|
Mick O
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 1.8K,
Visits: 0
|
+xWhat a load of garbage that thankfully won’t get off the ground, won’t get past tomorrow. Who comes up with this crap, Gus. If we were stupid enough, and you could take this year as example because ANY year can be just as lopsided, you’d have Melb and..... who? maybe Canberra having having their worse year in half a decade fighting it out in one conference and Easts, Souths Penrith, Lemons in the other. So for the foreseeable future, next few seasons at least, it’d be Melb v ?? In the Super Bowl. LOCK IT IN. This is gonna die just as quick and hard as the Euro Football Super League and Gus can then start working on his other stupid obsession the draft, which will die just as quick, and then maybe PVL will stop listening to him. A better idea is to have two conferences just to determine who plays who twice.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Mick O
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 1.8K,
Visits: 0
|
+xThere’s better ways to expand and restructure the comp. They want to expand, then the argument for and against lack of talent doesn’t make much difference between 18 or 20 teams. If it won’t work with 20, it won’t work with 18, if you got plans to address the issue with 18 teams, you can do it with 20. So first address the issue, and I do note even with the stupid idea they’ve got some planning on development included so run with it... harder. Then go 20 teams, everyone plays each other once, swapping home and away every year. 16 Teams playing 24 rounds gives you 192 games regular season, 20 teams playing 19 gives you 190, so there’s no great loss of TV product. And you can go to 10 team semis for even extra money. And of course you got an extra 5 weeks to solve so many scheduling problems. You can have Origin only rounds with Pacific Tests, expanded Women’s comp, think of whatever you want, Combined NSW & QLD cup city and country teams in a round robin running over the origin period, maybe even an International Aus v NZ and/or England - you got an extra 5 weeks. How about a knockout comp. There’d be more product, with less load on the players. And a much, much fairer comp with greater integrity. Everybody plays everybody. The only thing being Home and away being alternate but you can’t have everything. Bight the bullet, be brave, go to 20, address the player pool. I have thought the same for a long time. The magic number is 20 eventually with Perth and Adelaide. Because you can’t call it national without them. A second Brisbane and NZ is first though.
Obviously each team playing each other team once or twice is fairest. But playing every Sydney rival twice snd outsiders once works for ratings. And personally I prefer beating Sydney teams than the others
|
|
|
|
|
hounddog
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 9.9K,
Visits: 0
|
+xThere’s better ways to expand and restructure the comp. They want to expand, then the argument for and against lack of talent doesn’t make much difference between 18 or 20 teams. If it won’t work with 20, it won’t work with 18, if you got plans to address the issue with 18 teams, you can do it with 20. So first address the issue, and I do note even with the stupid idea they’ve got some planning on development included so run with it... harder. Then go 20 teams, everyone plays each other once, swapping home and away every year. 16 Teams playing 24 rounds gives you 192 games regular season, 20 teams playing 19 gives you 190, so there’s no great loss of TV product. And you can go to 10 team semis for even extra money. And of course you got an extra 5 weeks to solve so many scheduling problems. You can have Origin only rounds with Pacific Tests, expanded Women’s comp, think of whatever you want, Combined NSW & QLD cup city and country teams in a round robin running over the origin period, maybe even an International Aus v NZ and/or England - you got an extra 5 weeks. How about a knockout comp. There’d be more product, with less load on the players. And a much, much fairer comp with greater integrity. Everybody plays everybody. The only thing being Home and away being alternate but you can’t have everything. Bight the bullet, be brave, go to 20, address the player pool. I am also happy with this proposal, in fact unlike Gus I would expand straight away to 20. New teams will be happy to be added and will not mind being flogged by established teams for the first few years. They will aim to beat the other new teams and avoid the spoon. SOO can be standalone weekends with other tests and/or a 9's tournament, NSW Cup and QLD cup games could akso be broadcast. Thst is fairer on the players, allows a lot of niggling injuries to be rested in the case on non-rep players. They can also expand to a 10 team semi-final system and have the semis run for 1 more week. I have always liked this option, and it leaves scope to expand to 22 in a few years time if there are more strong candidates. Get everything right and talent looks after itself. I don't believe the lack of talent issue at all. The main criteria is, having talent evenly distributed. I don't think travel times or travel costs will be an issues, minimising them is a waste. The one exception is if we add a Perth team, which we should do. Perth should always have home and away games in 2 week blocks, 2 Perth, 2 Sydney, 2 Perth, 2 Brisbane, etc. For all other teams, it is one game per season out of 19, a good bonding opportunity for the team.
