Your Opinion on were Two New Teams Should Be Based In the NRL

[goldcoast_tiger]

Brisbane ,and Perth ,
later Ipswich

 

[Harvey]

2nd team in Brisbane, then Perth.

Force the dogs to relocate.

Next up China #growthegame

 

[2041]

All I will say is that a Central Queensland team will NOT work. I live in Rockhampton where the CQ Capras are based and Rocky is a little country town compared to Townsville.

My question is, how do you get a 20 team competition to work fairly? The current 16 team draw is ridiculous.

I quite liked the idea someone had of splitting the comp into two conferences. You play your own conference twice and the other one once and do something like giving the top three in each conference finals berths plus two wild cards - could be one each, could be two from the same conference if they've performed very strongly.

This would work ok with an 18 team comp - it would mean a 25-match season. Going to 20 would be tough as it would mean 28 games.

Conferences could be roughly Sydney and the rest, so:

Foundation conference
Bulldogs
Sharks
Manly
Eels
Panthers
Souths
Dragons
Roosters
Tigers

Evolution conference
Broncos
Raiders
Titans
Storm
Knights
Cowboys
Warriors
[Perth team]
[Second Brisbane team]

It wouldn't have to be this way - you could divide it up so the long trips are shared round better with Perth and NZ separated, for instance. It's not like league has that many massive rivalries you'd need to keep together. Also the wild card idea, while it might be fairer to teams that are good but stuck in a particularly strong conference, wouldn't allow you to have 'conference champions' in the way just taking the top four from each would.

Obviously plenty of things to nut out but personally I feel like it has some legs.

 

[Harvey]

I would prefer the 2 conferences to be:
Clubs getting by
Obvious (yet undetected) salary cap cheats

 

[mike]

Perth, 2nd Brisbane- both only created by relocating sydney teams using new refreshed names.

I'd also look to creating 20 teams, a premier tier of 10 and comp tier of the other 10\. With promotion and relegation. Also a cooperative player draft with clubs and players.

There are a lot of issues within the competition and we are getting bugger all leadership and vision from the NRL.

Not bad. Sydney and Greater Sydney in one Comp and the rest in another. No wait that sounds too much like SuperLeague.

 

[Needaname]

I'd love to see a country NSW team brought into the comp. League in the country sounds like it needs a boost. I'm not sure of all the legalities such as stadium sizes and so forth, but I reakon many would get on board. There is plenty of great country clubs that would put their hand up as a potential feeder club and players would live there. It could be based in a number of places e.g. Bathurst, Orange, maybe a raiders v the country team in good old Wagga to stick it up AFL.

Do you mean where?

 

[steve-o]

Perth and Adelaide for me. Another Brisbane team would not expand the game, NZ doesn’t need another team considering the record of the Warriors, and PNG would struggle to attract players.

x2

Perth is the obvious one and I'm not against Adelaide and making it a national game. But I'm not sure we have the leaders to be aggressive in expansion.
Another Brisbane team would dilute the Broncos advantages.

I agree that we don’t have the leaders to expand successfully. I don’t even think expansion is on the agenda, despite NRL head office saying it is. The current set of clubs have way too much influence on the game - they robbed the NRL during the last negotiations, and now I don’t think the NRL has the required funds needed to invest in the expanded areas.

In regards to Brisbane… adding a team just to dilute the power of the Broncos is a ridiculous reason for expansion. Don’t get me wrong I hate the Broncos and the advantages they have, but we should be finding ways to get other clubs on the same level as them off the field, and change policies that are giving them advantages - for example more transparency on player salaries/TPAs, fairer schedules, relocation or merger of Sydney teams etc

 

[maxxy86]

All I will say is that a Central Queensland team will NOT work. I live in Rockhampton where the CQ Capras are based and Rocky is a little country town compared to Townsville.

My question is, how do you get a 20 team competition to work fairly? The current 16 team draw is ridiculous.

Totally agree CQ ,

Ipswich and a second South Island NZ team

People from Ipswich hate Brisbanites and vice versa

Hang on happy Ipswich IS a Nz area anyways…...haven’t you seen Redbank Plains of late??

