NRL Expansion. Ideas and opinions.

[jim_57]

The "lack of talent to support expansion" has always fallen at the first hurdle to me when you consider we have a nation just north of us with 8 million people & Rugby League as their national sport/religion, yet there are no real systems to bring players through.

If the right systems were in place I believe PNG the Pacific Islands could very quickly become a major player source up there with NSW, QLD & NZ. Those systems don't necessarily have to be all that complicated either.

That is the obvious one, plenty of more inventive ways to go as well that may not bring players in droves but may unearth the ocassional star player.

• Approaching junior French RL players about trials in Australian junior systems. French junior teams compete against the best but majority never fulfill that potential.
• Looking at players from across the world in Union (15's and 7's) who are on the outer but may have a skill set more suited to League.
• NRL clubs partnering with USARL clubs to "introduce" promising college football players to the game with an end goal of signing them if they show enough potential.

3 off the top of my head, I'd consider those "1%" options never going to see huge amounts of NRL players but would be worth a look if NRL is going to get serious about identifying talent. I tend to wonder if the NRL clubs complaining about lack of talent have ever looked far beyond the local talent that is put right in front of them.

 

[Tigers1986]

There's enough talent running around in the ISP and ISC competitions, plus ex-pats in the Super League, to more than fill 2 NRL squads (plus kids coming up through the ranks).

The NRL could easily get back to a 20-team competition split into conferences of 10. Play everyone in your conference twice (18 games), then everyone from the other conference (9), for 27 games. Top 4 from each conference compete in finals for a conference winner, and the 2 winners play off in a superbowl type grand final. Works out to be a max of 30 games in a season, which the model is right now).

I would expand with: Perth, Adelaide, Christchurch and Central Coast

 

[The Great Dane]

There's enough talent running around in the ISP and ISC competitions, plus ex-pats in the Super League, to more than fill 2 NRL squads (plus kids coming up through the ranks).

The NRL could easily get back to a 20-team competition split into conferences of 10. Play everyone in your conference twice (18 games), then everyone from the other conference (9), for 27 games. Top 4 from each conference compete in finals for a conference winner, and the 2 winners play off in a superbowl type grand final. Works out to be a max of 30 games in a season, which the model is right now).

I would expand with: Perth, Adelaide, Christchurch and Central Coast

I don't know about conferences for the time being.

There simply isn't anyway that you can naturally spilt the comp into two conferences without the competition being heavily slanted in favour of one of the conferences over the other, for example a Sydney conference gets thrown out as an idea a lot, but then you've got one conference that has to travel all over the trans-Tasman region all year and another that basically doesn't have to travel at all, which causes all sorts of issues as I'm sure you can imagine.

Basically until you can either decentralise the competition (i.e. lower the density of clubs in Sydney and spread the clubs more evenly across the country) or realistically support solid north, south, east, and west conferences or something similar it's a non-starter.

Also as an aside, there're a lot of things standing in the way of a Christchurch team, mainly the lack of infrastructure to support an NRL club, so they'd need a bit of time and lot of government support (or a very wealthy backer) to get a team up. I'm not saying that Christchurch can't support a team or shouldn't have a team (they should definitely be in the NRL's plans for the future, if they had plans for the future...), just that they'd struggle to get one up and running within the next 5-10 years.
Also a Central Coast team is a total non-starter as well, but I can't be bothered going into it, cause frankly when a person wants a CC team in the NRL it's because of feels before reals and they ignore the reality of the situation even when it is explained to them

 

[Stallion]

You know it doesn't really support your point to say that Aussie rules is a "glorified training run", when they can't find enough players to keep a high standard of play in said "training run".

If they can't find enough quality talent to support 18 teams of good quality to play a game that is a "glorified training run", then the NRL will be buggered if they can find enough quality players to support a real big boys game won't they!

However I understand what you were trying to say, and as my previous post shows I don't disagree.

Yes. I thought that. However I think if the NRL development people sell rugby league as a true test compared to a flimsy training run which can be easily accomplished, the macho/challenge element of a young footballer is attracted. These days the macho myth is being sold by AFL which is dissapointing and misleading. Rugby league has dropped the ball in so many ways and this is another example. Poor selling of the sport to Mums, Dads and kids. The virtues of physical commitment,discipline and intense body contact leading to increased confidence levels have not been sold by rugby league junior development enough in my opinion.

