This is a topic i have been dreading for years and been saying the issues for years. I need to write this down as the ideas presented recently are concerning for the NRL moving forward. To summarise, the NRL are looking at, once 20 teams are in, of going to a 19 round competition, everyone plays each other once, a stand alone rep period and conferences. Now let me start with the draw.
Firstly, the NRL should never be going to 20 teams, particularly this fast but it is inevitable so have to deal. Do not get me started with PNG either which is the dumbest idea the NRL have had in a long time. But the draw, ok. In the article presented it stated the amount of games difference between 27 rounds (24 games per team) and 19 rounds (19 per team). The issue with this is TV deals. They are paying for product. Quite frankly the best sporting product in the country is what they are buying. The NRL are bringing more teams in, you think bigger deal with more games weekly. More games means more ads and marketing opportunities and more time slots. People watching NRL every Sunday and Monday night. The issue with the proposed idea is less product means less money. I use the anology of buying a car. If you go to buy a new car for $25k, it comes with GPS, leather seats, heated seats and a full spare tire. 3 years later, you go to the same dealership they try to sell you the same model of car, though no GPS and full spare tire. They ask for $35k. Are you going to buy it when there is less? No you will not.
Wayne Bennett brought up the same sentiments that the game is about money, less games means less money in the game. Less money in the game and players get paid less. It is why when players complained about the amount of footy they had to play i would reply "That's fine but don't complain with less money in your pocket". The article played devil's advocate stating it is only a 14 game difference between 27 rounds of 2025 and 19 rounds. Issue is they did not include the extra 2 games a week that the extra 3 teams would include. So no it is not 213 games with semis included it is 249 games. That 14 game difference becomes 50. That is a lot of games and money left on the table. They brought up an example of 253 games in 1998 and saying it didn't lead to more revenue. Well they were coming off the Super League War which hurt the game and took two decades to fully recover, some argue the game will never fully recover from the Super League War. The game is at it's best right now and need to strike when the iron is hot. Plus the NRL has February to first Sunday in October. With this concept the game will start later and finish earlier. Less NRL on screens for certain amount of time. More down periods and letting the AFL have up to a month by themselves with no competition for ratings and paper space. The broadcasters also want content all year round to warrant the subscriptions and use of ads. If you only have 7 months worth of product compared to 8 for example, more down time where they are not getting ratings all year round. They worked it out with the pre-season challenge to broadcast all the games, they rate very well. Fox Sports are very happy with the ratings and their advertisements are getting utilised more often and the price to advertise is higher with more slots as well the subscribers are happy getting their money's worth for NRL with an extra month of it.
The other issue with a 19 round draw is home/away games and members. Firstly having odd number of games means some teams have more away games then some. This is a disadvantage. Fans will complain "Why do Brisbane get 10 home games and we only get 9?" Right now it is 12/12. Granted some teams use Magic Round and go to country areas or interstate to play home games but that is on the club not the NRL, it is the club who gets blamed for the stupidity. The other aspect is members, right now as a season ticket holder i have 11 games offered. With this i could have 9 games. Are they expecting me to pay the same or even more for 2 less games a year? Some teams could offer 3 less games a year? So teams lose more money with less home games a year.
Next issue is stand alone Origin. You shut the game down for three weeks to play Origin. What is going to fill in the gap for broadcasters and fans in the meantime while waiting for Origin? They mentioned a 3 game series between Samoa and Tonga. Ok fair, but was it that good of footy to have a stand alone time slot every week? Plus not only are teams sweating on Origin for their players to get through but now test matches. Teams could have 2 players in Origin to worry about now could have an extra 3-4 in the test matches as well. Then you have the mid week media, what are they going to talk about all week? This years Origin media was boring as watching paint dry, that is an insult to paint drying. It was the same crap every day and made me honestly waiting for Origin to be over to get back to club footy. The crap of "We are preparing this way" and "Queensland are this" and "NSW are this" it was like the promotion of a boxing match it was rubbish. Imagine that for three weeks with limiting the NRL stories?
Then how do those not participating in the rep games stay match fit for 3 weeks? 3 weeks off for a player or two is fine. But most of a squad? Coaches and trainers have admitted that the clubs need a mini pre-season to get into match preparation from nearly a month off. If you want to grow the international game without having it all at the end of the year, have the rep round again like a few years ago in the middle of the season. The NRL takes a back seat to rep games, Origin played on Sunday night and those players have more time to recover from Origin to back-up.
