Across almost all metrics, apart from history, the ACT doesn't deserve to have a Super rugby team (or, at the very least, no more claim to a team than Melbourne or Perth).
Going back a few pages... But this can't stand. I get it: Australia having to cut a team sucks. I want us to stay at five teams: Australian teams have been in half the grand finals since expansion, and won a third of them. We've won the Tri Nations, the Rugby Championship, went up to second in the world for a time, and came third and second at two World Cups. The 2011-2015 period is clearly our most successful since the 1999-2004 period.
But to take this out on the Brumbies? Utterly rediculous. And this will no doubt be a rant, but I'm tired of seeing people say that cutting the Brumbies could be preferable to cutting either of the expansion teams.
First of all, dismissing history is a bad idea. It's a proven record of turning decent club players into good (often great) Wallabies. Besides 1998, 2008, and 2011, it's a constant presence in or around the finals. It's more finals appearances and titles than any other team in Australia. Second to the Crusaders, it's the team which has beaten the most Australian teams in finals games. And that even applies recently; since 2011, they've been the best Australian Super side in three of the six seasons, and it came down to a tie-breaker in one of the three they weren't. They've made the finals in four of those six seasons, making a final and two semi-finals. This season? They're top of the Australian conference and have taken at least a point from all but one of their games (i.e. 90%). The rest of the conference? Reds at 55%, Waratahs at 50%, Rebels at 50%, and Force at 40%. So, in Super Rugby, the Brumbies are alongside the Reds and Waratahs as the flagbearers for Australian rugby.
What about translating that to the international level? How many players from each side started for the Wallabies at some point in 2016?
1) Brumbies 10
2) Waratahs 8
3) Reds 6
4) Force 4
=4) Rebels 4
But that might be deceptive, it could just be that the Brumbies recruited a group of established Wallabies. No, they didn't, they turned club players into test players. Let's talk about players who had their test debut since 2011, and which team they were playing for. It breaks down to:
1) Brumbies 16
2) Reds 13
3) Waratahs 11
4) Rebels 8
5) Force 6
So, in terms of translating Super performances into the test side, the Brumbies are the side to look to, especially at taking club players and making them test players.
But they're the team to look to for performance in Super Rugby, and for producing test players. But what does that matter if nobody is turning up? Isn't this a business, no point keeping the Brumbies if nobody turns up and nobody is watching. Well, look at the attendence. Despite having the lowest population, they're third in terms of attendence-per-game in Australia:
1) Reds 16,100
2) Waratahs 15,008
3) Brumbies 10,025
4) Force 9,231
5) Rebels 8,446
And what about TV viewership? Of the recorded ratings (i.e. those that are above 10k), they have the second highest number watching per-game, with all of their games recorded:
1) Waratahs 69,125
2) Brumbies 53,100
3) Reds 49,888
4) Force 47,666
5) Rebels 42,444
Imagine having to sell the Brumbies, Force, or Rebels to an advertiser. For the Brumbies, you can say "I can get 2.8% of the population to the event, and over 50,000 people watching around the country.". For the Force, you can say "I can get 0.4% of the population to the event, and a little under 50,000 people watching around the country.". For the Rebels, you can say "I can get 0.1% of the population to the event, and a little over 40,000 people watching around the country.". Tell me, which one of those sells?
This isn't a go at anyone, this isn't a "the Brumbies are perfect" post. I just want to put to bed the idea that the Brumbies are a basket case that are hurting Australian rugby. They're not, and it's right to take them out of the conversation of which team to cut. And a merger is a cut by another name.