 

[T-Boon]

I

There simply isn't anyway that you can naturally spilt the comp into two conferences without the competition being heavily slanted in favour of one of the conferences over the other, for example a Sydney conference gets thrown out as an idea a lot, but then you've got one conference that has to travel all over the trans-Tasman region all year and another that basically doesn't have to travel at all, which causes all sorts of issues as I'm sure you can imagine.

There are heaps of options.
One of them is 18 teams 3 conferences of 6 teams, have 3 Sydney teams in each conference then add the out of Sydney teams to the conferences so travel is approximately equal.

 

[The Great Dane]

There are heaps of options.
One of them is 18 teams 3 conferences of 6 teams, have 3 Sydney teams in each conference then add the out of Sydney teams to the conferences so travel is approximately equal.

With that system it's inevitable that some of the Sydney clubs are going to miss out on at least some of their derbies and/or big drawing games, which wouldn't be good for either them and the NRL financially or the sport in Sydney.

All the options for conference systems are deeply flawed in the NRL's case and it's because of the current geographical spread of the clubs in the comp being so weighted in one spot. Unless you introduce more teams across the county to counter act that and balance it out or remove teams from Sydney and spread them more evenly across the country it's just not going to work without egregiously advantaging one group of clubs over the others.

The only way I can see a conference system working without it heavily favoring some clubs over the others in the NRL and without heavily rationalising Sydney is if you had something like four conferences of 10 clubs, with one of the conferences being the Sydney clubs plus Newcarstle, and the others being roughly geographically base conferences each of 10 clubs in roughly the north, south + NZ, and west of the country, and we are a long, long way from being able to support a 40 team comp...

 

[Stallion]

With that system it's inevitable that some of the Sydney clubs are going to miss out on at least some of their derbies and/or big drawing games, which wouldn't be good for either them and the NRL financially or the sport in Sydney.

All the options for conference systems are deeply flawed in the NRL's case and it's because of the current geographical spread of the clubs in the comp being so weighted in one spot. Unless you introduce more teams across the county to counter act that and balance it out or remove teams from Sydney and spread them more evenly across the country it's just not going to work without egregiously advantaging one group of clubs over the others.

The only way I can see a conference system working without it heavily favoring some clubs over the others in the NRL and without heavily rationalising Sydney is if you had something like four conferences of 10 clubs, with one of the conferences being the Sydney clubs plus Newcarstle, and the others being roughly geographically base conferences each of 10 clubs in roughly the north, south + NZ, and west of the country, and we are a long, long way from being able to support a 40 team comp...

I do like your stance as it is respectfull for the code's foundation which are critical in so many ways going forward. I still believe a conference for Sydney metropolitan clubs including Newcastle with home and away and then a preference system used with alternate yearly options required for the Sydney metropolitan clubs for games against clubs outside of the Sydney metropolitan area & Newcastle. Extra travel funds and draw concessions with respect to playing days could also be factored in for long distance traveling clubs. Think a twenty club comp with two conferences of ten is feasible and would be attractive to fans.Finals would involve a mixing of these clubs or whatever seems right and logical.

 

[The Great Dane]

I do like your stance as it is respectfully for the code's foundation which are critical in so many ways going forward. I still believe a conference for Sydney metropolitan including Newcastle with honey and away and then a preference system used with alternate yearly option I'd required for the Sydney metropolitan clubs for games against clubs outside of the Sydney metropolitan area & Newcastle. Extra travel funds and draw concession with respect to playing days could also be factored in for long distance traveling clubs. Think a twenty club comp with two conferences of ten is feasible and would be attractive to fans.Finals would involve a mixing of these clubs or whatever seems right and logical.

Alright but how would you organise it!?

I assume from what you have said that you want one of the conferences to be Sydney+ Newcastle, well if so you've instantly made it much more expensive to run a club in the other conference, you've cut multiple clubs in the other conference off from some of if not most of their highest drawing games on a regular basis (especially Canberra and Melbourne) which takes a huge part of their income and throws it away, you've made player retention in the other conference twice as hard as you've just given the players the choice of playing in a conference where they have to travel and be away from their homes half as much as in the other, you've made it twice as hard for the teams in the other conference to build and retain fans in Sydney (and vice versa), etc, etc, etc.

