Proposed Nations Championship

[WorkingClassRugger]

Yeah predicted as much at the start of the thread. The English are by nature stale, regressive and risk averse.

Generally speaking, without the authority to unilaterally set up the competition as it sees fit, like FIFA, WR (World Rugby) will probably never be able to set something like this up.

Look at the utter clusterfuck that is the Super Rugby and Rugby Championship and that's only a competition between 3 or 4 vested interests. The whole world? pfft, forget about it.

Watch the English now frog march the rest into the CVC deal. Not even kidding here. With the likes of Melville at the helm it's very likely to be on the books.

 

[WorkingClassRugger]

This is how I see the problem. For Wallabies, All Blacks and Springboks home matches to get big crowds (and domestic ratings) they need to be playing against teams who people see as a competitive opponent. However, new opponents won't get to that level without regular competition against top teams over a long period of time. Just look at Argentina - they've been in TRC for a while now and they're a decent side that get close a lot and win the occasional match, but they still struggle to attract crowds and viewers. I don't think that will change until they have a few years of regularly winning games and perhaps winning a title or two.

It'll be the same with adding any of Japan, USA or Fiji to TRC. Long term I think it would be the right move, but in the shorter term the home matches against these sides are not going to be big draw cards. But for SANZAAR the long term growth in revenues is a necessity in order to have any chance of competing with Europe.

An alternative could be to expand the RC into two 8 team divisions to start. Each division split into two pools. Each pool plays each of its in pool competitors home and away for 6 games and then a game against each of the teams from the opposing pool for 10 games. The first part runs through the soon to be July window and the second in the current RC window.

The first division would look something like the current 4 RC nations plus Japan, Fiji, USA and Georgia. While the 2nd div would feature Samoa, Tonga, Uruguay, Spain, Russia, Romania, Canada and Brazil. Just as with the RC at present team with the most points at the end wins but with relegation imposed on the bottom team to be replaced by the winner of the 2nd Div.

From there make a deal with the 6N's Unions on an alternating touring schedule in the November window. As in one year the ABs and Arg go north and play three games each and 2/3 head south.

 

[Derpus]

Man, thinking about it. England are effectively saying no to this because they fear losing to Italy and subsequently the play off team (most likely Georgia) in the same season. It's a near impossible eventuality as things stand.

You can't get more pathetic than that.

 

[WorkingClassRugger]

Man, thinking about it. England are effectively saying no to this because they fear losing to Italy and subsequently the play off team (most likely Georgia) in the same season. It's a near impossible eventuality as things stand.

You can't get more pathetic than that.

The whole relegation issue is moot. The chances of Georgia beating Italy in the next 5-10 are rather remote. Georgia got their shot last year and Italy were never really bothered by them.

 

[Derpus]

I never expected this to get off the ground and yet i am still somehow disappointed.

 

[Rebels3]

An alternative could be to expand the RC into two 8 team divisions to start. Each division split into two pools. Each pool plays each of its in pool competitors home and away for 6 games and then a game against each of the teams from the opposing pool for 10 games. The first part runs through the soon to be July window and the second in the current RC window.

The first division would look something like the current 4 RC nations plus Japan, Fiji, USA and Georgia. While the 2nd div would feature Samoa, Tonga, Uruguay, Spain, Russia, Romania, Canada and Brazil. Just as with the RC at present team with the most points at the end wins but with relegation imposed on the bottom team to be replaced by the winner of the 2nd Div.

From there make a deal with the 6N's Unions on an alternating touring schedule in the November window. As in one year the ABs and Arg go north and play three games each and 2/3 head south.

One thing I think we all need to remember is the KISS principal.

I don’t think having European countries involved in a (and I don’t mean this in the wrong way) Frankenstein like competition, where half the countries play in a competition against teams 20hrs away while there is a European based competition already been played (6 nations), that people will always see as the superior competition in the area, is the ideal situation.

Competitions need prestige, let’s say in 30yrs Georgia were to win this competition, they would essentially be the champions of the ‘rest of the world’ but not the champions of the tournament that means the most in their region. It’s just all a little soulless, it’s kinda how and where Super Rugby has ended up.

I think there is almost more value in a Pacific competition, with a return to NZ, SA, Aus and Arg returning to 3 game tours of each other.

As an example a Pacific 5 Nations

Aus v Fiji
Tonga v Aus
Aus v NZ
Samoa v Aus

2nd Bledisloe - NZ v Aus

SA tour of Aus

Aus v SA - Bris
Aus v SA - Syd
Aus v SA - Per

Not saying I think this would be the ideal scenario either, but it’s at least simple and engaging to the people in the same area

 

[WorkingClassRugger]

One thing I think we all need to remember is the KISS principal.

