would a conference system work in the nrl?

[Eels Dude]

Manly have aligned themselves with the Sunshine Coast for juniors anyway, so they are drawing from that same pool.

Anyway, it's about smart management of players, rather than anything else that stopping whoever would get grouped with those clubs. You make it sound like whoever was the 4th team would never get a look in.

They may not. Regardless some conferences will be stronger than others and unless every club is happy in their specific conference it will not work. I can't see the advantage in a club like Manly being guarenteed away games against all the QLD sides, plus competing against three one city sides for a place in the finals, whereas a club like the Eels compete against the Tigers and Penrith who more often than not miss the finals.

It happens in the NFL, but it also happens in the NRL, that teams make the finals with an even win loss record. Maybe how the finals positions work could be looked into a bit. With maybe the best 2 division records being the 2 top ranked teams, with everybody else earning wildcard positions.

See previous comment. But that said, if Melbourne are that good, these teams have more than enough reason to put everything on the line when they play them, to try and get that top spot in the division, so Melbourne are in the situation of having to try and win from 5th.

Why should Melbourne have to win from 5th when they're the 2nd best side all season?

Let's look at the table from this year and put it into perspective.

Western Conference: Parramatta, Tigers, Penrith are on 16 points, Bulldogs on 12 and are outside the 8.

Northern Conference: Manly 22, Gold Coast 20, Broncos 18, Cowboys 10

So if things remained on track for remainder of the season. Parramatta may get a top 4 spot ahead the Broncos despite winning less games, while Gold Coast may miss out completely despite winning more games than the Eels. As you said, you could tinker with it, so more positions are earned by wildcards rather than divisional placings, but that would end up with pretty much the same top 8 as we'd have now, and thus not worth changing.

Any system which rates a side who wins 11 games all year above a side which wins 15 is flawed.

At the moment rivarlies taking decades to build, and see to be gone in an instant, as soon as a team is performing poorly. This will help with making defined rivals. With everything on the line when they play these teams, and scheduled correctly (at the start, and end of seasons), huge crowds would turn up as the divisional contenders line up to take the spot in the finals.

The strongest rivalries are as strong as ever. Parra's main rivalries with Bulldogs, Penrith and Manly are always fired up and I think most people would think the same for their respective clubs. There's always clashes at the end of season where finals spots go on the line as it is, your idea won't bring in anything new in that regard. Wasn't it last year all but 2 games in the final round had no bearing on the make up of the top 4 and top 8?

Last year the Storm would have been runaway winners in their conference by the halfway mark, meaning the the rest of the sides grouped with them aren't really competing with each other but merely every other club in the comp for a wildcard, meaning conference matches in that group would be nothing more than run of the mill stuff.

Maybe you should read my other post again. As for the travel aspect, the costs go down for clubs as they don't have to travel as far (well most don't).

Overall I like the fact you've put a lot of thought into your ideas and argument, however the NRL isn't big enough nore have the right geographical spread of sides for it to be practical.

 

[Dogs Of War]

They may not. Regardless some conferences will be stronger than others and unless every club is happy in their specific conference it will not work. I can't see the advantage in a club like Manly being guarenteed away games against all the QLD sides, plus competing against three one city sides for a place in the finals, whereas a club like the Eels compete against the Tigers and Penrith who more often than not miss the finals.

Thats what the salary cap is for. To make it possible that every club has a chance of making the finals. If Tigers and Penrith miss the finals more often than not, then thats poor mangement, rather than anything else.

Clubs like Manly would be forced to up there game, and I think with the bonus of playing the Queensland side, there profile would increase North of the border, and make a lot of QLDers in Sydney attend there games to support the Queensland teams. A win win situation.

Why should Melbourne have to win from 5th when they're the 2nd best side all season?

Let's look at the table from this year and put it into perspective.

Western Conference: Parramatta, Tigers, Penrith are on 16 points, Bulldogs on 12 and are outside the 8.

Northern Conference: Manly 22, Gold Coast 20, Broncos 18, Cowboys 10

So if things remained on track for remainder of the season. Parramatta may get a top 4 spot ahead the Broncos despite winning less games, while Gold Coast may miss out completely despite winning more games than the Eels. As you said, you could tinker with it, so more positions are earned by wildcards rather than divisional placings, but that would end up with pretty much the same top 8 as we'd have now, and thus not worth changing.

Every year some team is going to disappoint, but taking a snapshot of the comp as it is, really isn't fair, as we don't have this draw in place (and as I stated, the first round of the intra divisional matches, would have taken place within the first 6 rounds, possibly bolstering/weakening those clubs records).

