Where to for Super Rugby?

[dru]

This whole thread is pure speculation so theres no need to get to worked up about anything.
The ARU can ask for whatever they want but there are other stakeholders who need to agree to the format before theres any change. More local derbies help NSW, QLD and ACT crowd and viewer numbers while Aus v NZ games bring in a higher gate for The Force and Rebels. If we somehow get both then thats a huge win for Australian rugbys finances.

Dont agree. There is plenty to get worked up about. For me:

1. The ARU most go to these discussions prepared
2. To help, fans should be kicking up as much hullabaloo as possible.

Part two is going nicely.

 

[Braveheart81]

RUPA has just thrown in their favoured plan.

http://www.rupa.com.au/rupa-news/story/australian-rugby-is-stronger-as-five

Realistically I reckon this is what the ARU are heading to the meeting pushing for.

Revenue is shared on number of teams. There is no way the ARU's first preference will be to drop a team.

The whole reason for the Rebels was so we could move from a smaller share to a full third of the broadcast rights (which included for the tests).

 

[TOCC]

RUPA has just thrown in their favoured plan.

http://www.rupa.com.au/rupa-news/story/australian-rugby-is-stronger-as-five

Realistically I reckon this is what the ARU are heading to the meeting pushing for.

Revenue is shared on number of teams. There is no way the ARU's first preference will be to drop a team.

The whole reason for the Rebels was so we could move from a smaller share to a full third of the broadcast rights (which included for the tests).

And it worked, Rebels expansion isn't the issue, 2011-2015 wasn't the issue.. in fact it featured some of Super Rugby's highest rating years and matches... 2016 jumped the shark both in ratings and crowds, 2017 has fallen off a cliff

 

[Slim 293]

And it worked, Rebels expansion isn't the issue, 2011-2015 wasn't the issue.. in fact it featured some of Super Rugby's highest rating years and matches. 2016 jumped the shark both in ratings and crowds, 2017 has fallen off a cliff

Best results for Australian teams since Super 12 as well.............

 

[waiopehu oldboy]

^^^^^^^^^^^ the real issue isn't structure (3 x 6 vs [2 x 5] + [2 x 4]) but format. ARU believe, rightly or wrongly, that more derby matches is what's best for them. SARU & NZRU appear to feel differently so maybe ARU will need to give up two derbies & play an extra match each against SA & NZ/Arg teams (so eight derbies plus eight cross- Conf) to make it acceptable.

The other sticking point I can see is SA insisting on two home QF so that could be the other rat ARU has to swallow.

 

[Slim 293]

The other sticking point I can see is SA insisting on two home QF so that could be the other rat ARU has to swallow.

A compromise could be that the 3 conference winners get a week off, and the 2nd place teams from each conference take on the next 3 best teams on points in a knock out qualifying final..........

TBH I haven't thought through the logistics on this so I don't know if it could work, but in theory that would at least guarantee the Saffas 2 consecutive weeks of finals.......... they're hardly any more deserving of more finals matches than the Australian teams.

 

[waiopehu oldboy]

^^^^^^ it'd add a week to the finals as you'd then still have to somehow get from six down to four but other than that it looks feasible (which isn't the same thing as being acceptable to SARU )

 

[Sully]

Would you need to get to four teams?

 

[waiopehu oldboy]

^^^^^^^^^^^^ If you're planning on having Semi Finals & a Final, I'd say you probably do

 

[KevinO]

Having 7 home games, than 8 the following year shots me to. That can never work.

Sent from my LG-H850 using Tapatalk

 

[Slim 293]

Would you need to get to four teams?

And there's the hole in my spur of the moment plan..........

 

[Joe King]

The NPC and Currie Cup have always been built on the in house rivalries, Super Rugby has always been about crossing over the provinces of the member unions. When Super Rugby lost sight of what it is fundamentally about, they lost sight of what the tournaments purpose is, the best southern hemisphere provinces playing against the best southern hemisphere provinces in a crossover tournament. Local derbies have always been provided by each countries domestic competition. Separating the 2 back to those fundamental purposes will be the winning formula.

There has been a significant change since the beginning of Super Rugby in NZ and SA. While in the early years, the domestic teams were the main teams for the majority fans, with the Super Rugby teams kind of like Hollywood franchises without the tribalism, now it's different.

For most people under 25 years old, they've only known the Super Rugby teams as the main teams with all the star players, while the domestic teams have become more development comps. The fans still love both, but Super Rugby is much more entrenched with the younger generation of fans.

 

[Joe King]

More people in favour of the Champions League concept

It is almost reaching the point of no return, but yesterday Dave Wessels, coach of the Force side that seemingly is under most pressure of all, put forward a proposal that would allow each country to retain as many teams as it wanted but still be a part of a wider competition.

“To me, the most successful inter-country competition in the world is the Champions League in soccer, where there’s a domestic competition and the champions of that get to play the best of the best internationally,” Wessels said.

