Where to for Super Rugby?
- Thread starter Quick Hands
- Start date
- Status
Slim 293
Stirling Mortlock (74)
The wording of his tweet is interesting.............
https://twitter.com/Davidcampese11?ref_src=twsrc^google|twcamp^serp|twgr^author
Did he only just come across this story from six months ago:
https://www.sbs.com.au/news/south-african-teams-poised-to-quit-super-rugby-report
https://twitter.com/Davidcampese11?ref_src=twsrc^google|twcamp^serp|twgr^author
Did he only just come across this story from six months ago:
https://www.sbs.com.au/news/south-african-teams-poised-to-quit-super-rugby-report
sunnyboys
Bob Loudon (25)
https://www.smh.com.au/sport/rugby-...ar-mull-radical-overhaul-20181202-p50jpe.html
None of this is looking much good... interesting the rumours of SA going north are mentioned
None of this is looking much good... interesting the rumours of SA going north are mentioned
Derpus
Nathan Sharpe (72)
Just kill it. End the misery.
WorkingClassRugger
Michael Lynagh (62)
Similar to the NRL. So would that mean that teams would play each other once for 13 games and then what, 5 teams a second time for 18 rounds? I wouldn't actually mind that format but why not just keep it at 15 teams? Or are they actually looking to run it as a straight 13 weeks? Surely that's going even further backwards unless we look to do something with the NRC.
hoggy
Nev Cottrell (35)
Yep, Super rugby version what the f--k ever. The saddest thing is the RA will sign up for this shit as long as the pay checks keep rolling in, so much for what is actually good for the game here.
Rebelsfan
Billy Sheehan (19)
Well that would kind of work for Aust and SA we could play our domestic teams twice plus one game for each of the international teams, so 16 games plus maybe an extra game from each of SA and NZ to make 18 games. For NZ, if they were to play each domestic team twice, that would be 8 games and that would leave 10 games to split across Aust, SA and Argie - assuming it is Sunwolves to go (and they may be going to GRR)
Brumby Runner
Jason Little (69)
If the competition is reduced to 14 teams, then playing each of the other Aus sides twice and all the others once would surely only provide 16 games in total. To make 18 games, would most likely involve Aus and SA teams playing two other international sides twice as well. NZ teams would be 8 games against home sides and 9 playing once against all the other international sides and would need to play one of the international teams a second time to get 18 games. Argentina would be in a bit of a mess I think, playing five of the international sides twice. Structuring the additional games in a way that is as fair and equitable as possible to all is a bit of a nightmare.
WorkingClassRugger
Michael Lynagh (62)
The most sensible thing would be to keep the current 15 teams and maintain the current conference system allowing for 8 games and then play each of the teams in the other two conference once for an additional 10 games bring the total to 18 each and 9 homes games each a season. Each team a single bye in the season and we have a 3 week top 6 finals series. This would fit comfortably in the 22 week period. Simple. Done. Stop fucking about with the format.
WorkingClassRugger
Michael Lynagh (62)
There has been some speculation that the JRFU were looking at disbanding the Sunwolves post 2019 and electing to open up their spot to one of the Top League clubs.
Strewthcobber
Simon Poidevin (60)
I do wonder about the economics for South Africa.
The TV money for SA teams in the pro league must be spectacular - their crowds have been terrible, bordering on non-existent. (Kings reported 1400 for last week's game, which was very optimistic based on reports)
Maybe they are hoping people start turning up if the really big South African teams head over
The TV money for SA teams in the pro league must be spectacular - their crowds have been terrible, bordering on non-existent. (Kings reported 1400 for last week's game, which was very optimistic based on reports)
Maybe they are hoping people start turning up if the really big South African teams head over
WorkingClassRugger
Michael Lynagh (62)
I know the attraction for the Pro 14 was the immediate boost in revenues supplied by the 2 SA teams entering but from memory is wasn't a huge increase. It doesn't help that the two teams they've selected aren't great with the Cheetahs being completely pillaged in the recent years and the Kings being a lame duck in regards to everything from day one.
waiopehu oldboy
George Smith (75)
WCR's #12910 above & Sunwolves to GRR, where they might actually be competitive, works for me.
