Expansion or Relocation

Pieman wrote:

I dont buy this either.
Sure the comp has survived without them but the code would have been far better off keeping the Folau's, SBW's, KHunts and co in the game.
Imagine if a young JT was poached early on in his career and we never got to see what he has done.  I hate the "fringe/young guys will step up" argument. The best ones will make it regardless, and if there is less teams, then we dont have to see Michael Chee Cam or Brendan Elliott run around every weekend.

I think you have just contradicted yourself mate. By having more teams in the comp looking for marquee players, we could have keptthe Khunts, Folaus etc. Plus, I can tell you right now that there are a plethora of kids in Melb (Vic in general) that end up playing a different sport than league because they don't want to leave the comforts of home at 16. I can only imagine that number is the same if not more in WA.

Regardless of what happens, due to the cap restraints, we are always gonna have goats like Beale etc in the game running out for top grade each weekend. Fuck, Pommeroy played for years!

Mearcats wrote:

I think you have just contradicted yourself mate. By having more teams in the comp looking for marquee players, we could have keptthe Khunts, Folaus etc. Plus, I can tell you right now that there are a plethora of kids in Melb (Vic in general) that end up playing a different sport than league because they don't want to leave the comforts of home at 16. I can only imagine that number is the same if not more in WA.

Regardless of what happens, due to the cap restraints, we are always gonna have goats like Beale etc in the game running out for top grade each weekend. Fuck, Pommeroy played for years!

Sure that may have happened, but to fill out the new teams and to fill up the positions left vacant we have had blokes like Lachlan Maranta playing.
If we have less sides, we have better teams IMO. Its not as diluted.

Pieman wrote:

Sure that may have happened, but to fill out the new teams and to fill up the positions left vacant we have had blokes like Lachlan Maranta playing.
If we have less sides, we have better teams IMO. Its not as diluted.

Yes and no in regards to this. Less teams doesn't mean better players. It means less opportunity. Using JT as the ultimate example. If we had less teams maybe he stays a bench player for the Bulldogs while Anasta and Sherwin run around. More teams gives more players an opportunity. Of course you're going to have duds but you'll also have players that all they needed was a crack. Case in point is Nathan Ross for us. He's by no means a world beater but in his position he's been fantastic and he's someone that wouldn't have had that opportunity if the clubs had a bigger pool of players to choose from.

Honeysett wrote:

Yes and no in regards to this. Less teams doesn't mean better players. It means less opportunity. Using JT as the ultimate example. If we had less teams maybe he stays a bench player for the Bulldogs while Anasta and Sherwin run around. More teams gives more players an opportunity. Of course you're going to have duds but you'll also have players that all they needed was a crack. Case in point is Nathan Ross for us. He's by no means a world beater but in his position he's been fantastic and he's someone that wouldn't have had that opportunity if the clubs had a bigger pool of players to choose from.

If players are good enough they demand selection.

Maybe the guys we call duds aren't really duds, they are just made to look inferior by the absolute superstars of the game. There are still guys like Ponga, GGM, Nikorima, Marshall, Jacks, Lolehea, Meade, Opacic etc who either haven't been selected this week, or wouldn't have been except for injury so there must be some depth there. Geez, we're already starting to put together a pretty decent team just from those guys, and that's just from the non-NSW teams.

I like to make fun of Maranta as much as the next guy, but to be honest he's not that bad, and while you don't want a team of Maranta's, that wouldn't happen. If every team had a couple of Maranta's in their team I don't think you'd see a noticeable drop off in quality in the comp. I mean, the Broncos, Gold Coast and Knights came into the comp in 1988 to make a 16 team competition. This is the 30th season since then and there's been 16 most seasons with 15-20 for a few seasons. Do you seriously think there's not more talent now than there was 30 years ago?

About the biggest problem there would be IMO is that the number of players going to England would possibly decrease. The game seems to be struggling there at the moment with a salary cap much lower than the NRL. It might make it much worse for the international game moving forward.

I personally don't see a problem with 17 teams and having a bye every week. You should be able to structure it so every team that has a bye plays Sunday before and Thursday after the bye, so there is at most 11 days between games. I'd hate to be the team that has their bye in the first week or first few weeks, but you could structure it to reward the teams that finish higher, e.g. the team that finishes first gets the first pick of which round they get the bye the following season, the team that finishes second gets second pick, and so-on.

A second Brisbane team must be the next side in. Be it relocation or expansion or some dud team getting cut.

Perth is doomed to fail, we won't see it happen in our lifetime, probably not at all.