Where to for Super Rugby?
- Thread starter Quick Hands
- Start date
- Status
USARugger
John Thornett (49)
It's not a dick measuring contest and if you read my post again I never said anything about Australia.
I also said nothing about the quality of the South African sides, but don't let that stop you from going on a defensive tirade.
Under the current system, every year, 3 South African teams don't have to worry about playing the Top 4-5 teams in the entire competition during the regular season.
In a way this undermines the legitimacy of the Playoffs stage of the competition. Do you disagree with that notion?
Can you think of another sporting competition which so overtly skews in favor of a group of participants, by design?
For this reason, any comparison to the NFL conference system is misguided. Their current system is far more equitable on an annual basis than the current Super Rugby model. The variance in schedule difficulty for the 32 teams is not nearly as wide and is tweaked each year to keep the variance low.
By extension of this fact, incorporating multiple teams from the North which are overall of lower quality than the current teams (Leinster, etc. are great sides - but you can't forget about Scarlets, etc. being in that competition as well) and giving them a free ride through a weaker Northern conference all the way to the Grand Final would only server to further undermine the quality and legitimacy of the competition.
I also said nothing about the quality of the South African sides, but don't let that stop you from going on a defensive tirade.
Under the current system, every year, 3 South African teams don't have to worry about playing the Top 4-5 teams in the entire competition during the regular season.
In a way this undermines the legitimacy of the Playoffs stage of the competition. Do you disagree with that notion?
Can you think of another sporting competition which so overtly skews in favor of a group of participants, by design?
For this reason, any comparison to the NFL conference system is misguided. Their current system is far more equitable on an annual basis than the current Super Rugby model. The variance in schedule difficulty for the 32 teams is not nearly as wide and is tweaked each year to keep the variance low.
By extension of this fact, incorporating multiple teams from the North which are overall of lower quality than the current teams (Leinster, etc. are great sides - but you can't forget about Scarlets, etc. being in that competition as well) and giving them a free ride through a weaker Northern conference all the way to the Grand Final would only server to further undermine the quality and legitimacy of the competition.
Ulrich
Nev Cottrell (35)
Nobody disagrees that the competition is flawed. Hence this thread. Just don't go saying SA has a free ride. Yes, it sucks (more for us than you could imagine) not playing NZ sides, but that does not mean things are inferior this side of the ocean - which your response willingly or unwillingly seemed to suggest.
The free ride Lions beat the not so free ride Stormers. That is my side of the argument.
The Honey Badger
Jim Lenehan (48)
Silverado, SPEAK
dru
David Wilson (68)
Ulrich, SARU are making similar noises, but not just Kings and Cheetahs, two additional teams for a total of four to go north. Apparently there was no appetite previously but this is changing.
Its clear that SA is mot resting with cutting but doing there best for rugby.
ARU has a long way to go.
Silverado
Dick Tooth (41)
Ulrich
Nev Cottrell (35)
Where have you read / heard this noise dru? From what I have seen SARU are backing their relationship / partnership with SANZAAR.
As I have said before. It will be better for SA to align with Europe in some form.
Far-fetched idea, but NZ and SA could then tour one another every 4 (say two years before and after a Lions tour) years which may establish some real rivalry again. Something to look forward to and settle the score as they say.
When both NZ and SA have no Lions tours to look forward to they could host a mini series 2 years prior to an Australian Lions tour with the 3 teams for that year, perhaps even include Argentina.
mst
Peter Johnson (47)
Hi and welcome chibimatty. You must be new and know little about the game and in particular how rugby is run in NSW (parts there of actually)!
The first promise given to the tenants of the SFS (Roosters, Waratahs, Sydney FC) was for a totally new stadium to be built in the precinct at Kippax Lake. Clearly they all preferred that model rather than one which required them to relocate for a few years.
Baird then shut down that idea and threw Ayres under the bus.
There is now momentum building again for a new 40,000 seat stadium on the existing site and it seems all tenants are in favour of that deal rather than just a partial upgrade of the existing SFS.
It is reported that the Roosters and Waratahs are both agreeable with that concept with the Roosters to play most games at the SCG and some on the Central Coast where they are looking to increase their footprint with the Tahs playing mostly out of Parramatta Stadium.
Sydney FC is the tenant most unhappy at the moment because they don't want to play out at Parramatta because it is the Wanderers home ground and the potential of an A League expansion in southern Sydney makes playing somewhere there unappealing.
So certainly the Waratahs were against having to relocate when the choice was between not relocating and getting a new stadium or relocating and getting a new stadium.
Now that there is no choice to remain where they are and also get a new stadium, they seem quite agreeable with a move for a few seasons.
wamberal
Phil Kearns (64)
Actually, I do agree. There ARE no people in Australia capable of doing what most posters here think should be done. Squaring the circle, bringing world peace, solving global poverty, and making rugby a widely popular sport in Australia; all equally challenging tasks, beyond the abilities of most mortals.
zer0
John Thornett (49)
He was a media executive prior to that.
