Alternative NRL points system

[imported_Mystery Man]

A couple of months ago I came up with a alternative points system for the NRL. As it was during my self-imposed ban from WORL, I sent it into the ABC. If you’ve heard it before, that is where you did. This basically came about from me thinking about whether there was a fairer points system than the current NRL table. Here is the email that I sent in. It should be noted that at the time of writing it was just after round 13.I am not a fan of the bonus points system in the Super 12, but Ido understand the issue of wanting to keep interest in the game for the entire match. After much thought, I realised that there is no need for anything more than what we already have. However, if we utilise the information that we do already have in a sensible way, I believe that there can be a points system that will not only result in keeping teams and fans interested for the entire match, but will also more accurately reflect the standing of each team.

The formula behind this system is simple. The current allocation of points for a win, loss and a draw remains the same. What is different is that each team's "for and against" becomes very important. By calculating each team's percentage (points scored divided by points conceded) and multiplying it by the number of points earned through the old points allocation system, a more accurate indication of a team's standing can be gained.

This means that when a team is only marginally beaten, they will have a better percentage than a team that is given a thrashing, and this will be reflected in the points table. As percentages will become so important, teams will not be able to throw the towel in when they feel that they have no chance of winning. The more points scored against them, the worse their percentage will be, and this will be reflected in the points table.

This system will also reward teams who are consistent. A perfect example is Brisbane, who have had three losses this yearbut were only beaten by 8, 1 and 2 points in those three games. As a result of this, Brisbane have the best percentage in the league and this is reflected in the new points system. A team like the Northern Eagles, on the other hand, who have been very inconsistent, have a poor percentage and are punished for those matches in which they were soundly beaten.

In no way is the value of a win devalued. The amount of competition points as earned under the current system forms the basis of what each team's total points standing is - a win will increase that base of points, while a loss will not. However, the competitiveness of a team in each individual game, and a team's consistency over an entireseason will also be reflected in their total points standing.

Using the above system, I have calculated how the table would look after 13 rounds. As stated before, the total points of a team is calculated by multiplying a team's percentage by their points earned under the current system. The teams are listed in their new order, with their standing, based on the current system, in parenthesis.


F A%P W D LPnts Total

1. (2) Brisbane Broncos 345 198 174.2% 13 9 1 3 19 33.106

2. (3) Parramatta Eels358 219 163.5% 1382 3 18 29.425

3. (1) Newcastle Knights377274 137.6% 13 101 2 21 28.894

4. (4) Bulldogs 278 270 103.0%13 7 3 3 1717.504

5. (5) Sydney Roosters 319 286 111.5%13 7 1 5 1516.731

6. (7) Melbourne Storm 368 325 113.2% 13 6 0 7 12 13.588

7. (9) St G-Illawarra Dragons328 292 112.3% 13 5 1 7 11 12.356

8. (6) Sharks 233 269 86.6%13 6 1 61311.260

9. (10) NZ Warriors 309205 95.1% 13 5 17 11 10.458

10. (8) Northern Eagles 283 372 76.1% 13 6 0 7 12 9.129

11. (11) Canberra Raiders 285 281 101.4% 13 4 1 8 99.128

12. (12) Wests Tigers 239358 66.8% 13 4 1 8 9 6.008

13. (14) Nth Qld Cowboys 272 35077.7% 13 3 1 9 7 5.440

14. (13) Penrith Panthers 235 41057.3% 13 4 0 9 8 4.585


As you can see, it makes for some interesting reading. While the order is similar to that under the current system, thereare some significant positional changes. Personally, I feel that this is a more accurate system than the current one and will result in teams not being able to give in when they believe that a match is over, and also rewarding those teams who are consistently competitive over the duration of the season.

Comments, criticisms, and suggestions are all welcome.

 

[G@v]

How is a system fair if the team with most wins and fewest losses is only in third spot on the ladder behind inferior performing sides, and the team with fewest wins isn't at the bottom. The value of a win certainly is devalued with this system.

The idea of any team sport is to win, not to see if you can avoid defeat by as narrow a margin as possible. Any points system which fails to recognise a win as being the most important element in a competition is flawed.

A similar idea was put forward by a SL CEO in the UK early last year.

