Where to for Super Rugby?

[Joe King]

I've got a question.

Recently there's been some talk of a global season, and I'm pretty sure one of the ideas they're talking about is moving the 6N to March/April, and playing TRC at the same time, and then moving the July in-bounds to October. European club rugby would be played in two blocks. It would start the season in December and finish the first block in Feb, and then play the second block from late April-July. In the Sth Hem whatever replaces Super Rugby would be played from late April - September.

The main purpose of it, as far as I can gather, is so that European club rugby doesn't interfere with test rugby, and vice versa. I guess for the Sth Hem, it would allow teams like SA and Fiji (and possibly Oz) to access all their o/s players and potential boost the viability of TRC, not to mention the in-bounds and European tours.

Yes, I know, how can SANZAAR start the year with TRC, and how can the Nth Hemisphere start their season with the October in-bound tests? - although imagine the European test teams being able to access their players for fitness and team training through September without club commitments?!

Anyway, my question is this: if this scenario (or something like it) did come about for arguments sake, and it became much easier for Oz to access their o/s players for all our tests if we wanted to, what impact would that have on what replaces Super Rugby from a RA perspective?

 

[Slim 293]

Nice job, let’s ignore the two bonus point wins against the sun wolves...
weakest pool by far..

It was, but they ultimately notched up most of their wins against overseas opposition...........

But it's still all just whataboutery to start putting forward hypotheticals that only create multiple possible outcomes of then what might or might not happen.

Playing the 5 NZ teams x2 doesn't necessarily change their position, whereas only playing 4/5 Australian teams once certainly does depending on who they don't play (if it's the Rebels that's great!), and the the Reds did a number of them early in the season but then the Brumbies won the return leg comfortably.............

Anyways, the point still stands and I think we've exhausted this detour from the topic.

 

[Dismal Pillock]

was contemplating venturing off to the Avatar Bet thread to wager that this thread will reach 1,000 pages and Super Rugby will still be a thing..... but after the last fortnight wouldn't even wager that this thing will make it to the 900-page mark.

 

[The Honey Badger]

Possibly on another thread, someone proposed a comp whereby five Aus teams played each other home & away but only played each of the five NZ teams once, with NZ following the same format to arrive at (I think) a top-four. .

yes, some fury animal proposed that

 

[Omar Comin']

Anyway, my question is this: if this scenario (or something like it) did come about for arguments sake, and it became much easier for Oz to access their o/s players for all our tests if we wanted to, what impact would that have on what replaces Super Rugby from a RA perspective?

I don't think it will be a big factor re what replaces Super Rugby. From a Wallabies perspective it would still be better to have as many players based in Australia as possible so that coaches have better access to them throughout the year. I think RA is still likely to make that a priority regardless of the international season structure.

It might make RA more willing to loosen the Giteau rule a little bit, but I don't think they'll move to a structure that would make it harder or impossible to retain top players in domestic teams. I doubt that would happen unless some foreign club league becomes a rugby equivalent of the NBA or EPL. And that doesn't seem very likely in the medium term.

 

[Rugbynutter39]

was contemplating venturing off to the Avatar Bet thread to wager that this thread will reach 1,000 pages and Super Rugby will still be a thing... but after the last fortnight wouldn't even wager that this thing will make it to the 900-page mark.

My concern is we get to 1000 pages and we are still debating this super rugby thing whilst meanwhile we have the parties still committed to super rugby flawed product with some tinkering around the edges and watched by rapidly diminishing rusted on fan base. Given the rapid decline in fan support for super rugby to recommit to a 14 round robin super rugby competition was beyond stupid. Despite all the over whelming logic and evidence saying this is the time for oz be part of own domestic competition or trans Tasman competition with more open borders - does anybody really think we will end up with something well thought out, logical and aligned to what fans want?

