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.

 

[MugaB]

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).

4 pools of 5 teams is better, one less wooden spooner
The pools idea is the best coz you ignite more local rivalries with your closest neighbouring clubs
Also makes the excuse about why you need to verse them more often

 

[MugaB]

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.

You never will, 1st grade teams, create 1st grade players/coaches, no point shortening the clubs and the revenue that comes with the current content.
You need to stop being upset with the whole competition, just coz your club is sucking arse,

Think it thru, eventually with your 12 club comp there will be the last 4 teams that shit the bed, due to lack of talent, why? coz you previously culled 5 clubs who were producing it, besides quality is subjective to opinions, it's not a measure, any game could be quality if the right circumstances are set, (less penalties, more fatigue, try saving tackles, great tackles, more tries)
It all depends on what you rate as quality

You want a better comp add more 1st grade teams, less games, more to play for

 

[reanimate]

You never will, 1st grade teams, create 1st grade players/coaches, no point shortening the clubs and the revenue that comes with the current content.
You need to stop being upset with the whole competition, just coz your club is sucking arse,

Think it thru, eventually with your 12 club comp there will be the last 4 teams that shit the bed, due to lack of talent, why? coz you previously culled 5 clubs who were producing it, besides quality is subjective to opinions, it's not measure, any game could be quality if the right circumstances are set, (less penalties, more fatigue, try saving tackles, great tackles, more tries)
It all depends on what you rate as quality

You want a better comp add more 1st grade teams, less games, more to play for

Look at Super Rugby - is dropping to 4 Australian teams going to help them? Not really, it might make the 4 remaining teams look a little better for a few seasons, but in the end it’ll just make Union even more unappealing for juniors playing both codes.

 

[Colk]

You never will, 1st grade teams, create 1st grade players/coaches, no point shortening the clubs and the revenue that comes with the current content.
You need to stop being upset with the whole competition, just coz your club is sucking arse,

Think it thru, eventually with your 12 club comp there will be the last 4 teams that shit the bed, due to lack of talent, why? coz you previously culled 5 clubs who were producing it, besides quality is subjective to opinions, it's not a measure, any game could be quality if the right circumstances are set, (less penalties, more fatigue, try saving tackles, great tackles, more tries)
It all depends on what you rate as quality

You want a better comp add more 1st grade teams, less games, more to play for

You assume way too much. For example the competition peaked right after the Super League war until to about 2005. My team didn’t do anything then

Quality is subjective for sure but ultimately you will always have better quality with less teams. If you go to 20 or 22 or 24 or whatever other options people want, you will definitely have the Roosters, Panthers and Storm win forever more. You will also see pretty much every game become unwatchable like 2021.

Lastly, you either have a competition that aims to promote some sort of competitiveness or you don’t. If you don’t want to and want to have some sort of pure capitalist model (i.e. people just have to get good) like the EPL then remove the salary cap. Have the courage of your convictions as that would be the purest model you could think of.

 

[Colk]

Look at Super Rugby - is dropping to 4 Australian teams going to help them? Not really, it might make the 4 remaining teams look a little better for a few seasons, but in the end it’ll just make Union even more unappealing for juniors playing both codes.

Super Rugby was at its peak when it had less sides. They went downhill as soon as they started expanding. I would say the same with Rugby League in the 90’s and A-League about 10-15 years ago. AFL has also had trouble with the last two.

You will hit a point where expansion becomes a negative and actually damages the competition.

 

[MugaB]

You assume way too much. For example the competition peaked right after the Super League war until to about 2005. My team didn’t do anything then

Quality is subjective for sure but ultimately you will always have better quality with less teams. If you go to 20 or 22 or 24 or whatever other options people want, you will definitely have the Roosters, Panthers and Storm win forever more. You will also see pretty much every game become unwatchable like 2021.

Lastly, you either have a competition that aims to promote some sort of competitiveness or you don’t. If you don’t want to and want to have some sort of pure capitalist model (i.e. people just have to get good) like the EPL then remove the salary cap. Have the courage of your convictions as that would be the purest model you could think of.

Those three teams only wn coz they are running their club better than most, Penrith were never one if the better run clubs, there was other clubs that were either winning (manly, bulldogs) that were more prominent in that period, success is cyclical, and the better run clubs just now how to stay relevant, culling the competition doesn't mean it will change that, it'll make it more evident that the Roosters and storm have a higher percentage of staying up there

 

[MugaB]

Super Rugby was at its peak when it had less sides. They went downhill as soon as they started expanding. I would say the same with Rugby League in the 90’s and A-League about 10-15 years ago. AFL has also had trouble with the last two.

You will hit a point where expansion becomes a negative and actually damages the competition.

So the dolphins have made the competition peak expansion.... colk ffs please

 

[CQLeaguey]

Those three teams only wn coz they are running their club better than most, Penrith were never one if the better run clubs, there was other clubs that were either winning (manly, bulldogs) that were more prominent in that period, success is cyclical, and the better run clubs just now how to stay relevant, culling the competition doesn't mean it will change that, it'll make it more evident that the Roosters and storm have a higher percentage of staying up there

I agree with this to a degree. Certainly you need to be a well run club for a consistent period to be successful, and success IS cyclical. But those cycles seem to be becoming longer, and successful clubs have an ‘incumbency’ advantage to staying successful, to the extent that as you point out, a couple of them might be there indefinitely. I don’t think it’s good for NRL as a product for us to have to wait for someone to make an absolute blunder at (for example) Melbourne before one day them making way for another club to have a chance. Also I don’t link this to number of teams per se. I didn’t even watch the recent grand final cause as a neutral I wasn’t interested in watching the same thing again. Maybe others can. I mean people watch ‘the block’ which is the same sh!T year after year. And I suppose it’d take longer for Penrith Melbourne and Easts fans to get sick of it. But I watched the Newtown v Norths game because it wasn’t something you’ve seen a bunch of times in recent memory. Was a cracking game too.

 

[MugaB]

I agree with this to a degree. Certainly you need to be a well run club for a consistent period to be successful, and success IS cyclical. But those cycles seem to be becoming longer, and successful clubs have an ‘incumbency’ advantage to staying successful, to the extent that as you point out, a couple of them might be there indefinitely. I don’t think it’s good for NRL as a product for us to have to wait for someone to make an absolute blunder at (for example) Melbourne before one day them making way for another club to have a chance. Also I don’t link this to number of teams per se. I didn’t even watch the recent grand final cause as a neutral I wasn’t interested in watching the same thing again. Maybe others can. I mean people watch ‘the block’ which is the same sh!T year after year. And I suppose it’d take longer for Penrith Melbourne and Easts fans to get sick of it. But I watched the Newtown v Norths game because it wasn’t something you’ve seen a bunch of times in recent memory. Was a cracking game too.

Funnily enough, it's only been Melbourne V Penrith twice, ever.. not sure how you get sick of those two, separately different story