Crowds in 2006 - AFL vs NRL

[Rob]

bums on seats (brisbane + queensland + australia + wizard cup), tv audiences (NRL + state of origin + test matches), gerneal interest (all media) ... RL is unchallenged in SEQ ... to argue otherwise is plain silly.

So by that logic AFL is unchallenged on the Gold Coast this year? Cumulative attendances are clearly higher than the NRL's this year.
And across SE Queensland, TV ratings would be a lot closer than you think, as more than twice the number of hours of AFL are on FTA (not including midnight telecasts) than NRL. And it's all about cumulative numbers, not averages (your logic).

to argue the gap was closing based on the Lions premiership era and the increased AFL grassroots investment is all true, but to think RL is in danger of losing its mantle on any level is silliness.

Just said it was not the unrivalled leader in every stat. This is clearly the case. Another one is participation. Clearly not the market leader in Queensland. Or anywhere else in Australia.

 

[Hornet]

FFS why is adelaide and perth relevant in an assessment of RL????? its not.

Relevant because they tried to crack their local markets and failed miserably.

RL no longer cares about those areas.

They have no choice in the matter.

 

[littleduck]

Relevant because they tried to crack their local markets and failed miserably.


They have no choice in the matter.

Fair enough. I agree.

 

[Exe Gesis]

1. With more teams in a comp, more rounds a year, obviously overall attendances in a sport will embarrass the overall figures of a comp with far fewer teams and fewer rounds. Overall figures are irrelevant due to the difference of teams/rounds/internationals/etc between varying sports.

2. Average crowds are a good statistical measure to use, as it can give a more equatable comparison of sports' attendances/popularity. Baseball in America has "hundreds" of teams and "thousands" of games played in a nation of 300 million...of course they're going to get astronomical overall numbers. But the average reveals more than the aggregate.

3. Also, using out-of-comp events like Internationals and SOO etc, are unfair as these will ALWAYS be far more attended than comp games, and they also veil the average and aggregate figures. RL is a type of sport that DOES have internationals, SOO, City-Country. AFL does not have those games. So to add those figures is wrong also because it's still like comparing two sports who have different numbers of teams/rounds per year. As marquee out-of-comp events, as explained before, they also bloat the ave/agg figures.

4. So, I still maintain that the only true way to compare the crowd-health of sports is by ave, not agg. If Australia had a population of 300 million, and AFL was played like MLB, with 10x more teams and 100x more games, then AFL would get 74 million agg too....therefore it doesn't prove/disprove anything. All you can compare is what a nation's population is:what the ave crowds are. Super14's suffers from having only 4 Aussie teams and only about 6 home games a year. To find a comparison with RL you can only honestly use Ave crowd figures, because if the Super14's had 14 Aussie teams, and played 22 full rounds in Australia, then they would get far better agg crowds than what their agg is now.

5. RU's elite competition now is the Super14's, which happens to be an internationally/state-orientated competition. When the elite competition used to be the Sydney comp, with likes of Randwick, Gordon, etc, and was amateur, RU had pathetic crowds/exposure to RL. However, it would be difficult to truly compare those two comps at the time. But, with the Super14's representing a 'National' Comp, and the NRL representing a National Comp, and with RU now professional, it is possible to draw comparions. It can only be on average crowd figures.

6. The intent of my reply to Swanster, was mainly based on the concept that RL is not a live-friendly game, more a tv-friendly game. That AFL was not a tv-friendly game, but a live-friendly game...hence the crowd differences. I completely reject this notion. If there is interest in a sport, people attend it. If there is strong passion/love for a sport, then the amount of people who attend will increase a lot more.

7. While MLB attracts 74 million, it's fairly humble 30k ave is actually a reflection that for some decades now Baseball in America has lost its reputation and love from fans. It used to be the number 1 sport in America, the American pastime. But due to many things, including no salary caps, drug scandals, and expense of attendances, as well as the growth of interest in NFL, Baseball has slipped far behind. One could look at the 74 million and be astounded, but the 30k actually tells a clearer story. The NFL only has 17 rounds a year, not sure what their aggregate crowds are, but if they're significantly lower than MLB, one COULD assume that Americans love MLB more than NFL, that MLB is a far more popular sport. But this is incorrect. NFL gets around 70k ave crowds. They only play 17 rounds, among 32 teams, and might only get 20 million aggregate. Yet purely because baseball has more teams and more games played in a season, they can achieve 74 million due to that. If Baseball was played only across 17 rounds, they'd get only 8-10 million compared to NFL. While if NFL was played as much as MLB was they would get 140 million+ aggregates.

8. Ave crowds reveal the truth, balance out the differences between sports where the number of teams, number of games, and amount of all-star type games played, differ greatly.

9. NFL is a similar structured sport to RU and RL, two lines of players who converge. Something that suits TV more than live, as Swanster would like to emphasize. However, if there is a passion/love/interest in that sport, people would always naturally attend live events than watch them on television. The interest in NFL is so great that stadiums are sold out years in advance, and the TV audience is even more astronomical. Again, the games are so packed out and tickets unlikely that astronomical numbers of people are forced to watch it on TV. Compare that with RL, where the TV audiences far exceed tenfold the crowd figures. That indicates a sense of laziness or lack of passion in comparison.

10. RL has problems, what problems? As agreed before, if every NRL game attracted 0 people to the games, but had 100,000 people watching every game on TV, there is no doubt the game would be in strife. However, the same can't be said in reverse. If every NRL game was a sell-out, in 20k stadiums and 50k stadiums, but had 0 people watching on TV, the game would still be incredibly healthy. It MIGHT desire the TV rights, interest still, but it wouldn't NEED them. It needs CROWDS. So, the NRL's problem is that it needs to cure its ailing crowd figures. Sure, there's some statistical rise from 2005 to 2006, and while that's good, it still is a statistical milking. If every NRL game only attracted 10 people on ave in 2005, but in 2006, they got 100 people per game on ave, that would be a 1000% increase, and seemingly an amazing statistic. But it's not. That hypothetical ave crowd still indicates a game in crisis despite the surge in interest.

