NRL and NFL: key differences

Well I wouldn't use 15+ paragraphs to impart "just one additional piece of information".

Oikee doesn't like the NFL? Even with his obsession with large taxpayer-funded rectangular stadiums in every city?

Having just watched a little bit of the biff on replay, i can say one thing with absolute certainty, Australia does not ever want to go down the path of the yanks and NFL football. It really is a load of bullocks and i agree now. Our game should stay the way it is, 6 tackles, no changes and our finals system is perfect the way it is, plus the yanks are yet to be taken to court over head trama's. The refs calling out the plays and infringements is also a load of bullocks. The whole game is boring as.

How would YOU make it so all finals sold out, people understood the finals system properly, and there was unprecedented interest in the matchups? GO

Von Neumann ~ did you write all that with both hands tied behind your back? Just asking.

Just one additional piece of information about my seasonal structure and finals system - how do you decide who plays who? Well, since the winner of the league automatically makes the Grand Final, who really cares to build in a complex structure for who to play them? The best team all year is already there by structure. They have played well over the season, navigated injury and fatigue and tactics, and rightfully deserve their place. For the second team, there is some flexibility and the quality of teams 2-9 may be up in the air - for instance a team placed 4th on the ladder may have played their best football in rounds 10-20 and by round 22 they are not playing so well. Ditto for the others to varying degrees. So to that end, the knockout finals system will sort the wheat from the chaff - if you're good enough, you should make it through. Like all knock out finals series therefore, the teams matchups should be drawn from a hat. Arrange them 2-9 still (old 1-8). In the quarter finals the top 4 teams play against the bottom 4, thats the only seeding, and go from there, to semis, then you have the two best left. The winner of that game earns the right to play the league-winners in the grand final. Why do that? Well invariably in our over-anylised leagues these days we know the teams better than most. So we can always guess which team will beat which team and are often right, baring an upset. But also, we don't want to factor-in a structure for the finals as much as possible, because we don't want teams trying to position themselves favorably on the ladder. We must allow for that outcome. So its simply 22-24 round season, followed by knockout quarter finals, semi finals and one Grand Final qualifier. We cannot look to what AFL is doing or any of the 'keeping up with the jones' ' nonsense we continually get sensitive about in the game these days. I say this, because there may be some initial concern before such a season is experienced over how we are selling ourselves short or whatnot (whatever self-immolating junk the media decides to make up) - we must ignore it. What we will have instead is a regular season that has intense meaning and critical certainty - all the focus is on winning the premiership - thats the greatest prize. Why do we currently make it that the finals (a mere, what? 5 weeks) is the operationally critical period? Why can't we have it that the *entire* season, all 22-24 weeks (I am trimming 2 rounds) is critical, and the focus is honed, and the attention is held for that *one* goal all year. Its not wishy washy, its not unclear, its certain, and its actually a focusing effect. To my mind this will generate an attention like not other, and place a spot light firmly upon the entire competition. Its a race to be number 1, not a race to be at least an also-ran. But after the initial race the also-rans get their day in the sun when they fight it out at the end of the season to state their case. Thats what my ultimate aim is. I think it will have a substantial - massive, in fact - affect on the quality and excitement of our season. In competition - you *must* increase the risk if you want to increase the excitement, support and attention on any game. The current way our season pans out, there is no risk, basically - its all run on credit "we play today, but if we are in the top 8, hey, at least we can still make the grand final." Its weak, when people respect and give significance to strength and risk-takers, and therefore winners. :) Please, see this, and our competition (even afl) for what it is. Tv-inspired jokes.

