Australian Rugby / RA

[Rebel man]

Whether or not it actually eventuates is only a concern for the future. But the antagonism towards poaching and our ‘hit list’ has just created a pissing competition with the NRL and if push comes to shove, they’d win that.

All of Hamish’s (and Eddie’s) chest beating around the RWC to then fall flat on our arses have left us open to a couple of body shots from the NRL. They may as well take some now and rattle the cages.

lol there is one person that is responsible for the pissing contest PVL

Notice racing NSW under his leadership is in a pissing contest with racing Vic while the NRL is also in a two sided pissing contest. Trying to simultaneously piss down on rugby union while pissing up on the AFL.

Who is central to all these pissing contests? The half wit bogan from Rugba League

 

[The Ghost of Raelene]

I'd be keen to see the amount of viewers on the Club Rugby on Stan. Throughout the course of the weekend would watch 3/4 matches along with School Boys on Cluch which has since gone into administration sadly.

The only way it can gain momentum is to give it to 9/Stan on Saturdays when they have no NRL and get the exposure. There isn't really a marketable product to sell right now but we just need it out there.

Something about local teams do capture people attention though. You can feel it every time an NRL side plays at a suburban ground it morphs and it's not just because of the size of stadium. I've listened to a few podcasts about English Soccer and how a number of fans these days are supporting a second side which may be in a lower tier as much as their traditional Tottenham/Manchester etc because they feel disconnected and there's something about a smaller scale that's appealing.

I'm not saying I think the proposed comp is the right thing but the Clubs do bring history with them and supporters. Sydney Fleet, Ballymore Tornadoes, North Harbour Rays bring absolutely nothing though.

 

[Highlander35]

I'm at the point where I'm keen to see a club comp in action and having a few of them die off through hubris. A good time will be had by all.

 

[Adam84]

You can’t run Super Rugby at same time as July tests.

Taking 140* test players(Aus, NZ, Fiji, Tonga, Samoa) from 12 Super Rugby teams during July and expecting Super Rugby to keep running is a bit different to the NRL where 36 players come from 17 teams during State of Origin.

Also 22 regular season games, means a 26-28 week season minimum. Which is now pushing into the TRC and ITM Cup window which NZ Rugby won’t support.

 

[Rebel man]

You can’t run Super Rugby at same time as July tests.

Taking 140* test players(Aus, NZ, Fiji, Tonga, Samoa) from 12 Super Rugby teams during July and expecting the Super Rugby to keep running is a bit different to the NRL where 36 players come from 17 teams during State of Origin.

Also 22 regular season games, means a 26-28 week season minimum. Which is now pushing into the TRC and ITM Cup window which NZ Rugby won’t support.

We need a double round robin. Having 6 home games is horrible for the game

 

[The Ghost of Raelene]

Is it? I know what your saying but when we have 10-12 home games people just start not going because who cares, theres always another. The Big Bash are seeing this.

 

[Sir Arthur Higgins]

from The roar
"
“Thank f—k” was the colourful reaction Greg Martin used that summed up his reaction as he arrived at work in the early hours of Monday morning, having risen to discover former World Cup-winning Wallaby Daniel Herbert was the new Rugby Australia chairman.

“There’s some hope at last,” he said."


if he's happy, we might be fucked.

 

[Sir Arthur Higgins]

Is it? I know what your saying but when we have 10-12 home games people just start not going because who cares, theres always another. The Big Bash are seeing this.

I agree to an extent. its a fine balance. ideally it would be more than six home games and less than 12
i honestly think the conference idea is workable. it works in the nfl, nhl, nba, mlb, college sports. why is it unworkable in super rugby? Australia conference and NZ conference. you play each team in your conference twice for 10 games and you play each team in the other conference once for 6 games. that's at least now 8 home games a year. i think the sweet spot is 8-10 games at home.
that's the same as AFL. about the same as league. 6 games - your season can be over after two home games. that really doesnt draw the crowds.

 

[Sir Arthur Higgins]

i would revert to conferences for good
top three teams make the finals and a wild card game for the fourth.
aus 1 then plays aus 4, aus 2 plays aus 3
mirrored on the NZ side and then after first round there is a cross over
Winner of 1A v 4A plays winner of 2NZ v 3 NZ
Winner of 1 NZ v 4NZ plays winner of 2A v 4A

now 16 game season with 8 home games a piece.
a wild card round to keep lower teams playing for something and add more knock out rugby.
gives aus teams a good chance of making finals

conference system was confusing when you had three confrences with SA, but i think this is pretty clean now. the NFL is the most illogical conference and really season system out there and they people go mad for it. it's not that hard, you just need to stick with it.

otherwise i think you need more teams to get more games and that just isn't going to happen due to player depth constraints and geographic constraints.

 

[Slim 293]

Yeah, I always thought the best way to run Super Rugby at least, was...

Aus and NZ conferences - everyone plays each other once, and potentially everyone (or some teams) within their conference plays each other home and away or wildcard matches (don't want to do the BBL thing and drag it on too long).

Separate Aus and NZ knockout series leading to an Aus and NZ "champion" to satisfy both markets.

Aus v NZ champion for ultimate bragging rights.

 

[stillmissit]

Hardly unexplored. Hospital Cup/SS is on every weekend on Stan.
The broadcaster knows the numbers and we can see the crowds with our own eyes if you show up to Coogee Bay Oval etc.

At this juncture of our nadir, all ideas should be examined and not thrown out, due to what happens now. Thanks for a new one.

