2017 Draw

flasSId* wrote:

There's a bit of give and a bit of take mate.  The NRL might not be looking after them with your example, but then they are looking after them in other ways ie getting 2 byes prior to Origin most years.  Nothing is ever going to suit everyone.

The Tigers have had some pretty rough draws in the last few years.  Example was back in 2013 or thereabouts where we played 3 games in 13 days or something ridiculous like that.  Also seem to cop most of the Top 8 teams twice the last 5 years.  HOWEVER, as a positive, we have also had the "easier" bye round draws probably better than most other teams.  eg we quite often get the Storm or your mob with their Origin stars out (not that it has helped us  ).

Absolutely not, like i said earlier, the Broncos always getting the short end of the stick re. strength of schedule is something I've come to accept as a part of the club being as marketable as it is, the Warriors situation just seems so avoidable though, Looking at origin teams from last year, we could play the Tigers or Panthers who threw in 3 each, i don't think those are particularly crowd-heavy games even when the teams are full-strength, and on the flipside, Warriors-Titans springs straight into my head as a exciting match-up with 2 pretty much full-strength teams in rounds that will sorely need some flash.

surmo13 wrote:

Absolutely not, like i said earlier, the Broncos always getting the short end of the stick re. strength of schedule is something I've come to accept as a part of the club being as marketable as it is, the Warriors situation just seems so avoidable though, Looking at origin teams from last year, we could play the Tigers or Panthers who threw in 3 each, i don't think those are particularly crowd-heavy games even when the teams are full-strength, and on the flipside, Warriors-Titans springs straight into my head as a exciting match-up with 2 pretty much full-strength teams in rounds that will sorely need some flash.

It is what it is.

For all we know the Warriors will be unstoppable this season and a loss to them during the Origin period (or a fluke win when they expect to pump our 8th string side) - may just be a blessing in disguise.

No point spending any time worry about a draw in the NRL as what was the case this year, is not going to be the case next year.

NRL might be giving the Warriors their turn at the upside of it-poor basteds have to fly to Perth at least once a year.

Oz Sport Mad wrote:

It is what it is.

For all we know the Warriors will be unstoppable this season and a loss to them during the Origin period (or a fluke win when they expect to pump our 8th string side) - may just be a blessing in disguise.

No point spending any time worry about a draw in the NRL as what was the case this year, is not going to be the case next year.

It's already started. OSM first one to take the bait for another fuckin year. Who else will have them in their top 6 ?

For those interested, I did a strength of schedule check on the draw (mostly because I'm a nerd for stuff like this and the 'ladder position numbered from 16 to 1' on NRL.com is even more flawed this year, with the 13-win Eels only accounting for 3 points in that system) so these are arranged by the number of games won by their 2017 opponents in 2016:

Knights 310
Cowboys 304.5
Broncos 299.5
Rabbits 298
Sea-Eagles 294.5
Roosters 292.5
Eels 292
Warriors 290.5
Raiders 287.5
Tigers 285
Dragons 282.5
Sharks 281
Titans 279.5
Panthers 274
Storm 272.5
Bulldogs 264.5

The Knights have a pretty rough draw for a bottom-feeder, Cowboys & Broncos are the only two teams in the top 8 they don't play twice and Greenberg is trying to get his Doggies back on track, they don't play anyone in the top 4 twice, and the other two teams they only play once are 8th & 9th.

Knights back to back!

1. Rabbitohs (168 points)
2. Cowboys (164)
3. Knights (162)
4. Raiders (155)
5. Sharks (145)
6. Warriors (145)
7. Dragons (139)
8. Titans (137)
9. Panthers (137)
10. Sea Eagles (132)
11. Wests Tigers (130)
12. Roosters (128)
13. Storm (123)
14. Broncos (119)
15. Eels (115)
16. Bulldogs (110)

NRL.com rated it like this, with each ladder position finish being the points total playing that team each round.  So play Melbourne and it's worth 16; play Knights and it's worth 1.

