The NRL have told clubs that an eventual expansion to 18 teams could open the door for conference systems in the game’s biggest shake up in history.
The NRL is considering the biggest shake up in the competition’s 113-year history, floating the possibility of conference systems to several clubs.
NRL heavies have met with almost half of the competition’s clubs in recent weeks, sharing a vision for the league’s future as it pushes towards expansion.
It’s understood one strategy mentioned to clubs in their board meetings is that of a Sydney and non-Sydney conference, which would tie into an eventual 18-team competition.
The idea forms part of a study into the sport’s future look, which includes the expected introduction of a second Brisbane team in 2023.
An 18th team would then follow shortly after, with New Zealand floated as one option while Perth would likely want to push for that spot as well.
NRL officials have then told clubs that would allow for nine-team conferences to become an option in several years’ time, with an even number of teams in and out of Sydney.
The concept has a number of advantages, particularly around the guarantee of a maximum number of all-Sydney games each year.
The idea of conferences was first seriously floated during last year’s COVID-19 shutdown, as the game tried to restart safely during a shortened season.
But while administrators eventually took a different option, they never completely went away from the idea.
It would mean a fairer draw given the randomness around which teams play each other twice under the current system.
For instance, Newcastle only play five matches against last year’s top-four sides in 2021, while Brisbane have eight such games.
Other positives include under the 25-round model, there would be room for Magic Round to mean each team still has 12 home games.
There could also be room for each team to play a match in regional areas each season.
However there are already downsides being pointed out by some clubs.
The travel factor would be immense for the likes of Newcastle and Canberra, who would spend every third week headed interstate.
In comparison, Sydney teams would have to leave the NSW/ACT area just four or five times a year.
It could also wipe out the possibility of an all-Sydney grand final, given the model would likely have a Super Bowl style decider with the winners of the two conferences.
However the counter to that would be a blockbuster preliminary final in Sydney, which has traditionally struggled to sell out in recent years.
There is also the potential that the finals could still have a top-eight system, if the NRL moved away from the Super Bowl system.
Tim Buck 3
Roar Rookie
The only fair way to do it is to have teams play each other once. Add Perth, Adelaide, Brisbane-2 and the Central Coast Bears so that there are 19 rounds with split rounds before SoO. No one could complain about an unfair draw with this system. The NRL like unfair systems like Golden Point.
Adz Sportz
Roar Guru
Raiders or Knights to the Sydney conference. Sharks to be relocated to Perth #WestCoastSharks
Tom G
Roar Rookie
Just by using the phrase Sydney centric you show your hand. The simple rule to business is that you don’t sacrifice a big market by compromising the offer for the purpose of building small markets. In doing so it is you that is promoting a bush league.. literally. Citing the EPL and NFL as examples to follow is hilarious. The NFL franchises hop from one market to the other ad nauseum eg the Raiders who are now in their third hime in just over a decade.. or the EPL who has had four or five teams only winning the title since the premier league came into existence
josh
Roar Rookie
I know but that's not my point. By creating a competition, whereby the the majority of teams are based in one geographic region, talks of expansion or changes are then unnecessarily clouded by history. I still think teams claiming premierships from the NSWRL and ARL days is a bit of a joke. The NRL should have been distinct from any state based league competition and organisation. I'm looking at a NFL or EPL, those organisations don't have a favorite (while there are match-ups that they would favour over others) or complain about the lack "home teams" playing in a grand final. The Sydney-centric discussions re: NRL (and the Melbourne -centric for the AFL) is a bit bush league At the same times it both annoys me and makes me laugh.