|
|
|
|
|
hounddog
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 9.9K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+xThere’s better ways to expand and restructure the comp. They want to expand, then the argument for and against lack of talent doesn’t make much difference between 18 or 20 teams. If it won’t work with 20, it won’t work with 18, if you got plans to address the issue with 18 teams, you can do it with 20. So first address the issue, and I do note even with the stupid idea they’ve got some planning on development included so run with it... harder. Then go 20 teams, everyone plays each other once, swapping home and away every year. 16 Teams playing 24 rounds gives you 192 games regular season, 20 teams playing 19 gives you 190, so there’s no great loss of TV product. And you can go to 10 team semis for even extra money. And of course you got an extra 5 weeks to solve so many scheduling problems. You can have Origin only rounds with Pacific Tests, expanded Women’s comp, think of whatever you want, Combined NSW & QLD cup city and country teams in a round robin running over the origin period, maybe even an International Aus v NZ and/or England - you got an extra 5 weeks. How about a knockout comp. There’d be more product, with less load on the players. And a much, much fairer comp with greater integrity. Everybody plays everybody. The only thing being Home and away being alternate but you can’t have everything. Bight the bullet, be brave, go to 20, address the player pool. I have thought the same for a long time. The magic number is 20 eventually with Perth and Adelaide. Because you can’t call it national without them. A second Brisbane and NZ is first though.
Obviously each team playing each other team once or twice is fairest. But playing every Sydney rival twice snd outsiders once works for ratings. And personally I prefer beating Sydney teams than the others IMO 2 more Brisbane, 1 NZ and Perth. Adelaide would need to wait for 22. My 22 would be Adeliade and North Sydney Bears playing on the central coast. I would have a 4-5 year break between 20 and 22. Not overly fussed on the details 20 is the right number for the next step. On the travel thing the only 1 off games for Perth would be the Cows and Melboure, as home and away alternates they can be in separate seasons. 2 NZ games are always both home or both away. Also on home/away most teams would not have the Cows and Perth away in the same season, maybe it is possible to ensure that never happens. If it is needed the 4 SEQ teams are the odvious candidates.
|
|
|
|
|
Villi
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 3.1K,
Visits: 0
|
+xAnyway Mock and Villi... let’s plan to go to a game this season... at best we enjoy the day... at worst we are banned from attending NRLol games for two years for brawling and make the paper... Funny you say that Dman.... I’m heading to my 1st game of the year this Saturday
|
|
|
|
|
Mick O
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 1.8K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+xThere’s better ways to expand and restructure the comp. They want to expand, then the argument for and against lack of talent doesn’t make much difference between 18 or 20 teams. If it won’t work with 20, it won’t work with 18, if you got plans to address the issue with 18 teams, you can do it with 20. So first address the issue, and I do note even with the stupid idea they’ve got some planning on development included so run with it... harder. Then go 20 teams, everyone plays each other once, swapping home and away every year. 16 Teams playing 24 rounds gives you 192 games regular season, 20 teams playing 19 gives you 190, so there’s no great loss of TV product. And you can go to 10 team semis for even extra money. And of course you got an extra 5 weeks to solve so many scheduling problems. You can have Origin only rounds with Pacific Tests, expanded Women’s comp, think of whatever you want, Combined NSW & QLD cup city and country teams in a round robin running over the origin period, maybe even an International Aus v NZ and/or England - you got an extra 5 weeks. How about a knockout comp. There’d be more product, with less load on the players. And a much, much fairer comp with greater integrity. Everybody plays everybody. The only thing being Home and away being alternate but you can’t have everything. Bight the bullet, be brave, go