Tigers with 10 FTA games in the first 20 rounds.

flasSId* wrote:1. Rabbitohs (168 points)
2. Cowboys (164)
3. Knights (162)
4. Raiders (155)
5. Sharks (145)
6. Warriors (145)
7. Dragons (139)
8. Titans (137)
9. Panthers (137)
10. Sea Eagles (132)
11. Wests Tigers (130)
12. Roosters (128)
13. Storm (123)
14. Broncos (119)
15. Eels (115)
16. Bulldogs (110)

NRL.com rated it like this, with each ladder position finish being the points total playing that team each round.  So play Melbourne and it's worth 16; play Knights and it's worth 1.

As i noted above though, it's flawed at the best of times (assuming the step down from Raiders to Sharks is equivalent to the step down from the Roosters to the Knights), not to mentioned that they would've given the teams that will play the Eels 3 points, when they won enough games last year to be worth 9.

The NRL system can't be right. For starters, if you only include the teams once (ie before you count the second time you play them), then after those 15 games you will have 1+2+3+4+5+6+7+8+9+10+11+12+13+14+15+16 = 136 less your own teams position. That means the Knights will be on 135 and the Storm on 120, and still with 9 games to play. NRL.com must be using some other factor in their calculation.

The other thing that's flawed with those types of systems is that it doesn't take into account that you can't play yourself. I think every team's opponent should be ranked 1-15, excluding their own ranking. Otherwise, the hardest draw Melbourne can get will never include playing the top ranked team, and vice-versa for Newcastle.

Like Surmo says, how you factor in Parra's 2016 season is also a flaw.

Basically OSM is right when he says it is what it is. Simple maths would suggest that if you are in the top 8, then with the teams you only get to play once, 8/15ths should be from the bottom 8 and 7/15ths should be from the top 8 on average. Hence my comment that it doesn't seem right that 5/6 of the teams we only play once are bottom 8 teams in 2016. Statistically 3 or 2 should be bottom 8 teams. That could be an odd statistical anomoly that corrects itself over a number of seasons, but since in 2016 5/6 one team opponents were bottom 8 teams in 2015, so this is now the second year in a row it's happened I doubt it. I haven't checked 2015 season.

Edit, it happened in 2015 as well. 5/6 3 years in a row. Statistically bottom 8 teams should have accounted for 8.4/18 teams we only played once in the last 3 seasons, not 15/18 that actually occurred.

in 2014 it was 4/6 (though as we were a bottom 8 team it drops to a 7/15 expected ratio). I'm not going back further than that. It takes too long, and the results might not suit my argument.

*scratches around for the Official CPA thread*

Swings and roundabouts for the Broncos, would you prefer prime time so you can earn more money to pay people under the table or would you prefer to have a warped schedule like the rest of us?

Knights were always going to struggle to have a fair draw, we can't have the bye every week.

The really good thing is, Origin Game 2 has Knights V Dragons at Jubilee on the Sunday, which hopefully means we can catch that game as well.

flasSId* wrote:*scratches around for the Official CPA thread*

If you were one, you'd be able to lay your hands on it quicker than this....

Dip wrote:The NRL system can't be right. For starters, if you only include the teams once (ie before you count the second time you play them), then after those 15 games you will have 1+2+3+4+5+6+7+8+9+10+11+12+13+14+15+16 = 136 less your own teams position. That means the Knights will be on 135 and the Storm on 120, and still with 9 games to play. NRL.com must be using some other factor in their calculation.

The other thing that's flawed with those types of systems is that it doesn't take into account that you can't play yourself. I think every team's opponent should be ranked 1-15, excluding their own ranking. Otherwise, the hardest draw Melbourne can get will never include playing the top ranked team, and vice-versa for Newcastle.

Like Surmo says, how you factor in Parra's 2016 season is also a flaw.

