Where to for Super Rugby?

[hoggy]

https://www.stuff.co.nz/sport/rugby...ig-idea-for-nz-rugby-bring-back-the-tribalism

So even the kiwis know Super rugby is no longer working, that little old thing called tribalism. It is clear a model similar to what he advocates is the way forward.

 

[zer0]

It's also not viable in NZ.

 

[hoggy]

It's also not viable in NZ.

Well it depends on the exact model and definition of viable, but continue with Super rugby in Australia and there will be nothing left to be viable.

 

[sunnyboys]

"its not viable" is the Godwin's Law of Super Rugby discussions. and this one was dished out very quickly!

 

[zer0]

Alright then. For those who support Kirwan's idea, pray tell how you believe NZR can sustain 14 fully professional sides -- that's one short of the number of Australian sides in the NRL -- with a population smaller than Sydney's? Tell us how you envision the provinces will sustain the financial costs of crisscrossing the Tasman multiple times a season when many can barely sustain the costs of travelling around the country. Tell us how you think NZR will prevent Auckland, Waikato, Wellington and Canterbury from leveraging their stronger financial strength to just buy up the best players and become a reincarnation of the franchises?

 

[WorkingClassRugger]

Alright then. For those who support Kirwan's idea, pray tell how you believe NZR can sustain 14 fully professional sides -- that's one short of the number of Australian sides in the NRL -- with a population smaller than Sydney's? Tell us how you envision the provinces will sustain the financial costs of crisscrossing the Tasman multiple times a season when many can barely sustain the costs of travelling around the country. Tell us how you think NZR will prevent Auckland, Waikato, Wellington and Canterbury from leveraging their stronger financial strength to just buy up the best players and become a reincarnation of the franchises?

They can't. It's pretty simple in that. But they'd be crazy to try and maintain 14 professional provinces. That's why they probably shouldn't. More look to reduce the numbers of professional provinces to 8 or so if they were to go down this path. Certainly no more than 10. Take the Premiership plus one and look to build on that.

It would require a Champions Cup like set up to compliment it and provide additional value but that's more than workable in my opinion.

 

[hoggy]

Alright then. For those who support Kirwan's idea, pray tell how you believe NZR can sustain 14 fully professional sides -- that's one short of the number of Australian sides in the NRL -- with a population smaller than Sydney's? Tell us how you envision the provinces will sustain the financial costs of crisscrossing the Tasman multiple times a season when many can barely sustain the costs of travelling around the country. Tell us how you think NZR will prevent Auckland, Waikato, Wellington and Canterbury from leveraging their stronger financial strength to just buy up the best players and become a reincarnation of the franchises?

So even the kiwis know Super rugby is no longer working, that little old thing called tribalism. It is clear a model similar to what he advocates is the way forward.

 

[WorkingClassRugger]

So even the kiwis know Super rugby is no longer working, that little old thing called tribalism. It is clear a model similar to what he advocates is the way forward.

Our 5 plus the Drua added to a number of the Mitre 10 provinces (again 14 would be a bit too many in my opinion. More like 10). I think that would work.

 

[Rugbynutter39]

Our 5 plus the Drua added to a number of the Mitre 10 provinces (again 14 would be a bit too many in my opinion. More like 10). I think that would work.

The eternal problem is that nz has best players per capita but not the market to support it. Hence in reality for me it is nz needs a much more open borders policy than more nz teams...but personally I find nz has small country syndrome of we are the most important rugby nation on the planet without reference to the commercial side of things...nz imho holding back the opportunity for the Asia pacific region to be dominant rugby region beyond nz because of their small country superiority conplex.

 

[kiap]

a number of the Mitre 10 provinces (again 14 would be a bit too many in my opinion. More like 10). I think that would work.

Even 10 is way too many.

zer0 is correct …

Alright then. For those who support Kirwan's idea, pray tell how you believe NZR can sustain 14 fully professional sides -- that's one short of the number of Australian sides in the NRL -- with a population smaller than Sydney's?

Yep. As per Rugbynutter, NZ does have the playing talent - but if that's all you needed then the Mitre-10 would already be bigger than England's Premiership.

At least Surgeon Kirwan can envisage the Soup is in difficulty (the Kiwis will be the last ones to find that out). Some of what Kirwan says is on the money, however 14 NZ teams ain't a good bet.

 

[Dan54]

https://www.stuff.co.nz/sport/rugby...ig-idea-for-nz-rugby-bring-back-the-tribalism

So even the kiwis know Super rugby is no longer working, that little old thing called tribalism. It is clear a model similar to what he advocates is the way forward.

I didn't realise that Kirwan spoke for all us Kiwis! Look he has some good ideas as do a lot of people, but the only trouble is with his ideas, like the ones on here I have yet to see even one of them by anyone who is in the position to take responsibilty for them when they go tits up!

 

[kiap]

I didn't realise that Kirwan spoke for all us Kiwis

Now you know.

Good thing you been told, innit.

 

[zer0]

Any comments yet on New Zealand's Official Spokesman's plan from Australia's Official Spokesman, Alan Jones?

