Where to for Super Rugby?

[hifflepiff]

1999 RWC win and 2003 and 2015 finals would suggest 'yes'.

So two finals from two decades ago, followed by decline, a brief outlier, followed by more decline.

I don't think this is the fullproof argument you think it is.

 

[barbarian]

Except there's either a 'champions league' with NZ teams which is tantamount to a finals series, or are we dropping the NZ matches ad trying to go it alone with 5 teams?

I think any 'champions league' would be viewed by people as a second, separate tournament, as Super TT is being viewed as now.

 

[Teh Other Dave]

Or you could look at it the other way (again), and see that 99 and 03 were during the super 12 era, and 2007 was an outlier (we came third in 2011). The rot started when we mucked around with the structure of super rugby, while our development pathways narrowed substantially.

 

[sunnyboys]

and on the question of whether SRAu gets you better players and coaches. Money and exposure gets you better players and coaches - and you get more money and more exposure from having more fans watching games.

More exposure makes coaches, administrations and players more accountable.

Rugby is religion in NZ goes the saying - that exposure gets you better results. being a niche sport in Australia allows players, coaches and administrations to avoid real scrutiny.

 

[Teh Other Dave]

I think any 'champions league' would be viewed by people as a second, separate tournament, as Super TT is being viewed as now.

And turn the Au comp into a consolation prize before the hard stuff?

 

[hifflepiff]

As hifflepiff says, it's just a numbers game: more kids, more talent to choose from, better players, better Wallabies.

The most heartening statistic for me from Super AU was the fact that while it was on, player registrations increased 16.4% from the same time in 2019.

What makes it even more impressive is that those player registrations were in the middle of COVID.

That to me is the greatest benefit of Super AU.

 

[hifflepiff]

And turn the Au comp into a consolation prize before the hard stuff?

Is the Premier League trophy a consolation prize? I mean the Champions League is harder to win so it must be right?

 

[sunnyboys]

Third point on this. Australia has a history of GF's in its sporting codes. Australian Rugby has lacked this. As a sport you have to acknowledge that local experience and expectation. This years GF really captured that.

I dont think oz rugby fans are naïve enough to think being SRAu champion automatically makes you better than kiwi teams - but it is still something they want to celebrate.

 

[Teh Other Dave]

Is the Premier League trophy a consolation prize? I mean the Champions League is harder to win so it must be right?

You mean winning a 38-round competition at the top of a promotion-relegation pyramid involving thousands of clubs, in a league that is ranked second in Europe, where Champions League winners still haven't been able to win the league (in the same season)?

Contrasted to a five-team rugby comp.

 

[Bandar]

You mean winning a 38-round competition at the top of a promotion-relegation pyramid involving thousands of clubs, in a league that is ranked second in Europe, where Champions League winners still haven't been able to win the league (in the same season)?

Contrasted to a five-team rugby comp.

Also known as the premier competition in the country that qualifies you for the Champions League?

 

[Teh Other Dave]

Also known as the premier competition in the country that qualifies you for the Champions League?

Go back and read it again. Pay particular attention to the 'contrasted to a five-team rugby comp.' bit.

Edit: If we were in the deliriously joyful position if having something remotely approximating the EPL/EFL or even the Dutch football structure, I'd be all for domestic and then champion's league. This thread wouldn't be necessary, and the country would be out of beer with all the props running around.

 

[hifflepiff]

Go back and read it again. Pay particular attention to the 'contrasted to a five-team rugby comp.' bit.

Again mate, no ones proposing Super AU stay as a 5 team comp. This strawman argument keeps getting trotted out and the response is always the same.

Super AU, as the premier domestic competition would obviously look the expand the number of teams competing over the next couple of years.

This could be easily done by transitioning to a franchise model and offering franchising licenses to private investors for a fee.

This is also known as the model nearly every single professional sporting competition on earth operates by.

As we've seen, Twiggy was able to get investors lined up for a proposed Western Sydney team, so there is clearly market interest.

We could bring the competition to 7 teams by establishing a team in Western Sydney and introducing the Drua. Within the medium term we could also look to introduce a team in North Queensland or the Gold Coast to bring us to 8 teams.

Again this isn't some radical idea. This is how nearly every domestic professional sporting competion around the world (and in this country) operates.

 

[barbarian]

Or you could look at it the other way (again), and see that 99 and 03 were during the super 12 era, and 2007 was an outlier (we came third in 2011). The rot started when we mucked around with the structure of super rugby, while our development pathways narrowed substantially.

That's such a simplistic way to look at our success in the 98-03 period. There were so many reasons why we succeeded in that era, and things fell away after about 2005.

