Reality Check

[Rhode Island Rebellion]

There have been many comments that have been tossed about that there is a vast difference between the top 4 USARL teams and the bottom 4 USARL teams
Here are the facts... Judge for yourselves.
Regular Season

Jax – 15 wins 1 Loss 30pts (Championship) - PF 732
(2011 1st, 2012 1st)

DC – 12 wins 4 Losses – 24pts - PF 577
(2011 2nd, 2012 4th)

Philly 12 wins 4 losses – 24pts (Championship) - PF 793
(2011 3rd, 2012 2nd)

Boston 13s – 8 wins – 8 losses – 16pts (Finals Appearance) - PF 556
(2011 6th, 2012 3rd)

Rhode Island Rebellion – 7 Wins 9 losses 14pts - PF 566
(2011 5th, 2012 5th)

New Haven 6 wins – 10 losses 12pts (Finals Appearance) PF 418
(2011 4th, 2012 7th)

Oneida FC 3 wins – 13 losses – 6 pts - PF 272
(2011 8th, 2012 6th)

New Jersey / Baltimore 1 Win – 15 losses 2pts - PF 194
(2011 7th, 2012 8th)

 

[Fatwing15]

There have been many comments that have been tossed about that there is a vast difference between the top 4 USARL teams and the bottom 4 USARL teams
Here are the facts... Judge for yourselves.
Regular Season

Jax ? 15 wins 1 Loss 30pts (Championship) - PF 732
(2011 1st, 2012 1st)

DC ? 12 wins 4 Losses ? 24pts - PF 577
(2011 2nd, 2012 4th)

Philly 12 wins 4 losses ? 24pts (Championship) - PF 793
(2011 3rd, 2012 2nd)

Boston 13s ? 8 wins ? 8 losses ? 16pts (Finals Appearance) - PF 556
(2011 6th, 2012 3rd)

Rhode Island Rebellion ? 7 Wins 9 losses 14pts - PF 566
(2011 5th, 2012 5th)

New Haven 6 wins ? 10 losses 12pts (Finals Appearance) PF 418
(2011 4th, 2012 7th)

Oneida FC 3 wins ? 13 losses ? 6 pts - PF 272
(2011 8th, 2012 6th)

New Jersey / Baltimore 1 Win ? 15 losses 2pts - PF 194
(2011 7th, 2012 8th)

Disparity is a good thing to an extent. And I think that talent level of teams are fairly cyclical. Just look at teams like the 13's and New Haven in the last 3 years they have had great teams and poor teams. Most teams that struggle eventually develop talent and eventually challenge the top teams. You just have to hope the huge floggings don't discourage teams and cause them to fade away, like the Vipers, Titans, and Pitt. I think you will see much fewer HUGE blow outs in the USARL with the way they structured the schedule.

The Sharks for example in my opinion had a slightly below average team in our first year back, a killer schedule would of hurt us greatly. In our second year back, with basically the same exact team I think we were a little bit above average when compared to all the teams in the US. And I really believe that with a couple solid imports to really lead us around the field we would have a chance to move into that top tier in 2013. I would say talent wise the Raiders, RIR, DC and the Fight are in the same boat as us, Kind of at the level where a couple really good imports can really push us over the edge. It's an exciting time to be part of rugby league in America with all of the solid teams that are competing

 

[gyallop]

What were the points against?

 

[pennpool]

There have been many comments that have been tossed about that there is a vast difference between the top 4 USARL teams and the bottom 4 USARL teams
Here are the facts... Judge for yourselves.
Regular Season

Jax ? 15 wins 1 Loss 30pts (Championship) - PF 732
(2011 1st, 2012 1st)

DC ? 12 wins 4 Losses ? 24pts - PF 577
(2011 2nd, 2012 4th)

Philly 12 wins 4 losses ? 24pts (Championship) - PF 793
(2011 3rd, 2012 2nd)

Boston 13s ? 8 wins ? 8 losses ? 16pts (Finals Appearance) - PF 556
(2011 6th, 2012 3rd)

Rhode Island Rebellion ? 7 Wins 9 losses 14pts - PF 566
(2011 5th, 2012 5th)

New Haven 6 wins ? 10 losses 12pts (Finals Appearance) PF 418
(2011 4th, 2012 7th)

Oneida FC 3 wins ? 13 losses ? 6 pts - PF 272
(2011 8th, 2012 6th)

New Jersey / Baltimore 1 Win ? 15 losses 2pts - PF 194
(2011 7th, 2012 8th)

That's interesting reading. By your numbers you would have to say only 3 teams are competative. Anything 50%win or below is an also ran.

