Where to for Super Rugby?

[Rebel man]

For me with Trans Tasman - I would only want fully 12 team comp with 22 rounds if NZRU agree to open borders policy - ie as long as players play for Trans Tasman team they are eligible for Wallaby or All Blacks etc..otherwise we get into old super rugby issues of lopsided competition (and the answer is not for oz to have less professional teams). Otherwise prefer the Super Rugby AU format (with Fiji added) and then joined up Tran Tasman where I think we can wear a few oz sides not being competitive.

Don't get me wrong the other things like allowing more marquee imports (read Force and Rebels) to make oz sides more competitive is a good initiative but to me a truly great super rugby competition imho is sorting out an open borders policy as a competition dominated by Kiwi sides is really not the answer to grow the regions rugby footprint.

It was 2-4 last year in the 6 games played, we can’t be afraid of playing the NZ sides. We will never close the gap by shying away from playing them

 

[Rebels3]

The last full Super Rugby season (2019) is already the same length as the NFL season.

 

[Rebel man]

The last full Super Rugby season (2019) is already the same length as the NFL season.

But significantly shorter than the European season. We need a longer season to generate more income

 

[dru]

^ As Pauline Pantsdown said, I don't like it.

Too many problems.

Problems start with a simple question - who is funding the Drua?

 

[WorkingClassRugger]

I can only really think of NFL that has relatively few home games a season. Most of the other big time leagues have bucketloads. EPL, MLB, NBL, cricket (not really a league, i suppose) etc

As Kiap suggests. Rugby is a contact/collision sport. The physical toll on the bodies of players is significantly different than that of any of the leagues you've mentioned. I'm not saying that 16 weeks is the absolute maximum. In fact in my most ideal season would be a 19 weeks (16 ronds plus three week finals) and a Cup competition with the Japanese league that would provide with a minimum of 2-4 extra games.

 

[Rebel man]

As Kiap suggests. Rugby is a contact/collision sport. The physical toll on the bodies of players is significantly different than that of any of the leagues you've mentioned. I'm not saying that 16 weeks is the absolute maximum. In fact in my most ideal season would be a 19 weeks (16 ronds plus three week finals) and a Cup competition with the Japanese league that would provide with a minimum of 2-4 extra games.

The NRL has a 24 week season

 

[kiap]

Problems start with a simple question - who is funding the Drua?

That's one of them, although not necessarily insurmountable. It's also largely for Fiji (incl. possibly WR (World Rugby), et al) to solve in the first instance.

Problems I look at first are those more specifically for Aus rugby.

 

[KOB1987]

The NRL has a 24 week season

And nothing either side of that.

 

[Adam84]

And nothing either side of that.

And a very limited travel burden during the season. Some clubs only leave Sydney 6 times a season, and at most it’s a flight to New Zealand or Townsville.

 

[Rebels3]

And nothing either side of that.

Well that’s not true, the high end of league players still play 30+ games a season.

24 NRL regular season
3/4 finals matches
3 SOO
1/2 tests

Darren Lockyer played on average 28.5 games a year, would of been more if he didn’t have a few injuries.

I’m a big believer we need more than 16 matches in a club season but equally don’t need a 24 game season. Somewhere in between with more than 1 trophy available

 

[WorkingClassRugger]

Well that’s not true, the high end of league players still play 30+ games a season.

24 NRL regular season
3/4 finals matches
3 SOO
1/2 tests

Darren Lockyer played on average 28.5 games a year, would of been more if he didn’t have a few injuries.

I’m a big believer we need more than 16 matches in a club season but equally don’t need a 24 game season. Somewhere in between with more than 1 trophy available

And I'm not suggesting it has to be a hard maximum of just 16 games. I'm suggesting that we have a 16 games regular season plus finals followed by or run in tandem with a Cup competition with the Japanese league. This would provide an extra 2-4 games per team. So that's a 18-20 games.

Preferably it would be a 16 team Cup competition (our 5, NZ 5, Moana and Fiji with 4 from Japan) playing 4 x4 pools for three games. Pool winners through to semi-finals.

 

[Forcefield]

Love your idea. One of the things I loved about the NRC was that there was rugby on for non-Wallabies players when there might not have been otherwise. If it could be pulled off, a Cup competition across the Asia-Pacific (and maybe Argentina too, USA comp all-stars team?) in the mid-August to mid-November block would be ace. I appreciate it is likely hell would freeze over first.

 

[Rebel man]

And a very limited travel burden during the season. Some clubs only leave Sydney 6 times a season, and at most it’s a flight to New Zealand or Townsville.

The travel factor is pretty overrated, Cam Smith is on the bird every other week and has clocked over 500 games.

If we end up with 12 sides a 22 week comp works the best, if you have to manage loads that’s fine it provides opportunities for players to get a taste of the higher level and improve

 

[Adam84]

The travel factor is pretty overrated, Cam Smith is on the bird every other week and has clocked over 500 games.

If we end up with 12 sides a 22 week comp works the best, if you have to manage loads that’s fine it provides opportunities for players to get a taste of the higher level and improve

On what basis is the travel factor overrated, there are plenty of studies which prove the link between long haul flights and fatigue levels.

Cam Smith travels no further then Townsville or Auckland, and even that is at most once a year for a few days. Whereas a test player will spend several weeks in training camps, playing games in 8 or 9 different countries across Africa, South America and Europe in the same year.

 

[Rugbynutter39]

As Kiap suggests. Rugby is a contact/collision sport. The physical toll on the bodies of players is significantly different than that of any of the leagues you've mentioned. I'm not saying that 16 weeks is the absolute maximum. In fact in my most ideal season would be a 19 weeks (16 ronds plus three week finals) and a Cup competition with the Japanese league that would provide with a minimum of 2-4 extra games.