 

[gallagher]

Perth and Adelaide for me. Another Brisbane team would not expand the game, NZ doesn’t need another team considering the record of the Warriors, and PNG would struggle to attract players.

x2

Perth is the obvious one and I'm not against Adelaide and making it a national game. But I'm not sure we have the leaders to be aggressive in expansion.
Another Brisbane team would dilute the Broncos advantages.

I agree that we don’t have the leaders to expand successfully. I don’t even think expansion is on the agenda, despite NRL head office saying it is. The current set of clubs have way too much influence on the game - they robbed the NRL during the last negotiations, and now I don’t think the NRL has the required funds needed to invest in the expanded areas.

In regards to Brisbane… adding a team just to dilute the power of the Broncos is a ridiculous reason for expansion. Don’t get me wrong I hate the Broncos and the advantages they have, but we should be finding ways to get other clubs on the same level as them off the field, and change policies that are giving them advantages - for example more transparency on player salaries/TPAs, fairer schedules, relocation or merger of Sydney teams etc

Bringing in another team had many upsides. Diluting the Broncos advantage is just one. How would clubs ever get on their level when they have a 2.4m population all to themselves?

 

[steve-o]

Other clubs will never have populations as big, but they should still be striving to grow their brands and membership bases. They can do this by investing in areas outside their traditional bases. In terms of Sydney, 9 clubs is too many. The whole point of expansion is to expand the game… bring in new fans. A second Brisbane team would simply cannibalise the broncos and non-bronco Brisbane based supporters. The NRL’s long term plan should be to have a competition where every club is seen as a “powerhouse” in their own right.... as opposed to bringing other clubs down to the level of the lowest common denominators.

 

[happy_tiger]

x2

Perth is the obvious one and I'm not against Adelaide and making it a national game. But I'm not sure we have the leaders to be aggressive in expansion.
Another Brisbane team would dilute the Broncos advantages.

I agree that we don’t have the leaders to expand successfully. I don’t even think expansion is on the agenda, despite NRL head office saying it is. The current set of clubs have way too much influence on the game - they robbed the NRL during the last negotiations, and now I don’t think the NRL has the required funds needed to invest in the expanded areas.

In regards to Brisbane… adding a team just to dilute the power of the Broncos is a ridiculous reason for expansion. Don’t get me wrong I hate the Broncos and the advantages they have, but we should be finding ways to get other clubs on the same level as them off the field, and change policies that are giving them advantages - for example more transparency on player salaries/TPAs, fairer schedules, relocation or merger of Sydney teams etc

Bringing in another team had many upsides. Diluting the Broncos advantage is just one. How would clubs ever get on their level when they have a 2.4m population all to themselves?

Yes I totally agree , but it would be far more effective by bringing in either an Ipswich team or a Sunshine Coast side in my opinion

I don't think taking Brisbane on would be ideal for a new club as a Brisbane side , but Ipswich will be a direct competitor and more likely to get alternative sponsorship as would the Sunny Coast

I know this is a bit hard to explain , but the second the second Brisbane side becomes decided little brother it will fail like the Crushers did

Ipswich or the Sunshine Coast get a chip on their shoulder and can use it their advantage like the Cows did

Does that make sense ??

 

[Tigerdave]

I quite liked the idea someone had of splitting the comp into two conferences. You play your own conference twice and the other one once and do something like giving the top three in each conference finals berths plus two wild cards - could be one each, could be two from the same conference if they've performed very strongly.

This would work ok with an 18 team comp - it would mean a 25-match season. Going to 20 would be tough as it would mean 28 games.

Conferences could be roughly Sydney and the rest, so:

Foundation conference
Bulldogs
Sharks
Manly
Eels
Panthers
Souths
Dragons
Roosters
Tigers

Evolution conference
Broncos
Raiders
Titans
Storm
Knights
Cowboys
Warriors
[Perth team]
[Second Brisbane team]

It wouldn't have to be this way - you could divide it up so the long trips are shared round better with Perth and NZ separated, for instance. It's not like league has that many massive rivalries you'd need to keep together. Also the wild card idea, while it might be fairer to teams that are good but stuck in a particularly strong conference, wouldn't allow you to have 'conference champions' in the way just taking the top four from each would.

Obviously plenty of things to nut out but personally I feel like it has some legs.

