Rugby TV ratings 2015

[wamberal]

As far as funding is concerned, we are caught between a rock and a hard place. We rely hugely on Soup TV revenues, even though this reliance comes, to some extent, to the detriment of local interest in our code.


It is very difficult to see a way forward without wholesale changes in the whole sport. Which, I accept, is unlikely to happen without a major revolution.


The only avenue I can see is the emergence of a modified set of rules - a hybrid game, in other words, which becomes the rugby code of choice for the Asia Pacific.

My active interest in the game goes back to the early fifties, when I was old enough to toddle up to the old Eastwood Oval to watch the Woodies get smashed every week. But my best and oldest memory is of our neighbour, a solicitor and mad league supporter, taking me to the SCG to watch the visiting Fijian team.

I wonder how many kids who know nothing of our sport would love to see the Wallabies play Fiji in a contest where the ball is king, as it was then. Not the scrum, or the ruck, or the mail. The friggin' ball. That's what people want to see.


Give it to them, and they will come.

 

[Omar Comin']

I think the way forward to recapture the competitiveness and quality of Super Rugby to the level that we had in the 2000's is to develop a champions cup concept. People may dismiss it, but the European Rugby Champions Cup appeals because its the best 20 european teams playing against each other.

How would SANZAR structure something like that? Well thats the issue, you could have the current conferences serve as the qualifying period, and then the best teams from each conference get selected for the SANZAR Champions Cup, the bottom teams from each conference go through to a Challenge Cup.

I think basically you can see where the 2016-2020 structure is probably going to head in future. 2 main divisions - Pacific and Atlantic, each with 2 or 3 conferences. That's if this initial expansion into Argentina and Japan is successful. If it's not then it'll probably go back to more like what we've had the last 5 years.

The important detail is around how they structure the regular season and the playoffs. Super Rugby seems to be going down more the NFL style model with cross conference and some cross divisional games in the regular season (main reason because NZ and SA want to have their teams playing each other regularly). If that's going to continue I think the finals system should be split up so you get conference champions, divisional champs and then Super Rugby Champions.

I'm not sure if a champions cup format would really work. I mean we have 5 professional teams in Australia. If we had to have our own stand alone domestic league separate from these cup tournaments we'd probably need at least an 8 team league and I don't think we have the market for that. Only way it could work is if our league was trans-tasman, and then you're basically getting to the same thing as a closed trans-tasman super rugby conference, which the NZRU didn't want to do.

 

[p.Tah]

The Super Rugby final had a rating of 583k viewers in NZ (Sky Sports). That's 13% of the population which is very good for pay TV. 50% of population have Pay TV in NZ.

By way of a comparison 13% of the Australian population is 3m. Origin 3 (The decider) rated 2.2m on free to air TV nationally.

 

[Strewthcobber]

By way of a comparison 13% of the Australian population is 3m. Origin 3 (The decider) rated 2.2m on free to air TV nationally.

The 2.2m was only the capital cities. Add in the regional numbers and it did 3.3m

Game 2 did 3.9m. Think the cricket pinched a few last night, and plenty in Sydney would have switched off early.

Origin draws a crowd

 

[p.Tah]

That was the point I was trying to make. Origin draws a crowd and so does a NZ Super Rugby final in NZ

 

[Quick Hands]

I think basically you can see where the 2016-2020 structure is probably going to head in future. 2 main divisions - Pacific and Atlantic, each with 2 or 3 conferences. That's if this initial expansion into Argentina and Japan is successful. If it's not then it'll probably go back to more like what we've had the last 5 years.

The important detail is around how they structure the regular season and the playoffs. Super Rugby seems to be going down more the NFL style model with cross conference and some cross divisional games in the regular season (main reason because NZ and SA want to have their teams playing each other regularly). If that's going to continue I think the finals system should be split up so you get conference champions, divisional champs and then Super Rugby Champions.

I'm not sure if a champions cup format would really work. I mean we have 5 professional teams in Australia. If we had to have our own stand alone domestic league separate from these cup tournaments we'd probably need at least an 8 team league and I don't think we have the market for that. Only way it could work is if our league was trans-tasman, and then you're basically getting to the same thing as a closed trans-tasman super rugby conference, which the NZRU didn't want to do.

