An example of the risks of expansion

[Jeba]

Look at the AFL results of the last couple of rounds in particular.

Port Adelaide lose their last 2 games by over 100 points, and multiple thrashings this season.
Gold Coast lose to Collingwood by over 100 points, and multiple thrashings this season.
Melbourne lose by 50+ points their last 3 games, including a 186 point loss to Geelong.

The great teams are great, the poor teams are terrible and not even worth watching, and crowds and ratings reflect this. Once the "new kids in town" novelty of the Suns wears off, they'll be lucky to get 2,000 people to their games if past Gold Coast trends are anything to go by.

In the AFL, at the moment it looks as if it's a case of too many teams and not enough good players across the board, and it will probably get worse when GWS come in next season.

Now if the same thing happens in the NRL, and we add a couple of new teams, wherever they may be, I fear for the same sort of effect. Imagine having a couple of teams in the comp worse than the Titans are currently :shake:

So what's the solution? An obvious answer might be that we need to cut a couple of Sydney teams before we even think about expansion. Or maybe a major overhaul of the salary cap? (Which I think needs to happen anyway). What do we do great minds of BHQ???

 

[Kaz]

What do we do great minds of BHQ???

Apart from laughing at you, for even thinking we have great minds.

Thrashings are always going to be part of the AFL, it's just the way the game is.

I am surprised the GC haven't been smashed by more. (seeing as the players haven't played together as a team before)

 

[dukey]

How is the AFL's situation different to what we have now? The Titans and Eels are currently whipping boys. If the league expands by 2 teams, there will still be teams at the bottom of the pile which get outclassed and occasionally hammered. That's the nature of sport; not everybody can win.
The nature of AFL (in particular being able to score from 50 metres out) means that any blowout is going to be HUGE. For example, we lost yesterday 306-44. So there ya go.

 

[Bucking Beads]

For starters if Rugby League was to start new clubs it would spread the talent around more so than the AFL has with its expansion. I doubt you would see floggings in the NRL just because we have 2 new clubs. Obviously you can't get rid of any Sydney teams because they have such a huge tradition and much history. The NRL won't be doing much expansion into other states IMO.

 

[Porthoz]

We have a much bigger pool to draw from between Australia, NZ, Pacific Islands and Super League. I'm pretty sure Brisbane 2 would be able to assemble a fairly competitive team from players in Qcup and Toyota cup alone.

As others have said, gayfl is a sport that lends itself to huge trashings, besides Port Adelaide isn't exactly a newcomer, and still cops those massive scores.

The same goes for the WA Reds. Between Qcup, SG Ball, PNG, Super League, U20's, etc... I'm sure they would be able to assemble a team to compete in the NRL. They also have the biggest number of registered League players outside of NSW and Qld. (More than Victardia)

 

[Jeba]

How is the AFL's situation different to what we have now?

Well look at the results of this season - there has only been 2 teams that have scored 50 points in a game - Knights and Souths. Yes not every team is competitive but we aren't seeing massive thrashings week-in-week-out like the AFL are seeing. The Eels nearly beat Manly last night in the battle of second last v second. In the corresponding battle last week in the AFL, the margin was 150 points. In fact Canberra have beaten the Storm once this year, you won't be seeing the Suns upset Collingwood. Just not going to happen.

Go over the results of the AFL over the last few years - yes some teams get hammered a fair bit but not as consistent as we are seeing this season after the playing talent has been spread amongst new teams.

Porthoz - no Port Adelaide aren't newcomers, but they have had a fair few good players retire over the last few years and now the avenues to which they go to replace them aren't as prominent because of these new clubs building their squads from them.

But credit where credit's due - Porthoz at least you answered my question with regards to the bigger playing pool in the NRL. Good stuff. Do you think that playing pool is good enough to service more than 16 teams?

 

[dukey]

Well look at the results of this season - there has only been 2 teams that have scored 50 points in a game - Knights and Souths. Yes not every team is competitive but we aren't seeing massive thrashings week-in-week-out like the AFL are seeing. The Eels nearly beat Manly last night in the battle of second last v second. In the corresponding battle last week in the AFL, the margin was 150 points. In fact Canberra have beaten the Storm once this year, you won't be seeing the Suns upset Collingwood. Just not going to happen.

