Shortened season like NFL? Also possible finals system

[Knight87]

Do you think a shortened season (like that of the NFL in USA, which is 17 Rounds + 4 weeks of playoffs) would work in the NRL? Also, what about the idea of conferences (like US sports)?

Finally, I thought of a top 8 finals system. Tell me what you think of this one (even though there is less games):

Week 1: Quarter Finals (loser eliminated. All games are played at the respective teams home grounds)

Game 1 (Friday Night) : 4th vs 5th at 4th place's home ground
Game 2 (Saturday Night) : 3rd vs 6th at 3rd place's home ground
Game 3 (Saturday Night) : 2nd vs 7th at 2nd place's home ground
Game 4 (Sunday) : 1st vs 8th at 1st place's home ground

Week 2: Semi Finals (loser eliminated. All games are played at the respective teams home ground choice of venue with capacity of at least 40,000)

Game 5 (Saturday Night): 2nd highest winner vs 3rd highest winner (from week 1)
Game 6 (Sunday) : 1st highest winner vs 4th highest winner (from week 1)

Both games are played at the 1st+2nd highest winner's venue of choice. Venues of choice are:

- Suncorp Stadium (if North QLD, Brisbane or Gold Coast are the host side)
- Aussie Stadium (if Penrith, Parramatta, Wests Tigers, Manly, St George/Ill, Cronulla, Bulldogs, Sydney Roosters, South Sydney, Canberra or Newcastle is the host side)
- Telstra Stadium (same as Aussie Stadium)
- Telstra Dome (if Melbourne are the host side)
- MCG (same as Telstra Dome, although highly unlikely to use this as venue for a league game)
- Eden Park (if NZ Warriors are the host side)

Week 3: Grand Final at Telstra Stadium: Winner of Game 5 vs Winner of Game 6

As I mentioned earlier, the system i've proposed may not have as many games. however, out of all the top 8 systems, i believe it's most fairest on all sides.

Ppl might criticise that it's a knockout, and hence if you lose youre out and why it doesn't favour teams 1+2 (which get 2nd chances under AFL and McIntyre systems). Well, the advantage for team 1 is that they get to play the lowest ranked side in week 1 (with home ground advantage btw), and the lowest ranked winner in week 2 (if they get through week 1). If they cannot beat team 8 in week 1, i dont see why team 1 deserves a second chance. Plus, they get home ground advantage for that game as well, as I've mentioned earlier.

So, for an example with this finals assuming all top sides win (based on the current top 8 as of today)

Week 1:

North QLD vs NZ Warriors at Dairy Farmers Stadium
Parramatta vs Brisbane at Parramatta Stadium
Manly vs Bulldogs at Brookvale Oval
Melbourne vs Wests Tigers at Olympic Park

Week 2:

Manly vs Parramatta at SFS/Telstra Stadium
Melbourne vs Nth QLD at Telstra Dome


Your thoughts please...

 

[Timmah]

Too complicated.

 

[hindmarsh4pm]

how about we do it like the hockey in america 82 during the regular season, then in the playoffs each team you play its the best of 7 series hahahaha

i don't mind ur system, i dont see the nrl changing it although i do think its time for a change, il give u an example of why it is crap

2005 tigers smash cowboys and cowboys get another chance, parra smash manly and parra get a week off, manly kicked out. parra meet cowboys in preliminary with cowboys already having a loss in the semis parra not having lost yet, parra lose one game after being minor premiers and get kicked out, while cowboys who lost one game by finishing 5got another chance

 

[Mr Saab]

Do it NBA style.
Play 82 games....3 games a week.

 

[Knight87]

hindmarsh4pm, ill give you a classic flaw with the 2006 McIntyre series:

Newcastle (4th) beat Manly (5th) and St George/Illawarra (6th) beat Brisbane (3rd). Bulldogs (2nd) and Melbourne (1st) win both of their games, hence making the Newcastle/Manly and Brisbane/St George games meaningless. All the injuries, suspensions etc. that came out of both of those games came to no aveil, as there was nothing to gain from it; all teams were going to play in Week 2, regardless. So, thats one.

