Where to for Super Rugby?

[hifflepiff]

Yeah because private ownership has worked so well her previously and the provincial model that rugby takes doesn’t lend itself to franchisers

Mate what? The 3rd best team in the country is privately owned/funded. Also are you implying that Aus Rugby can't operate in the same way that nearly all other sports worldwide operate?

This isn't even some radical idea, this is how almost all professional sports have operated since the early/mid 20th century.

 

[hifflepiff]

This is exactly the attitude that says Australia must treat very bloody carefully with NZ.

I'm happy to see a TT run, with or without the Pacific teams (I think Fiji is a go outside that less so), but NOT as the comp. Domestic not only must stay but must be the primary gig in town.

If it doesn't work for NZ I'm happy to run without Kiwi input in our pro rugby.

Agreed, we can't tie the destiny of professional rugby in Australia to NZ, because at the end of the day they will only look out for their own interests (as they should).

We should cooperate where we can, but we also need to autonomy to do what's best for Rugby in this country without being forced to pander to the NZRU.

 

[dru]

Agreed, we can't tie the destiny of professional rugby in Australia to NZ, because at the end of the day they will only look out for their own interests (as they should).

We should cooperate where we can, but we also need to autonomy to do what's best for Rugby in this country without being forced to pander to the NZRU.

If TT Round 1 is indicative of what is to happen, a two round home and away major league Super-TT as the major format for professional rugby in Australia and NZ is dead. As dead due the NZRU being unimpressed as it is for RA. NZRU have some real thinking to get through as they are finding themselves isolated. RA must in the mean time focus on home.

I don't imagine TT is dead, just contained. It won't be the primary comp as far as I can see.

 

[Joe King]

If we did keep the current structure with addition of the two PI teams, another option for the TT might be to divide it into a Cup and Plate format. So the top 3 teams from Super Rugby AU would only play the top 3 teams from Super Rugby Ao home and away with a final, and the bottom 3 teams from Super Rugby AU would only play the bottom 3 teams from Super Rugby Ao home and away with a final.

So for example, if next year was similar to this year's results, the Crusaders might play home and away against the Reds, Brumbies, and Force. While the Rebels might play home and away against the Highlanders, Hurricanes, and MP (Moana Pasifika).

So each team would still play the same amount of games as the current TT, but it might make the games more even and have less blow out scores.

 

[Brumby Runner]

I reckon the broadcasters will go for a shortened domestic comp before TT comp because I think the short form domestic comp also adds to the TT comp.I agree they would want to likely accommodate full season TT comp so hence the domestic short form comp as only likely option.

You've got it arse-about imo RN. The domestic season should be the main game in town and probably go two home away rounds with 6 or 7 teams. The TT should be a hit and giggle add-on at the end.

 

[Joe King]

If we did keep the current structure with addition of the two PI teams, another option for the TT might be to divide it into a Cup and Plate format. So the top 3 teams from Super Rugby AU would only play the top 3 teams from Super Rugby Ao home and away with a final, and the bottom 3 teams from Super Rugby AU would only play the bottom 3 teams from Super Rugby Ao home and away with a final.

So for example, if next year was similar to this year's results, the Crusaders might play home and away against the Reds, Brumbies, and Force. While the Rebels might play home and away against the Highlanders, Hurricanes, and MP (Moana Pasifika).

So each team would still play the same amount of games as the current TT, but it might make the games more even and have less blow out scores.

Oh, and this structure for the TT/AP could also easily accommodate the top 3 Japanese teams in the Cup division, and the next 3 best Japanese teams in the Plate division. In the Cup division each team would play all the other teams NOT from their own domestic comp for 6 games, and same for each team in the Plate division.

So yeah, this is keeping Super Rugby AU as the focus, and treating the TT/AP as a post season champions league, except there is a second division champions league so that all teams from Super Rugby AU and Super Rugby Ao still get the same amount of games, and potential test players are still playing to make the Wallabies/ABs

 

[Rebel man]

Mate what? The 3rd best team in the country is privately owned/funded. Also are you implying that Aus Rugby can't operate in the same way that nearly all other sports worldwide operate?

This isn't even some radical idea, this is how almost all professional sports have operated since the early/mid 20th century.

