Raiders and Knights the biggest losers in proposed conference system

All the news on the Canberra Raiders NRL team, all in one place

Moderator: GH Moderators

User avatar
greeneyed
Don Furner
Posts: 135391
Joined: January 7, 2005, 4:21 pm

Re: Raiders and Knights the biggest losers in proposed conference system

Post by greeneyed »

Roger Kenworthy wrote: April 29, 2021, 2:19 pm
greeneyed wrote: April 29, 2021, 11:38 am The issue is this... what’s happening now is not fair or reasonable. The argument that the proposal is not much different so let’s do it is deeply flawed. The NRL has a responsibility to do better than this, to run a competition that is conducted on a level playing field. What this proposal does is institutionalise advantage for Sydney teams and perpetuates disadvantage for those on the outer. Conferences that are geographically based are a terrible idea.

Anyone care to remember why Super League started? It was exactly this sort of Sydneycentric, suburban thinking.
Yet you have no sympathy for the Warriors playing two years on the road.

This is essentially a minor change to conferences by stealth we've had in recent years. I don't like the idea that this model guarantees Sydney a place in the GF. Other than that there doesn't seem to be too much change to what has been happening for a few years now. Plenty of non-Sydney teams make or win the GF so I'm not sure the travel burden will be significant.
The Warriors travel a whole lot less travel having relocated to Australia for the season, than they'd do in a normal season. They're not on the "road", they've relocated to a seaside resort town! I'll feel a lot more sympathy for their travel burden when they relocate back to New Zealand and are punted to the "outer" like the other non-Sydney teams and required to travel constantly, very long distances.
Image
Bay53
Gary Belcher
Posts: 6574
Joined: March 11, 2007, 9:35 pm

Re: Raiders and Knights the biggest losers in proposed conference system

Post by Bay53 »

Seiffert82 wrote: April 29, 2021, 4:25 pm I've been talking about this for years. If we had 2 more non-Sydney teams in the comp (Brisbane and whoever) we have 9 Sydney teams including Penrith and 9 other teams.

Play each of the team in your conference twice and each team in the other conference once and that gives you 25 rounds.

Each team could play at least one game a year in a regional area, providing for 12 home games, 12 away games and 1 in a neutral venue.

Generates 33 extra regular season games each year, with one extra game each round and an additional round, so more content to sell.

I think it's almost inevitable.
That is a totally different issue. We could have 18 teams but not have a conference system.

I am not convinced 18 teams is a good thing however, I think we have the number about right now.
Bay53
Gary Belcher
Posts: 6574
Joined: March 11, 2007, 9:35 pm

Re: Raiders and Knights the biggest losers in proposed conference system

Post by Bay53 »

The Nickman wrote: April 29, 2021, 1:13 pm They still play each other! How are you people completely missing the point of this whole thing?
yes but you have two separate ladders. It is not exactly like the NSW / Qld Cups in that I get there are cross over games, but I just don't see what is broken now that needs to be changed.
Bay53
Gary Belcher
Posts: 6574
Joined: March 11, 2007, 9:35 pm

Re: Raiders and Knights the biggest losers in proposed conference system

Post by Bay53 »

greeneyed wrote: April 29, 2021, 4:46 pm
Roger Kenworthy wrote: April 29, 2021, 2:19 pm
greeneyed wrote: April 29, 2021, 11:38 am The issue is this... what’s happening now is not fair or reasonable. The argument that the proposal is not much different so let’s do it is deeply flawed. The NRL has a responsibility to do better than this, to run a competition that is conducted on a level playing field. What this proposal does is institutionalise advantage for Sydney teams and perpetuates disadvantage for those on the outer. Conferences that are geographically based are a terrible idea.

Anyone care to remember why Super League started? It was exactly this sort of Sydneycentric, suburban thinking.
Yet you have no sympathy for the Warriors playing two years on the road.