The last issue is the biggest for me, the conference system. Quite frankly the dumbest idea there is, even more than PNG. Peter V'Landys idiolizes American sports. Started with the GF being used as a Super Bowl type ordeal where different cities get the GF every year. Then going to Vegas, now he wants conferences. The reason the four big leagues; NFL, MLB, NBA and NHL, have conferences is due to the amount of teams they have and amount of games they play either too many or not enough to warrant a typical ladder you see in other sports. Though there are still issues involved with conferences. One of the main ones is around playoffs. Now in NRL they wont have divisions like American sports do. But more likely it will be top 5 from each conference.
Now let's say there are two 10 team conferences;
Conference A:
Parramatta
Penrith
St. George Illawarra
Manly
Souths
Sydney
Wests
Canterbury
Cronulla
Newcastle
Conference B
Melbourne
Brisbane
North Queensland
Gold Coast
Dolphins
Perth
PNG
Warriors
Canberra
20th team TBC
Ok so a Sydney conference and a rest of conference (I know Newcastle aren't Sydney). Let's say one year in conference A, the top 5 are Roosters, Souths, Dogs, Manly and Penrith. Parra finish 6th. In conference B top 5 is Melbourne, Warriors, Brisbane, Perth and NQ. NQ could make the top 5 with 10 wins due to their conference being poor, while Parramatta finished with 12 wins and misses out due to their conference being strong. Is that fair? The system we have now is simple, the more you win the more likely you are in finals. If you win more games than the other you play finals.
Plus the complaints of "Why do we get Melbourne, Brisbane and Canberra to compete against in our conference?" Cause you are competing against them only. One person said to me "You can still do a top 8 of the top teams from both conferences who ever has the most wins. If that is the case just do a regular ladder as that is exactly what that scenario relates to. Added to that is if you are playing every team once, what is the point of a conference system? In say NFL, teams play majority of their games against teams in their conference. They play the three teams in their division twice each, only 4 of their 17 games are against the other conference teams. That adds reason as the teams in your conference you want to beat in order to get a better spot in the playoffs and a better record in conference.
For NRL, since they are playing once each, it doesn't do anything. It sounds cool, futuristic and different but redundant at the same time. If they made it you play 22 games, the 3 extra games you play 3 teams in your conference twice, then ok there is some meaning. With this idea, you give the chance for weaker teams to make it to semi's even easier. Also, if you are doing a conference system you have to set it as a conference finals. You cannot then bring the top 10 together and have it like the system we have now as they are not techincally the top 10 as another team in another conference could have a better record as stated before. Therefore with conference finals, it would be the winner of Conference A v winner of Conference B in GF. Issue with that is firstly limiting the GF's the game can have. In this case, there will be no Dogs v Eels GF or Rabbits v Roosters GF. Also, most times, you will not have the best two teams in the comp in the GF. Some might argue that is the case now, well when it is free for all and a club like Canberra lose week 1 and can verse any of the other 7 the following week the best teams are going to get through. Now yes sometimes a team can fluke their way to a GF, but with a chance of cutting the best teams from one conference, say the best 3 teams overall all year are in the same conference, the other conference are going to have less superior teams in the GF. There will be more fluke teams in the GF than most.
The game is flying, the game is fine why tamper with it. 20 teams i feel is too much, the idea of no byes is great but you need them even if only once to keep players somewhat fresh to finish the year. Until 2028 when byes return due to 19 teams. Now with selling it to TV, i know what V'Landys will do. He is a smart man and knows what the issues could be. His big draw card would be the streaming services such as Netlix and Amazon Prime who have expressed some interest in getting some of the rights to NRL. Issue is if they go for that the product is scattered, when it is scattered here, there and everywhere fans will drop off, particularly casual fans who cannot be bothered changing to different streaming services or paying for them just to watch NRL. I doubt a streaming platform like Netflix will take the NRL at full freight for rights. I know some will say well they do that now with channel 9 and Fox. Difference is Fox has every game anyway. Fans can put it on Fox league and don't have to change the channel.
