Western Corridor NRL bid

[BDGS]

I've seen your work in the fight club. You know your ratings. For anyone to dismiss that just shows their ignorance. Well done.

Nobody has dismissed it.

However, i am sure scenarios that could happen also that would raise the QLD ratings.

Plus, and this is not against you docbrown a lot of that is not granted to guaranteed.

 

[docbrown]

Nobody has dismissed it.

However, i am sure scenarios that could happen also that would raise the QLD ratings.

Plus, and this is not against you docbrown a lot of that is not granted to guaranteed.

Well of course nothing is 100% guaranteed, but I do think the major points of dual 7:30pm live fridays, a sunday double header and a QLD team featured on both days will increase ratings.

I'm fine to debate any part of it.

Keep in mind - you could do what I'm suggesting without a 4th Qld team in an 18 team comp - however, under that scenario they would represent 17% of the competition but be getting 25% of the club representation, so it's a bit unfair to the others.

But I still believe it will boost overall ratings irregardless.

 

[BDGS]

Well of course nothing is 100% guaranteed, but I do think the major points of dual 7:30pm live fridays, a sunday double header and a QLD team featured on both days will increase ratings.

I'm fine to debate any part of it.

Keep in mind - you could do what I'm suggesting without a 4th Qld team in an 18 team comp - however, under that scenario they would represent 17% of the competition but be getting 25% of the club representation, so it's a bit unfair to the others.

But I still believe it will boost overall ratings irregardless.

While it sounds good in principle my belief a system that treated each team fairly would be best for the fans. Each club gets just as much games on FTA as each other (or close enough to it). That way no fans can sook that the Panthers aren't on enough or the Dragons are on too much. Under your system we would still have people saying why do the Qld teams individually get more FTA teams then somebody's individual team.

 

[dgsfan]

Nobody has dismissed it.

However, i am sure scenarios that could happen also that would raise the QLD ratings.

Plus, and this is not against you docbrown a lot of that is not granted to guaranteed.

???

 

[BDGS]

I mean't "not granted nor guaranteed"

 

[dgsfan]

While it sounds good in principle my belief a system that treated each team fairly would be best for the fans. Each club gets just as much games on FTA as each other (or close enough to it). That way no fans can sook that the Panthers aren't on enough or the Dragons are on too much. Under your system we would still have people saying why do the Qld teams individually get more FTA teams then somebody's individual team.

That's wishful thinking. You guys harp on about Bears bid increasing the TV deal then you bring up something like this when someone post a well though out argument saying why another bid team would add more. Fact is the NRL is a business and in order to get the most money will allow networks to pick the games they want to show. Channel 9 already has to show every team on FTA once a year.

 

[dgsfan]

Nobody has dismissed it.

However, i am sure scenarios that could happen also that would raise the QLD ratings.

Plus, and this is not against you docbrown a lot of that is not granted to guaranteed.

Never said that. For someone lecturing people to read posts properly you should really practice what you preach.

 

[BDGS]

That's wishful thinking. You guys harp on about Bears fans increasing the TV deal then you bring up something like this when someone post a well though out argument saying why another bid team would add more. Fact is the NRL is a business and in order to get the most money will allow networks to pick the games they want to show. Channel 9 already has to show every team on FTA once a year.

Yes and i am sure the Raiders fans who can't get to games appreciate that one FTA match a year just as much as those Broncos fans appreciate watching their team every second week on FTA.

 

[dgsfan]

People in Sydney don't want to watch Canberra play, thus, advertisers don't want to advertise during Canberra games. Simple. You might not like it but it's the way the world works. Get over it.

 

[BDGS]

People in Sydney don't want to watch Canberra play, thus, advertisers don't want to advertise during Canberra games. Simple. You might not like it but it's the way the world works. Get over it.

Then just don't give the advertisers the choice, set a price for all advertisers to pay for adverts during all games. make it a regular price. That way advertisers would be paying 'unders' when their advertisements are shown during teams like the Broncos and are paying 'overs' for when other teams play.

But its so much easier to think inside the little box of which you live in right? thnking outside the box never works does it?

 

[dgsfan]

You realise that when networks sell advertising they give an indication on how the program is likely to rate? No advertiser is going to blindly buy ad space not knowing when their ad will be played and during what match. FMD most stupid post yet.

 

[dgsfan]

Does anybody remember the 10 show Hot House? Channel 10 sold ad space at a certain ratings threshold. When the show underperformed the advertisers were compensated. Advertising doesn't work the way you're suggesting.

