2016 Brisbane Broncos Resurrection Thread

ASIO wrote:
Honeysett and I disagree on this.  I don't think it would.  

Melbourne with 2 and a half times the population and a ridiculously successful team still only manage to average 13k or something at AAMI.  We get really excited when we get 20k to and NRL game here twice a year, but it is only twice a year and those crowds are primarily due to it being the Rabbits and/or Warriors playing.

Bren wrote:

ASIO wrote:
Honeysett and I disagree on this.  I don't think it would.  

Melbourne with 2 and a half times the population and a ridiculously successful team still only manage to average 13k or something at AAMI.  We get really excited when we get 20k to and NRL game here twice a year, but it is only twice a year and those crowds are primarily due to it being the Rabbits and/or Warriors playing.

But if Perth had its very own team then surely they would see a decent size crowd at home games? I mean what else is there to do in Perth besides watch footy and drink beer?

Talking about Perth it seems I might be over that way later this year. Might hit up the local watering holes and ask for a XXXX

Honeysett wrote:

Regardless to whether anyone thinks they may of won or not with Lockyer in the side, they didn't. Records only show the winners, they may have gone close but who knows what would have happened? Heresay and we can't use that when talking about facts.

If the Broncos won last year I would not class them as underachievers, I would say they have performed as they should and have done well to win a premiership in a hard climate. However, again, they didn't. I think for all they have going for them, like I have said though they've most certainly earned the majority of what they have they have underachieved massively in the last ten years to have only made one GF and not have won any.

As an added example, I think the Dogs have performed better than the Broncos despite not having the advantages that I view as superior (pretty much a set friday game slot on FTA - however one could agree the Dogs don't need to travel as much of which is another argument and is a valid point as well) They've made two GFs and despite not winning one have still performed better. As an example.

surmo13 wrote:

So bolded is an argument that strikes me as weird, because it's only ever used against the Broncos, but to use this season as an example: the Cowboys, Knights, Raiders, Storm, Titans and Warriors all played as many or more games on a single day of the week than the Broncos played on Friday, it either gives an advantage to all of them or none of them.

also i'm confused by your Bulldogs/Broncos example, you went on a whole 'history remembers the winners' diatribe... then decided the superior team of the two based on the matches they lost.

Bren wrote:
But if Perth had its very own team then surely they would see a decent size crowd at home games? I mean what else is there to do in Perth besides watch footy and drink beer?

Talking about Perth it seems I might be over that way later this year. Might hit up the local watering holes and ask for a XXXX

Honeysett wrote:

Yes and no, Cowboys, Warriors yes. Broncos are only an hour and a half outside Sydney on a flight. You wouldn't lose a great deal from that standpoint. Still more than Sydney teams of course, but I'd suggest that traveling from Newcastle to Sydney would take just as long with the drive.

surmo13 wrote:

Professional sports teams based in Brisbane:

Brisbane Bandits Baseball
Brisbane Bullets Basketball
Brisbane Barracudas Water polo
Queensland Breakers Water polo
Brisbane Broncos Rugby league
Brisbane Lions Australian rules football
Brisbane Roar Football
Queensland Blades Hockey
Queensland Scorchers Hockey
Queensland Bulls Cricket
Brisbane Heat Cricket
Queensland Fire Cricket
Queensland Firebirds Netball
Queensland Reds Rugby union
Brisbane City Cobras Touch Football
Triple Eight Race Engineering Motorsport

so just to clarify, when i said 13 i meant 11, because the format was shoddy and had water polo teams all over the place and thus i counted seperately, and no i didn't count the V8 Supercars team, because, and i might be wrong, i give exactly 0 shits about motorsport after all, i don't think supporting a 'team' because they they are based in your city is a thing in motorsports.

Oh right, the Newcastle Jets, I thought they folded when Tinkler blew all his money, shows how much attention i pay about soccer, but my jibe about Newcastle was sub-serviant to the point anyway, people act like the Broncos have all 2,000,000 people in that city to themselves because they are the only rugby league team, when the residents of the city have a treasure trove of professional sports team to choose from.

Honeysett wrote:

Our beaches are pretty amazing, although there's sweet fuck all else.

Perth would do alright I feel but would have to be successful for it to take off, like the Wildcats for example. They're starting to get quite the following. With rumours the Force will be booted in the future I think the NRL could put a team here but they will need to pump us up like the AFL have done to GWS.

Milchcow wrote:
Honestly, it's amazing the Broncos get the crowds they do, when they have to compete with the Barracudas water polo team.

They deserve even more accolades than they get

dasherhalo wrote:People always misrepresent the amount of time it takes to travel. If you're the home side, you rock up: job done.

If you have to fly, you've got to turn up, get to the airport (that's a pain in most majors), and then factoring in gate-waiting,  travel time, settling in to hotels, then travel to the ground, etc.

If you step onto a plane to go to a game, you're at a disadvantage, period. Cowboys and NZ just have it slightly worse.

Anyone saying "it's just an hour and a half away" is either unaware of the impact of an away game, or deliberately low-balling it, IMO

Pieman wrote:

You can look at it this way - every home game the Cowboys or NZ play, the other side has had to travel via plane to get there. So (according to the travel argument) they have a massive advantage over every side they play at home.

Dip wrote:

Except they don't because normally those teams had to travel back from their away match the previous weekend, so they have still done as much travel as the away team. Agreed when it comes to the second of back to back home games, on the few occasions that happens through the year.

Pieman wrote:

They dont come back the night before a game mate..
And when a side like the Cows or NZ have back to back games in sydney they just stay in sydney for the week, which pretty much eliminates the travel element for the second game

Dip wrote:
And eliminates use of their own training facilities, medical specialists, see family etc. I'm sure every reasonable person can agree that travelling 12 times a year is far more of a disadvantage than travelling 2-4 times a year.

Dip wrote:It's far easier to perform after travel when it is a once off rather than every other week. Although if you're right it's even more incredible we've won 4 grand finals against home teams.

Pieman wrote:

That is as sweeping a statement as I have ever heard. What is the proof or some sort of evidence behind that?