As well, this draw as I stated previously, is not about making the draw fair, it's about making the game financial. Drawing big crowds because you play the regional rivals every season home and away. Geez, you might even be able to sell the divisional naming rights. I could see a big Western Sydney firm wanting to buy the Western Division naming rights, a Queensland firm buying the Northern Region naming rights. So much extra income that could be gathered, and put back into the game.

Any system which rates a side who wins 11 games all year above a side which wins 15 is flawed.

It's not as if the team that wins 15 games doesn't make the finals. If they are good enough, they will get through the adversity of a wildcard spot, and win the comp anyway. Really it's no different to the stupid finals system we have now, in that anyone below 2nd, is not guareenteed a second round matchup.

The strongest rivalries are as strong as ever. Parra's main rivalries with Bulldogs, Penrith and Manly are always fired up and I think most people would think the same for their respective clubs. There's always clashes at the end of season where finals spots go on the line as it is, your idea won't bring in anything new in that regard. Wasn't it last year all but 2 games in the final round had no bearing on the make up of the top 4 and top 8?

But thats not going to happen every year, though with this system you do guarentee a few of the matches are going to affect how the finals work.

Last year the Storm would have been runaway winners in their conference by the halfway mark, meaning the the rest of the sides grouped with them aren't really competing with each other but merely every other club in the comp for a wildcard, meaning conference matches in that group would be nothing more than run of the mill stuff.

But that wouldn't be true, as half the inter conference games are reserved till the final 6 rounds, so really there is still plenty on the line. And even if say Melbourne were undefeated at that point, teams would still be playing for wildcard spots.

Overall I like the fact you've put a lot of thought into your ideas and argument, however the NRL isn't big enough nore have the right geographical spread of sides for it to be practical.

I am glad you playing the other role. As it's helped me develop my ideas into something that could work. I had an article ready for forums 7's, but I think I will bin that now, and write this up properly. As for the geographical spread, I think the NRL is doing fine, this idea was meant to help the teams in Sydney survive (well the majority of them anyhow) by making those local matchups have even more meaning than just bragging rights.

 

[Pigskin]

Who said it was to make things even? It was to maximise revenue for the game. For both clubs, and the game.

Well ... if thats the case ... no thanks .... unless there is a level playing field, I'd find it unlikely that you'd get support from out of Sydney teams

get rid of 4 or 5 Sydney clubs then you might be able to make some kind of profit ... until then, we don't need a conference system ... its all just fluff

Come up with a way to rationalise the Sydney landscape would be a far better way to spend your time and effort

Oink !

 

[Perth Red]

If we had a better geographical spread like the AFL then it would work very well. As it is we don't so it has limited appeal. Well thought out system though and if only we had two Perth teams, two Adelaide teams, a NT team etc then it would work great. As it is we will stick with our suburban appeal (or lack of) and league model.

 

[Dogs Of War]

Well ... if thats the case ... no thanks .... unless there is a level playing field, I'd find it unlikely that you'd get support from out of Sydney teams

get rid of 4 or 5 Sydney clubs then you might be able to make some kind of profit ... until then, we don't need a conference system ... its all just fluff

Come up with a way to rationalise the Sydney landscape would be a far better way to spend your time and effort

Oink !

There is no way to rationalise the Sydney club landscape. But honestly just losing 1 or 2 clubs from Sydney (via either there death, or more realistically them relocating), would improve the situation tenfold. More corporate dollars would be available, and new supporters in Sydney would have to choose one of the clubs that remain. Sydney can support 7 teams for sure, it just needs something to take advantage of the support that lies within Sydney.

As for the Level playing field, we don't get that currently, the draw every year is manufactured to try and create dollars. So all I am proposing is a formalisation of the current arrangement. And as I said previously, some things like onselling naming rights for different division, would bring new revenue into the game, which has to be a good thing.

 

[Dogs Of War]

If we had a better geographical spread like the AFL then it would work very well. As it is we don't so it has limited appeal. Well thought out system though and if only we had two Perth teams, two Adelaide teams, a NT team etc then it would work great. As it is we will stick with our suburban appeal (or lack of) and league model.

So why not take advantage of that suburban appeal?

If Perth were to be included, I would assume they would be placed into the Western Division were they would have instant rivals among the Western Sydney teams.

As for the other part, I never see a time when there will be 2 perth/adelaide teams. Really if this can't work for those Sydney clubs, then they will be forced to look at relocation. This is all about maximising revenue.

 

[Pigskin]

Sydney can support 7 teams for sure, it just needs something to take advantage of the support that lies within Sydney.

You make a lot of sense in a lot of areas DoW ... this however is not one of those areas.

5 will put them all competitive on and off the field ... 7 will only delay the inevitable and stunt their long term growth

Oink !

 

[Dogs Of War]

You make a lot of sense in a lot of areas DoW ... this however is not one of those areas.

