Where to for Super Rugby?

[rugboy]

Yes, there would be separate broadcast deals and I doubt if the kiwis would be interested in a 6th team anyway, but Foxtel & Sky need content, with all teams involved in a champions league at the culmination of the domestic component. I think it overall would be more attractive for the broadcasters when you can schedule 6 games over the weekend.

The problem with a 6 team domestic comp is two fold. You cant just create a new team and expect fans to take to it. Expansion takes time to develop supporter bases. There will be minimal eyeballs watching on TV or fans through the gate which puts additional pressure on funding the venture. The game cant sustain any more cash drain. Despite their pitiful performance the Tahs are still the best supported team TV wise and the rebels the worst. Their is no value to a broadcaster.

Secondly NZ v NZ games in Australia aren't anywhere near as popular and wont overly enhance the broadcast dollar. A 10 team TT which features Oz v NZ teams will rate just as well if not better than Oz v OZ and a mile better than NZ v NZ. A TT comp is far more appealing to broadcasters. Despite only having 5 games a weekend more than likely 4 of those games would feature an established OZ team increasing Oz appeal.

 

[The Honey Badger]

I'm not sure emphasing that has much pertinence. There have been different broadcasters for each market since 1996 (or even 1986).

RA (and for that mattter NZR, SARU and the rest) will still need to test matches to survive. They'll try to package up all their wares to flog in their own market and beyond.

That approach will continue and, of itself, doesn't lock in any given competition format.

Only because the original post was selling 6 games each week but into 2 separate comps. Saying 6 games to sell is better and more attractive.

But really we are only selling 1/2 that amount of games to 2 separate broadcasters.

Having said that, I would settle for 3 games a week, a Friday night, a Saturday night and a Sunday afternoon (or else a double header on Saturday with a 9:30 pm game in Perth). Regular times, no getting up in the middle of the night, a comp that is easy to follow.

 

[kiap]

Only because the original post was selling 6 games each week but into 2 separate comps.

Saying 6 games to sell is better and more attractive.

Fair enough, it's okay to iron out that talking point.

But …

But really we are only selling 1/2 that amount of games to 2 separate broadcasters.

… game-for-game, the take gets sliced up much the same.

It is possible for a TT comp to have the exactly the same regular season games as playing 2 x National comps + cross-national match-ups.

There are multiple ways to skin the cat. Various options for a Trans-Tasman have negative points along with the positive.

 

[half]

My comparison with the AFL/NRL is because they are our competition for eyeballs.

Tis not often I disagree with you.

However on the above statement you and most on this site are totally wrong.

Australian broadcast sport has depending on how you read it a number of different layers and within each layer their is competition. Below is my read of the layers and the order they rank in those layers.

In the top layer is Cricket, AFL, NRL, Tennis

Second layer is, Golf, Super V8's, Rugby, Soccer, Cycling, Horse Racing, Basketball, Netball.

Third layer of traditional sports would be, swimming, boxing, hockey, athletics, Olympic sports, baseball

The X layer i.e non traditional sports, Surfing, Mixed Marshal Arts,BMX, Triathlon..

E-Sports.

Rugby is in competition with the NRL & AFL for players but who we compete with for eyeballs is other second tier sports .

We need to see what other second tier sports are doing and their future plans.

Tis very interesting if you analysis players to sports many of the second tier sports have huge player numbers, how they use those player numbers to date has not proven as successful as they would like. Soccer & Basketball have the most number of players and Netball equally has a big player base. Baseball is starting to challenge cricket for player numbers but rating are almost non existent.

Rugby will never be in Australia a top layer sport, of the second layer sports, golf, super V8's and soccer are the only one capable of making the jump, but I doubt they will... maybe super V8's will but hard to see anything else.

Broadcasts allocate revenue to the second layer, RA's job is to get the biggest share it can of the second layer money.

The biggest IMO issue we have is """"QUALITY player numbers""" with the AFL 18, NRL 16, A-League 12 thats 46 professional sides not counting in each of these codes have relatively strong second tier competitions.

A president of a local rugby club told me recently, once upon a time we [meaning rugby] got the best juniors with the kids that could not make it in rugby going to soccer. Today we are getting lots of kids that could not make the local soccer team.

