Re: Why do we persist with Super Rugby?
Posted: Mon Apr 23, 2018 12:10 am
Trouble with games on delay is the internet. Gives away the results!!!
The definitive rugby union forum. Talk to fans from around the world about your favourite team
https://forum.planetrugby.com/
I think you're being overly pessimistic. You admit that the current system isn't sustainable, but then seem to be suggesting that we just give up and let market forces decide what happens. Sorry but that's crap - I'd rather SH changed things up. Rugby is still a popular game in all three countries and there is no reason whatsoever that professional domestic leagues cannot be sustainable in Australia, NZ and South Africa. I'm not talking about rearranging deck chairs on the Titanic, I'm talking about changing the whole freakin ship.J Man wrote:I honestly think that we a just rearranging deck chairs on the Titanic here. Australian rugby is stuffed, South Africa as a country is heading the way of Zimbabwe and New Zealand doesn't have the population to compete for TV audiences.
It's becoming the way of football where we will be a feeder nation for the great European Clubs. Once every four years we will get our players back for a world cup and we will be Brazil/Argentina.
I think you're right we could probably do as well as the A-League. The problem there is, they play 27 matches each, and they have squad sizes of around 23 players, with a salary cap of $3m.Ali's Choice wrote:
I disagree that Australian cannot have a domestic comp that at least rates as highly as the A League. SR already rates more highly in Australia than the A League, and that's with the Aussie teams struggling. If RA could generate as much money for SR as the A League gets then that would constitute a big increase in revenue.
And NZ's domestic comp is 3rd tier. No All Blacks participate. A comp played earlier in the year, featuring the best 50 players in the country (unlike the Mitre 10 Cup) would obviously be much more valuable.
Bindi wrote:Rugby is in terminal decline in Australia. Dumping the Force hasn’t improved anything.
Hard to say whether a modified Sup rugby is the answer, or pull out all together and select Wobs from local comp and overseas. Either way, I don’t expect the twats running the show to get it right.
I would hate that. I actually don't like watching NZ teams play each other, I prefer to see them playing other countries teams.Andalu wrote:Why not have all 5 sides play each other home and away, then the top 2 (for example) go into an international playoff?
Also not convinced the attrition rate would be reduced in a provincial setup.
Club rugby runs at a major loss so that's why it may not survivewamberal99 wrote:Bindi wrote:Rugby is in terminal decline in Australia. Dumping the Force hasn’t improved anything.
Hard to say whether a modified Sup rugby is the answer, or pull out all together and select Wobs from local comp and overseas. Either way, I don’t expect the twats running the show to get it right.
Rugby will survive in Australia, thanks mainly to the sort of twats who run the show.
It will survive in Sydney and Brisbane mainly, and will be kept alive primarily by the private schools twats. And some of the universities.
Club rugby will continue as a semi-professional effort, why wouldn't it? It is bloody good to watch, and play. If we want to field a competitive Wobbs team, we will have to select players from overseas competitions.
Well, the Bulls are looking muchly improved this year, but you haven't really 'culled' 2 sides though, they're just playing in a different competition. Your quality players are still going to be spread across 6 teams.Sards wrote:After culling 2 sides us Saffers are on the right track.
Maybe not as a professional sport, but surely the sport will survive? What is the worst case? Back to amateurism?grievous wrote: Club rugby runs at a major loss so that's why it may not survive
Id argue the Aus sides are looking much better this year too.Turbogoat wrote:Well, the Bulls are looking muchly improved this year, but you haven't really 'culled' 2 sides though, they're just playing in a different competition. Your quality players are still going to be spread across 6 teams.Sards wrote:After culling 2 sides us Saffers are on the right track.
