Back to the future.

[WorkingClassRugger]

..but in doing so want to ignore history and the "reality" based parts where you have dismantle the current model, competition, traditions and history and they also want someone else to pay for it.

I had my TV set up with Super Rugby and my all-in-one desktop with the Club games watching them both. So I got to see both. I'll talk about the club games.

I enjoyed both. Certainly made for enjoyable viewing and the atmosphere seemed quite good. It wasn't Super Rugby nor NRC level but it was good Rugby nonetheless. To the point that if they were able to find the necessary funding I'd have no issue with them looking to play some kind of national league or even expanding the Club Championship format. But like their broadcast, the clubs need to source the funds. Not the state Unions nor the ARU. They themselves. If they do and it doesn't interfere with the NRC. Then good luck and god speed to them.

I think there certainly would be a market for it if the ratings touted by the SS clubs are to be believed.

Though, it's incredibly unlikely to actually happen as in order to do some clubs will have to miss out and from experience back when they were chattering about this during my Colts days none of them are or were willing to give an inch. I seriously doubt much has changed.

 

[mst]

^^^there is definitely room, a place, desire and an appetite for good domestic rugby product right now.

With the political scuttlebutt last year, Foxtel is on the record saying they would be interested in more product depending on what it was. So weather that on top of, or a substitute for the NRC who knows. Rugby fans want a domestic product.

So its clear is wanted, and needed for the benefit of the game. So what is it we are offering up atm?

The NRC what is getting there and slowly growing but compromised by internal rugby politics which divides the necessary supporter base.

Unless the ARU wants to stop being everyone's bestie and get over the habitual floored philosophy of the "honey" addiction when dealing with the factions politics in rugby will always compromise the support of any product.

They cant keep everybody happy, and do it nicely trying to keep everyone happy (current method) or do it via unpopular decision for the betterment of the game will still see the supporter base split so it does suggest the time is right to make the hard call and upset some people. Almost a perfect storm scenario.

What bugs me is the evidence is so clear. Super Rugby home derbies are good for the gate and ratings in Australia.

So it begs the question outside of the Super Rugby, we already know what would work in a domestic market, so why are we banging on about new shite like a state of origin etc?

It can be like the Currie Cup; teams from the franchises watered down a touch (minus the Wallabies) with some extra teams like Shute entered teams and QLD teams to make up the numbers.

Brothers v Brumbies or watching Sydney Uni getting touched up by the Force has some appeal.

 

[Highlander35]

Maybe switch to the Currie Cup model.

The current NRC sides, plus 4-6 clubs or other representative sides all play each other once overlapping with the Super Season.

After that, the best 7 or 8 sides join the Fijian team for the NRC in the slot it is currently in, and the rest of the sides play in a 2nd division.

 

[Strewthcobber]

Maybe switch to the Currie Cup model.

The current NRC sides, plus 4-6 clubs or other representative sides all play each other once overlapping with the Super Season.

After that, the best 7 or 8 sides join the Fijian team for the NRC in the slot it is currently in, and the rest of the sides play in a 2nd division.

Bill might want so hire some externals to sell the SS teams on that one!

 

[mst]

Similar to another concept I messed about killing time waiting for a flight:


ARU / Lealiifano Challenge Cup / Expanded NRC

[Stage 1]
Teams in each state/ territory would progress though a knockout style competition.

This will be run (ARU approved draw design) via each state / territory locally to determine, qualifiers (EG: full round by round or GF winners in each regions playoff etc etc).

The number of qualifier teams would match the NRC ratio (EG: NSW:3, QLD 2 etc). Potential for the qualified teams to be “buddied up” with NRC teams.(this may reduce cost such as facilities / logistics / travel and provide supports.

NSW & QLD would be required to establish qualifying zones for teams in their regions, EG: Inner suburbs, outer metro and country zones (EG: this will prevent the qualification of 3x Shute team in NSW for example).

Consideration can be given for “special qualifier” teams to be included EG: “wildcard team slot” for an indigenous team, or a local “Polynesian all-stars team” to be included in a particular qualifying zone.

