate support, television funding? The AFL supports 16 teams based largely on a traditional support base of half the Australian population. It uses that support base to more or less subsidize the presence of two of its teams (Sydney and Brisbane) in non traditional areas for the benefits that expanded market offers the game overall. Conversly, the NRL currently supports *15* teams based largely on traditional support base of half the Australian population. It uses that support base to more or less subsidize the presence of one of its teams (Melbourne) in a non traditional area for the benefits that expanded market offers the game overall. But unlike the AFL, the NRL also has one team based outside Australia. In this evaluation, the number of teams based in NZ is irrelevant as that is an additional market with its own population, corporate base and television rights that our AFL rivals do not have significant access to. So if it is true that by being the dominant code in half the Australian market the game can only 16 teams in this country, then the NRL is still currently one club short of that number. Even if we do conclude that RL in Australia can only support 16 clubs that could still very well mean that 18 or 19 teams is the natural maximum size for the competition. Unlike the AFL, the NRL is more than just Australia and the number of teams the game can support in NZ is an entirely separate debate.RainMan said:
The bloody draft again?!? Can someone please tell me which of the game's problems a draft would actually address? The draft has only one aim, even distribution of talent. Yet the current competition is already the most even in the history of RL. Prior this year, in the 9 seasons since the NRL started, 11 out of 15 clubs had appeared in the Grand Final, 12 out of 15 had made the top four, and 14 out of 15 had made the top 8 (13 out of 15 more than once). The only team that didn't make the finals was Souths. This is hardly indicative of a fundamental unevenness in the competition but rather a problem with the management at one specific club (a fact that has clearly been exposed by the quick turnaround since PHaC took control). Because of the effect it has on legal relations with players and team culture (every team becomes a bland composite with few if any local juniors), the draft is a largely undesirable solution used as a last resort to solve a competition wide talent distribution problem - a problem that simply doesn't exist in the NRL at this point in time. So I'll ask again, what problem would we be addressing by bringing in a draft?Alex28 said:
Is this quantifiably true or just urban myth resulting from constantly hearing the usual suspects talk down the modern game? Are we seriously arguing that the present day fully professional football team that practices skills and studies defensive and attacking theory all day, four or five days a week is a worse standard than the part time, train two nights a week and then off to the pub semi pros of the 1980s and early 1990s? I'm sorry but I find that hard to accept. I'm not arguing that the standard could not be higher still if more naturally players were retained by the game but to argue that it compares poorly to what we saw on the park from amateur and semi pro teams of eras past is just ludicrous. The relative quality (or lack thereof) of the opposiition once made naturally talented amateur teams look "great". But the modern day fully professional team would blow them away every time.lockyno1 said:
Except to clubs in small markets like the Cowboys that don't have a huge base of third parties to subsidise their player budget. The open market would essentially relegate clubs like the Cowboys to perenial cellar dwellers and slowly whittle away the fantastic fan support the club has brought to the league. *That* is why we have the salary cap and why it absolutely must stay. But that argument is quite apart from the matter of what level the cap should be set at. If we could determine that even the club with the smallest corporate support could come up with an extra $1m in third party payments then I'd have no problem raising the cap by that amount tomorrow. But whatever the limit, the key to the cap is that it really does provide a level playing field for all clubs in the player market. An open market or unrestricted third party payments would destroy that.lockyno1 said:
