2018 Crowd Watch

[Stallion]

Penrith v Cronulla : 15000
Knights v Eels: 17000
Bulldogs v Rabbitohs : 19000
Manly v Storm: 12000
Canberra v Cowboys : 13000
Broncos v Warriors: 35000
Dragons v Tigers : 17000
Titans v Roosters : 12000

 

[taipan]

Gee I wonder where the inspiration for GCT colors possibly could come from? Hmmmmm.....

Geez that looks like Kempsey,so it must be Queensland.Hey G.I.?

 

[beave]

Geez that looks like Kempsey,so it must be Queensland.Hey G.I.?

A beach without white people bashing people of Middle Eastern descent.

Well it rules out being Cronulla......

 

[Saint Doc]

Sand and water is not "Uniquely Gold Coast". There is almost 40,000kms of coastling that fit that same discription.

Its like if the next team in the NRL wears Green "because our city has grass".

Are you serious? You can’t acknowledge that the Gold Coast is world famous for its beaches? If Family Feud asked what is the first thing you associated with the Gold Coast, survey would say holidays / beach / theme parks / schoolies! It’s an obvious association. The GC Suns colour reflect the surf lifesaving colours of the flags at the beach. Yes, it’s true, other beaches are patrolled in Australia. But it’s about an association and branding.

Storms are not exclusive to Melbourne.
Black and white Magpies are not exclusive to Western Suburbs of Sydney.
Black Panthers have been found elsewhere in the world other than the foot of the Blue Mountains.
Brumbies are not uniquely from the ACT
Sharks have been found in th ocean other than the Sutherland Shire

The Gold Coast went for a beachy jersey design / theme due to their location. The error was the Titans branding: dolphins, stingrays, or some other ocean themed mascot would have been way more fitting.

Anyway, we’re way off crowd topics now.

 

[Springs09]

Yes and no. Broncos and Storm are arguably “franchise” clubs and are the two biggest in the sport. It can work if done well.

Storm built an identity. They were immediately successful, then they introduced all this wrestle shit and changed the game, then were very successful again, then outed as cheats, then very successful again, along with having so many of the best players in the game. This led to a strong fanbase as well as everyone else despising them.

The Titans are just there. Never really been successful, no real dramas, no household names etc. If the Storm had just petered along like the Titans had, they'd be nothing. Titans have been around 12 years and are still seen as the new boys trying to find their feet.

 

[Hello, I'm The Doctor]

I still think a conference system would be great. Play all teams once, plus those in your conference a second time. Even if you moved to 18 teams it could still work fine. It's really just locking in the ability to have more of the games that encourage regional rivalries.

I think the most important thing about a conference/division system is that it gives the NRL greater control over the finals...

People jizz at the idea of great rivals going head to head in the season ending knockous (Cowboys-Broncos or a Dragons-Rabbitohs) and they yawn at the idea of two random teams with not strong relationship (Raiders-Cowboys, Warriors-Knights).

We shouldnt just leave it to chance and HOPE we get good matchups. We SHOULD create a system that guarantees it. Fill the first 2 weeks of the finals with local rivalries, then the last 2 weeks we ensure a national spread (by then, the GF itself is exciting enough to not need local a local rivalry to sell it)

We could even have Minor Premiership trophies for each division winner, just to build up these local rivalries more. Every year, we would give bragging rights to the top team in each division and they yet to be smug wankers to their rivals for the next 12 months.

 

[Saint Doc]

I think the most important thing about a conference/division system is that it gives the NRL greater control over the finals...

People jizz at the idea of great rivals going head to head in the season ending knockous (Cowboys-Broncos or a Dragons-Rabbitohs) and they yawn at the idea of two random teams with not strong relationship (Raiders-Cowboys, Warriors-Knights).

We shouldnt just leave it to chance and HOPE we get good matchups. We SHOULD create a system that guarantees it. Fill the first 2 weeks of the finals with local rivalries, then the last 2 weeks we ensure a national spread (by then, the GF itself is exciting enough to not need local a local rivalry to sell it)

We could even have Minor Premiership trophies for each division winner, just to build up these local rivalries more. Every year, we would give bragging rights to the top team in each division and they yet to be smug wankers to their rivals for the next 12 months.

No no no no no.
You want to ensure that
Broncos and Cowboys, or
Parramatta and Bulldogs, or
Sharks and Dragons, or
Souths and Roosters

can NEVER meet in a Grand Final?

Madness

 

[Hello, I'm The Doctor]

Pretty sure GC just backed off the name voluntarily in the end.

This comes up every time GC is mentioned and for some reason LU boils every problem down to graphic design.

For me that's not the issue, Broncos for example is a shitful name, Cowboys even worse, yet they aren't "struggling".

Of course the name is important. It is a declaration of what they represent as a community entity...

I dont think an animal is ever a shit name. Even if it is a weird foreign import (like Broncos), it is still a perfect blank canvas for the club to build an identity from over time.