This is essentially a minor change to conferences by stealth we've had in recent years. I don't like the idea that this model guarantees Sydney a place in the GF. Other than that there doesn't seem to be too much change to what has been happening for a few years now. Plenty of non-Sydney teams make or win the GF so I'm not sure the travel burden will be significant.
The Warriors travel a whole lot less travel having relocated to Australia for the season, than they'd do in a normal season. They're not on the "road", they've relocated to a seaside resort town! I'll feel a lot more sympathy for their travel burden when they relocate back to New Zealand and are punted to the "outer" like the other non-Sydney teams and required to travel constantly, very long distances.
As the article states, the Warriors travel under this proposal wouldn't be that much different, in that 12 times per year they fly to Australia. It doesn't make much difference if you are flying to Brisbane or Melbourne from Auckland as opposed to flying to Sydney. I guess where the travel burden does increase is they will have games every year in Canberra, Newcastle and Townsville - places that don't have direct flights from Auckland thus necessitating either a bus trip or additional plane leg.
The Nickman
Mal Meninga
Posts: 46741
Joined: June 25, 2012, 9:53 am
Favourite Player: Hodgo
Location: Rockhampton, Central Queensland

Re: Raiders and Knights the biggest losers in proposed conference system

Post by The Nickman »

greeneyed wrote: April 29, 2021, 4:46 pm
Roger Kenworthy wrote: April 29, 2021, 2:19 pm
greeneyed wrote: April 29, 2021, 11:38 am The issue is this... what’s happening now is not fair or reasonable. The argument that the proposal is not much different so let’s do it is deeply flawed. The NRL has a responsibility to do better than this, to run a competition that is conducted on a level playing field. What this proposal does is institutionalise advantage for Sydney teams and perpetuates disadvantage for those on the outer. Conferences that are geographically based are a terrible idea.

Anyone care to remember why Super League started? It was exactly this sort of Sydneycentric, suburban thinking.
Yet you have no sympathy for the Warriors playing two years on the road.

This is essentially a minor change to conferences by stealth we've had in recent years. I don't like the idea that this model guarantees Sydney a place in the GF. Other than that there doesn't seem to be too much change to what has been happening for a few years now. Plenty of non-Sydney teams make or win the GF so I'm not sure the travel burden will be significant.
The Warriors travel a whole lot less travel having relocated to Australia for the season, than they'd do in a normal season. They're not on the "road", they've relocated to a seaside resort town! I'll feel a lot more sympathy for their travel burden when they relocate back to New Zealand and are punted to the "outer" like the other non-Sydney teams and required to travel constantly, very long distances.
You wot
Image
2012 Golden Boogs Newbie of the Year
2013 'Nella Awards Best Punter
2013 Boogs Thread of the Year ~ The Betting Thread
2014 Boogs Matthew Elliott Award Winner
2014 Boogs some award with Hanbush
The Nickman
Mal Meninga
Posts: 46741
Joined: June 25, 2012, 9:53 am
Favourite Player: Hodgo
Location: Rockhampton, Central Queensland

Re: Raiders and Knights the biggest losers in proposed conference system

Post by The Nickman »

Bay53 wrote: April 29, 2021, 5:10 pm
The Nickman wrote: April 29, 2021, 1:13 pm They still play each other! How are you people completely missing the point of this whole thing?
yes but you have two separate ladders. It is not exactly like the NSW / Qld Cups in that I get there are cross over games, but I just don't see what is broken now that needs to be changed.
It's a way of balancing the unfair travel schedules. It actually makes perfect sense to me the more I think about it.
Image
2012 Golden Boogs Newbie of the Year
2013 'Nella Awards Best Punter
2013 Boogs Thread of the Year ~ The Betting Thread
2014 Boogs Matthew Elliott Award Winner
2014 Boogs some award with Hanbush
Bay53
Gary Belcher
Posts: 6574
Joined: March 11, 2007, 9:35 pm

Re: Raiders and Knights the biggest losers in proposed conference system

Post by Bay53 »

The Nickman wrote: April 29, 2021, 5:27 pm
Bay53 wrote: April 29, 2021, 5:10 pm
The Nickman wrote: April 29, 2021, 1:13 pm They still play each other! How are you people completely missing the point of this whole thing?
yes but you have two separate ladders. It is not exactly like the NSW / Qld Cups in that I get there are cross over games, but I just don't see what is broken now that needs to be changed.
It's a way of balancing the unfair travel schedules. It actually makes perfect sense to me the more I think about it.
But is it unfair now? All the non-Sydney teams who have joined the NRL have done so on the basis that they were going to travel far more than their Sydney counterparts.

