Where to for Super Rugby?

[Rebel man]

I'm sorry, I just think that is an absolute crock of shit. How has that benchmark worked out for the game here the last 20 years.

Hiding away in our own comp, I mean why do the French or English even bother with there's, because surely there just hiding away from the Kiwis.

Fine to advocate that a TT competition is the best option, but please spare us "we must play NZ teams every weekend crap to legitimize our rugby".

That’s what people will say. I don’t believe the disparity is as great as it’s made out to be and am not afraid of seeing the lads play any kiwi side as I believe they will give a good showing but there will always be that knock coming from people.

Also you can’t seriously put the decline of Australian Rugby down to playing kiwi sides

 

[Rebel man]

What might be an option if we were to go down that path is both Super Rugby Au and So run a 6 team structure each. Determine a champion. Then alongside the top 6 from the upcoming Japanese Pro League for AP Cup.

What so 5 home games into a knock out comp it’s just not enough.

 

[WorkingClassRugger]

I think the easiest and best solution is to have a 16 rounds TT competition with teams playing home and away against their national rivals with both Fiji and Moana alternating. So in 2022 Fiji will play all of the Aus team twice while Moana the NZ before switching in 2023. And one game against the other 6 teams from Aus/NZ for 16 rounds. One combined table with a Top 6 finals system. People may argue that it might let the some teams inflate their standings thanks to playing against weaker teams in their h/a series. But the cross over games will sort that out.

Beyond that we could have a 16 team knockout AP Cup.

 

[Rebel man]

I think the easiest and best solution is to have a 16 rounds TT competition with teams playing home and away against their national rivals with both Fiji and Moana alternating. So in 2022 Fiji will play all of the Aus team twice while Moana the NZ before switching in 2023. And one game against the other 6 teams from Aus/NZ for 16 rounds. One combined table with a Top 6 finals system. People may argue that it might let the some teams inflate their standings thanks to playing against weaker teams in their h/a series. But the cross over games will sort that out.

Beyond that we could have a 16 team knockout AP Cup.

I would go for a 22 week home and away season, makes you develop your entire squad and not just rely on the same 23 as you will have to rest players from time to time.

 

[kiap]

in 2022 Fiji will play all of the Aus team twice while Moana the NZ before switching in 2023. And one game against the other 6 teams from Aus/NZ

So how many oz v nz games do you have in this model?

25 excl. finals?

 

[hoggy]

I would go for a 22 week home and away season, makes you develop your entire squad and not just rely on the same 23 as you will have to rest players from time to time.

But where does the long term growth come in that structure, you will be subsidizing two Pacific teams with little market potential, you have a maxed out NZ market, and you will be pretty much maxing out the Aus market by committing to a 5 team state structure, and a 22 round comp plus finals give you little opportunity to explore more lucrative markets like Asia/japan/SA.

 

[kiap]

you have a maxed out NZ market, and you will be pretty much maxing out the Aus market by committing to a 5 team

Yep. Altho' WCR can answer my query first.

 

[half]

TT maybe an option and possibly the best way forward, but surely the possibility of each country committing to a 6 team domestic option is worth a look at. This gives you a genuine domestic competition of 3 months length in each country, 6 games each week for your Media presence.

At the end of each domestic comp you can explore all sorts of champion league style comps involving all teams, potentially add Japan to that, maybe a SA team, an (Asian selection).

The point is what would be the best option or outcome for Australian rugby in ten years time, IMHO the domestic option followed by crossover games would be the best.

Hoggy

A mate, more of a general sports fans, but who has a keen interest in rugby mapped out what he thinks will work for rugby in Australia for the treble as he puts it. Growth in Rating, Players, Media coverage.

His background as its somewhat important, early 50's, owns a mixed business that has some media, some transport and some retail. Turnover roughly 2.5 million over his business. A keen sports fan holds an MBA. Cricket is his first sport, with both league & rugby his second choice he likes both.

We need another 11 Australia teams.