Basically even with extra travel funds and draw concessions you've just made running a club in one conference much more expensive than the other and taken a ton of their business opportunities away at the same time, and in doing so you've totally slanted the comp in the Sydney clubs favour.

 

[Stallion]

Alright but how would you organise it!?

I assume from what you have said that you want one of the conferences to be Sydney+ Newcastle, well if so you've instantly made it much more expensive to run a club in the other conference, you've cut multiple clubs in the other conference off from some of if not most of their highest drawing games on a regular basis (especially Canberra and Melbourne) which takes a huge part of their income and throws it away, you've made player retention in the other conference twice as hard as you've just given the players the choice of playing in a conference where they have to travel and be away from their homes half as much as in the other, you've made it twice as hard for the teams in the other conference to build and retain fans in Sydney (and vice versa), etc, etc, etc.

Basically even with extra travel funds and draw concessions you've just made running a club in one conference much more expensive than the other and taken a ton of their business opportunities away at the same time, and in doing so you've totally slanted the comp in the Sydney clubs favour.

Remembering that some extra/added clubs in Brisbane, Adelaide, Perth and NZ. These clubs and the other outer Sydney clubs would still play against chosen Sydney clubs after 18 rounds for 7 or 8 rounds. If it's 7 rounds the Sydney clubs should travel for 4 of the 7 rounds. I'm aware it needs tweaking however I did mention allowances for both travel and draw considerations. Where there's a will there's a way. It's a plan going forward that maintains the integrity of the comp with its popular foundations in place and allows for long overdue expansion over time. And from a players perspective it's relevant as to which phase of life you are in. Younger footballers will tend to gravitate to the more adventure laden travelling clubs and older family oriented players to the less travelled clubs. Horses for courses!

 

[The Great Dane]

Remembering that some extra/added clubs in Brisbane, Adelaide, Perth and NZ. These clubs and the other outer Sydney clubs would still play against chosen Sydney clubs after 18 rounds for 7 or 8 rounds.

You've just slanted the draw in some clubs favour over others even more. Some clubs will be forced to play stronger teams when others don't have too....

If it's 7 rounds the Sydney clubs should travel for 4 of the 7 rounds. I'm aware it needs tweaking however I did mention allowances for both travel and draw considerations.

It's not enough, the non-Sydney clubs will still be operating with much higher expenses and with restricted business opportunities and a restricted playing pool.

Where there's a will there's a way. It's a plan going forward that maintains the integrity of the comp with its popular foundations in place and allows for long overdue expansion over time. And from a players perspective it's relevant as to which phase of life you are in. Younger footballers will tend to gravitate to the more adventure laden travelling clubs and older family oriented players to the less travelled clubs. Horses for courses!

So basically it's ok that Sydney clubs will (for lack of a better word) have almost a monopoly on the talent pool?

As it stands conferences simply aren't feasible at the moment, not without completely corrupting the integrity of the competition as a competition that is.

 

[Stallion]

You've just slanted the draw in some clubs favour over others even more. Some clubs will be forced to play stronger teams when others don't have too....

It's not enough, the non-Sydney clubs will still be operating with much higher expenses and with restricted business opportunities and a restricted playing pool.

So basically it's ok that Sydney clubs will (for lack of a better word) have almost a monopoly on the talent pool?

As it stands conferences simply aren't feasible at the moment, not without completely corrupting the integrity of the competition as a competition that is.

Dissagree. The playing pool will be particularly good for the one town or two team towns. I was a trialist and I know the lure of playing in the NRL was high. At The time their was talk of more clubs being on the way. The juniors and attractions to.play top flight in whatever city or club still remains for a young gun aspiring footballer. It's quite obvious that a club like Brisbane for instance has a massive pool to choose from? So not sure where you get this greater pool theory? Remembering that many Sydney clubs are not development clubs in Sydney so their are issues for the Sydney based clubs as they are as of now. I haven't slanted any draw? The make up of the games would be from club consultation based on conferences. It's a start. Sure their will be anomalies and there always will be. However the competition and code gains further strength with expansion and maintenance of its widely popular established clubs. Stating the draw would be slanted is not correct. How do you know what strength a club has? It's relative to coach, players and well run clubs. And a whole range of other factors including junior numbers and lifestyle considerations are also at play.