Team player composition and qualification rules will need to apply to avoid player stacking. Club allegiance of Super Rugby players will be honoured. (EG: if part of a Shute team that qualifies, they stay with Shute team and not move up to NRC team).

As the Lealiifano Challenge Cup is played in Super Rugby season it will intentionally limit Super Rugby player involvement.

Once 8 qualifiers are established they will play off via a random “knockout style” draw to play off for the Lealiifano Challenge cup. Winner is Lealiifano Challenge cup.

Challenge cup qualifier games can be played mid-week similar to FFA cup if required.


[Stage 2]
The top 5 qualifiers can be added in to the NRC (**on the assumption a Fiji team is added to total 14 teams) as a tier 2 and use a similar draw to the Mitre10.

Potential for promotion relegation system is possible (for tier 2 the top 2 stay on like a promotion concept, bottom 3 can drop out and only top 3 from challenge cup get included in NRC - add on here is a tier to tier promotion / relegation as well.

NRC will play like existing competition with usual with NRC tier 1 and 2 winners. Tier 2 teams are L/H Shield eligible. NSW Bell could also be available for tier 2 NSW based teams. (Potential for the tier 2 NRC winner to not be the Lealiifano Challenge cup winner.)



[Stage 3]
Challenge Cup winner and highest tier 2 side will play off against 2 x NRC tier 1 winner and runner up for the ARU Cup. Draw will be “knockout style” over 2 weeks. Draw will be a 1v4 / 2v3 with seeding position being Lealiifano Challenge cup winning team as #1, the other 3 based on away points during NRC.

Considerations:
Format allows games (Lealiifano Challenge cup and maybe NRC?) to be played in the mid-year test window. Lealiifano Challenge cup games can also be scheduled with Super Rugby games (curtain raisers) and can be scheduled for telecast or streaming.

Concept attempts to utilise existing resources and involves club land. Provides opportunity and incentive for participation.

Costs can be mitigated through smart scheduling cost sharing such as facilities / logistics / travel and admin support.

Multiple games can be played at one ground on same date. - EG: QLD NRC team v Sprit, QLD Tier 2 qualifier v WA qualifier.

The above would allow for Mitre10 concept of above games being played on Thursday evening then WA team stay and play again on Sunday (swap opposition, v Brisbane City etc – mitre10 do this once per team per year)


Most of all - Provides a multi facet domestic completion – FFA style Lealiifano Challenge cup / 2 x tier 14 team NRC . Allows club teams to go for the silverware / Shield / Bell etc.

Levers off the FFA work done to work out how to get grow the game domestically. Use tribalism, and club land to drive support!

Can be done with minimal interruptions to current club schedules.

 

[mst]

Bill might want so hire some externals to sell the SS teams on that one!

Sell or tell?

You want something and I want something.

 

[WorkingClassRugger]

Maybe switch to the Currie Cup model.

The current NRC sides, plus 4-6 clubs or other representative sides all play each other once overlapping with the Super Season.

After that, the best 7 or 8 sides join the Fijian team for the NRC in the slot it is currently in, and the rest of the sides play in a 2nd division.

I have suggested on the Shute Shield a similar model. One that essentially kept the Rams, Rising and Spirit in play as well as either a club or rep squad from the ACT alongside 8 clubs (so four each) from the Shute Shield and QPR.

Could be played during the club season as a separate competition with the participating clubs entering their 2nds in their local competition.

 

[Strewthcobber]

The obvious issues with these proposals being how you select your teams, and how you prevent them becoming domminant in the local comps as they become the only serious route for higher honors, or for payments.

Leads to massive ingrained imbalances

 

[Highlander35]

Well, the Currie Cup model would see the seasons overlapping with Club Rugby, so whichever Clubs chose to enter teams would recruit a number of quality players from other sides, but probably wouldn't be able to use them in the club competition because they would be required for the NRC Qualifying League/Buildcorp Premiership/(Insert Sponsor) (Insert Competition Synonym) squads.

Plus there'd be some new fangled points assigned to players who play in the competition.

 

[WorkingClassRugger]

The obvious issues with these proposals being how you select your teams, and how you prevent them becoming domminant in the local comps as they become the only serious route for higher honors, or for payments.