I don't understand why it has become an issue now. When we joined the NSWRL in 1982, we knew we were going to have to travel to Sydney every second week. All the other teams only had to come to Canberra (Queanbeyan) once per year. No one said that was unfair, that was the cost of joining the "Sydney comp" and even that was picked up in our name in that we were set up to travel to Sydney every second week and "raid" the Sydney clubs of the premiership points.
The Nickman
Mal Meninga
Posts: 46741
Joined: June 25, 2012, 9:53 am
Favourite Player: Hodgo
Location: Rockhampton, Central Queensland

Re: Raiders and Knights the biggest losers in proposed conference system

Post by The Nickman »

Bay53 wrote: April 29, 2021, 5:31 pm
The Nickman wrote: April 29, 2021, 5:27 pm
Bay53 wrote: April 29, 2021, 5:10 pm
The Nickman wrote: April 29, 2021, 1:13 pm They still play each other! How are you people completely missing the point of this whole thing?
yes but you have two separate ladders. It is not exactly like the NSW / Qld Cups in that I get there are cross over games, but I just don't see what is broken now that needs to be changed.
It's a way of balancing the unfair travel schedules. It actually makes perfect sense to me the more I think about it.
But is it unfair now? All the non-Sydney teams who have joined the NRL have done so on the basis that they were going to travel far more than their Sydney counterparts.

I don't understand why it has become an issue now. When we joined the NSWRL in 1982, we knew we were going to have to travel to Sydney every second week. All the other teams only had to come to Canberra (Queanbeyan) once per year. No one said that was unfair, that was the cost of joining the "Sydney comp" and even that was picked up in our name in that we were set up to travel to Sydney every second week and "raid" the Sydney clubs of the premiership points.
Because every organisation should be striving for continual improvement, and it's very much the mantra of the V'Landys era.
Image
2012 Golden Boogs Newbie of the Year
2013 'Nella Awards Best Punter
2013 Boogs Thread of the Year ~ The Betting Thread
2014 Boogs Matthew Elliott Award Winner
2014 Boogs some award with Hanbush
User avatar
greeneyed
Don Furner
Posts: 135391
Joined: January 7, 2005, 4:21 pm

Re: Raiders and Knights the biggest losers in proposed conference system

Post by greeneyed »

The draw has been unfair to non Sydney teams ever since the NRL changed the way they structure it, to have a lot more “Sydney derbies”. This is a relatively recent development. It is certainly unfair on the teams outside Sydney, with Sydney teams barely leaving their backyards these days.

This conference proposal would institutionalise and worsen an already unfair arrangement.

The way to fix it is address the fundamental problem... correcting the unfair draw.

The proposal is also bad because it is inimical to building a truly national competition.
Image
User avatar
Roger Kenworthy
Bradley Clyde
Posts: 8951
Joined: January 7, 2005, 10:18 pm
Favourite Player: Ruben Wiki, J-Lo, Jordan Rapana

Re: Raiders and Knights the biggest losers in proposed conference system

Post by Roger Kenworthy »

greeneyed wrote: April 29, 2021, 4:46 pm
Roger Kenworthy wrote: April 29, 2021, 2:19 pm
greeneyed wrote: April 29, 2021, 11:38 am The issue is this... what’s happening now is not fair or reasonable. The argument that the proposal is not much different so let’s do it is deeply flawed. The NRL has a responsibility to do better than this, to run a competition that is conducted on a level playing field. What this proposal does is institutionalise advantage for Sydney teams and perpetuates disadvantage for those on the outer. Conferences that are geographically based are a terrible idea.

Anyone care to remember why Super League started? It was exactly this sort of Sydneycentric, suburban thinking.
Yet you have no sympathy for the Warriors playing two years on the road.

