Where to for Super Rugby?

[half]

Who remembers Super 10.

10 teams, 2 pools, each pool played a round with the winner of each pool in meeting for the decider. Done and dusted in 5 weeks.. Then off to run your own competitions.

People are not watching rugby on pay-TV, in the numbers they used too which more than likely means they will not watch rugby on FTA-TV.

Super rugby has left us with little money, not enough quality players, not enough quality coaches, poorly thought out pathways, disunity, disharmony, just look at the "Nobody Really Cares" competition our leaders seem to lack imagination to develop new avenues to play & the enterprise skills to attack sponsors, media etc, Joe Blow public is increasing losing interest in rugby. Many media folk outside rugby think we are a joke. Rugby fans are increasingly leaving the game.

Meanwhile soccer, basketball, netball with smaller budgets continue to expand their competitions and increase their media exposure.

At some point someone somewhere has to hold out their hand and take the cane.

We fans along with the media are also to blame as we have let the various boards and Unions get away with utter incompetence. We are also to blame for not holding the ARU to account many many many years ago and it has taken the current crisis to bring matters to a head.


Rant over bad day.

 

[MACCA]

Have opted out of this thread due to frustration & boredom so apologies if this point has been made before.
Did the Saffers completely fool/trick the ARU into axing a team.
The 2 teams from SA that are leaving super rugby are continuing on in another comp and are therefore not being axed at all. The Pro 12 Comp is probably a better option for SA rugby anyway.
The Aussie team that goes will be gone from the game. The ARU & Australian Rugby has been put in a worse position than the Saffers by having to completely axe a team. Its a stitch up.

 

[WorkingClassRugger]

Who remembers Super 10.

10 teams, 2 pools, each pool played a round with the winner of each pool in meeting for the decider. Done and dusted in 5 weeks.. Then off to run your own competitions.

People are not watching rugby on pay-TV, in the numbers they used too which more than likely means they will not watch rugby on FTA-TV.

Super rugby has left us with little money, not enough quality players, not enough quality coaches, poorly thought out pathways, disunity, disharmony, just look at the "Nobody Really Cares" competition our leaders seem to lack imagination to develop new avenues to play & the enterprise skills to attack sponsors, media etc, Joe Blow public is increasing losing interest in rugby. Many media folk outside rugby think we are a joke. Rugby fans are increasingly leaving the game.

Meanwhile soccer, basketball, netball with smaller budgets continue to expand their competitions and increase their media exposure.

At some point someone somewhere has to hold out their hand and take the cane.

We fans along with the media are also to blame as we have let the various boards and Unions get away with utter incompetence. We are also to blame for not holding the ARU to account many many many years ago and it has taken the current crisis to bring matters to a head.


Rant over bad day.

Super 10 kind of fits in with what how I think things need to be restructured.

However, instead of starting off the season with it then following on to our domestic competition we start the year off with our domestic competition (so NRC, M10,CC, Top League and Argentine club/provincial) and then move into a Super 15 (assuming the numbers are cut) set up with 3 pools of 5 based largely geographically. This then flows on to the test arena.

So the season would look something like this.

Stage 1:

A fourteen round domestic home and away season plus finals. Number of teams that participate at this stage are up to each individual nation. But with finald this stage runs for a total 16 weeks.

Stage 2:

Super 15 (again assuming numbers are cut) as above with three pools of 5 playing each other twoce for 8 games. Top two from each pool progress to 6 team finald series. Whole thing run and won in 11 weeks.

Stage 3:

Test match rugby. First we move into the RC and then spring tours. Can also set it up that it alternates with one year we recieve teams and the next we tour.

The ultimate goal here is to provide everyone with domestic structures that involve all the best talent available as well as an intwrnational interprovincial structure. It is also designed to ensure that in theory at least each stage increases in quality and difficulty ensuring better preparation for the international phase.

 

[WorkingClassRugger]

Have opted out of this thread due to frustration & boredom so apologies if this point has been made before.
Did the Saffers completely fool/trick the ARU into axing a team.
The 2 teams from SA that are leaving super rugby are continuing on in another comp and are therefore not being axed at all. The Pro 12 Comp is probably a better option for SA rugby anyway.
The Aussie team that goes will be gone from the game. The ARU & Australian Rugby has been put in a worse position that the Saffers by having to completely axe a team completely.

Here's an interesting question. If the SARU can find another competition for their two cut teams then why can't we?

We do have another option here. The Top League. Say if the Force is cut from Super Rugby (which aren't my first option) considering they have raised a bundle and have had several businessmen offer to invest then why can't they be allowed to use those funds to compete there?

 

[Inside Shoulder]

^^^^given the weekend scoreline I could see a team from here doing very well in that comp but it making no difference to quality of oz rugby

 

[Leo86]

Here's an interesting question. If the SARU can find another competition for their two cut teams then why can't we?

