Where to for Super Rugby?

[kiap]

I think you'd be better off having the Origin comp in June. Could be a selection trial for the Wallabies, and a nice lead-in to the Test matches.

Though I think it loses it's sting if you still have a comp with the Tahs and Reds.
.

I wonder about these selection trials. It's another tier in an already convoluted season structure. How many rungs should there be in Oz rugby with Origin added into the mix; four tiers … even five?

Something to keep in mind about World Rugby's shift to the July window is the commitment to host Test matches against Tier 2 nations.

A better option could be to select your Wallabies squad and try out combinations in a full international against the likes of Fiji, United States, or Japan ahead of taking on the Tier 1 opposition in July.

 

[kiap]

By the way, the Origin concept is just about unique to rugby league. Has never taken hold outside of that code (it didn't last in Australian football) and it's success was really down to quirks of historical circumstance:

• A talent equalisation measure was needed at the time to have competitive inter-state matches in RL;
• Origin provided that in 1980; and, critically,
• There were only 2 states where rugby league was the #1 game at the time (then and now). With 3 or more teams, you start to move into a round-robin format and it's not so different to the usual national tournament. A competition like AFL would provide that anyway for Aussie rules.

Even in rugby league, as time went by, the Origin idea became watered down. Kiwis, Fijians and other PI players started being picked and any thoughts about a player's true "origin" didn't matter so much. It's almost a Pro-Bowl now featuring most of the best paid players in the league - but with the added bonus of the old inter-state rivalry added in for the fans.

Can rugby union copy this model? SOO success for RL has a number of factors currently:

• Part of it is down to the parochialism of the average punters (many not even fans of rugby league) that tune in to back their state team home. The interest and bragging rights are there because RL is the #1 football code for the states involved.
• Millions tune in because the game has built a following over 4 decades and not been hidden away on pay TV.
• Rugby league has been able to continuously pump genuine dollars in over that time to publicise and market SOO; mate vs mate, state vs state. Promotion, promotion, promotion.
• Winner takes all because there was never a 3rd or 4th interstate team created (perhaps including their own multicultural mercenaries) that might dispute your title.
• After Origin, all that's left for RL viewers is to go back to NRL + a Test or two against NZ or England, which is often less intense. In other words, State of Origin is actually the pinnacle. It's Tier 1 ahead of the international game which is Tier 2.
• As a flow on of being the peak contest in the code, viewers from other states and overseas also watch SOO in significant numbers.

Virtually none of these things apply to rugby union.

I suspect a rugby union Origin might generate somewhat more interest than the present Templeton Cup/State of the Union. But not a lot.

 

[Snowy]

I agree and this was certainly my previous position that they had to play in whatever competition we ended up with but I think they potentially damage the ability to bring in private equity and also create situations where teams are tied to grassroots bodies that we can't afford to fail if they get it wrong commercially.

We want these teams to have funding that exceeds their revenue by some margin particularly early on.

The majority of players will be from NSW or Qld originally or have a reasonable connection with one of those states. If you need to create a rule where each team gets a couple of wildcards that fit in the couple of players that have no connection with either side then you can do that.

If you went through the current Brumbies and Rebels teams you would be able to fairly easily allocate just about all their players to Qld or NSW without causing too much drama.

The idea would be it would involve all the players who are going to make the Wallabies squad plus the ones who get close and miss out.

You mean apart from the blokes that were born over seas or from WA / ACT or those given a chance in WA /ACT- what is your cut off - under 8'S that make Quad Cooper a Kiwi not an Ozzie and there are plenty more like him. Nick Cummings didn't get a start with anyone else and it was a good job RA couldn't find money to keep him in the game in Australia " sarcasm" - they could have sold that as fantastic promotion helping out his family and great promotion for the game , people wearing honey badger head gear but they spent there money on Karmical Hunt ( NZ) who the AFL bought for promotion and we brought him 3rd hand and got how many tests and good PR? Dont see people turning up to games with white powder round there noses trying to look like him
David Pocock and Kyle Goodwin and have stopped being refereed to as Zimbabwean born as have the Haylet petty brothers as South Africa since they have gone east also Curtis Rona (NZ)Richard Hardwick (

Namibia)​

its this "heartland" attitude that has killed the game - we supply the players - we watch the game guess what with the magical 2 million people in the western suburbs you can not even get competitive shute Shields sides out there so you just cut them loose

 

[Omar Comin']

N
NSW / RA can not even keep shute shield sides going in this area what the hell makes you think this is going to work . im from the being thrown under the bus side of the country - they have done nothing to embrace potential fans weather from western Sydney or western Australia that is why the code is going to shit

My hope is that RA / NSWRU wouldn't run it. But I don't think you can compare the fortunes of amateur level teams with professional sides. A competitive professional team with PI connections that embraces the community in Western Sydney and plays exciting rugby would have a decent chance of success. It'd be interesting to see how it went.