Great to see the Rebels and Reds start off with a hiss and a roar, they've had a rough couple of matches since but the improvement has been stark. I haven't seen a huge amount of the Tahs matches, but are they really looking better?Farva wrote:Id argue the Aus sides are looking much better this year too.Turbogoat wrote:Well, the Bulls are looking muchly improved this year, but you haven't really 'culled' 2 sides though, they're just playing in a different competition. Your quality players are still going to be spread across 6 teams.Sards wrote:After culling 2 sides us Saffers are on the right track.
The Rebels are much better. The Reds are much better. The Tahs are much better. The Brumbies are much worse.
THe Aus teams arent going to win it, but teams that were cellar dwellers are now mid table teams.
But maybe all that is bad for rugby generally.kiwigreg369 wrote:Fair enough - good question to ask (because it has to make sense) - but in support of point 2 (prepare for test rugby) from the perspective of NZ since it was made to super 15 (in 2011):
- NZ has won both RWCs
- each NZ team has at least made a semi
- NZ teams have won 5 of the 7 finals (both losing finalists where NZ teams)
- in the last two years 3 of the top 4 have been NZ teams
- in that period the win ratio is 90% (83 wins, 3 draws, and 8 loses from 94 games) - for 3313 / against 1476) - 35.2 vs. 15.7
- in the prior 7 years it was - win ratio was 86% (78 wins and 13 loses from 91 games) - for 3146 / against 1384) - 34.6 vs. 15.2
KG
PS - note, in the 7 years even earlier '97 to '03 for NZ it was
- win ratio of 76%
- win 57, draw 2, and lose 17 games
- for 3022 / 1314 against - 39.8 vs. 17.2
Of course it bad for SR. That's why we have a conference system.Zakar wrote:But maybe all that is bad for rugby generally.kiwigreg369 wrote:Fair enough - good question to ask (because it has to make sense) - but in support of point 2 (prepare for test rugby) from the perspective of NZ since it was made to super 15 (in 2011):
- NZ has won both RWCs
- each NZ team has at least made a semi
- NZ teams have won 5 of the 7 finals (both losing finalists where NZ teams)
- in the last two years 3 of the top 4 have been NZ teams
- in that period the win ratio is 90% (83 wins, 3 draws, and 8 loses from 94 games) - for 3313 / against 1476) - 35.2 vs. 15.7
- in the prior 7 years it was - win ratio was 86% (78 wins and 13 loses from 91 games) - for 3146 / against 1384) - 34.6 vs. 15.2
KG
PS - note, in the 7 years even earlier '97 to '03 for NZ it was
- win ratio of 76%
- win 57, draw 2, and lose 17 games
- for 3022 / 1314 against - 39.8 vs. 17.2
Do Trans tasman competitions work for Australia? Their Netball team got better when they stopped it there, Oz's strongest sports are ones with one a trans tasman comp. I wonder if because if Oz get's beaten by NZ it hammers their psychology? NZ must win be innate talent or better resourcing. Where as if Oz beat's NZ it's a case of "Well they are a bigger country, bigger population, per capita and all that".maxbox wrote:The trans tasman comp isn't happening. Australia put on your big boy pants and just embrace your own domestic competition. How are the Melbourne Stockaders doing by the way?
Bindi wrote:Rugby is in terminal decline in Australia. Dumping the Force hasn’t improved anything.
Terminal decline is overly pesimistic. Look at club rugby finals around the country (even in the bush where I'm told rugby doesn't exist). The 110k people that went to the Australia NZ bled in 2000 haven't all died, but like most aussies, they back winners. We haven't been winning.Bindi wrote:Rugby is in terminal decline in Australia. Dumping the Force hasn’t improved anything.
Hard to say whether a modified Sup rugby is the answer, or pull out all together and select Wobs from local comp and overseas. Either way, I don’t expect the twats running the show to get it right.
