Conferences

[shiznit]

What massive travel schedule?
The Warriors for example would play:
1 game vs Roosters, Rabbitohs, Sea Eagles, Bears, Sharks, Eels, Bulldogs, Tigers, Dragons, Panthers, Broncos, Brisbane2, Cowboys, Titans, Knights
2 games vs Storm, Pirates, Raiders, NZ2
1 game Rivalry Round
12 home games, 11 trips to Australia including Perth, Melbourne, Canberra and ~5 Sydney games, 1 trip to Wellington/Christchurch

This year they had:
12 home games (1 in Wellington), 12 trips to Australia including Brisbane, Melbourne, Canberra, Wollongong, Melbourne, Perth and 6 Sydney games.

So essentially it will be the same as this year was.

While Parramatta for example had 17 games in Sydney this year, plus they took a home game to Mudgee. Their away trips were Canberra, Brisbane, Newcastle, Gold Coast, Melbourne and Wollongong.

I fail to see how my draw has any more difference between travelling times of Sydney teams and interstate teams than there is this year.

I realise that there would not be much of a difference to the current amount of travel... But the current split for travel is unfair to non-sydney teams.

At the moment that's just a byproduct of the competition having too many sydney clubs.

As the game expands the travel should be increasing for the Sydney teams to get closer to the non-sydney teams.

 

[Perth Red]

If it wasn't for the fact that most of the bottom clubs were sydney sides then you would argue travel makes a big difference, but I'm not sure it does really.

 

[docbrown]

The draw would be every team plays each other once and the 4 other teams in their group twice, plus one more game for rivalry round.

I realise that there would not be much of a difference to the current amount of travel... But the current split for travel is unfair to non-sydney teams.

With teams in places like Perth, Melbourne, Auckland and Townsville and half the comp being in NSW you're never going to have a totally fair system either way.

However the difference in travel between the current system and a divisional system is almost negligible so I really don't get why people bring it up.

The advantages of the divisional system are the in-built regular rivalry games and the qualification for the finals. In a 20 team comp you need something that makes the last rounds interesting to fans of the bottom teams and divisions achieve that.

 

[Springs]

I realise that there would not be much of a difference to the current amount of travel... But the current split for travel is unfair to non-sydney teams.

At the moment that's just a byproduct of the competition having too many sydney clubs.

As the game expands the travel should be increasing for the Sydney teams to get closer to the non-sydney teams.

So how are we supposed to do that? Have Sydney teams go to New Zealand twice, Brisbane twice, Townsville twice, Perth twice? In a competition like this the travel difference is always going to be like this.

It honestly doesn't seem to matter. Brisbane have won 6 premierships, 2 of them at a time where they were 1 of only 2 non-NSW teams.

 

[shiznit]

Ask the Warriors and North Qld players if it makes a difference.

There's a reason why those teams have historically found it tougher to win away from home than others...

Actually... I don't know if that last point is true.. I just assumed it was from having spoken to a few guys who have played for both the warriors and other clubs

 

[Springs]

Ask the Warriors and North Qld players if it makes a difference.

There's a reason why those teams have historically found it tougher to win away from home than others...

Actually... I don't know if that last point is true.. I just assumed it was from having spoken to a few guys who have played for both the warriors and other clubs

Of course it's tough for them to win away from home. But it's the same deal for home games. They're playing teams that have travelled as far as they do to away games.

I don't see what the problem is. It's never going to be equal unless the have the same amount of teams in every city.

The Cowboys and Warriors have made grand finals before. As I said, Brisbane have won 2 while having to fly every 2nd week while Sydney teams only had 2 or 3 trips out of town per year.

 

[joshreading]

I think the best option for the moment is a straight Sydney/National Split.

No complicated divisions really. Simply play your own conference HOME & AWAY then play the other conference teams once (either home or away).

