The TV rights thread

[docbrown]

if you have the 4 week comp affect the main season what is the difference to now??

* The only teams playing would be winning teams (because losers are eliminated)
* Rep players would only miss 3 or 4 games - rather than missing more by being rested
* Rep players wouldn't have to back up
* There'd be no points for being eliminated - no 2 points for a 'bye'
* You can sell the rounds as "finals" games
* Teams could put in a good cup performance and turn their season around
* Less games overall during that period but overall more of a superior quality

 

[jasonstevenswedgie]

That's why I believe the knockout cup needs to affect the overall premiership ladder - hence why it should be played for some kind of points.

There'd be no points for byes/tanking under that system and teams are rewarded for winning.

It would be like a mini-race within the overall race

if they played for points how is it different from now, teams are still playing for points without their rep stars?

 

[Brutus]

Based on what? 2001 Origin ratings for 2 games only?

Ratings for Origin have increased massively since then.

Think about the Sunday Night Grand Final and what that was up against. There's no reason why a weekend Origin game couldn't do the same. If you want to maximise viewers though, Sunday would work best.

Sports-wise the NRL GF is up against nothing.

 

[docbrown]

Sports-wise the NRL GF is up against nothing.

And Origin on a Sunday evening would be the same.

In fact it would be better for the F2A network than it is now, as they struggle to air programmes after it finishes at 10-10:30pm.

But if they run it from 6:30-9:30pm then they can boost the show after it.

 

[docbrown]

if they played for points how is it different from now, teams are still playing for points without their rep stars?

* The only teams playing would be winning teams (because losers are eliminated)
* Rep players would only miss 3 or 4 games - rather than missing more by being rested
* Rep players wouldn't have to back up
* There'd be no points for being eliminated - no 2 points for a 'bye'
* You can sell the rounds as "finals" games
* Teams could put in a good cup performance and turn their season around
* Less games overall during that period but overall more of a superior quality

For starters...

 

[Noa]

My only objection is I wish origin would be a 1 off game or best of 3 with no dead rubbers.

I realise its a cash cow but one day it will outlive its usefulness. The fact is NZ is getting to the point were they would hammer both states and we need to be highlighting this rivalry more.

 

[docbrown]

My only objection is I wish origin would be a 1 off game or best of 3 with no dead rubbers.

I realise its a cash cow but one day it will outlive its usefulness. The fact is NZ is getting to the point were they would hammer both states and we need to be highlighting this rivalry more.

Well as long as Queensland keeps selling out the 3rd game it's not going to happen.

As for New Zealand vs Australia, it's not exactly 50-50 yet, it's more that when the Kiwis come together for a string of consecutive games, they seem to be able to gel together and upset in the biggest matches. The introduction of at least 2 games a year (one in New Zealand, one in Australia alternating) is a good step but I don't see Origin III going anywhere any time soon.

 

[Noa]

Are they upsets though ? The Kiwis have had the better forward pack for a few years now and I dont think any win is an upset. And like you pointed out with a week long prep ala origin 3x a year each and every game would be 50/50. We have to accomaodate more & more all the great Kiwi players that are starting to filter through and are genuine stars of the game but I digress from the topic.

 

[Noa]

Imo it would be good to have a trial for just 1 year holding 1 SOO game then 3 test series after to what type of revenue and interest it would generate. You could recoup some of the lost profits by putting the game(s) up for bidding every 2nd or 3rd year. I suspect though to do this the rights would have to be sold seprately. That and Ill most certainly be one out with this view.

 

[El Diablo]

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/bus...ers-on-afl-games/story-e6frg996-1226069752139

Sports rights remains one of the few areas of robust growth in the market. The AFL deal easily eclipsed the 2007-11 deal, worth $780m. At a lunch hosted by Qantas last week, Mr Leckie and Nine Entertainment chief executive David Gyngell bantered about how much the upcoming NRL rights deal would cost.