11. RU and NFL are not hindered by the structure of their game as being a TV-friendly game therefore it's UNDERSTANDABLE why there MIGHT be a poor crowd. However, RL is. The MAIN problem with RL, and WHY the crowds are low, is because RL is not as attractive or intelligent a game as RU or NFL in its structure. RU with unlimited tackle promotes free-flowing football at any part of the field. NFL with downs and 10 yard incentives, offers a far more free-flowing or attacking game at any part of the field. RL however is based around the structure that you only get 6 tackles to sweep the length of the field and score, therefore it promotes mediocrity in attack more than it promotes freedom for attack. The game is negatively based around minimizing mistakes, hence fewer passes, and playing a territorial game - hence, one-out dummy half runs looking for spaces behind the men standing at the mark. Make as much safe meterage, then kick the ball away lest we be the team who makes a mistake. A game of hot-potatoes. Give them the ball, let them make a mistake. Conservatively hit the ball up one-out, repetitively, then kick it away, and only attack when you're in a good position. In RU, you see more 80 meter tries, you see more passing exchanges at any part of the field, you see more breaks, you see more random attacking kicks and chips/grubbers from any part of the field. In NFL, you see a lot of 60-80 yard touchdown runs and passes. First down and 10, whether you're on your own 20 yard line or in the opposition's red-zone, the idea is to try to score on the first down. You see more long attacking mentality. One long pass, one clever trick play, one great run, and you can score - both NFL and RU. But in RL, it's never like this in the approach to the game. RL's mistake was leaving the unlimited tackle rule and starting a 4 decade long rule change after rule change trying to ape an NFL rule which it doesn't even understand. The NFL has 4 downs, BUT it's based around an incentive of 4 downs PER 10 yards. So, NFL and RU both still appreciate the idea of being able to control possession for a given amount of time and therefore have a certain flexibility to be more attacking. But RL just said, let's make it 4 (later 6) tackles ONLY. No incentives in controlling possession that can promote more attacking football. All they could do over the years was create a 10 meter distance between the two teams, which really only ended up promoting one-out dummy half runs as the bread-butter of how every game is played. 12 other guys stand around doing nothing but watching one guy run into a wall of players and get tackled. But in NFL, those 10 other guys are proactively blocking and creating holes for the ball to be promoted. While RU is centered around a constant maul that takes away all the big large men and opens up the field for exciting play between the backs. Meanwhile RL continues to have redundant rules like the Scrum and knock-ons. Those two were essential for an unlimited tackle game, as it was the only way that the opposition could earn the ball back. But now, the opposition will always get the ball back after 6 tackles, so there is no use having scrums and knock-ons as a way for the other team to get the ball back. Both RU and NFL are about controlling the ball thru ownership....winning mauls or converting first downs. In RU, being unlimited, therefore errors with the ball made sense. If you knock it on or transgress, fwd pass, etc, then you give the other team the opportunity to take ownership of the ball. In NFL, it's all about incentives...defensive incentive, force turnovers or halt their progress and you win the right to own the ball, offensive, continue to be attacking and converting your first downs, and you maintain ownership of the ball. However, in RL, it uncomfortably sits between Soccer/Gaelic/AFL type games and RU type games. Soccer/Gaelic/AFL, there is no ownership, the ball is a free for all. Marks in AFL aren't ownership because it only affords you a free kick, a kick which immediately places the ball back into contested possession/ownership. RL is half-half, because you can possess the ball for 6 tackles, but you cannot own it. What RL needs is to remove knock-ons, scrums, and do something like this - 5 tackles to cross the halfway line, if you achieve that, a restart of the tackle-count, where you now have 5 tackles to cross the oppositions goal-line. BUT...there are no repeat sets for opposition touching the ball, or trapping the other team in goal from a kick. If something like this was bravely done, you would find that the RL product is far more interesting to watch than it is now. It would suddenly MAKE SENSE. It would no longer be a pseudo-Rugby, pseudo-NFL game, where the laws/rules of the game are a hotch-potch of rules that do not even suit the game or have long been made redundant.

 

[Copernicus]

7. While MLB attracts 74 million, it's fairly humble 30k ave is actually a reflection that for some decades now Baseball in America has lost its reputation and love from fans. It used to be the number 1 sport in America, the American pastime. But due to many things, including no salary caps, drug scandals, and expense of attendances, as well as the growth of interest in NFL, Baseball has slipped far behind. One could look at the 74 million and be astounded, but the 30k actually tells a clearer story. The NFL only has 17 rounds a year, not sure what their aggregate crowds are, but if they're significantly lower than MLB, one COULD assume that Americans love MLB more than NFL, that MLB is a far more popular sport. But this is incorrect. NFL gets around 70k ave crowds. They only play 17 rounds, among 32 teams, and might only get 20 million aggregate. Yet purely because baseball has more teams and more games played in a season, they can achieve 74 million due to that. If Baseball was played only across 17 rounds, they'd get only 8-10 million compared to NFL. While if NFL was played as much as MLB was they would get 140 million+ aggregates.

You must have an awful lot of spare time!

On this note about baseball - attendances in the last ten or so years are actually the historic peak of baseball attendances. Historically only the most well known teams got decent attendances, but now all teams average at least 20,000 per year, give or take, and many average 40,000 plus to their home games. Scandals and such have made a difference but it's still very much a part of the cultural fabric over here.

 

[finders]

bums on seats (brisbane + queensland + australia + wizard cup), tv audiences (NRL + state of origin + test matches), gerneal interest (all media) ... RL is unchallenged in SEQ ... to argue otherwise is plain silly. to argue the gap was closing based on the Lions premiership era and the increased AFL grassroots investment is all true, but to think RL is in danger of losing its mantle on any level is silliness.

Then how come the Lions are still drawing big crowds at the Gabba when the are on the botton and the Broncos can only HALF fill Suncorp and they are a top team???
You are spinning S*** as uaual.

 

[gaelictiogar]

You must have an awful lot of spare time!

On this note about baseball - attendances in the last ten or so years are actually the historic peak of baseball attendances. Historically only the most well known teams got decent attendances, but now all teams average at least 20,000 per year, give or take, and many average 40,000 plus to their home games. Scandals and such have made a difference but it's still very much a part of the cultural fabric over here.

You are correct. G.G.'s posts are always fair and informed but his suggestion that MLB average is unimpressive simply ignores the reality of some 80± home games per year many in weekday afternoons. Would even Collingwood really get the crowds they get playing 6 days a week often on workday afternoons? NO.

The average MLB crowds are astounding in the circumstances.

 

[Exe Gesis]

Guys, I didn't mean to say MLB crowds are pathetic, or the game is in crisis, at all. What I meant was as raw statistics, anyone looking at 74 million agg and comparing it to 20 million agg for NFL would think MLB was more popular. It USED to be. But NFL is now more popular, or has been for some 10 yrs.

As for the 30k average, they are great figures. I didn't say they were unimpressive. Just revealing. What I meant was that compared to NFL's 60-70k ave is a better way of comparing the popularity of each sport.

