What would you change about the way the League Table is derived?

[enoughsaid]

Another Newbie who just discovered Canterbury and Rugby League

Hope on the bandwagon

 

[DinkumDog]

which means SOO games could happen on their own weekends (no club games).

Broadcasters will have a say here too.
In 2022 the Origin game in Perth was Sunday night and rated below the usual Wednesday for whatever reason (I haven’t seen why) so was promptly switched back to Wednesdays for 2023 for the foreseeable future. Once again the almighty dollar (commercially, not corruptly - well no evidence of that to date) will have a big say on scheduling. Minimise the broadcasters abilities to turn a buck and the NRL will not be able to increase broadcast and digital revenue nor increase club grants, the salary cap etc. don’t see how that ends well for anyone, including ultimately for members and fans.

 

[Kempsey Dog]

It's simple really.
Every team plays each other once, that gets you 16 rounds.

From here and extra 4-5 rounds are all that's needed and they prioritise rivalries, for example we would always play Parra twice.
The lesser volume of rounds allows for origin to stand alone and stop fucking with the regular comp.

It's still unbalanced and always will be as you cannot play each team twice. But if rivalries take priority especially for QLD, then no one can complain. This can also help prevent games in Sydney with dead crowds.

 

[DinkumDog]

Oh i meant that the draw for this season and how tough it would be perceived is a reflection of how the teams performed last season. We can also add in form and yes injury for good measure when judging the draw.

Realistically the only teams that can always be pencilled in as dangers before this season started are Storm & Panthers and on the flipside the teams that can generally be considered weak before this season started were Us, Titans and Tigers (We were absolutely abysmal for almost a decade)

Yes but let’s take Penrith a decade ago, they weren’t close to the powerhouse they are today. So it’s always going to change as teams go through hot and cold cycles, which unfortunately for us was a deep long trench, much of it self inflicted and at least a couple of parts that could’ve been avoided. So to me it comes down to better management and as Gus made clear, if you get that right the seriously dark times need never happen. You won’t win a title every year, but you’ll compete. So far that’s proving to be correct - Penrith are slowly being gutted but still holding their own. The Storm remain competitive after losing their champions. We just need that to happen for the Bulldogs and then much of this ‘corruption’ noise will go away.

 

[Psycho Doggie]

Broadcasters will have a say here too.
In 2022 the Origin game in Perth was Sunday night and rated below the usual Wednesday for whatever reason (I haven’t seen why) so was promptly switched back to Wednesdays for 2023 for the foreseeable future. Once again the almighty dollar (commercially, not corruptly - well no evidence of that to date) will have a big say on scheduling. Minimise the broadcasters abilities to turn a buck and the NRL will not be able to increase broadcast and digital revenue nor increase club grants, the salary cap etc. don’t see how that ends well for anyone, including ultimately for members and fans.

All stakeholders need to have a reasonable amount of say, not just the person with the biggest bank account. I'd be interested to know what the players would prefer, 3 weekends where there is a break from club games, and SOO and a few other rep games happen instead, or the current system.

Certainly the game needs funds to be able to operate, but capitalistic approaches inevitably have their limitations, and the stronger the approach becomes the more inevitable is its decline.

 

[TwinTurbo]

The only way to achieve both things (add more teams and have a proper home and away fixture list) is to have divisions or conferences. A total of 24 NRL teams would allow for two divisions or conferences of 12 teams. A full home and away fixture list would then be 22 games, which means SOO games could happen on their own weekends (no club games), meaning a regular season of 25 weeks. This would be a little less intense on players bodies, which would hopefully reduce the injury toll a little, helping to make up for the need for more players.

Personally I'd go with a Division structure, with promotion and relegation, to help consolidate our best talent, but which would also mean the lower division becomes a bridge between the current Cup level and the top tier.

The problem with divisions is well know, the chances of the 2 conferences being equal is next to zero. For a whole lot of reasons it is always going to be easier to win one conference over the other. The travel difference between conferences is gong to be huge, especially if all the Sydney teams are in one conference and everyone else is in the other, Townsville, Melbourne and NZ, I'm sure that'll work, even before we add Perth or PNG.

