Where to for Super Rugby?

[kiap]

All the Wallabies and potential Wallabies from the AU teams that didn't qualify must be drafted into the teams that did qualify.

It's a bad idea.

 

[wamberal]

It's a bad idea.

It would never happen. If it did it would destroy the viability of the competition for ever and a day.

 

[Dan54]

Well we have one thing that is out of the equasion obviously, a couple on here were saying that NZR should adopt an open border policy, I think we can all agree now, with RA picking players from outside Australia, they feel they obviously feel their Super teams don't need them and won't expect NZR to fill in the gaps!

 

[Brumby Runner]

I wouldn't like to see that happen, but in reality it is probably close to what NZRU wanted in terms of Aussie involvement in the first place.

I really don't like the idea of qualifying for the SRSP competition. It should be one-in, all-in imo.

 

[Dan54]

Well here is something that adds a whole new level of interest to Super rugby potentially,

Stuff

www.stuff.co.nz

 

[Teh Other Dave]

Super Rugby / TT, at least in the short-medium term, needs to be an aspirational thing for players sourced from a pro domestic comp. We need more than 5 professional teams for the code to survive and grow here.

We tried that twice now. The stumbling block each time has been the absence of buy-in from the SRU clubs.

 

[Teh Other Dave]

This rhetoric that Super Rugby was popular 20 years ago so we should just go back to that structure and number of teams is wilfully naive, it ignores 101 other trends which have occurred which have shaped market demand in that time, and incorrectly assumes that changing one variable will return to past glory. It wont, and it irks me people continue to look at past glories as an example of what could exist today, you need to understand the market as it exists today, not what existed 20 years ago.

Myspace was popular back in the early 2000’s as well, another example of a product which failed to effectively innovate and understand market trends.

If anything, we should be learning from past mistakes, like expanding too fast for the sake of expansion. Super Rugby fell into the same trap as any bad franchise model.

Nearby examples are the abject failure of the Suns in the AFL, and the Giants' inability to draw crowds despite being a fairly successful club in recent years. Even a bohemoth like the AFL have struggled to establish new clubs in expansion markets.

NSWRL/Super League/ARL/NRL spent the late 80s and early 90s expanding, and even 25 years after the war, team cuts, mergers, and cautious addition of the Titans, they're still being super cautious about adding the second Brisbane team.

 

[KOB1987]

We tried that twice now. The stumbling block each time has been the absence of buy-in from the SRU clubs.

Covid was a bit of a stumbling block for the latter version too.

 

[PaarlBok]

Although our teams struggled in the first rounds, seems the forced switch to NH are a big success

Rugby365.com
SA TO EURO: SUPER RUGBY'S LOSS IS URC'S GAIN

ONLINE EDITORS
STATS ATTACK: South Africa’s United Rugby Championship franchises might be struggling on the field, however, they are winning the hearts of television fans worldwide.
SA’S four franchises Lions, Bulls, Stormers and Sharks joined the newly developed European Pro Rugby competition the United Rugby Championship in 2021.
The move, which saw them swap Super Rugby for URC, was highly criticized by their Southern Hemisphere counterparts and even some fans in the North.
However, despite the inability to secure wins – albeit Lions win over the Zebre in round one – the impact of SA teams have been incredible and it is evident in television audience ratings.
The United Rugby Championship has recorded over one million viewers for a single round for the first time ever – setting a new viewership record for the league.
According to URC stats, Round one broke the previous league record and a 15 percent increase last weekend during the second round has pushed the total domestic audience beyond one million. This figure is the combination of the average viewing figures for each of the eight matches.
Average viewership across the UK, Ireland, Italy and South Africa have proven to be greater than the initial forecasts.
Of the 16 games played, the five most-watched URC games involve Welsh, Italian, Irish and South African teams with audiences across those games averaging a peak audience of 255 000 per game.
What is even more interesting is four of the top five most-watched URC games involve South African teams.
The Munster versus Stormers match played in Round Two top the charts with a peak audience of 308 000.
Sharks’ Round one defeat to Munster is second.
While Lions’ defeat to Scarlets in Round two is in fourth with a 251 200 peak.
Rounding off the top five highest audiences list is the Benetton versus Stormers match which saw a peak of 174 900 viewership.

Commenting on the big milestone Martin Anayi, CEO of United Rugby Championship, said: “To break our stated goal of one million viewers in a single round this soon is a terrific vote of confidence from our fans and is a tremendous boost to our clubs and broadcasters.
“The biggest days of the URC season are still to come and this sets a great foundation to build our audiences and grow the sport.”

 

[WorkingClassRugger]

More beneficial timezones. Who would have thought they make for better viewing opportunities.

 

[Derpus]

Was always going to be a good move financially.

Who cares that Europe is sucking the soul of rugby out through its arsehole, eh?

 

[Brumby Jack]

Geez, this next version of GRR is going to be lit....

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1447006020291551233

 

[Tomikin]

I know we're locked in for two years, but if the AU teams are not competitive, I expect the cry for change will be louder than old Super Rugby.