This is essentially a minor change to conferences by stealth we've had in recent years. I don't like the idea that this model guarantees Sydney a place in the GF. Other than that there doesn't seem to be too much change to what has been happening for a few years now. Plenty of non-Sydney teams make or win the GF so I'm not sure the travel burden will be significant.
The Warriors travel a whole lot less travel having relocated to Australia for the season, than they'd do in a normal season. They're not on the "road", they've relocated to a seaside resort town! I'll feel a lot more sympathy for their travel burden when they relocate back to New Zealand and are punted to the "outer" like the other non-Sydney teams and required to travel constantly, very long distances.
Under this logic maybe the Raiders would be best off investigating a move to Sydney. The region the team represents seems to be completely inconsequential to you.
User avatar
Seiffert82
Mal Meninga
Posts: 24445
Joined: March 17, 2007, 12:24 pm
Favourite Player: Bay56

Re: Raiders and Knights the biggest losers in proposed conference system

Post by Seiffert82 »

Bay53 wrote: April 29, 2021, 5:07 pm
Seiffert82 wrote: April 29, 2021, 4:25 pm I've been talking about this for years. If we had 2 more non-Sydney teams in the comp (Brisbane and whoever) we have 9 Sydney teams including Penrith and 9 other teams.

Play each of the team in your conference twice and each team in the other conference once and that gives you 25 rounds.

Each team could play at least one game a year in a regional area, providing for 12 home games, 12 away games and 1 in a neutral venue.

Generates 33 extra regular season games each year, with one extra game each round and an additional round, so more content to sell.

I think it's almost inevitable.
That is a totally different issue. We could have 18 teams but not have a conference system.

I am not convinced 18 teams is a good thing however, I think we have the number about right now.
What's a different issue?

You'd have the top 4 teams from each conference play in the finals series.

The conference system is just about who you play twice in the regular season.

To be clear, I don't like the idea of the winner of each conference playing a grand final.
User avatar
greeneyed
Don Furner
Posts: 135391
Joined: January 7, 2005, 4:21 pm

Re: Raiders and Knights the biggest losers in proposed conference system

Post by greeneyed »

Roger Kenworthy wrote: April 29, 2021, 7:41 pm
greeneyed wrote: April 29, 2021, 4:46 pm
Roger Kenworthy wrote: April 29, 2021, 2:19 pm
greeneyed wrote: April 29, 2021, 11:38 am The issue is this... what’s happening now is not fair or reasonable. The argument that the proposal is not much different so let’s do it is deeply flawed. The NRL has a responsibility to do better than this, to run a competition that is conducted on a level playing field. What this proposal does is institutionalise advantage for Sydney teams and perpetuates disadvantage for those on the outer. Conferences that are geographically based are a terrible idea.

Anyone care to remember why Super League started? It was exactly this sort of Sydneycentric, suburban thinking.
Yet you have no sympathy for the Warriors playing two years on the road.

This is essentially a minor change to conferences by stealth we've had in recent years. I don't like the idea that this model guarantees Sydney a place in the GF. Other than that there doesn't seem to be too much change to what has been happening for a few years now. Plenty of non-Sydney teams make or win the GF so I'm not sure the travel burden will be significant.
The Warriors travel a whole lot less travel having relocated to Australia for the season, than they'd do in a normal season. They're not on the "road", they've relocated to a seaside resort town! I'll feel a lot more sympathy for their travel burden when they relocate back to New Zealand and are punted to the "outer" like the other non-Sydney teams and required to travel constantly, very long distances.
Under this logic maybe the Raiders would be best off investigating a move to Sydney. The region the team represents seems to be completely inconsequential to you.
I've never, ever said that the region the team represents is inconsequential. Moving the Raiders permanently to Sydney?... there's already too many teams in Sydney. It's not an actual option. What we're talking about here are two different things.

The Warriors have temporarily relocated their base to the Central Coast. It is not permanent. They are travelling less as a result, and have an all expenses paid camp set up for team and families. Why am I supposed to feel sorry for them again? I will if they're back in NZ, put into the also rans group in a conference system and forced to travel much more than they would under a fair draw.
Image
The Nickman
Mal Meninga
Posts: 46741
Joined: June 25, 2012, 9:53 am
Favourite Player: Hodgo
Location: Rockhampton, Central Queensland

Raiders and Knights the biggest losers in proposed conference system

Post by The Nickman »

Seiffert82 wrote:
Bay53 wrote: April 29, 2021, 5:07 pm
Seiffert82 wrote: April 29, 2021, 4:25 pm I've been talking about this for years. If we had 2 more non-Sydney teams in the comp (Brisbane and whoever) we have 9 Sydney teams including Penrith and 9 other teams.

