Time to get rid of the 8???

[Moffo]

If the NRL actually signed a decent TV rights deal they could recover any revenue that would be lost by one or two less finals matches in a top 5 format.

16 teams, top 5 sounds good to me. Every year we see a team limp into 7th or 8th (My Broncos included) that don't have a hope in hell of going any further than week 1 of the finals.

cowboys were 7th last year

 

[Eskimo Sharkie]

I agree that the Minor Premiership should have more status, maybe some extra dollars and a trophy to whoever wins it. If you scrapped finals altogether, you'd see attendances starting to drop off now as the title would effectively be in the bag for the Broncos. It happens in the EPL, mainly for those teams mid table, but the difference there is that they have Champions League and UEFA Cup qualification and the relegation battle to keep things interesting. We've got a totally different competition.

I see nothing wrong with an 8 team finals series in a 16 team competition and I agree with a few posters here that the AFL finals system makes a lot more sense. Either that or split the competition into 2 conferences, ala American football. In a 16 team competition, you'd have the teams who finished 1st, 3rd, 5th etc in one conference and 2nd, 4th, 6th etc in the other. During the regular season, each team plays the team in their own conference twice and the other teams once (22 rounds).

For the finals, you could have two different approaches. In each conference, 1 plays 4 and 2 plays 3; the losers are eliminated. Thw two winners play off for conference champion and then the two conference winners play off for the Premiership, much like the way the Superbowl works. We currently have 9 finals matches, this system would reduce that by 2 to 7 matches and is therefore potentially flawed.

The alternative, would have 1 play 2, and 3 play 4. The loser of the 3 v 4 match is elminated. The winner of the 1 v 2 has a week's break and goes to the conference final, the loser plays the winner of 3 v 4 and the winner of this match goes to the conference final. Results in 9 matches again, the same as what we have now.

With the reduced number of rounds, you could have a complete break when the SOO series is on, perhaps introducing a knockout type competition over the same period. Something similar to the old Amco Cup. Either a straight knock out or have 4 groups of 4 teams who play each other, the winners of each group then proceeding to a knock out stage. Have all these matches played in regional areas.

 

[Dog-E]

Never been a fan of the 8...PLUS the entiire McIntyre semis System bites bungholes bigtime!! I'd LOVE to see the back of it for a top 5...6 @ the outside!

And if my team is not good enough to make that cut by round 26...well - sobeit, quite frankly!!

 

[Dog-E]

I agree that the Minor Premiership should have more status, maybe some extra dollars and a trophy to whoever wins it.

What, apart from the 100k cold hard ca$h and and the JJ Giltinan Shield the Minor Prems already receive, u mean?? ;-)

 

[Southern Rooster]

It's all about having extra games to generate money. Nothing more, nothing less.

Apart from the Broncos, Eels and the Dragons, no-one looks like doing anything in this competition.

That Wests side looked pretty good to me yesterday. They have always been able to score points and if they can improve there defence now they could be around at the back end of the season.

 

[Big_Bad_Shark_Fan]

An interesting stat I can remember is that I believe the 7th placed team has beaten the 2nd team in every semi almost since about 2000 (accept one year roosters beat knights i think)

 

[Baron Vo Mandor]

If you really want to keep the quality up why not copy the EPL for soccer where they have no finals. Team that is no 1 come end of season is no 1

Because regular season is just a prep for the finals, finals is when it counts, plus its f**king exciting footy.

 

[Raiders Plight]

Top 8 is fine but it should be the old system we had in 95/96 (AFL system). Even though i don't think the raiders have a hope in hell of taking the premiership i'm still excited to see my team in the finals.

 

[nqboy]

It's unfortunate, but my first reaction to this was that Melon was whinging coz the Rorter$ can't even make the Top 8 so other clubs shouldn't make the finals either.

 

[Coraki_kid]

I like the final 8 system........imo any team on there day can beat anyone.

 

[Azkatro]

Never been a fan of the 8...PLUS the entiire McIntyre semis System bites bungholes bigtime!! I'd LOVE to see the back of it for a top 5...6 @ the outside!

And if my team is not good enough to make that cut by round 26...well - sobeit, quite frankly!!

We all know that's what the clubs receive. But where's the glamorous presentation, like the grand final victors get?

 

[bender]

Honestly, some of the comments on this thread are classics. I dont even know where to start laughing so I will just start with the funniest.

To whoever said the side that wins the minor premiership is generally regarded as the best team. Lol. Do you think think that way about the countless sides who finished top but were bundled out before the grand finals. Do you not rate most of the Bronco Premierships and instead replace them with StGeorge, Souths, Cronulla and whoever else happened to win the minor premiership at those times?

To whoever said that the top 5 would give too many sides nothing to play for and rule out fairy tales. Could you please explain why a side (any side, whether it be South Sydney, Manly, Bulldogs or whoever) has a chance to make the 8 (usually 28 points) but couldnt possibly have a chance to make the top 5 (usually 28-30points). So, this year, which side can finish 8th and will get good crowds because of their form but cant possibly finish 5th?

To whoever likes the AFL system. If it is so great, why did the NRL/ARL dump it due to it being unfair to the top teams. Incidentally, if you must have a top 8 system the only fair system, is in fact what is known on the internet as the Glennc system.

The top 5 is so much better (in any competition) than the 8 that it isnt funny. Under a top 5 there will be the same amount of teams vying for spots, but most of those will miss out. It means that every 2 points must be earned and you hang on the results of not only your own match, but the match of others. You start counting the mathematic possibilities halfway through the season. Pressure is doubled or trippled and more often than not one bad referee decision will cost you a season.