In view of the NZFRU's desire to play regularly against SAF teams (and vice versa), the only option for a Pacific Conference would be the 5 Aussie teams, the Japanese team, a Pacific Islands team (maybe playing out of Townsville or Western Sydney) and the 8th team ????.

It's the time zones which kill interest for the non-rugby fanatics in Australia - the casual fan or newcomer probably aren't going to get up at 3am to watch a match and thus supporter interest is lost. Very difficult to build interest in these circumstances, expecially when other codes have all their games in prime time for 6 months. It's a bit different for the Kiwis and South Africans as rugby is their dominant sport and the interest is already there and built into the culture.

 

[Omar Comin']

In view of the NZFRU's desire to play regularly against SAF teams (and vice versa), the only option for a Pacific Conference would be the 5 Aussie teams, the Japanese team, a Pacific Islands team (maybe playing out of Townsville or Western Sydney) and the 8th team ????.

It's the time zones which kill interest for the non-rugby fanatics in Australia - the casual fan or newcomer probably aren't going to get up at 3am to watch a match and thus supporter interest is lost. Very difficult to build interest in these circumstances, expecially when other codes have all their games in prime time for 6 months. It's a bit different for the Kiwis and South Africans as rugby is their dominant sport and the interest is already there and built into the culture.

You could probably have 2 Asian based teams in 5 years. It'd come just after the 2019 world cup. The Asia-Pacific Dragons almost won the Super Rugby license and the Hong Kong Union is pretty cashed up and could be interested in starting a professional franchise in that time. But it doesn't seem that likely to me that Australia and New Zealand would split.

Agree on the 2nd paragraph. This is the problem with all the competing priorities that the unions have. Super Rugby would be better if the unions number 1 priority was to create as good a tournament as possible. Maybe it should be run more independently.

 

[Hugh Jarse]

Where does this get developed though?

Our market in most sports just isn't big enough to provide the pathways for many front of camera broadcasting jobs.

There are so few commentators and experts that aren't legends of the game in most sports here.

The sports with the best experts and commentators all have enough depth that there is a proper career development path such that people are interested in pursuing it as a career and have a place to start out as well as avenues to progress their career.

American sporting broadcasts are still littered with legends of the game but the difference is they're really good at the broadcasting bit because there are a lot of other people wanting to do what they're doing.

In relation to the Foxsports rugby broadcast, does anyone have any idea where Tom Lawton came from this year? It seems almost as if he told some of his mates he needed a job.

Are the Septics so good at sports journalism?

They seem to have wrapped up how pointless AFL is as a sport outside Vic, SA, WA and Tas.

Doesn't matter how big the TV deal may be in Australia, it is still seen as a blend of Rugby and mugging someone, right up there with Roller Derby.

 

[terry j]

heck, made even me like AFL a bit more! Lotsa fun that one

 

[WorkingClassRugger]

Global Season
I think Australia needs to bite the bullet, adopt a global season and shift professional rugby to Summer. It wouldn't be easy, but there are a number of benefits including not competing with AFL and NRL and allowing for better scheduling with Europe.

Fix the current scheduling
Bar that happening i think having to pause the Super Rugby season for the June test(in non RWC yeas) is a ridiculous concept and something which I think should stop. Rather then pausing the tournament i would prefer to see the number of games halved by simply splitting rounds over two weekends. It would hurt some teams, but i think its better then stopping the tournament and losing all momentum.


New Tournament
Ultimately, i want to see the Super Rugby tournament become the equivalent of the 'European Champions Cup'. Teams would have to qualify for the 'Super Rugby Cup' through their own national tournament, only the top 9 would qualify it would be a simple round robin tournament with a semi-final and grand-final. The bottom 9 would go into the Southern Cross Rugby Championship which would also be a round robin tournament with a semi-final and grand final.

Super Rugby Season would be split along these lines:

Feb-May: National Tournaments
May-Aug: Super Rugby Cup & Southern Cross Rugby Championship

A global season would be great but no one seems willing to budge so its unlikely it will ever happen. I agree that Super Rugby needs some clear air regarding competition from the likes of RL and AFL and summer would offer that. But I doubt we'll ever see it.