The team at the front in the first part of the season in each conference then becomes the Conference Champion (I would term Sydney Conference - the Messenger and the National the Churchill Conference giving them a sense of history)

That gives the early season a real focus with a building year on year challenge for Sydney Clubs which can treat it a little like the 'old days' (also allowing "Sydney Season Tickets to every game you team plays in the first part of the year)

Then there can be a mid season REP BREAK - Origin/Internationals etc after which the comp goes back into full mode and the top 8 at the end of the season go through to the finals.

Easy. Argument about travel are somewhat moot, if you want to join a comp which is historically Sydney centred yet grow the National and International Footprint, they are going to have to travel anyway.

 

[papabear]

I think the best option for the moment is a straight Sydney/National Split.

No complicated divisions really. Simply play your own conference HOME & AWAY then play the other conference teams once (either home or away).

The team at the front in the first part of the season in each conference then becomes the Conference Champion (I would term Sydney Conference - the Messenger and the National the Churchill Conference giving them a sense of history)

That gives the early season a real focus with a building year on year challenge for Sydney Clubs which can treat it a little like the 'old days' (also allowing "Sydney Season Tickets to every game you team plays in the first part of the year)

Then there can be a mid season REP BREAK - Origin/Internationals etc after which the comp goes back into full mode and the top 8 at the end of the season go through to the finals.

Easy. Argument about travel are somewhat moot, if you want to join a comp which is historically Sydney centred yet grow the National and International Footprint, they are going to have to travel anyway.

an obvious and most wise position.

 

[Hello, I'm The Doctor]

I think the best option for the moment is a straight Sydney/National Split.

No complicated divisions really. Simply play your own conference HOME & AWAY then play the other conference teams once (either home or away).

The team at the front in the first part of the season in each conference then becomes the Conference Champion (I would term Sydney Conference - the Messenger and the National the Churchill Conference giving them a sense of history)

That gives the early season a real focus with a building year on year challenge for Sydney Clubs which can treat it a little like the 'old days' (also allowing "Sydney Season Tickets to every game you team plays in the first part of the year)

Then there can be a mid season REP BREAK - Origin/Internationals etc after which the comp goes back into full mode and the top 8 at the end of the season go through to the finals.

Easy. Argument about travel are somewhat moot, if you want to join a comp which is historically Sydney centred yet grow the National and International Footprint, they are going to have to travel anyway.

i dont really understand this bit. I dont think this would be enough to make teams care more about the early season than they do now.

 

[Dogs Of War]

I don't like such large conferences as it just means it needs to be revisited with a big change down the track if further teams are added, or a team relocates or perishes.

Smaller conferences mean very little realignment would be required in future. That said, it could be a good intermediate step towards smaller conferences.

 

[Dogs Of War]

The team at the front in the first part of the season in each conference then becomes the Conference Champion (I would term Sydney Conference - the Messenger and the National the Churchill Conference giving them a sense of history)

Would you want the conference teams to be deciding the conference championship between each other at the end of the season rather than playing the other conference? The crowds would be huge for those matchups. Just look how the NFL does it. A few conference(division)games at the start of the season, and the rest at the end of the season.

 

[Bulldog Force]

I would support this just to have the first round of the finals a division play off between the top 2 teams in each group (Maybe have the very top 2 teams go through to the secong week and have some wildcard teams).

Just imagine how good that would be for the rivalries. Every final series starts with a sudden death game between Knights and Manly or Brisbane and Cowboys. Then feed that into a regular finals series.

One thing id like to see change is the pointless matches in the finals. I hate the games where teams can lose and still go through. Sure give the top teams an advantage, but put them straight through to the second week. Dont have any of this teams losing n the finals and playing on bullshit.

Edit: Warriors would have to be in the division with NZ2, Melbourne and Perth. Switch them with the Raiders.

Yeah, no.

Can we please STOP talking about conferences? FFS it's the NATIONAL Rugby League... not the National Conference. Stop being so American...

 

[Perth Red]

Could they have come up with a more inappropriate name?

