Sydney Roosters Nick Politis blasts NRL draw

[diedpretty]

He has no idea. As the team that finished first last year, a fair system requires that you receive the hardest draw this year.

That is not a fair system. A fair system requires that all teams have an equally hard draw not the most successful team gets the hardest draw. All teams should be on an equal footing and the best team wins. You are talking about a handicap system and I cant agree with that.

It would be impossible to get a dead-even draw for all teams, some will have a harder draw just by the way the comp is structured ie: not playing every team twice (once at home and once away).
@nrlsurvivor has the fairest method to accommodate this.....the top teams from the year before should have a harder draw instead of the perennial cellar-dwellers copping the rough end every season.


I disagree totally. Every season is a new season, we should not have handicapping. The NRL should be the best of the best and not influenced by handicapping. What happens to the team that wins the comp then loses its 8 best players, is that still fair? Why should a team who has invested the most money, best resources, best training, best people, best training techniques be handicapped so that an incompetent club gets a hand up?

It should be as even a playing field as possible. I agree with you that unless all clubs play each other twice, the draw cant be completely fair, but to intentionally make it unfair is wrong. IMO the system the NRL used prior to COVID where the results of the previous system were split into two pools was the fairest, so 1, 3, 5, 7, 9, 11, 13, 15 were in one pool and all played each other twice and 2, 4, 6, 8, 10, 12, 14, 16 were in the other and played each other twice. That is as fair as it can be. Equality, not equity.

"The team that has invested the most money"......aren't all clubs restricted by the salary cap on their spending? As is widely suspected, teams that spend the most money are most than likely paying star players outside of the allowed cap with "extras". Should they be rewarded for that? Look at professional sports where there is a player draft in place, the team that finishes last gets the 1st draft pick and so-on up the ladder in reverse. Doing things this way gives the best chance of a closer comp.
Or we can just go the way of the EPL where only 3 or 4 clubs are capable of competing realistically for the title every year. I know which comp version I would rather watch.

Clubs spend money on more than players, training staff, equipment, facilities, juniors, junior facilities, junior coaching, coaching staff, training of staff. Clubs that invest in these things and run a good ship should be rewarded, not handicapped. Why should a club that does these things well be handicapped and club that is run ineptly benefitted?

Also under the handicap system that you suggest you would have teams tanking and racing to the bottom from 6 weeks out.

So what kind of comp would I like to watch? A comp where teams are penalised for success, where teams are rewarded for mediocrity and poor performance, where teams are tanking in a race to the bottom and potentially my team is handicapped and not given the same opportunity as others?No thanks not that comp.

I think you will find a lot of those ancillaries are also capped - as for juniors - why should a club that has no juniors be allowed to go and pick the crop of other clubs juniors. You seem to want your cake and eat it too.


I dont "want" anything, Im just arguing against a rigged draw, it should be as equal as possible and give all clubs an even platform and not penalise success.

If a club has not spent money on developing junior competitions and therefore has no juniors, if they go and "pick the crop" of other clubs juniors, they have to pay the top dollar for them and this gets picked up in the salary cap. If a club runs their club and juniors effectively, they foster juniors coming through and get first crack at them. Cant see a negative.

Again, I am merely arguing that the draw should be equal, not equitable.

The only way that is ever going to happen is to revert back to home and away where every team plays every other team twice. With 16 teams thats not going to happen.

 

[Sart0ri]

The only way that is ever going to happen is to revert back to home and away where every team plays every other team twice. With 16 teams thats not going to happen.

It could with a conference system.

 

[JD Tiger]

The draw certainly shouldn't be worked out in conjunction with who the tv stations feel will be good match-ups. That is the NRL prostituting itself.

The draw shouldn't be put together randomly either, although potentially being fair, there's no equality or transparency there.

The draw should be above reproach, I like the idea mentioned earlier of considering where the team placed in the previous year, but instead of having the higher finished teams play tougher competition, I would have no automated handicap, but use it to ensure the strength of everyone's draw was the same.

 

[mike]

I actually agree with Uncle Nick, or at least some of it. The draw, or should I say schedule of matches was basically put together by the broadcasters and this was payback for jumping onboard project Apollo (the season restart).

For me I am not concerned who we play, you just have to win matches to make the finals and to be the best you have to be able to beat the best. What Iam concerned about is when we play and what time we play. As that has a big bearing on your revenue streams. If your like the Bronks and get a 7.30pm time slot every Thursday or preferably Friday your a much more attractive proposition to a sponsor than a team that gets the 6.30pm time slot on a Sunday. The Raiders, last year grand finalists get only 3 free to air time slots because they don’t rate high enough. To me that is b/s, they earned the right on last years effort to be rewarded with more free to air games.

