TBH, a grouping idea can be implemented right now in order to build rivalries.
Have 4 groups of 4 teams:
- Teams in the same group play each other twice every season - 6 matches
- Group play another group twice on a season rotating basis so every team plays each other twice in a season every 3 years - 8 matches
- Play teams in the 2 remaining groups once - 8 matches
- Keep single ladder and finals the same.
Provides only 22 games per season. Personally I think this is enough as the last few rounds can drag on, however the broadcasters would pay less.
For anyone who's read this far, these would be my groups:
Brisbane - Gold Coast - Melbourne - North Qld
Manly - Newcastle - South Sydney - Sydney
Canberra - Parramatta - Penrith - Wests Tigers
Canterbury - Cronulla - New Zealand - St George Illawarra
As you can see, 3 Sydney metro clubs, and one regional or out of state club in each group.
At least it delivers transparency regarding the schedule.
I only just realised this is a marketing stunt to make sure the Origin launch had some talk about it.
Like something out of scott morrisons handbook.
I like 4 conferences more than I like 2 or 3. Better distribution of teams.
And teams that finish 1 and 2 aren't necessarily the best two teams in the comp given the uneven draw and Origin period.
Personally GC and Canberra wouldnt be a fizzer if they were the two best teams. Manly vs Warriors happened.Conferences guarantee Sydney team in final along with club from another city like Brisbane or Melbourne potentially maximizing audience.
Stops Canberra vs gold coast fizzer
Agreed. The less teams in each conference the better for the rivalry. 8 dilutes the hate too much.
origin should then get a facelift too, conference A v conference B instead of qld v nsw.
2 players are required from each club to form a team.
Conferences could be changed every year/every couple of years either randomly or by design. This would help ensure no GF combinations are impossible over time.
origin should then get a facelift too, conference A v conference B instead of qld v nsw.
2 players are required from each club to form a team.
we could call it the pro bowl lol
What about 3 Conferences of 6 instead?
Conference 1
Brisbane
Brisbane 2
Gold Coast
North Queensland
Auckland
NZ 2
Conference 2
Newcastle
Manly
Sydney City
South Sydney
St George
Cronulla
Conference 3
Penrith
Parramatta
Canterbury
Wests
Melbourne
Canberra
Play everyone in your conference twice (10 games) and everyone else once (12 games). 22 rounds each.
Top 2 from each conference go in to a top 8 finals series with the last 2 spots determined on overall league ranking or a wildcard play off.
Thoughts?
I definitely prefer this. Two conferences just has too many fairness problems. Three Groups has a much better spread (the big problem would be coming up with a finals format).
I think the BEST situation would be when we get to 20 teams; 4 groups of 5 teams.
Group 1: Brisbane / Brisbane 2 / Gold Coast / North Queensland / Perth
Group 2: Manly / Sydney City /South Sydney / St George / Cronulla/
Group 3: Penrith / Parramatta / Canterbury / Wests / Canberra or Newcastle
Group 4: Auckland / NZ 2 / Melbourne / Adelaide / Canberra or Newcastle
With small Groups, the draw should not effect travel too much (NOTHING like the 2 conference system). But the rivalries would be AMAZING (I am a Knights fan, so i would also be VERY interested in ALL of the other teams in my group)\\
FINALS
2nd vs 3rd > Winner Vs 1st > Combines "Top 4" Play offs with all of the Group winners
This would mean W1 & W2 of the finals would have four HUGE rivalries each week. W3 & GF would have some random matchups, but they would be big enough events by themselves to not need rivalries.
The only thing we lose is that GF day will never have SouthsVDragons or BrisbaneVNQLD, but it think the guarantee of 2 rivalry finals game EVERY SINGLE YEAR in EVERY SINGLE GROUP would make up for that
(GFs with big rivalries rarely happen anyway. In the 23 NRL GFs, i can see four games that i would call "histoic" rivalies. Not a huge loss...)