Where to for Super Rugby?

[Rebels3]

I'm a big fan of less is more. Less Tests will also mean more $$ for the clubs as they retain their star players for longer. The 6N teams only play each other once a year - why shouldn't we just mimic their comp given how successful the 6N is.

If a global calendar ever comes to fruition - could even play these comps at the same time. How good would it be for a weekend to have these:

Aus vs NZ | Eng vs Fra
SA vs Arg | Wal vs Ire
Japan vs Fiji | Sco vs Italy

Less is more is a fallacy. There isn’t a successful sporting competition or sport in the world that is relevant with this model. Football is jam packed, NRL/AFL are crammed, NBA is stacked (82 games), Baseball is bordering on ridiculous, cricket is a 12month game, even the NFL has 32 teams and a college system that works in conjunction with it that provides 100s of live games on at the same time. You just get drowned out. Even where rugby is strong they have content after content.

Now obviously there is a fine line between too much and too little, but I think we are on the side of too little domestically to properly engage with fans (Super Rugby is just about the shortest pro sporting comp in the world) and the wallabies play 11-14 times a year, with half of those games at home. Some years we have major cities in this country without a wallabies appearance, so they are getting starved already and it makes no difference to the crowd sizes.

If you live in QLD you have 7 Super Rugby games and 1/2 tests a year, that’s 17% of the year where there is rugby content available to you to consume on a live basis. That’s not much of a commitment

 

[wamberal]

I completely believe the model of the Wallabies being #1 goal is the reason we're in this mess in the first place. They should be an afterthought. The NRL and AFL don't have these models yet survive?

They not only survive, they thrive (the AFL is far healthier than the NRL, of course, but both are streets ahead of us, now, and always have been).

As for the #1 goal: The Springboks were a complete joke in 2016-17. They're now #1.
Our schoolboys/u20s have just matched NZ and if not better for the last 2 years. Why shouldn't the seniors be superior?

We all have high hopes for our young guns, I certainly do. But let us wait and see how many of them stick around (and not just because of Covid-19, there will be offers from the other code and of course from the rich Europeans and Japanese corporations: see Samu Kerevi for example). And then let us see how they go at the very top level of the game. Some will thrive, some will fold.


As for the Saffers, the fans seem to think that their renaissance has a lot to do with their choice of Head Coach, and I think they are right. BTW, they have won three RWCs, they have always been in the top two or thereabouts for as long as most of us can remember.

 

[qwerty51]

Less is more is a fallacy.

??? You're proving my point. I'm talking about less is more with regard to the International game. Reduce Tests, increase club matches.

It would be on par as the AFL/NRL when you total up club matches and Tests.

 

[Rebels3]

??? You're proving my point. I'm talking about less is more with regard to the International game. Reduce Tests, increase club matches.

It would be on par as the AFL/NRL when you total up club matches and Tests.

Apologies I thought you were meaning less as a whole

 

[Omar Comin']

The more I think about it the more I am supportive of a state of origin. We should build on existing rivalries, and the rivalry between NSW and QLD is huge. The league state of origin is consistently the biggest sporting event in both states every year, and while a rugby version won't be as big, it could still be a very successful annual event with full stadiums and TV ratings that rival Wallabies tests. Plus, an Australian team wins every time!

But for a rugby state of origin to be relevant we'd really need to continue to have at least 4 or 5 domestic teams with players spread around. If you go back to 3 teams there's not much point in having a separate series that condenses those players into 2 teams.

 

[The Honey Badger]

One problem I see with that model is that at the end of the tack on TT round, the top teams might not exactly align with the outcome of the individual domestic competitions. We could end up with two national champs (one each for Aus and NZ) but an entirely different TT champion. Don't know how bragging rights would pan out then.


.

I haven't a problem with this. Basically all teams get 2 chances to win something. Helps keep interest.

So the Tahs have a horrible start to the season and come SML in the AUS domestic comp.

Then find some form and smack the NZ teams 5 Nil, And get themselves into a 4 team TT play off.

Thats what we want. We want competitive teams where anyone can beat anyone on their day.

The Domestic champion is probably the one that we are going to care about. The TT champion might become something epic in time but likely to be a bit like a world club champion match.