In an ideal world I reckon it'd be good to have 3 Sydney teams. Western Sydney, Northern Sydney and East/Inner/South Sydney. The latter two include the heartlands of the game and populations over 1 million people each and the west is the frontier with 2+ million. If professional rugby is viable in Canberra (population 400k) it should also be viable in these areas.

 

[Braveheart81]

The NSW vs Qld series is not about trying to mimic rugby league state of origin. It's about using the oldest rivalry in Australian rugby in a situation where those teams are not involved in the regular competition and only playing a very limited number of games.

I don't see the issue with allocating players. It is not state of origin.

Cooper would clearly play for Qld. Pocock went to school there and would play for Qld.

Rona is playing for the Waratahs now. He'd keep playing for them.

Someone like Kyle Godwin might be a little trickier to place but for those few players that genuinely have no association with either team or state can be drafted in. It will be very few players.

This is all about using existing brands and rivalries, not about trying to create a brand new concept and only in the event that the Tahs and Reds aren't part of the domestic competition going forward (that this entire premise revolves around).

Sent from my SM-G930F using Tapatalk

 

[Omar Comin']

This is all about using existing brands and rivalries, not about trying to create a brand new concept and only in the event that the Tahs and Reds aren't part of the domestic competition going forward (that this entire premise revolves around).

The only problem I can see with your idea of having this 3 match series in June is that it would limit the domestic competition to quite a small window of about 16 weeks - and that's starting in mid Feb. This would be okay for an 8 team competition (14 round home and away plus semis and final) but even then it would mean no byes.

Maybe a NSW vs QLD series could just be 2 matches to free up another week. 1 home match each. Decided either by aggregate score over the 2 matches or if it's 1-1 after the 2nd game you play a golden point tie break (that can't be won by penalty goal!).

 

[Braveheart81]

The only problem I can see with your idea of having this 3 match series in June is that it would limit the domestic competition to quite a small window of about 16 weeks - and that's starting in mid Feb. This would be okay for an 8 team competition (14 round home and away plus semis and final) but even then it would mean no byes.

Maybe a NSW vs QLD series could just be 2 matches to free up another week. 1 home match each. Decided either by aggregate score over the 2 matches or if it's 1-1 after the 2nd game you play a golden point tie break (that can't be won by penalty goal!).

Yes, length of the competition before it definitely needs to be considered but I also think that if you had an 8 team comp that 14 rounds would be plenty.

Anyway, I think it would be worth investigating.

You would also need to consider what is played from the end of club rugby through to the conclusion of the Rugby Championship in October.

 

[Derpus]

The NSW vs Qld series is not about trying to mimic rugby league state of origin. It's about using the oldest rivalry in Australian rugby in a situation where those teams are not involved in the regular competition and only playing a very limited number of games.

I don't see the issue with allocating players. It is not state of origin.

Cooper would clearly play for Qld. Pocock went to school there and would play for Qld.

Rona is playing for the Waratahs now. He'd keep playing for them.

Someone like Kyle Godwin might be a little trickier to place but for those few players that genuinely have no association with either team or state can be drafted in. It will be very few players.

This is all about using existing brands and rivalries, not about trying to create a brand new concept and only in the event that the Tahs and Reds aren't part of the domestic competition going forward (that this entire premise revolves around).

Sent from my SM-G930F using Tapatalk

I am skeptical.

 

[kiap]

It's about using the oldest rivalry in Australian rugby in a situation where those teams are not involved in the regular competition and only playing a very limited number of games.

All this is doing is taking your biggest brands and reducing their reach and exposure.

You said it yourself, this is not going to emulate RL Origin.

It's not even going to get close.

There won't be a big uplift to the traditional Reds-Tahs games already in place.

I don't see the issue with allocating players. It is not state of origin.

… Pocock went to school there and would play for Qld.

The point is: No, he would not.

It's not 1980 any more.

There no way that the Brumbies would or should release a bloke they are paying big dollars for to go play in Brisbane (so long as the Rebels/Brumbies continue to exist, that is … once they go, we're back in the 1980s anyway) .

Rugby already has enough problems managing two-tiered player contracts. Are they now going to be three-tiered?

There is bugger-all advantage to be gained from this extra domestic player shuffle.

Rugby needs play to its strengths which is the international component that includes both test matches and transnational club matches.

 

[Braveheart81]

All this is doing is taking your biggest brands and reducing their reach and exposure.

