The NRL has just kicked off and many a fan would be relieved that footy is back on our TV screens.
The above statement though, is one that I feel is killing the game and allowing AFL to take over audiences and markets that were once held by the NRL.
Whether you accept it or not, the NRL has largely become a ‘TV sport’ meaning a sport many will only really watch through a hole in their wall, and not make the effort to ever attend at their local stadium.
I could delve into a whole list of reasons why this is, but that isn’t the point of this article.
The point to this article is to raise the question, would an NFL-style structure benefit the NRL?
What I mean by this is, would a divisional system work in the NRL to boost popularity and improve crowd attendances?
Now I know when most read about ‘divisions in the NRL’, the tendency is to roll your eyes, then proceed to hit ‘back’ on your computer screen as you don’t want a bar of what I’m trying to sell. But hear me out.
The four divisions I imagine would look like this:
North Division West Division East Division South Division Broncos Bulldogs Manly Roosters Titans Panthers Storm Rabbitohs Cowboys Tigers Warriors Sharks Knights Eels Raiders Dragons
I’m not about to tell you that this is a flawless system and that the teams must be in these divisions to work. I myself was in two minds about swapping the Roosters and Raiders.
Teams would verse every other team in the NRL once, but would then play teams their division twice. This would make for a 18-round competition, providing much less strain on the players, which has been strongly called for in recent seasons.
The top team in each division after 18 Rounds would make up the top four, while the teams with the next highest points, regardless of division, make up 5th-8th.
But how would it create higher crowd numbers you ask? Well for starters, less games means less workload on the players, meaning less injuries and fatigue, meaning that crowds get to see their sides best XIII every time they go to watch.
It also means fans will be more inclined to attend, as instead of 12 guaranteed home games, there is only nine, making it more important to attend every one you can.
As well, with a divisional system comes rivalry, something that’s been missing in the NRL for a while now and that strives in the NFL and AFL. If your team is battling a divisional rival, fans will be more inclined to attend to spur on their team in order to have a hope of winning the division, which guarantees a finals spot.
But I can hear many of you probably yelling “Equality Quentin! Where’s the equality?!” due to the fact that a team with less points can finish higher than a team with more points.
My answer to that is, that is the beauty of it.
Because of this reason it makes it so great and compelling. This will liven up the divisional rival matches, sparking local derbies and greater fan interest and thus, attendance.
The other benefit from this is also that State of Origin has time to take place on consecutive stand alone weeks (not weekends, the match should still be held on a Wednesday night to continue tradition) either in the middle of the season, or, preferably for me, at the end, where all attention can be given to it without taking any away from the regular season.
Many of you will still probably be shaking your head and rolling your eyes, but I truly believe that this will improve excitement in an increasingly stale NRL, and help to improve much needed fan support.
What do we think Roarers? Am I crazy? Or do you think this will work? Please comment different divisional structures if you believe this wouldn’t work.
Higgik
Guest
Another sensible idea. Move forward with the times and make the game more exciting, while remembering the heritage of the sport and the people who made it possible for players today to earn some decent money.
GWS
Guest
I still need convincing that the Dallas Cowboys can be regarded as NFC EAST!
GWS
Guest
Divisions need not be named after compass points. The AFL or NFL can easily realign based on Conference titles using player great names. Bunton Conference: West Coast, Fremantle, Port Adelaide, Adelaide, Geelong, Western Bulldogs. Skilton Conference: Brisbane, Gold Coast, Sydney, GWS, North Melbourne, Melbourne. Stewart Conference: Essendon, Collingwood, Carlton, Hawthorn, St Kilda, Richmond. You play each team in your own conference twice, home and away. Then the other conference teams once home and away every alternate year. The advantages of this system is that the "rigged" draw becomes passe, local rivalries are exploited, and the season totals the same number of games as now. Finalists could either be drawn from a consolidated table or by conference. Much fairer than the current AFL draw I think.
Higgik
Guest
It not to do with geographical spread it is about creating matches that have significance from game one and not a long season of nothing matches. Keeping 16 teams and reducing the number of games to a manageable number do not go together with the current format. Something has to go, either reduce the number of teams to 12 or create a conference model where teams only play certain teams. Maybe combining more or moving some of the Sydney teams out would be a start.
Alex L
Roar Rookie
The conference model is just a bad idea. It works in the US because the US is geographically huge and the population spread fairly evenly, Australia is also geographically huge but the population (and the RL following population) is fair less spread out.
Higgik
Guest
The conference model is the way forward, and the groupings don't really matter at the moment. My personal feeling is the original author's concept is best as he is right, less games are needed. This would have the impact of making matches more intense but also clubs could have smaller squads, better quality and this would mean more players would be available if expansion was on the cards. I am a Brit and have suggested this idea for both league and rugby in UK forums, but the diehards still want to see all against all in a slog fest of a season. My idea for a british and Irish rugby championship, would also work for Super Rugby.
turbodewd
Guest
You only need 2 divisions - north and South. the Qld teams should always play each other twice per year for example. Newcastle and Manly should be in the same division as well. Southern div would be: Melb, Canb, Wests, St.Geo, Souths, NZ, Tigers, Easts Northern: Qld teams, Newc, Manly, Parra, Cbury and Penrith
Jack
Guest
swap souths and roosters with storm and warriors. makes much more sense
Michael
Roar Rookie
And obviously for a 16 team competition you'd remove all the expansion teams and shift St George to East. Play each team in your division twice, all others once.