 

[Brumbieman]

The more I think about it the more I am supportive of a state of origin. We should build on existing rivalries, and the rivalry between NSW and QLD is huge. The league state of origin is consistently the biggest sporting event in both states every year, and while a rugby version won't be as big, it could still be a very successful annual event with full stadiums and TV ratings that rival Wallabies tests. Plus, an Australian team wins every time!

But for a rugby state of origin to be relevant we'd really need to continue to have at least 4 or 5 domestic teams with players spread around. If you go back to 3 teams there's not much point in having a separate series that condenses those players into 2 teams.

We have those two teams already, and others with building rivalries as well.

League only has SOO because it's the only two states in the world who give a shit about it, so it's their equivalent of a test match. If the Wallabies won sometimes, you'd find a Bledisloe get just as much hype as we did when we were winning it back in the day.

 

[Jimmy_Crouch]

Bring back the Australian Barbarians in a possibles v probables type match. Everyone would want the underdog to win.

 

[wamberal]

Bring back the Australian Barbarians in a possibles v probables type match. Everyone would want the underdog to win.

Nope. Not for me.

 

[barbarian]

??? You're proving my point. I'm talking about less is more with regard to the International game. Reduce Tests, increase club matches.

It would be on par as the AFL/NRL when you total up club matches and Tests.

Not sure you haven't got this arse about, though I appreciate the idea and explanation.

People like watching the Wallabies. They are our one brand that cuts through. Look at the series vs Ireland - packed houses in Brisbane, Sydney and Melbourne (albeit at smaller stadiums). Great TV ratings too.

People don't like watching any tier below the Wallabies. Super has struggled to get more than 90k for a 7:30 game. NRC doesn't even get on the scoreboard.

So I'm not sure how you can take that information and go let's have less Wallabies and more club/Super/whatever games.

I don't think we should be playing 10 more Wallabies games either, but I certainly don't think we can expect to improve the health of the code by playing less games.

 

[qwerty51]

And it's exactly that type of thinking why we're in this spot. Too much emphasis on the international game to a neglect of the club product which is where the majority of the revenue should eventually come from. It wouldn't be reliant on the health of the Wallabies to sustain the game.

I'd argue the reason Super rugby isn't get viewers is because of the tournament format/structure and all the aforementioned things I've been saying about lack of being seen as a premier competition. The point is to change that and build it up.

 

[RedsHappy]

Not sure you haven't got this arse about, though I appreciate the idea and explanation.

People like watching the Wallabies. They are our one brand that cuts through. Look at the series vs Ireland - packed houses in Brisbane, Sydney and Melbourne (albeit at smaller stadiums). Great TV ratings too.

People don't like watching any tier below the Wallabies. Super has struggled to get more than 90k for a 7:30 game. NRC doesn't even get on the scoreboard.

So I'm not sure how you can take that information and go let's have less Wallabies and more club/Super/whatever games.

I don't think we should be playing 10 more Wallabies games either, but I certainly don't think we can expect to improve the health of the code by playing less games.

Re the important highlighted - all those now bemoaning the 'inevitable death of unsustainable Aust pro rugby' simply have not done a rigorous-enough analysis of the potential pro rugby pro-forma P&L _if and only if_ (a) the cost base of running it is drastically reshaped, which it absolutely, 100%, could be, on a perfectly credible basis (I have posted on this elsewhere), and (b) far more innovative, contemporary and less lazy approaches are taken to media packaging and the inevitable move to streaming business models for sports media.

Add up say (non RWC year) 2018-dated Wallaby Home Test income, Wallaby sponsorship income, Govt grants income (all levels), Super Rugby home gate income and sponsorship $s, and assume zero media income, there is still, right now, a substantial aggregate $ income line there.

Are we just going to throw this income in the bin? FFS, why on earth do that? it would be an insane move that would guarantee a total death of rugby in this country by c. 2023 (anyone who thinks the amateur levels do nor get or need the annual $ms that flow to it from the pro game just hasn't studied the hard facts).

And that's on the back of Aust pro rugby being an under-marketed, poorly managerially led and (mostly) poorly coached mess!

Imagine the upside if well-run.