It's true that Baseball can attract people mid-week, year round, which gives it a sense of superior appeal to many other sports, considering mid-week is usually an unpopular time for sport attendances year-round especially.

But for the sake of argument about the usefulness of statistical data, I was suggesting merely that ave is better at comparing sports than agg, I was just looking and using examples given to support that, not using those figures to put down MLB at all.

 

[littleduck]

Then how come the Lions are still drawing big crowds at the Gabba when the are on the botton and the Broncos can only HALF fill Suncorp and they are a top team???

good question.

 

[littleduck]

gg,

i think the ARU would much rather a full season comp with nearly 200 club games averaging 17,000 than a half season comp with 4 teams averaging 30,000.. dont you?

i think the ARU would much rather achieve tv ratings for the Wallabies similar to the Kangaroos and in their wet dream, tv ratings for the Wallabies similar to Origin, than achieve regular 83,000 sellouts at Telstra Stadium.. dont you?

 

[Ragnarok14]

Guys, I didn't mean to say MLB crowds are pathetic, or the game is in crisis, at all. What I meant was as raw statistics, anyone looking at 74 million agg and comparing it to 20 million agg for NFL would think MLB was more popular. It USED to be. But NFL is now more popular, or has been for some 10 yrs.

As for the 30k average, they are great figures. I didn't say they were unimpressive. Just revealing. What I meant was that compared to NFL's 60-70k ave is a better way of comparing the popularity of each sport.

It's true that Baseball can attract people mid-week, year round, which gives it a sense of superior appeal to many other sports, considering mid-week is usually an unpopular time for sport attendances year-round especially.

But for the sake of argument about the usefulness of statistical data, I was suggesting merely that ave is better at comparing sports than agg, I was just looking and using examples given to support that, not using those figures to put down MLB at all.

The thing is if there were as many games played in the NFL as there are in the MLB would that affect their average? most likely, I think you have to look at the games played as well as both the average per game and the total for the season to get a accurate view of what is a successful sport.

 

[Ragnarok14]

gg,

i think the ARU would much rather a full season comp with nearly 200 club games averaging 17,000 than a half season comp with 4 teams averaging 30,000.. dont you?

i think the ARU would much rather achieve tv ratings for the Wallabies similar to the Kangaroos and in their wet dream, tv ratings for the Wallabies similar to Origin, than achieve regular 83,000 sellouts at Telstra Stadium.. dont you?

The kangaroos get more ratings than the wallabies? what are you smoking, cos I want some.

 

[littleduck]

The kangaroos get more ratings than the wallabies?

yes, always.

 

[Exe Gesis]

Guys, I appreciate all your responses, even those that criticize my comments. Discussion is good.

In all things, when trying to draw comparisons between things, it will be always difficult to truly do so. There are always extenuating circumstances, histories, factors, differences, etc, that make it next to impossible to truly compare side by side.

Statistics therefore are a way, but they are not clear. There is always interpretation, manipulation, etc. Cricket - try comparing Don Bradman to Brian Lara, Fred Spofforth to Dennis Lillee, Graeme Smith to Matthew Hayden, etc. There are so many factors that make it impossible to say anything with certainty. Statistics are a guide.

With determining a sports pecking order popularity, as someone mentioned earlier, there is far more than just tv ratings and crowds, there is also junior involvment, publication sales, and myriad of other factors. But, the one way is usually crowd figures. Seeing as a sport is a showcase of talent, that is meant for public consumption traditionally via crowds, which wont ever change, then that is a good way to try to compare sports. There are factors still like amount of teams, rounds a year, games a year, and the differences therein between two sports one is comparing. But ave crowds for purely comp games I think is a good way. If AFL had more teams, if RU had more teams/games, if NRL had less teams/games, if MLB had less games/teams, if NFL had more teams/games....etc....all these can sort of be answered by determining ave crowds. Agg crowds make it impossible to compare due to all those differences. But ave is easier and more revealing.

Sure, adding/minusing teams/games from any sport would have an affect on ave and agg, I agree, but we are only ROUGHLY comparing different sports and trying to make some ROUGH judgment about it.

Generally speaking, would be the term to use in those judgments. As in, generally speaking, give or take, AFL > NRL, NFL > MLB, etc. I don't think anyone can really believe that NRL/RL is doing better than AFL/AR, or that AFL/AR is being strongly threatened by NRL/RL. There are agg figures and percentage increases from season to season, and TV ratings figures etc that can be used to manipulate an argument that NRL/RL is just as strong if not stronger than AFL/AR, but it's honestly a bit of a reach. Everyone has a sense, not relying on stats, that AFL > Cricket > Soccer > NRL > RU > NBL....some sort of pecking order like this, that roughly takes in crowds, tv, radio, publications, junior involvment, international benefits, earnings, assets, media exposure around australia, etc.

The basis of this thread has always been AFL people "gloating" about the #1 position of their sport, and NRL people trying to argue that they're either better positioned than AFL or at least much closer than what people realize. There is derision from the AFL side that NRL is weaker and will always be, and that AFL is more attractive to watch. There is offense taken from the NRL side that AFL is softer, and not as popular where it matters (NSW-QLD) due to the higher populations there than WA/SA/TAS/NT combined.

The bottom line with this thread, everyone deep down knows AFL is more popular, more "australian", spreads to far more areas/cities in australia, therefore has an advantage, can grow far more east than RL can west, etc. AFL people and NRL people have always been at war over which sport is better....bum-sniffers thugby vs gayfl aerial ping pong. To be perfectly honest, I agree with both extremes. AR is overly keepings-off, more like a soccer type of game of free flowing action with emphasis on aerial skills, foot skills, marking, and avoiding tackles etc. While RL is overly rugged, with minimal positive action, more negating type of play, more tedious by nature, and a lot of the laws/rules of the game are stupid compared to RU or NFL's structure of play. AFL can be soft like soccer with dives and the growing emphasis on penalizing contact etc. While RL can be overly thuggish without the beauty of NFL's skills involved. Both sports have their flaws as well as their positives.

So what's the argument really? RL people just getting offended by the self-superior attitude of AFL people that their game is better and HAHA because we get bigger crowds, and AFL people smirking at any suggestion that RL is a better game or is even close to the popularity/involvment that AFL has. AFL feels only challenged by the potential future of Soccer. Let's not forget that it's unfair to label AFL people self-superior when in the same breath, RL people smirk, scoff, and deride RU as being no match for RL in popularity and as a better game.

