Broadcast options for Australian Rugby

[Brumby Runner]

Which I believe was a contributing factor the QRU having to run the two QLD based NRC teams.

There are a number of factors which contributed to it, but I know several clubs voiced their concern that if the NRC teams were going to be closely linked, or even branded the same as the clubs, it would draw players only to those teams. Thus widening the gap between the top sides and the bottom sides at QPR level.

I'm not close to any club side in the JID comp, but I remember when the Canberra Vikings got the nod to participate in the NRC, there was a lot of angst about only Tuggeranong Vikings players being selected at the expense of good players from other JID clubs, and further that that scenario would itself lead to better players leaving other clubs to join the Tuggeranong Vikings which at the time was probably the strongest of the clubs anyway.

Not sure if any of that came to pass, but it is clear that quite a few players from other clubs were used and that some proved to be successful at that level. In the past few years, while Vikings have remained strong in JID, other clubs have risen to challenge them or taken out the competition; twice by Royals most recently. Gungahlin Eagles and Uni-Norths have improved their competitiveness over that period.

Run properly, and fairly, I don't see a representative side with a similar name to one of the clubs necessarily being cause for those sorts of concerns. However, it is also clear that the Qld rugby way of running their NRC teams was a standout.

 

[Dan54]

I recall the biggest problem was identifying with a team, as the city/country thing was pretty loosely used seemingly in Qld. But in saying that, I still felt it was catching on a lot more when the plug was pulled on comp. Used to attend games , and you could almost feel the crowds (although reasonably small) were improving and people were getting behind teams, where as earlier seemed to be just supporting a player they knew. I not sure if I have explained it properly, but generally there certainly was a bit more getting behind teams I thought.

 

[Rugbynutter39]

I recall the biggest problem was identifying with a team, as the city/country thing was pretty loosely used seemingly in Qld. But in saying that, I still felt it was catching on a lot more when the plug was pulled on comp. Used to attend games , and you could almost feel the crowds (although reasonably small) were improving and people were getting behind teams, where as earlier seemed to be just supporting a player they knew. I not sure if I have explained it properly, but generally there certainly was a bit more getting behind teams I thought.

Bigger problem was they screwed it up in nsw / Sydney with chopping and changing and lack of nswru / tahs original support. Started with 4 teams which was too many but remember early days got 2k crowds for rays games at manly. But then with constant chopping and changing including moving side from concord to Eastwood etc and lack of effective tahs support until too late meant what little interest garnered early on disapated. Needed nrc to be successful in both nsw and qld and qld had some more success but in nsw was a complete shambles which helped to kill it off. Mismanagement and poor decisions seems to have lot of history with nswru and tahs.

 

[dru]

I'm not close to any club side in the JID comp, but I remember when the Canberra Vikings got the nod to participate in the NRC, there was a lot of angst about only Tuggeranong Vikings players being selected at the expense of good players from other JID clubs, and further that that scenario would itself lead to better players leaving other clubs to join the Tuggeranong Vikings which at the time was probably the strongest of the clubs anyway.

Not sure if any of that came to pass, but it is clear that quite a few players from other clubs were used and that some proved to be successful at that level. In the past few years, while Vikings have remained strong in JID, other clubs have risen to challenge them or taken out the competition; twice by Royals most recently. Gungahlin Eagles and Uni-Norths have improved their competitiveness over that period.

Run properly, and fairly, I don't see a representative side with a similar name to one of the clubs necessarily being cause for those sorts of concerns. However, it is also clear that the Qld rugby way of running their NRC teams was a standout.

I think this is right - and in Canberra I understand that there is quite some enmity between the Vikings and other clubs. If it can work there it's a good sign. I do think you lose some tribalism though. I also wonder how it would translate to pulling teams out of the SRU in NSW. There is just too much politics, wheedling and outright adversarial positioning.

