Jump to content

NRL “Expansion” delayed


Davo5
 Share

Recommended Posts

“It also gives you options around pools because you can have two pools of nine teams. As you see with some of the big US sports, as you grow your competition and the scale of the number of teams, you can create a dynamic around who plays who and ultimately create more rivalries in regional areas and have competitions within competitions.”

Let’s have a nice conference thread about U.K. competition!  

Link to comment
Share on other sites


11 hours ago, Copa said:

That would be pretty fantastic. It is great to see expansion being properly talked about again. It is quite clear that the costs involved with the league expanding to 18, never mind 17, would be covered by the additional revenue that is created by those teams. It greatly grows the pie and should be a no brainer.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, Damien said:

That would be pretty fantastic. It is great to see expansion being properly talked about again. It is quite clear that the costs involved with the league expanding to 18, never mind 17, would be covered by the additional revenue that is created by those teams. It greatly grows the pie and should be a no brainer.

It's very exciting. I think the sport, in many ways, is on the verge of a really big push forwards: the NRL is already the apex of 'rugby' competitions, and now it is expanding into 2 big markets where there is latent support waiting to be exploited. There is the rapid increase in competitive international teams, the grassroots work being done both in those newly competitive nations and also in start ups in South America and Africa, and the explosion of the women's game which is only going to rocket further in the coming years. It really feels like something is happening.

The one blot is the domestic game in England which seems to be regressing at an alarming rate. The only positive I can see for England right now is the number of young players heading to the NRL, which is something I applaud, and will undoubtedly continue to grow. It should have a very positive effect on the performance of the national team.

  • Like 1

"Just as we had been Cathars, we were treizistes, men apart."

Jean Roque, Calendrier-revue du Racing-Club Albigeois, 1958-1959

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Conference’s in the NRL should only be looked at if the NRL competition expands beyond 18 teams for me and with cities like Perth and Adelaide looking the most likely to miss out on the 17th&18th franchises and with south east Queensland’s rapidly expanding population it almost makes conferences inevitable.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

38 minutes ago, Cumbrian Mackem said:

Conference’s in the NRL should only be looked at if the NRL competition expands beyond 18 teams for me and with cities like Perth and Adelaide looking the most likely to miss out on the 17th&18th franchises and with south east Queensland’s rapidly expanding population it almost makes conferences inevitable.

Yeah I think 18 is probably the absolute maximum of teams in one league table, beyond that they will need conferences but I think they’re aware of this and are probably working towards that in the long term. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Hela Wigmen said:

Yeah I think 18 is probably the absolute maximum of teams in one league table, beyond that they will need conferences but I think they’re aware of this and are probably working towards that in the long term. 

You’d expect the 17th franchise by around 2023 and the 18th by 2025 with anything more after that potentially happening around 2030 which would give the likes of the SP hunters and kaiviti silktails and possibly the pacifique treize around 5-15 years to produce the numbers needed to fill the rosters of these new teams.

Add to that an ever increasing number of brits heading down under and the targeting of even more NZ union schoolboys and I’d think you’d have the numbers needed to fill the squads of 20 NRL sides by 2030.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 11/02/2021 at 09:13, Tommygilf said:

Evidently you have an ingrained dislike of NSW, judging by your other posts that even goes as far as saying Melbourne is bigger/better (insert superlative) than Sydney. 

Australia didn't have consistent laws on gambling, Sydney was and is still the largest commercial and media centre in the country, and the BRL wasn't the NSWRLs equal from at least the 1970s. Arguing why that is the case is a different argument from disputing that case entirely.

Sydney has the harbour bridge and opera house which is the most recognisable landmark of Australia (used in postcards etc), but from a purely sporting context Melbourne is a much bigger city. You have to go back to the Sydney Olympics for Sydney to have any international recognition. Melbourne has it every year with the F1 Grand Prix, tennis Australian Open, Melbourne Cup in horse racing, and in cricket the MCG is most prominent test venue. Melbourne more than stands on its own and Australia heavily relies on it for international profile. It is also regarded as a ‘European style city’ so it’s culturally very different to Sydney.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, Cumbrian Mackem said:

Add to that an ever increasing number of brits heading down under and the targeting of even more NZ union schoolboys and I’d think you’d have the numbers needed to fill the squads of 20 NRL sides by 2030.

The squads could be filled tomorrow. In terms of a competition that delivers play and games people want to watch, the spread of talent across the franchises is more important than any Phil Gould or Gary Schofield notion of intrinsic "quality".

If you watched a fabulously entertaining NSW Cup or QLD Cup game, would you persuade yourself that you hadn`t enjoyed it because neither of the teams could cut it in the NRL?

Moreover, 2 teams near the top of the NRL ladder, chock-full of the better players, could produce a high "quality" game that was dire to watch.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

As an American, I shudder at the idea of NRL adopting conferences to determine playoff spots, especially at only 18 teams. It always bothered me in MLB (the only US league I follow) when a team with the 2nd best record in its league is forced to play the 1-game wildcard playoff simply because it didn't win its division bc it had the team with the best record. I think in the NFL, there's been times where a team with a losing record wins its ###### division and gets to host a playoff game against a team with a winning record.

Hopefully if the NRL does do this, its like the NBA, 3 divisions in each conference are purely setup for scheduling purposes but the 8 playoff teams and seedings are determined by their overall conference standings.  So if the NRL was to do this it could look like this:

three 6 team divisions, each team plays its 5 divisional opponents home and away (10 games), the 2 teams that finished in the same position in their respective division home and away (4 games) and the other 10 teams once each for a total of 24 rounds.

 

Of course I wonder if its even feasible for there to be fixed conferences, would the 9 Sydney clubs except only playing some of each other 1 a year permanently? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Bennett renews calls for NRL conferences | The West Australian

I thought Bennett makes a really good point in there about how we don`t take advantage enough of the Sydney club rivalries in the game. 

If we want to boost crowds in Sydney and ratings taking advantage of these decades old rivalries with home and away games every year could be an obvious solution. Interesting.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not sure how the other 9 clubs would feel about having to travel between melbourne , townsville, and NZ for their away games while the sydney clubs get to sleep in their own homes the night of an away game. Something tells me the Wayne Bennett of the Brisbane Broncos wouldnt be for this kind of set up.

Not to make this an AFL v NRL debate, but the latter doesnt seem to have any issues pumping up rivalries without have the 9 Melbourne teams play each other home and away.  

I think the most feasilble set up would be a fixed conference system for non-NSW clubs with the NSW clubs rotating between conferences. So something like this:

North

  1. Cowboys
  2. Broncos
  3. Titans
  4. Brisbane 2
  5. NSW club
  6. NSW club

East

  1.  Warriors
  2. NZ 2
  3. NSW club
  4. NSW club
  5. NSW club
  6. NSW club

South

  1. Raiders
  2. Storm
  3. NSW club
  4. NSW club
  5. NSW club
  6. NSW club
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.



×
×
  • Create New...