The 20-Team Competiton: Vlandys

[raider]

Explain how?

This notion that the game will be better because there is less games is based on what quantifiable measurement?

The growth of the game is obvious due to expansion, but making the season shorter seems silly and wildly unneccessary.

Until teams play each other twice, then there is no fair system.

"Somewhat fairer" is not fair.

Furthermore, the talk about splitting the competition into divisions is further lunacy to me.

Change for changes sake. Vlandys really thinks this is his little toy.

I've heard all kinds of scenarios, one being played out often is brisbane, north queensland, melbourne, perth and so forth being one of these divisions.

How is that fair to the players, fans and clubs who have to pay hundreds of thousands in hotels and flights all around Australia whilst the Sydney clubs have a ball?

I love how rugby league in Australia fair dinkum cannibalises itself every time it's going well.

I want there to be a stand alone SOO period in the middle of the year surrounded by pacific tests because I know how much money the SOO generates for the game and so forth.

It gives the code a chance to take a break, like there is two halves to a season and you can come back for the second part with as much fervour as you had for the first whilst wishing the off-season would hurry up and end.

I really do not think the NRL can handle 20 teams due to the dilution of playing talent, I think a team in Perth is fair and 18 teams is the absolute maximum it can be.

I really think the PNG idea is soooooooo bad I am happy to allow china to just hurry up and take over the place if that is really the entire justification for having a team based out of there (jokes)

Cut the tigers, the titans and the roosters, make it 14 teams, play 26 rounds and it's fair.

if that's not possible, cut the roosters anyway.

Agree with the playing everyone twice model being the ultimate level of 'fairness'.

Playing everyone once still isn't fair when half the teams get Canberra away, half at home. Half Warriors away, half home.

Playing everyone twice, 38 games, 20 teams, ala the Premier League is the ultimate fairness.

Virtually impossible due to the level of collision and impact our game has though.

You could pause the comp for 6 weeks in the middle of the season for Origin/Tests.

I believe a full table, 19 regular rounds, and 4 derby rounds (which count for regular season points but also conference points like a mini-tournament) is probably the best compromise.

Anything but less Souths games under the guise of 'fairness'.

Like you said it still isn't fair, and a world in which you get 5 home games a decade against the Roosters or Bulldogs is ****ing lunacy

 

[captainsutto]

Is the juice really worth the squeeze?

We can never ever get to the point of playing each other twice, home and away so Yes it IS ultimately fairer than what we have now or any other option.

 

[broncobuster]

If you don't operate your season in a vacuum, complete "fairness" will never be possible. The key is to eliminate as many variables that weaken the "fairness".

Even a conference system is unfair - how do you determine conferences or divisions? Geographically? As I pointed out, a "Sydney" conference will have an advantage over a "National" conference with needing to travel MUCH less over any considerable distance. If you split teams on merit, based on the previous season, how do you determine that fairly?

The biggest qualm with the current draw is the lack of any clear explanation of why team A plays team B twice but only plays team C once. Even weirder when you get to Finals and you have teams that have played 4 times in 7 months and some that play their 2nd match of the year in a Grand Final, and that's not including trials either (2x H/A, FW1 and GF)

The thing that irks me most is that teams will play twice in 6 weeks but then not play another team until round 20. That is just ridiculous - even at park footy level it wouldn't happen.

Is it fair that players get injured or suspended? No, of course not, but in a perfectly "fair" world, this wouldn't happen. That same world only exists in the world of theory and not in sport. The fairness comes from enforcing Laws that protect players from being injured by illegal acts and suspends those who break the Laws. Not perfect, but better than anarchy.

The Finals are inherently unfair to successful teams who experience late injuries. The logic behind it is to have the best teams decide, between themselves, who should win. Not necessarily fair but something we come to accept, especially as under our current system it supposedly balances the parity of the draw.

There is a simple solution for near-perfect fairness: each team plays twice, once home, once away, ladder leaders win it after the final game finishes. The more games you win, the more likely you are to win the Premiership. This is why so many leagues around the world use or did use this system. It removes any disputes - everyone has the same strength of competition and the same opportunities.