to 20, address the player pool. I am also happy with this proposal, in fact unlike Gus I would expand straight away to 20. New teams will be happy to be added and will not mind being flogged by established teams for the first few years. They will aim to beat the other new teams and avoid the spoon. SOO can be standalone weekends with other tests and/or a 9's tournament, NSW Cup and QLD cup games could akso be broadcast. Thst is fairer on the players, allows a lot of niggling injuries to be rested in the case on non-rep players. They can also expand to a 10 team semi-final system and have the semis run for 1 more week. I have always liked this option, and it leaves scope to expand to 22 in a few years time if there are more strong candidates. Get everything right and talent looks after itself. I don't believe the lack of talent issue at all. The main criteria is, having talent evenly distributed. I don't think travel times or travel costs will be an issues, minimising them is a waste. The one exception is if we add a Perth team, which we should do. Perth should always have home and away games in 2 week blocks, 2 Perth, 2 Sydney, 2 Perth, 2 Brisbane, etc. For all other teams, it is one game per season out of 19, a good bonding opportunity for the team. I agree. The lack of talent issue is an overused argument. More teams supply more junior development that adds more talent and expands the interest in the game.
|
|
|
|
|
Mooloolabadog
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 2K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+xThere’s better ways to expand and restructure the comp. They want to expand, then the argument for and against lack of talent doesn’t make much difference between 18 or 20 teams. If it won’t work with 20, it won’t work with 18, if you got plans to address the issue with 18 teams, you can do it with 20. So first address the issue, and I do note even with the stupid idea they’ve got some planning on development included so run with it... harder. Then go 20 teams, everyone plays each other once, swapping home and away every year. 16 Teams playing 24 rounds gives you 192 games regular season, 20 teams playing 19 gives you 190, so there’s no great loss of TV product. And you can go to 10 team semis for even extra money. And of course you got an extra 5 weeks to solve so many scheduling problems. You can have Origin only rounds with Pacific Tests, expanded Women’s comp, think of whatever you want, Combined NSW & QLD cup city and country teams in a round robin running over the origin period, maybe even an International Aus v NZ and/or England - you got an extra 5 weeks. How about a knockout comp. There’d be more product, with less load on the players. And a much, much fairer comp with greater integrity. Everybody plays everybody. The only thing being Home and away being alternate but you can’t have everything. Bight the bullet, be brave, go to 20, address the player pool. I am also happy with this proposal, in fact unlike Gus I would expand straight away to 20. New teams will be happy to be added and will not mind being flogged by established teams for the first few years. They will aim to beat the other new teams and avoid the spoon. SOO can be standalone weekends with other tests and/or a 9's tournament, NSW Cup and QLD cup games could akso be broadcast. Thst is fairer on the players, allows a lot of niggling injuries to be rested in the case on non-rep players. They can also expand to a 10 team semi-final system and have the semis run for 1 more week. I have always liked this option, and it leaves scope to expand to 22 in a few years time if there are more strong candidates. Get everything right and talent looks after itself. I don't believe the lack of talent issue at all. The main criteria is, having talent evenly distributed. I don't think travel times or travel costs will be an issues, minimising them is a waste. The one exception is if we add a Perth team, which we should do. Perth should always have home and away games in 2 week blocks, 2 Perth, 2 Sydney, 2 Perth, 2 Brisbane, etc. For all other teams, it is one game per season out of 19, a good bonding opportunity for the team. I agree. The lack of talent issue is an overused argument. More teams supply more junior development that adds more talent and expands the interest in the game. There would be a lag of years before this extra talent comes through if ever.