Negotiations over the 2013-17 NRL rights will not begin until the sport's new independent commission is formed but Mr Leckie has made no secret that he may use the lure of an AFL game or two in an attempt to get Nine to offer him an NRL match. Mr Leckie would love to get his hands on the State of Origin series, which dominates the ratings in Sydney and Brisbane. However, Nine has a first and last arrangement with the NRL that makes breaking up the football code more difficult, while Mr Gyngell has repeatedly said he would have to be carried out of Nine before it loses the Origin series.

 

[jasonstevenswedgie]

That's why I believe the knockout cup needs to affect the overall premiership ladder

yes a mid- season comp does the things you state, i can see that!

But why have it affect the premeirship?

 

[Billythekid]

Well as long as Queensland keeps selling out the 3rd game it's not going to happen.

As for New Zealand vs Australia, it's not exactly 50-50 yet, it's more that when the Kiwis come together for a string of consecutive games, they seem to be able to gel together and upset in the biggest matches. The introduction of at least 2 games a year (one in New Zealand, one in Australia alternating) is a good step but I don't see Origin III going anywhere any time soon.

It may not be 50/50 but it's not like SOO is right now either.

The real thing holding back the international game isn't NZ, it's Englands performance. Whenever i mention international rugby league to anyone it pretty much always ends up with people laughing about us flogging England.

 

[docbrown]

yes a mid- season comp does the things you state, i can see that!

But why have it affect the premeirship?

Because it doesn't have the history like it does in England. In England the Challenge Cup means almost as much - if not more - than the Super League grand final. So players/clubs/fans stake alot of interest in those games regardless.

We don't have that history in this country and we'd have to prevent clubs from resting players etc during the comp or tanking to get a rest to build up to the better NRL premiership. But if the Cup affects the Premiership, then everybody would take it seriously.

As for the points involved, I don't know. Maybe 1 point per win for those games - as teams that are knocked out wouldn't get any.

So
Week 1 - 16 teams - 8 winners - 1 point
Week 2 - 8 teams - 4 winners - 1 point
Week 3 - 4 teams - 2 winners - 1 point
Week 4 - 2 teams - 1 winner - maybe 1 point

So say all the NRL clubs (ignoring expansion) make Week 1, well then

1 team - winner - gets 4 points
1 team - runner up - gets 3 points
2 teams - get 2 points
4 teams - get 1 point

 

[docbrown]

It may not be 50/50 but it's not like SOO is right now either.

The real thing holding back the international game isn't NZ, it's Englands performance. Whenever i mention international rugby league to anyone it pretty much always ends up with people laughing about us flogging England.

Well last 17 encounters, 3 wins NZ, 1 draw, 13 wins Aus.

The thing about State of Origin is though - it's already had a history of being one of the closest 50/50 contests in the world with a massive rivalry. Queensland winning 5 series in a row is just one part of the overall story. Queensland won't win forever (hate to break it to you guys) and even in then the games are still rating massively so it's not like the recent one-sidedness has massively destroyed the NSW support base. They know it'll become 50/50 again.

That said Aus vs NZ doesn't have that same history hence partly why State of Origin outrates it.

Now if New Zealand starts winning every 2nd or 3rd game, then you'll see those matches increase in status.

 

[Billythekid]

Well last 17 encounters, 3 wins NZ, 1 draw, 13 wins Aus.

I'm just going to assume that this includes the crappy one off games in the middle of the year? That's one of our big problems.

We hold this match which NZ always loses and it makes the International game look bad. I'm sure their record looks better if you don't include those matches.

Still NZ have recently won the WC and the four nations but i think it will take more than that to build the rivalry. It's something you need to foster.

When NZ won the WC you barely heard anything about it and if anything you have people like Gould saying how it's a second rate match where Australia barely try.

It doesn't matter how much NZ win the game will never get bigger unless we start pushing it.

The thing about State of Origin is though - it's already had a history of being one of the closest 50/50 contests in the world with a massive rivalry. Queensland winning 5 series in a row is just one part of the overall story. Queensland won't win forever (hate to break it to you guys) and even in then the games are still rating massively so it's not like the recent one-sidedness has massively destroyed the NSW support base. They know it'll become 50/50 again.