Now i did hear a few months back of the idea of 22 games per team. Play each other once, then have three games for rivalries. Say Parra for example will play Dogs, Penrith and Wests twice in a year. Games go to 220 games a year, which is more than what it is now. You wont get as much coin as hoped but it is a comprimised idea of shortening the season for players and offering more of a product for TV. You can even extend the product by two weeks by having two bye rounds. Cut the rounds in half, 10 teams get one bye and only 5 games played and swap it around again. That if offered i would swallow a litte bit easier. Plus it also helps the issue of home/away as each team will have 11 home and away games each.
As many don't like to hear it or accept it, the NRL is in the entertainment business. It is entertainment, we sit to watch it every week, pay money to watch live as a form of entertainment. Many complain it shouldn't be, well that is the business. Players complain TV runs the game, while the money generated from TV pays their large wages.
Finally a side note, is there actually a guarentee these extra 3 clubs will work into the future? What if they fold after 10 or so years, like PNG when the government funding is gone, you go into a conference system and one team is gone. once you go into a conference system you cannot go back.
Leave the game alone, hopefully the words from Wayne Bennett and Blake Solley will avoid this stupid idea in the future. I know Nick Politis is who brought up the conference idea. Just hope it doesn't happen.
There is no perfect system, what we have now is possibly the best way to go about it. If the NRL were to have 19 rounds they should have had it to start with. Some fans get fatigued by 27 rounds, i personally do not but not everyone is like me that is fair. It is the example of how oyu wont get it right for everyone. But this is why Abdo needs to go and V'Landys needs his reins pulled in a little. This is a sign of trying to be to clever and different. Revolutionizing a game that doesn't need it.
Replies
Are you upset a bit LB.
Your against having American like conferences for many reasons that you detail but have you considered that conferences are apart of what has made US sport explode in people's homes, on TV's in the local communities. Conferences have worked so well with tribal mentality that US sports generate more $$ then most.
Your worried about lack of games under a conference system, the Dallas Cowboys play 17 regular games a year and have more sponsers then the entire NRL, raising revenue's. The US are also able to run a university football season that is just as popular and attracts 1st rate viewing. These add so many more games to watch during the year and generates more $$ then the NRL could dream of.
What i'm saying is there are sports that have already led the way and already invented the wheel, and have gone from strength to strength and in the process making sport more prevelant, more accessible and generated more $. don't be afraid to explore.
'When ever a new idea comes about, people are worried how it effects them. Sometimes just stopping for a moment and seeing big pictures can change your perspective.
Just like PNG, just for a moment consider what that means, you can find negatives but what may be the positives. There are a lot, and yes it's political with a keep PNG allied to Australia instead of China etc but what might it mean in PNG to have access to Football. Have we just opened up a new pathway for players, gained access to the next Daly Messenger.
In 1908 I wonder what rusted on Union people thought about a little upstart game played in Wentworth Park called Rugby League and how those few clubs and players that went rouge, have changed sports in Australia for ever. I'm glad those fans were not strong enough to stop the Rugby League evolution.
Just some thoughts.
Have you considered US sports have divisions within the conference that expands the rivalry.
US sports they have to have conference systems due to the amount teams they actually have. They also have divisions which makes rivalries, we would only have a conference of 10 teams not a division of 4 within a bigger conference. Playing each team once, as i mentioned in my blog, does not really do that rivalry aspect. It is quite frankly redundant to have conferences unless you change it to playing everyone in your conference twice then playing 2-4 teams in the other conference. What is the point of a conference if you just play everyone in both conference once and the semis are based around standings in both conferences which can be unfair in placings with in those semis depending on strength of conference. What we have now is you win more games you finish higher.
You are saying i am worried about a lack of games with a conference system. The conference system is not the reason for less games i didn't say that. I said in general going down to 19 games, which can be led to player burnout, is not good idea due to TV deals possibly being hurt due to less product being offered. NFL went from 14 games, to 16 to 17 and now 18. They have never gone backwards. I remember the outcry when they went to 18 as players complained about it. But the extra week created more revenue. Once you have offered a product to a certain amount you cannot go back. NFL have provided the same prouct year after year then added more slightly as it has gone. NRL are giving less, therefore broadcasters are going to offer less. Why pay more money for less? When there is less money, salaries get cut more. Clubs earn less. Wayne Bennett and Blake Solley, two people who are smarter than you and i in terms of the game are saying very similar in terms of dropping content. NFL has shorter season but they have more shows, they have the draft build up they have off-season training camp, free agency period to discuss. This takes up so much air time during the off-season. NRL right now has nothing in the media compared to what NFL would. But then again still the market in USA is bigger than any other country.
