It sounds like the NRL season is back on from May 28th.
Back slaps all around.
But while there’s an ambitious restart date, the mechanics of how all this works are still to be plucked from the ether.
So, at this stage, I’ll believe it when I see it.
There are two basic thought bubbles. One is the conference system, but I’m going to pop that one straight out of hand. It’s neither fair nor necessary.
The second is for the 16 clubs to play each other once, followed by a quick knock-out finals series. Hey, maybe even cut a few teams along the way. Bingo! Sounds like we have a winner.
(Mark Metcalfe/Getty Images)
Not only is this the most sensible way forward in the short term – it’s the most viable way forward in future. And the key is through quality.
The scarcity principal tells us that where there’s limited supply, coupled with higher demand, you get an increase in value.
And I’m not just talking for broadcasters – this works for the fans as well. Less is more when it comes to quality. Hear me out.
Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance was first published in 1974, and it may as well have been talking straight at today. A small-town everyman becomes obsessed with one question: what is it that makes something good?
What, indeed, is quality? Spoiler alert: it’s not 25 rounds of meaningless matches. Whether subjective or objective, quality is the source of everything. It’s detail over volume, a woke monism dedicated to excellence, and our path to perpetuity.
In the context of rugby league, the answer is simple – we need a 14-team competition played over 16 weeks. Reserve two byes for Origins 1 and 2, then play Game 3 mid-week. That is, of course, if it’s even required.
Then six teams make the finals, two get jettisoned in Weeks 1 and 2, followed by the grand final in Week 3. No double chances, and every game matters.
So bring on May 28th, and let’s see if we can bring back some quality over quantity. It might be the re-set the game sorely needed.
Ronald T Meyers
Guest
I think the next game of NRL we see, will be in 2021.
Forty Twenty
Roar Rookie
As a Manly fan I was understandably coping it a couple of years back , no worries but that's the beauty of the NRL. You're only a year or two away from potentially having a great year no matter how low you go. The imaginary 2 or 3 horse race we hear about at the start of each season luckily is a myth also.
Pickett
Roar Rookie
@ Forty Twenty meat pies Exactly. In 2018, there was 2 points separating minor premiers Melbourne and 8th placed Warriors. 2 Points! One win! This 'lack of depth' argument is fanciful. It is a very close comp.
Walter White
Guest
You mean like Melbourne ? If the Storm were trying to get into the comp at any time in the last 20 years, someone would be pointing out what a silly idea it would be to put a team in a rusted on AFL city. The storm have been the biggest success that the NRL has seem in a very long time. I don't want to see a single club disappear, I want to see a structure that allows teams to come and go organically. I am very firmly of the belief that the NRL needs a multi tier structure that allows any hopeful club to be a part of. The club that will provide the NRL with its biggest engine for growth in the next 10 years is not one of the current favoured 16.
Christov
Guest
Exactly right. Not to mention the origin hang over period
Christov
Guest
I agree but I'd still like a 16 team comp with each team playing each other once, alternating home and away with who plays when mixed every third season. If not this, then I would at least like a rule where teams have at least 6-8 weeks between playing each other. I didn't like how last year some teams played each other twice very quickly
Forty Twenty
Roar Rookie
The Eels finished with the spoon in 18 but Manly and the Cows were just as bad yet Manly and the Eels have their eye on the title this year. This notion that their aren't enough good players is way overblown. The salary cap has evened the comp out and the Raiders almost landed the big one last year to add to the list of teams like the Sharks and Bunnies who have done it after long droughts. I had a close look at the history of teams finishing in the bottom 4 over many years and found more future premiers came from this lot than the teams who finished in the top 4. There seems to be some sort of unbalanced notion that the strong teams are always strong but history proves otherwise. Even the Storm will be going wobbly soon , just wait for it.
Pickett
Roar Rookie
@ Paul I agree with you. I like the author's main idea of less is more, but disagree with cutting down to 14. 2 more teams, 1 from Perth, Redcliffe Dolphins, and have the Burleigh Bears replace the Gold Coast Titans. Each team plays each other once, 17 week premiership, top 6 semi finals, after the GF have SOO and then have international series or Kangaroo tours to GB.
Superspud
Roar Rookie
Yeah evenfinity that is covered off by the reduction of teams in the semis. I agree that it’s wrong that teams with 50 50 records are playing in semis. Only once has a team with a losing season made the semis and we know how that turned out. When you say is it only for the broadcasters well nah it’s for me and you. If we didn’t want to watch it then the broadcasters wouldn’t show it. The way a coach can guide his team through the season is part of the spectacle. Paul McGregor v Trent Robinson. I would even say the supercoach at Souths has never been able to get it right after 30 years.
Big Daddy
Guest
Walter, expansion is great but one underlying factor is you have to have the market for it. Here in Australia we have a limited market with 2 main players and to increase your current market to expand you have to take it off your main competitor. The AFL are too good for the NRL in terms of marketing and sponsorship of the game. To expand the rugby league footprint expansion doesn't necessarily mean more teams it means gaining a foothold in markets they haven't been before and if that was to happen some of the existing teams will cease to exist in one form or another.
