Super Rugby Expansion in Australia. Success or failure?

[The_Brown_Hornet]

JB, you made all the points I was going to make and probably more eloquently.

Think of it like our cricket structure folks. We want the game to be strong in Australia and for the top team to win test matches. Part of that means caring less about where the players come from and more about whether they are good enough and getting sufficient opportunities to play first class cricket. The way we have become so strong in that game is by quality grass roots support and coaching, pathways through junior rep teams and the Shield. Let's not forget that cricket started basically with NSW, Vic and later SA. WA didn't play state cricket in regularly until 1948! Why would rugby be any different?

EDIT: I promise to stop polluting the thread by talking about this issue any more. Perhaps we should have a new thread.

 

[Bowside]

The relative success or failure of the expansion teams depends on your metrics for such success or failure.

There seems to be a number of people who are using grassroots involvement as the only metric of success. I disagree with that opinion.

If there are 150 odd players in Australia that are thereabouts to play Super Rugby, except 90% of them come from NSW or QLD, then we do Australian rugby a disservice by only offering them NSW and QLD. More teams in the Super Rugby comp means more professional rugby contracts out there, which means more talented kids will be likely to consider it as a potential career path. Distributing the teams amongst the major population centres also serves another goal, by increasing the potential markets which the Super Rugby product can be present in. This is important for a number of reasons, it means that there we reach out to more people in total and we create more potential revenue from television deals (which is the number 1 reason Melbourne got the license over the Spears/Kings).

So the question remains as to what metrics are relevant to determine success?
- Cashflow?
- Supporter numbers?
- Total Super Rugby quality players/potential Wallabies?
- Grassroot involvement?

My take is that all of them are important. I think that all of them are best achieved through the setup we have at the moment. To localise teams to where their players currently come from is an increasingly isolationist view which is out of sync with how other sporting organisations in the country (particularly the AFL) are operating. The real solution is investing in walla-rugby programs in schools like the AFL does with Auskick. We need to think long term, or else we will be beaten by the people who are.

I think you have to grow a good following for the game by creating a product that is entertaining and resilient. Part of that has to do with state loyalties and the development of legitimate grudge matches. I think we should look to model our game on a combination of the NZ model, as well as a few elements from league and cricket. In terms of getting kids to play, we can learn alot from what the AFL has done.

In terms of expansion, so far I would say it is to early to tell. Over the next 5 years, the brumbies need to build on what they already have to the point where their squad is 2/3 to 3/4 local players, the force need to start producing their own players, and the rebels need to establish themselves as the next best thing in Melbourne after the AFL. And all 3 need to achieve their goals without raping QLD and NSW of all their talent players.

Thank god someone started this thread, I was just about to do it before I left for the reds game but I didn't have time.

 

[Gooch]

The relative success or failure of the expansion teams depends on your metrics for such success or failure.

There seems to be a number of people who are using grassroots involvement as the only metric of success. I disagree with that opinion.

If there are 150 odd players in Australia that are thereabouts to play Super Rugby, except 90% of them come from NSW or QLD, then we do Australian rugby a disservice by only offering them NSW and QLD. More teams in the Super Rugby comp means more professional rugby contracts out there, which means more talented kids will be likely to consider it as a potential career path. Distributing the teams amongst the major population centres also serves another goal, by increasing the potential markets which the Super Rugby product can be present in. This is important for a number of reasons, it means that there we reach out to more people in total and we create more potential revenue from television deals (which is the number 1 reason Melbourne got the license over the Spears/Kings).

So the question remains as to what metrics are relevant to determine success?
- Cashflow?
- Supporter numbers?
- Total Super Rugby quality players/potential Wallabies?
- Grassroot involvement?

My take is that all of them are important. I think that all of them are best achieved through the setup we have at the moment. To localise teams to where their players currently come from is an increasingly isolationist view which is out of sync with how other sporting organisations in the country (particularly the AFL) are operating. The real solution is investing in walla-rugby programs in schools like the AFL does with Auskick. We need to think long term, or else we will be beaten by the people who are.

Very well said