Aussie Player Exodus

[Quick Hands]

The pathway to improve the test team is to first improve the domestic rugby competition.. For the USA and Canada this means firstly establishing a professional competition,


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

You're right and as I understand it, this is happening.

 

[Quick Hands]

Next year they'll be in Super Rugby and they'll improve considerably as a result. The 2019 world cup is a massive goal. And after that they might well be ready for entry into the Rugby Championship. Perhaps not a title threat for several years, but sometimes you have to jump into the deep end! If SANZAR was run by the AFL, the Japanese and the Americans would probably already be involved in some way. They'd recognise the potential of the markets and have a proper crack at them.

100% agree with this. And they'd also work out some way to involve the PI.

The NRL are working at getting a team from PNG in - I understand they will be in the Qld Cup this year or next. They're also looking at throwing big dollars at Fiji and Samoa.

We're on the right side of history with this - I just hope that rugby gets with it before the chance is gone.

 

[Dave Beat]

The pathway to improve the test team is to first improve the domestic rugby competition.. For the USA and Canada this means firstly establishing a professional competition, and then from there slowly developing the talent pathway and academy programs to promote the right talent.. It will take a few years to reach maturity and then a few more years for the talent to be identified but it will lay the foundations for a better test team..

So let's say hypothetically a professional comp is started in 2016, it'll probably be another 4 to 5 years before the talent identification(11 -16yr olds) and development pathway start to produce players for the professional teams and flow into the test team..

Realistically I think we're looking at 2021/2022 before there would be any real improvement at the test level if a professional competition is established next year..


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

But we seem to be weakening our domestic comp at the moment now given the exodus. Does this mean it will happen sooner because we will meet in the middle?

 

[Omar Comin']

Whilst impressive wins, I have to point out both those teams were vastly weakened touring squads..

Italy weren't vastly weakened. And Japan played terribly in the match and still beat them.

 

[Omar Comin']

Realistically I think we're looking at 2021/2022 before there would be any real improvement at the test level if a professional competition is established next year..

You don't think a professional competition would immediately lift the standard of America's domestic based players? They already have a core of players in top European teams. Samu Manoa is one of the best players in European rugby - up until 2011, when he was 25 he was playing club rugby in the US! How many others like him are out there?

The growth in high school and college rugby has been huge in the past 5 years or so. The talent is there. What's missing at the moment is the opportunities.

But lets say it's 6 or 7 years. Is the smart thing to wait until they're truly competitive and have a lot of bargaining power, or would it be in SANZAR's interest to start bringing them into the fold now on terms that benefit SANZAR in the long term and help lift them up quicker in the short term?

 

[TOCC]

It would lift the standards, but not to a level which makes them internationally competitive...

Ive actually played a season of rugby union in the US in 2011, I played alongside 2 of the USA Eagles. I still consider playing in the US as my least enjoyable rugby experience.

There are a number of inherit issues one of which is the small pool of junior players.. Many of those seniors who play rugby never played it as a kid, it's a byproduct of American Football not having a senior league in the US, a large number of rugby players are those who played high school or college football and then joined rugby in their seniors(early 20's).. The issue is, these guys have already missed the boat, they are already years behind in technical skills, knowledge and experience.

From first hand experience the two biggest issues in the US is the poor levels of coaching and lack of development pathways for junior players to seniors.

Ultimately, it's going to take a long time to bridge the gap, one year of professional rugby won't fix it, it's going to take a decade of investment and upskilling coaching and talent identification before the benefits of professionalism and increased funding will truly flow through to the test team.

It's not like Australia or Argentina where there was already a pretty thorough amateur structure in place, the U.S. doesn't have that.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Strewthcobber]

I'll play the devils advocate.

Including USA, Canada, PIs and to a lesser extent Japan will all cost the ARU in the short and meduium term, and it would mean more of our players would be in Europe. Only long term is there any hope of an upside and by then it might be too late for the insolvent game in this country.

Here's why.
Firstly There's room for only so many test matches in the year. Additional games are probably going to draw an Argentian sized crowd, rather than a Bledisloe sized one, and scheduling means that the lucrative third (and fourth) Bledisloe games are probably the ones that would have to go.


Also SANZAR split the revenue from broadcasting amongst the partners. So if a new entrant brings in less than the existing countries, they all make less. PIs would definately generate much less. Japan, Canada and USA obviously have some potential. The issue is that home games here, at primetime, are at absolutely terrible times stateside. 2am is worth nothing.

If the aim is to generate more money here in Australia so we can pay our pros more and keep them in the country, I just can't see it working any time soon.

 

[TOCC]

all very good points strewthcobber

 

[Omar Comin']

I agree with that Strewthcobber but I think there are potential competition structures that could be used in the short term to overcome some of these problems.