I value everyone's perspective/opinions, mine are often not as intelligent as all yours. I just believe, with some foresight, some intuition, that AFL has the best advantage in australia, with nation-wide support, and century old involvment to some degree, talent everywhere, it's played in every state far better levels than RL is. It has more potential to become even stronger and healthier than RL. That Soccer has a potential boom ability to challenge AFL in this nation, over the next decades, due to its massive international infrastructure and dollars. Therefore, RU likewise has more potential and growth than RL in this nation for the same reasons. That inevitably, RL is going to dwindle further, fall behind RU one day decades from now, and that it therefore MUST try to re-invent itself.

Look at the recent PS3, Xbox360 and Nintendo Wii consoles. Nintendo can not compete with the powerhouse MS and Sony corps. Both PS3 and 360 are so similar that they negate each others consoles. Little differences in both. Nintendo as a company, were brave to create their own niche which doesnt directly compete with the other two, yet in doing so ensures its long-term success. As a business, it was smart, even if the console itself isnt so wonderful.

In my mind, when RL changed from unlimited tackles, and tried to copy the NFL 4 tackle style, started a process over the next 40 years where it has slowly become and also slowly trying to become its own niche sport. Not a Rugby anymore. American football itself did the same thing a hundred years ago. It's own niche type of sport, where its historical fundamentals can be traced to Rugby Union, but entirely now its own product. RL to me, is still in a limbo where it is neither Rugby Union and neither the niche product it is trying to be. It hasn't found itself yet. And it's obvious from watching RL that you can see this in all the onfield rules/laws. There are redundant laws and structures that just exist still because the rule-makers havent the balls or the vision or understanding of where the sport is trying to go. They just dont know what to do with many aspects of the game, and probably are guilty of trying to hold onto too much the idea of its Rugby aspects. The actual NRL product therefore suffers I believe due to this. The smaller crowds are relatively associated because there's SOMETHING wrong with the structure of the game. Scrums are a joke, play is too negative, the boof-headedness of the game is apparent, players roles are not specialized enough, etc. RL needs to change and become its own niche sport that is different from Rugby but also different from NFL, while somehow borrowing aspects of both, in some small way, that gives it a better visual appeal and appreciation of its tactics etc.

I obviously have my ideas how to improve, as do many others. But the core thing I believe is that the game cannot revert back to unlimited and resemble Rugby again, but has to bravely move forward, which will rub noses the wrong way. It needs to - 1. remove knocks-on completely, 2. replace scrums with play the balls only, 3. 4/5/6 tackles to make halfway, 4/5/6 tackles to make goalline (one suggestion), 4. Minimize the emphasis on bombs and grubbers in goal and as an attacking option, 5. No change of possession for running out the sidelines, just a playtheball continuing the tacklecount, 6. Penalties awarded based on NFL-like 10 or 20 meter results, 7. No kicks from penalties to make territory, 8. No shots on goal for penalties, just meterage penalties, etc....

For those complaining that a lot of those ideas are NFL-like, just remember how long NRL has been copying NFL like ideas, but applying them stupidly at times. How many team nicknames straight NFL copies. The gridiron field copy. The tackle structure copied without the same logic behind it. The OT/Golden Point system. The cheerleaders. The terms like Completion rates, which are stupidly applied, negatively connotated. Completion in NFL = attacking daring move completed. Completion in NRL = negatively conservatively holding onto the ball for 6 tackles.

I could go on and on....so I will from now on, make everything I say more brief because I don't want to bore everyone.

Conclusion....RL is an ok product, but has its flaws in structure of play that hinders it from being more spectated. Crowd figures are more important than TV ratings. Tv ratings are not dispensable, but a sport's bread and butter is always going to be paying spectators at games. It is the basis upon which TV deals/ratings are further driven. RL is at a big disadvantage to RU in terms of international involvment and money, the affects of which will be felt with each passing decade, as sport around the world becomes more globally orientated/driven. RU has more chance than RL of expanding West in Australia. Though East coast is more populated and important, in future years the non-NSW market will matter more and more, make a sport more National, give it more international exposure, give it more junior involvment, more popularity, therefore diminishing the predominantly east-coast 'national' comp of RL. One day, NSW will embrace RU more than RL due to all those factors IF RL remains too similar to RU but is more boring/riddled with flaws in the rules. While RL is killing RU, the future is brighter for RU in Australia. More potential, growth, global cause-effect. The only way RL can push away the RU threat and start challenging AFL for dominance, IMO, is to re-invent itself, its rules, and create its own niche code. With that 100 yr basis and infrastructure already there, with a very large supporter following, making such a reinvention of itself will allow it to keep much of its old supporter base while invigorating and interesting WA/SA/NT/TAS etc with a new kind of football sport that is more physically rugged than AFL yet just as free-flowing and reckless as AFL. There are many many people disenchanted with the direction the AFL is taking the AR game, making it more Gaelic etc, so this is how, IMO, RL can overtake AR while also separating itself from the RU threat.

 

[HavUEvaSeenTheRain]

Guys, I appreciate all your responses, even those that criticize my comments. Discussion is good.

In all things, when trying to draw comparisons between things, it will be always difficult to truly do so. There are always extenuating circumstances, histories, factors, differences, etc, that make it next to impossible to truly compare side by side.

Statistics therefore are a way, but they are not clear. There is always interpretation, manipulation, etc. Cricket - try comparing Don Bradman to Brian Lara, Fred Spofforth to Dennis Lillee, Graeme Smith to Matthew Hayden, etc. There are so many factors that make it impossible to say anything with certainty. Statistics are a guide.

With determining a sports pecking order popularity, as someone mentioned earlier, there is far more than just tv ratings and crowds, there is also junior involvment, publication sales, and myriad of other factors. But, the one way is usually crowd figures. Seeing as a sport is a showcase of talent, that is meant for public consumption traditionally via crowds, which wont ever change, then that is a good way to try to compare sports. There are factors still like amount of teams, rounds a year, games a year, and the differences therein between two sports one is comparing. But ave crowds for purely comp games I think is a good way. If AFL had more teams, if RU had more teams/games, if NRL had less teams/games, if MLB had less games/teams, if NFL had more teams/games....etc....all these can sort of be answered by determining ave crowds. Agg crowds make it impossible to compare due to all those differences. But ave is easier and more revealing.

Sure, adding/minusing teams/games from any sport would have an affect on ave and agg, I agree, but we are only ROUGHLY comparing different sports and trying to make some ROUGH judgment about it.

