Australian Rugby / RA

[TOCC]

Do you need to though, maybe Fiji as this would reflect their NRC involvement..

But if that were a model they wish to follow then I would question whether the Sunwolves even need to exist or whether you should just include the top 2 or 3 teams from the Top League into the newly created 'Champions League'.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

 

[TOCC]

Only works if NZ and SA agree to it. In the past both have been keen to protect and differentiate the ITM Cup and Currie Cup as their premier domestic tournaments, and to ensure their Super Rugby teams play against each other in the regular season.

True, id be interested to see if this were still the case in New Zealand at least where their seems to be a bit of supporter malaise towards both tournaments in recent years.

I don't think there is a perfect solution, but I certainly don't think the current format does enough to service Australian Rugby needs

 

[Omar Comin']

Five teams stretches our talent too thin. It will suck for Perth, but I wonder if it's the lesser of two evils - cutting one team to sustain the other four.

Is it worth losing the thousands of fans who will feel betrayed and stop supporting the sport?

Keeping in mind that rugby has a global playing base, and the Rebels and Force, and the others to a lesser extent are able to access it to improve depth and quality. The fact they haven't recruited well enough in the past doesn't mean they can't or won't in the future. And the growth of rugby participation in WA since the Force began is only just starting to really pay off too.

 

[WorkingClassRugger]

Do you need to though, maybe Fiji as this would reflect their NRC involvement..

But if that were a model they wish to follow then I would question whether the Sunwolves even need to exist or whether you should just include the top 2 or 3 teams from the Top League into the newly created 'Champions League'.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

Not necessarily. Depends on whether or not SA keep 6 teams or not. If they scrap the Kings then 5 will be fine. But I would still go for separate Japanese and Argentine conferences.

 

[TOCC]

This whole situation is made even more ludicrous given that this format was only brought into effect 12months ago, surely those who decided on the current structure should be called out to question!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

 

[Twoilms]

Split it into two parts, first half is strictly the domestic component.. 9 week round robin domestic championship, then follow this up with a 11 week Champions League where they play RSA/NZ/Japan/Argentin teams..

Sell it as two separate products, push for the domestic tournament to get on FTA.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

Right idea but a little unbalanced. Regular season should be longer than Champions league. Or we could adopt the European Champions League/Copa Libertadores model which has those who qualified for the league play concurrently.

 

[barbarian]

Is it worth losing the thousands of fans who will feel betrayed and stop supporting the sport?

Keeping in mind that rugby has a global playing base, and the Rebels and Force, and the others to a lesser extent are able to access it to improve depth and quality. The fact they haven't recruited well enough in the past doesn't mean they can't or won't in the future. And the growth of rugby participation in WA since the Force began is only just starting to really pay off too.

Fair points.

On the flipside, we're losing fans every year as the teams we have continue to underperform. The fans you lose by ditching the Force you'd make up as the other teams chalk more wins and attract more fans.

The participation blow would be large though, no doubt.

It's really a no-win for the ARU I reckon. The current situation can't stand, but there isn't an obvious answer that will please everyone.
.

 

[WorkingClassRugger]

Right idea but a little unbalanced. Regular season should be longer than Champions league. Or we could adopt the European Champions League/Copa Libertadores model which has those who qualified for the league play concurrently.

Sort of why I suggested going with 6. That way the regular season could run for 10 weeks and then the 2nd phase could be either home and away again or just a straight round robin for 5 more games.

Alternatively. With speculation the Panasonic Wild Knights are eyeing up a run at Super Rugby one of them pr the Sunwolves could be added to the Aus and NZ conferences respectively and then look to use existing structures with Argentina to form a 4th conference.

 

[WorkingClassRugger]

Sort of why I suggested going with 6. That way the regular season could run for 10 weeks and then the 2nd phase could be either home and away again or just a straight round robin for 5 more games.

Alternatively. With speculation the Panasonic Wild Knights are eyeing up a run at Super Rugby one of them pr the Sunwolves could be added to the Aus and NZ conferences respectively and then look to use existing structures with Argentina to form a 4th conference.

There are actually 6 provinces in the Campenato already.

 

[Omar Comin']

On the flipside, we're losing fans every year as the teams we have continue to underperform. The fans you lose by ditching the Force you'd make up as the other teams chalk more wins and attract more fans.

The participation blow would be large though, no doubt.