The different is the nature of the sports. It's much, much harder to score at all in rugby league, meaning it's much harder to thrash another side. It's all relative. A 4-point win isn't huge in rugby league, but it's a thrashing in soccer. Likewise, the Rabbits thrashing the Eels by 50 points is probably equivalent to a 100 point win in the AFL, considering an Aussie Rules player can score 6 points from 50 out, whereas a leaguie has to get through a defensive line and take the ball right into the in-goal.
Besides, teams like Port Adelaide and Melbourne have been around a long time. How is expansion to blame for their poor showings? Neither team have lost considerable players to GC or GWS; both have fared pretty well in the draft in recent years... is it really a case of the talent being spread too thin across the league? Or are they just unable to get their **** together, like the talent-rich Titans and Raiders in our own comp?

 

[dukey]

And the Suns gave Geelong a real run for their money earlier in the year - they were leading at halftime, if I remember correctly. But the fact that they've got a team that's almost exclusively composed of teenage rookies means that the team are only going to improve as their players age and gain experience. The NRL sidesteps this problem by not having a draft. Any expansion club could go out and sign Cameron Smith, Matt Scott, Josh Dugan etc from the outset and be competitive right from birth.

 

[Anonymous person]

The nrl IMO needs to move to having 2 divisions - the top division with 12 teams, then a second division with 6-8 teams. Bottom 2-3 teams from division A switch with the top 2-3 teams from division B in the next season.

It allows more teams without having 20 in the top grade which is far too many, and it should mean we have 12 competitive teams in the top division.

Will never happen, but would make it much better IMO.

 

[Porthoz]

Well look at the results of this season - there has only been 2 teams that have scored 50 points in a game - Knights and Souths. Yes not every team is competitive but we aren't seeing massive thrashings week-in-week-out like the AFL are seeing. The Eels nearly beat Manly last night in the battle of second last v second. In the corresponding battle last week in the AFL, the margin was 150 points. In fact Canberra have beaten the Storm once this year, you won't be seeing the Suns upset Collingwood. Just not going to happen.

Go over the results of the AFL over the last few years - yes some teams get hammered a fair bit but not as consistent as we are seeing this season after the playing talent has been spread amongst new teams.

Porthoz - no Port Adelaide aren't newcomers, but they have had a fair few good players retire over the last few years and now the avenues to which they go to replace them aren't as prominent because of these new clubs building their squads from them.

But credit where credit's due - Porthoz at least you answered my question with regards to the bigger playing pool in the NRL. Good stuff. Do you think that playing pool is good enough to service more than 16 teams?

Dukey is spot on IMO regarding the AFL and comparisons with Canberra, Titans, Eels and chooks who are due a trashing too...

To answer your question, yes I think we have enough players to service 18, even 20 teams. And successful expansion will generate a bigger pool too, as an NRL team in areas like Perth and Wellington will most likely increase the interest of youth in RL.

The important part is to make sure grass roots in those areas get all the support they need to grow enough to cope with the demand. That's why gayfl is so aggressive with their auskick programs, especially in their expansion areas.

 

[Jeba]

Dukey is spot on IMO regarding the AFL and comparisons with Canberra, Titans, Eels and chooks who are due a trashing too...

Well I have to beg to differ and say the Dukey has missed the point completely!! Nature of sport or whatever crap, isn't relevant to the point I made in my original post. The nature of the sport hasn't changed over the years, yet this year we are seeing more thrashings than we have seen for a long time in the AFL. Is it just coincidence that this is happening at the same time as the AFL spreading it's tentacles?

But anyway, I don't claim to be an expert on grass-roots Rugby League, because I am not. In fact plenty would agree that I am an expert on nothing to do with Rugby League!! That's why I just posed the question, are there enough good players in the game to service an extra couple of teams in this competition. And am happy with your response Porthoz, would love to hear from others as well.

AP's idea has merit IMO (even though would likely not happen like he said).

 

[Charmamba]

atm league lose players to other sports or england for 2 reasons.

1. Money.
2. not enough spots in Australia.

Money is going to happen regardless, But 2 extra teams offer those players in England another option to stay here.

