As a consumer of the NRL, primarily through Fox, this is a pet dicussion of mine. The NRL has been a disgrace the past 6 weeks. It is absolutely horrible to watch and I have barely watched a match. The whole issue is Origin - a concept that is now dated and pointless.
Let's go back to why it started - wages. Queensland players moved to the NSWRL for wages and then played for NSW in the interstate clashes. So let's start State of Origin, it made sense in 1980\. It was great watching Origin in the 80's when you got to watch the likes of Lewis, Langer etc that weren't playing in the NSWRL.
Fast forward to 2014 - we have a nationalised wage system and we can watch Thurston, Cronk, Smith et al every week. The whole reason for starting SOO is now redundant. In fact, SOO played a key role in getting us to this point with the transformation of the NSWRL into the NRL from 1988.
Hence, let's view SOO for what it really is - marketing. SOO displays how the game can be played if you remove the salary cap. It's a great match to watch, but does the game need 3 matches, especially as it causes detriment to flagship product? Hence, if treated as a marketing concept, I would argue the game just needs 1 SOO per year - stand alone weekend and that's final.
The comeback to this argument is that it rates through the roof and generates 20% of the games revenue. The revenue statistic is disturbing - essentially the game has become reliant on a product that whilst having a reliance on the flagship product, at the same time, it causes significant erosion. A key question is if SOO was reduced to 1 match with the NRL product being enhanced is enhanced (ie: minimal reduction in quality - 1 week). would the drop in tv revenue from reducing SOO be recaptured somewhat as the NRL is now better quality for longer?