Promotion and relegation is even worse, wherever that is in place there is the constant bouncing of teams in and out of the top level. That lack of consistency means that most often the teams that get promoted simply can't compete financially because there is no certainty that they will stay. Sponsors, advertisers, broadcasters, fans etc simply wouldn't be interested if the team in is one year and out the next. Due to the income uncertainty they couldn't invest in facilities, for a start the banks wouldn't loan them any money to build. Realistically the gap between the NRL and State Cup levels is HUGE, inserting another level simply won't work, just on the infrastructure problems alone.

"Consolidate our best talent", that would mean the Salary Cap would have to increase which just makes the gap between the ins and outs even bigger.


Most importantly, it didn't go well the last time the NRL tried to boot a team out of the NRL and the clubs have even more legal resources these days.


Team First

 

[Psycho Doggie]

The problem with divisions is well know, the chances of the 2 conferences being equal is next to zero. For a whole lot of reasons it is always going to be easier to win one conference over the other. The travel difference between conferences is gong to be huge, especially if all the Sydney teams are in one conference and everyone else is in the other, Townsville, Melbourne and NZ, I'm sure that'll work, even before we add Perth.

Promotion and relegation is even worse, wherever that is in place there is the constant bouncing of teams in and out of the top level. That lack of consistency means that most often the teams that get promoted simply can't compete financially because there is no certainty that they will stay. Sponsors, advertisers, broadcasters, fans etc simply wouldn't be interested if the team in is one year and out the next. Due to the income uncertainty they couldn't invest in facilities, for a start the banks wouldn't loan them any money to build. Realistically the gap between the NRL and State Cup levels is HUGE, inserting another level simply won't work, just on the infrastructure problems alone.

"Consolidate our best talent", that would mean the Salary Cap would have to increase which just makes the gap between the ins and outs even bigger.


Most importantly, it didn't go well the last time the NRL tried to boot a team out the NRL and the clubs have even more legal resources these days.


Team First

It depends on how it is structured, plenty of division and conference systems are used in the world of team sports, so it is hardly impossible. Those are the alternative options for the current system, and if it is deemed by enough people in the right places that the current system isn't working, those two options are the most likely alternatives. Of course there are problems with them as well, but maybe there is more scope for resolving some of the key problems in those system than there is with the key problems in the current system.

The income uncertainty is not difficult to address, and in fact a tiered system (say, NRL1 and NRL2) can be managed in a way that provides extra motivation for good management while at the same time not letting clubs fall too far behind. Forget the English football model, because we have a cap anyway. Our system would look something like NRL2 having 85% of the salary cap of NRL1, with the money for the cap continuing to be provided by the NRL. The TV rights is negotiated for 12 games a round, instead of 8, but 6 of those games are worth more than the other 6. The consolidating effect would be evident, but not overwhelming, with the system structured for a roughly 15 to 25% difference in quality based on key measurements.

I totally disagree with the idea that stakeholders wouldn't be interested if "the team is in one year out the next", this is too black and white a statement. You can influence the degree of its truth through the structure, but in world sports where promotion/relegation systems are used your statement is not true, even in competitions that are quite harsh in their structure.

 

[DinkumDog]

All stakeholders need to have a reasonable amount of say, not just the person with the biggest bank account. I'd be interested to know what the players would prefer, 3 weekends where there is a break from club games, and SOO and a few other rep games happen instead, or the current system.

Certainly the game needs funds to be able to operate, but capitalistic approaches inevitably have their limitations, and the stronger the approach becomes the more inevitable is its decline.

I’d ask the players if they want pay rises in the future as well as managing their bodies. I think I could predict the answers of most. No such thing as a free lunch.

 

[Psycho Doggie]

I’d ask the players if they want pay rises in the future as well as managing their bodies. I think I could predict the answers of most. No such thing as a free lunch.