Duncan Smith
Roar Guru
16 teams play each other once over 15 rounds. Seems like a no brainer.
Bee bee
Guest
The less teams equals less quality debate really doesn’t stand up. The quality of athletes in 2020 is higher than ever. But past decades have had high quality games with lower quality athletes. How?. Simple, quality of games has multiple elements. If you really study a high quality game of any era it becomes quickly apparent that the quality of athletes involved is only one element. I agree with the less games argument. Less games means every game means more and inherently improves quality. However, a cut back to 20 rounds seems more realistic and gets the volume/quality balance right.
Walter White
Guest
I really do not get this lack of quality / limited talent argument. It is complete and utter nonsense. Lets say there are 500 players in the NRL including wanna bees. That number is largely governed by the no of clubs and NRL limits. So, lets say there are 2000 youngsters, all great talents, leaving school and wanting to join a footy club. It is likely that 1800 or 1900 of those will be unable to do so and will be looking for other work with a year. So some smart so and so like Johns comes along and say's where is all the talent ? We don't have enough talent for a new team and everyone believes that this must be true. Its a classic chicken and egg situation.
Walter White
Guest
Hi SS, I was probably being a bit flamboyant in my examples to make my point. I worked for a while in the pharmaceutical industry. They invested billions every year in R&D projects and would run thousands of such projects every year. They would regard a ratio of 1 project in 100 getting to market as a success and if 1 of those projects in a thousand made money in its first 5 years then that again was regarded as a success. I suspect that the NRL's record of projects would struggle to make 1 / year, would have post launch investment support approaching 0 and would judge success or failure in less than 2 years. The time to push the expansion button is in times of crisis, when everyone around you is in panic mode, is cutting costs and disposing of assets. Want to buy a football club, wait till September, Want a new stadium, NSW premier would probably do you a good deal right now. Want to negotiate TV rights - now is the time. Apart from reducing costs, the last thing we should be thinking of right now is contraction.
Evanfinity
Roar Pro
Do you not feel that the 25 rounds is driven by broadcaster volume rather than quality of matches? I'd argue that, at present, no team needs to be anywhere near their best for the majority of the season. You can lose more than you win and still be two games from the grand final. If you make every game important - do you not get a winner that has done it consistently "when it matters"?
Evanfinity
Roar Pro
Thanks Paul. Reducing the number of teams may have come across as random, but I assure you that it wasn't arbitrary. It speaks directly to distilling the competition and concentrating the talent. Less teams equals higher quality matches. I'd argue that all attempts at expansion have lead to poor quality outcomes for the competition. The obvious exception is the Storm - but that a whole different thread. What got me thinking was seeing a doco on Don Shula and the '72 Miami Dolphins. They're the only NFL team with a perfect season - going 14 and 0 on the way to winning the Superbowl. After 14 games of NRL we'd be barely half way to the finals. And, for mine, that's the difference. Every game in the NFL carries weight. And this is the quality that the NRL can strive for.
Big Daddy
Guest
Paul, some people will say 12 is a good number. That means the NRL will have to play less grant money so they may save money and boy do they need to save money. There can be 100 different solutions but I'm afraid I haven't got them or anyone for that matter. But it's good to have something to write about.
Superspud
Roar Rookie
Walter I get what you're saying and if we were starting from scratch things would be different. I just don't think now is the time to be hitting and hoping there have been more failures than success in expansion ventures over the years. If the NRL 15 years ago when they made the decision about the Gold Coast had a crystal ball and could see what it looks like now would they have put a team there? I'm always a little bit confused when people mention the Bears and expansion in the same argument though. It's hard to push the argument that we need to expand to include other new areas but also talk about a Sydney team that folded 20 years ago.
Walter White
Guest
"I do agree that 14 teams is a good number but the reality is that we have 16 teams" and massive areas in Australia like Perth, Adelaide, Tasmania who's fans don't have a team to watch not to mention opportunities like the Bears, Brisbane 2, Central Coast plus the wanna bees like PNG, Christchurch etc etc. You solve that problem problem then we can think about 14 teams.
Paul
Roar Guru
You were doing really well, presenting a semi-logical argument about quality and the NRL, then out of nowhere, arbitrarily decided we needed to downsize the competition to 14 teams. First of all, you need to get concensus from fans, sponsors etc about what quality means for a game like rugby league, then you need to decide what level of quality players need to achieve in order to meet a standard that would allow them to play in the top grade. You'd also need to describe what should happen to team who consistently fail to meet what ever quality standards you choose - after all, if a team is not performing, they're decreasing the value of the product. And why stop at reducing the comp to 14 teams? What if there are only enough quality players to make up 6 or 7 teams? I'm happy with how things are at present. I can't get to games, but when I turn on the TV to watch a match, I'm hoping to get a quality game, even if it isn't between two "quality" sides and that's what makes the NRL such a great spectacle.