Do they? I think SOO is in part popular because of how even it is but moreso because we fostered a rivalry. SOO at first wasn't that even was it?

In fact if anything wasn't the fact that QLD consistently beat us one of the main things that pushed the concept to become popular in NSW?

No doubt the fact that it has historically been even helps but it's success is about more than that.

That said Aus vs NZ doesn't have that same history hence partly why State of Origin outrates it.

I still don't think this is the reason. Just look at what union was able to achieve in the early 2000's and in some ways what soccer is achieving now.

International competition doesn't have to be 50/50 to get people to tune in. It's all about building hype and the WC and four nations were a chance for us to do that and we missed the boat.

Now if New Zealand starts winning every 2nd or 3rd game, then you'll see those matches increase in status.

I have no doubt that if England and NZ start winning regularly things will improve. However if we don't take the time to foster the rivalries and actually hype the matches they will never touch SOO.

 

[Ray Mosters]

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/bus...ers-on-afl-games/story-e6frg996-1226069752139

Sports rights remains one of the few areas of robust growth in the market. The AFL deal easily eclipsed the 2007-11 deal, worth $780m. At a lunch hosted by Qantas last week, Mr Leckie and Nine Entertainment chief executive David Gyngell bantered about how much the upcoming NRL rights deal would cost.

Negotiations over the 2013-17 NRL rights will not begin until the sport's new independent commission is formed but Mr Leckie has made no secret that he may use the lure of an AFL game or two in an attempt to get Nine to offer him an NRL match. Mr Leckie would love to get his hands on the State of Origin series, which dominates the ratings in Sydney and Brisbane. However, Nine has a first and last arrangement with the NRL that makes breaking up the football code more difficult, while Mr Gyngell has repeatedly said he would have to be carried out of Nine before it loses the Origin series.

Im not quoting this to comment on it, I just want it to appear twice in this thread

 

[docbrown]

I'm just going to assume that this includes the crappy one off games in the middle of the year? That's one of our big problems.

Take those out and it's still about 2 to 1 in favour of the Aussies though.

A few more years of New Zealand wins and the perception will change.

Do they? I think SOO is in part popular because of how even it is but moreso because we fostered a rivalry. SOO at first wasn't that even was it?

In fact if anything wasn't the fact that QLD consistently beat us one of the main things that pushed the concept to become popular in NSW?

Well when it first came in under 'Origin' rules people in NSW were saying it was pointless. Then they go their noses rubbed in it and from there it built the long term rivalry. Because of those games in the 80's, Origin can survive 5 years of one-sided games and still draw 3.5 million TV audience.

The Australia vs New Zealand game doesn't have that same history though - yet...

International competition doesn't have to be 50/50 to get people to tune in. It's all about building hype and the WC and four nations were a chance for us to do that and we missed the boat.

I'm sorry but I think the Invincibles were actually damaging to our game. RLIF dropped the ball on that one back in the 70's, 80's & 90's and the gap between Australia and the rest widened.

New Zealand's coming back. If England - and it's probably a big if - were to trounce them at either the 4 Nations or World Cup, then you would see interest lift.

Hype is one thing. Real results is another.

 

[Billythekid]

Take those out and it's still about 2 to 1 in favour of the Aussies though.

That still looks a whole lot better though.

A few more years of New Zealand wins and the perception will change.

Maybe, maybe not. If people look at it as though Australia aren't taking it seriously (and this is the impression you would get listening to Gould, Fatty and co) then even if NZ start winning more things won't change.

Like in basketball. When anyone but the US wins it's written off as being because the US don't try (which may be true to an extent).

Well when it first came in under 'Origin' rules people in NSW were saying it was pointless. Then they go their noses rubbed in it and from there it built the long term rivalry. Because of those games in the 80's, Origin can survive 5 years of one-sided games and still draw 3.5 million TV audience.

But that's exactly my point. The rivalry didn't start because the series was 50/50. The evenness of the contest has helped it become a lot stronger but it wasn't the original reason for the rivalry.