Don't panic, we have 5 teams we need 3 more decent teams, and 8 good teams that play in second division.

Don't panic yet.

Both divisions play at the same time over two rounds.

After two rounds we have a top four and bottom four in both divisions.

The top four in the first division play a final series, then play in a champion league against NZ, Japan & ??? He says a local final series is more important than the champions league as all codes have the grand final as the number one game of the year,

The bottom 4 in division 1 play the top 2 in division 2, so six sides, over two rounds with the top four staying in Div 1.

This system he says creates interesting or sorry meaningful games between 26 to 28 weeks i.e. not too taxing similar to league in games and every game the result is important.

Also he says the beauty of the bottom 4 V the top 2 is only competitive teams will be in the top 8 first division.

Cough. cough it does or could do with private investors like a mining guy or a banker or a big accounting firm.

Funding the second division over 14 weeks is the issue.

On the funding he believes that having 8 games a week over 14 weeks, then final series then a champions league and a 3 games a week for 12 weeks should generate enough to fund the bottom 8 teams.

I had never through of this approach myself, on the surface its seems to have merit. He also believes many PI players would jump at this, of this I am not sure.

Hoggy, your thoughts.

 

[WorkingClassRugger]

So how many oz v nz games do you have in this model?

25 excl. finals?

Each Aus team would play each NZ team once. So 25. 30 when taking the extra game against Fiji/Moana year to year.

 

[kiap]

Each Aus team would play each NZ team once. So 25. 30 when taking the extra game against Fiji/Moana year to year.

Thx. Yep, you can have exactly the same 25 with Au+TT.

But Au+TT is actually a better format.

 

[WorkingClassRugger]

Thx. Yep, you can have exactly the same 25 with Au+TT.

But Au+TT is actually a better format.

We could but from all the language I've seen it seems that a combined is looking most likely for 2022 and beyond.

 

[kiap]

We could but from all the language I've seen it seems that a combined is looking most likely for 2022 and beyond.

Yeah nah. I'm with the new kiwi Paul Cully: "Best of both worlds".

 

[Rebel man]

But where does the long term growth come in that structure, you will be subsidizing two Pacific teams with little market potential, you have a maxed out NZ market, and you will be pretty much maxing out the Aus market by committing to a 5 team state structure, and a 22 round comp plus finals give you little opportunity to explore more lucrative markets like Asia/japan/SA.

Because the Sunwolves turned out to be such a massive cash cow didn’t it? No reason you still can’t have a champions league set up. Look at the UK they have a 22 match premiership, plus 2 play off rounds, plus a potential of 9 European Championship games plus another 6 cup games so for a side like the Saracens who made the finals in all three comps in the 18/19 season you are looking at 39 club games

Now I am not advocating for us having a 39 game season as I believe that it’s too much but we can still work in a Championship style comp with a 22 game season

The reason I like the concept of a longer season it gives players more opportunities. You have to use your entire squad. Across a 22 week season someone like Carter Gordon who is currently the topic of a debate in the Rebels thread over will he or won’t he get a game would get a number of starts

We have seen a number of players leave and especially from the Rebels due to a lack of opportunity as we look to play a relatively stable side and that’s fine and perfectly legitimate way of going about it but a longer season keeps more guys playing and more guys invested in the season

 

[Rebel man]

Hoggy

A mate, more of a general sports fans, but who has a keen interest in rugby mapped out what he thinks will work for rugby in Australia for the treble as he puts it. Growth in Rating, Players, Media coverage.

His background as its somewhat important, early 50's, owns a mixed business that has some media, some transport and some retail. Turnover roughly 2.5 million over his business. A keen sports fan holds an MBA. Cricket is his first sport, with both league & rugby his second choice he likes both.

We need another 11 Australia teams.

Don't panic, we have 5 teams we need 3 more decent teams, and 8 good teams that play in second division.

Don't panic yet.

Both divisions play at the same time over two rounds.

