- Video
-
Club Roar
Captured a great grassroots sporting moment? We want to see it!Content Collections
The Roar Community
- Join
- Login
Phil Rothfield has commented extensively on the unfairness of the NRL draw. His main gripe – which is shared by myself and doubtless a large number of other fans – is that the draw, in requiring teams to play some twice and others once, is inherently unfair.
Rothfield proposed a solution involving expanding the competition by two teams and implementing a conference system to regulate who plays who twice. Essentially he suggests a new format:
The conference rationale has many positives, with more local derbies theoretically meaning bigger attendances, less travel costs and guaranteeing four Sydney clubs a spot in the finals each year.
However I have found a number of holes in Rothfield’s proposal.
Expanding the comp by two teams
It could work, and we could argue the merits of adding two new teams in Brisbane and Perth all day long. But that’s an argument for another day. For the sake of this critique, let’s assume that his proposed new teams are added.
The 25-round conference system
The Sydney teams in one conference, the other teams in the other. Okay – but that still doesn’t fix the lopsided nature of the draw.
The relative strength of the conferences will change. If, for example, the Sydney conference is weaker in a given year, four of their clubs will still make the finals, while more deserving clubs in the other conference miss out. This just makes the draw more lopsided.
Enhancing crowd numbers is another positive Rothfield claims. The truth is though, crowds aren’t a big deal so much anymore. Yes, the more bums on seats the better, but the hundreds of thousands of dollars which clubs can make from an extra 5-10 thousand people per home game pales when you consider the multi-millions they make from the new media deal.
Although crowds are important, television viewership trumps them in terms of importance. And in any case, do we really know that more local matches would generate bigger crowds?
Only 15,000 made the Roosters-Sea Eagles grand final replay; chances are the Roosters would have scored more fans in attendance if they were playing the Broncos or the Storm.
As far as the travelling argument is concerned, having these conferences might minimise the travel for Sydney clubs but it also ensures the regional clubs have much more criss-crossing of the country to do before the end of the season, which will no doubt take its toll.
The concept of 25 rounds isn’t exactly correct. Teams will play 25 games (16 against the teams in their conference plus nine against the teams in the other conference), but they will need to have a bye come the second round against their own conference teams. It’s unavoidable.
So there will actually be 26 rounds and teams who are already claiming the season is too long will have one extra home-and-away match to contend with (teams presently play 24 matches each).
Stand-alone Origin weekends
The Origin situation as it stands isn’t ideal, with six weeks of the NRL season affected by byes causing unfairness in the draw, as well as player fatigue and unavailability caused by the three Origin matches. But stand-alone Origin weekends will require three extra weeks to be added to the season.
26 rounds, plus three Origin weekends, plus four weeks of finals – in 2014 the season would have started on the last weekend in February. I doubt the players and clubs would be happy with an even longer season and more games in hot summer weather.
Unless the regular season or finals length are shortened, stand-alone Origin weekends will not work.
All things considered, Rothfield’s proposal, while admirable, is not possible to implement. So what do I suggest?
Clearly the season is unbalanced, and although Origin is the jewel in the game’s crown, having six weeks of bread-and-butter club footy negatively impacted by it is not what the game deserves.
I would keep the comp at 16 teams, as there is not enough talent to support two new teams. This might or might not involve relocation rather than expansion; again, where you relocate teams and which teams are relocated is an argument for another day.
But I would suggest the 16 teams be divided into two pools based on where they finished the previous season before the finals; teams 1, 4, 5, 8, 9, 12, 13 and 16 in one pool and teams 2, 3, 6, 7, 10, 11, 14 and 15 in the other. This will spread the talent of the teams using the best available criteria – where they finished last season – pretty evenly.
The NRL actually used to do this until a few years ago, when they decided that teams should have the right to choose who they want to play twice.
Teams play all in their pool twice, teams in the other pool once, requiring 22 rounds of football. Because the number of teams in the pools is even, there will be no byes required. The finals format stays as it is.
Origin should be moved to earlier in the week, to a Tuesday or perhaps even a Monday night. The weekend before should be football-free. This would ensure no teams are disadvantaged by the Origin disruption the week before, and Origin players have three or four days to recover for the next found of club footy.
This format would shorten the NRL season by two games, thus giving players and teams a bit of a rest. It would get rid of byes, restore the prestige of club games during the Origin period, and it would give the competition as much an objective level of fairness as is possible.
Reckon you can pick the winning team? Build your own dream team with Draftstars daily fantasy and compete on any match. For great odds on the NRL head on over to PlayUp. Imagine what you could be buying instead. Set a deposit limit.