BUT
SARU fought long, hard & dirty for Conferences so I don't see them giving them up without a fight. I suspect the talk of more Sethfricken teams going North is part of that fight.
I assume you mean the cheques that make pro rugby possible in Straya?
BUT
SARU fought long, hard & dirty for Conferences so I don't see them giving them up without a fight. I suspect the talk of more Sethfricken teams going North is part of that fight.
I assume you mean the cheques that make pro rugby possible in Straya?
Strewthcobber
Simon Poidevin (60)
Yeah - from memory I think the rest of the competition increased their revenue - but the South African teams had a reduction when compared to Super (and from their crowds!)
I guess for these two teams it was better to have a side in an international comp than to just rely on the domestic scene. (which is interesting given the Oz-only comp talk here)
zer0
John Thornett (49)
Just play everyone once in a full round robin, top four semifinalists on straight competition points/records, and you're done. Super Rugby always worked far better as a sprint than as a marathon. If you want a grinding season with 1000 games a season then that's what domestic rugby is for.
Ignoto
Peter Sullivan (51)
Nah piss that round robin shit right off in my opinion. There is absolutely nothing worse than having your team fly the the Republic to play a game at 2/3am on a Sunday morning. More importantly, between their 2-3 games over there with that structure, you go over a month before seeing your team again at home.
Call the Saffa's on their bluff and let them be Europes problem. Looking at their economy, I'd dare say they're in a weaker bargaining spot this time round.
Call the Saffa's on their bluff and let them be Europes problem. Looking at their economy, I'd dare say they're in a weaker bargaining spot this time round.
sunnyboys
Bob Loudon (25)
For me Super 14 still carries the same issues as the current structure:
6 or 7 home games per season
2 or 3 games played in SA/ARG time zone
2 or 3 games played at 4.30/5.30pm Oz time.
Far too little prime time content. And it is still on Pay TV only. There are just too many barriers there for people to easily engage with the game. It still leaves fans susceptible to poaching by AFL and NRL who have Free to Air content, and better scheduling.
without fixing these issues, we will always be reliant on a Final winning season by one of the Super Rugby teams as the only way to lift crowd/viewer numbers.
The Brumbies/Tahs have shown over the past few years that even winning the oz conference wont bump up numbers.
6 or 7 home games per season
2 or 3 games played in SA/ARG time zone
2 or 3 games played at 4.30/5.30pm Oz time.
Far too little prime time content. And it is still on Pay TV only. There are just too many barriers there for people to easily engage with the game. It still leaves fans susceptible to poaching by AFL and NRL who have Free to Air content, and better scheduling.
without fixing these issues, we will always be reliant on a Final winning season by one of the Super Rugby teams as the only way to lift crowd/viewer numbers.
The Brumbies/Tahs have shown over the past few years that even winning the oz conference wont bump up numbers.
RedsHappy
Tony Shaw (54)
Yes, and so long as they also lack courage, leadership, imagination and a genuine interest in the rapidly vaporising rugby fan base.
Set piece magic
John Solomon (38)
Few points
Australia's negotiating position is fucked in terms of super rugby.
we have no plausible 2nd tier alternative to Super Rugby - the NRC is 3rd tier and not doing too flash, clubland also third tier and is amateur. We need 2nd tier to sell a broadcast deal worth a substantial amount of money.
This rules out unilateral departure from Super Rugby - which is important, because any departure has to be done in conjunction with another partner.
The only union with any interest in joining us would be NZ - but they have repeatedly ruled this out. It's clear that the hawks on the board of NZ Rugby see South Africa as a must inclusion for Super Rugby.