Changes to the structure of Super Rugby played a part, but I can't buy the 'let's go back to the 90s' argument that guys like Nick Farr-Jones have been pushing. Super 12! Shute Shield dominance! Winning trophies and skolling beers from the Bled with Johnny Howard!

In reality, the rot started when other nations began to catch up to the tactics we employed at the start of the professional era that gave us a big head start. That and a series of poor admin decisions over a decade that saw us spurn the 2003 World Cup windfall. But there are books, podcasts, threads about that and it's probably not worth relitigating here.

 

[Teh Other Dave]

Again mate, no ones proposing Super AU stay as a 5 team comp. This strawman argument keeps getting trotted out and the response is always the same.

Super AU, as the premier domestic competition would look the expand the number of teams competing over the next couple of years.

This could be easily done by transitioning to a franchise model and offering franchising licenses to private investors for a fee.

This is also known as the model nearly every single professional sporting competition on the globe operates by.

As we've seen, Twiggy was able to get investors lined up for a proposed Western Sydney team, so there is clearly market interest.

We could bring the competition to 7 teams by establishing a team in Western Sydney and introducing the Drua. Within the medium term we could also look to introduce a team in North Queensland or the Gold Coast to bring us to 8 teams.

Again this isn't some radical idea. This is how nearly every domestic professional sporting competion around the world (and in this country) operates.

The problem with this is twofold: cattle - we are already supplementing one of our teams with foreign players in the twilight of their careers; and financial - that's a large wage bill, even with private investment. I know you've cited the putative bid to put a GRR team in Western Sydney, but that was three years ago, GRR is no longer happening with the Force back in the fold. I doubt there'd be a lot of money rattling around for a pro team in Western Sydney at the moment (though if it helped get Penrith, Two Blues, and West Harbour back off the canvas it would be amazing).

In the long run it would be great to have a self-sustaining domestic league, no arguments here. And if we can consolidate the five existing franchises we're a good shot at that. But we need to put the horse before the cart. The benefit of a T-T tournament is that we still have a high quality 12 team comp but only having to pay the wages of five squads. This was the whole reason Super 12 worked to start with, extra TV markets, more games, each union only needing to supply and pay for a handful of squads. For now, it seems like the best vehicle to get us to a long term goal.

 

[Teh Other Dave]

That's such a simplistic way to look at our success in the 98-03 period. There were so many reasons why we succeeded in that era, and things fell away after about 2005.

Changes to the structure of Super Rugby played a part, but I can't buy the 'let's go back to the 90s' argument that guys like Nick Farr-Jones have been pushing. Super 12! Shute Shield dominance! Winning trophies and skolling beers from the Bled with Johnny Howard!

In reality, the rot started when other nations began to catch up to the tactics we employed at the start of the professional era that gave us a big head start. That and a series of poor admin decisions over a decade that saw us spurn the 2003 World Cup windfall. But there are books, podcasts, threads about that and it's probably not worth relitigating here.

Of course I've simplified it, I responded to a question of whether the Super Rugby structure allowed us to succeed and it did.

The other factors that you list are of spot on, and Super Rugby is only one cog in the machine, but it's still an important one in terms of revenue (though not to the same extent as tests) and player development. The demise of Super Rugby definitely played a part in the demise of the game in this country, and making second tier pro rugby work again is vitally important, as everyone on this thread recognises to the tune of 1033 pages.

I also agree with you on something else: success in the future may not be having the test side winning every trophy on offer (though is something worth aiming for). I think we need to get past the glory years. Especially because most players weren't even born then.

 

[eastman]

As long as it is those guys you are replacing and not forcing more up and coming players to look offshore.

The reality is surely that it would be some of each because talent identification is an inexact science.

Looks like the new Rugby AU CEO sees increasing competitiveness as a priority through international recruitment...

Super Rugby: More foreign players the future for Australian Super franchises says Rugby Australia chief executive Andy Marinos (smh.com.au)

I'm strongly of the belief that the retaining talent in Super Rugby can only benefit both Australia and New Zealand. Even if the Kiwis are slightly hesitant that it may impact the AB production line - they produce enough fcking players that it doesn't even matter!

 

[hifflepiff]

The problem with this is twofold: cattle - we are already supplementing one of our teams with foreign players in the twilight of their careers; and financial - that's a large wage bill, even with private investment.

What?
The whole point of privately owned teams is that it costs the Unions nothing.

If the Super Rugby AU teams were privately owned, either by individuals or groups of investors, the national and state unions would save a fuck load of money. The unions would actually be able to reinvest grassroots funds into the grassroots. At the moment you have a system where registration fees are going towards the wages of professional players, which is massive waste of the Unions money.

