2019 Crowd Watch

[Hank_Scorpio]

The Sunburns,the Brisbane Kitty Litters and the Spotless Gnats would stuff that suggestion.

Yet the Lions would finish 3rd on home attendance averages if they were in the NRL, the Suns 11th (ahead of the titans and the premiers) and the Giants 14th. Not sure game length is a great motivator for attending a game though.

I've heard the suggestion of cutting an NRL game into quarters laughed at continuously here but it's not the worst idea. Increased rest for players to allow for more speed and power across the entire game, breaks for fans to stretch in those tiny seats and get food/go to the toilet and even more ad breaks for TV value and chance for coverage to discuss the game in more detail as it progresses. There is merit in it to create a positive crowd result, how much? Who knows.

 

[T-Boon]

The Sunburns,the Brisbane Kitty Litters and the Spotless Gnats would stuff that suggestion.

not really they would all get smaller crowds if the game went for 30 minutes less. It makes some sense.
When Sydney siders fight traffic to go to the beach how long do they stay? Who knows but the NRL should do some research into it. I bet it is at least 3 hours with a bit of lunch as well. Travelling for 90 minutes each way in Sydney is not worth it for 100minutes of entertainment.

 

[yadamisha]

Pretty good week for crowds besides Thursday night. Good effort sharkies as the titans usually don’t draw well in Sydney.

I counted 8 titans fans at the ground - seriously. A bit of a contrast to when Sharks fans outdraw Titans fans at their home ground.

 

[taipan]

Yet the Lions would finish 3rd on home attendance averages if they were in the NRL, the Suns 11th (ahead of the titans and the premiers) and the Giants 14th. Not sure game length is a great motivator for attending a game though.

I've heard the suggestion of cutting an NRL game into quarters laughed at continuously here but it's not the worst idea. Increased rest for players to allow for more speed and power across the entire game, breaks for fans to stretch in those tiny seats and get food/go to the toilet and even more ad breaks for TV value and chance for coverage to discuss the game in more detail as it progresses. There is merit in it to create a positive crowd result, how much? Who knows.

And the Lion's tv ratings compared to the Broncos.And the hundreds of millions of dollars expended by the AFL for the Suns and Gnats over the years.And the fact they all have all seater stadiums, whereas many Sydney clubs do not.I also have serious doubts about the crowd figures announced for Gnats.The two northern states have these AFL teams ,but the TV ratings in these states for that code are ordinary and have been so since inception.

I don't have a problem with an 80 minute game cut into quarters.If it means advtg dollars for the TV station and a better TV deal.
The problem I see, the big guys get the break and continually run at the little guys.So the attrition rate one smaller players will be more.

Increasing the length of an NRL game to say 100 minutes, when a team is getting thrashed ,you'd end up with about 100 people remaining.
Rugby league and yes we need to increase crowds and better facilities in most cases will do that, still relies on Tv audiences in the main.It's the structure and nature of the game.AFL on the box is just not that suited by comparison.

 

[taipan]

not really they would all get smaller crowds if the game went for 30 minutes less. It makes some sense.
When Sydney siders fight traffic to go to the beach how long do they stay? Who knows but the NRL should do some research into it. I bet it is at least 3 hours with a bit of lunch as well. Travelling for 90 minutes each way in Sydney is not worth it for 100minutes of entertainment.

And conversely increasing the game to 100 minutes for the NRL ,would not draw any extra custom.There is far more heavy contact ,and especially when the NRL is looking at reducing replacement numbers.AFL has nowhere near the body impact.

Of course it's live on TV FTA and Pay, and unless Sydney gets all stadiums up to 21st Century standard, and traffic flow gets better whether a game is 80/90/100 minutes ,won't make one iota of a difference.

 

[T-Boon]

Increasing the length of an NRL game to say 100 minutes, when a team is getting thrashed ,you'd end up with about 100 people remaining.

I don't see that as a negative. Spread out the exit from the stadium would decrease traffic congestion and increase likelyhood of people wanting to come back next time.

 

[T-Boon]

And conversely increasing the game to 100 minutes for the NRL ,would not draw any extra custom.There is far more heavy contact ,and especially when the NRL is looking at reducing replacement numbers.AFL has nowhere near the body impact.

American football is arguably heavier contact and it goes for 3 hours. So you jig it around with replacements/interchange and the like so that it remains at the same level of safety and fatigue.
Playing in quarters is a no brainer in terms of $$ and the increase in temperatures etc. You would add ten minutes just by doing that.

 

[taipan]

Absolute chalk and cheese comparison.
American football has far, far more stoppages and the number of minutes in actual game time is far far less than the NRL.And we ain't got no padding .There is not the continual buffeting that occurs in rugby league.I doubt you watch yeti NRL is you believe that not to be the case.
I agree with the $ comment, and have no problem in the main if 4 qtrs were introduced.If it meant more dollars for the game, and more dollars for stadium upgrades.

 

[taipan]

I don't see that as a negative. Spread out the exit from the stadium would decrease traffic congestion and increase likelyhood of people wanting to come back next time.

You would if it increased the chance of further injury to players, playing an extra 20 minutes.

 

[Timmah]

This will be tracked all year in the LU Monday wrap, usually published by lunchtime: https://leagueunlimited.com/news/32966-mondays-expert-round-2-wrap/

 

[footy75]

American football is arguably heavier contact and it goes for 3 hours. So you jig it around with replacements/interchange and the like so that it remains at the same level of safety and fatigue.
Playing in quarters is a no brainer in terms of $$ and the increase in temperatures etc. You would add ten minutes just by doing that.