Looking forward, what if we played a short round robin Super Rugby AU comp with only the top 2 or 3 teams qualifying for SRP (Super Rugby Pacific).

All the Wallabies and potential Wallabies from the AU teams that didn't qualify must be drafted into the teams that did qualify.

RA to be in charge of the draft. So for example, if the Reds qualify, but don't have a great outside centre, RA can draft the best outside centre from one of the AU teams that didn't qualify to bolster the Reds.

Underneath SRP (Super Rugby Pacific), we play a home and away Super Rugby AU B comp for the coaching staff and fans of the AU teams that don't qualify.

There are always downsides and no easy solutions, but some of the benefits include:

1. Keeps all 5 Super Rugby AU teams alive.
2. Includes a Super Rugby AU domestic comp.
3. Potentially makes the AU teams more competitive in the SRP (Super Rugby Pacific) comp.
4. Having less AU teams in SRP (Super Rugby Pacific) will then benefit the Wallabies in terms of cohesion (according to Ben Darwin).
5. It still allows the Super Rugby AU winner to go all the way and win SRP (Super Rugby Pacific) if they are good enough.
6. It allows all the Super Rugby AU teams the chance to play in SRP (Super Rugby Pacific) if they are good enough.

A 10-team SRP (Super Rugby Pacific) comp will only go for 11 weeks (a 9-team SRP (Super Rugby Pacific) comp will only take 10 weeks). So that's not too long for any AU team to miss out for. In any case, fans of an AU team that misses out on SRP (Super Rugby Pacific) for that season will probably adopt an AU team that does qualify.

Never going to happen.. we aren't ditching teams to then force them into other teams... Dumb

 

[Joe King]

Never going to happen.. we aren't ditching teams to then force them into other teams... Dumb

It's been suggested many times to play domestic Super Rugby AU first with the top teams then qualifying to play against the NZ teams. My suggestion is simply a variation of that idea.

The difference is, the best players from the AU teams that don't qualify for SRP (Super Rugby Pacific) still get to play, by loaning them to the teams that do qualify.

The purpose of this idea is to keep all 5 AU teams alive each year, have stronger teams in SRP (Super Rugby Pacific), and provide a cohesion advantage for the Wallabies.

I grant you that it is a bit creative, and possibly dumb, but I still don't mind it much.

 

[Brumby Runner]

JK, and how do you think those players from the qualifying teams who have to drop out to make way for the stars from the also rans would feel? I reckon it would destroy any semblance of culture or cohesion in those sides that qualify. I'm with Tom on this - it is a hair-brained suggestion that would be very disruptive to all of the Super Rugby Au sides and to their fans.

 

[Joe King]

JK, and how do you think those players from the qualifying teams who have to drop out to make way for the stars from the also rans would feel? I reckon it would destroy any semblance of culture or cohesion in those sides that qualify. I'm with Tom on this - it is a hair-brained suggestion that would be very disruptive to all of the Super Rugby Au sides and to their fans.

Yeah, fair point.

 

[half]

If anything, we should be learning from past mistakes, like expanding too fast for the sake of expansion. Super Rugby fell into the same trap as any bad franchise model.

Nearby examples are the abject failure of the Suns in the AFL, and the Giants' inability to draw crowds despite being a fairly successful club in recent years. Even a bohemoth like the AFL have struggled to establish new clubs in expansion markets.

NSWRL/Super League/ARL/NRL spent the late 80s and early 90s expanding, and even 25 years after the war, team cuts, mergers, and cautious addition of the Titans, they're still being super cautious about adding the second Brisbane team.

Dave

Everything depends on how these things are measured.

The Giants and Suns, have increased the value of the AFL media deal, have helped the AFL gain government and business influence in NSW & QLD, and generally rate reasonably well. They lack similar crowds to other AFL matches but are arguably up when compared to other codes.

League expanding from 16 teams in a very successful competition format is light years away from Super Rugby having 5 teams playing a handful of times a year. So change is made with caution.

Basketball, Netball & Football are all trying to grow both their brands and coverage and increasing both coverage with expansion plans in place. The Super V8’s is also expanding.

Arguably the biggest risk to Rugby is to do nothing and maintain the status-que. The issue / challenge is to determine a starting point. But every year we fall a tad further behind, there will never be no perfect starting time.

 

[Teh Other Dave]

Dave

Everything depends on how these things are measured.

The Giants and Suns, have increased the value of the AFL media deal, have helped the AFL gain government and business influence in NSW & QLD, and generally rate reasonably well. They lack similar crowds to other AFL matches but are arguably up when compared to other codes.

League expanding from 16 teams in a very successful competition format is light years away from Super Rugby having 5 teams playing a handful of times a year. So change is made with caution.

Basketball, Netball & Football are all trying to grow both their brands and coverage and increasing both coverage with expansion plans in place. The Super V8’s is also expanding.