You are comparing to the NFL about their revenue, the sport is a lot more dangerous than NRL and play less games due to that factor. Also, the games themselves are longer and they are in the USA, the biggest market in the world. What about Premier League soccer? They play more games than both NRL and NFL and generate top 5 revenue as well. NFL haven't reinvented the wheel as they have had conference systems since the 70's. NFL also attracts more revenue being in USA which has a bigger economy, population and scale overall. The Super Bowl attracts massive revenues with SB ads charging millions for certain advertisements which the NFL sees a massive cut of as broadcasters want to get the rights that year paying a lot to the NFL. USA is the biggest market in the world with one of the biggest populations in the world. Look at it with another industry like movies they earn more money in USA than any other country as well. It is why NRL wanted to look at US market with Vegas as there is money to be had there.
So you bring up College football, same with basketball that many watch it and creates extra content and revenue. NFL does not earn anything from this so that is irrelevant as it is it's own entity, plus NRL couldn't dream of it as we cannot do that here. It is big there as many people have gone to certain colleges and support their Alma Mata. So bringing up college football is irrelevant when it has nothing to do with the revenue for NFL and their broadcasting deals.
You say games have gone strength to strength making the game more accessible, how does a conference system make the game more accessible? The finals system some years the best teams make it regardless but some years a team with less wins has a higher seed and some with more wins miss out entirely. That turns fans off. Why doesn't it turn NFL fans off? Well they have had it for a long time, they do not know any different plus only playing 12 teams out of 31 in a year it already is not overly fair as it is. If the answer is oh the ladder is the same as always, then why have conferences then? What is the purpose? The NFL and other codes have it as it helps scheduling with travel reducing costs. Rivalries are assisted by this but again the plan is to play each team once, what is the point?
Then you could say, well make it that we play our conference twice and a handful of the other conference, then people will bitch and moan "Why do we have to play Brisbane and Melbourne but Dogs play Canberra and Gold Coast?" The NFL make it easier with divisions within the conference, we aren't doing that unless we split each conference into 2 divisions of 5.
This game is flying and making more money than ever before why change it now? I have seen the big picture and comparing to US is not fair argument as the market is bigger. You bring up college football when none of our sports have that type of infrustructure to compete with that. US sports are the only sports in the world that have conferences for their leagues, they also have up to 30 teams per league, all bar NFL who has 32.
As for PNG, i hope it works it means a new avenue for the NRL to explore but not just the political aspect but it is funding, it is safety, it is attracting players over there. You take away the government money from PNG bid and they have nothing. Are the Australian government going to pitch in every year of it's existence? PNG are putting no money into the bid, they are putting money into COE and stadium redo but the money to the NRL is from Aus government. Once the 10 years is up no guarentee's we will keep doing that.
Also, thank you for the condescending "Are you upset" claim at the start. Though thank you for you thoughts on the counter BE, you make a nice point at the end about those from Union jumping out of the box to create League, but it is different creatig a new league than changing what is working. If this was Union now i would say they have to do something to salvage it in Australia as it is dying. NRL is flying, their revenue is going up by the year, projected to be $770 million this year.
PNG and Conferences are not 'dumb'.
Maybe you can't comprehend a world where these things work, but the ideas are sound.
These ideas, like any, are dependent on a well planned and effective execution.
I will say though, that Rugby League is a very unique game, and that most likely a unique game requires a unique draw and structure.
Starting at the individual team level, we should have larger lists, 44 players per team.
off the back of that we should introduce player game/workload limitations.
independent doctors working within each club and a league based system that protects players from burn out.
27 rounds. 1 bye per team with a representative break around the 3/4 mark which includes SOO, Pacific Series, revamped City vs Country concept, etc.
Pushing teams to use more of their supplementary players throughout the year.
The most important aspect for me is Rivalry Series played as 'in season' 3 match series against league appointed rivals. With bonus points available for these matches, if you win all 3 of your rivalry matches you get bonus points etc. 1 at home, 1 away, 1 at Magic round. This represents our half step toward 'conferences'.
By weighting games with points benefits and tapping into the tribal mentality of Rugby League, we can help clubs and players find reasons to base their squad management decisions around.