You guys are blessed with ease of travel as spectators. I could count on one hand, the number of Super Rugby fans I know who've travelled to Australia or South Africa to watch a game. And they were Crusader fans come final time.openclashXX wrote:As was pointed out a few months back, there are really no genuine cross-border rivalries or grudge matches that draw crowds in club/provincial rugby - the only games that have a chance of packing out stadiums are derbies and domestic clashes with some history and proper spite behind them
SANZAR clearly overestimated SR's appeal, thinking it to be some sort of NFL-like product where local fans will pack put 50,000 seat stadiums week-after-week no matter what the opposition or scoreline
yep, the transport logistics & sheer distance kills it really for 99.9% of fans, would expect any actual fans there to be expats and the likemr bungle wrote:You guys are blessed with ease of travel as spectators. I could count on one hand, the number of Super Rugby fans I know who've travelled to Australia or South Africa to watch a game. And they were Crusader fans come final time.openclashXX wrote:As was pointed out a few months back, there are really no genuine cross-border rivalries or grudge matches that draw crowds in club/provincial rugby - the only games that have a chance of packing out stadiums are derbies and domestic clashes with some history and proper spite behind them
SANZAR clearly overestimated SR's appeal, thinking it to be some sort of NFL-like product where local fans will pack put 50,000 seat stadiums week-after-week no matter what the opposition or scoreline
One of the benefits of a domestic competition is there there will always be a domestic winner.Zakar wrote:Terminal decline is overly pesimistic. Look at club rugby finals around the country (even in the bush where I'm told rugby doesn't exist). The 110k people that went to the Australia NZ bled in 2000 haven't all died, but like most aussies, they back winners. We haven't been winning.Bindi wrote:Rugby is in terminal decline in Australia. Dumping the Force hasn’t improved anything.
Hard to say whether a modified Sup rugby is the answer, or pull out all together and select Wobs from local comp and overseas. Either way, I don’t expect the twats running the show to get it right.
I genuinely think that's one reason NRL and AFL do so well.eldanielfire wrote:One of the benefits of a domestic competition is there there will always be a domestic winner.Zakar wrote:Terminal decline is overly pesimistic. Look at club rugby finals around the country (even in the bush where I'm told rugby doesn't exist). The 110k people that went to the Australia NZ bled in 2000 haven't all died, but like most aussies, they back winners. We haven't been winning.Bindi wrote:Rugby is in terminal decline in Australia. Dumping the Force hasn’t improved anything.
Hard to say whether a modified Sup rugby is the answer, or pull out all together and select Wobs from local comp and overseas. Either way, I don’t expect the twats running the show to get it right.
Harsh.Zakar wrote:I genuinely think that's one reason NRL and AFL do so well.eldanielfire wrote:One of the benefits of a domestic competition is there there will always be a domestic winner.Zakar wrote:Terminal decline is overly pesimistic. Look at club rugby finals around the country (even in the bush where I'm told rugby doesn't exist). The 110k people that went to the Australia NZ bled in 2000 haven't all died, but like most aussies, they back winners. We haven't been winning.Bindi wrote:Rugby is in terminal decline in Australia. Dumping the Force hasn’t improved anything.
Hard to say whether a modified Sup rugby is the answer, or pull out all together and select Wobs from local comp and overseas. Either way, I don’t expect the twats running the show to get it right.
So you want a fully professional BOP team right? I wonder why noone ever thought of that!Davedj77 wrote:For me Super Rugby has never been an ideal competition. For me the idea that you combine provinces and expect to have fans of those provinces support that combined team is flawed. For example, I'm from the BOP. When I was growing up Waikato were our closest rugby neighbour, our "big brother" and the team we wanted to beat the most (yeah beating Auckland and Canterbury would have been great but pretty much never happened plus we didn't have the rivalry created by being neighbours). So I had no love for Waikato when it came to rugby. And yet when Super Rugby started I'm now supposed to support a "combined" team? (combined is in "" because lets face it, BOP players barely feature).
Also, even to this day, outside of NZ no one thinks of BOP when you talk about the Chiefs. It's always Waikato this, Hamilton that. So my team, BOP, is pretty much excluded for all intents and purposes. That grinds my farking gears.