Yeah the conference idea keeps every happy. I can't see them being able to convince teams to merge or relocate at the moment, but it still may only be short term. I'd imagine the NRL would eventually want to expand again and include Central Coast, another Kiwi side, PNG and Adelaide.

 

[steve-o]

I love the idea of a conference system. It works so well in the NFL, and I think it could work in the NRL too.
18 teams
3 conferences
Play each team in your conference twice, the other conferences once, for a total of 22 games.
Top 2 from each conference qualify for finals, plus 2 wild cards for next best records. Finals seeding based on record (so wildcard could have a higher seeding than a top 2 qualifier… NFL doesn’t do this which is flawed IMO).

2 less rounds allows origins to be stand alone, and over the same weekend you could play internationals involving NZ, Tonga, Samoa, PNG, Fiji etc.

 

[Doc_Tiger]

I love the idea of a conference system. It works so well in the NFL, and I think it could work in the NRL too.
18 teams
3 conferences
Play each team in your conference twice, the other conferences once, for a total of 22 games.
Top 2 from each conference qualify for finals, plus 2 wild cards for next best records. Finals seeding based on record (so wildcard could have a higher seeding than a top 2 qualifier… NFL doesn’t do this which is flawed IMO).

2 less rounds allows origins to be stand alone, and over the same weekend you could play internationals involving NZ, Tonga, Samoa, PNG, Fiji etc.

We really need a like button

 

[Tigerdon]

I love the idea of a conference system. It works so well in the NFL, and I think it could work in the NRL too.
18 teams
3 conferences
Play each team in your conference twice, the other conferences once, for a total of 22 games.
Top 2 from each conference qualify for finals, plus 2 wild cards for next best records. Finals seeding based on record (so wildcard could have a higher seeding than a top 2 qualifier… NFL doesn’t do this which is flawed IMO).

2 less rounds allows origins to be stand alone, and over the same weekend you could play internationals involving NZ, Tonga, Samoa, PNG, Fiji etc.

I like the idea of this system, it would just be a matter if the dollars would be there to fund it.
It could go huge if you could really capture to Pacific nations in this as well.
So much untapped talent in the Pacific nations.

 

[gallagher]

Perth is the obvious one and I'm not against Adelaide and making it a national game. But I'm not sure we have the leaders to be aggressive in expansion.
Another Brisbane team would dilute the Broncos advantages.

I agree that we don’t have the leaders to expand successfully. I don’t even think expansion is on the agenda, despite NRL head office saying it is. The current set of clubs have way too much influence on the game - they robbed the NRL during the last negotiations, and now I don’t think the NRL has the required funds needed to invest in the expanded areas.

In regards to Brisbane… adding a team just to dilute the power of the Broncos is a ridiculous reason for expansion. Don’t get me wrong I hate the Broncos and the advantages they have, but we should be finding ways to get other clubs on the same level as them off the field, and change policies that are giving them advantages - for example more transparency on player salaries/TPAs, fairer schedules, relocation or merger of Sydney teams etc

Bringing in another team had many upsides. Diluting the Broncos advantage is just one. How would clubs ever get on their level when they have a 2.4m population all to themselves?

Yes I totally agree , but it would be far more effective by bringing in either an Ipswich team or a Sunshine Coast side in my opinion

I don't think taking Brisbane on would be ideal for a new club as a Brisbane side , but Ipswich will be a direct competitor and more likely to get alternative sponsorship as would the Sunny Coast

I know this is a bit hard to explain , but the second the second Brisbane side becomes decided little brother it will fail like the Crushers did

Ipswich or the Sunshine Coast get a chip on their shoulder and can use it their advantage like the Cows did

Does that make sense ??

I don't know the south east Qld region well like you soo youd have a better idea than me. But if you put in Ipswich for example would people outside that area get behind the team? Would they play out of Suncorp?

 

[gallagher]

I love the idea of a conference system. It works so well in the NFL, and I think it could work in the NRL too.
18 teams
3 conferences
Play each team in your conference twice, the other conferences once, for a total of 22 games.
Top 2 from each conference qualify for finals, plus 2 wild cards for next best records. Finals seeding based on record (so wildcard could have a higher seeding than a top 2 qualifier… NFL doesn’t do this which is flawed IMO).

2 less rounds allows origins to be stand alone, and over the same weekend you could play internationals involving NZ, Tonga, Samoa, PNG, Fiji etc.