The Australia vs New Zealand game doesn't have that same history though - yet...

This is also what im getting at. What better opportunity is there to start building this rivalry then having NZ win the four nations and take away the WC?

I consider these things big deals and yet it seems as though they have passed by with no effect at all.

When QLD were dominating everyone made a huge deal about it. When NSW finally hit back again it was a massive moment.

When NZ started to take some major tournaments from Australia it has just been glossed over and everything has returned to the status quo.

I'm sorry but I think the Invincibles were actually damaging to our game. RLIF dropped the ball on that one back in the 70's, 80's & 90's and the gap between Australia and the rest widened.

Im not sure what you're getting at. I wasn't suggesting that we try and advertise the game similar to the invincibles. I agree with what you're saying here.

New Zealand's coming back. If England - and it's probably a big if - were to trounce them at either the 4 Nations or World Cup, then you would see interest lift.

Why though? Why should England need to win to increase interest in matches between Australia and NZ?

I actually agree with you here i just don't understand why NZ's performances can't stand on there own.

Hype is one thing. Real results is another.

We have had results though. NZ won the four nations and the WC. This was our chance to show that Australia can lose and in the big tournaments too.

Real results mean nothing if you don't try and build on top of that. When we finally got some decent results we just let the opportunity slip out of our hands.

Then as soon as Australia win again everyone falls back into the just saying how everyone else sucks.

I know that having the results actually being 50/50 would change this perception quick smart but that doesn't mean we shouldn't be pushing in the mean time.

 

[El Diablo]

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/new...revised-schedule/story-e6frg7mf-1226071282020

NRL warned against revised schedule

Brent Read and Stuart Honeysett
From: The Australian
June 08, 2011 12:00AM

ONE of the nation's leading experts on sports media rights has warned the NRL to tread carefully as it contemplates tampering with the season schedule to ease the load on the game's elite players.

Media consultant Colin Smith, who has an intimate knowledge of the sports broadcasting landscape, believes the NRL risks damaging its product if it listens to those calling for wholesale changes to the season structure.

Leading coaches Wayne Bennett, Craig Bellamy and Phil Gould have tackled the issue of burn-out over the past week, advocating a range of measures including changes around State of Origin and the possibility of a shortened season.

"You don't want to lose the very vibrancy and fabric of this competition," Smith said.

"The television numbers are fantastic. Fans are loving it. We get lost in that thinking it's good for broadcasters, but it's only good for broadcasters because fans love it.
.

"You start playing with the structure of the competition very, very carefully because you have a fantastic game that people love.

"What I mean is people like the idea that they're following their club, then they go into this really exciting State of Origin.

"I recognise the issue with players backing up. But gee, you have to be really careful with what is working well."

Smith's comments came on the same day the NRL held talks with the Nine Network over a re-shape of next season, which would mean the introduction of a stand-alone weekend of representative football.

Those plans, however, have been put in jeopardy by Nine's commitment to cricket, although NRL football operations manager Nathan McGuirk is still hopeful the league can strike a deal with the broadcaster.

NRL chief executive David Gallop also held personal talks with Nine boss David Gyngell over the perils of stand-alone Origin games, and the potential introduction of Monday night interstate matches in 2013.

"We had a great discussion about how well placed the game is in terms of the television results," Gallop said.

"We obviously need to talk more about the season structure but he was very clear about the negative impact Saturday night State of Origin would have."

 

[oldmancraigy]

"We had a great discussion about how well placed the game is in terms of the television results," Gallop said.

"We obviously need to talk more about the season structure but he was very clear about the negative impact Saturday night State of Origin would have."

What negative impact would it have on the fans?

They'd be able to watch Friday night footy, AND THEN tune in for Saturday night Origin.


Oh wait - the negative impact for 9. Origin is a massive ratings winner for them on a Wednesday timeslot. Saturday night is a 'meh' timeslot, and nobody cares who wins it.
Saturday Origin is bad for 9, not for fans.