So what can Oz do? We can stamp our feet, but in reality the decision is out of our hands. We have no unilateral exit and next to no chance of a bilateral exit with NZ.
Furthermore, Australia contributes the least amount of money to the Super Rugby television rights.
Hate the ARU and Rugby AU all you like, but the reality is no administration no matter how good they are could change this. Also, opening negotiations from a point of weakness, in diplomacy or business, is in general just a shit idea. IF the ARU opened negotiations about the future of super rugby now, we could see all sorts of strange stuff attempted to be rammed down our throats. and we don't have the power to stop it
Australia's negotiating position is fucked in terms of super rugby.
we have no plausible 2nd tier alternative to Super Rugby - the NRC is 3rd tier and not doing too flash, clubland also third tier and is amateur. We need 2nd tier to sell a broadcast deal worth a substantial amount of money.
This rules out unilateral departure from Super Rugby - which is important, because any departure has to be done in conjunction with another partner.
The only union with any interest in joining us would be NZ - but they have repeatedly ruled this out. It's clear that the hawks on the board of NZ Rugby see South Africa as a must inclusion for Super Rugby.
So what can Oz do? We can stamp our feet, but in reality the decision is out of our hands. We have no unilateral exit and next to no chance of a bilateral exit with NZ.
Furthermore, Australia contributes the least amount of money to the Super Rugby television rights.
Hate the ARU and Rugby AU all you like, but the reality is no administration no matter how good they are could change this. Also, opening negotiations from a point of weakness, in diplomacy or business, is in general just a shit idea. IF the ARU opened negotiations about the future of super rugby now, we could see all sorts of strange stuff attempted to be rammed down our throats. and we don't have the power to stop it
Set piece magic
John Solomon (38)
On another note, I think it's clear the best proposal for Australia is a Trans-Tasman comp, round robin. NZ could keep, possibly add 2 teams and Australia could return to 5. This could put the Western Force back in and see Rugby AU sue for peace with Twiggy et al, perhaps even bring them into the tent.
Rugby AU has even proposed this but the roadblock is NZ, and the bug jammer Steve Tew. For reasons that I cannot understand, they persist with the view that SA must be involved no matter what. They are intransigent to suggestions otherwise, even as instability and speculation mounts over the future of SA. I find this unbelievable, and it's my view that ultimately their hand may be forced by unilateral departure by SA.
The trans tasman competition is easily the strongest option for crowds and prime time television ratings. It has a guaranteed final in prime time or near-prime time hours. IMO its pure stupid wilsonian idealism from the NZRU which has delusions about spreading the game around the world and ignoring the realities of what will make rugby strong in NZ and AUS.
Australia can point the finger not at the ARU but at the NZRU for a lot of super rugby's failures. There has also been a fundamental breakdown in goodwill between the two member nations - look at Bug Gate, where steve tew got the information on the Tuesday and released it on Saturday, in what is a clear bid to distract the Wallabies. The NZRU is a nasty organisation.
Rugby AU has even proposed this but the roadblock is NZ, and the bug jammer Steve Tew. For reasons that I cannot understand, they persist with the view that SA must be involved no matter what. They are intransigent to suggestions otherwise, even as instability and speculation mounts over the future of SA. I find this unbelievable, and it's my view that ultimately their hand may be forced by unilateral departure by SA.
The trans tasman competition is easily the strongest option for crowds and prime time television ratings. It has a guaranteed final in prime time or near-prime time hours. IMO its pure stupid wilsonian idealism from the NZRU which has delusions about spreading the game around the world and ignoring the realities of what will make rugby strong in NZ and AUS.
Australia can point the finger not at the ARU but at the NZRU for a lot of super rugby's failures. There has also been a fundamental breakdown in goodwill between the two member nations - look at Bug Gate, where steve tew got the information on the Tuesday and released it on Saturday, in what is a clear bid to distract the Wallabies. The NZRU is a nasty organisation.
- Status