Generally speaking, would be the term to use in those judgments. As in, generally speaking, give or take, AFL > NRL, NFL > MLB, etc. I don't think anyone can really believe that NRL/RL is doing better than AFL/AR, or that AFL/AR is being strongly threatened by NRL/RL. There are agg figures and percentage increases from season to season, and TV ratings figures etc that can be used to manipulate an argument that NRL/RL is just as strong if not stronger than AFL/AR, but it's honestly a bit of a reach. Everyone has a sense, not relying on stats, that AFL > Cricket > Soccer > NRL > RU > NBL....some sort of pecking order like this, that roughly takes in crowds, tv, radio, publications, junior involvment, international benefits, earnings, assets, media exposure around australia, etc.

The basis of this thread has always been AFL people "gloating" about the #1 position of their sport, and NRL people trying to argue that they're either better positioned than AFL or at least much closer than what people realize. There is derision from the AFL side that NRL is weaker and will always be, and that AFL is more attractive to watch. There is offense taken from the NRL side that AFL is softer, and not as popular where it matters (NSW-QLD) due to the higher populations there than WA/SA/TAS/NT combined.

The bottom line with this thread, everyone deep down knows AFL is more popular, more "australian", spreads to far more areas/cities in australia, therefore has an advantage, can grow far more east than RL can west, etc. AFL people and NRL people have always been at war over which sport is better....bum-sniffers thugby vs gayfl aerial ping pong. To be perfectly honest, I agree with both extremes. AR is overly keepings-off, more like a soccer type of game of free flowing action with emphasis on aerial skills, foot skills, marking, and avoiding tackles etc. While RL is overly rugged, with minimal positive action, more negating type of play, more tedious by nature, and a lot of the laws/rules of the game are stupid compared to RU or NFL's structure of play. AFL can be soft like soccer with dives and the growing emphasis on penalizing contact etc. While RL can be overly thuggish without the beauty of NFL's skills involved. Both sports have their flaws as well as their positives.

So what's the argument really? RL people just getting offended by the self-superior attitude of AFL people that their game is better and HAHA because we get bigger crowds, and AFL people smirking at any suggestion that RL is a better game or is even close to the popularity/involvment that AFL has. AFL feels only challenged by the potential future of Soccer. Let's not forget that it's unfair to label AFL people self-superior when in the same breath, RL people smirk, scoff, and deride RU as being no match for RL in popularity and as a better game.

I value everyone's perspective/opinions, mine are often not as intelligent as all yours. I just believe, with some foresight, some intuition, that AFL has the best advantage in australia, with nation-wide support, and century old involvment to some degree, talent everywhere, it's played in every state far better levels than RL is. It has more potential to become even stronger and healthier than RL. That Soccer has a potential boom ability to challenge AFL in this nation, over the next decades, due to its massive international infrastructure and dollars. Therefore, RU likewise has more potential and growth than RL in this nation for the same reasons. That inevitably, RL is going to dwindle further, fall behind RU one day decades from now, and that it therefore MUST try to re-invent itself.

Look at the recent PS3, Xbox360 and Nintendo Wii consoles. Nintendo can not compete with the powerhouse MS and Sony corps. Both PS3 and 360 are so similar that they negate each others consoles. Little differences in both. Nintendo as a company, were brave to create their own niche which doesnt directly compete with the other two, yet in doing so ensures its long-term success. As a business, it was smart, even if the console itself isnt so wonderful.

In my mind, when RL changed from unlimited tackles, and tried to copy the NFL 4 tackle style, started a process over the next 40 years where it has slowly become and also slowly trying to become its own niche sport. Not a Rugby anymore. American football itself did the same thing a hundred years ago. It's own niche type of sport, where its historical fundamentals can be traced to Rugby Union, but entirely now its own product. RL to me, is still in a limbo where it is neither Rugby Union and neither the niche product it is trying to be. It hasn't found itself yet. And it's obvious from watching RL that you can see this in all the onfield rules/laws. There are redundant laws and structures that just exist still because the rule-makers havent the balls or the vision or understanding of where the sport is trying to go. They just dont know what to do with many aspects of the game, and probably are guilty of trying to hold onto too much the idea of its Rugby aspects. The actual NRL product therefore suffers I believe due to this. The smaller crowds are relatively associated because there's SOMETHING wrong with the structure of the game. Scrums are a joke, play is too negative, the boof-headedness of the game is apparent, players roles are not specialized enough, etc. RL needs to change and become its own niche sport that is different from Rugby but also different from NFL, while somehow borrowing aspects of both, in some small way, that gives it a better visual appeal and appreciation of its tactics etc.

I obviously have my ideas how to improve, as do many others. But the core thing I believe is that the game cannot revert back to unlimited and resemble Rugby again, but has to bravely move forward, which will rub noses the wrong way. It needs to - 1. remove knocks-on completely, 2. replace scrums with play the balls only, 3. 4/5/6 tackles to make halfway, 4/5/6 tackles to make goalline (one suggestion), 4. Minimize the emphasis on bombs and grubbers in goal and as an attacking option, 5. No change of possession for running out the sidelines, just a playtheball continuing the tacklecount, 6. Penalties awarded based on NFL-like 10 or 20 meter results, 7. No kicks from penalties to make territory, 8. No shots on goal for penalties, just meterage penalties, etc....

For those complaining that a lot of those ideas are NFL-like, just remember how long NRL has been copying NFL like ideas, but applying them stupidly at times. How many team nicknames straight NFL copies. The gridiron field copy. The tackle structure copied without the same logic behind it. The OT/Golden Point system. The cheerleaders. The terms like Completion rates, which are stupidly applied, negatively connotated. Completion in NFL = attacking daring move completed. Completion in NRL = negatively conservatively holding onto the ball for 6 tackles.

I could go on and on....so I will from now on, make everything I say more brief because I don't want to bore everyone.

Conclusion....RL is an ok product, but has its flaws in structure of play that hinders it from being more spectated. Crowd figures are more important than TV ratings. Tv ratings are not dispensable, but a sport's bread and butter is always going to be paying spectators at games. It is the basis upon which TV deals/ratings are further driven. RL is at a big disadvantage to RU in terms of international involvment and money, the affects of which will be felt with each passing decade, as sport around the world becomes more globally orientated/driven. RU has more chance than RL of expanding West in Australia. Though East coast is more populated and important, in future years the non-NSW market will matter more and more, make a sport more National, give it more international exposure, give it more junior involvment, more popularity, therefore diminishing the predominantly east-coast 'national' comp of RL. One day, NSW will embrace RU more than RL due to all those factors IF RL remains too similar to RU but is more boring/riddled with flaws in the rules. While RL is killing RU, the future is brighter for RU in Australia. More potential, growth, global cause-effect. The only way RL can push away the RU threat and start challenging AFL for dominance, IMO, is to re-invent itself, its rules, and create its own niche code. With that 100 yr basis and infrastructure already there, with a very large supporter following, making such a reinvention of itself will allow it to keep much of its old supporter base while invigorating and interesting WA/SA/NT/TAS etc with a new kind of football sport that is more physically rugged than AFL yet just as free-flowing and reckless as AFL. There are many many people disenchanted with the direction the AFL is taking the AR game, making it more Gaelic etc, so this is how, IMO, RL can overtake AR while also separating itself from the RU threat.