And we wonder, dear god who we have shown not to exist - why we can't sell out finals anymore. My friend, MG, dude....its because people think its crap, and let me please show you why, in good faith. I will try and explain it best I can, because the other time you misunderstood me to a large degree. ** Basically, what I am saying is there will always be a % of lesser games; and there will be more needless, lesser games in 26 rounds, than in 22 rounds. ** Then, after said lesser events, you play a finals series that simply by nature of its make-up, struggles to find context for most people, and provide clarity -- also, said finals series relies on its intricate structure to provide its frills, rather than the nature of the contest..... people can't relate to that as effectively as what I am proposing. Now, let me ask you why the world cup in soccer (rl uses the proper knockout as well), does not just "double-up" its complexity to make a 16 team, super-complex, finals series? Is it a time constraint? Yes, and is it also that to do so, just for the sake of playing a complex format, would just leave people bewildered?? The structure of the finals series should not be a factor in whether a team advances......ONLY: 'did that team beat that team' should be a determining factor. I don't care how many rounds you play to get to the finals - if you are not good enough you are not good enough......just because you played 26 rounds, or finished 2nd should not justify you getting 2-bites of the cherry. ---> The finals should be "final." <---- :) We are making a mockery of it, just on those grounds alone Thats how any successful competition is around the globe......any added (non-critical) complexity is needless waste, and any added complexity is just confusing, and it in fact gets in the way of competitive spirit and therefore the fans hearts and minds. There is only one benefit to added complexity:: People who are that way inclined can become engrossed in stated added complexity and wonder and pontificate about the multitude of possible future finals scenarios.....yet not everyone - if many - are that way inclined. __ In RL, my dear friend, we are in fact justifying mediocrity and bad planning across an effort to make it that way spanning decades; simply by having the seasonal structure we do.....its never been considered, since what, the mid 50s?? ____ (Now onto me getting 'weary' of league, and here, must admit, I did not communicate clearly enough. Let me expand all that out. ) ---------->>>>>> Take the above as fact - is what I am saying. Don't deny that, and don't use an emotional-cover within a straw-man argument (OF ALL THINGS!!) to engage in criticism of my proposal. There also is the little point of your bias against knock outs. but we will get to that, because maybe my communication was a bit thin that day - or maybe you are not seeing the bigger picture. We can disregard for the sake of discussion what has come before as said by you in your reply, because its just wrong on the basis of our discussion - I did not mean what you thought I meant. You did indeed misrepresent me. So lets set the record straight. ___ So, the way the competition structure is run is just a mish-mash, non organised, mess. -We've gone from 5 playoff system to final 8, tweaked it one year, changed it another - used when system, then ditched it..... -Just the same we had a comp where we add rounds to it every so often, take them away....different teams, over the years... there has never been any clear thought out process. Give the idea of my season structure some more thought, it should make sense. - I do assert that even when you look beyond the way our current comp-structure has come into being (pure chance) - it's also apparent to me that its not the best one we could have. - We play basically an entire year "just" to "seed" the finals system. Its NOT A COMPETITION.....its not a league, its not even a race. Its just something you do over the year before you play finals - and if you finish in the top 8, thats good enough. The premiership is somewhat of a farce, given the complexity and context-sensitive nature of the finals series. There is room for improvement in many regards - and not withstanding my belief that its actually a little bit broken, its just that people get swept up in the media brainwashing, which must be a harder sell each year we do this mess. __ Lets not kid ourselves, I would not be the only one saying the following: that the finals system and how its tacked onto the season, how the finals work out, and its importance, is all related, and taken as a whole, is flawed. That we have used far greater flawed systems in the past, would make the current set-up seem quite good - yes......but it does NOT EXONERATE a system that is still flawed. Just being good enough will not do - not when we are just doing things to appease the TV gods. ---- My concern is only the competition - not the tv execs. I dont give a stuff if they want 100 rounds, and a 20 week finals system...... RL needs to be the source of its inspiration - not tv, and not some over-inflated finals series that people struggle to gain meaning from. ___ Hmmm. Would it be for you to appear morally [RL]-superior to mine own self. Firstly, I am not saying extend the season to have a short finals series. Thats ludicrous. I am of the understanding you have a dislike for knock out system in other sports. I dont know why this is. But I am not impressed by your bias. I personally, don't want to see less games, and I do not sit down and watch every game - thats not what is wearing me out. By assertion of this, I must admit to failing in my commincation there as well - because when I said "worn out", I did not mean physically or emotionally - I meant intellectually...... my friends, I implore you - there are roughly 20-30 games in the latter season across the NRL that ARE ESSENTIALLY.....wait.....wait.....*****OPERATIONALLY INSIGNIFICANT.*** ___ Operationally insignificant -> to the interest of the fans on the whole, to the interest on who finishes in the top 8, and to the interest of the fans who attend (lesser numbers), ect, ect......its needless fatigue on all human faculties. Those games, dear people, serve no purpose but to be T.V filler....they are not played for 'the competition', they are played to 'fill in the gaps of the black hole' that would otherwise exist on your tv screen (theoretically) in the august-september period of fox sports. If you think Canberra-Penrith, or Sharks-north qld matches, an extra 2 times is "gripping" viewing, something we need to see more of, and we need even more them - think again. (i just made the matchups up, but consider if those teams were bottom of the ladded, and you had to play those fixtures extra times each year) ** Basically, what I am saying is there will always be a % of lesser games, but there will be more, needless, lesser games in 26 rounds, than in 22 rounds. ** ___ The finals dont drag on, the season does. There would have to be at least 20 games in the latter season that few people take much interest in. This would be ok, yeh, of course, play those games little RL-professionals....except for the fact that the season is too long. 26 rounds!? TWENTY SIX. Lets get a perspective. E.P.L -- 38 games. 19 home, 19 away. NFL 16 games, 8 home, 8 away NRL 26 games, 13 home, 13 away. :: In NFL its one game a week, just like us but in soccer it can be often 2 games a week - though a soccer season includes other competitions which make the season much longer. Point being, to cut this short, if you did a ratio of all that, you would find RL would need to trim its season back a little. I am talking a max of 4 rounds - its not a lot to ask to trim some fat. ____ In regards to the finals system, I think we must consider that its flawed, yes, and that we could do it a lot better. My intent is only to get knock out finals up for discussion. It works out to be just 2 less finals games. My intent is to address all the seasonal-structure issues in one go. So we have a 22 round season (24 if one must) and a knock out finals series. Its not about trying hard to my mind - proffessional teams almost always try hard, an rarely do they have an "off" game where you would say "gee, wish they had a second chance since so many random events happened today out of their control and this seems unfair!...." No, 2nd chances over complicate things. In my League, the winner of the regular season automatically makes the finals.....and then, its a knock out for the rest, and then we can cut the crap and get onto the business of enjoying, pure, unadulterated sporting contests with the greatest incentive to win - because a loss means an end to the season. Above and beyond that, I wanted to restore prestige and majesty to the regular season by making the winner on points automatic GF entrants. Why else would you want to win the league for???? It should never be, NEVER, ever have been either a 26 round system to generate seedings for a finals systems where you get a 2nd chance anyway. That, sir, is plain rediculous, and someone did not think that out. But, fmd, I did.