Which is why I'm just throwing this up here. In the US the group that runs the Vegas leg of the World Series is looking to launch its Super 7s concept. It's a 7s league with 8 teams. There are a number of structural changes to the format. Teams will have 21 players with unlimited interchange. Instead of two halves of 7 minutes they will be playing 4 quarters of 12 minutes each and plan on two refs. They ran a proof of concept game during their College Rugby Championship event in Philadelphia last year(for those unaware of this event its broadcast on NBC) between sessions. It got pretty loose in the 2nd half and the score ended up 72-48 or something like that. They used one of the National Development Academies (New York) and a Canadian Rugby Championship team (Ontario Blues) in the event. So while not Pro's reasonably good amateurs.

Now, I'm not suggesting that we emulate this. Not because I don't think it has any merit in trying but more because I don't think 7s best fits it. I think 10 a side or even 11 (if you want to keep six forwards) would be perfect. As it keeps the structure of the game but allows for more open play. I honestly think that if we were to look toward doing something in summer that this would be a good option.

I know that I'm going to cop flak for this. Fair enough. But Rugby desperately needs its own version of T20 Cricket. Something to capture the interest of new audiences. Rugby suffers from a huge perception issue. We need to break that. Sadly, 7s isn't that vessel. At least not here.

 

[Omar Comin']

I think if you have rugby 12 months of the year then you run the risk of fans getting rugby fatigue. And I don't think a summer 10's league featuring 2nd level players would have any chance of being successful. Maybe you could replicate the NRL 9's with a Super Rugby 10's weekend as has been proposed before, but that's it IMO.

7's at least has the profile of being an Olympic sport. Its global brand as a sport is developing all the time. Best bet is to do more to build up the Sydney world series event. If it can work in London, Hong Kong, Dubai and Las Vegas then it can work here. It's a marketing problem more than anything else. At least they have the location right this time. If and when that gains some decent traction perhaps more could be done with 7's down the line.

 

[mst]

I think if you have rugby 12 months of the year then you run the risk of fans getting rugby fatigue. And I don't think a summer 10's league featuring 2nd level players would have any chance of being successful. Maybe you could replicate the NRL 9's with a Super Rugby 10's weekend as has been proposed before, but that's it IMO.

7's at least has the profile of being an Olympic sport. Its global brand as a sport is developing all the time. Best bet is to do more to build up the Sydney world series event. If it can work in London, Hong Kong, Dubai and Las Vegas then it can work here. It's a marketing problem more than anything else. At least they have the location right this time. If and when that gains some decent traction perhaps more could be done with 7's down the line.

I always find it interesting that the conversations about what to do for Australian rugby always seem to head off either down the International options or alternatives to the 15 man game.

IMHO the key difference between rugby in this country and other countries is the lack of a strong domestic competition. I don't think further diversion of the game down hybrid lines will be of any help, rather prove detrimental as the public support will be split in to clusters watering down the supporter base.

The other part is around our international assets like the Wallabies. The marketing of this product is poor at best, and is really suffering as the domestic fan base is limited and stagnate. The ARU marketing seems yet to decide on any real strategy except for what we have had in place since pre 2000. In the mean time the Kiwis have ticked the box for the US market, are now well entrenched in the Pacific countries which although may seen not to provide much for their bank balance, World Rugby picks-up the tab, and the "reputation" of the All Blacks grows and self markets.

The comparisons seem to speak for themselves. The All Blacks are out and gaining support all over the shop, with prospective players from all corners clambering to get a run in the ITM to add to their CV's, while here in Australia we are talking 9's or 10's and how we can flog the Wallabies more in the same markets.

The NRC is a product that has potential and shows that there is room and opportunity in the domestic market. We should be focused on our domestic (based) products like Super 15 as the pinnacle, the NRC as the 2nd domestic tier and maybe a challenge cup at the state level to complement the current competitions.

I do agree with you Omar, over consumption can be as bad as lack of consumption.

We sat an watched the S15 final and wanted more - that is benchmark of the product we need; good game, entertaining and left us wanting and looking forward to next season!

Is the Kiwi product better because where our players are trying to "retain" contracts (thanks to the ARU and 60 caps etc) players are more worries about retaining spots thus constricting player turn over, development and identification of new talent, where in Kiwi land, the next big game breaker is merely a game away from discovery so unless you are doing it better, different or showing what you can bring, player not performing are one game away from playing elsewhere?