Doubt it and while Rome burns the status quo remains. Give it another year or two won’t be anything to salvage in any case if maintain same trajectory of loss of fans and fan disengagement - that is if we have not already hit that point

 

[hoggy]

My concern is we get to 1000 pages and we are still debating this super rugby thing whilst meanwhile we have the parties still committed to super rugby flawed product with some tinkering around the edges and watched by rapidly diminishing rusted on fan base. Given the rapid decline in fan support for super rugby to recommit to a 14 round robin super rugby competition was beyond stupid. Despite all the over whelming logic and evidence saying this is the time for oz be part of own domestic competition or trans Tasman competition with more open borders - does anybody really think we will end up with something well thought out, logical and aligned to what fans want?

Doubt it and while Rome burns the status quo remains. Give it another year or two won’t be anything to salvage in any case if maintain same trajectory of loss of fans and fan disengagement - that is if we have not already hit that point

I would bet on self interest. The problem with Australia is it is divided into two camps Domestic and International, those that are happy to sacrifice everything for Test Primacy and those who want a genuine domestic product, so while the game sits on the fence, self interest conquers all.

 

[qwerty51]

Calling that self-interest is a bit deluded. I'm in the domestic camp because I see it as the best way for a sustainable professional game in Australia. Others see the international game as that. The interest is purely what's best for Aus rugby - just differing opinions.

 

[wamberal]

Calling that self-interest is a bit deluded. I'm in the domestic camp because I see it as the best way for a sustainable professional game in Australia. Others see the international game as that. The interest is purely what's best for Aus rugby - just differing opinions.

I would add that some of us care deeply about the district clubs that we grew up with, played with, supported, and love. Speaking for myself I also love the national team (kind of - they are unloveable some of the time, whereas the Woodies are always wonderful!!!)

 

[hoggy]

Calling that self-interest is a bit deluded. I'm in the domestic camp because I see it as the best way for a sustainable professional game in Australia. Others see the international game as that. The interest is purely what's best for Aus rugby - just differing opinions.

Yet here we are driving off a cliff, i'm sure everyone wants whats best for Aus rugby. The point being most people at the top of the game here have done pretty well out of it for the last 10/15 years, was that all for the benefit or health of the game.

 

[rugboy]

Both the domestic and Super models raise serious concerns for the health of the game in Australia for different reasons. Like it or not Rugby needs television dollars to remain fully professional. It’s hard to see how a domestic model can pique the interest of broadcasters to commit enough money to the venture. Without significant investment the game becomes almost semi professional. Earning potential drops, players head for more lucrative markets (even if not as lucrative pre-COVID) ala Hocking and Lucas, which again diminishes the domestic product and further compromises future broadcast money and so the cycle continues. The so-called golden generation emerging is lost to other markets before they can re-establish our international reputation. rugby moves into the NBL/A-League trend of a being irrelevant nationally and merely a development league for other competitions abroad where, if we are lucky we get to see our best players compete for the national team once in a blue moon. What the domestic league does do if provides more viewer friendly rivalry games in decent times slots.
Super rugby while poor for the average punter, it’s convoluted draw and table and unfriendly time slots make it terrible for a sport trying to engage a new generation of fans does bring in the tv dollars with its pool sharing of funds. It enables, for the majority of our best players to remain in domestic teams and eligible for the Wallabies. Obviously the current health crisis has put a question mark on the viability of next seasons competition after ruling out this years.
In all honesty I’m not sure how we get the best of both competitions. Perhaps a domestic comp initially that feeds into a top 6 championship knockout playoff (8 if Top League included) and plate knockout for places 7 and below. To provide a domestic feel with local derbies but also the international component for revenue sharing.

 

[dru]

There is little commercial contribution to Super from the broadcast deal as it exists. They are funded by the WBs and Super is a cost. Super is not valued as there is insufficient (local) content, illogical (for local broadcaster) scheduling, uneven playing field and a small (but influential) fan pool.

Before we complain about funding a domestic, or any other alternative comp, the above must be addressed. Increasingly the resolution suggested, often incoherently, is further shrink to “greatness”. Which does kick the can down the road but does nothing to address the issues.

In the absence of a coherent solution, I doubt there is one, try something different. As there is little funding for Super anyway, support the cost of the alternative. Something that provides more local content, a logical for broadcast schedule, even playing field. I doubt there will be much reduction in that fandom as, even with the “sandblaster” of Super, we are well down to the rusted on. BUT there is a chance, a chance that does not exist under shrink to “greatness”, that we might start building a comp with more support and more broadcast interest.