Leads to massive ingrained imbalances

In my model they would essentially run their 1sts above their local comps. As for fairness. Well, if the clubs were truly honest with themselves they'd realise that taking such a step means some will inevitably be left out in the cold. It's just how it goes. You issue a set criteria and only those who can match it are given consideration.

 

[Rugbynutter39]

MST....Pacific teams (read only Fiji) have a growing strong brand that may attract TV money and hence only rationale there.....but yes more thinking about involvement of NZ sides (as main additions which means joint competition with NZ as lets not kid ourselves who has the stronger pull, brand and money) for commercial reasons and fact rugby in this country not big enough at this point or any time soon to sustain a professional competition in its own right

It was wrong to say Pacific Teams though as only Fiji could possibly have the brand and player star quality to attract TV money.

 

[mst]

The obvious issues with these proposals being how you select your teams, and how you prevent them becoming domminant in the local comps as they become the only serious route for higher honors, or for payments.

Leads to massive ingrained imbalances

Its an inherent risk in every sport where their are tiers.

This is where a governing body that is not a limp democracy need to have some holistic management over the game to prevent the empire building which now is prevalent in rugby.

 

[WorkingClassRugger]

Similar to another concept I messed about killing time waiting for a flight:


ARU / Lealiifano Challenge Cup / Expanded NRC

[Stage 1]
Teams in each state/ territory would progress though a knockout style competition.

This will be run (ARU approved draw design) via each state / territory locally to determine, qualifiers (EG: full round by round or GF winners in each regions playoff etc etc).

The number of qualifier teams would match the NRC ratio (EG: NSW:3, QLD 2 etc). Potential for the qualified teams to be “buddied up” with NRC teams.(this may reduce cost such as facilities / logistics / travel and provide supports.

NSW & QLD would be required to establish qualifying zones for teams in their regions, EG: Inner suburbs, outer metro and country zones (EG: this will prevent the qualification of 3x Shute team in NSW for example).

Consideration can be given for “special qualifier” teams to be included EG: “wildcard team slot” for an indigenous team, or a local “Polynesian all-stars team” to be included in a particular qualifying zone.

Team player composition and qualification rules will need to apply to avoid player stacking. Club allegiance of Super Rugby players will be honoured. (EG: if part of a Shute team that qualifies, they stay with Shute team and not move up to NRC team).

As the Lealiifano Challenge Cup is played in Super Rugby season it will intentionally limit Super Rugby player involvement.

Once 8 qualifiers are established they will play off via a random “knockout style” draw to play off for the Lealiifano Challenge cup. Winner is Lealiifano Challenge cup.

Challenge cup qualifier games can be played mid-week similar to FFA cup if required.


[Stage 2]
The top 5 qualifiers can be added in to the NRC (**on the assumption a Fiji team is added to total 14 teams) as a tier 2 and use a similar draw to the Mitre10.

Potential for promotion relegation system is possible (for tier 2 the top 2 stay on like a promotion concept, bottom 3 can drop out and only top 3 from challenge cup get included in NRC - add on here is a tier to tier promotion / relegation as well.

NRC will play like existing competition with usual with NRC tier 1 and 2 winners. Tier 2 teams are L/H Shield eligible. NSW Bell could also be available for tier 2 NSW based teams. (Potential for the tier 2 NRC winner to not be the Lealiifano Challenge cup winner.)



[Stage 3]
Challenge Cup winner and highest tier 2 side will play off against 2 x NRC tier 1 winner and runner up for the ARU Cup. Draw will be “knockout style” over 2 weeks. Draw will be a 1v4 / 2v3 with seeding position being Lealiifano Challenge cup winning team as #1, the other 3 based on away points during NRC.

Considerations:
Format allows games (Lealiifano Challenge cup and maybe NRC?) to be played in the mid-year test window. Lealiifano Challenge cup games can also be scheduled with Super Rugby games (curtain raisers) and can be scheduled for telecast or streaming.

Concept attempts to utilise existing resources and involves club land. Provides opportunity and incentive for participation.