I recall the biggest problem was identifying with a team, as the city/country thing was pretty loosely used seemingly in Qld. But in saying that, I still felt it was catching on a lot more when the plug was pulled on comp. Used to attend games , and you could almost feel the crowds (although reasonably small) were improving and people were getting behind teams, where as earlier seemed to be just supporting a player they knew. I not sure if I have explained it properly, but generally there certainly was a bit more getting behind teams I thought.

I don't think that Qld NRC team identification ever developed much at all. We had a pair of teams to watch and as a fan this was more about identifying opportunities for the Reds than identifying with City/Country. Reds to Regions is a big step but it's a lot more about seeking Qld roots than developing Country as a tribe/club. NRC did seem to have a lot more support from the clubs (than in Sydney) but this was a lot to do with an active avenue with club players getting a pathway to professionalism.

 

[Silverado]

Issue is that this destroys the integrity of the competition that these teams exist within now. If these 3 club teams became the primary destination of the best players/resources/coaches, then the disparity between them and other club teams in the QPR/SS will grow, destroying those competitions.

Spot on

 

[Dan54]

I don't think that Qld NRC team identification ever developed much at all. We had a pair of teams to watch and as a fan this was more about identifying opportunities for the Reds than identifying with City/Country. Reds to Regions is a big step but it's a lot more about seeking Qld roots than developing Country as a tribe/club. NRC did seem to have a lot more support from the clubs (than in Sydney) but this was a lot to do with an active avenue with club players getting a pathway to professionalism.

Yep, tat could be bang om what I was struggling to say dru, we were watching to see who was capable of moving up to Reds. I has thought (maybe hoped) that some were getting behind teams at end. I have commented before, for me (and I was only trying to find way of doing it) would of liked it to be split on what club team player was at, and find some way of splitting the clubs whether north and south of river etc. I not suggesting I know as much as Qlder rugby fans, and could see the split/boundary wherever thaty saw as best. Just if say I was Souths or Wests supporter etc (I almost said Sunnybank, but couldn't even imagine that), I would be looking at one or other team was mine as that's the team my club was associated with. I used to find it strange that Sef Fa'agase for instance played for country because he had played for some country club as a kid for religeous reasons. I will be honest my view could be coloured by being a kiwi and following NPC etc, but just how I saw it when in Qld.

 

[RugbyReg]

Look you still need your tier 3 (bridge between club and super) to be something that supports Super Rugby. So if Qld have two teams you want your best open sides on opposite teams. Your best scrumhalves on opposite teams. Your best fullbacks etc etc.

So a simple split along geographic lines to get club ‘buy in’ won’t work.

I think Qld did it pretty damn well to be honest. I can’t remember too many real country lads playing for City. They generally all played country. So Slipper, Simmons, Hoopert, Stewart, McDermott, Blyth, Hockings etc. You might have got some non-country lads playing for Qld Country but it didn’t happen the other way that I recall. Which is a pretty effective approach considering it is all about a high performance outcome.

As for clubs needing an identity to cheer for to make it relevant? I call bullshit on that too. How many wests players live in western brisbane? Etc etc.

There are only two things that need to change for the NRC if it is to be deemed more of a success 1) marketing budget and 2) greater high performance environment.

I personally think Stan would be awesome for the NRC but RA barely spent a cent on promoting it.

I also thing most teams did HP well except for NSW. Although a decent pay packet for the non super rugby squad members would be good too.

 

[Dan54]

As for clubs needing an identity to cheer for to make it relevant? I call bullshit on that too. How many wests players live in western brisbane? Etc etc.

Yep understand your point, but on club thing , if someone plays for Wests (or Souths etc) I think supporters take ownership of them because of who they play for,and I would suggest you are picked on club, and not their home address. Was a comment made to me by mates when we went to NRC games in Brisbane, and a couple didn't really get into it, because of what you said, he felt he was just watching a trial match, and not a comp. Buy I will say my thoughts are probably also coloured by years of NPC, and anything is a sight better than what is being done now.
As you say , maybe a decent promotion budget is all that's needed.
And I agree have a feeling that Stan may just promote well anyway.