However, the above is incompatible with the reality of the NRL. Too many games or too many teams - either way, it's not possible so we must compromise. Whatever solution they develop, it won't be perfect, but let's just hope it's more fair.

 

[captainsutto]

The biggest qualm with the current draw is the lack of any clear explanation of why team A plays team B twice but only plays team C once

yes that’s the problem but a bigger one in my mind is teams like the sharks who this season will only make the finals because they only played The panthers, storm & rorters once while playing crap teams Wests, titans, &st merge twice. That’s a 6 point leg up.

6 extra points and as bad as we are going we’d be on 26 and them on 22

 

[broncobuster]

yes that’s the problem but a bigger one in my mind is teams like the sharks who this season will only make the finals because they only played The panthers, storm & rorters once while playing crap teams Wests, titans, &st merge twice. That’s a 6 point leg up.

6 extra points and as bad as we are going we’d be on 26 and them on 22

Precisely, yet if our draw was different so too would theirs be so who knows.

 

[Pplspoet]

Yes, I'd rather 19 rounds of playing every team once in a 20 team competition, then make up those 5 extra rounds with some derby conference system. "Derby rounds" where you can ensure those big clashes are always still held twice per year.

Then whoever has the best 'derby' conference record by the end of those 5 games can win a new trophy and a cash prize. Those points won also add to the overall table for making the finals of course.

Then finals series as normal.

Anything but less Souths games.

Derby groups can be:

Group 1. Sydney

1. Souths
2. Roosters
3. Dogs
4. Dragons
5. Sharks

Group 2. Outer Sydney

1. Penrith
2. Parra
3. Tigers
4. Newcastle
5. Manly

Group 3. QLD + PNG

1. Broncos
2. Dolphins
3. Cowboys
4. Titans
5. PNG Team

Group 4. Expanded Territories

1. Storm
2. Warriors
3. Raiders
4. NZ Team 2
5. Perth Team

I had a slightly different break up.

Northern Div
PNG, Broncos, Cowboys, Dolphins, Titans

Eastern Div
Roosters, Rabbitohs, Sharks, Sea Eagles, Knights

Western Div
Panthers, Dogs, Eels, Tigers, Perth

Southern Div
Warriors, NZ, Storm, Raiders, Dragons

Top 2 from each division go throug. Or if you want to add a wild card element there are systems available. Which people will probably want. 10 teams qualifying seems reasonable.

And if you get to a future state where junior dev is centralised then those division names can be a lot more than just lip service.

 

[kounellikon]

I had a slightly different break up.

Northern Div
PNG, Broncos, Cowboys, Dolphins, Titans

Eastern Div
Roosters, Rabbitohs, Sharks, Sea Eagles, Knights

Western Div
Panthers, Dogs, Eels, Tigers, Perth

Southern Div
Warriors, NZ, Storm, Raiders, Dragons

Top 2 from each division go throug. Or if you want to add a wild card element there are systems available. Which people will probably want. 10 teams qualifying seems reasonable.

Good thinking by all contributors

However, I am not really in favour of determining finals positions by conferences. It brings up the possibility a team in Conference A can make the finals but be on less points than say the third team in Conference B.

I would prefer raider's idea of 19 rounds (play everyone once) and then have 4 derby games with either yours or raider's groups (or some other reasonably groupings).

In the end, there is one ladder and we get 8 or 10 finalists.

If you are worried about travel, you can re-jig the conferences annually with "far" teams (Perth, PNG, NQ, Canberra, Storm) moving between conferences.

 

[Pplspoet]

Good thinking by all contributors

However, I am not really in favour of determining finals positions by conferences. It brings up the possibility a team in Conference A can make the finals but be on less points than say the third team in Conference B.

I would prefer raider's idea of 19 rounds (play everyone once) and then have 4 derby games with either yours or raider's groups (or some other reasonably groupings).