Arguably the biggest risk to Rugby is to do nothing and maintain the status-que. The issue / challenge is to determine a starting point. But every year we fall a tad further behind, there will never be no perfect starting time.

Adding teams to grow the media pie is what got Super Rugby into trouble from the get-go. If the ARU had the resources that the AFL have, they'd be able to cop the year on year losses that the Giants and Suns have. But they don't.

After starting off with a sensible sized comp, the A-League had failed expansion teams in Townsville and the Gold Coast, and a failed foundation club in Auckland. Their more recent expansion sides (WSW, Macarthur, and Western United) have been more grassroots based, and have so far succeeded. Unfortunately our grassroots areas have managed to contract in the last 20 years.

The NBL has had major issues with expansion in the last 20 years, it nearly sent them to the wall.

League had to slow down expansion after the superleague war. They have a 16 team comp, but they also have the grassroots support to sustain it. We just ain't got that.

I feel like Netty's the only sport that's done expansion well. Aside from that shitty supergoal rule, they've been very shrewd. Again, they also have enormous grassroots support to build on.

Expansion for expansion's sake won't work. Putting teams on the Gold Coast or in Western Sydney won't help unless we actually help the community and junior clubs there gain traction. Private investment isn't a silver bullet solution (hello Rebels!). I agree that 5 teams alone is not a long term solution either, but how have we gone trying to get a national comp off the ground so far?

 

[half]

Dave

Where to start, yes three teams in the A-L failed, Auckland was taken over and moved. Gold Coast & North QLD both Lowy WCB teams and both failed.

Today the A-L is talking of expanding.

Rugby folk need to be a tad more careful when analysing the A-L, because the A-L has gone threw tremendous change to its structure. To achieve the change a four-year civil war between various stakeholders took place. The game torn itself to shreds and it had a massive impact on its key metrics.

Today Football has two media deals in place worth 70 million and the backing of CBS / 10. I think we will see a steady increase in their key metrics as the infighting has stopped and they have a very good structure moving forward.

Just consider that for a second, in spite all the crap, low ratings, falling crowds, sponsors leaving, media coverage falling, they somehow more than doubled the Rugby media deal.

But let’s leave the A-L, in any decision-making process there are always costs and risks.

The management of those costs and risks is the key. For me we should decide what is the best forward-looking structure for Rugby. Let’s not consider cost nor revenue at this stage.

For me a national domestic competition is a must.

If the best structure for Rugby to move forward is an NDC. Then management need to develop the environment to create an NDC.

That would more than likely include private capital and therefore the need to determine the best methods of attacking private capital.

There is a huge risk associated with doing nothing.

 

[Teh Other Dave]

Dave

Where to start, yes three teams in the A-L failed, Auckland was taken over and moved. Gold Coast & North QLD both Lowy WCB teams and both failed.

Today the A-L is talking of expanding.

They did expand. WSW, Macarthur, and Western United. All areas that have large player numbers. Where do we go? Before you say 'Western Sydney', look at a map of the SRU and subbies clubs in Sydney. The only reasonable option would be to split the Tahs into North Shore and Eastern Suburbs, while attempting to nurture the game in the west.

Rugby folk need to be a tad more careful when analysing the A-L, because the A-L has gone threw tremendous change to its structure. To achieve the change a four-year civil war between various stakeholders took place. The game torn itself to shreds and it had a massive impact on its key metrics.

Yes, but that was at the professional level, with government mandate, following corruption. At grassroots the game was thriving. Compare to our grassroots participation. Even the Sydney GPS 1st XV competition has contracted.

Today Football has two media deals in place worth 70 million and the backing of CBS / 10. I think we will see a steady increase in their key metrics as the infighting has stopped and they have a very good structure moving forward.

Just consider that for a second, in spite all the crap, low ratings, falling crowds, sponsors leaving, media coverage falling, they somehow more than doubled the Rugby media deal.

Interesting to see how they go with that. On face value they've done very well, but they still need to bring viewers or there won't be a similar deal next time. This is also at a juncture when terrestrial TV is staving off streaming services.

But let’s leave the A-L, in any decision-making process there are always costs and risks.

The management of those costs and risks is the key. For me we should decide what is the best forward-looking structure for Rugby. Let’s not consider cost nor revenue at this stage.

For me a national domestic competition is a must.

If the best structure for Rugby to move forward is an NDC. Then management need to develop the environment to create an NDC.

You mean like the twice-failed NRC?

That would more than likely include private capital and therefore the need to determine the best methods of attacking private capital.

We've had mixed results with private ventures. On one hand, Forrester kept the force alive. On the other, it gave us the Melbourne Rebels.

There is a huge risk associated with doing nothing.

I agree, but I think you can see where I'm going. The 'something' starts with creating fertile ground for domestic teams to flourish. Chucking a team in Western Sydney or the Gold Coast will just create another Adelaide Rams or Hunter Mariners. As things stand, our supporter base is just far too narrow.

Field of dreams might have been in a corn field in BF nowhere, but it was the national pastime, not lacrosse.