 

[kiap]

Alan probably liked this bit from SJK:

"It would be Manly playing <whatever>"​

Other than that … <the sound of crickets>

 

[half]

Read an interesting article in the TerrORgraph today can't seem to find it online so will summarise as best I can. I assume this is something super rugby is looking at as well

The A-League ratings are down 52% over the last say 14 months, yet their membership and crowds are up. Makes no sense.

Whats different is FFA signed a deal with Telstra for streaming of their matches and while the results will not be know for another 3 to 4 weeks it seems the streaming audience is quite large and we may never know as Telstra are indicating they may not release publicly for commercial confidence.

Anywho if this is so it could also apply to super rugby. Essentially watching on your phone or pad is much cheaper than Fox and as I understand it you can get replays etc.

The article indicated counting stream viewers is far more difficult than how Fox and FTA TV is calculated. Do you count a 2 second view or what about the person that watches replays and stops during the replay and then comes back.

This could be the answer to whats happened to our own ratings. I hope Telstra do release the figures when known

 

[WorkingClassRugger]

Read an interesting article in the TerrORgraph today can't seem to find it online so will summarise as best I can. I assume this is something super rugby is looking at as well

The A-League ratings are down 52% over the last say 14 months, yet their membership and crowds are up. Makes no sense.

Whats different is FFA signed a deal with Telstra for streaming of their matches and while the results will not be know for another 3 to 4 weeks it seems the streaming audience is quite large and we may never know as Telstra are indicating they may not release publicly for commercial confidence.

Anywho if this is so it could also apply to super rugby. Essentially watching on your phone or pad is much cheaper than Fox and as I understand it you can get replays etc.

The article indicated counting stream viewers is far more difficult than how Fox and FTA TV is calculated. Do you count a 2 second view or what about the person that watches replays and stops during the replay and then comes back.

This could be the answer to whats happened to our own ratings. I hope Telstra do release the figures when known

Their crowds were down last season. It's also very early in the 18/19 season so its a little too early to gauge crowd averages just yet. The drop off in viewership should be a concern for the FFA. Yes, they can argue that a % are now viewing it via Telstra streaming but more than 50% of their audience is a bit of an ask. Especially when the FTA broadcast isn't fairly well at all.

 

[half]

Their crowds were down last season. It's also very early in the 18/19 season so its a little too early to gauge crowd averages just yet. The drop off in viewership should be a concern for the FFA. Yes, they can argue that a % are now viewing it via Telstra streaming but more than 50% of their audience is a bit of an ask. Especially when the FTA broadcast isn't fairly well at all.

Look I don't wanta debate A-League stats nor whether when they did their count or what year etc.

The MEASURE SCREAMING VERY LOUDLY out of the article was how many people are streaming rather than watching on Fox.

I have no idea what the figure will be, but I do care because if FFA have had a shift in viewing patterns from pay to stream then my assumption is so will super rugby.

If FFA have experienced a big shift from pay to stream it could also explain why super rugby rating are also down by similar amounts.

If this is the case then new plans need to be drawn up.

 

[Strewthcobber]

Streaming numbers on Telstra were around 6k for some of the round 1 games

Edit - based on oztam survey with all of the issues that raises with measurement. (Ie why would someone with a fox box in the survey watch it on their phone?)

 

[WorkingClassRugger]

Look I don't wanta debate A-League stats nor whether when they did their count or what year etc.

The MEASURE SCREAMING VERY LOUDLY out of the article was how many people are streaming rather than watching on Fox.

I have no idea what the figure will be, but I do care because if FFA have had a shift in viewing patterns from pay to stream then my assumption is so will super rugby.

If FFA have experienced a big shift from pay to stream it could also explain why super rugby rating are also down by similar amounts.

If this is the case then new plans need to be drawn up.

Strewth's post pretty much blows your position completely out of the water. Most certainly the 52% of the viewership that they've witnessed on the PayTv/FTA platform haven't migrated to streaming.

 

[half]

Stew & WRC

Maybe I don't write well, maybe my communication skills are beyond poor,

The article I read clearly said it would be at least two to three weeks before the actual figures are out. So nothing published to date is worth anything and second this is not about the A-League measurements nor about the A-League in general.

What SCREAMS OFF THE ARTICLE is FFA are waiting on what the streaming figures are. This means they don't have them yet nor is anything published close to the mark.

But as I said SCREAMING IS THE ISSUE of what are the actual streaming figures as the print screen grab at any point in time is totally useless.

The article is about STREAMING and does this or sorry how many are screaming rather than watching on pay TV. This will equally apply to rugby.

Maybe Stews post and the person who posted it was spot on. However the article gave a totally different picture and it was from the head of the A-League.

Just to repeat this has nothing to do with the A_League its about how many people are actually streaming A-League matches and my assumption is that will apply equally to rugby. Again so its clear nothing published to date is close to the mark the actual may be less who knows.

An example how do you count someone who watches for 1 second.

This is all new stuff its just happens to be the A-League where people are looking to get a complete reading.