If we want a franchise model we need to go down a franchise path like Cricket Aus did with the big bash. We can’t try and keep a provincial model and then add in franchises it just won’t work

 

[Dan54]

If we want a franchise model we need to go down a franchise path like Cricket Aus did with the big bash. We can’t try and keep a provincial model and then add in franchises it just won’t work

Yep need it to be one or other. I personally think if Aus has full franchise model (like NZ who are not provincial run) and could get 7-8 teams it would work well. I don't believe a 5 team comp can work for more than 3-4 years(and that why I argue it needs TT, and it the only reason). I hear the same things said from people over here in NZ, "f*** Aus, the rugby is much better etc etc", but I say exactly same here, 5 team comp won't work, and I reckon another year or so as things get back to normal it will fade again. And all the ones arguing for it will happily say that RA etc ballsed it up. I don't think we realise what a high we got on sports in NZ and Aus with everyone celebrating we are only places in world really with crowds allowed to go to sports. I really think after covid shit we should set ourselves for future, not have comps with a lifespan of 3-4 years that will have to then be rebuilt again!

 

[Adam84]

I don’t buy this argument that a domestic tournament will die after 3-4 years but a Trans Tasman will live on in perpetuity, there’s no evidence to suggest either is the case.

Just run them parallel and keep everyone happy

 

[Rugbynutter39]

You've got it arse-about imo RN. The domestic season should be the main game in town and probably go two home away rounds with 6 or 7 teams. The TT should be a hit and giggle add-on at the end.

My preference would be model you outlined but harder and it was about what I reckon broadcasters will go for (as what I prefer is irrelevant as to what will actually likely be implemented). Hence around and around we go.

 

[Adam84]

My preference would be model you outlined but harder and it was about what I reckon broadcasters will go for (as what I prefer is irrelevant as to what will actually likely be implemented). Hence around and around we go.

Broadcasters will go for for the product which appeals to the customer. When you're getting games like the Reds v Brumbies this year and all the ratings which followed, its hard to ignore at least for Australian broadcasters.

Pending what Japan does with their next season noting they're also in flux, running a domestic tournament followed by a Champions League format could potentially enable some of their teams to be made available for the tournament as well.

 

[Rebels3]

Can someone please explain how playing 4 different teams over 8 games is boring. It’s not like you’re playing them 4 times over 16 games.

Also considering you’d then play 5-6 other teams in another competition during the year.

So effectively playing the same amount of games as you used to against your own teams and the same amount against others as you used to.

The way I look at it, it’s the same amount of games but you have 2 comps instead of 1.

The floor awaits a logical answer other than it just will be or is.

 

[Rebels3]

The only reasoned argument in my mind for a fully fledged TT comp (which we know isn’t going to be a home and away as NZ won’t sign up for 22 weeks) is the international broadcasting dollars argument. SRAU will attract less international $$$ initially as its perceived as weaker and if its complemented with a single round robin TT then it will attract smaller amounts because it’s a shorter comp with less content. Although you could always package SRAU and SRAo in the same TT package to hopefully maximize revenue

 

[Adam84]

If kiwis are tired of watching the same teams play each other then maybe they should ask the NZRU why they pissed off all their partners last year then.

Australia needs to take care of Australia first, and this includes retaining control of a domestic competition. NZRU and their PE owners can’t be trusted IMO.

 

[Rugbynutter39]

Broadcasters will go for for the product which appeals to the customer. When you're getting games like the Reds v Brumbies this year and all the ratings which followed, its hard to ignore at least for Australian broadcasters.

Pending what Japan does with their next season noting they're also in flux, running a domestic tournament followed by a Champions League format could potentially enable some of their teams to be made available for the tournament as well.

Where I sit we have a domestic working product that could evolve, yes add ideally (if possible) drua short term to make 6 teams. Too risky to try and expand beyond that at this point. As nz going ahead with TT so we join that and make the best of it for a couple of seasons. Then sure we maybe look to domestic and champions league or stick with TT if we somehow make it work (I am doubtful we can but sure if it works we stick with it till it doesn’t). To me best to have a foot in both camps to try and reduce risks of getting it wrong (as risky to go all in on domestic OR TT as too early for either). I think optimal mix is domestic and TT or champions league (favour the latter as don’t think we will solve the nz greater depth issue). I think we are at least heading in the right direction if retain some form of domestic competition whilst try to do something with nz, but with mindset we evolve both and/or replace one of it does not work, and at right time. Nz going ahead with TT so let’s give it a go but keep our domestic and revaluate at right time.