It is neither national in the sense of covering the nation, nor it is it national in the sense of being a one nation competition.

 

[big hit!]

I reckon they should go to groupings system now with 16 teams!!

This League is less a collection of quality weekly events and more about content for TV. Pure and simple.

24 matches per club is excessive and overkill when the premiership is ultimately decided in 4 week play off tournament.

The tedious plodding of the regular season, and the apathy towards it from all but the diehards of supporters has practically infected the finals themselves. The post-season should fill little 40k stadiums when two metro teams are playing. It's a blight on the competition that even two finals games featuring 3 sydney teams at one venue on the same day couldnt attract the house full sign.

Shortening the season, and dividing the competition into unique groups will put so much more importance on every win, and foster rivalries which will be enduring no matter where teams are on the competition ladder.

It also turns the competition into a progressive phases. Phase 1 is primarily against your group rivals. Phase 2 is the wider league. Phase 3 is the post-season. Teams have to excel in each phase to progress. It's the reason the NFL is such a popular competition with every match a virtual must-win.

For the NRL:
QLD: Brisbane - Gold Coast - Melbourne - Nth Qld
Pacific: Manly - Newcastle - Souths - Easts
Southern: Canterbury - Cronulla - New Zealand - Saints
Western: Canberra - Parra - Penrith - Wests

18 regular season rounds
- teams in same group play twice home & away (6)
- teams in one group play another group once all at home (4)
- teams in one group play another group once all away (4)
- teams in once group play another group once mix of home & away (4)

the home & away conditions of groups rotate each year for a full rotation over 3 years.

finals qualy:
1st in each group qualify 1-4
next 4 best teams league-wide (so technically all teams in same group can) qualify 5-8.

same finals series as now.

along with stand alone weekends for Origin, the EVENT status of NRL games would sky rocket with these changes.

 

[Diesel]

Perhaps but what happens to the 4 groups of 4 when the comp increases from 16 to 18?

 

[joshreading]

i dont really understand this bit. I dont think this would be enough to make teams care more about the early season than they do now.

What it would do is give a Sydney and National based team the chance to declare themselves - Sydney or National Based Premiers. There will be gloating rights when Bulldogs pip Parra in the race for first in the conference. (first past the post) Fans will love anything that gives them the right to gloat over another team. It would also not be too hard to give a prize and shield for this achievement as well in the same way we give a 'minor' premiers shield.

Can you imagine the possibility of using a controversial slogan for that time of season - eg. 'That's my team' (ARL Slogan during SL) provoking and playing up suburban rivalries.

Particularly for Sydney, it will also help crowds as it provides a regular season where a 'Sydney Season Ticket' could be sold including ALL games played in Sydney for your team. (helping increase crowds/passion etc with the flow on effects). Sydney Clubs can use this period in particular to play up the old Rivalries and build upon such year on year with a distinct period of Sydney/National Based competition.

Additionally for the National Teams, this period can be plugged as the BIG CITY TEAMS taking on each other. Brisbane V Melbourne V Perth etc.

The tables of each conference then can simply merge into one for the second half.

The distinct period with a break will also add season relief and focus. The second half of the season after the REP break will then allow a relaunch of hype around the Top of the Conference teams taking on each other. Which Conference teams are best? Can Messenger beat Churchill? What would a Messenger ALL Stars V Ch
urchill ALL Stars team look like?

Basing it around present geography as opposed to table positions etc ensures that a new tradition built on old traditions (ie. NSWRL days) can build.

 

[Quidgybo]

Yeah, no.

Can we please STOP talking about conferences? FFS it's the NATIONAL Rugby League... not the National Conference. Stop being so American...

And what is wrong with being American specifically?

Conferences are just a pragmatic solution to three very real (and culture neutral) logistical problems - more teams than games in a season, excessive travel in a widely spread competition, and how to ensure a national competition has a finals series representing more than just one concentrated region. Conferences also allow traditional home and away rivalries to be maintained within the limits of a large national comp. You don't need to be American or in America to recognise these logistical problems and the benefits of conferences in addressing them.