NFL goes for 3 hours but how much of that is time outs etc etc. and yeah not to mention helmets and body padding. And defense and offense only on half the time etc.

 

[footy75]

In some grounds RL on TV is better than the view at the game. AFL is on a round field so you can't see it all on TV.

The NRL TV coverage is too good. Means you don't have to actually go to games

agree NRL is great on tv... AFL you cannot see whats happening ahead of the play or behind the play.

 

[Hank_Scorpio]

And the Lion's tv ratings compared to the Broncos.And the hundreds of millions of dollars expended by the AFL for the Suns and Gnats over the years.And the fact they all have all seater stadiums, whereas many Sydney clubs do not.I also have serious doubts about the crowd figures announced for Gnats.The two northern states have these AFL teams ,but the TV ratings in these states for that code are ordinary and have been so since inception.

I don't have a problem with an 80 minute game cut into quarters.If it means advtg dollars for the TV station and a better TV deal.
The problem I see, the big guys get the break and continually run at the little guys.So the attrition rate one smaller players will be more.

Increasing the length of an NRL game to say 100 minutes, when a team is getting thrashed ,you'd end up with about 100 people remaining.
Rugby league and yes we need to increase crowds and better facilities in most cases will do that, still relies on Tv audiences in the main.It's the structure and nature of the game.AFL on the box is just not that suited by comparison.

The difference in vision of the NRL is displayed early your post. The AFL planned for short term pain in terms of investment outlay for the creation of a greater long term footprint across Australia. After the VFL sent South Melbourne to Sydney, the Swans were in a financial heap and had no crowds in the late 80s/early 90s, but look where they are now. Arguably one of the strongest all round sporting teams in Sydney. The extra game created via expansion meant higher TV money to fund keeping these teams afloat until they are established and self sustaining.

The crowds across any expansion team has to be met with patience until they are established and multi generational. Worrying though how the butt of many a joke in GWS have better crowd averages than some Sydney NRL teams. You can bring along the 'crowd counter' excuse all you like but in real terms it shouldn't even be a conversation as they should be well behind NRL teams with 50 years+ of more history. Parra will get a good boost when their stadium is up and running and claim back the bragging rights in the west. Beggars belief how a team with constant success like the Roosters have such low crowds in the RL capital of the world.

 

[Hank_Scorpio]

The difference in vision of the NRL is displayed early your post. The AFL planned for short term pain in terms of investment outlay for the creation of a greater long term footprint across Australia. After the VFL sent South Melbourne to Sydney, the Swans were in a financial heap and had no crowds in the late 80s/early 90s, but look where they are now. Arguably one of the strongest all round sporting teams in Sydney. The extra game created via expansion meant higher TV money to fund keeping these teams afloat until they are established and self sustaining. Good to actually hear expansion debate in the NRL in recent weeks.

The crowds across any expansion team has to be met with patience until they are established and multi generational. Worrying though how the butt of many a joke in GWS have better crowd averages than some Sydney NRL teams. You can bring along the 'crowd counter' excuse all you like but in real terms it shouldn't even be a conversation as they should be well behind NRL teams with 50 years+ of more history. Parra will get a good boost when their stadium is up and running and claim back the bragging rights in the west. Beggars belief how a team with constant success like the Roosters have such low crowds in the RL capital of the world.

 

[greenBV4]

Round 2 stadium averages

 

[Hello, I'm The Doctor]

And the Lion's tv ratings compared to the Broncos.And the hundreds of millions of dollars expended by the AFL for the Suns and Gnats over the years.And the fact they all have all seater stadiums, whereas many Sydney clubs do not.I also have serious doubts about the crowd figures announced for Gnats.The two northern states have these AFL teams ,but the TV ratings in these states for that code are ordinary and have been so since inception.
.

Whose fault is that?

 

[Perth Red]

In some grounds RL on TV is better than the view at the game. AFL is on a round field so you can't see it all on TV.

The NRL TV coverage is too good. Means you don't have to actually go to games

Listening to my fave musicians on my state of the art sound system is a better sound than at a concert, but I still go to concerts!
Such a furphy this one. In the handful of afl games I have gone to you end up watching half of it on the bog screen as the action is so far away from you you would need binoculars to actually see what is going on. Whereas a NRL you are close up to the action and only need to glance at biog screen to see if the ref got it right or wrong. The lack of wide angle shots on TV also means you never get to see offensive and defensive line ups across the field or plays developing.

 

[Perth Red]

Whose fault is that?

Leagues clubs. All the time Sydney clubs can pull $3-5million out of pokies to cover their losses they arent really going to care about fanbase. Its no surprise that the non pokie funded clubs are the ones sorting out stadia and growing memberships and crowds.

 

[DC_fan]

View attachment 28373

This will be tracked all year in the LU Monday wrap, usually published by lunchtime: https://leagueunlimited.com/news/32966-mondays-expert-round-2-wrap/

How are you going to work the averages for the R.9 magic round in Brisbane? I suspect that rounds total may not be that good.

 

[franklin2323]

Listening to my fave musicians on my state of the art sound system is a better sound than at a concert, but I still go to concerts!
Such a furphy this one. In the handful of afl games I have gone to you end up watching half of it on the bog screen as the action is so far away from you you would need binoculars to actually see what is going on. Whereas a NRL you are close up to the action and only need to glance at biog screen to see if the ref got it right or wrong. The lack of wide angle shots on TV also means you never get to see offensive and defensive line ups across the field or plays developing.

Concerts aren't the same on TV. sport can very much be the same on TV... So all 18 players show up on TV on an AFL game? 95% of a RL or RU game is where the camera is.

Regardless the game gets spread well in RL and is more important than a ave x amount