 

[dukey]

Well I have to beg to differ and say the Dukey has missed the point completely!! Nature of sport or whatever crap, isn't relevant to the point I made in my original post. The nature of the sport hasn't changed over the years, yet this year we are seeing more thrashings than we have seen for a long time in the AFL. Is it just coincidence that this is happening at the same time as the AFL spreading it's tentacles?

Okay, well let's look at the records. http://afl.allthestats.com/index.ph...atest-margins&catid=38:teams-scores&Itemid=60
3 of the top 20 winning margins have been recorded this year. One of those was against the Gold Coast Suns, but two were V Port Adelaide and Melbourne.

Port Adelaide lost 1 player (Krakouer) to the Suns. Melbourne lost no players to them. How do you blame their lacklustre performance on the league's expansion?

 

[Porthoz]

Well I have to beg to differ and say the Dukey has missed the point completely!! Nature of sport or whatever crap, isn't relevant to the point I made in my original post. The nature of the sport hasn't changed over the years, yet this year we are seeing more thrashings than we have seen for a long time in the AFL. Is it just coincidence that this is happening at the same time as the AFL spreading it's tentacles?

But anyway, I don't claim to be an expert on grass-roots Rugby League, because I am not. In fact plenty would agree that I am an expert on nothing to do with Rugby League!! That's why I just posed the question, are there enough good players in the game to service an extra couple of teams in this competition. And am happy with your response Porthoz, would love to hear from others as well.

AP's idea has merit IMO (even though would likely not happen like he said).

Mate, gayfl trashings are really nothing new. But even if they are more frequent this year, it doesn't explain why PA and Melbourne are being trashed as well, since those clubs did not supply players to GC or GWS, while having pretty good draft picks in the past years.

I'm in no way an expert on Rugby League either, every thing I post on this forum is merely my opinion or a quote from an article, etc... The Gold Coast for example has a very healthy grass roots program, while Qcup is at a very good level for "non professionals". As I said, I'm pretty sure we we could form a competitive NRL team from Qcup players alone, if given a pre-season and conditions afforded to NRL players.

I do like AP's idea too (that's novel). 12 teams in the premier league and another 12 in a secondary league with promotion and degradation for the 2 or 3 teams from each division in an home and away comp, much like soccer in Europe. Possibly even have something like a second competition in which all 24 teams participate (like the FA Cup).

Would need a lot of thinking through about how the cap would be spread, and how to cope with the natural lack of interest in the second division teams, as well as superstars languishing in that division. For example, no way the Tits would ever get Nate Myles and Jamal Idris under contract if they were bound to the second tier...

 

[Ari Gold]

Okay, well let's look at the records. http://afl.allthestats.com/index.ph...atest-margins&catid=38:teams-scores&Itemid=60
3 of the top 20 winning margins have been recorded this year. One of those was against the Gold Coast Suns, but two were V Port Adelaide and Melbourne.

Port Adelaide lost 1 player (Krakouer) to the Suns. Melbourne lost no players to them. How do you blame their lacklustre performance on the league's expansion?

Suns took all the early draft picks, and their salary cap concessions meant that all free agents went to the Suns for the extra $$$ and denied these other teams a chance. That said, Melbourne are a perenially crap team and would still suck in a 16 man competition.

As for the Suns, they will be contenders in 3-4 years. They have the best draft picks and when those players start to reach their potential then the Suns will be easily the most competitive team on the Gold Coast. Of course, you could make that claim already.

As for Jeb's original point, I'm very much of the belief that there is not enough talent to sustain 18 quality, competitive teams. It may well be that all the teams are competitive, but if that is the case, it will be a result of general mediocrity rather than having all these teams playing quality football. It will also only further serve to diminish and destroy the rewards of finding and developing talent as you will have even more teams with money to spend.

Let's take the Titans for example. They are doing absolutely crap this year and what are their solutions?

This Year
Bring back Mat Rogers. Tick for youth movement there.
Play Preston Campbell to replace Scott Prince. Because a 30 something whose about to retire is the future of the club.

Next Year
Signed Jamaal Idris.
Signed Nate Myles.
Signed Luke Douglas.

Idris and Douglas are two players who have very much been developed by their clubs, and because the Titans are crap and have money to spend those two teams now lose those players. Introducing more teams will really only double the number of home grown players clubs are forced to lose. And bring down the general quality of NRL with it.