I also believe the league should consider partnering with touch football to play throughout the summer as a way of keeping the fans engaged whilst cultivating talent in a safe and sustainable environment.
Interesting on how you decided the rivalries. Some are obvious like Souths v Roosters. Some harder than others.
I mean Sharks v Dragons no brainer.
The QLD games any of them can work.
Dogs and Wests oddly enough has gotten bigger each year.
NZ is the hardest one as is Perth and PNG since they are fairly new. Maybe could do Perth v PNG since they are new. And the 20th team could be a NZ team then they play the Warriors in that scenario.
You mention 44 players per squad, when the issue at the moment is not enough players in the competition to maintain quality. Also if you have a squad that big, the cap needs to be bigger than what it is, much bigger, nearly double. Are the NRL going to up it that much?
City v Country died due to players not wanting to play it as the game meant nothing. It used to be an Origin try out but not any more.
Bonus points are not a good idea in terms of versing teams. It becomes to convoluted. I understand it can add intrigue where a team beating another team could get them into semis with an extra point, but again that is not fair for another team with more wins to miss out. I do not see how the current system of how teams makes the semis an issue? You win more games you are higher on the ladder. You add a conference system you are making it that a team with a worse record can get into the semis over a better team.
The reason sports like NFL have a conference system is you cannot have a 32 team ladder like NRL does for example and only play 12 of those teams or play 17 teams once, that is not fair. So that split it where they play their division twice only 4 teams from the other conference each year. Not the most fair option but it is best they can do. The NRL are having each team play each other once, why have a conference system then? Why have semis conference based where the best teams might not play in the GF? Yes American sports do it but they have to do it. They have 30 teams. Plus they do not have issues or concerns with quality of players coming through like NRL do.
I rephrase, conferences are not dumb but in terms of doing it for NRL it is dumb. To me it is V'Lanys thinking, as he always does, how can we be different. He did it with NSW racing even having an idea to race the Everest on the harbour bridge. This is toying with an idolization of US sports. It is a fair idolization to have but we cannot match them in terms of population, marketing and money.
On different forums, unless there are some i am not seeing, the consensus from the regular fans is conferences are a bad idea for the NRL. You bring up different ideas like the bonus system but it just see it us an unfair marker as a team that is not good enough for semis gets in from winning 2 bonus point games. Yes i know some teams can fluke their way to a GF and aren't considered the best team or teams can have a tough draw and miss out in the backend. But there is nothing about the way our ladder is now that is not fair. You win more games, you are in. Only thing could be F/A where if a team plays a bad team they can rack up 40 odd points and jump the team on equal points simply due to timing but it is still fair. Why add in bonus points just to add some sort of rivalry factor? Also basing their squads around, if a team a needs bonus points to get into the semis they are playing their best team every week despite the bonus points.
I think 1 bye for 27 rounds is not enough unless you do a rep round included. Sorry if that is what you meant. Having it 3/4 in i thought maybe not but it could work as a breather before finals. I actually am not against a rep round per say. It gives that breather but also increases anticipation for a week. Instead of cramming in heaps of international footy at the end of the year get some in mid year. Do an annual Samoa v Tonga game.
20 teams can create so much more for the competition, it creates more chances for players to play NRL, even if they might not be good enough they still get to play. Adds an extra 2 games a week and have NRL played on 5 nights a week. Dominate the sporting schedule on TV. You do not want too much on though, maybe Tonga v Samoa, Fiji v PNG and then Origin or something like that. You want to limit how many players play effecting squads.
Finally, as for PNG, when you have to build a compound for players to stay in, make it tax free salaries to convince players to come over and have the Australian government pitch in to fund the team with the NRL? That is not a great start. The NRL only entertained this idea due to the Australian government pitching in, simple as that. It is guarenteed money for 10 years, plus V'Landys will use it in some way as leverage "Hey we brought in PNG like you wanted, we want this". The Aus government did it as a good will thing to keep PNG at bay with China. All well and good for PNG players who get state of the art facilities and play against the best players in the world and travel to Australia and NZ, but are they good enough to compete? Can they attract the players to compete regularly? PNG do ok in QCup but compared to NSW Cup where more teams are filled with NRL players from affiliated clubs? I want to see how they go in NSW Cup in comparison.