Anyway that is where I am coming from. And it means I have no team that I fervently support. So I have always just thought of Super Rugby as NZ vs Oz or SA (and now Japan and Argentina).
I'm not saying I haven't immensely enjoyed a lot of Super Rugby over the years, I have. But nothing in Super Rugby could match the sheer joy of something like when BOP won the Ranfurly Shield.
I watch Super Rugby because it is rugby and it's all that is on at this time of year. I want something different but I don't know what a realistic replacement would look like. Hopefully one day we get a competition this part of the world deserves, right now we aren't getting that.
Did you consider the fact no one else is putting in a bid for rugby broadcasting rights?guy smiley wrote:It's part of the appeal, sadly... but a bigger problem is the host broadcaster for all three sports.Zakar wrote:I genuinely think that's one reason NRL and AFL do so well.eldanielfire wrote:One of the benefits of a domestic competition is there there will always be a domestic winner.Zakar wrote:Terminal decline is overly pesimistic. Look at club rugby finals around the country (even in the bush where I'm told rugby doesn't exist). The 110k people that went to the Australia NZ bled in 2000 haven't all died, but like most aussies, they back winners. We haven't been winning.Bindi wrote:Rugby is in terminal decline in Australia. Dumping the Force hasn’t improved anything.
Hard to say whether a modified Sup rugby is the answer, or pull out all together and select Wobs from local comp and overseas. Either way, I don’t expect the twats running the show to get it right.
Fox.
Murdoch.
The ARU have to divorce themselves from that parasite and challenge their market, not try to be accommodated within it. The amount of effort Fox put into promoting and supporting the other two codes is way out of proportion.
I'd like to see SANZAAR look at selling rights to streaming services. Go lightweight and fast.
But no one is ever gonna put up $300m/5 yrs for rugby in Oz.guy smiley wrote:The rights deal isn't due for renewal until 2020 dude. There's plenty of time.CrazyIslander wrote: Did you consider the fact no one else is putting in a bid for rugby broadcasting rights?
My concern is that the current format is putting a severe handbrake on the development of the SH game because of the geographic spread and the problems caused by timezones. The current SR comp features at most 2 games a week in every country played during prime time. That's at most six prime time games played across the whole of SANZAR. If the three SANZAR nations opted for their own ten team domestic comps, that would mean 15 prime time games played across all three settings. That's a 150% increase. That has to make 3 x strengthened domestic competitions much more valuable than the current flawed setup.guy smiley wrote:The rights deal isn't due for renewal until 2020 dude. There's plenty of time.CrazyIslander wrote: Did you consider the fact no one else is putting in a bid for rugby broadcasting rights?
Yep this. From one competition we've got TV revenues from 5 markets. You're simply never going to get that income any other way. Think an NZ only comp will pay for any sort of league of competitive salaries and grass root development below the ABs? Forget it.UncleFB wrote:I would hate that. I actually don't like watching NZ teams play each other, I prefer to see them playing other countries teams.Andalu wrote:Why not have all 5 sides play each other home and away, then the top 2 (for example) go into an international playoff?
Also not convinced the attrition rate would be reduced in a provincial setup.
As other posters have noted Super rugby is where we pay our players to play in NZ, we'd be stuffed without it.
We get shit money from 5 markets though. We are severely under-selling our product. In Australia, the A League gets fewer TV viewers than Super Rugby but has a much more lucrative TV deal. Why? Because it generates more content. Lots of games, played at viewer friendly times every weekend. Super Rugby gets two prime time games a weekend in Australia, the rest are in the late afternoon (NZ games) or at 3am.Flockwitt wrote:Yep this. From one competition we've got TV revenues from 5 markets. You're simply never going to get that income any other way. Think an NZ only comp will pay for any sort of league of competitive salaries and grass root development below the ABs? Forget it.UncleFB wrote:I would hate that. I actually don't like watching NZ teams play each other, I prefer to see them playing other countries teams.Andalu wrote:Why not have all 5 sides play each other home and away, then the top 2 (for example) go into an international playoff?