 

[Lorenzo]

I agree to an extent. its a fine balance. ideally it would be more than six home games and less than 12
i honestly think the conference idea is workable. it works in the nfl, nhl, nba, mlb, college sports. why is it unworkable in super rugby? Australia conference and NZ conference. you play each team in your conference twice for 10 games and you play each team in the other conference once for 6 games. that's at least now 8 home games a year. i think the sweet spot is 8-10 games at home.
that's the same as AFL. about the same as league. 6 games - your season can be over after two home games. that really doesnt draw the crowds.

Super Rugby's viability might be wholly uninfluenced by whether the teams are in conferences or not.

 

[zer0]

Separate Aus and NZ knockout series leading to an Aus and NZ "champion" to satisfy both markets.

Aus v NZ champion for ultimate bragging rights.

NFL/super bowl style playoff makes sense to me too. I don't care if the post-season schedules are lopsided. Just have a week off before the not-super bowl and it'll be fine.

i would revert to conferences for good
top three teams make the finals and a wild card game for the fourth.
aus 1 then plays aus 4, aus 2 plays aus 3
mirrored on the NZ side and then after first round there is a cross over
Winner of 1A v 4A plays winner of 2NZ v 3 NZ
Winner of 1 NZ v 4NZ plays winner of 2A v 4A

Honestly, I'd just let everyone enter the post-season, and get experience with elimination matches, with the regular season deciding the rankings.

Elimination 1:
Top two teams get the week off.
6th ranked @ 3rd ranked
5th ranked @ 4th ranked

Elimination 2:
Lower ranked survivor from Elim. 1 @ 1st ranked
Higher ranked survivor from Elim. 1 @ 2nd ranked

Conference final
Lower ranked survivor from Elim. 2 @ higher ranked survivor from Elim. 2

not-super bowl
AUS conference winner vs. NZL conference winner

So, using the 2023 standings, the conference post-seasons would be something like:

Elim. 1:
Rebels (6th) @ Drua (3rd) | Moana (6th) @ Blues (3rd)
Force (5th) @ Reds (4th) | Highlanders (5th) @ Hurricanes (4th)

Elim. 2:
Drua (3rd) @ Brumbies (1st) | Blues (3rd) @ Crusaders (2nd)
Reds (4th) @ Waratahs (2nd) | Hurricanes (4th) @ Chiefs (1st)

Conference final:
Reds (4th) @ Brumbies (1st) | Crusaders (2nd) @ Chiefs (1st)

Winner tries their luck against a beat up Crusaders outfit who have just had to play the Blues and Chiefs in succession. Higher ranked match is on the Saturday and lower ranked match on the Sunday.

 

[eastman]

Honestly the major problem with Super Rugly in its current format is that the Australian teams are shit and the marketing is absolutely horrendous. If the Force were strong, then everyone would be interested in watching them play the Auckland Blues.

On a related note, is there a more boring team in Australian sport then the Waratahs (at least recently)? The team has absolutely no identity or character, it just seems to be a bunch of interchangeable (white) guys wearing a sky blue jersey. Compare that to a well marketed team like the Penrith Panthers that actually connects with its fans.

 

[Wallaby Man]

Harvey Norman first to not renew contract. $5m apparently. Others thinking of going as well.

Im happy Hamish went but I have a feeling outside of the persona he might have been more valuable to the organisation than many think.

 

[Derpus]

Harvey Norman first to not renew contract. $5m apparently. Others thinking of going as well.

Im happy Hamish went but I have a feeling outside of the persona he might have been more valuable to the organisation than many think.

Are they going because Hamish went or because the Wallabies are a national embarrassment and no right minded organisation would want to be associated with abject failure, disunity and in-fighting?

The writing is on the wall though. We keep talking about last chances but it really looks like we used our last chance up already.

Should've left Super Rugby when we had the chance.

 

[LeCheese]

Harvey Norman first to not renew contract. $5m apparently. Others thinking of going as well.

Im happy Hamish went but I have a feeling outside of the persona he might have been more valuable to the organisation than many think.

Long live GBRA's Ruggy Elsom

 

[Slim 293]

They're saying it has nothing to do with McLennan...

The Herald reported Gerry Harvey denying a link to McLennan’s removal as RA chairman.

“No, no, no, no,” Harvey said. “It’s just the sport itself. So we do that for a while then move on to the next one.

“What we do is, we do whatever sport for a while; we don’t necessarily hang on to it forever.

“So we move around on different sports so we’re very heavy into sport advertising that we don’t necessarily stay with the one sport forever.

“You know we think ‘oh we’ve given that a good go, then we’ll go on to the next one’. In all cases we stop at some stage.”

Harvey Norman has been Super Rugby’s naming rights sponsor since 2021.

When asked was the dropping of the sponsorship anything to do with McLennan’s axing, Harvey said that was not the case.

That last line another example of The Roar's editorial quality.

'Shame on the plodders': Hamish blasts RA 'boneheads' as Harvey Norman deal ends - but founder denies link to axing

Super Rugby sponsor Harvey Norman has decided to end their multi-million deal with Rugby Australia leading former chairman Hamish McLennan to blast the RA…

www.theroar.com.au

 

[Slim 293]

OK, just read the SMH article...

The Roar literally copied and pasted that section from the SMH, which is why the Roar article repeats itself with that last line.

 

[Pfitzy]

I'm at the point where I'm keen to see a club comp in action and having a few of them die off through hubris. A good time will be had by all.

Are you my other account?