 

[The Great Dane]

Dissagree. The playing pool will be particularly good for the one town or two team towns. I was a trialist and I know the lure of playing in the NRL was high. At The time their was talk of more clubs being on the way. The juniors and attractions to.play top flight in whatever city or club still remains for a young gun aspiring footballer. It's quite obvious that a club like Brisbane for instance has a massive pool to choose from? So not sure where you get this greater pool theory? Remembering that many Sydney clubs are not development clubs in Sydney so their are issues for the Sydney based clubs as they are as of now. I haven't slanted any draw? The make up of the games would be from club consultation based on conferences. It's a start. Sure their will be anomalies and there always will be. However the competition and code gains further strength with expansion and maintenance of its widely popular established clubs. Stating the draw would be slanted is not correct. How do you know what strength a club has? It's relative to coach, players and well run clubs. And a whole range of other factors including junior numbers and lifestyle considerations are also at play.

You've fundamentally misunderstood the arguments, and honestly I can't be bothered rephrasing them for you at the moment.

 

[Stallion]

You've fundamentally misunderstood the arguments, and honestly I can't be bothered rephrasing them for you at the moment.

Fair enough. You have alluded to player pools. I consider that player numbers? You have assumed a "slant " . That's subjective and not necessarily so.

 

[Diesel]

There's enough talent running around in the ISP and ISC competitions, plus ex-pats in the Super League, to more than fill 2 NRL squads (plus kids coming up through the ranks).

The NRL could easily get back to a 20-team competition split into conferences of 10. Play everyone in your conference twice (18 games), then everyone from the other conference (9), for 27 games. Top 4 from each conference compete in finals for a conference winner, and the 2 winners play off in a superbowl type grand final. Works out to be a max of 30 games in a season, which the model is right now).

I would expand with: Perth, Adelaide, Christchurch and Central Coast

That’s a long season, 27 games, you’d want 22-24 games max. Considering they will be 1-2 byes or split rounds, an international windows etc.
if you want two conferences then just play everyone in a twenty team competition once, then play 3 (5) teams twice out of your conference but the three (or five) teams are rotated every year so you play everyone twice in a 3 (2) year cycle

 

[Perth Red]

With that system it's inevitable that some of the Sydney clubs are going to miss out on at least some of their derbies and/or big drawing games, which wouldn't be good for either them and the NRL financially or the sport in Sydney.

...

TBF some of these so called Sydney derbies are lucky to draw 12k so not that big a loss! You could set the groups up and schedule so the real derbies and games that draw big crowds continue to do so. Especially if you were more regionalised about Sydney alloactions ie in a 2 conference system

National Conference
Bulldogs, Penrith, Parra, Wests, Manly - Newcastle, Melbourne, Perth, Adelaide

Pacific Conference
Roosters, Souths, Dragons, Sharks - Auckland, Brisbane, NQ, GC, Canberra

Play everyone in your conf home and away = 18 games
6 teams from other conference on yearly rotating basis 3 home 3 away = 6 games

24 game season

This evens up travel for everyone, the far flung clubs dont have difficult travel ie Perth to Townsville or Auckland every year and Sydney clubs have to travel a reasonable amount. sorted.

 

[The Great Dane]

TBF some of these so called Sydney derbies are lucky to draw 12k so not that big a loss! You could set the groups up and schedule so the real derbies and games that draw big crowds continue to do so. Especially if you were more regionalised about Sydney alloactions ie in a 2 conference system

National Conference
Bulldogs, Penrith, Parra, Wests, Manly - Newcastle, Melbourne, Perth, Adelaide

Pacific Conference
Roosters, Souths, Dragons, Sharks - Auckland, Brisbane, NQ, GC, Canberra

Play everyone in your conf home and away = 18 games
6 teams from other conference on yearly rotating basis 3 home 3 away = 6 games

24 game season

This evens up travel for everyone, the far flung clubs dont have difficult travel ie Perth to Townsville or Auckland every year and Sydney clubs have to travel a reasonable amount. sorted.

The Sydney clubs and the Sydney media would love that lol!