You make a good point about contact / collision sport. However my understanding is the English Rugby Premiership runs for 22 rounds as I think the French Pro Rugby competition does. You manage 22 rounds by squad sizes. Hence 22 rounds is still probably the benchmark.

 

[Rugbynutter39]

And I'm not suggesting it has to be a hard maximum of just 16 games. I'm suggesting that we have a 16 games regular season plus finals followed by or run in tandem with a Cup competition with the Japanese league. This would provide an extra 2-4 games per team. So that's a 18-20 games.

Preferably it would be a 16 team Cup competition (our 5, NZ 5, Moana and Fiji with 4 from Japan) playing 4 x4 pools for three games. Pool winners through to semi-finals.

I like this option for a number of reasons...

1. It provides for more games beyond 16 rounds (if you think about it English and French rugby players are paid more but also play larger number of games which earn the club/leagues more revenue)
2. It provides another competition to garner interest - Champions league idea. Ok only involving Japan but at least a variant.

But why I think it won't work:
1. All teams from Oz, NZ but only 4 from Japan means Japan would be accepting they are the lesser competition where only their top 4 sides compete.

And this is where I think it will work.
1. For trans tasman we have Au and NZ conferences - Au is our teams plus Fiji, and NZ is there sides plus Moana
2. We have top 3 sides from each conference, plus top 2 sides from Japan compete in 8 team champions league.

Don't get me wrong I like your idea as more games for all oz teams etc but can't see Japan buying it.

What we really are missing is the NRC - and something like this if could be grown to actually generate revenue....like NZ's mitre 10. As at least super rugby players (particularly squad players not playing many starts etc) not in test sides or top x sides for champions leagues playoffs would still have opportunities for game time to aid their development.

Can't help but feel getting rid of NRC and nothing in place of it will hurt our player development pathways......

 

[WorkingClassRugger]

You make a good point about contact / collision sport. However my understanding is the English Rugby Premiership runs for 22 rounds as I think the French Pro Rugby competition does. You manage 22 rounds by squad sizes. Hence 22 rounds is still probably the benchmark.

And in the case of the English game they are struggling under the weight of having to carry those large squads to cover the 30+ games they play a season. The French probably have similar issues but they seem to be less open about them as most of the teams costs are covered by wealthy individuals who see them as prizes or municipalities.

We should be looking at a quality over quantity perspective. I'd rather see the Tahs play in 18-20 really high quality games with our best 15 on the pitch as much as possible as healthy as possible than them operating at a significantly reduced capacity.

 

[WorkingClassRugger]

I like this option for a number of reasons.

1. It provides for more games beyond 16 rounds (if you think about it English and French rugby players are paid more but also play larger number of games which earn the club/leagues more revenue)
2. It provides another competition to garner interest - Champions league idea. Ok only involving Japan but at least a variant.

But why I think it won't work:
1. All teams from Oz, NZ but only 4 from Japan means Japan would be accepting they are the lesser competition where only their top 4 sides compete.

And this is where I think it will work.
1. For trans tasman we have Au and NZ conferences - Au is our teams plus Fiji, and NZ is there sides plus Moana
2. We have top 3 sides from each conference, plus top 2 sides from Japan compete in 8 team champions league.

Don't get me wrong I like your idea as more games for all oz teams etc but can't see Japan buying it.

What we really are missing is the NRC - and something like this if could be grown to actually generate revenue..like NZ's mitre 10. As at least super rugby players (particularly squad players not playing many starts etc) not in test sides or top x sides for champions leagues playoffs would still have opportunities for game time to aid their development.

Can't help but feel getting rid of NRC and nothing in place of it will hurt our player development pathways..

There would be room for Japanese involvement to grow from 4 to 6. I'm basing it off the comments I've read regarding their likely involvement number to start. Which were just their top 4 teams. It's actually not a matter of looking them as the lesser league. Primarily because considering the amount of money they are suggesting they will be looking to pay talent they won't be 'lesser' for very long.

 

[Rebel man]

On what basis is the travel factor overrated, there are plenty of studies which prove the link between long haul flights and fatigue levels.

Cam Smith travels no further then Townsville or Auckland, and even that is at most once a year for a few days. Whereas a test player will spend several weeks in training camps, playing games in 8 or 9 different countries across Africa, South America and Europe in the same year.

The rebels players will be going no further then NZ for most of the year. Travel is always just an excuse bought up when a side loses. Playing internationals is a different kettle of fish as you get there and get acclimatised train for a few weeks then play. Not like a regular season where you can fly home and then need to fly to another city to play 5 days later. You get some West Australian university type run this crap each year arguing that the WA sides should get an extra one or two home games in the AFL

 

[Adam84]

The rebels players will be going no further then NZ for most of the year. Travel is always just an excuse bought up when a side loses. Playing internationals is a different kettle of fish as you get there and get acclimatised train for a few weeks then play. Not like a regular season where you can fly home and then need to fly to another city to play 5 days later. You get some West Australian university type run this crap each year arguing that the WA sides should get an extra one or two home games in the AFL

Pending COVID, test players will actually travel to New Zealand up to 4 or 5 times this year, as well as South Africa, Argentina, Scotland, England, Wales, and Ireland. Likely one of these will be scrapped this year, but if we’re talking long term it needs to be considered.

Test players don’t get a few weeks of acclimatisation in their host country before a test match, it’s 1 week maybe 2.

Not just WA universities who have released papers on this ‘crap’ plenty, plenty have. Might be worth have a read on the topic..