5 will put them all competitive on and off the field ... 7 will only delay the inevitable and stunt their long term growth

Well how I see it, one of Roosters/Rabbitohs moves to the Central Coast. The winner has cental sydney all to themselves.

Eventually Wollongong will be able to support St George to move there fulltime.

You have the Bulldogs and Parramatta with the Central West Market to share.

Manly enjoy the North Shore to themselves, while a similar thing occurs for the Sharks in the South.

Panthers have the Far West/Blue Mountains, while Wests eventually move out to Campbelltown fulltime enjoying the South Western Sydney area to themselves.

With Sydney setup the way it is, having Central Stadiums like Melbourne for all clubs to play at, just will not work.

Clubs in all these areas are sustainable with a good model. Not unlike how teams should be around Brisbane, with a team on the Sunshine Coast something I would love to see. Probably even a second Brisbane team on top of all that.

 

[Hollywood Jesus]

Manly, Roosters, Sharks/Dragons, Wests/Dogs, Parra, Penrith.

Souths to CC.

There's the best geographical rationalisation of Sydney one can hope for.

 

[Dogs Of War]

Manly, Roosters, Sharks/Dragons, Wests/Dogs, Parra, Penrith.

Souths to CC.

There's the best geographical rationalisation of Sydney one can hope for.

But as we know. That will never happen.

Really after Super League, the real chance to fix Sydney was missed. Had Wests and Bulldogs merged, plus Tigers and Parra, the game would have been much better off.

 

[Eels Dude]

Thats what the salary cap is for. To make it possible that every club has a chance of making the finals. If Tigers and Penrith miss the finals more often than not, then thats poor mangement, rather than anything else.

Clubs like Manly would be forced to up there game, and I think with the bonus of playing the Queensland side, there profile would increase North of the border, and make a lot of QLDers in Sydney attend there games to support the Queensland teams. A win win situation.

It's not entirely poor management. Some clubs have larger junior bases than others, so when they lose quality players it's not such a big a deal as they've got a large pool of players ready to step into their shoes. It's no coincidence Brisbane haven't missed the finals in 20 years. Salary cap only works to a point. Some clubs just are more attractive prospects to join too. Look at the players Gold Coast sign compared to Canberra for example.

Every year some team is going to disappoint, but taking a snapshot of the comp as it is, really isn't fair, as we don't have this draw in place (and as I stated, the first round of the intra divisional matches, would have taken place within the first 6 rounds, possibly bolstering/weakening those clubs records).

As well, this draw as I stated previously, is not about making the draw fair, it's about making the game financial. Drawing big crowds because you play the regional rivals every season home and away. Geez, you might even be able to sell the divisional naming rights. I could see a big Western Sydney firm wanting to buy the Western Division naming rights, a Queensland firm buying the Northern Region naming rights. So much extra income that could be gathered, and put back into the game.

I used this years draw as an example as have nothing else really to use as a comparison. Fact is it could and probably would end up something similar. I don't think there'd be enough changes to the draw to much of an overall difference to how teams perform.

I think for your idea to be a success it's assuming that clubs want this to happen and I can't see why they would. All the positives you've mentioned could easily be achieved by simply offering more promotion and marketing of the game.

I posted a link before not sure if you read it but here it is again

http://www.foxsports.com.au/story/0,8659,22521852-23214,00.html

Clubs are able now to nominate who they wish to play in home games, meaning the more profitable matches and heavy rivalries will be played twice a season already.

It's not as if the team that wins 15 games doesn't make the finals. If they are good enough, they will get through the adversity of a wildcard spot, and win the comp anyway. Really it's no different to the stupid finals system we have now, in that anyone below 2nd, is not guareenteed a second round matchup.

But thats not going to happen every year, though with this system you do guarentee a few of the matches are going to affect how the finals work.

But that wouldn't be true, as half the inter conference games are reserved till the final 6 rounds, so really there is still plenty on the line. And even if say Melbourne were undefeated at that point, teams would still be playing for wildcard spots.

It pretty much does happen every year. With the closeness of the finals, the final 4 or 5 rounds have been heavily involved in the make up of the top 8. With teams only 2 - 4 points apart towards the end of season every game counts regardless so it's not as if we need improvement in that level.

Melbourne would have won their conference last year on 44 points, Cronulla would have been 2nd on a mere 22. That would make a joke of the whole conference system and would eliminate the purpose of these rivalries if they're playing for wildcard spots, as they're contending with other clubs in different conferences instead.

I am glad you playing the other role. As it's helped me develop my ideas into something that could work. I had an article ready for forums 7's, but I think I will bin that now, and write this up properly. As for the geographical spread, I think the NRL is doing fine, this idea was meant to help the teams in Sydney survive (well the majority of them anyhow) by making those local matchups have even more meaning than just bragging rights.

Happy to help