 

[Dan54]

Can someone please explain how playing 4 different teams over 8 games is boring. It’s not like you’re playing them 4 times over 16 games.

Also considering you’d then play 5-6 other teams in another competition during the year.

So effectively playing the same amount of games as you used to against your own teams and the same amount against others as you used to.

The way I look at it, it’s the same amount of games but you have 2 comps instead of 1.

The floor awaits a logical answer other than it just will be or is.

My argument is playing 4 teams over 4 weeks on repeat will work for maybe a year or 2 more(and that for NZ and Aus), but as we know a 10 week comp won't pay any bills with TV. I think is both NZ and Aus had 7(at least) but more 8 teams, they could have great comp and be completely independant of each othet. I would personally love that, but without that both comps will lose interest in a couple of years. The only trouble if we stick with seperate comps followed by TT, what happens if what the negative nellies are saying happen? If NZ teams then did beat the Aus teams, how much do you think RA will get for the product if it basically seen as 2nd div comp?
In my prefect world we would have 8 teams in NZ and Aus and just play our own comps. It will mean splitting Qld and NSW and finding an awful lot more money, but would be preferable to any 5 teams comp.
Anyway, I sure we will get some decision soon, and hope we don't keep the halfarsed way we doing it now.
By the way I see what RN says about Drua being in in short term, that is so wrong to even consider saying ok you can play with us until we got enough teams then f*** off? I know that's probably not what you mean RN, but that's basically what it is.

 

[eastman]

The results from this weekend really solidified how fucked rugby is in Australia.

The truth is that the Australian teams (on average) are not remotely competitive with the NZ ones in terms of team cohesion, skill levels and individual athleticism- partly the result of drawing on such a limited player base our best athletes playing rugby league. Consecutive weeks of the Australian teams winning 1-2 out of 5 games is not going to do rugby in favours and viewers will turn off.

At the same time I can't see Super Rugby AU being the panacea either; there's not enough teams (or talent within the teams) and the quality of the games are not high enough to continue a growth trajectory. I don't think many people really want to see Kyle Godwin lining up against Hamish Stewart 5 times a year- especially when they can flick the channel and see the athleticism and skill level of rugby league at an all time high.

Rugby when played at its best is a great spectacle that can easily compete with the other major Australian sports- and its this version of rugby that we need to highlight and show to the masses. The big problem is that to show rugby at its best, then the Kiwis must be involved because they are the best proponents of it...

There's really not an easy answer.

 

[Joe King]

^^ But they won't "see Kyle Godwin lining up against Hamish Stewart 5 times a year". And this is the point Rebels3 is making: they will only see them line up against each other the same amount of times if there was a full season TT.

This misconception might explain why some people think a 6 team domestic comp will get boring after 2 years.

Even if this speculation had some merit, let's play it out for 2 more years to see what happens. Why waste the opportunity?! If it doesn't work or it doesn't pay the bills, then we can try a full season TT/AP.

 

[hifflepiff]

If we want a franchise model we need to go down a franchise path like Cricket Aus did with the big bash. We can’t try and keep a provincial model and then add in franchises it just won’t work

I don't see why this would be an issue? We should be looking to transition to a franchise model in the medium-long term anyway. The provicial unions have proven unable to effectively run both the professional and amateur/development aspects of rugby in their states and have ended up half arsing both.

Let the teams be privately owned and let the Unions focus their funds on more effectively supporting grassroots and development. Having to operate both is just a massive waste of their resources.

 

[Dan54]

I don't see why this would be an issue? We should be looking to transition to a franchise model in the medium-long term anyway. The provicial unions have proven unable to effectively run both the professional and amateur/development aspects of rugby in their states and have ended up half arsing both.

Let the teams be privately owned and let the Unions focus their funds on more effectively supporting grassroots and development. Having to operate both is just a massive waste of their resources.

yep I think Aus stuffed up by not having seperate entities when they set up for Super. You don't even really need private mpney to do it, and I agree it allows the the unions to run grassroots rugby, and you shouldn't need having to charge kids that play the game to help pay the wages of Super/test players as it does now.
As in NZ the unions run NPC and club rugby, and that is what I call domestic rugby. Leave the franchises to run super teams so they have one job, I think you would have a better system in NSW as an example. They don't even need to be privately owned, but would be great to let private money own shares.