As the NRL approaches 24 teams (within a 24 game season) it'll have to start considering adjusting the competition structure. With 20 teams, clubs only get to play 5 other teams twice in a 24 game program. With 22 teams it's down to 3 teams twice and 24 teams means they only play one team twice (or none if everyone just plays once). As a result teams would only host some of their biggest home games every second year. Fewer derby games with traditional rivals, so harder to get as much money thru the gate.

So the Bulldogs perhaps only host Parra, Saints, Souths and Tigers every second year. Or the Cowboys miss out on their biggest crowd every second year because they don't host the Broncos. Remember the RLPA wants a shorter season, not more games so it's probably more likely that the NRL will hit this problem when it gets to 22 or even 20 teams. And once they get more teams than there are games in a season, some form of conferencing is pretty much mandatory if a balanced competition structure is to be maintained - even if the dastardly Americans did it first.

Leigh.

 

[Joker's Wild]

The travelling cost difference between Sydney clubs and others would already be huge. The draw would hardly be any different than it is now. The draw would be every team plays each other once and the 4 other teams in their group twice, plus one more game for rivalry round. For a team like Parramatta for example, they would play every team once then Bulldogs, Panthers, Tigers, Dragons twice (which they already do play twice), plus a rivalry game.
For a team like Brisbane, it would be play every team once, then all QLD teams twice (plus Knights maybe), plus rivalry round game. This figures out to be 12 home games, four more games in QLD/Newcastle plus 8 interstate/international games like everyone else.
The only difference between the conferences would be the NSW conference would be four more inter-Sydney games, while the other conference would be 4 more travelling games, which is honestly not that much more different than we have now.
At the moment we have Warriors travelling to Australia every second game, while Sydney teams get around 16 or so games in Sydney, around the same amount they would have in this conference system.



It would be hardly any different than we have now :?
And after a few weeks, any team can still make the finals if they win enough games.
And your system still had this problem. Unless you meant top 3 in each group which means a 12 team finals series :crazy:

The travel issue would be worse for Newcastle and Canberra more specifically. They would be forced to play at every single venue outside of NSW under that scenario when they dont currently. A 1.5-2.5 hour bus ride is preferable to the 4-5 hour plane trips for the east coast (travel to and from the airport inclusive) and the 6-8 hour ones to the West coast and NZ.

The difference in that scenario to the current draw is much bigger than you are surmising

 

[Hello, I'm The Doctor]

Ive been trying to work out this one idea for a conference system i had a while ago...

Instead of having teams in set conferences (Queensland, West Sydney, ect.), what if all of the teams were seeded into conferences half way though the year (about round 16) Based on where they are coming at that point of the year.

Say, for example, there were 16 teams divided into 4 groups: The top 8 in group A (A would have 1st, 3rd, 5th, ect. and B would have 2nd, 4th, ect.) and the bottom 8 divided into groups B and C (B would have 9th, 11th, , ect. and C would have 10th, 12th, ect.)

Once the teams get seeded into these groups, thats were they stay for the rest of the season. At the end of the season, the teams qualify for the finals based on their position in each pool.

This could be dont, for example, in the same way we do the world cup. the best 3 of the top pools go through and the best 1 of the bottom pools go through.

There are a lot of different ways this could be structured, but id like to hear what everyone thinks about this general idea; seeding teams from about the half way point of the season.

I recommend this because it would break the monotony of 26 rounds leading into the finals. This would add some excitement to the mid point of the season.

Im not even sure im sold on the idea, but i definitley thunk it would be worth looking at.

 

[The Engineers Room]

I don't buy the travel issue.

Teams not in Sydney have to travel every second week anyway.

The way I would do conference is you still play everyone but you play your own conference twice.

The finals would be top of conference then wild cards.