This was my position for a long time that you would be crazy to remove existing brands that already have a following. If you were going down a domestic comp route which required new teams from scratch I think you would struggle to make it competitive in any reasonable time period if you didn't dissolve the Waratahs and Reds though.

The biggest thing to me though would be trying to bring in a private equity model as the overall funding mechanism for the teams and removing the direct link between state unions and professional teams. We need private funding and we need to separate the risk that the grassroots organisation dies if the pro team has a financial disaster.

In any event, it would require some careful planning.

The point is: No, he would not.

It's not 1980 any more.

There no way that the Brumbies would or should release a bloke they are paying big dollars for to go play in Brisbane (so long as the Rebels/Brumbies continue to exist, that is … once they go, we're back in the 1980s anyway) .

Rugby already has enough problems managing two-tiered player contracts. Are they now going to be three-tiered?

There is bugger-all advantage to be gained from this extra domestic player shuffle.

Rugby needs play to its strengths which is the international component that includes both test matches and transnational club matches.

It would only work if it is part of the official calendar, the players invited to take part are paid substantial match fees (no reason they wouldn't be in line with a test match) and that hopefully the timing works that it fits with helping select the Wallabies.

This is the bit that would be most similar to RL SoO. There would be no ongoing player contracts just a substantial financial reward for taking part.

Anyway, it's just an idea to work into a season where our primary competition is a domestic comp that would naturally be a weaker comp due to diluting the teams. The biggest weakness that competition would have is not giving our test players a strong enough weekly competition to play in to be ready for test rugby.

 

[Bandar]

Forget about the State of Origin concept - use that time for the international component - the super & mediocre cups - top 4 from Aussie comp in the Super and bottom 4 in mediocre, same from NZ, SA, Japan and Americas.

 

[kiap]

Forget about the State of Origin concept - use that time for the international component - the super & mediocre cups - top 4 from Aussie comp in the Super and bottom 4 in mediocre, same from NZ, SA, Japan and Americas.

Ahh, 'Super Challenge' Cup … pur-lease !

(Gotta talk it up, it's the only one oz teams would be getting their hands on)

 

[kiap]

Anyway, it's just an idea to work into a season where our primary competition is a domestic comp that would naturally be a weaker comp due to diluting the teams.

Yeah, fair enough.

But another possibility is to keep it to 5 oz teams (at least initially) and bring in Fiji, Pacific Dragons, et al.

This could make your 8 teams in the oz-controlled comp, the best of which can then advance to play the Kiwi sides (and others) in a Super Champions Cup (and optionally even a Super Challenge Cup).

 

[Braveheart81]

Yeah, fair enough.

But another possibility is to keep it to 5 oz teams and bring in Fiji, Pacific Dragons, et al.

This could make your 8 teams in the oz-controlled comp, the best of which can then advance to play the Kiwi sides (and others) in a Super Champions Cup (and optionally even a Super Challenge Cup).

Yeah, I would be on board for that. In that setup though I would absolutely be keeping the Tahs and Reds as the NSW and Qld teams.

My preference would still be for a Trans Tasman comp plus that Fiji side and maybe another team. Whilst it would be clearly much harder for us to win I think it would be best for the quality of our rugby.

I don't think it will be good for Australian rugby long term if we are a big small in a small pond.

 

[kiap]

I actually don't think a Trans-Tasman can work as a straight replacement for a 22 week season (i.e. the cold Soup).

It will drone on in much the same way as Super Rugby now (and, with no South Africa, be forced to subsist with even less income).

Far better for Australia to build up it's own competition (replacing the old oz conference) boosted up with overseas teams.

That then feeds into a shorter, sharper champions league which focuses on the transnational match-ups (no need for local derbies, they're already done).

That way you do get to play top Kiwi sides … and I'd suggest even the Saffers - keeping some of that market, and who, because of the separate, condensed format, won't disrupt the regular season. That regular season is the separate (local time zone) oz controlled comp.

 

[Braveheart81]

It will drone on in the same way as Super Rugby (and, with no South Africa, be forced to subsist with even less income than now).

Far better for Australia to control it's own competition (replacing the old oz conference).

I don't see how the second option doesn't generate far less income than the first. A competition with NZ teams has significantly more international interest and would attract better TV rights.

If you had a Trans Tasman comp with 12 teams I definitely think you want to make it shorter. 22 weeks is too long with so few teams.

 

[Bandar]

Yeah, fair enough.

But another possibility is to keep it to 5 oz teams (at least initially) and bring in Fiji, Pacific Dragons, et al.