Additionally, the only reason Cattle is perceived as a problem is because we're constantly having to (unsuccessfully) play a game of "keeping up with the Kiwis", which wouldn't be a problem in a predominantly domestic structure.

I doubt there'd be a lot of money rattling around for a pro team in Western Sydney at the moment

We've already seen that there's investor interest for more professional rugby teams. And again, every other sport is able to find investors for expansion teams.

Are you trying to claim that Rugby administrators are in some way so catastrophically incompetent that they can't do what nearly every other sport in the country and the world can do? Even the US can find Australian investors for professional rugby teams.

This was the whole reason Super 12 worked to start with, extra TV markets,

We'd still get those extra TV markets from the post-season Champions comp. In fact we could get even more money from overseas markets because we could introduce extra countries into the post-domestic competition (Japan for example) without completely fucking over the format of the main competition, which you yourself pointed to as the problem that fucked the original Super Rugby.

 

[Rugbynutter39]

Looks like the new Rugby AU CEO sees increasing competitiveness as a priority through international recruitment.

Super Rugby: More foreign players the future for Australian Super franchises says Rugby Australia chief executive Andy Marinos (smh.com.au)

I'm strongly of the belief that the retaining talent in Super Rugby can only benefit both Australia and New Zealand. Even if the Kiwis are slightly hesitant that it may impact the AB production line - they produce enough fcking players that it doesn't even matter!

To me our RA Chairman and CEO's view / desire to have imports improve our competitiveness makes lot sense. As they (and I) accept we struggle to field 5 teams but need this footprint to compete with NRL, AFL and A-League who have strong footprint grown over the years and continuing to expand and which if we don't try to maintain the footprint we have we give the competing footy codes a (continuing) own goal.

As we can't build a fan base if don't have quality teams at base level quality and gives us breathing space to develop grass roots programs etc and rugby can only flourish if playing reasonable quality games of rugby and are competitive. As fans want to watch winners and won't attract kids to the game if not winners or reduced footprint (and hence perceived opportunities). And I accept that whilst useful to have a domestic competition I have always stated we should also try to do something with the kiwis despite challenges of that well discussed here - TT for the moment but yeh eventually could evolve to Champions League depending on how things go over the next couple of TT seasons. But as I also stated and accepted that may be that we have shortened domestic rugby competition (ie 6 nations style competition) to balance needs of TT. Which I also note RA is also talking along similar lines as options they may consider.

 

[D-Box]

This may have been suggested already - but I have a simple mind and have gotten lost. Can we effectively keep this year model but slightly tweaked

Week 1 - 5 Rd 1 SRAU SRAO
Week 6-10 Rd 2 SRAU SRAO Rd1 SRTT (Domestic Derbies)
Week 11-12 Finals SRAU SRAO
Week 13 General Bye
Week 14-18 Rd2 SRTT (Trans Tasman Games)
Week 19-20 Finals SRTT

(adding two more teams takes it to 23 weeks less if Dom is straight final and if you dont have the general bye)

Basically we take the second round of the domestic comp and use them as part of the ladder for SRTT. It basically gives you the single round robin TT with the first round forming the end of the Domestic Comp. It gives the best of both worlds, TV some opportunities to build up to finals. You could make a great story going into the TT around how many games different teams would need to win to make the finals. We would just need to make sure we have one set or rules going into the comp.

By my calculation the table going into what I propose be R2 SRTT would have been

Chiefs 16
Reds 15
Brumbies 14
Force 12
Crusaders 10
Highlanders 10
Rebels 6
Hurricanes 6
Blues 6
Waratahs 2

and then after last week we would be at

Chiefs 20
Reds 15
Brumbies 15
Highlanders 15
Crusaders 14
Force 13
Hurricanes 11
Blues 11
Rebels 6
Waratahs 2

Which is a much nicer looking table and after the first round of what is being pushed as TT only 2 teams are out of contention after week 1

 

[Rugbynutter39]

Option 1) is by far the best moving forward from an Australian prospective, IMO.

I would presume then that you would add a pacific team to each country which also makes sense Drua (aus) Pacifika (nz)

It would also make sense to have the domestic component first, this allows for build up of a local fan base, tribalism and the ability to look at scheduling (currently miles behind the other codes)

Also it still incorporates the NZ teams but a single game each year, which helps maintain fan engagement.

I actually think in a perfect world where we did not have competing agendas and decisions made on what was best for pro TT competition alone a TT only competition ‘could’ possibly be the best option. But we don’t live in that perfect world and hence agree a domestic followed by TT competition for the moment is probably our best option at this point in time.