In recent days, Peter V’landys, Andrew Abdo and others have floated a number of ideas about how they think the game could be made better.
These ideas include an 18-team competition with more teams (possibly) in Brisbane and New Zealand as well as splitting the competition into conferences and having an end of competition game similar to the NFL’s Super Bowl.
On the surface of it, these ideas seem innovative and maybe even attractive for some. In reality, they are a poorly thought-out series of thought bubbles, designed to add additional games to the already heavy schedule.
It does little or nothing to genuinely expand the game. In fact, I believe it harms more than helps the game.
The NRL has a number of issues it needs to address:
• The first grade competition
• The health and safety of players
• Expanding interest in the sport in Australia
• Expanding interest in the women’s game in Australia
• Expanding interest in the sport internationally through Test matches and tours
• Providing a quality product for sponsors and fans
These are not mutually exclusive and all need to work together successfully if the NRL is going to continue as a viable entity and rugby league is going to continue as a lead winter sport.
In order to achieve all these goals, the NRL needs to adopt a ‘less is more’ mantra when it comes to the NRL competition.
There’s no doubt expansion will occur and that’s a good thing as long as it’s managed well. If, as seems likely, the competition increases to 18 teams, the current thought is to have two nine-team conferences.
Why?
Why not have a single competition where each team plays the other once, with clubs alternating home field advantage, year in, year out? This has each club playing 17 minor round games per year, followed by the finals.
Critics would slam this idea, given clubs now play 24 games plus finals, but this is not about the clubs, it’s about the clubs, the players and the good of the game.
(Photo by Ashley Feder/Getty Images)
The current season started on the 11th of March and it finishes with the grand final on the 3rd of October. That is way too long and in the current era, far too inflexible.
The 2020 season showed just how important it is to be both flexible and adaptable and a 17-game season allows for that, just as a 20-round season did last year. In 2020, we still got what we wanted – eight teams in the finals and there was plenty of good football as well.
It is also likely to mean a reduction in injuries. This is because the time between seasons would be longer, giving more time for post-season player recovery and pre-season fitness.
The current long seasons also mean increased mental as well as physical fatigue. This would be reduced in a shorter season, keeping players fresher and (hopefully) reducing the impact of niggling injuries.
Assuming there are less injuries, it stands to reason there should be better quality matches because coaches would have more fit players to choose from.
The shorter the season, the more player intensity would have to lift because losing games would have a far greater impact than losing in a longer competition.
I would rather watch 17 quality rounds of football than watch 24 rounds where some teams might have to borrow players from either lower grades or other clubs just to make up the numbers.
I’m also guessing a 17-round competition would significantly reduce illegal play that might result in suspension.
It’s one thing to miss a game or two in a 25-round competition, but that starts to impact in a 17-round comp. If players are rubbed out for a month or more, that would hurt clubs significantly.
Ashley Klein puts Felise Kaufusi on report. (Photo by Cameron Spencer/Getty Images)
Earlier, I mentioned the increased flexibility 17 rounds would bring. That would allow the NRL to meet its role in promoting Test football.
In my 18-team competition, the season could start, as it does now, in March (or later depending if the NRL chose to start when it’s cooler), but because there are less minor rounds, would finish around the middle of August.
Again, that would probably horrify some, but there’s no hard and fast reason for holding the grand final in October.
More to the point, the time after the grand final could be used to play Test matches.
A huge gripe from fans now is that Tests, if they’re played, are played in November and even December. Players complain about the length of the season and it’s often the case that some will withdraw from real or imagined injuries or simply because they’re exhausted from such a long season.
If these games were played in August, September and early October, there should be a greater pool of quality players, mentally and physically fit to play Test football.
Damien Cook of Australia (Photo by Mark Metcalfe/Getty Images)
The women’s league competition could also run straight after the men’s grand final.
At present, it seems to almost be an afterthought, with the competition being overshadowed by the men. It’s time to have it as the main feature or linked to Test matches if the NRL wants to raise the profile of women’s rugby league with overseas audiences.
Another huge gripe from fans is the uneven nature of the draw, where it seems some teams have favourable draws against weaker clubs compared to others. In this scenario, everyone plays each other once – that’s it.
Broadcasters would not miss out because they’d still have a regular season to cover, albeit only 17 rounds.
They’d have nine games each round with the expanded competition and (hopefully) would have better quality games with more fit players on the ground, thanks to a reduced workload.
State Of Origin would remain unchanged, as would the finals and if the Test matches were advertised well, could be a huge financial windfall, both for the broadcasters and the NRL.