|
|
|
|
|
hounddog
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 9.9K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+x+xThere’s better ways to expand and restructure the comp. They want to expand, then the argument for and against lack of talent doesn’t make much difference between 18 or 20 teams. If it won’t work with 20, it won’t work with 18, if you got plans to address the issue with 18 teams, you can do it with 20. So first address the issue, and I do note even with the stupid idea they’ve got some planning on development included so run with it... harder. Then go 20 teams, everyone plays each other once, swapping home and away every year. 16 Teams playing 24 rounds gives you 192 games regular season, 20 teams playing 19 gives you 190, so there’s no great loss of TV product. And you can go to 10 team semis for even extra money. And of course you got an extra 5 weeks to solve so many scheduling problems. You can have Origin only rounds with Pacific Tests, expanded Women’s comp, think of whatever you want, Combined NSW & QLD cup city and country teams in a round robin running over the origin period, maybe even an International Aus v NZ and/or England - you got an extra 5 weeks. How about a knockout comp. There’d be more product, with less load on the players. And a much, much fairer comp with greater integrity. Everybody plays everybody. The only thing being Home and away being alternate but you can’t have everything. Bight the bullet, be brave, go to 20, address the player pool. I am also happy with this proposal, in fact unlike Gus I would expand straight away to 20. New teams will be happy to be added and will not mind being flogged by established teams for the first few years. They will aim to beat the other new teams and avoid the spoon. SOO can be standalone weekends with other tests and/or a 9's tournament, NSW Cup and QLD cup games could akso be broadcast. Thst is fairer on the players, allows a lot of niggling injuries to be rested in the case on non-rep players. They can also expand to a 10 team semi-final system and have the semis run for 1 more week. I have always liked this option, and it leaves scope to expand to 22 in a few years time if there are more strong candidates. Get everything right and talent looks after itself. I don't believe the lack of talent issue at all. The main criteria is, having talent evenly distributed. I don't think travel times or travel costs will be an issues, minimising them is a waste. The one exception is if we add a Perth team, which we should do. Perth should always have home and away games in 2 week blocks, 2 Perth, 2 Sydney, 2 Perth, 2 Brisbane, etc. For all other teams, it is one game per season out of 19, a good bonding opportunity for the team. I agree. The lack of talent issue is an overused argument. More teams supply more junior development that adds more talent and expands the interest in the game. There would be a lag of years before this extra talent comes through if ever. There is no shortage of players in NSW cup QLD and lower grades. With fulltime coaching, skill levels can be improved. Lack of talent is a myth IMO. Poorly performing teams are an uneven distribution of talent and issues with squad assembly. We can see this when the 4th or 5th choice player at the Storm or Roosters is just as good as the first choice at some clubs. Also league is a game where only basic skills are needed in attack, catching a ball and running isn't that hard, kicking and passing isn't hard. When we compare to Australian soccer, I'm surpised how bad the skill levels are compared to overseas. Especially since I saw my nephew's under 8 side being well coached by junior rep players 20 years ago. If I had to guess administration of the game must be the problem. Skill levels can always be improved, there are few players so poor that properly targeted skills training can't improve them. Anyone who has played sport has done skill drills. A game of league with poor kicking, bad missed tackles, clueless attack and dropped ball can still be a contest if both teams are equally bad.
|
|
|
|
|
hounddog
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 9.9K,
Visits: 0
|
Well targeted expansion also gets more kids playing the game in those areas.
Clubs have an incentive to develop local talent.
More clubs, more development.
|
|
|
|
|
Mick O
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 1.8K,
Visits: 0
|
+xWell targeted expansion also gets more kids playing the game in those areas. Clubs have an incentive to develop local talent. More clubs, more development. That’s the point. We are well behind the AFL. And we need to catch up
|
|
|
|
|
ODF
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 2.3K,
Visits: 0
|
Who says lack of talent is not an issue. There are 16 teams at the moment and look at us, smashing teams week after week with our roster overflowing with international, SOO and experienced FG players. I guess it wont hurt to dilute the playing pool a bit more. Another issue that has to be addressed is honest and unbiased monitoring of the SC and the scrutineering of 3rd party payments so teams like the chooks cant stock up on premium players and leave the rest of the competition struggling. Also the draw would have to remain static so that each team can have a regular home and away draw each year. And V'landys has to give up his dream of Rugba Leeg because it's sh@t and no one wants it. AND.................