Getting to the finals (unlike now where unless there is a fairy tale season) is actually seen as an achievement. Each finals game can be treated as a virtual grand final and, IMO, would if the top 5 were held nowadays result in nearly all sellouts. (as opposed to the current system which doesnt get exciting until the second week of finals for most fans. And the most important part of the final 5 is that if a side other than the number 1 team does actually win, there can be no doubt that they deserve the honour, because they will have to have played and beat each and every team that filled a higher spot on the ladder before or during the grand final. IMO, the introduction of a top 5 would greatly increase crowd and interest leading into the Grand final and would not even have the drastic loss in revenue for finals games that most people think.

 

[Dog-E]

We all know that's what the clubs receive. But where's the glamorous presentation, like the grand final victors get?

Non existent.

Where it shouild be IMO...as any team what they would prefer to win - MP or GF??...And they'll tell you to a man!!

Teams get to parade the Giltinan Shield round in thir last game if they win it!..>Dunno what happens if say - Bris & Melb are in the running for the MP...on the last day of the season..as there's obviously only 1 shield and it can't be in both places @ once...?

But - i really don't imagine the players CARE about that, so much!

U win the MP and THE GF - you get to parade round the ground afterwards with BOTh trophies!

Besides - if you're THAT clearly the better team over the year...u should have no problems winning the Grand Final, then, no??

 

[Azkatro]

To whoever said the side that wins the minor premiership is generally regarded as the best team. Lol. Do you think think that way about the countless sides who finished top but were bundled out before the grand finals.

Yes. For example Souths in 1989. Only people who generally have short attention spans will tell you that the Raiders were the best team all year. They were bundled out after they had two quiet games against the sides that finished third and fourth. Throughout the season Canberra lost twice to the team that finished first and to the team that finished equal fifth, once to the sides that finished second, third, seventh and even thirteenth, for a total of 8 losses. Including the finals series, Souths lost 5 games all year. This is just one example, another one I could think of from the top of my head is Parramatta in 2001.

Do you not rate most of the Bronco Premierships and instead replace them with StGeorge, Souths, Cronulla and whoever else happened to win the minor premiership at those times?

Brisbane were minor premiers when they won in 1992, 1997, 1998 and 2000. In 1993 the Bulldogs were. Just because they can produce a better team on grand final day, doesn't mean the Broncos were the better team all year.

It means that every 2 points must be earned and you hang on the results of not only your own match, but the match of others.

So if every 2 points have to be earned, why should one win on grand final day count for more than the 25 odd rounds leading up to the finals series, where the minor premiers had to earn more 2-pointers than every other team?

Getting to the finals (unlike now where unless there is a fairy tale season) is actually seen as an achievement. Each finals game can be treated as a virtual grand final and, IMO, would if the top 5 were held nowadays result in nearly all sellouts.

You're obsessed with grand finals.

 

[lockyno1]

Top 8 is fine, but the McIntyre system is ridiculous. Make it the AFL system. You should get some reward for coming in the top 4. Give them the so called "double chance". It will go like this

WK 1 (home teams first)

a) preliminary finals - winners go through to grand final qualifiers
1vs 4 (1)
2 vs 3 (2)

b) Elimination finals

5vs 8 (3)
6vs 7 (4)

Losers are eliminated

Wk 2

Loser of match (1) vs winner of match (4)- match (5)
Loser of match (2) vs winner of match (3)- match (6)

Wk 3

Winner match (1) vs winner match (5)- match (7)
winner match (2) vs winner match (6)- match (8)

Wk 4 (GRAND FINAL)

winner match 7 vs winner match 8

I think this sytem "potentially" has better quality final games. There are too many lopsided fianls games in Wk 1, this way you eliminate that situation.

 

[Azkatro]

Besides - if you're THAT clearly the better team over the year...u should have no problems winning the Grand Final, then, no??

So you'd be perfectly happy to see say, Newcastle make the finals, stagger home in the Prelim but lose Johns, Buderus, Simpson and Newton to injury in the game only to get lapped in the grand final by 40? Even if they won every game leading up to it? Granted it's not a likely occurrence, but it's happened to teams in the past on a smaller scale. Not only injuries but form slumps.

 

[*Paul*]

So if every 2 points have to be earned, why should one win on grand final day count for more than the 25 odd rounds leading up to the finals series, where the minor premiers had to earn more 2-pointers than every other team?

Precisely, people for some reason have trouble assimilating that concept. You say, e.g. Parramatta after dominating the comp in 2001, have a bad - what was it, about 25 minutes? - and it's all down the tubes. They say "You have to win when it counts". So why should it count so much more come finals time? "Because"

So as I said before, it's best to forget about derivation of the "premier" team - we have a regular season, with all it's highs and lows, spills and thrills. Then that finishes, and we have knockout comp, with the tension of sudden death.

 

[Dog-E]

The grand Final is an institution in this game that if removed - would remove a LOT of the tension & drama that IS Rugby league!!

Why don't we just hand the Broncos the trophy right NOW, then!??

Sure. **Yawn** u want to see some POOR crowds?..Well then let's bring that idea in!

There are 2 equally logical arguments to this.... ;-)

 

[melon....]

12 teams top 5 - an elite competition.

 

[Azkatro]

The grand Final is an institution in this game that if removed - would remove a LOT of the tension & drama that IS Rugby league!!

Have a big cup competition.

Why don't we just hand the Broncos the trophy right NOW, then!??

Cos they haven't won yet.

Sure. **Yawn** u want to see some POOR crowds?..Well then let's bring that idea in!

Have a big cup competition. By removing the finals considerations in the regular season, people will start to work out that they don't necessarily need a good reason to go watch a football game - other than the fact that there will be some good footy on display.