As an aside, a single, shorter competition would allow the NRL to rethink its current recruitment policies.
If there’s a longer off-season window for transfers and signings, surely that should reduce the need for clubs to be trying to poach players throughout the year?
One final advantage of this approach would occur when the NRL expanded past the proposed 18 teams. If there were 19 teams, there would be 18 rounds, 22 teams would mean 21 rounds, etc.
In a similar vein, if the competition were to shed teams, it would be a simple matter to reduce the number of rounds.
Those responsible for the management of the game in Australia need to think bigger than what might advantage clubs and broadcasters and focus on how the quality of the game, both locally and internationally, can be improved.
Adopting the ‘less is more’ approach would help ensure quality is being maintained while the game is expanding.
criag
Roar Rookie
V’landy’s immediate resignation would make the game a whole lot better, as far as I’m concerned.
no one in particular
Roar Guru
NFL has a supporter base of 330 million people, not 10 million
Kevin
Roar Rookie
With a 16 team competition there could be 4 conferences of 4, playing home and away in group, and single matches v the rest. 18 game regular season, followed by a 7 team play off, straight knockout. Week 1 Best group winner (bye), 2nd ranked group winner v 3rd ranked wild card, 3rd ranked group winner v 2nd ranked wild card, 4th ranked group winner v 1st ranked wild card. Week 2 1st ranked group winner v lowest ranked wk1 winner, 1st ranked wk1 winner v 2nd ranked wk1 winner Week 3 All star game, fan voted teams from those not getting to play offs. Week 4 Grand Final
Kevin
Roar Rookie
NFL seems to do alright with 18 weeks plus 4 weeks of play offs.
zonecadet
Roar Rookie
This obsession with playing ever other team an equal amount is a non-starter for me. You could have twenty teams and play them all once for 'fairness' but what if team A plays team B when team B has players out because of injury/suspension/origin and then next week team C plays team B at full strength? You just can't cover all contingencies. However the NRL sets out it's schedule it should ensure, at a minimum that teams of similar ability play most of their games against others so rated - ie: the top six from the previous season play each other home and away next season and you play the other teams once to make up your season. Likewise the bottom six crom the previous season play amongst themselves home and away and the rest only once. I agree that a shortened NRL season should make each game more valuable to the teams, the networks and sponsors (limited supply, high demand?) but am not convinced Australian media would see it that way and they pay a lot to the NRL.
Jaeger
Roar Rookie
Thanks kk
Tim Buck 3
Roar Rookie
I like the idea of having a competition where each team plays the other once, Adding teams would have to come in pairs otherwise we would have byes. We could add Perth and Brisbane#2 to make an 18 team competition and later add Adelaide and Central Coast or Brisbane#3 or NZ#2 to make a 20 team competition. On the weekends before the Wednesday SoO we could have a split round where there are only 3 games. We could also have split rounds before the Pacific Island Nations games that would give us 22 weekends of rounds from April to August followed by a 4 week top 8 finals system ending with the grand final in the 3rd or 4th week of September.
KiwiBear
Roar Rookie
Your comment is a bit negative. You're saying no one cares about womens rugby league. Is it sexism? Short term pain of investment for potential gain in new markets and promoting the game. My point was NRL clubs don't and didn't make money.
kk
Roar Pro
You have an excellent pen Jaeger. A compromise may be the only solution.
Tom G
Roar Rookie
Well they do think less more
Jaeger
Roar Rookie
Ahh now we are getting somewhere. NSW and QLD cup finals highlights. We are talking the same language here Paul. Rather than the highlights though, bring the best of these players into the NRL for 8 rounds + finals.
Jaeger
Roar Rookie
Plus... With test window, we have slim pickings on international contests. The NRL is Oceania centric + England so after about 4 years product would become a bit stale like the tri-nations in rugby eventually did. Union has much broader international base with the big 10: All Blacks, Wallabies, Springbox, England, France, Ireland, Scotland, Wales, Argentina, Fiji. And Japan from time to time.
Jaeger
Roar Rookie
I agree with shorter NRL seasons and some of the points in this article. Tests can be great to watch, but when it comes to fully fledged tests team, less is certainly more. Oceania Tests would be brutal like SOO. With player welfare important, consider this, a player having to play x3 SOO, then Tonga, Samoa and the kiwis each year. PLUS NRL club duties and body on the line finals. As per my previous article, I agree, wrap up the 17 games and finals early, but I don’t think International Tests are the answer after that. A broadcasters wants broadcast content. More rounds x More teams = More broadcast content. Far more than a thought bubble, that is why the back end of the season ‘smaller division’ that taps into a large pool of smaller players makes sense. This provides the round, the teams as well as peaks the fans interest. Nothing wrong with innovating, you need to do it to jump the curve.
no one in particular
Roar Guru
What's yours? Because it has nothing to do with mine
Jaeger
Roar Rookie
Shorter NRL definetly creates opportunities. But be careful, there are serious hairs on 3 months of test matches at the back end of the year.