Like a 2 tier Rugby Championship for example. Or as Quick Hands has suggested there could be some sort of alliance with the Pacific Nations Cup. For example, the top 4 in that competition every year get a home match the next season against the Rugby Championship teams (1 v 1, 2 v 2 etc)

Also, I think the decline in Bledisloe Cup crowds is a real worry. Sometimes less is more. While a 3rd or 4th Bledisloe match might be more lucrative than a match against Japan, it's overdoing what should be epic and special. And interest has declined because of that. The Bledisloe Cup was at it's pinnacle when it was a 2 match series.

 

[qwerty51]

I think the Bledisloe decline has to do with us not winning either. Will go back to sell-outs when we're more competitive.

 

[Omar Comin']

TOCC, where in the US did you play? My understanding is that there's certain pockets of the country, particularly the North West, where rugby is strongest.

From all I've read there's been a big increase in youth rugby participation. Something like a 14% annual growth rate for the last 5 years. On top of that the number of College rugby programs has increased a lot too. So there may be quite a big difference in the rugby experience of the average college player compared with even 2011.

And in that time there's also been the success of the Las Vegas 7's, 3 very well attended test matches in Houston, a big crowd for a match against the Maori All Blacks and obviously the sell out in Chicago for the proper AB's.

Here's a couple of interesting quotes from Nigel Mellville, the CEO of USA Rugby from May last year about Super Rugby and SANZAR:

http://bleacherreport.com/articles/...e-of-americas-rugby-union-with-nigel-melville

JH: Last year, I sat down with Greg Peters, the CEO of Super Rugby. At that point, he was very high on the idea of getting the Super Rugby brand into the United States, and that expansion of Super Rugby franchises was a definite future possibility. What's going on with the possibility of professional rugby in America?


NM: Well professional rugby takes many forms. Much of this is out of our hands. In regards to Super Rugby, I presented to SANZAR when that competition was still called the Super 14. They went on to add a franchise in Melbourne.

I don't know how that helps break into new markets, I don't know how that improves your television exposure or your commerciality; however, it did allow each of the three SANZAR countries to have five teams each, so they were quite happy with that.

That's their choice.

I did believe that a Pacific Rim conference might be a way forward for them. A conference like that could include America, Canada, Japan and Argentina. I thought that was an option, but it seems to have been written off for now.

Every time I see smoke coming out of the SANZAR or Super Rugby meetings, I hear that expansion to the Americas is on their radar, but it's not something that seems to be on the table at the moment.


JH: Are groups like Super Rugby wasting their money by not taking advantage of the American market?


NM: I feel there's an opportunity for them, but they have to want to take that opportunity. They know we are here and that we are certainly interested and keen to listen. But time passes, and we move on to other things. If we can't get anywhere with Super Rugby, we'll be looking somewhere else.

 

[Quick Hands]

They seem to be moving in the right direction. One thing I couldn't help but notice from their website is how they get how big Olympic status is. I don't think the traditional rugby countries have worked this out yet.
http://usarugby.org/about-usarugby

 

[Omar Comin']

Also Strewthcobber, I think a positive thing about eventual inclusion of the USA and Canada in the Rugby Championship and/or Super Rugby would be that when Australia or Australian teams host them the games would be best played in the afternoon! From a broadcasting perspective that would be the best option for a change. And afternoon games are obviously ideal for attendance.

 

[Quick Hands]

Also SANZAR split the revenue from broadcasting amongst the partners. So if a new entrant brings in less than the existing countries, they all make less. PIs would definately generate much less. Japan, Canada and USA obviously have some potential. The issue is that home games here, at primetime, are at absolutely terrible times stateside. 2am is worth nothing.

If the aim is to generate more money here in Australia so we can pay our pros more and keep them in the country, I just can't see it working any time soon.

Actually the time zones for Japan, the US and Canada work much better than South Africa. Japan is one hour different from Sydney.

A 7.30pm kick off in Denver would be 1pm in Sydney
7.30pm kick off in New York would be 10am in Sydney

So Saturday night games there would be telecast during the day on Sunday in Australia.

It could be argued from a broadcast point of view that Fox/Sky in Aus & NZ would look favourably on such times and depending on those countries reaching a certain standard, it would bring more money into the game in Australia.

There is no short term solution to the player exodus only medium to long term ones.

 

[Omar Comin']

Alright so this would be my plan:

Short term: Formal alliance between SANZAR plus Argies and Pacific Nations Cup unions. Setting out a pathway for eventual integration into the Rugby Championship and in the short term, more matches between Rugby Championship and PNC (Pacific Nations Cup) teams.