|
|
|
|
|
Mooloolabadog
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 2K,
Visits: 0
|
+xWell targeted expansion also gets more kids playing the game in those areas. Clubs have an incentive to develop local talent. More clubs, more development. Storm been around for 23 years. Don't see much homegrown talent out of there.
|
|
|
|
|
Zef
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 2.1K,
Visits: 0
|
+xStorm been around for 23 years. Don't see much homegrown talent out of there. But a competition’s worth of development. They bring more players through from their teens in one year than we have in ten. More than one way to do junior development than just local juniors, in fact there’s better ways.
|
|
|
|
|
hounddog
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 9.9K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+xWell targeted expansion also gets more kids playing the game in those areas. Clubs have an incentive to develop local talent. More clubs, more development. Storm been around for 23 years. Don't see much homegrown talent out of there. Melbourne is a hard market, but they have developed a few local juniors. Not that long ago NRL was only shown on TV late at night in Vic, times when kids were not watching. These days, kids watch a lot of YouTube and NRL is on YouTube. You can bet schools in Vic rarely play League, it is the hardest state in the country to crack. All of expansion areas have established league comps and a league / Union background. Saying we shouldn't expand due to a lack of talent is like saying we will never land a man on the moon. Start out convinced that failure is the only option and you are always right. Look for ways to do it, and they can always be found.
|
|
|
|
|
ODF
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 2.3K,
Visits: 0
|
You could have 100 juniors go throught the club in a year thats a good thing but how many of those are going to end up being good enough to play FG. It's the law of statistics and probability.
|
|
|
|
|
Zef
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 2.1K,
Visits: 0
|
Look, there’s three words.... and counting by plenty, but three will do for now.... that tell you everything you need to know about Melbourne’s development program
Cronk, Smith, Slater.
So they’re not “juniors”, so.......
End of silly debate.
|
|
|
|
|
ODF
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 2.3K,
Visits: 0
|
The Dogs were always on the hunt for juniors from the bush and we developed some young hard tough players they were in those times the "Dogs of War" before that it was the "Entertainers" including some young chaps from down Wagga way. But you all get my drift.
|
|
|
|
|
hounddog
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 9.9K,
Visits: 0
|
+xThe Dogs were always on the hunt for juniors from the bush and we developed some young hard tough players they were in those times the "Dogs of War" before that it was the "Entertainers" including some young chaps from down Wagga way. But you all get my drift. We need to improve our scouting, that is on the list. I wouldn't recommend judging the available talent by the Dogs performances. Our issues were many and varying and long running. Broncos many issues, lazy entitled players, generally losing their way. Cows and the Tigers made a real hash of recruitment, particularly in spine positions. All other clubs are doing ok, if they aren't a lack of talent isn't the issue. The new rules mean scores are blowing out, I bet teams adjust and games may look closer next year.
|
|
|
|
|
hounddog
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 9.9K,
Visits: 0
|
+xLook, there’s three words.... and counting by plenty, but three will do for now.... that tell you everything you need to know about Melbourne’s development program Cronk, Smith, Slater. So they’re not “juniors”, so....... End of silly debate. Smith and Thurston being 2 players the Broncos thought were not good enough.
|
|
|
|
|
hounddog
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 9.9K,
Visits: 0
|
Sharks are more cyclical, their side needs a rebuild.
But Molyan and Johnson are an example of signing 2 similar players when 1 will do.
Abd their squad features a lot of players who tend to get injured.