 

[BDGS]

You realise that when networks sell advertising they give an indication on how the program is likely to rate? No advertiser is going to blindly buy ad space not knowing when their ad will be played and during what match. FMD most stupid post yet.

Hook line and sinker :lol::lol:

What are you going on a forum site at 12pm on a saturday night for anyway?

At least i am under Doctors orders not to go out, what's your excuse?

 

[docbrown]

While it sounds good in principle my belief a system that treated each team fairly would be best for the fans. Each club gets just as much games on FTA as each other (or close enough to it).

Well I believe that as the season reaches about the 3/4 mark, the teams that are lower on the table would affect the ratings and also if exposed on F2A, also effect their home crowds.

With this in mind, I have suggested previously that part of the season draw be locked in place with times, dates and television slots before the season begins. These games would be those that are guaranteed to draw a TV audience & crowd on an annual basis (i.e. derbies, rivalries, holiday games, grand final replays etc). These games would be scheduled from Rounds 1 to 20.

Each club could have 5 to 6 home games locked in with times and dates for fans to purchase tickets etc.

The other games would then work on the current floating schedule to maximise audience appeal with top of the table clashes.

Teams could be guaranteed 5 to 6 F2A games at the start of the season, with a minimum of 4 or 5 more F2A games to be scheduled to maximise big draws. Any additional games would be based on the teams performance (i.e. they're a top 4 side).

That would then come close to fulfilling the requirement of approximately 11.1 games per team in an 18 competition.

 

[dgsfan]

:lol: oh dear... (to BDGS obvious trolling)

 

[dgsfan]

BDGS' true colours are beginning to show...

 

[dgsfan]

Well I believe that as the season reaches about the 3/4 mark, the teams that are lower on the table would affect the ratings and also if exposed on F2A, also effect their home crowds.

With this in mind, I have suggested previously that part of the season draw be locked in place with times, dates and television slots before the season begins. These games would be those that are guaranteed to draw a TV audience & crowd on an annual basis (i.e. derbies, rivalries, holiday games, grand final replays etc). These games would be scheduled from Rounds 1 to 20.

Each club could have 5 to 6 home games locked in with times and dates for fans to purchase tickets etc.

The other games would then work on the current floating schedule to maximise audience appeal with top of the table clashes.

Teams could be guaranteed 5 to 6 F2A games at the start of the season, with a minimum of 4 or 5 more F2A games to be scheduled to maximise big draws. Any additional games would be based on the teams performance (i.e. they're a top 4 side).

That would then come close to fulfilling the requirement of approximately 11.1 games per team in an 18 competition.

It's funny. The NRL is considering locking it's schedule in before the season kicks off (like the AFL). I thought this was a bad idea because I thought it would reduce the appeal of the rights. Not long after that the AFL indicated it was looking to do the opposite.

 

[docbrown]

It's funny. The NRL is considering locking it's schedule in before the season kicks off (like the AFL). I thought this was a bad idea because I thought it would reduce the appeal of the rights. Not long after that the AFL indicated it was looking to do the opposite.

That's because they've got that polar opposite thinking happening. They're going "well if WHITE doesn't work we'll do BLACK".

It's not the answer. GREY is the answer and that's a combination of both fixed and floating.

If say for example, one of the games you choose to lock in is the BULLDOGS vs EELS match in Round 8, is that going to affect rights? I doubt it.

As long as the fixed games are in Rounds 1 to 20, team performance won't really affect the ratings, not if the fixed games are based on traditional rivalries etc or some other factor that has a built in audience.

So fixed games would make up about 40% to 50% of the season, about 90 to 108 games in 18 team comp.
I'm sure if you went through all the permutation of teams, you could come up with that many games to lock in place. There are 25 big rivalry games that could be play twice (home and away) which account for 50 of those games.

 

[1 Eyed TEZZA]

Id love to see RnBBear respond to docbrowns posts.

 

[dgsfan]

That's because they've got that polar opposite thinking happening. They're going "well if WHITE doesn't work we'll do BLACK".

It's not the answer. GREY is the answer and that's a combination of both fixed and floating.

If say for example, one of the games you choose to lock in is the BULLDOGS vs EELS match in Round 8, is that going to affect rights? I doubt it.

As long as the fixed games are in Rounds 1 to 20, team performance won't really affect the ratings, not if the fixed games are based on traditional rivalries etc or some other factor that has a built in audience.

So fixed games would make up about 40% to 50% of the season, about 90 to 108 games in 18 team comp.
I'm sure if you went through all the permutation of teams, you could come up with that many games to lock in place. There are 25 big rivalry games that could be play twice (home and away) which account for 50 of those games.

I agree. Your solution is a good compromise.