Tom G
Roar Rookie
People promoting a US conference system also conveniently forget what happens when one conference is way stronger than the other..in the NFL teams from the AFC won the first 11 straight and the NFC none so the Superbowl used to be between that conference winner and the team they would invariably beat by lots
Tom G
Roar Rookie
Newtown, Norths, Glebe Annandale were the victims of changing demographics in their local catchments, hence the latter two haven’t existed at any meaningful level for over a century. The former two collapsed financially through lack of support although it could be argued, (and no doubt will) that Norths problems emanated from a failed attempt to relocate to the Central Coast. That area still has expansion potential and should be considered. Culling Sydney sides to a maximum four would ignore the fact that teams being cut from the top level always leads to less engagement with the Sport in total. So providing an inferior competition for Sydney teams participation so that sides can be added is nonsense. This competition incidentally already exists, its called the NSW Cup.. its primarily used as a feeder for NRL clubs and draws family and friends to games.
Tom G
Roar Rookie
The Glebe v Annandale derby should pull a big crowd
stephen B
Guest
You didn't think it out. It doesn't address any imbalance in the two conferences until the qualifying finals. Easiest way to explain it is if SC is a conference of men versus OSC being made up of boys. Your system would have two of the boy's teams making it to the qualifying finals while two of the men's teams miss out. Timbo's idea nails it much better, evens out any disparity right from the get go, allows for second chances for the top teams (yours doesn't-what are you, American? lol) plus the NRL would never go for a system that allows for only 7 games in the finals over three weeks - they'd get swamped by the AFL's finals. As far as I can see it, Timbo's is bombproof from whichever angle you look at it.
Emcie
Roar Guru
Only specifically within individual conferences, between conferences its still wildly lopsided
Renegade
Roar Guru
Most of those Sydney sides only travel 5 or 6 times a year... that doesn’t really change in this model.
Renegade
Roar Guru
In terms of path to finals, it is fairer - that is what I’m saying.
Brendon
Roar Rookie
You're correct, they currently travel once every two weeks, so everything remains the same for them, however half the comp will no longer travel at all. Its less about disadvantaging one group, rather, providing an advantage to the Sydney only group.
Geoff from Bruce Stadium
Roar Rookie
Not to mention losing out on the gate takings from well supported Sydney teams travelling to Canberra. The Sydney teams would love it of course but what is the point of a national competition if you aren't going to play each team? Sounds interesting when you first think about it but all the non Sydney teams would hate it.
Cliffo
Roar Rookie
You play all teams in your conference twice (8 x 2 = home and away = 16 games) PLUS you also play all teams in the other conference once (9 x 1 either home OR away = 9 games. Season total 25 games. So Penrith for example still have have either 4 or 5 games (half of their 9 against the other conference) at away venues like Brisbane, Auckland, Melbourne, Townsville, Newcastle etc. That also means the non Syd conference teams, let's take Newcastle for example, still get 8 games at home at McDonald Stadium against their own conference (half of their 16 home and away matches) PLUS they would also have a minimum of 4 additional home games (and possibly 5 pending the draw) against the Syd teams. So in their entire 25 game season they would have to travel away from Newc either 12 times (exactly the same as they do now), or possibly 13 times, which is a mere ONE more game than now. So there's no issue at all for any team it's a brilliant system. Plus to the many that are saying yes but we'd never have an all Syd GF (as the GF would always be the Syd conference winner v the outer Syd conference winner) that's easily fixed. Elimination finals week 1 (8 teams playing, 4 eliminated): Syd conference 1 v 4 - (WINNER A) Syd conference 2 v 3 - (WINNER B) Outer Syd conference 1 v 4 - (WINNER C) Outer Syd conference 2 v 3 - (WINNER D) Qualifying finals week 2 (4 playing, 2 eliminated) Syd conference WINNER A v Outer Syd conference WINNER D Syd conference WINNER B v Outer Syd conference WINNER C GRAND FINAL: A or D v B v or C So the Grand Final, just like it's always been, could be two teams from anywhere. And for Syd fans worried it could be no Syd teams, just look back at Cows v Bris in 2015, one of the greatest ever GF's. And lastly, the current total number of games to make a GF is either 27 or 28 (ie 24 season games + either 3 or 4 finals games). In the conference system the total number of games to make a GF would be a guaranteed 28 (25 season games plus 3 finals games). It all adds up. Bring it on.