“We have a really strong domestic competition in Australia with the Waratahs, Reds, Brumbies, Melbourne Rebels and us, we play each other on a home-and-away basis and the top side or the top two sides then graduates to play the best from NZ and SA.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

I think this kind of structure would actually increase the excitement around the local derbies for Oz fans.

 

[mst]

There has been a significant change since the beginning of Super Rugby in NZ and SA. While in the early years, the domestic teams were the main teams for the majority fans, with the Super Rugby teams kind of like Hollywood franchises without the tribalism, now it's different.

For most people under 25 years old, they've only known the Super Rugby teams as the main teams with all the star players, while the domestic teams have become more development comps. The fans still love both, but Super Rugby is much more entrenched with the younger generation of fans.

Hmm are you sure? The crowd and rating figures in SA strongly suggest the opposite. Since additional Super Rugby derbies were added, the Super Rugby ratings and attendance has declined heavily, not so the Currie or other competitions. From my understanding (and I am happy to be corrected) but most under 25 have would very strong links to the schools and provincial competitions rather then to Super Rugby. I think the fact that 3 SA teams viability is questionable due to lack of support might also suggest otherwise.

In NZ it may be that may be more the case ,but still the NPC is the key pathway and it where they all target as the necessary step. NZ rugby generally avoids the superstar player tags and goes out of its way to show anyone can make it, and how the NPC, where most of these "superstar" players also play in the Super Rugby off season is a key competition to most under 25's.

If I were to hazard a guess, i would suggest that your viewpoint is predicted on what we do here - market superstars as a vehicle to sell the game via the 5 only "elite" teams in the country.

 

[Joe King]

My question is whether continuing to push for this (which is something we're pretty sure NZ and SA don't want) is in our best interests. Are we using our bargaining power up on something that isn't actually that beneficial to us but is perceived quite negatively by our partners so in reality we're not getting much out of the negotiations.

Is there something else we should be pushing for that we have a better chance of securing and improving our overall position?.

I think that's a fair point. Speculating here, but I wonder if the ARU are planing to be willing to cut a team to get a trans-tasman comp for the regular season, with no contact with SA until the finals?

 

[Joe King]

Hmm are you sure? The crowd and rating figures in SA strongly suggest the opposite. Since additional Super Rugby derbies were added, the Super Rugby ratings and attendance has declined heavily, not so the Currie or other competition. From my understanding (and i am happy to be corrected) but most under 25 have would very strong links to the schools and provincial competitions rather then to Super Rugby. I think the fact that 3 SA teams viability is questionable due to lack of support might also suggest otherwise.

In NZ it may be that may be more the case,but still the NPC is the key pathway and it where they all target as the necessary step. NZ rugby generally avoids the superstar player tags and goes out of its way to show anyone can make it, and how the NPC, where most of these players also play in the off season is accessible to all of them.

If I were to hazard a guess, i would suggest that your viewpoint is predicted on what we do here - market superstars as a vehicle to sell the game via the 5 only "elite" teams in the country.

You may be right about SA. But I still think the Super Rugby teams are now the main teams in NZ for the younger generation at least. I only have anecdotal evidence in talking to younger Kiwi fans, but it makes sense since the main AB players only play in the Super Rugby teams and no longer in the NPC teams. But I agree the NPC is still an important stepping stone and still a much loved comp.

I would be interested in the crowd stats for NZ derbies over the years - whether they have increased or decreased on average. If that evidence suggests I'm wrong, then I'm happy to concede the point.

 

[Teh Other Dave]

I think this kind of structure would actually increase the excitement around the local derbies for Oz fans.

This was what SA originally did for the 1996 and 1997 super 12 - the top four teams from Currie Cup qualified for the next season's super 12. Trouble was that WP missed out on qualification in 1997. Wasn't such a good look.

 

[Joe King]

RUPA has just thrown in their favoured plan.

http://www.rupa.com.au/rupa-news/story/australian-rugby-is-stronger-as-five

Realistically I reckon this is what the ARU are heading to the meeting pushing for.

Revenue is shared on number of teams. There is no way the ARU's first preference will be to drop a team.

The whole reason for the Rebels was so we could move from a smaller share to a full third of the broadcast rights (which included for the tests).

I'm really resonating with RUPA ATM.

 

[Joe King]

This was what SA originally did for the 1996 and 1997 super 12 - the top four teams from Currie Cup qualified for the next season's super 12. Trouble was that WP missed out on qualification in 1997. Wasn't such a good look.

But he's just talking about qualifying for the finals over a few weeks in this case, isn't he? I may have misunderstood him.

In any case, I agree that it doesn't look good if a team with significant players doesn't get to play in a whole competition. I believe this was partly behind NZ's reason for moving to franchises in the first place - to include all their best players. SA soon followed.

Having said that, I wonder if this is why the ERCC (9 weeks long) is structured throughout their domestic comps the way it is, rather than playing their domestic comps first followed by the ERCC in a stand alone window

 

[Teh Other Dave]

You could well be right. I kind of hope so.

As for the ERCC, the European club competitions in soccer also punctuate the domestic leagues. It avoids a prolonged 'dormant' period at the end of Premiership Rugby or LNR.