We do have another option here. The Top League. Say if the Force is cut from Super Rugby (which aren't my first option) considering they have raised a bundle and have had several businessmen offer to invest then why can't they be allowed to use those funds to compete there?

ARUs 2 main reasons are cost and depth for super. We took away cost (well The Forces cost, still a problem for each of the other franchises)

So depth

The ARU wont allow another comp because then their teams cant benefit from taking cream of the crop.

 

[WorkingClassRugger]

^^^^given the weekend scoreline I could see a team from here doing very well in that comp but it making no difference to quality of oz rugby

Well, you have to look at it from the perspective of keeping the franchise involved active and engaged more than anything else. If we just cut it and move on we run the likelihood of losing that region forever. But if we can find somewhere for them to compete then we maintain the games presence.

It may not help the Wallabies but it will help Aus Rugby by keeping the pathway open. It would also allow for more local talent from whichever one is cut to make the jump.

I tend to believe it's better than the alternative.

 

[WorkingClassRugger]

ARUs 2 main reasons are cost and depth for super. We took away cost (well The Forces cost, still a problem for each of the other franchises)

So depth

The ARU wont allow another comp because then their teams cant benefit from taking cream of the crop.

Here's an interesting suggestion. Cut out the middle man. Why can't RugbyWA make the jump of their own accord. Take the funds generated from the Save the Force effort and work to get the four businessmen onboard and make the approach to the Top League independently.

Hell, I'd even offer the option to the ARU of dropping legal proceedings for the guarantee of them not interfering. It actually could be a boon for say WA Rugby. An even more direct path to professional Rugby for local talent.

 

[Leo86]

Well, you have to look at it from the perspective of keeping the franchise involved active and engaged more than anything else. If we just cut it and move on we run the likelihood of losing that region forever. But if we can find somewhere for them to compete then we maintain the games presence.

It may not help the Wallabies but it will help Aus Rugby by keeping the pathway open. It would also allow for more local talent from whichever one is cut to make the jump.

I tend to believe it's better than the alternative.

See, your approach to this is with logic, reason and forethought.

This could help oz rugby. Easily, the team is made up of fringe players (wider training group across all franchises). The team based where super is lost. Gives the players more exposure. Maybe those players then also commit to that states NRC side.

The ARU from what ive seen dont seem to care about losing a region. Short term look the other 4 franchises strengthen. Long term look prior to the force, WA had one player make the wallabies ever. In the last 11-12 years we are seeing the long term benefits become apparent DHP, Hardwick plus players like RHP, Louwrens, Peni, Rona in ghecurrent squad

 

[Leo86]

Here's an interesting suggestion. Cut out the middle man. Why can't RugbyWA make the jump of their own accord. Take the funds generated from the Save the Force effort and work to get the four businessmen onboard and make the approach to the Top League independently.

Hell, I'd even offer the option to the ARU of dropping legal proceedings for the guarantee of them not interfering. It actually could be a boon for say WA Rugby. An even more direct path to professional Rugby for local talent.

Aside from why should WA rugby not be fostered(and/or aided) by the ARU, but top league is during summer which would be ruthless. Plus the ARU would interfere, they wouldnt let said players represent the wallabies which would then have the top players leave constantly

 

[half]

Super 10 kind of fits in with what how I think things need to be restructured.

However, instead of starting off the season with it then following on to our domestic competition we start the year off with our domestic competition (so NRC, M10,CC, Top League and Argentine club/provincial) and then move into a Super 15 (assuming the numbers are cut) set up with 3 pools of 5 based largely geographically. This then flows on to the test arena.

So the season would look something like this.

Stage 1:

A fourteen round domestic home and away season plus finals. Number of teams that participate at this stage are up to each individual nation. But with finald this stage runs for a total 16 weeks.

Stage 2:

Super 15 (again assuming numbers are cut) as above with three pools of 5 playing each other twoce for 8 games. Top two from each pool progress to 6 team finald series. Whole thing run and won in 11 weeks.

Stage 3:

Test match rugby. First we move into the RC and then spring tours. Can also set it up that it alternates with one year we recieve teams and the next we tour.

The ultimate goal here is to provide everyone with domestic structures that involve all the best talent available as well as an intwrnational interprovincial structure. It is also designed to ensure that in theory at least each stage increases in quality and difficulty ensuring better preparation for the international phase.

I see it slightly differently. But a very similar approach.

Start the season with our local domestic competitions. This would include the existing 5 Super Rugby sides and a select 5 to 7 sides from the lower divisions ... ditch the NRC.

The top 2 or 3 or 4 or 5 whatever is agreed of each nation taking part to go to a Super Rugby 16. This is decided on the points table so pick the top sides after the season finishes.