So not sure what your point is?

 

[Fatwing15]

That's interesting reading. By your numbers you would have to say only 3 teams are competative. Anything 50%win or below is an also ran.

So not sure what your point is?

50% and below are also rans? I think atleast 2/3 of the teams between the comps are much more than also rans, regardless of record.

 

[pennpool]

If you win half your games and lose the other half of your games you are an also ran. You will never win the league with that record.

 

[deal.with.it]

You dont have to win majority games to make nel gf, and warriors, parra etc have made gf. Maybe not won, but definitely great teams, not also rans.

 

[pennpool]

You dont have to win majority games to make nel gf, and warriors, parra etc have made gf. Maybe not won, but definitely great teams, not also rans.

I whole heartedly disagree. Playoffs are money spinners in the big leagues ,outside of that its giving mediocrity a chance. You have no right being in contention for any trophy with a 50/50 win loss. With that record you are an average team. Your an also ran.

 

[deal.with.it]

So if a team starts the season poorly, then mid season is winning half of their games, and then wins say 6 on the trot to make the finals, and carries that through to the grand final, they're an also ran? I think you miss the point of finals in big rugby league competitions, its not just a money spinner, although it helps financially. We hear every year that comps aren't won in Feb or March. Injuries take their toll.
Leeds won the grand final from fifth! Warriors and Parra making it from 8th.
The year parra made the grand final, they were f**king brilliant, and i don't like them. Hayne was on fire. They were near unstoppable (except for Melbourne breaking salary cap). No one can say that parra team were also rans. It doesn't make sense.

 

[IowaRL]

I whole heartedly disagree. Playoffs are money spinners in the big leagues ,outside of that its giving mediocrity a chance. You have no right being in contention for any trophy with a 50/50 win loss. With that record you are an average team. Your an also ran.

Tell that to the NFL. Teams will make the playoffs with a losing record, as long as they have the most points in thier conference. In College Football in America, you can be pretty much 50/50 and still get a bowl invite (and thats the real money maker in College Football). It works in America, and you need to go with what works to have success.

 

[pennpool]

So if a team starts the season poorly, then mid season is winning half of their games, and then wins say 6 on the trot to make the finals, and carries that through to the grand final, they're an also ran? I think you miss the point of finals in big rugby league competitions, its not just a money spinner, although it helps financially. We hear every year that comps aren't won in Feb or March. Injuries take their toll.
Leeds won the grand final from fifth! Warriors and Parra making it from 8th.
The year parra made the grand final, they were f**king brilliant, and i don't like them. Hayne was on fire. They were near unstoppable (except for Melbourne breaking salary cap). No one can say that parra team were also rans. It doesn't make sense.

Neither of those teams had a right to win the league. The only reason they had a chance was because of the money machine. Call me a traditionalist. I just don't agree with the system and never will.

But in using your examples. I would be suprised if Parra, warriors and Leeds all had win records of 50% by the time the playoffs came around. You win half your your games you are an average team with an average record.

 

[pennpool]

Tell that to the NFL. Teams will make the playoffs with a losing record, as long as they have the most points in thier conference. In College Football in America, you can be pretty much 50/50 and still get a bowl invite (and thats the real money maker in College Football). It works in America, and you need to go with what works to have success.

The NFL playoffs and college bowl games are the biggest money whores in sport. College rankings are a joke as are wild card entries and any team that gets in with a 50/50 record. Especially when teams have 10/6, 11/5 records and can't make playoffs because one team has a .500 record and is deemed the best of there four (yes four) 'divisional' teams.