The 2nd one is more blatantly obvious. Newcastle (4th) then play Brisbane (3rd) and St George (6th) play Manly (5th). Newcastle, as a so-called 'reward' for winning have to play a higher ranked team, whereas Manly actually reap the reward for losing, by playing a lower ranked side. Both games are of equal weighting (ie both semis, both sudden death games), but yet Manly are the ones who get more of a reward than Newcastle. How does that make sense. The same scenario occured in 2005 in regards to this issue. Luckily for Wests Tigers, they beat Brisbane, but in a fair situation, that matchup should've never occured for the Tigers.

 

[Knight87]

Do it NBA style.
Play 82 games....3 games a week.

HAHAA! Um, Mr Saab, I think you mean do it MLB (Major League Baseball) style:

Play 162 games....6/7 games a week (sometimes, teams have to play 2 games a day).
But then, I guess, that's how the MLB are able to pay these players millions of dollars. Still though, imagine playing cricket 6/7 games a week (sometimes twice a day). If it was like that all summer on tv...........hahah! Nah, I like cricket, but then having to hear some of those Ch9 commentators 6/7 days a week is another story

 

[Knight87]

i mean, ppl talk about player burnout. Imagine if teams had to play 6 games/week? It'd be Emergency Ward on the Rugby League field

 

[NK Arsenal]

We should use the AFL top 8, it is so much better than the MacIntyre 8.
I wouldn't mind shortening the season to 15 weeks + 4 weeks of finals TBH.

 

[Redback71]

i think the best sytem is the superleague in the uk.

1 or 2 is guaranteed a grandfanal spot.

and looser gets a 2nd chance.

16 or 18 weeks is to short

 

[Redback71]

top 6

1st and 2nd get week off

3rd vs 6th
4th vs 5th

2 loosers eliminated

1st vs 2nd (winner to grandfinal)
2 winnners fom 3rd vs 6th & 4th vs 5th play each other
looser eliminated.

winner plays looser from 1st vs 2nd for grandfinal spot.

so you would have

week 1
storm and eagles get week off
eels vs broncos (looser eliminated)
cowboys vs warriors (looser eliminated)

week 2
storm vs eagles (winner to Grandfinal)
winner of eels & broncos game vs winner of cowboys & warriors (looser eliminated)

week 3

looser of storm & eagles game vs winner of the other game.

week 4

Grandfinal

 

[Timmah]

hindmarsh4pm, ill give you a classic flaw with the 2006 McIntyre series:

Newcastle (4th) beat Manly (5th) and St George/Illawarra (6th) beat Brisbane (3rd). Bulldogs (2nd) and Melbourne (1st) win both of their games, hence making the Newcastle/Manly and Brisbane/St George games meaningless. All the injuries, suspensions etc. that came out of both of those games came to no aveil, as there was nothing to gain from it; all teams were going to play in Week 2, regardless. So, thats one.

The purpose of each week is to shed teams from the comp.

The games 4/5 and 3/6 are certainly valid given that 2/7 has traditionally been an "easy upset" game and therefore shaken it all up. Either way all games are useful as they determine which are the two lowest ranked sides and therefore eliminated.

Classic flaws don't exist in the system.

 

[Knight87]

My favourite system of all the ones used over the years would have to be the Top 5. Undoubtedbly the best.

On the topic of player burnout, the Super League has more games than the NRL. They have 27 games + Finals + Challenge Cup.

 

[Glory be Lockyer]

the only fair thing to do is make every1 play each other at least once. Then lets have a top 10 divided into 2 pools of 5. Each side in their respective pools plays each other with the top 2 in each advancing to the major semi finals. Then the semi finals will be based on a best of three series with the higher ranked side getting 2 hme finals. Then the GF can be played out in a best of 9 series to determine the true champion. With all 9 matches to be played at 9 different stadiums across Oceania. This finals system is recognised world wide as the top ten divided by 2 and divided by 2 agan and then take away 1 and what remains is 1, the grand champion.

 

[Aotearoa_NewZealand]

why not have two seperate "conferences" like in the nfl, with 8 teams in each. Each conference would play a h & a season with the top 4 teams from each conference making it through to a national or joint conference final series.

 

[The Fruit Pickers]

We should use the AFL top 8, it is so much better than the MacIntyre 8.
I wouldn't mind shortening the season to 15 weeks + 4 weeks of finals TBH.

How is the AFL top 8 better?

It rewards week 1 losers

 

[Aotearoa_NewZealand]

How is the AFL top 8 better?