No one is asking for a free lunch, and I'm not interested in dichotomising this. What I will say is that delivering quality product/experiences/outcomes does not have a 1:1 connection with profit margins, and we forget the other aspects of sport and community that lie outside the balance sheet at our peril.

 

[TwinTurbo]

All stakeholders need to have a reasonable amount of say, not just the person with the biggest bank account. I'd be interested to know what the players would prefer, 3 weekends where there is a break from club games, and SOO and a few other rep games happen instead, or the current system.

You'd get 17 x 36 = 612 different answers. Can't really have internationals during SOO as the Tongans, Samoans, Fijians etc who are eligible for both Origin and their Country wouldn't want to make that choice.

Certainly the game needs funds to be able to operate, but capitalistic approaches inevitably have their limitations, and the stronger the approach becomes the more inevitable is its decline.

I'm not seeing any decline, more fans than ever attending games, more viewers watching and more kids playing. The fact is professional sport runs on money, otherwise it would be amateur sport and even the Olympics gave up on that idea 50+ years ago.


Team First

 

[Psycho Doggie]

You'd get 17 x 36 = 612 different answers. Can't really have internationals during SOO as the Tongans, Samoans, Fijians etc who are eligible for both Origin and their Country wouldn't want to make that choice.



I'm not seeing any decline, more fans than ever attending games, more viewers watching and more kids playing. The fact is professional sport runs on money, otherwise it would be amateur sport and even the Olympics gave up on that idea 50+ years ago.


Team First

I don't appreciate my thoughts being dichotomised, I think I've been beyond clear in recognising that money is a big part of the equation. The implication that I'm arguing for a return to amateur days shows you aren't willing to engage with my thoughts honestly.

 

[DinkumDog]

No one is asking for a free lunch, and I'm not interested in dichotomising this. What I will say is that delivering quality product/experiences/outcomes does not have a 1:1 connection with profit margins, and we forget the other aspects of sport and community that lie outside the balance sheet at our peril.

And no-one was saying otherwise.
The NRL have a duty of care to their players and the RLPA hold them to account if they suspect otherwise - just look at how long the last CBA took to resolve. So the players interests are well represented. But part of that balance is the commercial reality - it’s a business and all businesses need to make money otherwise why are they in business? That’s what I was getting at in addressing those bemoaning that broadcast scheduling is ‘unfair’ or ‘corrupt’ when it’s really about broadcasters maximising their investment in the game.

 

[Dogs Of War]

The only way we get a fair draw is -

- 20 team comp
- Everyone only plays each other once in the regular season
- The following season you flip which team gets home ground rights opposite to the previous season
- No Regular season games are played the weekend prior to Origin

You extend the finals series to get more games, maybe go back to a top 10.

Once it’s at 20 teams conferences are the go. Play every team once plus teams in your conference a second time. That’s 23 rounds. More than enough.

 

[boggie23]

The way points are worked out can be fiddled with until the cows come home, it won't ever make up for the problematic way that the fixture draw is badly unbalanced.

For what it is worth, I don't ever see the NRL awarding extra points based on a big scoreline. There isn't a try scoring problem in most games, and most fans prefer close games over blow outs.

This. The problem isnt the points for wins or losses. Its some teams you vs once some twice. Its a team can play 20 out of 25 or 26 or 27 games or how ever many it is these days in Queensland or what ever. Its vs teams after bye. The only consistency is that it is is inconsistent. And definitely some teams get favourable draws with 7 days between games or playing every friday etc helps their routine.

The only fair was it can work once 20 teams are introduced is vs each other once and alternate every year on the home ground. And the other 6 weeks or how ever many games in the season have a seperate cup on maybe during origin. Yes it will be a lesser comp but that way you avoid byes, youll still get 24-26 games. For the premiership its 19 games and everyone plays each other once. The cup is 6 games so maybe 5 groups of 4 or what ever, played without origin players so wont be too bad if you dont do well but atleast you dont play games without stars that "count". And gives the lesser team a chance to have a run.

That is unless NRL wants to run for 38 weeks and have a proper home and away league.... But with concussion protocol I can never ever see that happening.