The risks are when clubs take on the anything outside of that, because there are previous connotations attached to that. If done well, it can be damn near perfects:
- Warriors representing Maori culture
- Knights/Steelers representing working class steel-cities
- Raiders/Storm representing the anti-Sydney sentiments of the club (Raiding/Storming the big smoke)
- Cowboys representing rural Australian culture (Drovers would have been better, but anyway...)
(Even Mariners was a solid name for a port city)

Then there is the Greek Titans. What do the represent? Nothing. Who are they against? No one. They are so obviously a bad marketing stunt, totally devoid of any local connection.

They could position as the "QLD team" or the "anti-Brisbane, rural team". Instead, they are bland, uncontroversial and uninspiring...

Storm built an identity. They were immediately successful, then they introduced all this wrestle shit and changed the game, then were very successful again, then outed as cheats, then very successful again, along with having so many of the best players in the game. This led to a strong fanbase as well as everyone else despising them.

The Titans are just there. Never really been successful, no real dramas, no household names etc. If the Storm had just petered along like the Titans had, they'd be nothing. Titans have been around 12 years and are still seen as the new boys trying to find their feet.

Very best thing the Storm ever did for themselves was to be controversial. Sydney fans hate them, so locals become protective of "their" club...

The Titans have been careful not to step on anyones toes and it really shows in how little the rest of the comp cares about them,

 

[Springs09]

I think the most important thing about a conference/division system is that it gives the NRL greater control over the finals...

People jizz at the idea of great rivals going head to head in the season ending knockous (Cowboys-Broncos or a Dragons-Rabbitohs) and they yawn at the idea of two random teams with not strong relationship (Raiders-Cowboys, Warriors-Knights).

We shouldnt just leave it to chance and HOPE we get good matchups. We SHOULD create a system that guarantees it. Fill the first 2 weeks of the finals with local rivalries, then the last 2 weeks we ensure a national spread (by then, the GF itself is exciting enough to not need local a local rivalry to sell it)

We could even have Minor Premiership trophies for each division winner, just to build up these local rivalries more. Every year, we would give bragging rights to the top team in each division and they yet to be smug wankers to their rivals for the next 12 months.

Finals series are not about watching interesting match-ups, they are about the best teams. If we went to a conference system where each team played each other once and those in their conference twice, it's possible 6th in conference one could be on higher points than 3rd in conference 2, yet the latter would make the finals. That's not a fair system to the better teams. Leave out a better team just so we can have some rivalries or derbies in the finals. I want to see the best teams.

And if we did it with the current 16, it wouldn't work anyway. If 8 Sydney teams were conference 1, then Dragons, Raiders, Warriors etc would be in the other conference. We could still easily end up with Raiders v Cowboys or Storm v Titans in the finals.

 

[Hello, I'm The Doctor]

No no no no no.
You want to ensure that
Broncos and Cowboys, or
Parramatta and Bulldogs, or
Sharks and Dragons, or
Souths and Roosters

can NEVER meet in a Grand Final?

Madness

The highest rating GF are the ones that have teams from across the country. Local rivalries are the GFs that draw the lowest interest.

More importantly, if for the last 30 years there was a 4 conference system (East Sydney, West Sydney, Qld, Rest), a grand total of about 4 GF match ups would not have happened. oh tragedy.

In exchange, EVERY YEAR we would have these local rivals playing a conference championship match to knock the other team out and move on to the final 4.

We would build on these local rivalries every year, we would add some life to the early rounds of the finals and we would guarantee a national spread of teams are competing for the GF.

 

[Saint Doc]

The highest rating GF are the ones that have teams from across the country. Local rivalries are the GFs that draw the lowest interest.

More importantly, if for the last 30 years there was a 4 conference system (East Sydney, West Sydney, Qld, Rest), a grand total of about 4 GF match ups would not have happened. oh tragedy.

In exchange, EVERY YEAR we would have these local rivals playing a conference championship match to knock the other team out and move on to the final 4.

We would build on these local rivalries every year, we would add some life to the early rounds of the finals and we would guarantee a national spread of teams are competing for the GF.

I’m going to stop replying now because
a) it’s not crowd related
b) I am confident you will never hold a position of power in rugby league, so we are safe

 

[Hello, I'm The Doctor]

Finals series are not about watching interesting match-ups, they are about the best teams. If we went to a conference system where each team played each other once and those in their conference twice, it's possible 6th in conference one could be on higher points than 3rd in conference 2, yet the latter would make the finals. That's not a fair system to the better teams. Leave out a better team just so we can have some rivalries or derbies in the finals. I want to see the best teams.

Entertainment is DEFINITELY more important that "finding the best team". We already agree on that.

We have a salary cap to cut the knees out from the rich teams and give everyone a chance.
The season draw is already more interested in being exciting than being "fair".
Rep teams cut out some of the best players in the world because the concept of representing "this" area is more important than having the best players.

The comp is already unfair, we might as well make it as exciting as it can be.