I don’t think having European countries involved in a (and I don’t mean this in the wrong way) Frankenstein like competition, where half the countries play in a competition against teams 20hrs away while there is a European based competition already been played (6 nations), that people will always see as the superior competition in the area, is the ideal situation.

Competitions need prestige, let’s say in 30yrs Georgia were to win this competition, they would essentially be the champions of the ‘rest of the world’ but not the champions of the tournament that means the most in their region. It’s just all a little soulless, it’s kinda how and where Super Rugby has ended up.

I think there is almost more value in a Pacific competition, with a return to NZ, SA, Aus and Arg returning to 3 game tours of each other.

As an example a Pacific 5 Nations

Aus v Fiji
Tonga v Aus
Aus v NZ
Samoa v Aus

2nd Bledisloe - NZ v Aus

SA tour of Aus

Aus v SA - Bris
Aus v SA - Syd
Aus v SA - Per

Not saying I think this would be the ideal scenario either, but it’s at least simple and engaging to the people in the same area

But you also need to face a few commercial realities and while a Pacific Championship could could in terms of competition it won't in regards to $ in the long run. But I do get what you're saying and I think we could narrow it further. Maybe start with just the single 8 team RC and build from from there. Or just focus on a few regions.

Two pools one featuring the current 4 and the other with Fiji, USA, Japan and Tonga. Still in the current time zones that exist with a good mix of emerging markets and PI mixed in (went off rankings which means Samoa misses out). I think that would be fairly workable. Could still have relegation but done a little differently. Instead of a 2nd division you use the established regional competitions. Take the top 1 or 2 teams (depending on relative strength) from the Asian Rugby Championship, Pacific Nations Cup and Americas Rugby Championship and have them play in a qualifying tournament to determine the team to be promoted/promotion playoff.

 

[Rebels3]

Once again I think the moment the US is included it become too stretched. Asia I get, because at least the content can be shared at a reasonable time to all involved parties. All commercial interests can be satisfied. The US is a satisfactory time zone for our broadcasters, but our timezone is horrendous for theirs 7.30pm in Aus is 430am for their broadcasters and more importantly their fans. One thing super rugby has taught us is make sure all stakeholders are able to be engaged. Another competition where half the fans miss their game because it’s on at some ghastly hour does help anyone, or where the established fans can’t follow the competition as a whole because all matches aren’t available to them at reasonable times.

Perhaps Oceania and Asia could become the one federation and look to build organically from there, have a championship that encompasses all the participating nations. On this topic I hear there is chat about the Americas combining.

 

[WorkingClassRugger]

Once again I think the moment the US is included it become too stretched. Asia I get, because at least the content can be shared at a reasonable time to all involved parties. All commercial interests can be satisfied. The US is a satisfactory time zone for our broadcasters, but our timezone is horrendous for theirs 7.30pm in Aus is 430am for their broadcasters and more importantly their fans. One thing super rugby has taught us is make sure all stakeholders are able to be engaged. Another competition where half the fans miss their game because it’s on at some ghastly hour does help anyone, or where the established fans can’t follow the competition as a whole because all matches aren’t available to them at reasonable times.

Perhaps Oceania and Asia could become the one federation and look to build organically from there, have a championship that encompasses all the participating nations. On this topic I hear there is chat about the Americas combining.

The USA has comparatively similar time zones as Argentina does. A 7:30 kick on the West Coast is 1:30 on the East Coast here. Not perfect but not onerous either. It could work. I agree that ideally we'd look locally in regards to regions. And I actually think Asia and the Pacific should merge into the Asia-Pacific and look to compete among one another but we also need to look and the commercial side of the equation and both Japan and the USA offer far greater commercial returns than the likes of Fiji and the rest of the region probably combined. Which is what will come into SANZAAR's equations.

 

[Rebels3]

I get the US times are workable for us, but our time zones are horrible for them, all matches in Aus/NZ would fall between midnight and 530am. It’s not something that’s capable of maximizing commercial and stakeholder engagement from all parties. Yes it would be beneficial for both parties initially, but neither party would have the potential to be the best version of each other.

An example why I wouldn’t want to invite the US for money. If we built a competition with them and then in 20yrs time they are a commercial powerhouse in the world of rugby, they’d be looking for solutions beyond our competition to maximize revenue/engagement because half the content isn’t available to their audience (sound familiar???). We’d be back to square one, complaining about a party that influences decisions made on their own benefit, often at the disadvantage of our own audience.

Let’s get something in our own area, where all parties both commercially and engagement wise are equal partners without tyranny of distance and minimal time zones means the solutions will always be pretty much aligned with each other.