Play each of the team in your conference twice and each team in the other conference once and that gives you 25 rounds.

Each team could play at least one game a year in a regional area, providing for 12 home games, 12 away games and 1 in a neutral venue.

Generates 33 extra regular season games each year, with one extra game each round and an additional round, so more content to sell.

I think it's almost inevitable.
That is a totally different issue. We could have 18 teams but not have a conference system.

I am not convinced 18 teams is a good thing however, I think we have the number about right now.
What's a different issue?

You'd have the top 4 teams from each conference play in the finals series.

The conference system is just about who you play twice in the regular season.

To be clear, I don't like the idea of the winner of each conference playing a grand final.
Well what about the idea where it’s a combined finals series, top 4 of each conference? That way we can still have the situation where there’s no Sydney teams in the GF, and we can also have local derby grand finals such as Broncos vs Cowboys, Roosters vs Souths etc.

As that seems to be the biggest point of contention amongst this group (aside from GE’s completely unproductive grumbling and moaning about anything different), surely that’s a workable solution?
Image
2012 Golden Boogs Newbie of the Year
2013 'Nella Awards Best Punter
2013 Boogs Thread of the Year ~ The Betting Thread
2014 Boogs Matthew Elliott Award Winner
2014 Boogs some award with Hanbush
User avatar
Seiffert82
Mal Meninga
Posts: 24445
Joined: March 17, 2007, 12:24 pm
Favourite Player: Bay56

Re: Raiders and Knights the biggest losers in proposed conference system

Post by Seiffert82 »

The Nickman wrote: April 30, 2021, 6:10 am
Seiffert82 wrote:
Bay53 wrote: April 29, 2021, 5:07 pm
Seiffert82 wrote: April 29, 2021, 4:25 pm I've been talking about this for years. If we had 2 more non-Sydney teams in the comp (Brisbane and whoever) we have 9 Sydney teams including Penrith and 9 other teams.

Play each of the team in your conference twice and each team in the other conference once and that gives you 25 rounds.

Each team could play at least one game a year in a regional area, providing for 12 home games, 12 away games and 1 in a neutral venue.

Generates 33 extra regular season games each year, with one extra game each round and an additional round, so more content to sell.

I think it's almost inevitable.
That is a totally different issue. We could have 18 teams but not have a conference system.

I am not convinced 18 teams is a good thing however, I think we have the number about right now.
What's a different issue?

You'd have the top 4 teams from each conference play in the finals series.

The conference system is just about who you play twice in the regular season.

To be clear, I don't like the idea of the winner of each conference playing a grand final.
Well what about the idea where it’s a combined finals series, top 4 of each conference? That way we can still have the situation where there’s no Sydney teams in the GF, and we can also have local derby grand finals such as Broncos vs Cowboys, Roosters vs Souths etc.

As that seems to be the biggest point of contention amongst this group (aside from GE’s completely unproductive grumbling and moaning about anything different), surely that’s a workable solution?
I totally agree with that, per my post above. :P

I've been mooting that system for years. I know full well that the NRL prefers to promote local Sydney derbies in the draw. We only play most of these Sydney teams once each year as it is.

I think it's inevitable. 2 x 9 team conferences for the regular season and the top 4 from each conference plays in the finals under a slightly new crossover system that allows for the possibility for (at least) the top 2 teams from each conference playing in the Grand Final. Ultimately you want the best 2 teams in the league to play in the GF whether they are both from Sydney or not.

Funnily enough, there's a thread in here on the 2021 Canberra Raiders draw where the two of us agree on the exact same thing, but on the basis of the current 16 team comp where Penrith aren't included in the Sydney teams.

If we add 2 more non Sydney teams to the comp we simply end up with Penrith in the Sydney conference, one more round and 33 extra games per season.

In that thread I went back and calculated that on average 4 Sydney teams have made the finals each year for the past 11 seasons. To that extent, the conference system pretty much changes nothing, except you are guaranteed to have 4 teams from each making the finals.
Post Reply