matth
Roar Guru
Okay so let’s examine the conference system in terms of its benefit or otherwise for the overall game. Let’s also remember the overall game is not the NSWRL. Advantages: – Full home and away within the conferences, leading to two traditional Sydney rivalry games each year. – An additional grand final – Maybe some ratings uplift in Sydney? Maybe? Possibly for the greater number of Sydney games, but there is a massive problem here which I’ll get to below. Disadvantages – Non-Sydney teams consigned to significantly higher travel costs and player fatigue, while the Sydney teams sit in their cosy conference. – Significant drop in national ratings. You will basically only have Sydney fans watching the Sydney conference so ratings will drop elsewhere. And for the non-Sydney conference you will have no Sydney fans watching. – Any fan of the 9 Sydney clubs outside of Sydney never get to see those teams again. How would the cities of Newcastle or Canberra feel about this? – Imbalance in conference strengths. This is obviously cyclical. If you took 2006 or 2015, then the non-Sydney conference would be much stronger, but today it would definitely be Sydney. Melbourne would be almost guaranteed a conference grand final and probably a spot in the superbowl. Plus both expansion sides will be in the one conference. These teams always take some years to get up to speed (remember Canberra and Illawarra in 1982? Good Lord!), so this conference will have a disproportionate number of mismatches, leading to lower crowds and ratings. But maybe this is the grand NSW plan? After a while the NRL can stop supporting that conference and even spin it off, maybe cherry picking Brisbane and Melbourne and viola the NSW powerbrokers get sole control of the game back. – Where is the super bowl played? Why should it be in Sydney? Bet it will be. – How sellable to the networks and national sponsors is a conference of Brisbane x 2, Newcastle, Canberra, NZ x 2, Melbourne, Cowboys and Gold Coast? The game as a whole may lose national sponsorship and coverage. How sellable is a Sydney only league to national sponsors and TV networks? The NRL stands for National Rugby League, they do not exist for the benefit of Sydney clubs alone. I am ok with a conference system, but the conferences need to change each year based on ladder positions. Otherwise the only way I would support this proposal as it stands is as follows: – NSWRL conference clubs cannot sign players from outside NSW. This keeps player pools distinct. As an added advantage it will give State of Origin add spice as the players will not be playing each other every week. – TV money and other NRL national income is split strictly 50/50 between the conferences – There is promotion and relegation within the conferences. If the NSWRL wants to stand alone, let’s give the Bears and Jets, etc a chance to return to the top flight. Let’s give the Sydney clubs like Wests and St George something to lose. – In the non-Sydney conference there would have to be significant thought to how a second division with promotion and relegation would work, but hey, let’s get the Perth Reds into the Queensland Cup and put pressure on the Broncos and Cowboys to lift their games. I’m going to go out on limb and say virtually 100% of support for this concept will come from Sydney and traditional NSWRL supporters. I’m also going to say that this makes the game ripe for Superleague Mk2. Why would the non-Sydney conference stay wedded to the coat tails of the Sydney game? They could get their own TV deal (NSWRL lose all their QLD and NZ ratings leverage), add Perth, Brisbane 3 and offer the Central Coast Bears a lifeline and they have a 12 team competition.
matth
Roar Guru
It may end up affecting recruitment, playing for a Sydney team would be the easier option
timbo
Guest
A little PS - I said 8 games but of course there would be nine - I was forgetting the Grand Final! :)
matth
Roar Guru
Expansion teams are always weaker, often for a decade. There will definitely be an imbalance. Right now Melbourne would almost be guaranteed a super bowl spot. Of course Sydney will have the same issue at times (e.g. 2006 and 2015)
matth
Roar Guru
And does the NATIONAL Rugby Keague care about any teams or supporters outside of Sydney?
josh
Roar Rookie
Like below, you can have it as the NSWRL, and bring back Glebe, North Sydney Newtown, Annandale, University etc.. and any other suburb that feels the need to play. In both major leagues (NRL & AFL) the current league is the defacto national comp, but it's really the Olden Days + the Others (read NSWRL + the new kids or the VFL + New kids) . A real national competition should have started anew.