The knockout system in the US leagues are a nonsense. Top teams should ABSOLUTELY get a second chance, otherwise what is the reward for finishing higher up the ladder? No, the finals should not be shortened- they do not "drag on". 4 weeks is not a long time. What we need to do is shorten the season- you don't short-change fans of the best games of the year (finals) for a few extra weeks of the regular season. If you are "worn out" by the time the last 4 weeks are upon us, stop watching so many games during the year. To also suggest that teams don't "try as hard" because they have a second chance is absurd. No one wants to have to play an extra game in the finals, especially when the alternative is a week off to recover from the long season you've spoken of.

The rule changes they are trialling in the All Stars game (no its a one off to get people interested and watch a trial game) are for a change not designed to get NRL to be a padless NFL.

For me, this brings to our game that ONE (haha, and I mean one only, ok) aspect of Union that I really, really, really, like. And that is the continuous phases, no tackle count. Granted, I think the tackle count method of possession control and its balancing affect is just as good as any and there are historical reasons why it was tried and it stuck.....and Union has always had it way of doing things. Soccer, where there is non-stop contesting, is really good too (and often most tedious), but our sport does not lend itself to that. So I think this rule proposal is just sweet. Will be eager to see it in practice, and if all goes well (why wouldn't it) love to see it in the premiership ASAP. Its increasing that uncertainty aspect that I like. You just never know what 2 or 3 plays down the track will bring. __ On a minor note, I dont like tinkering with the rules too much is the way to go, but this rule I think will fit in nicely.

