The comments speak to several issues regarding the future of the venerated interstate series. Hoffman's national team – now so strong that he finds it hard to get into it – recently beat the best of the Origin series, 26-12. Would an All Black wish to play in a NSW v Queensland rugby union match? The British broadcaster Rod Studd, of Sky television, tweeted me during Origin III saying: "Why not replace a tired Origin format with three Tests v the world's number one team. Is it purely a commercial exercise now?" The question displayed an ignorance of State of Origin's cultural significance. Every seat at Suncorp Stadium on Wednesday night for Queensland's 52-6 win was full and some estimates had one in four Australians watching on television. But Rod's suggestion also had its basis in logic. If State of Origin becomes the best of the second best (or even third best, should his mob have some overdue success soon) then it can hardly claim to be the game's pinnacle.

But the answer to the issues raised by Hoffman and Studd is disarmingly simple: NSW and Queensland are where rugby league is most popular in the world, so when they play each other, it's bound to be a big deal. It always will be. Past a certain point, quality is irrelevant. Does the Melbourne Cup's popularity among the casual fan from one year to the next fluctuate according to the strength of the field? Of course not. Like most pop culture touchstones in the social media age, State of Origin is going to get bigger and bigger. New media has a voracious appetite for established IP upon which it can feed and Origin is perfect for this But as the NRL draws more and more players from outside its participating states, the pool each will be able to draw upon will shrink. After second-choice hooker Michael Ennis, the Blues would have to have called up St George Illawarra's Mitch Rein, who has just been suspended.

Their lack of depth in the halves, meanwhile, is no doubt being written about as you read this by a dozen journalists, bloggers and tweeters. On the surface, there is nothing wrong with Origin being less representative of the talent in the NRL – which is increasingly coming from the islands, then Europe and even other Australian states – and still continuing to be a hugely powerful cash cow. But I can foresee two potential complications. One: how can we justify holding up a competition boasting the finest rugby league talent in the world so two Australian states play each other? I know we can justify it financially, but not in terms of fairness and equality, surely. I accept this is an extreme example I am using for effect: but would the English Premier League introduce split rounds so Lincolnshire could play Cumbria?

Secondly, can we really use Origin to drive expansion with games in Melbourne, Auckland, Hong Kong and the Sea Of Tranquillity when its relevance beyond its homelands will no doubt suffer as the NRL's playing population becomes more exotic? If, in terms of the percentage of players eligible, Origin becomes something like City-Country in two decades, do we really want it to be our front window as a sport, most visible to outsiders? I think not. Rugby league is at a pivotal moment in its until-now-stunted development as we digest the 2015 Origin series. And if I could name a test case, a patient zero, then it would be Semi Radradra. The Parramatta winger is a box-office star who is not eligible for either NSW or Queensland because he didn't live in either state before the age of 13. That is, unless you exploit a cynical loophole: that he played his first league in Sydney, after converting from rugby union.