I can see the articles now, 'Sydney robbed of derbies', 'Traditional rivalries destroyed', 'NRL destorying the game in Sydney', '"Penrith not playing Manly at home this year is a disgrace" says Gus Gould', 'lack of local derbies a free kick to AFL", 'Calls for NRL to bring back derbies after WSW and Sydney United show up NRL with massive derby",etc, etc.

Yeah nah, they'd never go for it, and we both know that their public influence has more control over the game than is just.

BTW it's got inbuilt commercial handicaps for a lot of the clubs.

 

[Perth Red]

If that was the major show stopper you could address it by playing everyone in your group twice then be selective about which teams you play in other conference. Would be more unfair on the non sydney clubs but still an option and would mean every sydney club playing each other in a season. Or they could sweeten the deal by making sure the big derby games are played in the best timeslots.

Like I said though roosters v penrith or Dragons v Manly is no loss to the seasons fixtures.
Dragons v eels this year 6,933 attended. I think we can agree that fixture isnt going to be missed lol

From an equity of travel, making most of derby games, reducing travel for far flung teams and making an 18 or 20 team comp more interesting and manageable I reckon my two conference line ups would work well.

In an 18 team comp you could have the top 3 teams auto go into finals and then 2 wild card spots or 4 wild cards in a 20 team comp. That would mean a team in 5th place in a conference could qualify ahead of a 4th place team in other conference if there win loss is better and deal with concern a weaker conference team may qualify ahead of a stronger other conference team.

 

[Perth Red]

This is how this years comp would look in my conference line ups and who would go into playoffs

National Conference
1. Melbourne
2. Penrith
3. Wests
4. Knights
5. Manly
6. Bulldogs
7. Eels
8. Perth
9. Adelaide

Pacific Conference
1. Souths
2. Dragons
3. Roosters
4. Sharks
5. Broncos
6. Warriors
7. Raiders
8. Titans
9. NQ

Compared to top 8 single conference this year Warriors would lose out and Wests gain otherwise it would be same finals teams.

 

[Diesel]

This is how this years comp would look in my conference line ups and who would go into playoffs

National Conference
1. Melbourne
2. Penrith
3. Wests
4. Knights
5. Manly
6. Bulldogs
7. Eels
8. Perth
9. Adelaide

Pacific Conference
1. Souths
2. Dragons
3. Roosters
4. Sharks
5. Broncos
6. Warriors
7. Raiders
8. Titans
9. NQ

Compared to top 8 single conference this year Warriors would lose out and Wests gain otherwise it would be same finals teams.

Well that sucks, Warriors have been the better team this year

 

[widddds]

I saw in another thread on a different forum site a pretty good idea which could work in terms of splitting the teams up into groups and conferences.

For the argument's sake there needs to be 20 NRL teams so for example Wellington, Perth, Brisbane 2 and Central Coast are added to the comp.

Then all the teams are divided up geographically into 5 groups: East, North, South, West and Distant.
East: Central Coast, Sea Eagles, Rabbitohs, Roosters
North: Broncos, Titans, Knights, Brisbane 2
South: Raiders, Sharks, Storm, Dragons
West: Bulldogs, Eels, Panthers, Tigers
Distant: Warriors, Cowboys, Wellington, Perth

Then 1 team from each group is used to form conferences. This ensures that teams in the same geographic area don't play each other twice which allows for increased travel equity. For example:
C1: Cowboys, Central Coast, Broncos, Raiders, Tigers
C2: Warriors, Roosters, Brisbane 2, Dragons, Eels
C3: Perth, Rabbitohs, Titans, Sharks, Panthers
C4: Wellington, Sea Eagles, Knights, Storm, Bulldogs
Notice that each conference has only 3 NSW teams (I know Canberra isn't technically NSW but I'm counting it).

So, each team verses the other teams in their conference twice and each team from the other conferences once. Adding up to 23 games. Plus there could be an extra round added so teams can verse a rival from another conference a second time, such as Dragons v Rabbitohs or Panthers v Eels. Thus adding up to 24 rounds.

I think this method greatly reduces the unfairness of travel. While it can still be unfair for teams like Perth and New Zealand I don't think there is any other way to make it more fair.

Plus, I think there is definitely enough talent for 20 teams. Take players from Super League, ISP, ISC, countries like PNG, Fiji, Tonga, Samoa, discarded American football players and even discarded union players.