I know I watch the ITM to see the next All Black or international emerging star and also see some attacking entertaining rugby.

Marking is sometime more about emotion, culture and perception rather than a product. Look at the NRL state of origin - the game never lives up to the hype but the passion of the supporters unnited behind their teams, yet 3mil watched it. The supporter base - split between two states is 3mil for a domestic product!

The Wallabies are a national product drawing from a national fan base? Do we get close to 3mil drawing from all states and territories?

IMHO we never see that with Rugby as we seem to over intellectualise it, always are dealing with some either player or management politics or the in the sub text or the constant debate about how to save the game using the same ingredients over and over.

 

[wamberal]

The biggest single difference between the Kiwi "product" and ours, at all levels, is that they are all better skilled.


They can catch, pass, tackle, kick, better than we can. Why is is so? I have not had anything much to do with New Zealand rugby, but it is obvious that there is a depth to the game there that just does not exist here, or anywhere else.


My neighbour is a former junior rep, his father played for Taranaki. He said to me one day that in New Zealand the average mother knows the rules of the game.

That kind of sums it up for me. They know it, they play it from the cradle, the competition for places on teams is fierce, and the weak fall by the wayside.

 

[mst]

The biggest single difference between the Kiwi "product" and ours, at all levels, is that they are all better skilled.


They can catch, pass, tackle, kick, better than we can. Why is is so? I have not had anything much to do with New Zealand rugby, but it is obvious that there is a depth to the game there that just does not exist here, or anywhere else.


My neighbour is a former junior rep, his father played for Taranaki. He said to me one day that in New Zealand the average mother knows the rules of the game.

That kind of sums it up for me. They know it, they play it from the cradle, the competition for places on teams is fierce, and the weak fall by the wayside.

As to part of my point, players develop through opportunity, and with with the availability of opportunity more players will develop. I believe part of the perception in Australia rugby about the the lack of player depth, and the worry about the player drain O/S is the a circular argument. We stop the flow and the opportunities are limited. The limited opportunities inhibit player development.

This then flows on to the perception of "ÿoung" players and the potential options, The ARU message atm is more about the lack of depth, which suggests coaching, or lack of skilled players etc as the problem, which in turn suggests the pathways are limited or difficult and even if you are good enough, the old school is signed up for the next 3yrs or have a free pass back..........not much of an incentive from my prospective.

Yhe anecdotal evidence is there:

The RL Australian schoolboys team was announced on Friday.
17 players names, 13 of them from NSW, 3 QLD and 1 ACT. Two come from traditional Rugby schools, Newington and Oakhill College.

http://m.nrl.com/australian-schoolboys-rugby-league-team-named/tabid/10874/newsid/87890/default.aspx

Imagine if the Rugby schoolboys team was 76% NSW kids. All hell would break lose

Look at the Australian cricket team - they rewarded loyalty for too long at the expense of taking a chance on the newer talent which has wounded them and is still haunting them.

 

[wamberal]

By the time they get to the level of being picked for Australian Schoolboys, all the best young league kids are already signed, some would have been signed at the age of 14.


That's why there is no outcry, being picked for Australian Schoolboys means very little to them. Plus, as I said earlier, a lot of their best kids have already left school without finishing high school, so they are not eligible anyway.

We have nothing to learn from cricket, or league, or the AFL. They have their problems and we have ours.


The big difference is, they have huge broadcasting revenues, we have diddley-squat. Plus the two winter codes control their own rule books, so they can tailor their games to meet local preferences, both those of the viewers and particularly those of the broadcasters and their sponsors.


Not much we can learn from that, at least nothing we can do anything about.

 

[mst]

By the time they get to the level of being picked for Australian Schoolboys, all the best young league kids are already signed, some would have been signed at the age of 14.


That's why there is no outcry, being picked for Australian Schoolboys means very little to them. Plus, as I said earlier, a lot of their best kids have already left school without finishing high school, so they are not eligible anyway.

We have nothing to learn from cricket, or league, or the AFL. They have their problems and we have ours.


The big difference is, they have huge broadcasting revenues, we have diddley-squat. Plus the two winter codes control their own rule books, so they can tailor their games to meet local preferences, both those of the viewers and particularly those of the broadcasters and their sponsors.