Costs can be mitigated through smart scheduling cost sharing such as facilities / logistics / travel and admin support.

Multiple games can be played at one ground on same date. - EG: QLD NRC team v Sprit, QLD Tier 2 qualifier v WA qualifier.

The above would allow for Mitre10 concept of above games being played on Thursday evening then WA team stay and play again on Sunday (swap opposition, v Brisbane City etc – mitre10 do this once per team per year)


Most of all - Provides a multi facet domestic completion – FFA style Lealiifano Challenge cup / 2 x tier 14 team NRC . Allows club teams to go for the silverware / Shield / Bell etc.

Levers off the FFA work done to work out how to get grow the game domestically. Use tribalism, and club land to drive support!

Can be done with minimal interruptions to current club schedules.

An alternative model would be to take the winner of each of the 5 major competitions and add rep squads from 5 other regions (let's say, Sth Aus., NT, Newcastle-Hunter/Illawarra and Nth Qld/Sunshine Coast etc.) and have them play off in a post season competitiom for the right to play in the next seasons NRC. From there on in each year after the winner of this structure would then playoff against the last place team from the NRC.

This way there is a pathway for the clubs and regional squads to chase the opportunity.

 

[Omar Comin']

So Super Rugby gets canned. Who says SARU, NZRU and JRFU do breath a collective sigh of relief and say thanks! The dead woods gone so lets do a Super Super Rugby and hit up the European / Japanese market? The Kiwi teams draw crowd, the Japanese teams bring a new market and money, and SA can cut teams and bring a time zone conducive to European TV and America.

This seems pretty farfetched. If Australia was such dead wood we'd have never got our way within SANZAR about anything. We're the biggest potential commercial market of all the primary partners, and for NZ we're the only one in the same region. Would NZ want to be in a competition where a much higher % of games are played in the middle of the night for local fans? I highly doubt it.

In the rest of your post you talked about demand for the All Blacks, which no one would dispute will remain high for the foreseeable future no matter what happens. But the NZ model is reliant on keeping not just the All Blacks players at home, but most of the next best players as well. If Super Rugby fails to keep up with the salary growth in European rugby this becomes more and more difficult, and at some point impossible. What would NZ do? Run the All Blacks like an international cricket team, one that sticks together pretty much year round? I guess this is possible.

We can agree to disagree on this but I do believe it'd be a good thing if Super Rugby talent was distributed a bit more between the countries, with all teams a bit more multi-national, and with players remaining eligible for test rugby so long as they played Super Rugby. I think it'd improve competitiveness and also increase the interest in matches between teams from different countries as local fans would be familiar with, and have an interest in more of the players from the opposition.

 

[half]

I don't think things are a bad as poster like me sometimes portray nor do I think they are as rosy as some post.

My starting point would be to bring the various waring tribes together.

My fears are twofold, first we are being swamped by an explosion of activity by other codes and COULD if we are not careful become an after through as we simply don't have the product range that other codes do. Second is the long term health of the current structure i.e the colour % in SA, Japan will its difficult to see them being competitive in the near future. Ratings are falling for Super Rugby from what I read everywhere meaning we are placing our future on a structure than is starting to get the wobbles .

We need to get the Shute folk, the regional folk the ARU have pissed off back, our key sponsors, fan groups, etc and work out a a number of alternatives.

Essentially we need more product and we need to get paid for it and the structure needs to be simple and strong.

 

[liquor box]

Why is the Sydney press so against progression of Australian rugby as a whole? Georgina, Spiro, Wayne Smith, Mark Ella, progressing and expanding rugby as a national sport is not the problem.

I am guessing here but I wonder if it is the keep their "insiders" happy and providing information for stories.

I would guess there would be more inside gossip available in NSW than WA and they need to push a certain view to keep their jobs.

 

[mst]

This seems pretty farfetched. If Australia was such dead wood we'd have never got our way within SANZAR about anything. We're the biggest potential commercial market of all the primary partners, and for NZ we're the only one in the same region. Would NZ want to be in a competition where a much higher % of games are played in the middle of the night for local fans? I highly doubt it.