KiwiBear
Roar Rookie
There are a fair few NRL clubs that don't make or lose money. Whats your point?
KiwiBear
Roar Rookie
"Assuming there are less injuries, it stands to reason there should be better quality matches because coaches would have more fit players to choose from." No because that is a huge assumption that there will be less injuries and the coach now only has to pick his fittest and most in form players for his run on and bench what makes any one beleive there would be better matches? "The shorter the season, the more player intensity would have to lift because losing games would have a far greater impact than losing in a longer competition." No cause you still have the final 8. 8 is 8. Now if you went back to the old 5 team play off system then it would mean losing games would have the greater impact.
scrum
Roar Rookie
I think “ less is more” is applicable to NRL. This is an impossibility to happen but I think the best model for the NRL is for only 10 clubs, home and away for 18 matches. The quality of player is not there to justify increasing the number of clubs even though it may mean more content and more broadcast dollars. But with 10 teams the quality of the comp would be vastly improved . So 2 teams from Qld ( Broncs and NQ), the Storm, Raiders, Newcastle and 5 teams from Sydney. And a 4 team final series. However all a pipe dream - it would be impossible to reduce the comp to 10 teams
Heyou
Roar Rookie
A ‘developed’ national audience remembers what a quality product looked like. The Rugby League that was an excitement machine, is looking more like a frustrating, inequitable overblown rule book machine, where a single referee needs to be paid danger money and bunker interference annoyance money and captain’s annoying challenges money, and annoying nasty whinging spitting chips players money. And another thing -the so called national excitement machine modern game is heading for some trouble if the grassroots of this game is not kept in ship-shape order. We are very lucky to be able to bring in players from over the waters who exhibit bucket loads of potential and lend the game a very special style of rugby league that is so exciting to watch. However, our national grassroots league programs must be looked after and expanded at this level, in order to ensure the NRL clubs are provided with the best locally grown produce possible. Get the gardens into shape and add some rotation crops. It just makes sense to me to ensure growth of a great nursery for all of our clubs. Before tackling these expansion/conferences ideas, I might suggest that we put in a few local fixes in, such as streamlining the rule book, bravely considering a reversal of some controversial rule changes. Tackle restarts replacing penalties is a contentious issue among many loyal supporter bases. Does this particular revamp have more negatives than positives? I think so and I’m not alone in that. The interference of ‘the bunker’ in adjudication matters is painfully annoying to many Rugby League peoples. Employing ex-first grade players to become game officials is a wee bit problematic because RL is an extremely tribal institution and you can take the referee/bunker bloke/review committee/judiciary out of the tribe, but it’s no easy feat to take the tribe out of them. It’s not a hate on the officials - it’s more a point of order that this little area could do with a bit more consideration and perhaps a rethink by the powers that be, otherwise called the ‘owners’ of the 0national game. Another point of order is the professional qualifications of those same game officials. Maybe they earn a ‘Degree of Rugby League’ covering the adjudication laws and by laws and interpretations...because the expectations of the clubs, players and supporters revolves around those wonderful ideas of at least perceived fairness, equity, and consistency from the officials. Again I’m not hating on these highly skilled, extremely well-trained, professionally developed within an inch of their lives, highly respected individuals. They must be seen to be the best of the best in their official capacities. I believe there is some room for improvement within this area of RL development. And I’m not even sure how one single referee is meant to umpire with consistency and accuracy considering the speedy rule-heavy modern game. I don’t have solutions but I’d suggest disbanding the bunker and adding in-goal referees or going back to two referees on the park I also believe the salary cap system, meant to create and maintain equity amongst the clubs, has broken down and needs to come in for repairs. These are my thoughts and my opinions only. No individual, institution, group or conglomerate was meant to be injured or upset by this diatribe from a RL old school old soul. Apologies if I’ve offended. It was not my intention. Ps I see the merits of all of these expansion/conference systems. What will become of these energetic discussions and proposals is intriguing to me.
Paul
Roar Guru
Thanks Nat. I worry with how things are going, we're asking too much of our players, especially our really good players. Potentially they could play 24 rounds, 3 SOO's and 3 finals games which is a tough ask and only likely to get harder if the 18 team comp means an increase in minor rounds