This could make your 8 teams in the oz-controlled comp, the best of which can then advance to play the Kiwi sides (and others) in a Super Champions Cup (and optionally even a Super Challenge Cup).

Yeah to me the best option is 5 Aussie teams, 1 on Fiji, 1 in Hong Kong/Singapore and the final one is the Western Sydney Islanders/Warriors being a team offering at least half the squad places to players eligible for the Samoan & Tongan teams.

 

[kiap]

I don't see how the second option doesn't generate far less income than the first. A competition with NZ teams has significantly more international interest and would attract better TV rights.

If you had a Trans Tasman comp with 12 teams I definitely think you want to make it shorter. 22 weeks is too long with so few teams.

No. The overall package will generate more income than a Trans Tasman for several reasons.

• Firstly, you haven't thrown away the full 40% of the Super Rugby income brought to the table by South Africa. This is something that Australian rugby fans don't get, but I guarantee that NZR have both eyes fixed on that prize.
• A Champions Cup format is actually the less revolutionary option. It's evolutionary. You keep South Africa (and a share of that revenue) in for two months a year. It's less than the previous four but a helluva lot more than the zero offered by the Trans-Tasman.
• Not kicking South Africa to the kerb also keeps SANZAAR alive on the Test rugby front, which is far more important than the franchise game. Super Rugby (or a Trans-Tasman, or whatever) is still only the top-up component as far as revenue goes. Frankly, at the moment it's Pay TV filler.
• Keeping SANZAAR in place (flawed as it is) as a unified desk for broadcast negotiations, will allow member unions to package up their locally-controlled comps together with the "Super Champions Cup" to sell into the same markets that Super Rugby is already in. There is no requirement to split that revenue for the various local comps, and it's a better option than competing directly against the Saffers, bidding down those broadcast rights
• Australia (and the other individual members) get full control over scheduling and fixtures for their local-time zone comp, allowing it to be better marketed domestically. This would not be the case with a Trans-Tasman which, I'd suggest, would have more NZ teams than Australian ones and be more tailored to NZ.
• Additionally, the NZ market for rugby union is already saturated. It's small and tapped out. Australia has more growth potential, if done right.

A Champions Cup format will bring Trans-Tasman matches (and more, including more dollars than a pure TT comp). Another thing you will find is that it's not just NZ teams that count. More so it's NZ players.

 

[Braveheart81]

Yes, I agree with everything you've said if a core part of that season is the Champions Cup style comp with South Africa and New Zealand.

I was only referring to the domestic and Trans Tasman comps as stand alone events in terms of the revenue they can create.

I would think there would be a strong chance that SA would want to keep the revenue deals separated instead of lumping the domestic comps together and sharing the revenue. They would expect their comp was worth more than Australia and NZs.

Clearly maintaining the SANZAAR relationship and the Rugby Championship is a key part of any agreement. That is going to be the primary revenue driver for all the members.

I don't think that whatever we end up with involves NZ and Australia ditching South Africa. It will be a far more mutual outcome because everyone is in the position that things need to change. Super Rugby is struggling everywhere. Our situation is not unique. We're just the most exposed.

 

[kiap]

Yes, I agree with everything you've said if a core part of that season is the Champions Cup style comp with South Africa and New Zealand.

I was only referring to the domestic and Trans Tasman comps as stand alone events in terms of the revenue they can create.

Yep.

I would think there would be a strong chance that SA would want to keep the revenue deals separated instead of lumping the domestic comps together and sharing the revenue. They would expect their comp was worth more than Australia and NZs.

Absolutely. I would certainly expect that even if SANZAAR packaged up their products together to go to the broadcasters.

And, looked at with clear eyes, the number of Aus viewers watching SA-based Super matches now is virtually zero anyway.

(SA and NZ obviously take their own CC and Mitre-10 revenue now in any case). But there would be revenue sharing for the actual Champions Cup and any potential Champions Challenge.

Clearly maintaining the SANZAAR relationship and the Rugby Championship is a key part of any agreement. That is going to be the primary revenue driver for all the members.

I don't think that whatever we end up with involves NZ and Australia ditching South Africa. It will be a far more mutual outcome because everyone is in the position that things need to change. Super Rugby is struggling everywhere. Our situation is not unique. We're just the most exposed.

Yeah. Don't throw the baby out with the bath water.

Not just yet anyway.

Aus rugby does need some space to regenerate, though. That's why I think control over the main regular season of professional rugby here is vital.

And "control" doesn't mean solely in the hands of Rugby Australia and their provincial unions. We're beyond that now. For the pro game to survive we need better funding models including private backing and possibly even fan-led options like the Own the Force model (that was prematurely cut short).