Idea for USA competition

[Jake86]

This guy's idea is for the NFL to run a rugby league competition in the NFL off season. Very unlikely to happen, but would be a major drawcard for rugby league if it did. Also nice to see the great game being noticed in america. Thoughts??

NFL Should Invest in Rugby League in America


(Unless you understand the game of rugby league, you may want to skip this article. Thanks.)
The potential lockout between the National Football League and the players seems silly in some sense, since it’s obvious that the NFL and the players are making money, not losing it.
Let’s be fair: A lot of new stadiums were heavily financed by taxpayers, and while they sell out during the NFL season, that’s still less than a year’s use. Let’s hope the two sides can find a way out of a protracted lockout.
If the NFL was looking to create revenue, maybe they need to find ways to fill dates in those stadiums in the NFL offseason, since their teams effectively control them. How many tractor pulls and concerts could those stadiums run?
No, they need another sport, something that football fans will understand and love during the NFL offseason.
That sport is rugby league.
Different from rugby union, rugby league has lining systems and rules more similar to American football, and both codes are older than American football.
The National Rugby League (of Australia and New Zealand) and SuperLeague (of Great Britain) are currently the two top competitions in the world. The teams are composed of really tough, fit men.
The hard-hitting but fair action of the sport requires little padding and the games usually run about two hours (like soccer), and generally they play once a week like American football (but they have longer seasons).
Unfortunately, Americans have no real way to watch NRL or SuperLeague here.
However, I’m sure the NFL has heard of rugby league, and if they were convinced that investing in getting a rugby league started here would make them money, they would do it.
The biggest issue with either code of rugby is the same: The dimensions are too large for American football fields. This is the main reason neither code is recognized as a varsity level sport by any state high school athletic association (according to data from nfhs.org).
But what if the NFL went with a modified set of rules, rules to fit American football fields? It’s not that radical a thought: Arena football, indoor lacrosse, and indoor soccer have to fit the confines of a hockey rink.
To this I created an 11-a-side version of rugby league called “Gridiron Rugby” to fit American “gridiron” football fields. I started United Rugby League (or URL) last year as a proposed competition to play such a sport. (www.unitedrugbyleague.com).
Let me suggest some reasons why the NFL should seriously consider getting involved with rugby league as a second sport in their stadiums:

1. Less costly.
The sport is much easier to start up. Less expensive equipment, they already have training facilities, control the playing venues, etc., so they don’t have to deal with arena rentals like they did when they invested in Arena Football League.
They don’t even have to have the upper levels open at their stadiums. And again, the rules fit the field, not many changes needed at all.
It will be easier for fans to understand the game, after watching it twice they’ll all “get it.”

2. Fans will support due to brand loyalty.
This is huge. The XFL depended on wrestling fans and fans who for whatever reason were upset with the NFL. They also didn't have the broadcasting and Internet capabilities that we have today.
Since this is because of the NFL, their fans would support this effort, and gradually really learn and love the sport. It will clearly benefit the NFL in many ways long-term.

3. Develop sports management personnel.
Give them year-round work. NFL teams could groom “stars” working on their staff as potential upper-level management by having them show their talents running the rugby team.

4. Distribution.
Can anyone beat the NFL system of product distribution? Any doubts they can sell rugby league merchandise?

5. The NFL would basically run rugby league in America.
While there are two competing groups out there right now, neither could or would stop the freight train that is the NFL if they got involved.

6. Immediately they would be the No. 3 rugby league competition in the world.
No need for any arrangement that makes us look like another country’s minor league. Americans would never go for that. With the right management, the URL can be No. 1 in short order.

7. Thousands of potential athletes available.
Many college football players who didn’t make the NFL would be perfect here.

8. Great college sport.
Not only would it be played in the spring to complement football, it is also a very “Title IX-friendly” sport for women, an easy sport to stay in compliance with, since the rules require existing football fields instead of new stadiums, and the sport is basically low-cost.

9. Great sport to play in the spring in high schools.
For similar reasons as with college. Get these kids in better shape, develop better ball-handling skills, etc.

10. More programming on NFL Network.
That’s a given. How many reruns of the Super Bowl can we stand in May?

11. More year-round sponsorships.

12. As the sport grows, more television revenues.

13. Pay players with team bonuses for wins.
Not ties. Wins. You’ll really see some hard-hitting action then.
14. Chance to expand to non-NFL markets.
Let’s face it: This is the real selling point. As popular as the NFL is, 32 is really the ideal number of teams.
Cities like Birmingham, Las Vegas, Memphis, Oklahoma City, Orlando, Sacramento, etc., have no NFL team and doesn’t look like they ever will.
There are a lot of empty football stadiums in the offseason that could host a rugby league team, with local city governments who would not have to do much to recruit teams coming over.
Low risk, high reward investment.

