Should the NRL move to a best of two Grand Final to decide the Premiers and boost revenues?

The State of Origin is one of highest rated sporting matches in Australia-one of the reasons being that it is a best of three series.

This brings to question, why isn’t something similar adopted for deciding the NRL Premiers?

I am aware that critics will argue that the season is already too long and a best of three games to determine the NRL Premiers is simply excessive.

I agree.

That is why instead of a best of three games series, it should be a best of two games that determine the year’s premier team. Thus resulting in only one extra game a week later.

I am sure that the Queensland Government and Victorian Government would happily bid and pay significant money to attract such a game.

Another commonly asked query would be: how would a best of two games work if each team was to win one each or as they say, result in a tie?

Here’s a theory: in order to win the title, the team that loses the first Grand Final will have to not only win the second game, it will have to score enough points to have the best aggregate for and against points for the two grand final games.

For instance, with Melbourne defeating the Canterbury Bulldogs 14-4 in the 2012 first Grand Final, the Bulldogs would not only have to win the second Grand Final, they would have to win it by more than 10 points to claim the title.

The benefits to this kind of series would be significant.

Channel Nine would happily pay more for another high rating game and the NRL would attract another large crowd to the stadiums.

Phil Gould, one of Channel Nine’s leading commentators suggested such an idea a few years ago, but the concept of a best of three was simply too impractical to become a reality.

However I believe that we should revisit the idea to have a best of two games series because it is practical to schedule it without extending the season for too long.

Many in favour of the idea also highlight that having just one 80 minute game decide an entire year’s competition is not enough. On the other hand, a best of two games series is a far fairer format.

If the State of Origin was decided by just one final game, it would have never achieved such high ratings or success.

Therefore, I don’t see why the Grand Final can’t become a two game decider?

Those who love their rugby league and don’t want the season to end too soon will certainly love seeing another game.

Moreover, the media interest would extend for yet another week.

Imagine if this year’s 2012 NRL decider was a two game series and the second decider was to be held in Melbourne at the MCG this weekend.

A huge crowd would be enthralled to watch the Storm defend that 10-point margin to take the title.

What do you prefer?

A grand final decided over just two 40 minute halves or over a best of 2 games?

Jamie McIntyre is the founder of the 21st Century Group of companies and CEO of 21st Century Education. He is also bestselling author, successful entrepreneur, investor, sought after success coach, internationally renowned speaker and world-leading educator. www.jamiemcintyre.com

Jamie McIntyre is the founder of the 21st Century Group of companies and CEO of 21st Century Education. He is also bestselling author, successful entrepreneur, investor, sought after success coach, internationally renowned speaker and world-leading educator. http://www.jamiemcintyre.com

Author Bio: Jamie McIntyre is the founder of the 21st Century Group of companies and CEO of 21st Century Education. He is also bestselling author, successful entrepreneur, investor, sought after success coach, internationally renowned speaker and world-leading educator. www.jamiemcintyre.com

Category: Opinions
Keywords: Articles, grand final two-game series, Jamie, McIntyre, NRL, rugby, rugby league