kiap
Steve Williams (59)
Sure, but while the Wallabies are the pinnacle, there are typically only 6 home games a season outside of world cup years. You can't sustain the sport with that. An improved second tier can secure that.
Exit from Super Rugby?
- Thread starter kiap
- Start date
- Status
Pfitzy
Nathan Sharpe (72)
Dropping South African teams would almost instantly increase the quality of the competition IMHO, so Trans Tasman works for me. And the brand wouldn't even need to change: Super Rugby is getting a bit dated, but could still work.
That isn't to suggest I don't love watching two Saffer teams knock six shades of shit out of each other, but really they don't offer much on tour and they'll win at all costs at home, even if it means 12 straight penalty attempts and 400 tackles.
The product with Aussie and NZ teams would still have enough variety in styles to promote all aspects of the sport, and allow us to take it to the next level. Go back to a Super 12 with, as I said above, 5 Aussie teams, 6 Kiwi teams, and a Pacific Islands team based out of Parramatta Stadium.
SkyNZ in particular aren't idiots, and they know that ITM Cup alone isn't going to keep their subscription rate up. They need a premier rugby product. The loss of dollars from South Africa is proportional of course, but the availability of a larger Australian pie is tasty as a long-term prospect.
That isn't to suggest I don't love watching two Saffer teams knock six shades of shit out of each other, but really they don't offer much on tour and they'll win at all costs at home, even if it means 12 straight penalty attempts and 400 tackles.
The product with Aussie and NZ teams would still have enough variety in styles to promote all aspects of the sport, and allow us to take it to the next level. Go back to a Super 12 with, as I said above, 5 Aussie teams, 6 Kiwi teams, and a Pacific Islands team based out of Parramatta Stadium.
SkyNZ in particular aren't idiots, and they know that ITM Cup alone isn't going to keep their subscription rate up. They need a premier rugby product. The loss of dollars from South Africa is proportional of course, but the availability of a larger Australian pie is tasty as a long-term prospect.
Under what option are the Wallabies not likely to be the pinnacle of the product rugby has to offer?
kiap
Steve Williams (59)
The option where foreign clubs buy out the top players and Australia becomes just another Pacific Island of rugby . . .
The point is that while the Wallabies would remain the pinnacle, it's not enough.
We need the base underneath to grow much bigger to increase the generation of dollars to be able to push the peak higher.
kiap
Steve Williams (59)
kiap
Steve Williams (59)
There's no edit to my post, quoted or otherwise.I'm reading what BraveHeart quoted, and my point stands.
So this what you are saying?
BDA
Jim Lenehan (48)
Another option would be to make the 6th Aussie team one of the NRC teams. (i.e. which ever team wins the NRC the year prior gets a spot in the Trans-Tasman Comp). It would certainly create a nice "rags to riches" story for some second tier players and would also help promote the NRC as an important competition for fans to follow
Bardon
Peter Fenwicke (45)
I still don't see why it's an either or with Super Rugby. I would imagine that an NRC that included the current Aus Super Rugby teams could work well with a truncated Super Rugby competition akin to the HEC. Qualification for the pool stages of the Super Rugby comp could be through the NRC. It might even add spice to what otherwise might have been dead rubbers towards the end of the season as teams battle for the final qualification spot.
You'd have all your local derbies and have plenty of product to satisfy both Fox/Sky and any FTA partner for the local market. Then when the Super Rugby pools are drawn it's a big event because the Aus club champions might be drawn against the NZ or SA champions.
You could end up with HEC style pools of death where the Aus champs are in a 4 team pool and the other 3 teams are the Sharks, Saders and Chiefs. Playing teams from SA and NZ would mean something more than just another league game.
Even playing the weaker teams will mean something as the truncated competition builds over the years. Games against teams like the Lions, Highlanders will take on new meaning because they were the team the beat you in the final pool game to knock you out of the competition 2 or 3 years ago. Now it's revenge time and there's an added spice to the game.
You just don't get that kind of thing with the current Super Rugby format because it tries to do too many things and although it's good it leaves you feeling like you're not completely satisfied. Well that's my view as an outsider anyway.
You'd have all your local derbies and have plenty of product to satisfy both Fox/Sky and any FTA partner for the local market. Then when the Super Rugby pools are drawn it's a big event because the Aus club champions might be drawn against the NZ or SA champions.
You could end up with HEC style pools of death where the Aus champs are in a 4 team pool and the other 3 teams are the Sharks, Saders and Chiefs. Playing teams from SA and NZ would mean something more than just another league game.
Even playing the weaker teams will mean something as the truncated competition builds over the years. Games against teams like the Lions, Highlanders will take on new meaning because they were the team the beat you in the final pool game to knock you out of the competition 2 or 3 years ago. Now it's revenge time and there's an added spice to the game.
You just don't get that kind of thing with the current Super Rugby format because it tries to do too many things and although it's good it leaves you feeling like you're not completely satisfied. Well that's my view as an outsider anyway.
T
Tip
Guest
1) Boot South Africa from Super Rugby
2) Replace with Asian teams (2xJapan, HongKong, Singapore, Shanghei)
3) Bide our time until the 2019 WC and Asia's interest in Rugby perks.
BOOM we've got teams there ready for them to support and playing a high standard of Rugby.