Our problems are deep rooted, and the miss management of decades of senior rugby management across a number of areas has left rugby in a position whereby today we struggle for players. Meaning the players go to the NRL or AFL before rugby.

MEANING A LARGE AND TO DATE NOT MENTIONED REASON WE NEED A NATIONAL DOMESTIC COMPETITION IS PROVIDE A PLACE FOR PLAYERS TO GO.

Sorry this is getting to long, but to my point we are not in competition with the AFL or NRL for ratings and dollars, we are in competition with Golf, Super V8"s, Soccer, Basketball & Netball.

 

[Adam84]

How are they compromising their own depth if those players are still eligible for the All Blacks!?! That's the whole point.

They're discards for their current Super teams. It's in their interest to make the comp even so it generates more revenue.

Are they discards or further super rugby players, because you keep changing your tune. If they’re discards, then how will recruiting players who weren’t up to standard in New Zealand help Australian teams be more competitive against those very same teams. If they’re future super rugby players, then it’s impacting on New Zealand’s own pathways and their own teams competitiveness and value going forward.

It’s not in New Zealand’s interest to disassemble the pathway which is proven at producing world class players..

What does NZ have to gain by Australia going from 3 or 4 teams to 5?

 

[Dan54]

Where do you think the next Super Rugby players for NZ come from? Apart from young players, the next guys coming up did so through the Mitre 10 Cup. They just need an opportunity. Plenty of those types going around in NZ atm but given there's only 5 pro teams in NZ they aren't getting them. It's also not as if the Aus team is going to be filled with them, it's just giving those Mitre 10 Cup players the bench spots in a match over guys whose ceiling in Aus should be club rugby.

NZ might want to do something with South Africa sure but as of right now, with Covid, they ain't doing shit in 2021. NZ needs the TT as much as we do. They're kidding if they think they have a sustainable comp with just them in it. The Mitre 10 loses money. Aetoaera has had a good start but mainly because it off a long break with sport starved eye balls. Let's see how good the crowds are in week 8 when the same fucking teams are playing each other again. 2 matches a week in NZ and in total. You're kidding.

NZ has always wanted to keep SA in super rugby, but if you actually listen or read what NZ rugby saying that's not going to happen probably going forward. You right about young fellas coming up through M10 cup and getting a chance to play here, but they can do that with no problem now anyway, NZRU doesn't stop players from playing here, never have, just say when you make ABs you have to be signed with them. Of course crowds will drop off after a few weeks in NZ, suspect they may in Aus too, and going forward any comp would need at least 8-10 teams, and isn't that what NZ/Aus are talking about? I personally liked what the new Aus chairman said last week where perhaps Aus rugby could shop around world for a few marquee players. I still think that is best way to go and if Aus does struggle to be able to get teams, I think you have to drop the idea of just getting players from NZ. Lets not try and dilute NZ teams ( as some think is good), but strengthen the Aus teams!

 

[Braveheart81]

BH, I think this is precisely what a lot of fans here want to see, especially after the poor efforts dished up by SANZAAR over recent years. I wouldn't be averse to a competition that guaranteed an Aussie winner each year and more local derbies, if it can be supplemented by a TT Champions Cup.

Yet in the various competitions where there are only Australian teams whether it is NRC or club rugby, nowhere near enough people show interest to make them viable as professional competitions.

This is the biggest issue to overcome. That somehow a weaker competition where we have the double whammy of more teams so the talent is spread more thinly and less money to spend on retaining good players will draw lots more fans in.

I think it is unbelievably unlikely that essentially the NRC but with some of the teams called the Waratahs, Reds, Brumbies etc. will suddenly be hugely more popular than the NRC was.

 

[VassMan]

I think it wasn't as successful because it was the 3rd tier behind Wallabies and Super. Only rusted on fans watched it to try spot the next guy who would crack a super team or to watch their club rugby mates take a step up. If SuperAu or NRC is the second tier between Wallabies and Club then I think it will be a lot more successful then the original 3rd tier NRC. It will have Wallabies playing in it and will be marketed and on the news etc. NRC was so hidden as it was seen purely as a development competition.