Then if we look to ingenuity in a totally new media model - as I have said elsewhere here, IMO a really smart and highly innovative media strategy would be for RA to forget traditional media packaging and instead design its own streaming service (for all levels of the code) which an increasing no of global sports are doing, produce the thing itself in concert with an FTA partner (there will be $m for Wallaby Tests FTA, that exists today) and credibly aim for 50,000 subs at $30pm = $18,000,000 pa income, production costs net after an FTA split of some kind, should not exceed $4-5m pa absolute max. 50k subs is credible as just Super Rugby gets 50-60k viewers most 2019 home Super matches. This model could be highly profitable for Aust rugby and it's so easy to do, RA could outsource most of it. (RA spent $ms on 'outside media specialists' to aid pro rugby media packaging and deal-making and then goes and insanely endorses SANZAAR's 2021+ mad Super Rugby model which the Aust rugby-following public just hates....go figure.)

The big problem we have is an absurd, OTT, extravagant, living-beyond-our-means total cost base (incl the way we pay players) in Aust pro rugby. Each level of that can be fixed and fixed in 3-6 months max _if_ we have the will to shatter dead moulds and break bad old habits and address our vastly over-replicated cost structures nationally.

 

[Omar Comin']

We have those two teams already, and others with building rivalries as well.

League only has SOO because it's the only two states in the world who give a shit about it, so it's their equivalent of a test match. If the Wallabies won sometimes, you'd find a Bledisloe get just as much hype as we did when we were winning it back in the day.

They're not origin teams or state rep teams and haven't been for ages. The Waratahs and Reds are essentially professional clubs or franchises with NSW and QLD in the name. Like the Colorado Rockies and Utah Jazz in America.

And yeah that's been the goal for a while now, but periods where Australia has held the Bledisloe Cup (and especially 98-02) have been an anomaly. NZ have been incredibly dominant. This drought will end eventually, and hopefully soon, but all evidence suggests NZ will win most of the time. I think we need something that doesn't rely on international success, because these lean periods for the Wallabies will happen and state of origin between NSW and QLD is a concept that works in Australian sport.

Besides you don't have to give up one for the other. The Bledisloe will always be the biggest annual event in Australian rugby, but state of origin could be a good addition.

 

[barbarian]

And it's exactly that type of thinking why we're in this spot. Too much emphasis on the international game to a neglect of the club product which is where the majority of the revenue should eventually come from. It wouldn't be reliant on the health of the Wallabies to sustain the game.

I'd argue the reason Super rugby isn't get viewers is because of the tournament format/structure and all the aforementioned things I've been saying about lack of being seen as a premier competition. The point is to change that and build it up.

While I see that logic, putting it into practice is another thing entirely.

How do you think RA would go with broadcasters saying "we'll give you less of what you want, and far more of what you don't".

I think in the short/medium term we should definitely boost the second tier (whatever that becomes), and I agree that the end goal should be for that to be at least self-sustaining.

But for now at least cutting the number of Wallabies games is unfeasible IMO.

 

[Mr Wobbly]

They're not origin teams or state rep teams and haven't been for ages. The Waratahs and Reds are essentially professional clubs or franchises with NSW and QLD in the name. Like the Colorado Rockies and Utah Jazz in America.

And yeah that's been the goal for a while now, but periods where Australia has held the Bledisloe Cup (and especially 98-02) have been an anomaly. NZ have been incredibly dominant. This drought will end eventually, and hopefully soon, but all evidence suggests NZ will win most of the time. I think we need something that doesn't rely on international success, because these lean periods for the Wallabies will happen and state of origin between NSW and QLD is a concept that works in Australian sport.

Besides you don't have to give up one for the other. The Bledisloe will always be the biggest annual event in Australian rugby, but state of origin could be a good addition.

Do Colorado and Utah ever feel the need to play each other in SoO? Do any sports anywhere, other than NRL, have SoO? It might work as a one-off novelty kind of thing but Qld and NSW already play each other twice a year. I really doubt that too many people will get fired up about it.

The AFL used to run a successful Origin series but once the game went national it became irrelevant and everybody stopped caring till it died a natural death.

 

[Mr Wobbly]

Not sure you haven't got this arse about, though I appreciate the idea and explanation.

People like watching the Wallabies. They are our one brand that cuts through. Look at the series vs Ireland - packed houses in Brisbane, Sydney and Melbourne (albeit at smaller stadiums). Great TV ratings too.