 

[Rob42]

Or for simplicity, how about we resurrect the Ricoh Cup and have the Super Rugby franchises play on during the international season, minus their Wallabies?

It brings additional players into the Super Rugby squads, gives the squaddies some proper game time, and the infrastructure is all there already. Plus some existing buy-in from the fans, instead of creating new teams.

 

[Jimmy_Crouch]

Or for simplicity, how about we resurrect the Ricoh Cup and have the Super Rugby franchises play on during the international season, minus their Wallabies?

It brings additional players into the Super Rugby squads, gives the squaddies some proper game time, and the infrastructure is all there already. Plus some existing buy-in from the fans, instead of creating new teams.

Just feels like more of the same though right.

 

[WorkingClassRugger]

Look you still need your tier 3 (bridge between club and super) to be something that supports Super Rugby. So if Qld have two teams you want your best open sides on opposite teams. Your best scrumhalves on opposite teams. Your best fullbacks etc etc.

So a simple split along geographic lines to get club ‘buy in’ won’t work.

I think Qld did it pretty damn well to be honest. I can’t remember too many real country lads playing for City. They generally all played country. So Slipper, Simmons, Hoopert, Stewart, McDermott, Blyth, Hockings etc. You might have got some non-country lads playing for Qld Country but it didn’t happen the other way that I recall. Which is a pretty effective approach considering it is all about a high performance outcome.

As for clubs needing an identity to cheer for to make it relevant? I call bullshit on that too. How many wests players live in western brisbane? Etc etc.

There are only two things that need to change for the NRC if it is to be deemed more of a success 1) marketing budget and 2) greater high performance environment.

I personally think Stan would be awesome for the NRC but RA barely spent a cent on promoting it.

I also thing most teams did HP well except for NSW. Although a decent pay packet for the non super rugby squad members would be good too.

The NRC model is my preferred set up but as you suggest. With a more significant marketing budget and HP environment.

 

[Adam84]

BBL is only 8 teams, they have no established tribal following from club teams and are completely fabricated brands and teams. It’s a successful competition minus test players.

It’s possible for rugby.

 

[RugbyReg]

Yep understand your point, but on club thing , if someone plays for Wests (or Souths etc) I think supporters take ownership of them because of who they play for,and I would suggest you are picked on club, and not their home address. Was a comment made to me by mates when we went to NRC games in Brisbane, and a couple didn't really get into it, because of what you said, he felt he was just watching a trial match, and not a comp. Buy I will say my thoughts are probably also coloured by years of NPC, and anything is a sight better than what is being done now.
As you say , maybe a decent promotion budget is all that's needed.
And I agree have a feeling that Stan may just promote well anyway.

Or for simplicity, how about we resurrect the Ricoh Cup and have the Super Rugby franchises play on during the international season, minus their Wallabies?

It brings additional players into the Super Rugby squads, gives the squaddies some proper game time, and the infrastructure is all there already. Plus some existing buy-in from the fans, instead of creating new teams.

here you go!

 

[RugbyReg]

I think BBL is the next example of what’s required for RA, it’s only 8 teams and sufficiently seperate from the Sheffield Shield to create its own unique identity. Start with 6 teams, make it bright, colourful and unique Super Rugby.

I don’t buy the idea that the competition needs an existing tribal base like a SS or QPR team, it just needs to be managed and advertised effectively.

I’d also push for these teams to have a player equalisation/ballot system of sorts. Don’t just have it as a reserve grade team of the Super Rugby team. Allow for some player movement to equalise teams, but also generate interesting leading into the season.

BBL is massively expensive.

Also, the player movement thing (which is one thing I really don't like about BBL, but I'm not the target market) also screws with combinations. We want Lynagh forming combinations with Thomas and Grealy at every level, so when they get the chance to play for the Reds together then the combos are already there.