 

[rugboy]

I think it wasn't as successful because it was the 3rd tier behind Wallabies and Super. Only rusted on fans watched it to try spot the next guy who would crack a super team or to watch their club rugby mates take a step up. If SuperAu or NRC is the second tier between Wallabies and Club then I think it will be a lot more successful then the original 3rd tier NRC. It will have Wallabies playing in it and will be marketed and on the news etc. NRC was so hidden as it was seen purely as a development competition.

The biggest problem is the teams have no rusted on supporter base. You cant just generate 6 new teams and expect them to have relevance to fans or broadcasters. The NRC doesn't appeal to many because there is no affiliation. The NRL and AFL are built off that tribalism, however the AFL's recent attempts at expansion have struggled into non historic AFL regions. Contrived regional teams rarely work as they have no home and no real connection to fans. Even SS teams have some tribalism and often perform better in drawing crowds and TV viewers than the NRC despite it being a tier lower.

A TT comp will bring the viewers, as our established entities will be there playing each week. These teams have the supporter bases through those historically strong seasons and while they may be some dip during poor periods they will still attract more fans than a bunch of new teams with no traditional fans.

 

[Rebels3]

Can’t we just have the obvious option of a domestic competition for 10 weeks then a Cup competition with a group phase involving whatever countries are interested? That way we have an Australian comp to supply a winner and then a cup competition for other interests (eg. 5x aus, 5x NZ, 5x SA, 5x Jap)

Each group has 1 team from each country, etc. home and away fixture? It would be half the amount of trips outside the country to what currently happens.

 

[Derpus]

Can’t we just have the obvious option of a domestic competition for 10 weeks then a Cup competition with a group phase involving whatever countries are interested? That way we have an Australian comp to supply a winner and then a cup competition for other interests (eg. 5x aus, 5x NZ, 5x SA, 5x Jap)

Each group has 1 team from each country, etc. home and away fixture? It would be half the amount of trips outside the country to what currently happens.

obvious?

 

[hoggy]

The biggest problem is the teams have no rusted on supporter base. You cant just generate 6 new teams and expect them to have relevance to fans or broadcasters. The NRC doesn't appeal to many because there is no affiliation. The NRL and AFL are built off that tribalism, however the AFL's recent attempts at expansion have struggled into non historic AFL regions. Contrived regional teams rarely work as they have no home and no real connection to fans. Even SS teams have some tribalism and often perform better in drawing crowds and TV viewers than the NRC despite it being a tier lower.

A TT comp will bring the viewers, as our established entities will be there playing each week. These teams have the supporter bases through those historically strong seasons and while they may be some dip during poor periods they will still attract more fans than a bunch of new teams with no traditional fans.

But you wouldn't be starting with all new teams with a domestic option, you have 5 established teams already.

 

[rugboy]

But you wouldn't be starting with all new teams with a domestic option, you have 5 established teams already.

I was replying to the suggestion that NRC becoming the second tier rather than the third would have the same interest as a TT. NRC doesn't have relevance as the teams aren't established. If a domestic comp centred on the 5 established and 3/5 new teams it would still struggle and the 3/5 new teams would struggle for tv and fan relevance.

A domestic comp that focuses just on the established 5 I think would create viewer fatigue playing the same team 2/3 times and then potentially again in a Champions League style playoff would be novel at first but wear thin after a while, it also only provides tv content of just 2 games with oz content a weekend which would reduce viewer numbers over a full TT model.

 

[Rebels3]

obvious?

To me it is, it’s exactly the same format used in Europe. Also allows you to 100% control your own domestic footprint. Also would mean we can stink for a number of years in the cup competition while we grow it back up but still have sustained success domestically with a guaranteed winner (positive story).

 

[The Honey Badger]

I think it wasn't as successful because it was the 3rd tier behind Wallabies and Super. Only rusted on fans watched it to try spot the next guy who would crack a super team or to watch their club rugby mates take a step up. If SuperAu or NRC is the second tier between Wallabies and Club then I think it will be a lot more successful then the original 3rd tier NRC. It will have Wallabies playing in it and will be marketed and on the news etc. NRC was so hidden as it was seen purely as a development competition.

