How do you make the conferences fair though. I concede that there's not much difference to the current system of playing some teams twice and others once.
The difference is your direct competition and the pathway everyone takes to progression.
So right now, we compete against 16 other teams,
all with entirely different draws, for one of 8 places in the finals. Some draws are harder, some draws are easier.
In a conference system (that’s set up properly with no weird concessions), yes, one conference may have a harder or easier path than you and your conference in any given year, but every team in your conference play exactly the same schedule. In your mini competition it’s a level playing field.
So if we’re competing for a spot in the finals directly against the Roosters, Sharks, Dragons, Dogs, etc, from our conference, we all play the same schedule. That’s an improvement on what we have now.
I’d preference dividing the conferences rationally, using geography or something similar. Like the competition itself, difficulty ebbs and flows.
Wild cards offer some assurance a good team doesn’t get excluded due by being in a particularly hard conference.
It’s not perfect, but it’s more fair than just having every side in the comp play different schedules.
It might not be the best comparison, but take the WCC or the State Championship for reserve grade. We don’t lament that the Aus team that lost the grand final can’t play in the WCC, even though they might be the second best team (I.e better than the English team that won their comp), that’s just the way it’s set up. It would be somewhat the same for conference champs and premiership winners. If you want to progress, there are steps you just have to get past.
100% the best team will still win the comp. Every time. You’ll need to be at the best and if you do, you lift the trophy.
But the pathway towards that outcome is more fair for groups in isolation.
Again, not perfect, but more fair.