Anyway nothing has changed, the broadcasters are still pulling all the strings when it comes to the draw. Level playing field goes out the window once again

Whoever pays the bills will always be pulling the strings. The only way for that to not occur is for the NRL to be their own broadcaster. That’s why digital rights are so important.

 

[Tiger5150]

The draw should be above reproach, I like the idea mentioned earlier of considering where the team placed in the previous year, but instead of having the higher finished teams play tougher competition, I would have no automated handicap, but use it to ensure the strength of everyone's draw was the same.

That is pretty much how the draw is calculated in other years. Two pools based on last years results. 1, 3, 5, 7, 9, 11 13, 15 all play each other twice, 2, ,4, 6, 8, 10, 12, 14, 16 play each other twice. Its as fair as we can have without everyone playing each other twice

 

[JD Tiger]

The draw should be above reproach, I like the idea mentioned earlier of considering where the team placed in the previous year, but instead of having the higher finished teams play tougher competition, I would have no automated handicap, but use it to ensure the strength of everyone's draw was the same.

That is pretty much how the draw is calculated in other years. Two pools based on last years results. 1, 3, 5, 7, 9, 11 13, 15 all play each other twice, 2, ,4, 6, 8, 10, 12, 14, 16 play each other twice. Its as fair as we can have without everyone playing each other twice

I would be happy with that system, absolutely.

But are you sure they've been doing that? Every year the media analyses the draw by (I thought) pretty much that very same standard and shows which teams have the better draw as it's not equal. I always thought from that that the NRL doesn't use that approach.

 

[jadtiger]

The draw should be above reproach, I like the idea mentioned earlier of considering where the team placed in the previous year, but instead of having the higher finished teams play tougher competition, I would have no automated handicap, but use it to ensure the strength of everyone's draw was the same.

That is pretty much how the draw is calculated in other years. Two pools based on last years results. 1, 3, 5, 7, 9, 11 13, 15 all play each other twice, 2, ,4, 6, 8, 10, 12, 14, 16 play each other twice. Its as fair as we can have without everyone playing each other twice

That is as fair as a system as you will get as it is based on last years performances without any percieved/possible bias from administration

 

[supercoach]

The draw should be above reproach, I like the idea mentioned earlier of considering where the team placed in the previous year, but instead of having the higher finished teams play tougher competition, I would have no automated handicap, but use it to ensure the strength of everyone's draw was the same.

That is pretty much how the draw is calculated in other years. Two pools based on last years results. 1, 3, 5, 7, 9, 11 13, 15 all play each other twice, 2, ,4, 6, 8, 10, 12, 14, 16 play each other twice. Its as fair as we can have without everyone playing each other twice

That went out the window a few years ago.
The last few years clubs have had input into the teams they play twice. Tigers always ask for Parra, Souths and Dogs for commercial reasons. They obviously dont always get their request. Iam more concerned with our time slots, because that has a big bearing on our bottom line

 

[Russell]

The draw should be above reproach, I like the idea mentioned earlier of considering where the team placed in the previous year, but instead of having the higher finished teams play tougher competition, I would have no automated handicap, but use it to ensure the strength of everyone's draw was the same.

That is pretty much how the draw is calculated in other years. Two pools based on last years results. 1, 3, 5, 7, 9, 11 13, 15 all play each other twice, 2, ,4, 6, 8, 10, 12, 14, 16 play each other twice. Its as fair as we can have without everyone playing each other twice

Look, I've read your ravings in previous posts about fairness etc. Above you say "it's as fair as we can have."

That is crap, there is no "fairness" or "fair as it gets" or "fair as we can have" ....

That is not taking into account the human element of who plays who, home and away and what day.

What we have is an unfair system - the only "fair" system is when every team plays each other twice.

If that does not happen - it is NOT fair...spin it how you like, who spends what money, mediocrity etc... all just rhetoric.

Are you sure, you are not a closet "Rorters" supporter?

 

[nrlsurvivor]

He has no idea. As the team that finished first last year, a fair system requires that you receive the hardest draw this year.

That is not a fair system. A fair system requires that all teams have an equally hard draw not the most successful team gets the hardest draw. All teams should be on an equal footing and the best team wins. You are talking about a handicap system and I cant agree with that.