Not much we can learn from that, at least nothing we can do anything about.

I cant disagree with what you are saying as your points all have significant merit. I suppose I am trying to be optimistic and find a way with what we have to work with.

i will say though I think we can learn from the other sports - maybe not directly but in around cultural and the marketing of the game, and examine their success and failures in the common sports market.

 

[wamberal]

I cant disagree with what you are saying as your points all have significant merit. I suppose I am trying to be optimistic and find a way with what we have to work with.

i will say though I think we can learn from the other sports - maybe not directly but in around cultural and the marketing of the game, and examine their success and failures in the common sports market.

I think we can learn a lot (and have) from other rugby playing countries. For example, New Zealand coaches were far better than ours at managing Polynesian kids. We seem to be better at it now.

I am glad that you are optimistic. That is a good attribute to have!! I was really optimistic until a few years ago. The game here looked to be in really good shape, two World Cups, some really good rugby, particularly the Brumbies, we were really on a roll.

For me, it all started going downhill about the time of the 2007 RWC, which featured some really dire rugby. Since then we have seen the dominance of the scrum and the rolling maul taking the life out of the game.......


Come to think of it, there are some things we could learn from the other codes. They seem to know how to put a product on the field that the wider population can understand and can enjoy watching.

 

[Gnostic]

The biggest single difference between the Kiwi "product" and ours, at all levels, is that they are all better skilled.


They can catch, pass, tackle, kick, better than we can. Why is is so? I have not had anything much to do with New Zealand rugby, but it is obvious that there is a depth to the game there that just does not exist here, or anywhere else.


My neighbour is a former junior rep, his father played for Taranaki. He said to me one day that in New Zealand the average mother knows the rules of the game.

That kind of sums it up for me. They know it, they play it from the cradle, the competition for places on teams is fierce, and the weak fall by the wayside.

There is also better skills coaching at all levels, a favourite topic that I have been harping on about for years here.

Just look at the national skills systems that the NZRU use.

 

[mst]

I think we can learn a lot (and have) from other rugby playing countries. For example, New Zealand coaches were far better than ours at managing Polynesian kids. We seem to be better at it now.

I am glad that you are optimistic. That is a good attribute to have!! I was really optimistic until a few years ago. The game here looked to be in really good shape, two World Cups, some really good rugby, particularly the Brumbies, we were really on a roll.

For me, it all started going downhill about the time of the 2007 RWC, which featured some really dire rugby. Since then we have seen the dominance of the scrum and the rolling maul taking the life out of the game...


Come to think of it, there are some things we could learn from the other codes. They seem to know how to put a product on the field that the wider population can understand and can enjoy watching.

I sometimes wonder if its cultural; an institutionalised way of thinking that has crept in to rugby and those around it. The type of game we play which goes to the way we now coach it, to how we identify, recruit, manage players and extending to even how market, to whom and how.

We seem to be pessimistic about our ability to succeed domestic sporting market without basically changing the product. The want to cater to the domestic market maybe overlook the obvious point that in doing so you may lose what you have, and essentially you are selling a different product.

Rugby is a marketable sport, but are we really marketing the right way to the right people? Are we getting the right people interested in playing or being involved in the game?

If you step back and have a look at the messages emanating from the game its about retaining the old even though we have doubts about their ability and the depth we have and little about bringing in the next generation - same box different wrapping. Its not a good message and the sub-text suggests that the game is not in a good state and the future isn't rosy.

I question even if the Wallabies were to win the WC, would it be any more than a flash in the pan for Australian rugby. I doubt it. There need to be more significant and substantial changes to the fundamentals and core management of the game - not more quick but popular patches and fixes.

 

[wamberal]

The only memorable advertising campaign that I can recall was the one that characterised the players as animals. Think it might have been the lead up to the 2003 RWC?

But I think only a born optimist would deny that the game here was on a roll here then, we had some great creative players, rugby was actually popular.
RWC Pool games were sold out in the unlikeliest places.

What went wrong? The game went wrong. If the market does not want the product that you are promoting, you can be the best marketer in the world and not achieve anything more than temporary blips.

Let's face it. Learning to love rugby is a bit like learning to love eating oysters. It takes time. And one bad experience early on and that's it, you quit.


Unfortunately we have too many bad games amongst the good.