It rewards week 1 losers

AFL also rewards teams should the miss a goal "behind" :lol: What a terrible sport

 

[sherrinator]

How is the AFL top 8 better?

It rewards week 1 losers

By giving the teams who earn a top 4 spot a second chance?

How is it fair that say 3rd place in the regular season in the NRL, should they lose their first finals game, can be knocked out? It is not fair that the team that performs badly thus finishing eight can over-take the 3rd placed team just through one game. McIntyre system is sh*t.

Week 1
1v4 (game a)
2v3 (game b)

5v8 (game c)
6v7 (game d)

Week 2 semis
loser game a v winner game d (game e)
loser game b v winner game c (game f)

Week 3 prelims
winner game a v winner game f (game g)
winner game b v winner game e (game h)

Week 4 GF
winner game g v winner game h

As you can see that system makes it supremely difficult for a team who doesn't finish top to go on and win, which is what you want. I think we should reward top regular season teams, and not let them lose based on 1 game.

 

[sherrinator]

AFL also rewards teams should the miss a goal "behind" :lol: What a terrible sport

New Zealand has a poor currency and a prime minister that's uglier than my dogs arse :lol: what a terrible country

 

[goboggo]

I have been thinking about the idea of conferences for a while.

I think they should split the comp in 2 - 8 teams each conference. Not fussed how they work it out, whether it's last years results or geography, whatever (though geography would mean that you could build good inner-conference rivalries, whereas the other way would change each year). For the sake of the explanation lets call them Southern Conference and Northern Conference.

You play everyone in your conference twice (14 games) and everyone in the other conference once (8 games) for a total of 22 games (the perfect season length).

Then you only go into a top 4 for your conference.

First week, Conference semi-finals: 1v2 (winner through to Conference Final) and 3v4 (loser eliminated).
2nd week, Conference Preliminary Final: loser (1v2) v winner (3v4)
3rd week, Conference Final: Winner (1v2) v winner Conference Preliminary Final

4th Week, Grand Final: Winner Southern Conference v Winner Northern Conference.

The advantage for the NRL is that there is still the same amount of finals teams and finals games overall but a much fairer system of deciding the finals. It's old school, like semi-finals for weekend comps, where 1 and 2 get a chance, but the advantage for team 1 is that they get the home ground. In the second week the loser of 1v2 gets the home ground (or town) advantage v the winner of 3v4.

Also, totally fair because you only play against the teams in your conference in the finals, until the grand final, meaning that this rubbish of playing some teams once and it being unfair on the end result is gone.

They'll never even consider it, because they wouldn't be able to face up to the idea of splitting the comp into two tables during the year (at least not until we had about 20 teams), but it'd be the fairest way and wouldn't lessen the amount of finals games played.

 

[The Fruit Pickers]

By giving the teams who earn a top 4 spot a second chance?

How is it fair that say 3rd place in the regular season in the NRL, should they lose their first finals game, can be knocked out? It is not fair that the team that performs badly thus finishing eight can over-take the 3rd placed team just through one game. McIntyre system is sh*t.

Week 1
1v4 (game a)
2v3 (game b)

5v8 (game c)
6v7 (game d)

Week 2 semis
loser game a v winner game d (game e)
loser game b v winner game c (game f)

Week 3 prelims
winner game a v winner game f (game g)
winner game b v winner game e (game h)

Week 4 GF
winner game g v winner game h

As you can see that system makes it supremely difficult for a team who doesn't finish top to go on and win, which is what you want. I think we should reward top regular season teams, and not let them lose based on 1 game.

Is it fair that a team finishing 3rd can lose in week 1, then make the grand Final having not even beaten teams 1 or 2 to get there.. it’s happened 3 times under the AFL system

2006 … Sydney Swans – lost week 1 to team 2, then got rewarded by playing team 6 (week 2) and team 4 (week 3) to reach the Grand Final
2005 … Sydney Swans – lost week 1 to team 2, then got rewarded by playing team 6 (week 2) and team 4 (week 3) to reach the Grand Final
2003 … Brisbane Lions – lost week 1 to team 2, then got rewarded by playing team 6 (week 2) and team 4 (week 3) to reach the Grand Final

that’s really fair, lose week 1 and only play sides that finished below you


No side has lost week 1 under the McIntyre system and then made the Grand Final not having beaten sides 1 or 2 to get there….