After two rounds we have a top four and bottom four in both divisions.

The top four in the first division play a final series, then play in a champion league against NZ, Japan & ??? He says a local final series is more important than the champions league as all codes have the grand final as the number one game of the year,

The bottom 4 in division 1 play the top 2 in division 2, so six sides, over two rounds with the top four staying in Div 1.

This system he says creates interesting or sorry meaningful games between 26 to 28 weeks i.e. not too taxing similar to league in games and every game the result is important.

Also he says the beauty of the bottom 4 V the top 2 is only competitive teams will be in the top 8 first division.

Cough. cough it does or could do with private investors like a mining guy or a banker or a big accounting firm.

Funding the second division over 14 weeks is the issue.

On the funding he believes that having 8 games a week over 14 weeks, then final series then a champions league and a 3 games a week for 12 weeks should generate enough to fund the bottom 8 teams.

I had never through of this approach myself, on the surface its seems to have merit. He also believes many PI players would jump at this, of this I am not sure.

Hoggy, your thoughts.

The problem with relegation and promotion is it hurts the footprint of the game. Look at the Lions Suns and Giants all have finished last and all have required a lot of support from the AFL to keep them viable but they probably all would have folded if they dropped to div 2 same with the Swans who are now financially one of the strongest clubs in Australia. I am just not sure how promotion and relegation works when you are trying to grow the game and attract fans from outside your heartlands

 

[Rebel man]

Thx. Yep, you can have exactly the same 25 with Au+TT.

But Au+TT is actually a better format.

In what way?

 

[half]

The problem with relegation and promotion is it hurts the footprint of the game. Look at the Lions Suns and Giants all have finished last and all have required a lot of support from the AFL to keep them viable but they probably all would have folded if they dropped to div 2 same with the Swans who are now financially one of the strongest clubs in Australia. I am just not sure how promotion and relegation works when you are trying to grow the game and attract fans from outside your heartlands

Its not P & R, its a playoff series.

Most of the time the team in the top division will stay.

I am not entirely sold on the idea as finding 11 new teams is not easy.

But his concept of creating a national footprint of 16 teams very much appeals to me.

 

[Rebel man]

Its not P & R, its a playoff series.

Most of the time the team in the top division will stay.

I am not entirely sold on the idea as finding 11 new teams is not easy.

But his concept of creating a national footprint of 16 teams very much appeals to me.

But it is promotion and relegation as that’s what the bottom 4 and top 2 are playing off for a spot in the top flight. Also I agree that finding 11 sides will be bloody hard

 

[kiap]

In what way?

In every way.

The same head-to-heads can be played over the season; and with a transnational champion. But there is full control over all aspects of the Au component and consequently three-quarters of all our teams' output - scheduling, commercial arrangements, law variants, cap and roster rules, officiating panels, all aspects.

As soon as that is folded into an "Anzar" those powers are diluted/forfeited and will be locked out from being recovered. Everyone knows how useless and conflicted Sanzaar was.

Makes for an inferior product -- and there's no need to do it.

 

[Dan54]

That's why NZR kicked them out. Their inclusion was unsustainable.

Not arguing whether it was substainable, just saying in my opinion the comp isn't better without them.

 

[Dan54]

I'm sorry, I just think that is an absolute crock of shit. How has that benchmark worked out for the game here the last 20 years.

Hiding away in our own comp, I mean why do the French or English even bother with there's, because surely there just hiding away from the Kiwis.

Fine to advocate that a TT competition is the best option, but please spare us "we must play NZ teams every weekend crap to legitimize our rugby".

I don't think that is what rebel is saying, but those that say Aus should go alone to make sure there a Aus winner type thing are probably wrong. French and English comps aren't run with only 5 teams as they know it not going to last. Doesn't have to be kiwi teams. Japan have 10 teams which seems a reasonable size to me. As a kiwi, even if indeed the 2 PI teams came into NZ super comp I believe it still 3-5 teams short of an ideal size.