15. Pummel Major (in name only) League Soccer.
Yes, the same MLS that got lower ratings in their championship game than college volleyball, and the same MLS that makes less revenue than all of Ultimate Fighting Championship (left for dead 10 years ago).
MLS Commissioner Don Garber, who oversaw the demise of NFL Europe, basically admitted that MLS is looking to be a niche sport, not actually challenge the “major” sports.
MLS also has a problem expanding their league. FIFA restricts top-level leagues to only 20 teams, and frankly, they would want it lower.
Since MLS is too scared to join the rest of the serious soccer world and put in promotion and relegation, those cities mentioned above have no chance at a MLS team, nor do current NFL cities like Cincinnati, Charlotte, Cleveland, Phoenix, San Francisco, etc.
Exploit this weakness and arrogance on MLS’ part. If UFC can make more money than the "niche" MLS, so can a rugby league competition run by the NFL!

16. Puts the United Football League out of its misery.
The UFL, created to challenge the NFL if there’s a prolonged lockout, or be the NFL’s developmental league (they can’t seem to make up their minds), have shown that minor football leagues are too expensive to run and shouldn’t be run without a lot of working capital, revenue streams, and sound management.
They also have made a variety of blunders before they first kicked off. (The pastel uniforms and green end-zone cones were hideous.) If they don’t pull their own plug, this will do it for them.

17. Recruit new owners.
I am not going to mention famous rich people who could invest; that’s insulting to them. But people who the NFL would not normally allow as investors might be perfect for a start-up like this.

18. Easier to sell new stadiums in the future.
The prospect of two professional sports in a new stadium will be much easier to sell than one NFL team.
There are many other advantages but I’m sure everyone gets the point. Rugby league could be a huge sport in the United States with the right vision.
Unlike other sports that don’t have the infrastructure, a slightly-tweaked rugby league does; all it needs are the right people with vision to run it.
The NFL team owners are in the best position as anyone to make the bold move, only eight of them at first would start a new sports revolution.
Do I think it will happen? Odds are probably not. But if somebody with vision in the NFL read this and understood the potential, the sky’s the limit for American rugby league and the URL.
It WOULD work, if given the chance. It's a sport that pre-dates football. It's hard-hitting, with little padding.
Nice sport to watch during the NFL offseason when we're tired of soccer, baseball, and NASCAR. The NFL would run it. Of course it will work.
And maybe, in the not-so-distant future, all of a sudden the rest of the rugby league world will need to watch out for the Americans.

Source: http://bleacherreport.com/articles/631730-nfl-should-invest-in-the-sport-of-rugby-league-in-america

 

[$$Poor Boy Blues$$]

lot of effort there from you.

maybe you are onto something dude

 

[Ulysseus]

do it.

 

[bobmar28]

I think it would work but convincing the right people wouldn't be easy. Maybe Russel Crowe might be the one to do that.
Btw I didn't know the field size was different. 100 yards v 100 metres?

 

[Moffo]

Surely Rupert is our most obvious in here?

 

[clarency]

It's about 90m.

I didn't see any mention of the modifications. 11-a side... Which positions are being canned? Are there any other rule changes?

As I understand it the AMNRL has a modified rule where the defending team receives the ball off the kickoff (unlike NRL/ESL), etc.

 

[Chariots Offiah]

until they start playing the game in high schools, then it will never ever take off

 

[Danish]

Do we really want it to take off??

I don't know about you but I'm not really for a huge american comp to start up and turn us into a minnow league for them to take players from.

32 teams plus NFL money means you could kiss goodbye to our top 60-80 players within 2 years if it actually took off.

 

[adamkungl]

Other than being pretty unlikely to ever happen, an issue I have is the 11 a side. It would be hard to adapt to 13 for international competition. Better off playing on soccer fields than american football fields. Very similar dimensions

 

[Jankuloski]

Do we really want it to take off??

I don't know about you but I'm not really for a huge american comp to start up and turn us into a minnow league for them to take players from.

32 teams plus NFL money means you could kiss goodbye to our top 60-80 players within 2 years if it actually took off.

 

[Dazraider]

Do we really want it to take off??

I don't know about you but I'm not really for a huge american comp to start up and turn us into a minnow league for them to take players from.

32 teams plus NFL money means you could kiss goodbye to our top 60-80 players within 2 years if it actually took off.

very true as the money over there for sports are an amazing amount, though still could work if they only allowed each team 1 back and 1 forward from Australia NZ and England.

 

[clarency]

I would expect they'll do the same thing that ESL does, and set a cap on the amount of imports only to reduce it with time in hopes it will improve local talent.

This is a futile discussion anyway. This won't happen.

The RLIF need to hand over US RL authority to the USARL and then everything will be on track again.

 

[sheepbender]

Any improvement to League in the US needs support, the 11 a side & losing players to US$$$ are the only negatives, but if it can be done, it should be done

 

[druzik]

Biggest issue will be that the AMNRL/David Niu would not give up his baby for someone else to run and control.