In the end, there is one ladder and we get 8 or 10 finalists.

If you are worried about travel, you can re-jig the conferences annually with "far" teams (Perth, PNG, NQ, Canberra, Storm) moving between conferences.

Kounelli, that’s what we have now (essentially).

Currently, everybody plays each other once, then everybody gets a small selection of double ups. We always draw the Dogs and Roosters, etc by request, then the NRL pick the other handful.

If you want a fair as system as possible (within 24 rounds or less), it’s imperative that everyone you are directly competing with for a place in the finals has also played exactly the same schedule as you.

So if you want the added games against rivals, it’s a conference system. If you don’t want a conference system, then it’s Roosters, etc once a year. You can’t have both and maintain fairness.

If you want to be guaranteed to go through in a conference system, finish top 2 in your division. Failing that, there’s a wild card spot for the next 2 best records.

If you aren’t in that 10 teams, you aren’t wining the comp anyway.

Under that system, if the impossible happened and one division had say 4 of the best records in the comp, then the top 2 go in automatically and then team 3 and 4 would win the wild card entry.

No one worthy of a place in the final series is going to miss out.

And every region geographically has representation, which boosts fan interest and TV, etc.

 

[HarryofOz]

The fairest is to play everyone twice but that's too many games in a 20-team comp so it will never happen unfortunately.

 

[Duff]

The fairest is to play everyone twice but that's too many games in a 20-team comp so it will never happen unfortunately.

It shouldn't be a 20 team comp.

It's a sport played on the eastern seaboard of Australia and a pretty damn successful one.

 

[yobbo84]

Two factors I believe in that may explain why I'm in disagreement to a lot of posters on here.

1) I reckon I watch 90% of NRL games, and I think 50% of those games have become an uninteresting chore, the majority between rounds 10 and 20.

If you're a gun side you're just waiting until finals and praying for no injuries. If you're bottom 4 you just want the season done. If you're in the middle, only then is it somewhat bearable.

I believe shortening a season will keep momentum going right throughout and crescendo at the right time.

2) Conversely to most, I believe a thinner talent pool with less robotic ultra-elite athletic supermen makes for a version of Rugby League that I enjoy watching more. Slower is better, in my world.

Rugby League as a high-impact car-crash-esque collision sport has a limited shelf life in a society that increasingly wants to blame others for their own misfortunes.

 

[Pplspoet]

The fairest is to play everyone twice but that's too many games in a 20-team comp so it will never happen unfortunately.

Closest you could get is a dual conference system with no inter-conference play.

So two groups of 10, 18 rounds, you play everybody in your conference twice (H&A), and the only time you ever play anyone from the other conference is in the grand final (following a conference championship).

But never playing the Storm, Broncos, etc might be too extreme a notion for some to stomach. But it would be 100% fair right through to the conference championship though.

Would be like if Newcastle and Broncos had played in a GF post the ARL and Super League seasons.

Again, probably a little extreme, but certainly the most fair (when needing to fit the season into 18-25 rounds).

 

[PrideOfTheLeague]

I do not support anything that produces less Souths games.

Under this proposal we would have five Souths vs Roosters home games with my members seats... per decade.

Per decade. Hahahaha

Under the proposal we only play storm in Melbourne 5 times... per decade.
So has some positive too

 

[Pplspoet]

Funnily enough, if you split the 2 conferences like this, you essentially do have the ARL/Super League comps from 1997. Oh the irony.

ARL Conference
Sea Eagles
Knights
Bears (Perth)
Eels
Roosters
Dragons
Titans
Tigers
Rabbitohs
Dolphins

Super League Conference
Broncos
Sharks
Raiders
Dogs
Panthers
Warriors
Cowboys
————-
NZ Expansion
PNG Expansion
Storm

 

[HarryofOz]

It shouldn't be a 20 team comp.

It's a sport played on the eastern seaboard of Australia and a pretty damn successful one.

Maybe, but I cant see anything changing. Who do you get rid of? No club will voluntarily pull out and there's no way the administrators will give up territory.