Only American sport supports mediocrity in the way that they call a season with .501 record. 'Winning season'

 

[sharkies9]

I see no problem with the top half of the teams in a league making the playoffs. In U.S Pro Sports there is not that much between the top half of the teams.

 

[byrner]

RIR, those stats u put up go against your point.
It shows three teams that are in a top group, and two further divides after that.
I actually thought the comp would be closer than that.

Although in the long run it doesnt matter, the bottom teams need to start somewhere

 

[Rhode Island Rebellion]

RIR, those stats u put up go against your point.
It shows three teams that are in a top group, and two further divides after that.
I actually thought the comp would be closer than that.

Although in the long run it doesnt matter, the bottom teams need to start somewhere

I didnt list a point. I just stated that people state there are a top 4.
I am pointing out that there is a top three or a top 6. Or that you can come up with any conclusion you want.

However to argue that you should seperate teams at this stage would be counter productive because if you play against terrible teams all the time you will nevrer be a good team.

You have have young teams, new teams, teams that can score and teams that can stop scoring. All various strengths and weaknesses.

However to suggest that a sport in its infancy and only in the past few years really starting its efforts to grow, separate into divisions based on record alone is silly.

If a 1st league and a 2nd league were made, it should be determined by 1, Finances, 2) Community involvement, 3) player numbers
If you have those factors... and they are consistantly there a team only has room for growth.
If you however tell players they cant compete even if there are 30 or 40 of them because they are not good enough.. you prevent the growth of the sport.

If you prefer that a sport not grow unless everyone is perfect at it, then there should not be an international fourm unless it contained posts about northern england and NSW QLD australia.

I did not have a point per se besides that the argument was dumb.


oh and as an aside.. Regardless of records... for the 2 year old Rebellion, that there are a few players that would easily be competitive with any of the domestic players that are part of the player pool for the natl' team... meaning that you would hurt the great players on lesser teams chances to grow as players and enhance the overall team around them if one were to go that direction...
1 player on my team was already invited to tryout in previous seasons before he moved back home to RI/MA border.. Secondly as I stated before Derek Trehan is probably one of the best domestic players in either competition.

--
Since I went off on a tangent regarding the deveopment of the sport i think that there should be an expection made to the USA with regard to the shoulder charge... why... because the NFL has it.. and not to say we are trying to compete against the NFL... we want to engage the causal sports fan to become rugby league fans... and in america athletes who play football and fans who watch it...love big hits...(and know how to take them as well). (also should mention hockey players and fans... as this guy was a college hockey player and spent his first season with RIR last year... Enjoy) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Et2BfE8dNu0

 

[byrner]

Good point RIR! The idea of splitting comps based on talent is stupid unless you have enough teams close enough to do so.
Let people play the sport they want! If they dont mind getting pumped for a year or 2 before becoming good, then why should anyone else.

I remember as a teenager, and being put up to first division, loosing the first two games of the season by 56 and 86 points. People probably thought we should get dropped back to second division. But through training and experience we ended up being within a try of both those teams the next time we played them, and finishing in third.

As for an exemption from the sholder charge ban, i think every country should be. Worst rule to have been created in sport since the underarm bowl.in cricket.

 

[T Boone Pickens]

Word on the street here in America is that the AMNRL's plan includes a 12-14 team comp with geographical divisions, and the USARL's plan has the league broken up by talent level.

I think breaking the competition up by talent level would be detrimental to the growth of the game and the development of domestic players. Teams that are currently struggling aren't going to get that much better by playing other struggling teams. If domestic players aren't constantly training and competing against high level teams and athletes, it will definitely stunt their progression as Rugby League players, especially if they are crossover athletes from other sports.

In addition, the larger and more widespread the competition, the more likely it is that athletes from other sports, as well as financial partners, will buy in.