You come up with some different ideas Dynasty. Some i respectfully disagree with, some i look at and think that could be different and some merit there.
I actually do not mind the touch footy idea, expand the game more with off shoot versions.
Whats wrong with having 4 conferences with 5 teams in each? You could play twice ( home and away) against the other 4 teams in your conference = 8 games, you then play the other 15 teams once = 23 games in total.
But that is not what they are considering.
But let's say you do divisions within conferences. So 5 teams per division. How would you work out finals? Would it be top 2 of each conference? Could work as it would be a top 8 system. However lets say you have one division where Brisbane win it with 14 wins and 2nd was NQ with 9 wins. Then in another division you have Penrith win 16 games, 2nd is Dogs with 14 wins then Parra come 3rd with 10 wins. Parra miss out on finals despite winning more games, is that fair?
I know it is an issue NFL fans bring up how their team wins 10 games but doesn't make the playoffs yet an 8-9 team automatically qualifies.
Then you have seedings, If Penrith win 14 games they may finish around 5th or 6th. But if they come 2nd in their division and say Newcastle win theirs with 12 games they get a home final.
Slippery what you bring up makes the conference system relevant, compared to what they are thinking playing everyone once and that is it. But though sports like NFL do it, they have to do it with the amount of teams they have compared to amount of games. They don't play everyone once, so why do a ladder like we have? We do play everyone once.
But then you also bring up play everyone in division twice yearly, well we do that sort of already. Parramatta every year play Tigers, Dogs and Panthers twice a year every year. You could say well there you go what's the issue well we do it already and they people still complain about the draw. Conference doesn't fix anything.
If anything, having 20 teams for 24 games in a year, which we have now, you do every team once, then 5 rounds against a team twice. That is a bit more fairer than we have now instead of playing 8 teams twice it drops to 5.
We do not need a conference. Only arguement at the moment is building rivalries when the suggestion from the NRL is play everyone once so it is irrelevant to even have it. Not like the game is dying and needs something to change it up.
I think they'll split the conferences up a bit more than you have suggested. Travel for conference B would be too much and too expensive.
More likely a Northern and Southern conference. (with tweaks)
Bris, NQ, Dolphins, Titans, PNG, Newcastle, Manly, NZ, Easts, Souths
Melb, Perth, Parra, Penrith, Canterbury, Dragons, Sharks, Canberra, Wests, New franchise.
May need adjusting depending on the location of the new franchise.
Otherwise, they'll draw it out of a hat or be modern and use AI.
I asked Gemini and this is what it spit out.
The split is based on the team's primary location:
🦅 Northern Conference (9 Teams)
This conference primarily features the Queensland-based clubs, the New Zealand Warriors, and the geographically northernmost NSW teams (Newcastle and Manly).
Brisbane Broncos (Queensland)
The Dolphins (Queensland)
Gold Coast Titans (Queensland)
North Queensland Cowboys (Queensland)
Newcastle Knights (New South Wales - Hunter Region)
New Zealand Warriors (New Zealand)
Manly Warringah Sea Eagles (New South Wales - Northern Sydney)
Parramatta Eels (New South Wales - Western Sydney)
Sydney Roosters (New South Wales - Eastern Sydney)
🦘 Southern Conference (8 Teams)
This conference is heavily concentrated in the greater Sydney area and includes the most southern Australian clubs (Canberra and Melbourne).
Canterbury-Bankstown Bulldogs (New South Wales - Sydney)
Canberra Raiders (ACT)
Cronulla-Sutherland Sharks (New South Wales - Southern Sydney)
Melbourne Storm (Victoria)
Penrith Panthers (New South Wales - Western Sydney)
South Sydney Rabbitohs (New South Wales - Sydney)
St. George Illawarra Dragons (New South Wales - Sydney/Illawarra)
Wests Tigers (New South Wales - Sydney)
I was going off what Michael Chammas suggested in his example a month back where it was a Sydney conference and rest of conference.
Yeah the travel is too expensive for group B for example. But using AI to generate it fans will complain, why do we have to have them when this team has them etc. You think the bitching is bad now wait til this. Then you can have lop sided conference results where 2 teams make the finals when 2 teams in other conference miss out. Or a team wins their conference with a worse record than a team that came 3rd in theirs and has a harder run to the GF.
I like the AI generated conferences though Badger, they make sense based on location.