I would like to make a separate post (a combination of everything said so far with my ideas all collected in one spot) Turbodewd said earlier that he prefered a conference system based on geograpic location. This makes a lot of sense, and I do think they unofficially make the draw to that effect now - I could be wrong, but thought I heard they try, but anyway) See, I am a fan of the English Premier league model (and soccer models in general), where the best team all year is the one that wins. But In soccer they sometimes lament (it gains voice) they have no GF in their league's..... Well!!!! The best of both (*ALL) worlds. Here go's. - --> my intent with this is to maximize interest, player welfare, and cut the fat from the comp. It needs to be sharp, clean-cut and exciting. If broadcasters want more content- then they can look to an international RL calendar, ect. This is in the future....plus we have trouble with crowds, so WHY have so many lame Finals games? Watch me, as I consider how to remove the limitations. ___ All I can suggest is that the winner of the premiership gets the accolades of being the BEST team all year....they even get an official presentation, a proper one, and their strengths over the season highlighted more so than now, and make a composite of their great play and a story about their achievement.....I want the public to know just how good they were (or even, how close they were to coming second)..... --- Celebrate it over tv, ect. Give them a good prize. If required, take the current NRL trophy and make the premiership winner (not GF winner) receive that.....the gitman sheild or whatever its name is called - scrap it perhaps. I dont know what will "sell" the idea to the public exactly, but how you angle it will become apparant after a bit of thought. Maybe leave it as is. --- But during the year there must not be so much talk about the Grand final - it needs to be a second-thought moreso than it is now. --- THEN the premiership winner automatically makes the Grand Final, and the finals series continues without them. --- BUT, the finals series is a knock-out affair. --- What will happen is a ** NINE TEAM FINALS SERIES** (just that team number 1 [premiership winners] only plays in the GF)……. So the finals series will be for teams 2-9, and it will be a knockout. To me, this will place a lot of emphasis on the premiership games with an automatic GF spot up for grabs, and, with reduced rounds, it may put more excitement into the premiership. To my mind, as it stands now (when I get critical), the premiership is just a fluff-around until the finals start. Once again, people should think it through – but it sounds like the future to me….its removing so many limitations while adding benefits. ::TLDR:: __ The key points are: 22 round comp, with some form of geographical (hard enforced, or soft enforced) pools. Winner of premiership to gain automatic entry to GF. teams 2-9 play in 8 team finals series. All finals to be knockouts. No second chances. - to my mind this will ensure fans get to the games, it will generate an incredible atmosphere - do or die, and it will cut all boring, nothing to play for finals games that crop up quite often. ***** most important point **** (((( because the season is so long, 22+ weeks compared to just 4 weeks of finals))))) - to my mind, also, this will help ensure that the first spot on the premiership ladder is coveted above all else, and make the premiership more prestigious. :) I hope this has made sense, because one day I would love to see it a reality and commerical success - and a competition held in awe by the public. (as in the premiership !race!....not the "oh, yeh the premiership.....forget the journey, which is a great story, just tell me who played in the grand final again??)"

I very much like this proposal. Thankyou, turbodewd. Of course there will be drawbacks, and some thinking would need to be done. I, too like the premier league model, where the best team all year is the one that wins. All I can suggest is that the winner of the premiership gets the acolades, THEN they automatically make the GF as well - and the other teams fight it out to see who plays them. So, in effect, they should do a NINE TEAM PLAY FINALS SERIES (just that number 1 on the ladder only plays the GF)....... I dont mind this idea at all. To me, this will place a lot of emphasis on the premiership games with an automatic GF spot up for grabs, and, with reduced rounds, it may put more excitement into the premiership. Once again, people should think it through - but it sounds like the future to me....its removing so many limitations while adding benefits.

Plenty of games sell out during finals time, do some research!

If you're going to have conferences then one of them has to be a Sydney conference. The biggest games in Sydney are always Sydney clubs playing against each other. Have a Sydney conference: Souths, Roosters, Manly, Parra, Ctby, Cron, St. Geo, Wests, Penrith And an out-of-Sydney conference: NZ, Melb, Canb, Newc, GC, NthQld, Bris The only prob is one of the Sydney teams will need to go to the other conference. StGeorge could go b/c their merged with Illawarra but StGeorge has such strong rivalries in Sydney. I think Manly makes more sense - those fans don't travel anywhere anyway. And they might have some rivalry with Newc. The teams would all still play against each other but they would play against the teams in their conference more often.

I tried to edit but couldn't - sounds harsher than intended. I don't expect you to understand as clearly you don't "believe" in probability and statistics. In my mind the "best" team is the one most likely to win a game

Is a simple and fundamental tenant of statistics and probability. I don’t expect you to understand

No need to apologise because I openly admit that the knock out system is more fan friendly. As to the Olympic sprint. horrible horrible example. the Olympic sprint just says who ran faster on one particular day every four years. Now if you wanted to say who was the fastest person over 100m wouldn't we jsut use who ran the fastest unassisted time or do you genuinely believe the person who ran the fastest time is slower?