Think about how much harder it is to recruit an ex-college football player with talent divisions:

"Hey you should try rugby league, we have a team based out of XYZ city 5 minutes down the road. There are about 14 teams in the country, but we only play the same 4 average teams over and over again because we aren't good enough. Maybe if you come out and play for the next 2 years, we might be able to play against the real teams."

As opposed to a single level competition where even if teams are getting handled regularly, they are still competing against superior talent and organization, but at least they can see what it takes to be successful. Taking a trip to NYC and getting crushed by the Knights followed by a night out on the town is still way more attractive for recruiting young athletes than driving 4 hours to play the same team you played the week before, only to trade wins/losses and suggest that everybody is improving. If a team is not eligible to win the championship, how can a coach motivate his players to be the best?


The only downside I could see to this would be a possible watered down competition/product, but honestly the game isn't at a point yet here where big money is going to be involved. We hear about these deals and plans with corporations, but the realization is that the game is still AT LEAST 5-10 years away from having enough overall following in the country to support a more professional competition. Even if teams struggle or fold out, there is still a net larger and more widespread competition, which I think is really the key to the game taking off over here. Even in professional sports you see teams folding, it's not just this league.

In my opinion, the larger the comp, the more opportunities for travel,and the more diversity of teams, the more Americans will buy in to play the sport and view it as a legitimate business opportunity.



But hey, I'm just a 22 year old crossover athlete from American Football, Wrestling, and Hockey (I'm constantly around the type of athletes the game is trying to pursue). I might not know the game itself that well yet, but I do know how people feel about it here and what it takes to get people on board.

 

[Bronco Rob]

I disagree T Boone Pickens about one division for all teams. You also don't want to deter guys from playing the game especially gieven that a lot of players new to the game need time to adjust and learn the incitricies of the gme. I think 2 divisions of 6-8 teams would be ideal with a promotion/delegation system to give incentives for teams to improve. Otherwise you'd have blokes who have just started playing the game playing against ex-NRL and seasoned players and if teams are getting flogged each week they're going to get despondent with the game and lose them forever.

Once the number of teams grow then you can increase the 1st Division but you need to keep it at a realistic number so your costs don't blow out. Ideally you'd like to have lower divisions in all regions to feed into the 1st Division but that's a while off yet.

 

[gyallop]

So did the Sharks Panthers and Raiders quit or tough it out and slowly improve when the joined the NSWRL and got pumped every week?

I think the game needs to listen to those playing there.

Successful layers within sport come with growth and to impose layers into an fledgling sport is a sure fire way to stunt its growth as the bottom layer has nothing to benchmark itself of on the field to help players improve. No matter the sport the only proven way for players to develop is to play with and against better players.

 

[Fatwing15]

I disagree T Boone Pickens about one division for all teams. You also don't want to deter guys from playing the game especially gieven that a lot of players new to the game need time to adjust and learn the incitricies of the gme. I think 2 divisions of 6-8 teams would be ideal with a promotion/delegation system to give incentives for teams to improve. Otherwise you'd have blokes who have just started playing the game playing against ex-NRL and seasoned players and if teams are getting flogged each week they're going to get despondent with the game and lose them forever.

Once the number of teams grow then you can increase the 1st Division but you need to keep it at a realistic number so your costs don't blow out. Ideally you'd like to have lower divisions in all regions to feed into the 1st Division but that's a while off yet.

Dividing the competition would prove very difficult, as there are only three organizations (Fight,Axemen,RIR) who are in there own category. But only one of those teams are in the top talent category. Ranking the rest of the teams in organization 4 though 10 and talent 4 through 10 is really a tough thing to do. So where is the dividing line? How do you decide who plays in the elite group. Would you put RIR in there over the Bulls, New Haven and DC because of their progress off the field? Whats more important on the field product or off the field product?

For example, if you take the Fight, RIR and Jax with the Knights Cats and Bulls and create an elite comp, what do you say to the teams like Boston, who beat the Fight and RIR, or New Haven, who won a championship just 2 years prior?

In rugby league in the US, teams relegated to a "developmental side" fade away, people lose interest in them.. Create a 10 team unified competition, because there are 10 strong sides over here, it is that simple.