It's like saying former Tahs CEO Jason Allen was a sports administrator rather than a corporate hack because he had a job with V8 Supercars prior to taking over the Waratahs.
Clearly Ritchie is very good, but by all reports did an outstanding job running All England Tennis Club/Wimbledon with no real experience in sporting administration prior to that.
S
sidelineview
Guest
dru
David Wilson (68)
Ulrich, very frustrating but I cant find the article. From recollection it was Jurie Roux. Discussion was focessed on changes to funding to the RUs. They were talking about cutting to 4 Super teams but also to 8 pro teams which I took to target a revised Currie Cup format.
The Northern Hemisphere stuff was not well spelled out and discussed only in passing.
If I find the article I'll post it up.
RedsHappy
Tony Shaw (54)
So?
No one argues that 'just because you have a background in sports code management' you are as an executive auto-magically a good executive for, say, an ARU. Who here argued that?
The point is that Ritchie (a) in general had proved to be a very competent executive and (b) prior to taking on the RFU he cut his teeth on another, high-profile sport-based organisation and manifestly gained vast and relevant experience from that of value to his role at the RFU. He himself has said that.
Running a pro sports code is in no way like an ordinary business and in part that's why so often high-profile pure corporate executes deliver only limited value on sports code boards. They don't understand the integrated manner in which the best sports code leadership must blend and balance amateur and professional sub-systems within one holistic code system.
Typically, for success in 'the business of growing a successful sports code' you have to combine a nuanced understanding of the means and methods essential to sustaining and building a large, wholly amateur. 'community driven', base stack that ultimately feeds and provides the elite pro layer, and then you have to nurture and design a pro layer system that generates positive income growth and high levels of fan and viewership engagement that in turn invigorates the amateur/community layer.
It's typically the skilful delivery and combination of the leadership attributes sensitive to the developmental needs of both the amateur/community stack with those of the pro stack, and ensuring maximum synergies between them, that distinguishes successful sports code boards and CEOs.
The first paragraph seemed to be the gist of Quick Hands' post. That he was a sports administrator (and that was the entire reason he was good) versus a corporate hack. By the definition insinuated, he was a corporate hack prior to taking on the job in tennis.
My argument is that Ritchie is good because he is a good executive. He did a good job in tennis without a background in sports administration. He has then gone on to do a good job with the RFU (no doubt improved by his experience in tennis).
The talent of the person seems more important to me than their background.
Just about everyone who is in a senior position in sports administration has got there primarily through a background in general business rather than an entire career in sports administration (because it is not really a career path you can get elevated through).
RedsHappy
Tony Shaw (54)
Of course there are such people, do not worry FF (Folau Fainga'a)!!
If there were no such people in Australia, Australia would not have the flourishing, dynamic, globally admired, richly textured, widely varied pro sports infrastructure it possesses today. A remarkable achievement of our country's educational and professional development systems, overall.
Aus rugby could easily have been one such successful code here. Not a dominant code necessarily, but a generally successful one (as it once was, for a period).
Instead, at crucial times in Australian rugby's evolution, all of:
- complacency of outlook
- personal greed and unjustified hubris (at senior executive levels)
- insular and in-bred boards and managers derived from too narrow a base of social backgrounds and professional experience
- the arrogance of 'we are an elite sport deserving of that position in perprtuity'
- poor governance models working against new blood, new thinking and not towards objective standards of board and and executive performance
- poor measures and enforcement of accountability for major mistakes and poor outcomes leading to further insularity and institutionalised complacency
- an inability to expand and invigorate new 'grassroots' sources of players and local teams outside the code's traditional GPS schools heartlands
.......all of these dimensions coalesced to yield a gradual degradation of leadership acumen and code-health focus combined with an institutional framework consciously or otherwise designed to heavily and continuously propagate the attributes outlined above, rather than remove and correct them in the quest for greater code health.
Essentially, Australian rugby grew very sick, but rather slowly. Many did not notice the symptoms (a highly supine and sycophantic mainline rugby media certainly did not help) until it was far too late to avert the emerging more serious crisis we see today.
Bring in the right new people quickly (with the right ethical and professional backgrounds), radically reform the institutional and ethical frameworks, reinvigorate the grass roots, and it just might not be too late to return rugby here to stability, and then later some growth.
But we are close, very close, to midnight now.
RedsHappy
Tony Shaw (54)
Be more positive RR, and I mean that sincerely.
Aren't (for example) Carroll and Gallop doing OK in building executive careers in sports administration?
You may not gain great wealth in this career stream but everywhere I touch in sport, competency of leadership and management of sport as both business and organisationally is growing in recognition of importance and perceived institutional value.
- Status