The NRL's bold plan surrounding a potential conference system has been revealed.
It would involve splitting the NRL into two conferences - Sydney clubs and non-Sydney clubs - and eventually see the competition expand with two extra teams - a second Brisbane side and an 18th franchise shortly after - potentially in New Zealand or Perth.
Read more about the proposed conference system here.
Zero Tackle posed the question to its team: Are you a fan of the proposed NRL conference system?
Ben Cotton:Â I might be in the minority here, but I am all for it. I feel like the NRL needs a point of difference to engage more sports fans across the country. Adopting something from US Sports, which Aussies are big fans of, could see rugby league garner more interest outside New South Wales and Queensland. The hype around massive finals in Sydney would be insane and you would still get a huge grand final matchup given an elite team will always come out the other side. Greater spectacle and more commercial opportunities = growth. Tick.
Matt Clements: As a big fan of the majority of the US sports, the idea of a conference system looks to be a great idea on the surface, but dig a bit deeper and it has plenty of flaws. The conferences themselves aren't split equally, with the Sydney teams getting a massive advantage over the non-Sydney conferences due to reduced travel and likely bigger crowds.
Added to that, the conferences aren't really there to solve a problem. And that for me is the big question. It feels like they have come up with a solution but haven't actually outlined what the solution is looking to resolve. I'm all for adding new teams to NRL but I don't think at this stage, the conference system is needed or warranted.
SEE ALSO: Why Chad Townsend is smart business for North Queensland and why Tom Dearden isn’t
Dan Nichols: Hate it. The fact it means two Sydney teams can't meet in the grand final is as far as I need to read. We're not America, we don't have the depth of talent or interest to justify an NFL style SuperBowl Grand Final. Yuck! I like the idea of expansion but this conference junk comes up every few years and is laughed off.
Jake Benoiton: I think it could work and would be a nice shot in the arm for an NRL competition that has been much the same for a long time. It would also help out standout from other codes in the country. The Sydney clubs play most of the biggest games on the calendar and if we can see more of these blockbusters in other states the better off the fans and game will be for it. Whether it's fair or not, the more NSW teams in the finals the better it is for the NRL both commercially and as a spectacle.Â
Mitch Keating:Â Not a fan. I'm not much of a traditionalist, but I don't think Australian sports need to follow in the footsteps of those from North America.
If it's increased crowd numbers the NRL wants, it should look into bettering the quality of the game first before making any dramatic shake-up. Close, fiery matches are what fans want to see, just look at the A-League this season. An all-Sydney conference pushes the needle too far into their favour given travel and preparation.
Jack Blyth: While we’ve seen it’s success across other sports, we must stop trying to Americanise our game. Expansion has been talked about for a decade and must be handled gradually, not by jamming two extra sides in to make this concept work.
We wouldn’t have classic Grand Finals in the past like Brisbane vs North Queensland if the conference system was in place, never would we see another Sydney derby decider. It’s a no from me.
This is a rubbish idea that belongs in the bin.
What they should do, when we have teams 17 and 18 is this.
Round round 1 – 17, everyone plays everyone else once, alternating home and away each year.
Then after round 17 divide the competition into 3 groups based on ladder positions. Top 6, middle 6 and bottom 6. The top 6 play each other (5 games). They keep all points won and points difference and fight off for a top 4 spot double chance, knowing the worst they can finish is 6th.
The middle 6 play each other (5 games). They keep all points won and points differenceand fight for a chance to take the final 2 places in the finals. These teams will finish in 7th to 12th places.
And the bottom 6 play each other(5games). They have thier points and points difference reset to zero. They then play to try to avoid the wooden spoon.
It makes every game in the last 5 rounds important and winnable. Plus it stops teams from benefiting from a easy draw or being unfairly punished by a tougher draw.
Penrith are already supplying plenty of players for West’s, Parramatta, Bulldogs ,Manly ( through the Panthers founding Blacktown Workers club )etc. Them & the few other clubs who actually bring decent players through their juniors pathways systems , simply don’t have enough players . To then supply most of the the players for new clubs.
Reportedly TV revenue is the driving force for this idea. How does that make sense, you put up more money to include two new franchises, but when you split the league in to two conferences of nine, a team each conference has to have a bye round… leaving us with the same amount of games we have now on TV?? That seems odd.
I understand that there’s a profit in ticket sales if you pit the Sydney teams together, you get larger crowd numbers in Sydney derby’s as apposite to Storm v Roosters or Cowboys v Souths. Wayne Bennett even said as Dragons coach in a prelim they had 60/70 thousand people, and thats what the NRL want at each game to raise revenue.
The other note I both conferences will be funded equally (like the salary cup). So tell me the non Sydney conference between Warriors, Storm, Cowboys, Broncos, Knights, Raiders, Titans and the two new expansions, costs less money when they cover a much larger area, their travel costs etc will go up. Sydney won’t face this problem, less travel = less fatigue..
And what does it mean for state of origin?