You have too much time on your hands

 

[Exe Gesis]

Only on 3 days a week. One or two big posts a day. If I'm freer, I'll post more often but shorter posts. 4 posts per day ave. Far from having too much time on my hands.

 

[Jimthegreat]

yes, always.

Nationally? They show the Wallabies matches played here (and away) live in Victoria. Don't do that for the Kangaroos (RL national team, not the AFL team). They're on at midnight. The only time the Kangaroos are live here is when they play in England and no-one really cares that much anyway, not like they do watching the Wallabies. I'm guessing if you took the 2 codes nationally the Wallabies would be way more popular than the Kangaroos. Would not evn be remotely close in Victoria a the Wallablies actually have a following and can attract some real attention. Imagine it'd be the same in WA, hence the Super 14 team there. The Wallabies can almost fill a stadium anywhere in Australia, can't say that about the Kangaroos.

 

[littleduck]

Nationally?

Yes.

They show the Wallabies matches played here (and away) live in Victoria. Don't do that for the Kangaroos (RL national team, not the AFL team). They're on at midnight. The only time the Kangaroos are live here is when they play in England and no-one really cares that much anyway, not like they do watching the Wallabies. I'm guessing if you took the 2 codes nationally the Wallabies would be way more popular than the Kangaroos. Would not evn be remotely close in Victoria a the Wallablies actually have a following and can attract some real attention. Imagine it'd be the same in WA, hence the Super 14 team there. The Wallabies can almost fill a stadium anywhere in Australia, can't say that about the Kangaroos.

The gap in tv audiences in NSW/QLD in favour of the Kangaroos is enough to accomodate the ratings for Wallabies live coverage in VIC SA WA.

 

[Jimthegreat]

Yes.The gap in tv audiences in NSW/QLD in favour of the Kangaroos is enough to accomodate the ratings for Wallabies live coverage in VIC SA WA.

I'd like to see it. Not saying you're wrong but I'd like to see the figures. I had the impression the Wallabies were way more popular than the Kangaroos due to the "care factor" alone. I'm sure the Wallabies draw bigger crowds, but once again I don't have figures.

No doubt about the AFL V NRL threads, they grow legs. This is another one that's hit 40 pages. Suppose once you've gone through the crap, called each other idiots, w@ankers etc (which I've done too in moment of frustration and regretted it later given they're just opinions, and I'm sure I'll do it again....many times...lol) it's a subject that seems to inspire passionate debate amongst it various supporters.

 

[littleduck]

Generally speaking, would be the term to use in those judgments. As in, generally speaking, give or take, AFL > NRL ... I don't think anyone can really believe that NRL/RL is doing better than AFL/AR, or that AFL/AR is being strongly threatened by NRL/RL.

Overall nationally, RL will never again challenge for market leadership like they did in the early 90's, but RL doesnt even get to the starting gate in some of the country. Overall, around the world, RL > AFL, and that will never change.

The basis of this thread has always been AFL people "gloating" about the #1 position of their sport, and NRL people trying to argue that they're either better positioned than AFL or at least much closer than what people realize. There is derision from the AFL side that NRL is weaker and will always be, and that AFL is more attractive to watch. There is offense taken from the NRL side that AFL is softer, and not as popular where it matters (NSW-QLD) due to the higher populations there than WA/SA/TAS/NT combined.

AFL is #1 across all of its key markets (the capital cities of every state + southern country regions). NRL is #1 across all of its key markets (east coast: cities + country).

The bottom line with this thread, everyone deep down knows AFL is .. more "australian",

Codswallop. AFL does not retain a competitive advantage over other codes for being "more Australian". RL has been played for a century in this country at the highest level. There is nothing more Australian than attending or playing footy (of the RL variety) on winter weekends. Ditto for RU. Soccer is different bcoz its never been played at the highest level in this country.

I just believe, with some foresight, some intuition, that AFL has the best advantage in australia, with nation-wide support, and century old involvment to some degree, talent everywhere, it's played in every state far better levels than RL is. It has more potential to become even stronger and healthier than RL.

I agree that AFL will forever be unchallenged as the most popular football code nationally.

That Soccer has a potential boom ability to challenge AFL in this nation, over the next decades, due to its massive international infrastructure and dollars.

No, it doesnt. Soccer has the potential boom ability to rival RU in this country... ie Wallabies/Socceroos being the international brand, and S14/Asian Club Comp being at a similar level. Soccer has no realistic ability to challenge RL or AFL.

Therefore, RU likewise has more potential and growth than RL in this nation for the same reasons. That inevitably, RL is going to dwindle further, fall behind RU one day decades from now, and that it therefore MUST try to re-invent itself.

Rubbish. There is no evidence at all of that. The most recent evidence of the opposite is RU broadcast rights declining and RL broadcast rights significantly increasing. If RU had the potential for growth that you like to believe, that wouldnt have happened.

In my mind, when RL changed from unlimited tackles, and tried to copy the NFL 4 tackle style, started a process over the next 40 years where it has slowly become and also slowly trying to become its own niche sport. Not a Rugby anymore. American football itself did the same thing a hundred years ago. It's own niche type of sport, where its historical fundamentals can be traced to Rugby Union, but entirely now its own product. RL to me, is still in a limbo where it is neither Rugby Union and neither the niche product it is trying to be. It hasn't found itself yet. And it's obvious from watching RL that you can see this in all the onfield rules/laws. There are redundant laws and structures that just exist still because the rule-makers havent the balls or the vision or understanding of where the sport is trying to go. They just dont know what to do with many aspects of the game, and probably are guilty of trying to hold onto too much the idea of its Rugby aspects. The actual NRL product therefore suffers I believe due to this.

Nonsensical codswallop. All of it.

The smaller crowds are relatively associated because there's SOMETHING wrong with the structure of the game. Scrums are a joke, play is too negative, the boof-headedness of the game is apparent, players roles are not specialized enough, etc. RL needs to change and become its own niche sport that is different from Rugby but also different from NFL, while somehow borrowing aspects of both, in some small way, that gives it a better visual appeal and appreciation of its tactics etc.

Nonsensical codswallop.