Bottom line, most weaker teams have done plenty to contribute to their own problems.
|
|
|
|
|
Marki
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 6.7K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+xThere’s better ways to expand and restructure the comp. They want to expand, then the argument for and against lack of talent doesn’t make much difference between 18 or 20 teams. If it won’t work with 20, it won’t work with 18, if you got plans to address the issue with 18 teams, you can do it with 20. So first address the issue, and I do note even with the stupid idea they’ve got some planning on development included so run with it... harder. Then go 20 teams, everyone plays each other once, swapping home and away every year. 16 Teams playing 24 rounds gives you 192 games regular season, 20 teams playing 19 gives you 190, so there’s no great loss of TV product. And you can go to 10 team semis for even extra money. And of course you got an extra 5 weeks to solve so many scheduling problems. You can have Origin only rounds with Pacific Tests, expanded Women’s comp, think of whatever you want, Combined NSW & QLD cup city and country teams in a round robin running over the origin period, maybe even an International Aus v NZ and/or England - you got an extra 5 weeks. How about a knockout comp. There’d be more product, with less load on the players. And a much, much fairer comp with greater integrity. Everybody plays everybody. The only thing being Home and away being alternate but you can’t have everything. Bight the bullet, be brave, go to 20, address the player pool. I have thought the same for a long time. The magic number is 20 eventually with Perth and Adelaide. Because you can’t call it national without them. A second Brisbane and NZ is first though.
Obviously each team playing each other team once or twice is fairest. But playing every Sydney rival twice snd outsiders once works for ratings. And personally I prefer beating Sydney teams than the others How about 16 teams, everyone plays each other twice with the game having a 3 week break mid season while SOO is played over 20 days. The 30 week league comp might sound like alot but other than the SOO players, the rest will be rested and given time to recharge and hit the 2nd part of the season fresh. Also makes the off season shorter. SOO to be played on Sat, Wed week and Sat week with NRL resuming the next Thursday
|
|
|
|
|
Marki
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 6.7K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+xStorm been around for 23 years. Don't see much homegrown talent out of there. But a competition’s worth of development. They bring more players through from their teens in one year than we have in ten. More than one way to do junior development than just local juniors, in fact there’s better ways. This I agree with. Its akin to having a carpenter filing down a piece of timber to a particular shape and next door having a CNC machine doing it in 1/10th of the time.... Some teams (and development coaches) feel they need 5 years with a player to get them to NRL level, while Storm have shown they can prepare players to crack first grade and excel at much younger ages.
|
|
|
|
|
Marki
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 6.7K,
Visits: 0
|
+xSharks are more cyclical, their side needs a rebuild. But Molyan and Johnson are an example of signing 2 similar players when 1 will do. Abd their squad features a lot of players who tend to get injured. Bottom line, most weaker teams have done plenty to contribute to their own problems. This is true. There's things like real bad luck (for example our 2005 season) which can happen to any team. But cumulative mistakes in player recruitment, retention and development can send a club to the bottom of the ladder in a heap and it could take them the best part of 5 years to get themselves out of it.
|
|
|
|
|
Marki
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 6.7K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+xThere’s better ways to expand and restructure the comp. They want to expand, then the argument for and against lack of talent doesn’t make much difference between 18 or 20 teams. If it won’t work with 20, it won’t work with 18, if you got plans to address the issue with 18 teams, you can do it with 20. So first address the issue, and I do note even with the stupid idea they’ve got some planning on development included so run with it... harder. Then go 20 teams, everyone plays each other once, swapping home and away every year. 16 Teams playing 24 rounds gives you 192 games regular season, 20 teams playing 19 gives you 190, so there’s no great loss of TV product. And you can go to 10 team semis for even extra money. And of course you got an extra 5 weeks to solve so many scheduling problems. You can have Origin only rounds with Pacific Tests, expanded Women’s comp, think of whatever you want, Combined NSW & QLD cup city and country teams in a round robin running over the origin period, maybe even an International Aus v NZ and/or England - you got an extra 5 weeks. How about a knockout comp. There’d be more product, with less load on the players. And a much, much fairer comp with greater integrity. Everybody plays everybody. The only thing being Home and away being alternate but you can’t have everything. Bight the bullet, be brave, go to 20, address the player pool. I have thought the same for a long time. The magic number is 20 eventually with Perth and Adelaide. Because you can’t call it national without them. A second Brisbane and NZ is first though.