It's really a no-win for the ARU I reckon. The current situation can't stand, but there isn't an obvious answer that will please everyone.

I'd say the difference is that those fans aren't really lost. They're just the bandwagon fans that get off and on. You cut a team and their hardcore supporters could well be lost from the sport forever. For example, I was a huge North Sydney Bears and ARL/NRL fan when I was a kid, and virtually stopped watching it, and became a much bigger Super Rugby fan after the Bears were kicked out of the comp.

If going to 4 teams is the decision I'd hope they at least merge 2 of the teams rather than cut 1. Then you've at least got some chance of keeping those fans on board.

 

[Twoilms]

I'd say the difference is that those fans aren't really lost. They're just the bandwagon fans that get off and on. You cut a team and their hardcore supporters could well be lost from the sport forever. For example, I was a huge North Sydney Bears and ARL/NRL fan when I was a kid, and virtually stopped watching it, and became a much bigger Super Rugby fan after the Bears were kicked out of the comp.

If going to 4 teams is the decision I'd hope they at least merge 2 of the teams rather than cut 1. Then you've at least got some chance of keeping those fans on board.

I concur with this. I spent half my childhood watching the Bears lose to Manly at North Sydney Oval. Stopped watching the sport, along with my old man, when they went. Never turned back.

 

[wamberal]

I suppose one difference is that the Bears had a long history in the sport. Our franchises are but pups, and very young ones at that.

 

[WorkingClassRugger]

I concur with this. I spent half my childhood watching the Bears lose to Manly at North Sydney Oval. Stopped watching the sport, along with my old man, when they went. Never turned back.

Which brings up an interesting question. If say the ARU cans the Rebels, should they look to relocate the Brumbies who are struggling in a single small market to Melbourne as their primary base while splitting games between AAMI and GIO? And would both sets of fans still support them.

This would provide the organisation with an overall deeper pool of players. And potentially fans. A larger overall market and two NRC squads to directly feed into the organisation.

 

[WorkingClassRugger]

I suppose one difference is that the Bears had a long history in the sport. Our franchises are but pups, and very young ones at that.

I agree with that sentiment with the exemption of NSW and Queensland. While they are very much franchises these days they did evolve from the traditional rep sides.

 

[Rebels3]

Split it into two parts, first half is strictly the domestic component.. 9 week round robin domestic championship, then follow this up with a 11 week Champions League where they play RSA/NZ/Japan/Argentin teams..

Sell it as two separate products, push for the domestic tournament to get on FTA.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

This is a great idea. I have similar ideals to this myself, however a little different but along similar principals.

 

[Twoilms]

Which brings up an interesting question. If say the ARU cans the Rebels, should they look to relocate the Brumbies who are struggling in a single small market to Melbourne as their primary base while splitting games between AAMI and GIO? And would both sets of fans still support them.

This would provide the organisation with an overall deeper pool of players. And potentially fans. A larger overall market and two NRC squads to directly feed into the organisation.

I think, by splitting a teams base between two cities, you alienate all the fans.

 

[Omar Comin']

I suppose one difference is that the Bears had a long history in the sport. Our franchises are but pups, and very young ones at that.

That might make some difference with supporters who didn't grow up with the team, and especially those who were already rugby fans before the Force came to town, but for the kids who now support the Force they've been around as long as they can remember.

 

[half]

If we are asked to only have four teams and also receive less funding its time IMO to pack up the Super Rugby tent and look for another way.

 

[Omar Comin']

I think, by splitting a teams base between two cities, you alienate all the fans.

I think on balance it's better than completely losing one team though. With WCR's example you could have the Rebels and Brumbies merge to become the Melbourne Brumbies - they could play 5/6 games in Melbourne, 2/3 games in Canberra. You'd piss off Brumbies fans, but they'd still be the Brumbies and they'd still play matches in Canberra, so I think they'd ultimately maintain a lot of them. And I doubt you'd lose too many, if any Rebels fans.

Or you could merge the Force and Rebels and call them The Force Rebels, sponsored by Star Wars.

Fingers crossed all 5 teams survive!

 

[dru]

If we are asked to only have four teams and also receive less funding its time IMO to pack up the Super Rugby tent and look for another way.

Not only am I coming to agree with this, but I'd go further. There is a real problem if serious B Planning isnt happening. It is mot by any way preferred, but should NZ continue to demand SA over Aus, and SA continue to believe they are entitled to through weight around, we need to be ready with alternate thoughts.