It would be impossible to get a dead-even draw for all teams, some will have a harder draw just by the way the comp is structured ie: not playing every team twice (once at home and once away).
@nrlsurvivor has the fairest method to accommodate this.....the top teams from the year before should have a harder draw instead of the perennial cellar-dwellers copping the rough end every season.


I disagree totally. Every season is a new season, we should not have handicapping. The NRL should be the best of the best and not influenced by handicapping. What happens to the team that wins the comp then loses its 8 best players, is that still fair? Why should a team who has invested the most money, best resources, best training, best people, best training techniques be handicapped so that an incompetent club gets a hand up?

It should be as even a playing field as possible. I agree with you that unless all clubs play each other twice, the draw cant be completely fair, but to intentionally make it unfair is wrong. IMO the system the NRL used prior to COVID where the results of the previous system were split into two pools was the fairest, so 1, 3, 5, 7, 9, 11, 13, 15 were in one pool and all played each other twice and 2, 4, 6, 8, 10, 12, 14, 16 were in the other and played each other twice. That is as fair as it can be. Equality, not equity.

"The team that has invested the most money"......aren't all clubs restricted by the salary cap on their spending? As is widely suspected, teams that spend the most money are most than likely paying star players outside of the allowed cap with "extras". Should they be rewarded for that? Look at professional sports where there is a player draft in place, the team that finishes last gets the 1st draft pick and so-on up the ladder in reverse. Doing things this way gives the best chance of a closer comp.
Or we can just go the way of the EPL where only 3 or 4 clubs are capable of competing realistically for the title every year. I know which comp version I would rather watch.

Clubs spend money on more than players, training staff, equipment, facilities, juniors, junior facilities, junior coaching, coaching staff, training of staff. Clubs that invest in these things and run a good ship should be rewarded, not handicapped. Why should a club that does these things well be handicapped and club that is run ineptly benefitted?

Also under the handicap system that you suggest you would have teams tanking and racing to the bottom from 6 weeks out.

So what kind of comp would I like to watch? A comp where teams are penalised for success, where teams are rewarded for mediocrity and poor performance, where teams are tanking in a race to the bottom and potentially my team is handicapped and not given the same opportunity as others?No thanks not that comp.

I think you will find a lot of those ancillaries are also capped - as for juniors - why should a club that has no juniors be allowed to go and pick the crop of other clubs juniors. You seem to want your cake and eat it too.


I dont "want" anything, Im just arguing against a rigged draw, it should be as equal as possible and give all clubs an even platform and not penalise success.

If a club has not spent money on developing junior competitions and therefore has no juniors, if they go and "pick the crop" of other clubs juniors, they have to pay the top dollar for them and this gets picked up in the salary cap. If a club runs their club and juniors effectively, they foster juniors coming through and get first crack at them. Cant see a negative.

Again, I am merely arguing that the draw should be equal, not equitable.

Loving the debate this has created. I'm arguing for equality but recognise this impossible in a competition where each team cannot play each other twice. In my mind, the next step for a fairer system would be to look at an equitable approach for at least 1-2 matches in a season. This has the impact of creating a greater amount of higher-rated matches where top teams play each other more, as well as giving perennial cellar dwellars a slightly better chance of moving up the ladder from one season to the next. Emphasis is on the word 'slightly' as it only impacts 1-2 games.
I believe the NFL uses this approach. They have 32 teams with only 16 matches. They divide the matches as follows:
Play every team in your division twice (= 6 matches)
Play every team in another division in your conference twice (= 4 matches)
Play every team in another division in the other conference twice (= 4 matches)
Play 2 matches against evenly placed teams based on the previous years final standings (= 2 matches)

What I like about the NFL's approach is that the process for match selection is completely transparent. In the current NRL system we have no idea about the process, which is frustrating and leaves it open to perceptions of rigging.

 

[diedpretty]

The only way that is ever going to happen is to revert back to home and away where every team plays every other team twice. With 16 teams thats not going to happen.

It could with a conference system.

definitely i have always said that - add 2 more teams and have a sydney conference and a non sydney conference. Home and away in own conference It adds up to 25 rounds.

 

[Sart0ri]

definitely i have always said that - add 2 more teams and have a sydney conference and a non sydney conference. Home and away in own conference It adds up to 25 rounds.

Chanel 9 don't exactly favour the Broncos. They want to televise a match with popular teams from 2 states, which is why Melbourne and Broncos get a lot of free to air games. I don't think they would favour a conference system, but there are a lot of pros for a conference model.