Basically OSM is right when he says it is what it is. Simple maths would suggest that if you are in the top 8, then with the teams you only get to play once, 8/15ths should be from the bottom 8 and 7/15ths should be from the top 8 on average. Hence my comment that it doesn't seem right that 5/6 of the teams we only play once are bottom 8 teams in 2016. Statistically 3 or 2 should be bottom 8 teams. That could be an odd statistical anomoly that corrects itself over a number of seasons, but since in 2016 5/6 one team opponents were bottom 8 teams in 2015, so this is now the second year in a row it's happened I doubt it. I haven't checked 2015 season.

Edit, it happened in 2015 as well. 5/6 3 years in a row. Statistically bottom 8 teams should have accounted for 8.4/18 teams we only played once in the last 3 seasons, not 15/18 that actually occurred.

in 2014 it was 4/6 (though as we were a bottom 8 team it drops to a 7/15 expected ratio). I'm not going back further than that. It takes too long, and the results might not suit my argument.

A hell of a lot of info and stats there mate...but i managed to cut through it and got the main point you were making:

Dip wrote:

Basically OSM is right

Honeysett wrote:Swings and roundabouts for the Broncos, would you prefer prime time so you can earn more money to pay people under the table or would you prefer to have a warped schedule like the rest of us?

Knights were always going to struggle to have a fair draw, we can't have the bye every week.

The really good thing is, Origin Game 2 has Knights V Dragons at Jubilee on the Sunday, which hopefully means we can catch that game as well.

So much hate. Why would we pay people under the table, when we can just use the perfectly legal plethora of 3rd party agreements that sponsors are willing to pay in order to be associated with the brand the Broncos have created?

And in answer to your question, personally I'd far prefer to have a mixture of Thursday, Friday, Saturday and Sunday matches. Jack Reed is retired, so there is no reason why we can't have day matches anymore. It'd be nice not to have a third of home matches where my wife, primary school kids, and me don't get home after Midnight on Friday morning and have to back up for work or school the next day. It seems the majority of fans feel the same way.

Dip wrote:

So much hate. Why would we pay people under the table, when we can just use the perfectly legal plethora of 3rd party agreements that sponsors are willing to pay in order to be associated with the brand the Broncos have created?

And in answer to your question, personally I'd far prefer to have a mixture of Thursday, Friday, Saturday and Sunday matches. Jack Reed is retired, so there is no reason why we can't have day matches anymore. It'd be nice not to have a third of home matches where my wife, primary school kids, and me don't get home after Midnight on Friday morning and have to back up for work or school the next day. It seems the majority of fans feel the same way.

It's been longstanding tradition at the Broncos to have a ranga (usually a shit player) to hate on - I'm hoping they are addressing our current missing link.

As for your point re the scheduling, I haven't heard a Broncos fan that doesn't feel the same way.
Obviously playing on a different day each week is no big deal whatsoever and you back your side to be able to handle that, piece of piss.
In fact given the season is undoubtedly too long, it may actually be a good thing for the players to mix it up a bit.

Dip wrote:

Honeysett wrote:Swings and roundabouts for the Broncos, would you prefer prime time so you can earn more money to pay people under the table or would you prefer to have a warped schedule like the rest of us?

Knights were always going to struggle to have a fair draw, we can't have the bye every week.

The really good thing is, Origin Game 2 has Knights V Dragons at Jubilee on the Sunday, which hopefully means we can catch that game as well.

So much hate. Why would we pay people under the table, when we can just use the perfectly legal plethora of 3rd party agreements that sponsors are willing to pay in order to be associated with the brand the Broncos have created?

And in answer to your question, personally I'd far prefer to have a mixture of Thursday, Friday, Saturday and Sunday matches. Jack Reed is retired, so there is no reason why we can't have day matches anymore. It'd be nice not to have a third of home matches where my wife, primary school kids, and me don't get home after Midnight on Friday morning and have to back up for work or school the next day. It seems the majority of fans feel the same way.

I've put that one straight in the pool room for ya Dip:

https://www.nrlfantasyfanatics.com/t353-funny-posts-16-17#80577

Oz Sport Mad wrote:



It's been longstanding tradition at the Broncos to have a ranga (usually a shit player) to hate on - I'm hoping they are addressing our current missing link.