Obviously each team playing each other team once or twice is fairest. But playing every Sydney rival twice snd outsiders once works for ratings. And personally I prefer beating Sydney teams than the others How about 16 teams, everyone plays each other twice with the game having a 3 week break mid season while SOO is played over 20 days. The 30 week league comp might sound like alot but other than the SOO players, the rest will be rested and given time to recharge and hit the 2nd part of the season fresh. Also makes the off season shorter. SOO to be played on Sat, Wed week and Sat week with NRL resuming the next Thursday Sorry....that would be a 4 week break mid season. Total footy season would be 34 weeks + finals 14 weeks off season is plenty
|
|
|
|
|
Mick O
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 1.8K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+xThere’s better ways to expand and restructure the comp. They want to expand, then the argument for and against lack of talent doesn’t make much difference between 18 or 20 teams. If it won’t work with 20, it won’t work with 18, if you got plans to address the issue with 18 teams, you can do it with 20. So first address the issue, and I do note even with the stupid idea they’ve got some planning on development included so run with it... harder. Then go 20 teams, everyone plays each other once, swapping home and away every year. 16 Teams playing 24 rounds gives you 192 games regular season, 20 teams playing 19 gives you 190, so there’s no great loss of TV product. And you can go to 10 team semis for even extra money. And of course you got an extra 5 weeks to solve so many scheduling problems. You can have Origin only rounds with Pacific Tests, expanded Women’s comp, think of whatever you want, Combined NSW & QLD cup city and country teams in a round robin running over the origin period, maybe even an International Aus v NZ and/or England - you got an extra 5 weeks. How about a knockout comp. There’d be more product, with less load on the players. And a much, much fairer comp with greater integrity. Everybody plays everybody. The only thing being Home and away being alternate but you can’t have everything. Bight the bullet, be brave, go to 20, address the player pool. I have thought the same for a long time. The magic number is 20 eventually with Perth and Adelaide. Because you can’t call it national without them. A second Brisbane and NZ is first though.
Obviously each team playing each other team once or twice is fairest. But playing every Sydney rival twice snd outsiders once works for ratings. And personally I prefer beating Sydney teams than the others How about 16 teams, everyone plays each other twice with the game having a 3 week break mid season while SOO is played over 20 days. The 30 week league comp might sound like alot but other than the SOO players, the rest will be rested and given time to recharge and hit the 2nd part of the season fresh. Also makes the off season shorter. SOO to be played on Sat, Wed week and Sat week with NRL resuming the next Thursday I would be more than happy with that but the players association won’t agree to that. Also, the season is long enough for most casual fans. Adding more games might hurt the product
|
|
|
|
|
Mick O
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 1.8K,
Visits: 0
|
I think the two best markets and junior bases for expansion are New Zealand and Perth. New Zealand has a strong league following, nothing beats yawnion over there but league can compete strongly. Perth with the ex NSW and Qld locals forming a good local comp has a good setup.
We can expand in these areas because the juniors have potential. They are many years away but if we don’t start soon we will be in the same position now in ten years time.
|
|
|
|
|
hounddog
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 9.9K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+xThere’s better ways to expand and restructure the comp. They want to expand, then the argument for and against lack of talent doesn’t make much difference between 18 or 20 teams. If it won’t work with 20, it won’t work with 18, if you got plans to address the issue with 18 teams, you can do it with 20. So first address the issue, and I do note even with the stupid idea they’ve got some planning on development included so run with it... harder. Then go 20 teams, everyone plays each other once, swapping home and away every year. 16 Teams playing 24 rounds gives you 192 games regular season, 20 teams playing 19 gives you 190, so there’s no great loss of TV product. And you can go to 10 team semis for even extra money. And of course you got an extra 5 weeks to solve so many scheduling problems. You can have Origin only rounds with Pacific Tests, expanded Women’s comp, think of whatever you want, Combined NSW & QLD cup city and country teams in a round robin running over the origin period, maybe even an International Aus v NZ and/or England - you got an extra 5 weeks. How about a knockout comp. There’d be more product, with less load on the players. And a much, much fairer comp with greater integrity. Everybody plays everybody. The only thing being Home and away being alternate but you can’t have everything. Bight the bullet, be brave, go to 20, address the player pool. I have thought the same for a long time. The magic number is 20 eventually with Perth and Adelaide. Because you can’t call it national without them. A second Brisbane and NZ is first though.