The logic of Super Rugby 10 to spilt into groups akin to soccers champions league was clever, then spilt whatever the agree teams are into a for and against with spilt into 4 divisions.

Play 6 games and the winners of each division into a knock out competition. All finished within 6 weeks meaning plenty of time for both local domestic competition and test matches.

 

[WorkingClassRugger]

Aside from why should WA rugby not be fostered(and/or aided) by the ARU, but top league is during summer which would be ruthless. Plus the ARU would interfere, they wouldnt let said players represent the wallabies which would then have the top players leave constantly

Mate, Rugby in WA should absolutely be fostered by the ARU but something the ARU has proven over the last 12 months is they are fundamentally incapable of doing so.
What I would hope such a move would do is something I believe has been necessary for a while. And that is a separation of the professional game from the administration of the ARU in so far as looking to develop it as an legitimate competition as opposed to the dressed up trail games it's currently burdened as.


It's a tough position to be in and far from ideal or fair for that matter but I think it could be workable.

As for the TL season and weather. The TL season will be brought forward this year in order to better accommodate the Sunwolves. So it should be run and won by late Dec. While not ideal again having experienced a number of WA summers it would be manageable.

 

[Leo86]

I agree with all of what you have suggested and it bewilders me that the ARU have chosen this path of cut and run.

This could of been an opportunity to centralise the admin reducing costs, making all 5 franchises less expensive to run and even if the end result was still lose a team in suoer, they would of improved /strengthened the rest/comp and maybe had the funds to help enter the TL.

At the moment all im seeing is cut one to feed the others (cost and depth) and continuing status quo. So what is happening to prevent this happening again down the track?

 

[WorkingClassRugger]

I agree with all of what you have suggested and it bewilders me that the ARU have chosen this path of cut and run.

This could of been an opportunity to centralise the admin reducing costs, making all 5 franchises less expensive to run and even if the end result was still lose a team in suoer, they would of improved /strengthened the rest/comp and maybe had the funds to help enter the TL.

At the moment all im seeing is cut one to feed the others (cost and depth) and continuing status quo. So what is happening to prevent this happening again down the track?

I agree. The stupidity of it all is baffling. Centralisation is a better answer as it's staggeringly obvious the current model is ineffective and unsustainable. It should have been the first avenue investigated.

Given the recent developments regarding SA cutting a team here may ultimately prove shortsighted. If two SA do join the Pro 12(14) then I would bet good money that we'll see the other four make the jump post 2020.

Not that I'm opposed to that as I believe our future lies to our direct north as opposed to across the Indian Ocean. But to allow ourselves to be caught short as we inevitably will with less to bring to the table is madness.

 

[Inside Shoulder]

Well, you have to look at it from the perspective of keeping the franchise involved active and engaged more than anything else. If we just cut it and move on we run the likelihood of losing that region forever. But if we can find somewhere for them to compete then we maintain the games presence.

It may not help the Wallabies but it will help Aus Rugby by keeping the pathway open. It would also allow for more local talent from whichever one is cut to make the jump.

I tend to believe it's better than the alternative.

I hear you brother but I don't think that's the solution

 

[mark_s]

Is there a D Day (for Sanzaar) to finalise the list of teams for 2018?

Surely there has to be a time when, no decision to drop teams defaults to a decision to continue with the status quo (for atleast one more year) and people need to start working on logistics like a draw/telecasting, sponsorship etc.

 

[WorkingClassRugger]

Brett McKay has written an article over on The Roar suggesting that we may end up keeping our 5 and Super Rugby reverting back to Super 16 with everyone playing each other once. That's if reports of the Cheetahs and Kings linking up with the Pro 12 turn out to be true.

 

[Inside Shoulder]

Brett McKay has written an article over on The Roar suggesting that we may end up keeping our 5 and Super Rugby reverting back to Super 16 with everyone playing each other once. That's if reports of the Cheetahs and Kings linking up with the Pro 12 turn out to be true.

that would be the ultimate blow for the aru: spend all this political capital and any remaining goodwill and then carry on up the Kyhber

 

[waiopehu oldboy]

Super 16, maybe, but there's no way SARU are going to agree to a full round-robin, something they weren't keen on even when it was Super 12 & started actively opposing from the first expansion.

 

[WorkingClassRugger]

that would be the ultimate blow for the aru: spend all this political capital and any remaining goodwill and then carry on up the Kyhber

Yeah well. Stuff them from my perspective. Hopefully this will put a rocket up the Unions to look to run the competition separately and as a bloody business as opposed to the status quo.

Form an independent body with a separate administration in a centralised structure with the Unions having seats on the board. It's something Super Rugby desperately needs across the board.

Thing is what will they do if (or when) come 2019 the SA franchise announce their intent to head north now they door has been opened?