 

[Rob42]

here you go!

View attachment 12828

Brilliant work Reg. So, Tizzano in for Hooper, and the Tahs are unchanged from Super Rugby!

 

[Adam84]

BBL is massively expensive.

Also, the player movement thing (which is one thing I really don't like about BBL, but I'm not the target market) also screws with combinations. We want Lynagh forming combinations with Thomas and Grealy at every level, so when they get the chance to play for the Reds together then the combos are already there.

i edited my post after I posted.

BBL is expensive, but that’s also why it’s successful because it was marketed effectively

but to reply to the player movement, I absolutely think it’s possible so both agendas are met.

Lynagh and Grealy are an example where you want combinations built, but in other examples it would be better suited to allow players to shift for playing time and to boost the competitiveness of those other teams

 

[dru]

here you go!

And here's one we prepared earlier! Great work Reg.

I'd prefer that each franchise, minus the internationals, split into two teams and introduced the cream from the respective club competitions - a la Qld City and Country. I don't mind NSW wanting three and Force and Rebels only one (though two is better). Also don't mind the Drua being there. Better tie-in between levels and more games to play.

I'd still support the franchise's playing on through the internationals though.

 

[PhilClinton]

i edited my post after I posted.

BBL is expensive, but that’s also why it’s successful because it was marketed effectively

but to reply to the player movement, I absolutely think it’s possible so both agendas are met.

Lynagh and Grealy are an example where you want combinations built, but in other examples it would be better suited to allow players to shift for playing time and to boost the competitiveness of those other teams

The BBL approach is very interesting isn't it, they openly embraced a lack of tribalism with their structure. For example moving away completely from the maroon/red colour scheme for the Brisbane team, giving them their own identity as a Brisbane based franchise, rather than a team of QLDers. And it seems to have paid off with the supporters getting around the team.

Part of the reason I think the BBL is so popular (and expensive to run) is playing at least one or two games across every night of the week. Essentially means for most of the summer, there is nothing else sports wise to watch at night-time so lots of people tune into the BBL.

I wonder if a third tier rugby competition could capitalise on similar broadcasting arrangements. Run a short sharp competition after club rugby season finishes, play games Monday - Thursday nights where there is literally nothing else competing for screen time, and then Rugby Championship and Spring Tour games on the weekends, a full blown rugby sensory onslaught. Issue of course being lots of the players involved will be amateur or semi-pro, so for example playing games on a Monday night interstate might cause some headaches.

 

[Adam84]

The BBL approach is very interesting isn't it, they openly embraced a lack of tribalism with their structure. For example moving away completely from the maroon/red colour scheme for the Brisbane team, giving them their own identity as a Brisbane based franchise, rather than a team of QLDers. And it seems to have paid off with the supporters getting around the team.

Part of the reason I think the BBL is so popular (and expensive to run) is playing at least one or two games across every night of the week. Essentially means for most of the summer, there is nothing else sports wise to watch at night-time so lots of people tune into the BBL.

I wonder if a third tier rugby competition could capitalise on similar broadcasting arrangements. Run a short sharp competition after club rugby season finishes, play games Monday - Thursday nights where there is literally nothing else competing for screen time, and then Rugby Championship and Spring Tour games on the weekends, a full blown rugby sensory onslaught. Issue of course being lots of the players involved will be amateur or semi-pro, so for example playing games on a Monday night interstate might cause some headaches.

Yep I think rather then trying to simply be a reserve grade edition of the super rugby team, which comes with its own negative connotations, they aim to create the teams as a unique Identify on their own.

BBL is an example of achieving this, as they too play without the test cricketers. They’ve created their own identities completely seperate from the state versions, and in the process have been able to release some of those traditionalists shackles that are associated with those state teams.

i wouldn’t even call it ‘third tier’ I think that name is damaging for the product

 

[dru]

i wouldn’t even call it ‘third tier’ I think that name is damaging for the product

Agree - "third tier" should be banned.