Obviously each team playing each other team once or twice is fairest. But playing every Sydney rival twice snd outsiders once works for ratings. And personally I prefer beating Sydney teams than the others How about 16 teams, everyone plays each other twice with the game having a 3 week break mid season while SOO is played over 20 days. The 30 week league comp might sound like alot but other than the SOO players, the rest will be rested and given time to recharge and hit the 2nd part of the season fresh. Also makes the off season shorter. SOO to be played on Sat, Wed week and Sat week with NRL resuming the next Thursday The are multiple reasons for 20 teams. - Expanding to new areas. - More attractive to broadcasters. - 2 more sunday afternoon games.
|
|
|
|
|
Mick O
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 1.8K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+x+xThere’s better ways to expand and restructure the comp. They want to expand, then the argument for and against lack of talent doesn’t make much difference between 18 or 20 teams. If it won’t work with 20, it won’t work with 18, if you got plans to address the issue with 18 teams, you can do it with 20. So first address the issue, and I do note even with the stupid idea they’ve got some planning on development included so run with it... harder. Then go 20 teams, everyone plays each other once, swapping home and away every year. 16 Teams playing 24 rounds gives you 192 games regular season, 20 teams playing 19 gives you 190, so there’s no great loss of TV product. And you can go to 10 team semis for even extra money. And of course you got an extra 5 weeks to solve so many scheduling problems. You can have Origin only rounds with Pacific Tests, expanded Women’s comp, think of whatever you want, Combined NSW & QLD cup city and country teams in a round robin running over the origin period, maybe even an International Aus v NZ and/or England - you got an extra 5 weeks. How about a knockout comp. There’d be more product, with less load on the players. And a much, much fairer comp with greater integrity. Everybody plays everybody. The only thing being Home and away being alternate but you can’t have everything. Bight the bullet, be brave, go to 20, address the player pool. I have thought the same for a long time. The magic number is 20 eventually with Perth and Adelaide. Because you can’t call it national without them. A second Brisbane and NZ is first though.
Obviously each team playing each other team once or twice is fairest. But playing every Sydney rival twice snd outsiders once works for ratings. And personally I prefer beating Sydney teams than the others How about 16 teams, everyone plays each other twice with the game having a 3 week break mid season while SOO is played over 20 days. The 30 week league comp might sound like alot but other than the SOO players, the rest will be rested and given time to recharge and hit the 2nd part of the season fresh. Also makes the off season shorter. SOO to be played on Sat, Wed week and Sat week with NRL resuming the next Thursday The are multiple reasons for 20 teams. - Expanding to new areas. - More attractive to broadcasters. - 2 more sunday afternoon games. = -more players
-more money
-more footy
its hard to dislike the idea of a twenty team comp
|
|
|
|
|
Zef
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 2.1K,
Visits: 0
|
+xThe are multiple reasons for 20 teams. - Expanding to new areas. - More attractive to broadcasters. - 2 more sunday afternoon games. I’d say one more Sun afternoon game 1 on Thurs 2 on Fri 3 on Sat 3 on Sun and..... Monday Night footy is back.
|
|
|
|
|
Zef
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 2.1K,
Visits: 0
|
+xHow about 16 teams, everyone plays each other twice with the game having a 3 week break mid season while SOO is played over 20 days. The 30 week league comp might sound like alot but other than the SOO players, the rest will be rested and given time to recharge and hit the 2nd part of the season fresh. Also makes the off season shorter. SOO to be played on Sat, Wed week and Sat week with NRL resuming the next Thursday Obviously not your body you’re asking to play 30 games a season, plus finals, and then get 14 weeks off. The reason it might sound like a lot is because it is f***in’ lot. The average age of The NRL will be about 19 because the rest will be broken down and retired by 25.
|
|
|
|