I obviously have my ideas how to improve, as do many others. But the core thing I believe is that the game cannot revert back to unlimited and resemble Rugby again, but has to bravely move forward, which will rub noses the wrong way. It needs to - 1. remove knocks-on completely, 2. replace scrums with play the balls only, 3. 4/5/6 tackles to make halfway, 4/5/6 tackles to make goalline (one suggestion), 4. Minimize the emphasis on bombs and grubbers in goal and as an attacking option, 5. No change of possession for running out the sidelines, just a playtheball continuing the tacklecount, 6. Penalties awarded based on NFL-like 10 or 20 meter results, 7. No kicks from penalties to make territory, 8. No shots on goal for penalties, just meterage penalties, etc....

Codswallop. I disagree with every single suggestion.

Conclusion....RL is an ok product, but has its flaws in structure of play that hinders it from being more spectated.

Personal opinion only... but it's your right to hold an extreme minority opinion.

Crowd figures are more important than TV ratings. Tv ratings are not dispensable, but a sport's bread and butter is always going to be paying spectators at games.

No, it's not anymore.

It is the basis upon which TV deals/ratings are further driven.

No, its not. Tv ratings drive bigger and better tv deals.

RL is at a big disadvantage to RU in terms of international involvment and money, the affects of which will be felt with each passing decade, as sport around the world becomes more globally orientated/driven.

True, but if RL is at a big disadvantage relative to RU, AFL is an even bigger disadvantage...

RU has more chance than RL of expanding West in Australia.

Absolutely. No chance -v- Greatchance.

Though East coast is more populated and important, in future years the non-NSW market will matter more and more, make a sport more National, give it more international exposure, give it more junior involvment, more popularity, therefore diminishing the predominantly east-coast 'national' comp of RL.

False because the biggest growth areas in this nation are in RL heartland, particularly South East Queensland, and every single population projection has RL heartland states growing more rapidly population-wise than AFL heartland states. Whereas the RL loving half of the country currently represents 52% of the population, every population projection I've seen says that percentage will rise in a decade or two to a little beyond 60%.

Therefore, my view is that RL is better placed within NSW/QLD (the growth states) than AFL to ensure future dominant market leadership in its traditional heartland.

One day, NSW will embrace RU more than RL due to all those factors

I dont even think the ARU truly believes that, even in their wet dreams.

IF RL remains too similar to RU but is more boring/riddled with flaws in the rules. While RL is killing RU, the future is brighter for RU in Australia.

Codswallop. Re-read above about the broadcast rights revenue trend of both codes in recent months.

More potential, growth, global cause-effect. The only way RL can push away the RU threat and start challenging AFL for dominance, IMO, is to re-invent itself, its rules, and create its own niche code.

Disagree with the rules argument, and disagree that RL is intent on challenging AFL for natioal dominance at some future point. The reality is WA and SA are lost forever as expansion markets, but those states are our weakest financial centres and lowest populated mainland states.

With that 100 yr basis and infrastructure already there, with a very large supporter following, making such a reinvention of itself will allow it to keep much of its old supporter base while invigorating and interesting WA/SA/NT/TAS etc with a new kind of football sport that is more physically rugged than AFL yet just as free-flowing and reckless as AFL.

Sounds good in theory, but is not now the goal of RL, and shoudlnt be.

There are many many people disenchanted with the direction the AFL is taking the AR game, making it more Gaelic etc, so this is how, IMO, RL can overtake AR while also separating itself from the RU threat.

NEWSFLASH: AFL is assured of future national market leadership and RL wont ever again be in a position to overtake AFL.

 

[littleduck]

I'd like to see it. Not saying you're wrong but I'd like to see the figures. I had the impression the Wallabies were way more popular than the Kangaroos due to the "care factor" alone. I'm sure the Wallabies draw bigger crowds, but once again I don't have figures.

Crowd-wise, Wallabies Test Matches are always better-attended events than Kangaroos Test Matches, but ratings-wise they remain well behind Kangaroos Test Matches.

No doubt about the AFL V NRL threads, they grow legs. This is another one that's hit 40 pages. Suppose once you've gone through the crap, called each other idiots, w@ankers etc (which I've done too in moment of frustration and regretted it later given they're just opinions, and I'm sure I'll do it again....many times...lol) it's a subject that seems to inspire passionate debate amongst it various supporters.

The reality is neither AFL nor RL are inherently superior games to play/watch, merely different. The success of both codes is arguably more about off-field success than the actual game itself, as both codes are pretty bl00dy good games to play/watch. There can be no doubt that AFL is only ahead of RL nationally because of its off-field unified governance structure and excellent strategic decision-making over the last decade, while RL in that time caused itself damamge via a very very expensive civil war (both in terms of money and fan interest), and there remains a dis-united governance structure.

 

[Exe Gesis]

Littleduck, I always appreciate your replies, because you don't skim over anything, but give an effort to respond to every little thing. Thanks.

Firstly, what I meant by AR is more 'australian' - is that it is played at higher levels across more of australia. I didnt mean conceptually more Australian, i meant infrastructure and lcoation.

About what you replied, I'm not right about everything. You're smarter than I. So when I read I do learn, or challenge my own beliefs/understanding.

While certain things seem a sure thing at the moment, like RL the dominant east-coast sport, RU never challenge RL in australia, AR never challenged by Soccer or RL/RU in australia, etc....I wouldn't be surprised one day to see Soccer a bigger crowd/tv-rater than RL, Soccer challenging AFL, AFL being challenged by RU, RU beating RL in australia.

There are definite facts and stats that would suggest all this I mention is codswallop, and I don't deny that. But if I or you or anyone had to come up with any visionary predictions of the future in australian sport, it's just my opinion that RU and Soccer have by far the most potential to dominate australian codes due to the growing reliance on overseas markets.

Soccer especially with the huge junior involvment/development happening, this is like a revolution sweeping underneath us. RU has more challenges and obstacles ahead of it, but it too does have the same potential to be enjoying the same junior involvment/development that soccer is now enjoying.

AR is #1 and seems a huge reach to suggest it could ever be challenged, but one of the reasons why I think it's possible is this - the AFL itself is damaging the game and the product, and many fans nationwide, there's a growing sense of disenchantment. With all the year-in rule changes making the game softer, more Gaelic, or a hybrid, etc, and with the Victorian clubs facing the barrel of the gun with every year, and it seems inevitable that clubs will merge, relocate or fold, also to make way for new expansion teams, there is a possibility that the Sport-mad Vic public (who DO love RU and Soccer far more than NSW/QLD), could wash their hands of AR and start embracing those other codes in full swing. Soccer has the foundation and clubs now, so Soccer would be the first sport in Victoria to get a major increase in support. The RU would be next in line once they get a Melbourne team in the S14's.