4) Post 2019 WC we can all play happy and be friends after the introduction of a Heineken Cup tournament
2) Replace with Asian teams (2xJapan, HongKong, Singapore, Shanghei)
3) Bide our time until the 2019 WC and Asia's interest in Rugby perks.
BOOM we've got teams there ready for them to support and playing a high standard of Rugby.
4) Post 2019 WC we can all play happy and be friends after the introduction of a Heineken Cup tournament
Omar Comin'
Chilla Wilson (44)
They should always be the pinnacle in the sense of being the top echelon of the sport, but I don't think they should always be the number 1 (and pretty much only) revenue driver. Pinning the hopes of an entire sport on the success of one team in a country as large as Australia isn't a great long term strategy. It's also really impossible for the Wallabies to engage with fans (and particularly kids) at the community level.
Imagine if we had 8 or 10 Australian based teams/clubs/franchises at the top of our domestic rugby (whether that was in a kind of top level NRC, a trans tasman comp or an Asia-Pacific league). Imagine they averaged 20k fans a game and played in a comp that went over about 20 weeks where every match was played at ideal times for Australian viewers. Where we could create big events around special occasions (for example, ANZAC day and Easter). Where at least a couple of matches each week were played on FTA and the rest were live on Foxtel and through new subscription based digital offerings. Where the top teams qualified for a shorter Heineken Cup style tournament to play against teams from South Africa and elsewhere.
That sort of structure could really improve the finances of Australian rugby and broaden the revenue base. The Wallabies would then become our champion, rather than our entire army in the eternal sporting war against the other codes. I think this is the medium term vision the ARU should have.
Is that really so unrealistic? You might say we don't have the player depth for that many teams...but it's irrelevant because rugby is a global game and we could fill up teams with as many imports as needed to maintain quality.
The question would then be is our market big enough for 8 or 10 teams that could draw 15-20k week to week? I certainly think so. One (perhaps even 2) more in Sydney, one more in Brisbane, one in the Hunter region. Other options would include Adelaide, Gold Coast and the Central Coast. As I've said before, there's plenty of high net worth people in Australia that love rugby. Open up the sport to them. Get them bidding to start and run teams.
WorkingClassRugger
Michael Lynagh (62)
Sort of my point. The performance of the national team is irrelevant for the growth of the game. The performance of the Wallabies while nice to see on the rise, really won't achieve much in capturing the hearts and minds outside of we few diehards. The affinity people toward clubs in domestic competitions is the means to draw more people in. That and actual development works.
Omar Comin'
Chilla Wilson (44)
Obviously teams from such locations wouldn't be full of locals. They would be more like the Toulon of Asia-Pacific rugby.
One positive of teams like that is they could help keep players from moving to Europe. If there was an Asia-Pacific league or conference Australia and New Zealand could potentially allow players to play for any team within it and still be eligible for test selection.
A big part of the motivation for players to move to Europe is to experience living in another country. The lifestyle in places like Hong Kong and Singapore would be attractive alternatives to Europe - especially if you could keep test eligibility.
Something to think about anyway.
ACT Crusader
Jim Lenehan (48)
And why is there that affinity to the domestic comps? Because of tradition and tribalism. We are talking about league teams that have been around for eons for the most part or have their roots still firmly planted ie Easts and the Roosters.
Rugby is working from the fact that the Wallabies are the one constant that as been there for eons.
When rugby turned professional, the old NSW and QLD rivalries and state tribalism stayed for a little while. But it basically has been consumed by Super rugby which is 'franchise' based and has direct contracting and lots and lots of player movements.
For the Brumbies, Reds, Force etc, it doesn't really matter where a player is coming up through the junior ranks, the scouts will travel far and wide to find the player for their team. Tribalism and the link to the community etc is not there. The NRL still maintains a strong element of that despite player movements.
Omar Comin'
Chilla Wilson (44)
Tribalism can be built very quickly. Tradition is not a necessity. Look at the Western Sydney Wanderers for example. Their supporters are among the most passionate in the country.
To begin with though I think the most important thing a sporting competition needs is a good product that people enjoy watching. The Big Bash League for example was massive over the summer, but you couldn't say there's much tribalism in that competition. They're giving it the chance to build though...and now cricket isn't as reliant on the success of the Aussie team.
kiap
Steve Williams (59)
The NRL and AFL aren't really comparable to rugby union's position. Those competitions are on a different level.
The ARU's model should be more analogous to soccer's A-League (or even netball's ANZ Championship) with a short history and newly franchised teams. For pro-leagues in Aus, franchises are here to stay. This sort of competition can be successful.
As previously mentioned, the downside of exiting Super Rugby would include reduced competition with SA and NZ (probably Tests and pre-season matches only), which could reduce the standard here of play/players (not immediately but over several years). Countering that on the upside, this arrangement could eclipse Super Rugby in its present format financially (not immediately but over several years). That would retain and attract good players.
I think the ARU will stick with Super Rugby as their Plan A, so long as it is workable and viable (and because the NZRU are not interested in a TT) but the domestic option could also be viable. Also think that it would be a good thing if a Super Cup competition was maintained, either way.
Pfitzy
Nathan Sharpe (72)
BBL.
It's tradition that draws fans in.
In rugby, the tradition lies in things such as the Bledisloe Cup and the RWC all of which involve the Wallabies.
The traditions in rugby league have nothing to do with the Kangaroos.
- Status