Though and NFL field is smaller than an NRL field, the amount of grass and area surrounding the field is enough to accommodate the minimum Rugby League requirements. There are still many NFL teams that have grass pitches and so this could easily be done to get a regulation field.

Also the issue on having 11 a side ... effectively this is a different sport.... no other country in the world will play "this version" of the game. Internationally the USA will be screwed since they don't play 13 a side Rugby League. If anything they would take a massive step backwards in this regard.

 

[langpark]

This is a futile discussion anyway. This won't happen.

spot on, i was about to say that when i saw this discussion getting out of hand :lol:


2. Fans will support due to brand loyalty.

I have to say I see your point on this one, but I disagree. If my league team were to start an NFL team tomorrow, I know it wouldn't make me care any more about NFL than i do now. Only the proper diehards would get into it or give it a chance to begin with.

It is still a good point though, Because from a fan base of 100,000, which some of these clubs have, winning over 2% of these fans would mean you're getting decent crowds at matches (hopefully in smaller venues though).

The biggest hurdle i see, as someone mentioned, is convincing the big shots that it can be of benefit to them. Tough sell if you ask me.

Good write up though, maybe you should be the rugby league rep who has to pitch it to them!

 

[SeattleForce]

Perhaps we shouldn't give Jake86 the praise of writing the article; rather, congratulate him on finding the piece.

There are some valid points, and there are some ideas that would render useless to the development of rugby league in the US.

Firstly, should there be a lockout in the upcoming NFL season, rugby league would have to twist a lot of arms and sell the game in the right light. Not only that, but RL would be competing against so many other sports that are trying to break the US market (Rugby Union, AFL and lacrosse to name a few). Some may argue that these two sports alone already have more of a fan base, a general understanding of the game from the public and more television/community exposure. Throwing a 'brand new' sport in to replace NFL would be extremely risky for owners and investors alike.

The 11 a side theory works well on paper so to work within the current field dimensions, though again, would be detrimental to the development and the longevity of RL in the USA. Having to adapt to 13 players, as well as different field dimensions in the international scene will certainly throw a spanner in the works.

I do agree, however, that my capturing just a small percentage of the target audience, that you could gain a sufficient amount of fans. MLS is a perfect example, and certainly applies to the Seattle Sounders FC. Having been around since (at least) the 80's, they now pack out almost every home game at Qwest field; home of the Seattle Seahawks.

And that's the main problem I see with people's perception of RL in the US. Everyone is wanting the RL to take off now while, at the same time, disregarding any real development; be it community exposure, introducing the game to elementary / high school / college kids and a whole host of other PR activities.

I am excited for what RL has to offer to the sports fan of America that enjoys fast paced action, hard hits, fancy footwork and a small brawl here 'n' there. There is a lot of leg work to be done but I believe the USARL has the right personnel, the right frame of mind and the right attitude to get it done.

It may take a few years; it may take another 10 or 20. It will happen.

 

[roopy]

There is another thread somewhere here where the guy who had the 'gridiron rugby' concept talked about his 11 a side on gridiron fields with existing markings and goalposts as an idea for a highschool comp in the gridiron off season.

I thought that was a great idea. Many highschools in America have outstanding gridiron facilities that could be used.

 

[Rampart66]

I think Dennis Justice (the person who wrote the original article) has a great sense about the sports business in the United States, but we have disagreed on the 11 vs. 13 players.

Very few teams in the AMNRL in the past have actually played using regulation size rugby pitches. Most of the games are being played on the standard 100 x 53.3 yard gridiron. Scoring and the level of excitement don't seem to have suffered at all because of it. My big concern is with international matches. It's hard to play with 11 a side rules and then try to play 13 a side for World Cup qualifiers. It would be like indoor soccer (MLS) players trying to play 11 a side after being used to 6 a side for so long.

If you took international games out of the equation, then I would be more apt to support the idea of 11 a side. Maybe a better idea would be to play 9's instead. At least with 9's the rules have already been established and with the growing popularity of union 7's, it may create a more exciting, wide open spectator sport.

 

[roopy]

I was at one of the 11 a side 'experimental' games in the Toyota cup under 20s comp a few years ago, and the look and feel of the game was very little different to 13 a side - just a little more free flowing.
If you add in a narrower field, i don't think you could tell the difference unless you stopped to count the players.

 

[roopy]

The great benefit of 11 a side on gridiron fields is the number of available facilities IMO.

American football has a massive number of fields all over the country that aren't suitable for any other game, so are only used for half a year - despite many having artificial turf that would make them usable all year round. All the way from schools to massively rich pro clubs have these grounds going begging for a sport that could use them. Rugby Union couldn't trim down the playing numbers without losing the essence of the game - but the far simpler game of League would be almost identical with a few less players on a narrower field.
There are very few grounds for 13 a side and it's a fight with soccer and union to get the available grounds - 11 a side would have their pick of dozens of magnificent grounds that have no uses in the gridiron off season.