2021: Creation of Pacific Rim Super Rugby conference or division involving Asia, Argentina and North American west coast

Integration of PNC (Pacific Nations Cup) into the Rugby Championship (format TBA)

2026: Separate Super Rugby conferences in Asia, North America, South America, South Africa, Australia and New Zealand.

Equitable Rugby Championship format (eg 2 equally seeded pools of 5 leading to semi finals and final).

Player exodus solved?

 

[Dave Beat]

If a scan the last couple of pages it is about including, and lifting the standard of the US / IS's and some of the 2nd tier nations.

A RWC brings in allot of money to the host nation, it also incorporates the 2nd tier (& 3rd) teams thus possibly lifting their on field play because they are bein exposed - playing it every 2 years would it loose its appeal & value, or will we the host nations make more money more frequently.


Possibly goes against some peoples thoughts of not having some of 2nd & 3rd tier teams in the RWC so we avoid the 100 – 0 score lines.

Maybe this thought just provides an angle to trash, like, and build on - I'm not fussed, and i wouldn't mind seeing all countries come together every 2 years, plus it may arrive in Aust. more frequently.

 

[Strewthcobber]

If a scan the last couple of pages it is about including, and lifting the standard of the US / IS's and some of the 2nd tier nations.
i wouldn't mind seeing all countries come together every 2 years, plus it may arrive in Aust. more frequently.

The big issue for Australia - if the aim is to stop the player exodus - is that we make dramatically less revenue in world cup years, something like 25% less. Whether this could be balanced by hosting more often would need more analysis. But we'd probably have less money to pay our players

The other thing is that being eligible for the world cup is one of the best ways we have of attracting our players to stay for that relatively less money. How many would play two world cups in the space of a couple of years and think, "that's enough for me, off to Europe". At least now we get 5 years or so out of most of them....

 

[TOCC]

Lol this discussion is going nowhere, so let's just wait and see how Japan, USA and Canada go against the Tier 1 nations in the RWC.. I predict it will be 60-80 point floggings,(Japan will be 40-60) in which case it's evidence that none of these countries are near the standard required to compete with the SANZAR nations in a tournament... If they aren't competitive then there's no chance In hell they will be included as it does nothing to improve the product.

Improving these countries is done so from the ground up, not the top down.. They need to improve their domestic competitions and their talent identification/academy pathways... USA stakeholder have been talking about a professionally domestic league for the last 5 years, I'm not holding my breath on them establishing one.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Dave Beat]

The big issue for Australia - if the aim is to stop the player exodus - is that we make dramatically less revenue in world cup years, something like 25% less. Whether this could be balanced by hosting more often would need more analysis. But we'd probably have less money to pay our players

The other thing is that being eligible for the world cup is one of the best ways we have of attracting our players to stay for that relatively less money. How many would play two world cups in the space of a couple of years and think, "that's enough for me, off to Europe". At least now we get 5 years or so out of most of them..

Yes all interesting - technology / media / money means we are effectively a global economy now as well. We've had the ITM, Top 14, etc on Fox in Australia now for a while & even as a tier one country we've just established our own.


I think we need to knock down all walls, look at the drawing board, and start planning -
our current coach made his name offshore.
link benefited from time off shore.
and we have more good coaches off shore than we do here.
the fact we are now even loosing colts off shore is a true worry.

Global economy.
Global game.
Maybe we need to take a step back and look at a global approach.

 

[wamberal]

Back to the original debate.

The ARU has three broad choices. Firstly, to pay international players a relatively low retainer, plus a per Test bonus payment. No top-ups.

Under this scenario we would be guaranteed to (a) lose star players and (b) lose more games, because the side has been weakened.

Secondly, as for the first alternative, but with top-ups. Under this alternative we would retain some players that we would have otherwise lost, and we would probably have a more successful international team.

Thirdly, as for the first alternative, but change the selection policy to allow overseas based players to continue their representative careers.

The first alternative might have some longer term benefits, if the money saved is intelligently reinvested in developing talent. However, the $64,000 question is, how long would it take, and what is the risk that a downward spiral of lower revenues cannot be halted?

The second alternative is the status quo, and the jury is out on it. St Cheika might wrought a miracle. If we can win a Bled and/or a Bill, things will change for a while. Only for a while, though, we used to win Bleds and Bills, and here we are today going downhill.

Frankly, I favour the third alternative. Damn the torpedoes! Full steam ahead! Pick the best available team.

Apart from anything else it would generate a lot more interest, with debates about the relative strengths of rugby competitions in the NH, and a lot of stuff that could become news.

Rugby news in this country has become boring, frankly. Something like this would liven things up,

We talk about being part of a world game. Well, this is how a world game behaves. National teams contain the best athletes in most sports, irrespective of where they earn their bread and butter.