Hows do you decide the conferences? Is it based on areas or a ranking system that would change every year?

 

[steve-o]

I love the idea of a conference system. It works so well in the NFL, and I think it could work in the NRL too.
18 teams
3 conferences
Play each team in your conference twice, the other conferences once, for a total of 22 games.
Top 2 from each conference qualify for finals, plus 2 wild cards for next best records. Finals seeding based on record (so wildcard could have a higher seeding than a top 2 qualifier… NFL doesn’t do this which is flawed IMO).

2 less rounds allows origins to be stand alone, and over the same weekend you could play internationals involving NZ, Tonga, Samoa, PNG, Fiji etc.

Hows do you decide the conferences? Is it based on areas or a ranking system that would change every year?

They should base it on area in order to maximise existing rivalries and minimise travel. So it should be the same every year, which also helps to further establish rivalries.
Something like…

North/South Conference
Broncos
Cowboys
Titans
Storm
Warriors
Raiders

West Conference
Tigers
Eels
Bulldogs
Panthers
Perth
Adelaide

East Conference
Roosters
Rabbitohs
Sharks
Dragons
Sea Eagles
Knights

 

[Yossarian]

I love the idea of a conference system. It works so well in the NFL, and I think it could work in the NRL too.
18 teams
3 conferences
Play each team in your conference twice, the other conferences once, for a total of 22 games.
Top 2 from each conference qualify for finals, plus 2 wild cards for next best records. Finals seeding based on record (so wildcard could have a higher seeding than a top 2 qualifier… NFL doesn’t do this which is flawed IMO).

2 less rounds allows origins to be stand alone, and over the same weekend you could play internationals involving NZ, Tonga, Samoa, PNG, Fiji etc.

Hows do you decide the conferences? Is it based on areas or a ranking system that would change every year?

They should base it on area in order to maximise existing rivalries and minimise travel. So it should be the same every year, which also helps to further establish rivalries.
Something like…

North/South Conference
Broncos
Cowboys
Titans
Storm
Warriors
Raiders

West Conference
Tigers
Eels
Bulldogs
Panthers
Perth
Adelaide

East Conference
Roosters
Rabbitohs
Sharks
Dragons
Sea Eagles
Knights

Allow me to place on my whinging supporter hat… Great it's on.

Why do Manly and the Roosters get to play a whole bunch more away games in Sydney when my team gets Adelaide and Perth? Our home crowd will suffer and I'm no chance of getting to Perth. Stupid NRL!

 

[steve-o]

I love the idea of a conference system. It works so well in the NFL, and I think it could work in the NRL too.
18 teams
3 conferences
Play each team in your conference twice, the other conferences once, for a total of 22 games.
Top 2 from each conference qualify for finals, plus 2 wild cards for next best records. Finals seeding based on record (so wildcard could have a higher seeding than a top 2 qualifier… NFL doesn’t do this which is flawed IMO).

2 less rounds allows origins to be stand alone, and over the same weekend you could play internationals involving NZ, Tonga, Samoa, PNG, Fiji etc.

Hows do you decide the conferences? Is it based on areas or a ranking system that would change every year?

They should base it on area in order to maximise existing rivalries and minimise travel. So it should be the same every year, which also helps to further establish rivalries.
Something like…

North/South Conference
Broncos
Cowboys
Titans
Storm
Warriors
Raiders

West Conference
Tigers
Eels
Bulldogs
Panthers
Perth
Adelaide

East Conference
Roosters
Rabbitohs
Sharks
Dragons
Sea Eagles
Knights

Allow me to place on my whinging supporter hat… Great it's on.

Why do Manly and the Roosters get to play a whole bunch more away games in Sydney when my team gets Adelaide and Perth? Our home crowd will suffer and I'm no chance of getting to Perth. Stupid NRL!

Haha very good.
I don’t think this will ever happen by the way. It makes too much sense for the NRL to implement it or for the average rugby league fan to see the benefits… your average pundit thinks every team playing one another twice is the solution. Never mind the fact that the players would never go for a 30 week season, let alone 34 weeks!

By the way, my answer to your phony complaint would be that if “my team” needed to travel to Perth/Adelaide during finals time, they would be more accustomed to the travel than Manly or Rooosters.