Good post Vas, agree entirely.

And lets hope this version not so hidden with some prime time FTA that will will allow it to compete with the other codes. And I fully acknowledge it will come third in the ratings for some time and will take time to grow a following. But the Pay TV only option is to promote to an ever diminishing audience will only continue the downward spiral.

 

[Derpus]

To me it is, it’s exactly the same format used in Europe. Also allows you to 100% control your own domestic footprint. Also would mean we can stink for a number of years in the cup competition while we grow it back up but still have sustained success domestically with a guaranteed winner (positive story).

Last time i checked Europe didn't have 5 team domestic comps. Show me a single successful competition anywhere in the world that has 5 teams?

That reads to me as another iteration of the conference system we already tried - just with less inter-conference games.

 

[dru]

The biggest problem is the teams have no rusted on supporter base. You cant just generate 6 new teams and expect them to have relevance to fans or broadcasters. The NRC doesn't appeal to many because there is no affiliation. The NRL and AFL are built off that tribalism, however the AFL's recent attempts at expansion have struggled into non historic AFL regions. Contrived regional teams rarely work as they have no home and no real connection to fans. Even SS teams have some tribalism and often perform better in drawing crowds and TV viewers than the NRC despite it being a tier lower.

A TT comp will bring the viewers, as our established entities will be there playing each week. These teams have the supporter bases through those historically strong seasons and while they may be some dip during poor periods they will still attract more fans than a bunch of new teams with no traditional fans.

A domestic comp replicating similar teams/locations as NRC as the second tier is completely different to the NRC. Standard will be higher to start with given that the Wallaby squad are integrated within the teams.

Bar possibly NSW and Qld all Super franchises have been "contrived regional teams" so logic that it will work in one scenario should follow with consistency into a different format.

The NRC is a relatively short comp that is set through the internationals, where viewing and broadcast preferences are obvious. The issue is eradicated with a true domestic second tier.

What should be common with the NRC is a relatively level playing field and Aussie winners.

More importantly the Super has an inherent commercial flaw that we have been calling (sarcastically) "shrink to greatness". As we reduce the number of teams to match the available cash, the cash also shrinks. This is based on broadcast interest with minimal content for the broadcaster in prime Australian time slots, and consistency of viewing - among other things. These matters are eradicated with a domestically based comp. Or at least, if the proposed alternative does NOT achieve this then it is not a place the comp should go.

Similarly consistency of home games to build a home crowd and fan base has proven unachievable in Super. Another issue resolved by a domestically based comp.

The reality is that Super has NOT "brought the viewers" and suggestions that a TT, with reduced Australian input, will perform better seems - well specious. Certainly unreasonable.

Like others I would be quite happy with a TT championship sitting between the tier 2 comp and internationals. And as it is obvious that standard of the leading Aussie teams, certainly initially, has little likelihood of matching the Kiwis - then some form of representative involvement would be smart. For both sides of the Tasman and would double as providing selection criteria for the internationals.

It is not what we are going to get, unfortunately. And all these claims that the TT either with
a) continued lack of competitiveness, continued insufficient local content,
or
b) reduced Australian franchises and even less sufficient local content,
are simply wishful.

But it does kick the can down the road, a little longer for pro rugby.

We could do better.

 

[hoggy]

Australian rugby should be careful though if it kicks the can down the road much further it may end up disappearing down a massive black hole.

 

[Rebels3]

Last time i checked Europe didn't have 5 team domestic comps. Show me a single successful competition anywhere in the world that has 5 teams?

That reads to me as another iteration of the conference system we already tried - just with less inter-conference games.

It’s their own comp with a cup comp around it, no need to go into semantics.

 

[Braveheart81]

And lets hope this version not so hidden with some prime time FTA that will will allow it to compete with the other codes.

What makes anyone think this would have interest from FTA to be shown in prime time? The ratings are unlikely to be anywhere close to high enough.

It's not just a case of being third behind AFL and NRL. It's a question of whether reruns of a crappy sitcom on the secondary channel that cost them almost nothing would outrate it.