Not a ranga, but Tom Opacic probably needs an hour under the sun lamp just to turn white.

Dip wrote:

So much hate. Why would we pay people under the table, when we can just use the perfectly legal plethora of 3rd party agreements that sponsors are willing to pay in order to be associated with the brand the Broncos have created?

And in answer to your question, personally I'd far prefer to have a mixture of Thursday, Friday, Saturday and Sunday matches. Jack Reed is retired, so there is no reason why we can't have day matches anymore. It'd be nice not to have a third of home matches where my wife, primary school kids, and me don't get home after Midnight on Friday morning and have to back up for work or school the next day. It seems the majority of fans feel the same way.

The throughbreds have been caught paying Wayne Bennett under the table, these are facts.

"The majority of fans" are you basing this on what you guys have said on here? Because this excuse all started on Sportal as a joke to the neighsayers about how you were disadvantaged and a few just took it and ran. You're effectively the flat earth group.

Honeysett wrote:

The throughbreds have been caught paying Wayne Bennett under the table, these are facts.

"The majority of fans" are you basing this on what you guys have said on here? Because this excuse all started on Sportal as a joke to the neighsayers about how you were disadvantaged and a few just took it and ran. You're effectively the flat earth group.

Just going by social media. There are literally hundreds of posts/likes on Facebook posts saying they want some day and weekend games, and not one saying something along the lines of "how good are all these Thursday and Friday night games".

Plus, I haven't ever said that the club is disadvantaged by having these games, just that its what i think fans want (and what you asked me). I think that if I was the argumentative type, then while I don't personally think we're disadvantaged commercially, I do think it isn't as much as the critics think. Sure, sponsors get bigger exposure, and that's worth a lot, but the smaller crowds at particularly Thursday night games (last year clubs other than Broncos had home crowds down 26% from their season average on Thursday night matches), with most of the ticket sales going directly to the Broncos would be higher with more matches on the weekend. I have personally spoken to, and also considered myself, not becoming/renewing a member, or going to a package with less home games, than they would have if they knew they weren't always going to get Thursday and Friday home games.

Also, when you're talking about advantages, you need to compare it to how much better they get it above other teams in the competition. It is very clear that Channel 9 wouldn't pay as much for FTA rights as they would have if they didn't get scheduling rights. If scheduling rights were of no concern to them, then we wouldn't be having this discussion regarding scheduling in the first place. Of all the extra money generated with the FTA agreement, it goes to the NRL, and after they keep their share, the rest is then distributed via grants to the clubs. In other words, The Broncos get 1/16th of part of the FTA rights proceeds, which are significantly higher due the Brisbane Broncos more than any other club. You might not like to hear that, but if you think about it objectively, you can't come to any other conclusion.

Especially as someone who supports a club that in all likelihood now only exists because the NRL now has the financial resources to step in (as opposed to letting them die like the Jets, Rabbits, Seagulls, Rams, Magpies, Steelers etc at various times in the past), you really should be thankful to the Brisbane Broncos for not having to pick a new team to follow. Happy for you to continue to hate on them though. I've always been a big believer in "hate" in sport. Emotion is what makes the good times so enjoyable.

I guess it's human nature to always want to complain about a perceived unfairness, whether it really exists or not. Almost everybody does it (myself included). Of the top of my head I can think of people complaining about the following things whether or not they really exist or are an influence, and depending on which side of the fence you stand:
1. Broncos get too many Thursday and Friday games and that is unfair to the other teams
2. Broncos get too many Thursday and Friday games and that is unfair to the Broncos
3. Sydney teams don't travel
4. MRC is against us
5. Refs are against us
6. ____ has too many 5 day turnarounds
7. It's unfair during the rep season as we have to provide too many origin players
8. It's unfair during the rest of the season as they have too many origin players
9. ____ has to play a home city final not at their home ground

The list can go on and on.

As for Bennett and the thoroughbreds, when that has one bit of relevance to the player's salary cap, you might have an argument.