 

[TwinTurbo]

It depends on how it is structured, plenty of division and conference systems are used in the world of team sports, so it is hardly impossible. Those are the alternative options for the current system, and if it is deemed by enough people in the right places that the current system isn't working, those two options are the most likely alternatives. Of course there are problems with them as well, but maybe there is more scope for resolving some of the key problems in those system than there is with the key problems in the current system.

The income uncertainty is not difficult to address, and in fact a tiered system (say, NRL1 and NRL2) can be managed in a way that provides extra motivation for good management while at the same time not letting clubs fall too far behind. Forget the English football model, because we have a cap anyway. Our system would look something like NRL2 having 85% of the salary cap of NRL1, with the money for the cap continuing to be provided by the NRL. The TV rights is negotiated for 12 games a round, instead of 8, but 6 of those games are worth more than the other 6. The consolidating effect would be evident, but not overwhelming, with the system structured for a roughly 15 to 25% difference in quality based on key measurements.

I totally disagree with the idea that stakeholders wouldn't be interested if "the team is in one year out the next", this is too black and white a statement. You can influence the degree of its truth through the structure, but in world sports where promotion/relegation systems are used your statement is not true, even in competitions that are quite harsh in their structure.

We could debate this for days, to keep it short.

There is no relegation and promotion in any major sport in the US. Why? Because the legal pitfalls are huge and the teams are sufficiently well funded to take on any attempt to relegate them. Not to the same extent of course but NRL teams are more than capable of fighting any attempt to enforce that here.

The Premier League is often used as an example of promotion and relegation but it has well documents issues. Financial risk I have already mentioned, player instability is also a big problem and fan disenchantment is another. For example the 3 teams promoted last year in the Premier League were all relegated this year, they simply did not have the resources to compete. The gap is ever widening.

Relegated NRL clubs, just like the Premier League, would lose substantial revenue, broadcast rights, fans attendance etc which means substantially lower player payments, players and coaching staff leaving, inability to maintain or upgrade facilities etc etc. Player, in fact all staff, contracts would be meaningless especially if their team gets relegating during the term of the contract.

Can you imaging anyone investing in upgrading sports grounds if the home team was facing relegation every year? No government in their right mind (not all that unusual it must be said) would cough up the funds when faced with that risk, neither would the banks.

What's the media rights and attendance like at State Cup Level? Almost non existent, any team relegated to a 2nd level would suffer immeasurably regardless of what it is called. It doesn't work in the UK with 67+ million, compared to 26 million here, there is no chance of it standing up financially.


Team First

 

[TwinTurbo]

I don't appreciate my thoughts being dichotomised, I think I've been beyond clear in recognising that money is a big part of the equation. The implication that I'm arguing for a return to amateur days shows you aren't willing to engage with my thoughts honestly.

I think you have read enough of my posts to know that was not my intention and I apologise if that's the way it read.


Team First.

 

[Motorhead]

OK so instead of the usual bleating and blaming NewsCorp because of political preferences and saying everything is ‘corrupt’ with zero evidence - exactly HOW should it be done differently and even leaving aside the many inputs and complexities to the draw which make it really difficult to balance even with complex software algorithms - let’s see some SPECIFICS about how to ‘improve’ it. These arguments are always the same from one eyed fans when their team goes through a rough patch. Funny how the draw and referee corruption barely rate a mention when anyones team is travelling well…

As far as corruption/bias goes, it is a widespread thought amongst a lot of fans of the game mainly due to the very common occurrence where regardless of which club you support you can pretty much foresee which club is going to cop the bad calls etc in a certain match.

I honestly cannot recall the last time Broncos, Roosters, Panthers, Souths or Storm lost a game due to a massive referee howler or missed indiscretion. Yet some clubs cop that exact outcome several times per season. To me that has a smell about it.
And it's not just about the usual home crowd advantage that most clubs would expect and to a degree accept, it's constant missed calls/wrong calls that only seem to hinder the one team.
I watch nearly every game every week and have done so for the last 15 years or so and even watching neutral teams play you can quite easily predict which one is going to cop the shaft from the officials.