In the mean time, the broadcast options may be ominous, certainly require addressing with innovation, but what is of value to the current broadcast system will also be of value to any replacement. And we do want that replacement.

 

[rugboy]

There is little commercial contribution to Super from the broadcast deal as it exists. They are funded by the WBs and Super is a cost. Super is not valued as there is insufficient (local) content, illogical (for local broadcaster) scheduling, uneven playing field and a small (but influential) fan pool.

My point around broadcast funding was in Super with its "its pool sharing of funds" not domestic TV money but that which we derive from the arrangement of sharing the tv revenue from SA and NZ, obviously this will be lost. There is little interest domestically in any form of rugby from Broadcasters and hence the point that a move to a domestic only model which involves forgoing the monies received from SA and NZ would cripple the game.

 

[dru]

My point around broadcast funding was in Super with its "its pool sharing of funds" not domestic TV money but that which we derive from the arrangement of sharing the tv revenue from SA and NZ, obviously this will be lost. There is little interest domestically in any form of rugby from Broadcasters and hence the point that a move to a domestic only model which involves forgoing the monies received from SA and NZ would cripple the game.

Isnt that exactly why the current broadcast negotiations are where they are? Same difference. Time to move on.

 

[The Honey Badger]

A Barbarians team is bloody expensive. Think the Melbourne team from the 2007. They had to relocate everyone for the season and that is effectively what broke that tournament.

A Barbarian team based in Sydney is still going to have to recruit at least half it's team from interstate, house them, fly them etc. The cost of that is ridiculous.

a team of non contracted players, dont think it is going to cost too much. probably some match payments similar to nrc.

Players will have the option to decline joining the squad. Somehow I dont think many will. They want the opportunity

 

[The Honey Badger]

You'd be better off setting up another franchise representing a town/suburb/area that spending any time or effort on a Barbarians team.

My understanding is , Baa Baas is for this year only. Not a long term solution. Sun Wolf thing wasnt going to work.

Next year, who knows

 

[Quick Hands]

There is little commercial contribution to Super from the broadcast deal as it exists. They are funded by the WBs and Super is a cost. Super is not valued as there is insufficient (local) content, illogical (for local broadcaster) scheduling, uneven playing field and a small (but influential) fan pool.

Before we complain about funding a domestic, or any other alternative comp, the above must be addressed. Increasingly the resolution suggested, often incoherently, is further shrink to “greatness”. Which does kick the can down the road but does nothing to address the issues.

In the absence of a coherent solution, I doubt there is one, try something different. As there is little funding for Super anyway, support the cost of the alternative. Something that provides more local content, a logical for broadcast schedule, even playing field. I doubt there will be much reduction in that fandom as, even with the “sandblaster” of Super, we are well down to the rusted on. BUT there is a chance, a chance that does not exist under shrink to “greatness”, that we might start building a comp with more support and more broadcast interest.

In the mean time, the broadcast options may be ominous, certainly require addressing with innovation, but what is of value to the current broadcast system will also be of value to any replacement. And we do want that replacement.

Yes

 

[Quick Hands]

My point around broadcast funding was in Super with its "its pool sharing of funds" not domestic TV money but that which we derive from the arrangement of sharing the tv revenue from SA and NZ, obviously this will be lost. There is little interest domestically in any form of rugby from Broadcasters and hence the point that a move to a domestic only model which involves forgoing the monies received from SA and NZ would cripple the game.

NZ have indicated that they won't be pooling the broadcast money any more as they provide more games, more teams and their deal is far more lucrative.

 

[half]

Vid on Super Rugby from a NZ Fan.

 

[RugbyReg]

My understanding is , Baa Baas is for this year only. Not a long term solution. Sun Wolf thing wasnt going to work.

Next year, who knows

yes, it might only be NRC level player payments. Do they train? If so where? If half are from Sydney, if so you have to fly the others in from QLD, ACT, VIC, WA etc and put them up somewhere and give them a per diem etc. Over 6-8 weeks (as for the ARC in 2007) that is most definitely an expensive exercise.