 

[imported_Noodles]

Ithink it is OK. One of the biggest blights on the game today is the scoreline blowouts, and there is plenty of criticism that players aren’t trying enough. This type of system would help address these issues. On the question of fairness, is it fair if a team is competitive each game but not winning all their games, be on the same points as a team that gets a couple of flukey wins and get flogged quite often be on the same points (hypothetically speaking here). Are scrums these days fair, is it fair that the guy who bowls the 15th over in a one day game gets only 2 guys on the boundary but the guy who bowls the 16th over can have 5. Sports need to be entertaining for players and spectators, if the rules (or points system) are the same for all teams, then it’s fair.

 

[imported_Mystery Man]

GavBT

I am not surprised to hear your comments as I suspect that there are a great many people who agree with you. However, I do believe that the above system is a more accurate way of measuring how a team is performing. That is because it rewards wins, as it should, but is also rewards teams who are consistent and competitive. When you think about it, why shoulda team who has five wins and zero losses with an averaging winning margin of eight points be level with a team with five wins and zero losses with an average winning margin of twenty-four points? Similarly, why should a team with two wins andfive losses with an average losing margin of twenty points be level with a team with two wins and five losses with an average losing margin of only six points?

I know that there is the possibility that a team with less wins may leapfrog a team with more wins. But that is only the case if there is a significant discrepancy in the two teams' for and against. I just believe that while winning is the most important aspect of a sport (and it is the most important aspect of this points system), consistency and competitiveness should also be rewarded. I believe that it results in a more accurate reflection of how teams are really performing.

 

[LeagueGirl]

Nahh don't like that system, has Brisbane first. How about's the anti-broncos point system

each win by Brisbane is equal to - 1 point and each loss is equal to 0, only in a draw do they get positive points

So the Broncos would be on -12 now

But on a serious note, I don't really think teams who perform consistanly and win like Parramatta should be ranked below Brisbane no matter how close they have come. Look at Canberra for example, it was only recently their F/A went below 0 despite always being outside of the 8.

I have no problems for penalties being given for teams loosing by large scorelines. Blowouts like 44-0 should see either the winning team get an extra point or looser lose a point. Preferably the later, just to make the team wake and perform. There is no excuse for that poor performance.

 

This message has been deleted by the author.

 

[Kipper]

Mystery Man - I remember hearingyour letter beingread out afterthe coverage of a game (on Radio Sport over here in NZ). From memoryWarren Ryan and co. didn't understand it too well when it came to what happens whena team has a negative differential, which was a pity because if I was anyone to go by it made it very confusing for the listeners.

Now I've seen it in written form I quite like it. My onlyquestion would be, how can you make iteasier for the average person to understand? I can imagine it on the sports news now - "The Warriors will be back in the top 8 if they beat the Eels tonight, providing the Sharks and Raiderslose by more than 8.5 points and 14.2 points respectively...". I think I'd questionwhetherintroducing a more complicated points system will really do anything that worthwhile to improve the overall fairness of the NRL, even if it is abetter reflection of the teams' performances. After all, when you're letting a team thatlost more round-robin games than it won have a chance of being in a superior position to the minor-premiers after the first week of the play-offs, you're already close to being an irretrievably Mickey Mouse competition.

Despite this, I likeMystery Man's system a hell of a lot better than bonus points. If I ever see an NRL player kick theball out after the siren when his side is within a converted try of winning (like the Brumbie's Rod Kafer did during this year's Super 12) I think I'll need a bucket.

As I alluded to earlier, thetop 8 is the first thing I'd like to see changed. However, I doubt it will happen seeingmost league 'fans' are already saying"who cares?" when2 teams out of play-off contention are in town or are on TV. Imagine what acommercial nightmare it would be for the NRL ifsomething like8 of the 14 teams werealready out of the runninghalfway through July?

People like to point to all the recent blow-outsasa major reason for why anew points system is desperately needed, but you'd have to be a very cynical bugger to truly believethe majority of professional footballers consciously "tank it" when their side no longer has a realistic chance of winning. I tend to agree with Warren Ryan that it has more to do with the 10 metre offside rule in conjuction with thescoring team getting the ball back (95% of the time anyway), as well as one side getting the psychological upper hand. I don't think any amount of potential consolation points can limit the effect those three factors have on a game.