People don't like watching any tier below the Wallabies. Super has struggled to get more than 90k for a 7:30 game. NRC doesn't even get on the scoreboard.

So I'm not sure how you can take that information and go let's have less Wallabies and more club/Super/whatever games.

I don't think we should be playing 10 more Wallabies games either, but I certainly don't think we can expect to improve the health of the code by playing less games.

Absolutely.

This isn't unique to rugby though. People like to watch sport when it's played at the highest level and they know that it's the highest level.

How many people watch swimming, or diving, or athletics, et al when it isn't the world championships or the Olympics?

Who watches second tier AFL or NRL?

The Wallabies will always pull in the biggest audience and are clearly the most important brand. That doesn't exclude a quality domestic comp having its own following and succeeding in its own right but it's not realistic to think that the local game will ever be bigger than the international.

 

[WorkingClassRugger]

Absolutely.

This isn't unique to rugby though. People like to watch sport when it's played at the highest level and they know that it's the highest level.

How many people watch swimming, or diving, or athletics, et al when it isn't the world championships or the Olympics?

Who watches second tier AFL or NRL?

The Wallabies will always pull in the biggest audience and are clearly the most important brand. That doesn't exclude a quality domestic comp having its own following and succeeding in its own right but it's not realistic to think that the local game will ever be bigger than the international.

I think the closest they come may be in relation to College Football/Basketball. But that's not a 1 for 1 comparison.

 

[Omar Comin']

Do any sports anywhere, other than NRL, have SoO? It might work as a one-off novelty kind of thing but Qld and NSW already play each other twice a year. I really doubt that too many people will get fired up about it.

The AFL used to run a successful Origin series but once the game went national it became irrelevant and everybody stopped caring till it died a natural death.

It doesn't matter if no where else does it, in the two biggest rugby markets in Australia the RL SoO is the biggest annual sporting event. If a rugby version had a quarter of the interest of the league version it would be a huge asset to the game. If it doesn't work then you'd get rid of it, but you have to try things to find out. I think replicating the biggest sporting event in your major markets is probably worth trying if you're going to try anything.

Some work would have to be done to clearly differentiate between the Waratahs and Reds brands, and the two Origin teams, but this doesn't seem insurmountable to me. As long as we have 4 or 5 teams to pick from (or 6-8 if we go for a domestic option instead of Trans Tasman) then the origin teams would be clearly different and stronger.

Maybe you start by just having 1 Origin game and see how it goes. If that doesn't work for whatever reason maybe some other All Stars or Wallabies trial game type event could work. Another way you could split our players in half that might be interesting would be based on what type of school they went to. Public vs Private.

 

[rugboy]

Do Colorado and Utah ever feel the need to play each other in SoO? Do any sports anywhere, other than NRL, have SoO? It might work as a one-off novelty kind of thing but Qld and NSW already play each other twice a year. I really doubt that too many people will get fired up about it.

The AFL used to run a successful Origin series but once the game went national it became irrelevant and everybody stopped caring till it died a natural death.

I think the idea of State of origin definitely has merit. While you are correct it doesn't really work anywhere else in the world, thats essentially because there are very few sports worldwide that draw the majority of their players at a professional level from two states/territories. While Rugby League has the odd player from other states of Australia and countries, the bulk traditionally come from NSW and QLD. Rugby is similar, and hence initially the idea could work.

Secondly the hatred/dislike that has developed through origin has permeated through many other parts of society, QLDers dont like NSWelshamn and vice versa. Rugby can leverage this.

Finally you need some luck/good management/drama. The SOO concept was originally met with many of the comments on here, disdain for an artificially constructed rivalry. It wasn't until Artie Beetson playing for QLD out one on the chin of his parramatta team mate that created the drama and theatre of the rivalry. Lets give it a go and get LSL (Lukhan Salakaia-Loto) to put one square on the chin of Wright and watch Sio run in to protect his NSW teammate before Slipper and he trade blows.

Id also love the fact if we could find a window in the international program where we could draw in all the overseas players eligible for each state to add some extra spice for this 1, 2 or 3 match series.

Just out of interest would the Rockies and Jazz play baseball or basketball in their SOO matches?

 

[Mr Wobbly]

I*snip*

Just out of interest would the Rockies and Jazz play baseball or basketball in their SOO matches?

BASEketball, obviously