And if we did it with the current 16, it wouldn't work anyway. If 8 Sydney teams were conference 1, then Dragons, Raiders, Warriors etc would be in the other conference. We could still easily end up with Raiders v Cowboys or Storm v Titans in the finals.

A conference system would need at least 3 or 4 groups to be worth while; assuming expansion to 18 teams (6 teams x 3 groups) or 20 teams (5 teams x 4 group)...

Even in there, we would get a few random matchups. But after a few years, the group system (knocking each other out) would turn these into rivalries. Compare that to the current top 8. If this group goes into the finals as they are, Weeks 1 and 2 will be a whole lot of "...meh".

On top of that, we are already seeing what it will be like to have heaps of teams out of contention very early. This year is unusual, but once we expand to 18 or 20 teams, this will be standard. Teams talk about being "spoilers", but at the moment that is just randomly lobbing granades. I think it would be a lot more fun to specifically be trying to spoil 4/5 of your biggest rivals in your conference.

 

[Hello, I'm The Doctor]

I’m going to stop replying now because
a) it’s not crowd related
b) I am confident you will never hold a position of power in rugby league, so we are safe

a) It is crowd related. This is specifically about a season structure that guarantees event games to pull big crowds.

b) Dont think like that too much. Youll start to realise the pointlessness of EVERY discussion here.

 

[Stallion]

a) It is crowd related. This is specifically about a season structure that guarantees event games to pull big crowds.

b) Dont think like that too much. Youll start to realise the pointlessness of EVERY discussion here.

Yes. Especially with bigot moderators like Te Kaha!

 

[Canard]

- Cowboys representing rural Australian culture (Drovers would have been better, but anyway...)
(Even Mariners was a solid name for a port city)

Cowboys should have been the Crocs (and to preempt, No the local NBL basketball team was not called the Crocs prior to 1995)

 

[Hello, I'm The Doctor]

Cowboys should have been the Crocs (and to preempt, No the local NBL basketball team was not called the Crocs prior to 1995)

Good name.

That would have been great purely because the perfect name for the 2007 GC team would have been "Cowboys".

It is a direct f*ck you to the broncos (I think thats what NQLD were thinking when they picked it) and it goes to the rural culture of queensland; perfect for a anti-Brisbane City team (again, probably the NQLD thinking).

 

[Saint Doc]

Good name.

That would have been great purely because the perfect name for the 2007 GC team would have been "Cowboys".

It is a direct f*ck you to the broncos (I think thats what NQLD were thinking when they picked it) and it goes to the rural culture of queensland; perfect for a anti-Brisbane City team (again, probably the NQLD thinking).

The perfect name for the Gold Coast, a beachy coastal strip, was Cowboys?
The Gold Coast Cowboys.

Gold.
Coast.
Cowboys?

you’ve gone too far. Your subtle trolling prior to this was very good, but you have outed yourself completely taking the piss now.

Some more names by Hello I’m the Doctor
Canberra Heat
North Queensland Mermaids
Sydney Bushrangers
New Zealand Kangaroos

 

[Canard]

Good name.

That would have been great purely because the perfect name for the 2007 GC team would have been "Cowboys".

It is a direct f*ck you to the broncos (I think thats what NQLD were thinking when they picked it) and it goes to the rural culture of queensland; perfect for a anti-Brisbane City team (again, probably the NQLD thinking).

Your giving to much credit I reckon.

The Broncos and Cowboys were successful NFL sides at the time, much like Raiders and Steelers were in 82.

 

[taipan]

A beach without white people bashing people of Middle Eastern descent.

Well it rules out being Cronulla......

No area is perfect re crimes and murders, including the GC.I've spent many years holidaying there.

 

[beave]

Cowboys should have been the Crocs (and to preempt, No the local NBL basketball team was not called the Crocs prior to 1995)

Good name.

That would have been great purely because the perfect name for the 2007 GC team would have been "Cowboys".

It is a direct f*ck you to the broncos (I think thats what NQLD were thinking when they picked it) and it goes to the rural culture of queensland; perfect for a anti-Brisbane City team (again, probably the NQLD thinking).

The name ‘Cowboys’ came from Kerry Boustead whom was the first CEO and ran with the NQ bid from the early days. When he and his wife moved back up to Townsville from Sydney, the airlines lost all their luggage when they went to retrieve it. Apparently his missus said something along the lines of ‘what a bunch of cowboys’ and Boustead liked that name thought it would be good for the team. He talks about it in the Cowboys 20 year book. I have never been a fan of the name but it is what it is.

On the Crocs name, that name was thrown about in the early days, there was a function in Tvl for the NQ ARL bid and Marty Bella was wearing a crocodile shirt which had a slogan ‘NQ Crocs- We’ll eat em’ or some corny shit. There was a Union rep team up there that kicked up a stink when they saw the paper so that name got dropped.

Me personally, Marlins would have been a better name. It is the NQ rep team name, 90% of people up there live coastal so it’s more apt IMO.

Colours are a bit similar to cronulla but our current are close to Parra’s so you can still tweak it a bit.