 

[Hound Dog]

This. The problem isnt the points for wins or losses. Its some teams you vs once some twice. Its a team can play 20 out of 25 or 26 or 27 games or how ever many it is these days in Queensland or what ever. Its vs teams after bye. The only consistency is that it is is inconsistent. And definitely some teams get favourable draws with 7 days between games or playing every friday etc helps their routine.

The only fair was it can work once 20 teams are introduced is vs each other once and alternate every year on the home ground. And the other 6 weeks or how ever many games in the season have a seperate cup on maybe during origin. Yes it will be a lesser comp but that way you avoid byes, youll still get 24-26 games. For the premiership its 19 games and everyone plays each other once. The cup is 6 games so maybe 5 groups of 4 or what ever, played without origin players so wont be too bad if you dont do well but atleast you dont play games without stars that "count". And gives the lesser team a chance to have a run.

That is unless NRL wants to run for 38 weeks and have a proper home and away league.... But with concussion protocol I can never ever see that happening.

Interesting idea of a seperate cup, more honours for players and teams is nice for fans too, and broadcasters.

 

[The__GM]

I wouldn't change a thing.

However, when we eventually get to 20 teams, I would go with a conference system. As fair/ unfair as it would be, you could have:

Conference 1: NSW
Conference 2: Everyone else

It would make a nice draw where you have no bye rounds, and could knock out Origin over 2 weeks, pausing the competition to have a distinct first and second half of the season.

In conference play, everyone plays one another twice, there's 18 games.
In inter-conference play, every plays one another once, rotating the home and away each year (E.g. Dogs vs Broncos @ Belmore in 2025, Broncos vs Dogs @ Suncorp 2026).

That makes for a 28 round season, with no Byes.

Origin is played on a Wednesday, Sunday and Thursday/ Friday within a 2 week period as the rest of the competition shuts down, supplemented by U20s/ Womens Origin/ Other international fixtures/ Tests etc.

The elite of the elite get the reward of more $$ via Origin/ test money, and the overall TV product is better, as the middle of the season isn't worse off losing players and teams to shortened bye rounds or missing their best players.

Simple finals series - top 4 of each go straight into a Top 8. You could even extend it out to teams placed 5th and 6th in each conference can play off for a wildcard spot.

The best of the NSW Conference plays the winner of the best of the Everyone Else conference in the Grand Final.

 

[TwinTurbo]

I wouldn't change a thing.

However, when we eventually get to 20 teams, I would go with a conference system. As fair/ unfair as it would be, you could have:

Conference 1: NSW
Conference 2: Everyone else

It would make a nice draw where you have no bye rounds, and could knock out Origin over 2 weeks, pausing the competition to have a distinct first and second half of the season.

In conference play, everyone plays one another twice, there's 18 games.
In inter-conference play, every plays one another once, rotating the home and away each year (E.g. Dogs vs Broncos @ Belmore in 2025, Broncos vs Dogs @ Suncorp 2026).

That makes for a 28 round season, with no Byes.

Origin is played on a Wednesday, Sunday and Thursday/ Friday within a 2 week period as the rest of the competition shuts down, supplemented by U20s/ Womens Origin/ Other international fixtures/ Tests etc.

The elite of the elite get the reward of more $$ via Origin/ test money, and the overall TV product is better, as the middle of the season isn't worse off losing players and teams to shortened bye rounds or missing their best players.

Simple finals series - top 4 of each go straight into a Top 8. You could even extend it out to teams placed 5th and 6th in each conference can play off for a wildcard spot.

The best of the NSW Conference plays the winner of the best of the Everyone Else conference in the Grand Final.

So the most travel a Sydney Conference Team would have to do is a bus trip to Newcastle, while a Non Sydney Conference Team would have multiple flights to Melbourne, PNG, NZ and Townsville. I'm sure that would go down well.

Travel inequities aside, the issue I have with Conferences is that it is not unusual for one conference to have the 3 or 4 of the best teams, so the Grand Final is between a team that could be the best playing a team that is 4th.


Team First