If teams like Hawthorn, St Kilda, Bulldogs, Kangaroos, Melbourne, let alone Carlton, or Richmond, but if any combination of some or all of those teams folded, merged, relocated, leaving only Essendon, Cwood, Geelong, Carlton, Richmond in Melbourne.....the total membership fanbase of Ess, Cwood, Geelong, Carlton, Richmond would mean 'x' million people. While the total membership and fanbase of those merged, relocated, folded teams would equal roughly the same number of millions.

Many Melbournites have said they'd stop following AFL if their team merged, folded, relocated, and many are borderline losing interest in AR due to the AFL inspired rule changes making the game softer and gaelic. They've even said they'd start following A-league. However, they COULD also start following RU (if there was a team there, as that is a more entertaining game than Soccer), or they could follow a new type of football, if the RL product did some re-inventing. I just mean....there's warning signs, there's air of disenchantment, and other sports COULD challenge AFL with a bit of luck and a bit of strategic changes to their own sports.

The AFL is trying to blend gaelic and AR into a uniform set of laws, and gaelic is trying to blend AR and gaelic into a uniform set of laws....all for the purpose of perhaps expanding the whole IR game itself, making it a bigger product. Giving AFL some international chance of expanding. Gaelic is an ally because there's already that market there, already those players who are accustomed to similar play. Both comps would benefit from each other by merging, but neither could convert the other over. The AFL cannot make the GAA turn fully AR, and the GAA cannot make the AFL fully Gaelic. But they can blend gradually, immediately creating a player exchange program, an international market as intense as the RL Kangaroos v Grt Britain tests. While nations like South Africa, Denmark, NZ, etc, cut their teeth over the decades learning to play and like AR, by the time Gaelic/AFL have blended into a unified type of code, those expansion nations can more easily adapt and conform to that.

It's not a sure thing, but if the AFL did have a secret determined agenda to do all this for the future well-being of the code in Australia/internationally, not only would the Vic public, but the SANFL, WAFL, or the fans in those states, would also be disillusioned by the direction of the game. Imagine it happened, the Perth public would embrace RU big time, their Western Force, would be more popular or challenging the popularity of the Eagles in some new hybrid AFL comp.

While the AFL/AR is safe for now, I don't think it's impossible to see HOW or WHY other codes can actually challenge it eventually, given a bit of luck, mismanagement, international factors, junior development, disenchanted fanbases, etc.

 

[littleduck]

I wouldn't be surprised one day to see Soccer a bigger crowd/tv-rater than RL, Soccer challenging AFL, AFL being challenged by RU, RU beating RL in australia.

I would, but anything is possible.

AR is #1 and seems a huge reach to suggest it could ever be challenged, but one of the reasons why I think it's possible is this - the AFL itself is damaging the game and the product, and many fans nationwide, there's a growing sense of disenchantment. With all the year-in rule changes making the game softer, more Gaelic, or a hybrid, etc, and with the Victorian clubs facing the barrel of the gun with every year, and it seems inevitable that clubs will merge, relocate or fold, also to make way for new expansion teams, there is a possibility that the Sport-mad Vic public (who DO love RU and Soccer far more than NSW/QLD), could wash their hands of AR and start embracing those other codes in full swing.

Vics might be seeing their game evolve away from what they use to know, but I totally disagree with the rest.

Soccer has the foundation and clubs now, so Soccer would be the first sport in Victoria to get a major increase in support. The RU would be next in line once they get a Melbourne team in the S14's.

Their potential is for a high profile niche market. No rival code can challenge AFL in Melbourne.

If teams like Hawthorn, St Kilda, Bulldogs, Kangaroos, Melbourne, let alone Carlton, or Richmond, but if any combination of some or all of those teams folded, merged, relocated, leaving only Essendon, Cwood, Geelong, Carlton, Richmond in Melbourne.....the total membership fanbase of Ess, Cwood, Geelong, Carlton, Richmond would mean 'x' million people. While the total membership and fanbase of those merged, relocated, folded teams would equal roughly the same number of millions.

True, which is why the AFL are committed to the status quo.

Many Melbournites have said they'd stop following AFL if their team merged, folded, relocated, and many are borderline losing interest in AR due to the AFL inspired rule changes making the game softer and gaelic. They've even said they'd start following A-league. However, they COULD also start following RU (if there was a team there, as that is a more entertaining game than Soccer), or they could follow a new type of football, if the RL product did some re-inventing. I just mean....there's warning signs, there's air of disenchantment, and other sports COULD challenge AFL with a bit of luck and a bit of strategic changes to their own sports.

You're talking about a Super League type unheavel in AFL. It wont happen. AFL has a central governing body for the whole game codes for defenctions like RU and RL. AFl has learnt the lessons of RL Super League. AFL is well placed to remain the #1 code nationally. However, in my view, AFL is currently experiencing many of the dilemmas faced by RL immediately pre Super-League and thats how to continue evolving into a more national competition with rationalisation of teams in 1 city and expansion in the rest of the nation.

 

[Exe Gesis]

Littleduck, but you know what Victorians are like, they're generally speaking very vic-centric, the rest of australia doesn't matter, etc.

If there was any number of rationalized teams in the AFL, they'd vomit. The afl IS the old vfl to most of them, with just a bunch of interstate usurpers ruining OUR (vic) game.

They would be forced to deal with the changes, like SA and WA had to, if their teams got the bullet one by one in mergers/relocations/foldings, in seeing their old vfl (aka afl) turned into a less vic-centric comp, with only 4-5 vic teams in a total of 16 or 18 teams. You'd think they'd ultimately just deal with it and accept it.

But I think there's more chance of the fanbase revolting. The majority of the fanbase.

Theyd turn to soccer and RU, (the latter if there was a Melbourne team in place by then), in bigger droves and long before they'd turn to RL and the Melbourne Storm.

NSW and it's RL dominance can only be countered IF (it's a big if), Vic turns away from AFL (due to those reasons), WA already RU embraced, then SA follows suit, and there'd be slow Axis of territorial advancements made from the West thru SA towards VIC, with QLD and NSW already partial to RU, RL could be surrounded all sides with a growing interest in RU/Soccer.

 

[Bentleigh]

Littleduck, but you know what Victorians are like, they're generally speaking very vic-centric, the rest of australia doesn't matter, etc.

If there was any number of rationalized teams in the AFL, they'd vomit. The afl IS the old vfl to most of them, with just a bunch of interstate usurpers ruining OUR (vic) game

Amen Brother.