In the rest of your post you talked about demand for the All Blacks, which no one would dispute will remain high for the foreseeable future no matter what happens. But the NZ model is reliant on keeping not just the All Blacks players at home, but most of the next best players as well. If Super Rugby fails to keep up with the salary growth in European rugby this becomes more and more difficult, and at some point impossible. What would NZ do? Run the All Blacks like an international cricket team, one that sticks together pretty much year round? I guess this is possible.

We can agree to disagree on this but I do believe it'd be a good thing if Super Rugby talent was distributed a bit more between the countries, with all teams a bit more multi-national, and with players remaining eligible for test rugby so long as they played Super Rugby. I think it'd improve competitiveness and also increase the interest in matches between teams from different countries as local fans would be familiar with, and have an interest in more of the players from the opposition.

What metric are you using? We have low ratings via a pay TV deal, little sponsorship and struggle to raise sufficient revenue to support our own teams in our own market. This offsets any commercial benefits our market brings. We also have the tightest most competitive sports market of all the other countries. Potential is a mere hypothetical that is yet to come to reality. We have not seen an increasing in the market; quite the opposite.

Why would any country want to thin their ranks further by distributing talent when one of the key problems for SA and Australia is the lack of talent?

To your first question about the deadwood; even with it atm it currently provides the best revenue raising option and best competition format.

 

[barbarian]

We need to get the Shute folk, the regional folk the ARU have pissed off back, our key sponsors, fan groups, etc and work out a a number of alternatives.
.

You reckon those are the guys walking away from Super Rugby?

For me it's the 'general sports fan', who is confused by the current structure and has no idea who the teams are, where they come from or who plays for them.

I wrote an article for the blog this morning on this point - http://www.greenandgoldrugby.com/its-time-to-fix-super-rugby/

The more I think about it, the more we need to cut a team. I just can't face another season where both the Force and Rebels have no chance to make the finals at all.
.

 

[Omar Comin']

What metric are you using? We have low ratings via a pay TV deal, little sponsorship and struggle to raise sufficient revenue to support our own teams in our own market. This offsets any commercial benefits our market brings. We also have the tightest most competitive sports market of all the other countries. Potential is a mere hypothetical that is yet to come to reality. We have not seen an increasing in the market; quite the opposite.

Why would any country want to thin their ranks further by distributing talent when one of the key problems for SA and Australia is the lack of talent?

Well Australia's economy is bigger than South Africa's and New Zealand's combined. And the money in sport is enormous, I would guess multiples of the other two combined. Rugby could gain a bigger share of that market if it could figure out a structure that was more attractive to an Australian audience. There's certainly more potential for growth in Australia than in New Zealand or South Africa.

And my point is that the talent could be better distributed across the competition. One of the reasons the AFL and NRL are so strong is because they're structured to distribute talent more evenly across all teams, thus most teams will have periods of success every few years at least. But we don't treat Super Rugby in the same way, it's every union for themselves. And right now, and for perhaps the foreseeable future, the country with the smallest commercial market has most of the best talent. This might seem good for NZ in the short term because their teams outperform, but it won't be good in the longer term if the competition struggles in the higher potential commercial markets. You want it to be more even for everyone's sake, and especially if your vision is expansionary.

 

[Joe King]

You reckon those are the guys walking away from Super Rugby?

For me it's the 'general sports fan', who is confused by the current structure and has no idea who the teams are, where they come from or who plays for them.

I wrote an article for the blog this morning on this point - http://www.greenandgoldrugby.com/its-time-to-fix-super-rugby/

The more I think about it, the more we need to cut a team. I just can't face another season where both the Force and Rebels have no chance to make the finals at all.
.

I can certainly understand the desire to cut a team from a competition perspective. While some have suggested that it wouldn't raise the competitiveness of the other remaining Australian teams, I think it would a bit.

I guess the issue is Super Rugby as a competition vs rugby having a real presence in Oz.

It seems hard to achieve both those goals at the same time. Which is why I guess people are suggesting some radical changes to the existing model of Super Rugby.

Whatever is decided on at the next meeting in March, it will settle the matter. People will either be turned off, or just accept it.