THE IDEAL NUMBER OF TEAMS IN THE NRL.

[Colk]

Misconception: the salary cap is there to even up the comp. The salary cap is there to stop teams spending beyond their means and going broke.

Teams have always dominated eras. In the 50s and 60s it was St George and Souths, Manly won 4 comps in the 70s, as did Parramatta and Canterbury in the 80s and Brisbane in the 90s

It's just different teams now who have got their act together better than anyone else.

Of course it is a misconception; that’s why you should get rid of it. It’s also impossible to police.

I would add that the Storm and the Roosters have dominated for the best part of a quarter of a century. It’s so far entrenched with the Panthers that I don’t think it will change now

 

[Babyface O'reilly]

If we are starting today from scratch, ideally you'd have:

1. North Sydney / North Shore
2. Sydney City / Eastern Suburbs
3. Southern Sydney (inc the Shire)
4. Inner West Sydney
5. Western Sydney
6. South West Sydney
7. Newcastle
8. Central Coast
9. Wollongong
10. North QLD
11. Sunshine Coast / Moreton Bay
12. Brisbane
13. Ipswich & Logan
14. Gold Coast
15. Canberra
16. Melbourne
17. Adelaide
18. Perth
19. Auckland
20. Christchurch
21. Wellington
22. Geelong

Covers the top 15 population centres in Australia and reinforces our heartlands, plus the top 3 population centres in NZ

Good list for conference 1, who do you have in mind for the second?

 

[Colk]

Good list for conference 1, who do you have in mind for the second?

12 teams for first division and 10 teams in division two. Put the regional clubs in a second division as they are currently wasting their time in the NRL

 

[no name]

Will never happen because they’d need to get rid of too many Sydney teams, but the ideal number would be 12 for mine.
Play each other twice, 22 rounds.
Slots - Friday night game, 3 on Saturday, 2 on Sunday.
This is dismissing tv revenue, merch etc.
From purely a quality of game point of view, I think this would give the highest quality of games.

 

[Chins get the wins]

20 teams, 19 rounds would be perfect

 

[Colk]

20 teams, 19 rounds would be perfect

Why?

 

[Chins get the wins]

Why?

A fair draw, room for expansion but nothing silly, every game having meaning, time for international games, less player burnout meaning fitter players in the finals.

 

[Diesel]

In 1995/96, we had 20 teams, 22 rounds.

5 pools of 4 teams.

play every team once (19 games) and your pool teams again (3 games).

 

[blue bags]

Why?

Cause that's the plan

 

[Colk]

A fair draw, room for expansion but nothing silly, every game having meaning, time for international games, less player burnout meaning fitter players in the finals.

Really poor standard is the most obvious reason against it. The standard of the competition is really poor atm - every week you are getting multiple blow outs so I don’t really know how adding three more teams is going to make the standard better. The bottom 2/3rds may as well not show up and a large majority you would put a line through them in terms of ever winning or going close to winning; so essentially they are just there for decoration.

If you really wanted to do all those things you espouse you’d be better off getting rid of teams not adding more.

 

[Colk]

In 1995/96, we had 20 teams, 22 rounds.

5 pools of 4 teams.

play every team once (19 games) and your pool teams again (3 games).

Do you really remember that competition? There were multiple teams who flat out struggled to win a game all year. This is at a time also where arguably had more talent in key positions (that sounds rather pretentious I know so halves and hookers etc) There is just not enough player talent, coaching talent (very important) and or referees to have a 20 team competition.