Rob9
Guest
The fact of the matter is, any non-Sydney team in the NRL is always going to have to buy more plane tickets. In this instance with the conference make ups you've raised. There's a slight disadvantage to Manly, but next to nothing (especially compared to non-Sydney teams). This proposal doesn't mean that certain teams aren't required to make plane trips. Comparing the 8 other Sydney teams to Manly in this case. Manly make a plane trip to all 3 cities (Canberra, Melbourne and Auckland) each season. 4 of the other Sydney teams would be on the plane to 2 of these cities while the other 4 would be on the plane to 1 of these cities. So over the duration of a season, all we're really talking about is 2 extra plane trips (keeping in mind that 2 of the 3 cities in question are an hour or less on the plane away from Sydney) Manly have to make at worse. Hardly ridiculously unfair.
Benedict Arnold
Guest
This is ridiculously unfair for obvious reasons: East Division: Manly Storm Warriors Raiders South Division Roosters Rabbitohs Sharks Dragons Which division buys the most plane tickets?
Rob9
Guest
I believe a conference/divisions structure is an outstanding idea and the way forward for the NRL. The competition was born out of the suburban based NSWRL and the greatest asset that this model provides is that tribal element that's present during 'derby' games. With 10 of 16 teams based within a 2 hour drive of the Harbour Bridge, there's more than a few each round. The suburban model does present a lot of issues for the games growth but while it exists, this tribalism might as well be leveraged and a conference structure is the way to go about it. The way you've distributed the current teams over 4 conferences is spot on. The issue is, going down to 18 games. I don't see the NRL season dropping past 22 games. There are ways to still go with this model and include a few more games. I however see expansion as the perfect opportunity to move towards a conference structure.
Beergardener
Roar Pro
This seems to be the fairest model where the farthest away trips (NQ, Perth, NZ, as well as perhaps Canberra and Melbourne) are split up pretty evenly amongst divisions.
Beergardener
Roar Pro
Perhaps yes to divisions, no to less games. The NRL would never allow it, it seems already when they look for expansion teams they are looking for better TV slots (i.e. Perth, Brisbane, NZ). So they're looking for more content, not less. Obviously it would be difficult to prove that less games but more rivalries would lead to more tickets sold, but if the NRL were to go for this model they would need more to go on than just theories. Too risky.
Michael
Roar Rookie
I've always liked the division idea. Let's say the NRL added four new teams down the track. North-Broncos, Gold Coast, NQ, Brisbane 2, Newcastle West-Parra, Penrith, Dogs, Tigers, Perth South-Rabbitohs, Roosters, Canberra, Melbourne, St George East-Cronulla, Auckland, Wellington, Manly, Central Coast No it wouldn't be perfect but what would be?
LOLlicon
Guest
At least keep real rivalry: Manly,Bulldogs, Roosters, Rabitohs in one division. Bloodsport. This will never fly. Either will drafting players like the NFL - which would be cool but also useless.
stifler
Guest
geographically ridiculous..... it works in the US and all the teams are spread out, until we lessen the 9 Sydney teams to 4 or 5, it will be way too unfair
Perry Bridge
Guest
Struggling with just how Storm are in East rather than South? Storm are further West of Sydney than Penrith. By a long way. Canberra too ought to be in South. Oh....okay - this is an NSW RL basis. It'd be different if the AFL split it up - then you have issues such as East vs North. Would the NSW and QLD clubs be in 'North' or 'East'. Either would apply. They currently have the 'NEAFL' for the 2nd tier. In the AFL scenario I guess people have mulled over at least a 2 division structure - East vs West. East has 4 from NSW and QLD, West has 4 from SA and WA. The Vic clubs get split. West gets Ess, Doggies, North & Melb. East gets StK, Haw, Coll, Carl. That could sorta work and the notion for AFL types is play each team in your conference H&A (14 games and each of the other sides once giving a total of 22 games). The question comes down then to whether you have 2 stand alone finals paths and only converge at the GF or whether come Prelim final weekend that perhaps E1 plays W2 and W1 plays E2 - that would open the possibility of an E v E or W v W GF as well as E v W.
AR
Guest
Impossible unfortunately Quentin. Your model basically says - let's cut the number of games by 1/3 (and so cut the TV revenue by 1/3) in the *hope* that it would increase attendances. No way José.
josh
Roar Rookie
Maybe shift the South to include the Sharks instead of Manly. then shift manly to the east, for geography's sake. I like the idea. Unfortunately, i don't think a reduced season will ever get up. And that is due to the TV ratings. NRL rates well. the TV companies want maximum return on investment, that equals more games.