Also not convinced the attrition rate would be reduced in a provincial setup.
As other posters have noted Super rugby is where we pay our players to play in NZ, we'd be stuffed without it.
That's pie in the sky stuff. Regardless how it is broadcasted, SANZAR would not want to do it themselves. Someone needs to bid for the rights then broadcast it how they see fit. It still comes down to no one is prepared to stump up the money Foxtel are willing to pay.guy smiley wrote:I'm not suggesting that... while I think the way the code is promoted by the rights holder here isn't ideal, compromised by it's conflicting interests across the sporting landscape, rugby down here needs to work together to generate the revenue. No way any of the three countries going alone works.... I'm sure you and I are pretty much agreed on that, aren't we?CrazyIslander wrote:But no one is ever gonna put up $300m/5 yrs for rugby in Oz.guy smiley wrote:The rights deal isn't due for renewal until 2020 dude. There's plenty of time.CrazyIslander wrote: Did you consider the fact no one else is putting in a bid for rugby broadcasting rights?
I've got a rough idea of selling packages through lightweight internet based streaming services like ESPN who are moving into serious sports coverage... tv, internet and handheld device access to various packages bringing the game straight to the consumer in the format and combinations they want.
Formula 1 was sold last year after decades of ownership by Bernie Ecclestone. I'm not a fan of everything the new owners (American based) are doing with the sport but they are selling packages to their own product and controlling that access really well. It's a model that works. Rugby should be looking at doing the same.
I agree. In Rugby Union in Australia basically the media coverage must fizzle out with no positivity. An elite domestic league always ends a season on high with hype about who will win? Super Rugby always freezes out at least one major Rugby Nation and it's not as exciting or has the interest in a final between other nations. It's no coincidence the two domestic Leagues in Europe are doing the best financially. Australian Netball went from strength to strength splitting the league, more money, more interest, more attendance more ratings. They didn't have anywhere near the levels of difference of Rugby.Zakar wrote:I genuinely think that's one reason NRL and AFL do so well.eldanielfire wrote:One of the benefits of a domestic competition is there there will always be a domestic winner.Zakar wrote:Terminal decline is overly pesimistic. Look at club rugby finals around the country (even in the bush where I'm told rugby doesn't exist). The 110k people that went to the Australia NZ bled in 2000 haven't all died, but like most aussies, they back winners. We haven't been winning.Bindi wrote:Rugby is in terminal decline in Australia. Dumping the Force hasn’t improved anything.
Hard to say whether a modified Sup rugby is the answer, or pull out all together and select Wobs from local comp and overseas. Either way, I don’t expect the twats running the show to get it right.
Good point. I think some posters are worried about the big safety net of Super Rugby. But Advertisers are not paying for 3am Games and 3/5 teams fans being unengaged domestically. What they want is all fans engaged all weekend and lots of media attention at the end of the season.Ali's Choice wrote:
We get shit money from 5 markets though. We are severely under-selling our product. In Australia, the A League gets fewer TV viewers than Super Rugby but has a much more lucrative TV deal. Why? Because it generates more content. Lots of games, played at viewer friendly times every weekend. Super Rugby gets two prime time games a weekend in Australia, the rest are in the late afternoon (NZ games) or at 3am.
What's the thinking there?Biffer29 wrote:Is there an argument for making SR more like the Heineken Cup?I think so.
might be more difficult for the Aussies.
Basically I thought that because their domestic competition isn’t as well established as the Currie Cup or Mitre10.kiap wrote:What's the thinking there?Biffer29 wrote:Is there an argument for making SR more like the Heineken Cup?I think so.
might be more difficult for the Aussies.
Ah, okay. I don't think that would pose a problem.Biffer29 wrote:Basically I thought that because their domestic competition isn’t as well established as the Currie Cup or Mitre10.