 

[Coxy]

Let's look at the times league had 20 teams. 1995, 96 and 98. There were crazy thrashings. There is no doubt adding teams dilutes the player pool.

However the salary cap now limits that damage IMO. Afl is Hampered by lack of free player market and reliance on a draft. Different kettles of fish.

Still, I think 16 is the best number for league in Oz. Especially while we lack a decent, coordinated 2nd tier/grade comp to develop top level fringe players.

 

[Porthoz]

Suns took all the early draft picks, and their salary cap concessions meant that all free agents went to the Suns for the extra $$$ and denied these other teams a chance. That said, Melbourne are a perenially crap team and would still suck in a 16 man competition.

As for the Suns, they will be contenders in 3-4 years. They have the best draft picks and when those players start to reach their potential then the Suns will be easily the most competitive team on the Gold Coast. Of course, you could make that claim already.

As for Jeb's original point, I'm very much of the belief that there is not enough talent to sustain 18 quality, competitive teams. It may well be that all the teams are competitive, but if that is the case, it will be a result of general mediocrity rather than having all these teams playing quality football. It will also only further serve to diminish and destroy the rewards of finding and developing talent as you will have even more teams with money to spend.

Let's take the Titans for example. They are doing absolutely crap this year and what are their solutions?

This Year
Bring back Mat Rogers. Tick for youth movement there.
Play Preston Campbell to replace Scott Prince. Because a 30 something whose about to retire is the future of the club.

Next Year
Signed Jamaal Idris.
Signed Nate Myles.
Signed Luke Douglas.

Idris and Douglas are two players who have very much been developed by their clubs, and because the Titans are crap and have money to spend those two teams now lose those players. Introducing more teams will really only double the number of home grown players clubs are forced to lose. And bring down the general quality of NRL with it.

If I was to follow that train of thought, I'm pretty sure we could have a friggin amazing NRL comp with 8 teams where the best crop of the NRL would go...
Actually, probably only 4 teams would be enough to harbour the cream of the NRL playing ranks.

As a matter of fact, this is what happens in most European soccer countries, where 3 or 4 teams out of the 16, 18 or 20 clubs competing, harbour the best players playing in that country. It's actually even worse, because probably 5 or 6 teams out of the whole of Europe (Barca, Real, Manure, etc...), monopolise the best players in the world. Still, despite the uneven competition, the sport attracts the masses and amazing amounts of money. But this a whole other kettle of fish, involving pros or cons of the salary cap... :rolleyes:

 

[dukey]

Suns took all the early draft picks, and their salary cap concessions meant that all free agents went to the Suns for the extra $$$ and denied these other teams a chance. That said, Melbourne are a perenially crap team and would still suck in a 16 man competition.

As for the Suns, they will be contenders in 3-4 years. They have the best draft picks and when those players start to reach their potential then the Suns will be easily the most competitive team on the Gold Coast. Of course, you could make that claim already.

As for Jeb's original point, I'm very much of the belief that there is not enough talent to sustain 18 quality, competitive teams. It may well be that all the teams are competitive, but if that is the case, it will be a result of general mediocrity rather than having all these teams playing quality football. It will also only further serve to diminish and destroy the rewards of finding and developing talent as you will have even more teams with money to spend.

Let's take the Titans for example. They are doing absolutely crap this year and what are their solutions?

This Year
Bring back Mat Rogers. Tick for youth movement there.
Play Preston Campbell to replace Scott Prince. Because a 30 something whose about to retire is the future of the club.

Next Year
Signed Jamaal Idris.
Signed Nate Myles.
Signed Luke Douglas.

Idris and Douglas are two players who have very much been developed by their clubs, and because the Titans are crap and have money to spend those two teams now lose those players. Introducing more teams will really only double the number of home grown players clubs are forced to lose. And bring down the general quality of NRL with it.

There's no draft system in the NRL, so the problems you've raised regarding the Suns won't happen. And the Titans issues are down to mismanagement at a club level. I don't see these arguments as being particularly damning towards an expansion of the NRL.
As for lack of talent... there's enough great players that are missing out on first grade to easily fill a new club's roster. A club starting next year could field Daniel Mortimer, Chris Heighington, Tim Smith, Paul Aiton, Brett Seymour, Daniel Vidot, Ben Hunt etc without it impacting on the starting sides of any existing clubs.