 

[Derpus]

I get the US times are workable for us, but our time zones are horrible for them, all matches in Aus/NZ would fall between midnight and 530am. It’s not something that’s capable of maximizing commercial and stakeholder engagement from all parties. I really wouldn’t want to invite the US for money. If we built a competition with them and then in 20yrs time they are a commercial powerhouse in the world of rugby, they’d be looking for solutions beyond our competition to maximize revenue/engagement because half the content isn’t available to their audience (sound familiar???). We’d be back to square one, complaining about a party that influences decisions made on their own benefit, often at the disadvantage of our own audience.

Let’s get something in our own area, where all parties both commercially and engagement wise are equal partners without tyranny of distance and minimal time zones means the solutions will always be pretty much aligned with each other.

Nothing better than coming home steaming drunk in the middle of the night and passing out on the couch in the second half of a test.

 

[WorkingClassRugger]

I get the US times are workable for us, but our time zones are horrible for them, all matches in Aus/NZ would fall between midnight and 530am. It’s not something that’s capable of maximizing commercial and stakeholder engagement from all parties. Yes it would be beneficial for both parties initially, but neither party would have the potential to be the best version of each other.

An example why I wouldn’t want to invite the US for money. If we built a competition with them and then in 20yrs time they are a commercial powerhouse in the world of rugby, they’d be looking for solutions beyond our competition to maximize revenue/engagement because half the content isn’t available to their audience (sound familiar???). We’d be back to square one, complaining about a party that influences decisions made on their own benefit, often at the disadvantage of our own audience.

Let’s get something in our own area, where all parties both commercially and engagement wise are equal partners without tyranny of distance and minimal time zones means the solutions will always be pretty much aligned with each other.

The issue with that is we'd have to blow up SANZAAR to do it. Not that I think that's a terrible idea but it's one that not going to ever happen. It would require Australia and New Zealand to effectively walk away from Super Rugby for an alternative which despite our appetite for it those in the decision making position in both Union seem unwilling.

 

[WorkingClassRugger]

I get the US times are workable for us, but our time zones are horrible for them, all matches in Aus/NZ would fall between midnight and 530am. It’s not something that’s capable of maximizing commercial and stakeholder engagement from all parties. Yes it would be beneficial for both parties initially, but neither party would have the potential to be the best version of each other.

An example why I wouldn’t want to invite the US for money. If we built a competition with them and then in 20yrs time they are a commercial powerhouse in the world of rugby, they’d be looking for solutions beyond our competition to maximize revenue/engagement because half the content isn’t available to their audience (sound familiar???). We’d be back to square one, complaining about a party that influences decisions made on their own benefit, often at the disadvantage of our own audience.

Let’s get something in our own area, where all parties both commercially and engagement wise are equal partners without tyranny of distance and minimal time zones means the solutions will always be pretty much aligned with each other.

Is there a strict rule that all our games must kick off at 8 pm on a Saturday? A 3:30pm game on a Sunday would be 12:30 am on the East Coast but only 8:30 pm on the West Coast. It's not ideal but again no worse than Argentina at present.

 

[Rebels3]

I’m just of the belief that if I was an American supporter that’s an unsatisfactory result, having half the country isolated from what should and would be the primary competition, through having content on at that time. It’s one thing playing at such times on a tour, but playing these times in your bread and butter tournament isn’t ideal. All this I believe in the reverse with Aus/NZ, it’s one of the biggest issues with Super Rugby.

I think most would sign up for the competition as it’s better than what’s been on offer, but I don’t think it’s the ideal scenario in a perfect situation. Obviously I’m been a little too idealistic here than the reality of how things would actually work

 

[WorkingClassRugger]

I’m just of the belief that if I was an American supporter that’s an unsatisfactory result, having half the country isolated from what should and would be the primary competition, through having content on at that time. It’s one thing playing at such times on a tour, but playing these times in your bread and butter tournament isn’t ideal.

I think most would sign up for the competition as it’s better than what’s been on offer, but I don’t think it’s the ideal scenario in a perfect situation. Obviously I’m been a little too idealistic here than the reality of how things would actually work

Well, there is another option that I've just thought of but it's likely to exclude the likes of Samoa and Tonga. Look to combine the RC with the Americas Rugby Championship. The ARC is already looking to align itself with the RC from next year thanks to the arrival to MLR and the expected launch of LAR as both of those competition are in the same window as Super Rugby.

It also involve 6 of the 7 largest economies in the Americas and it actually probably the fastest rising competitive region in the game at present. The RC reverts to a straight five games similar to the 6Ns and the ARC plus three crossover games against teams from the ARC and vice versa. One game to be hosted in July by the RC nations and two on the way to Europe in October/November for eight games in total.

You'd draw good crowds in the Americas for touring games. Particularly for the current 4 RC nations. You'd have to work on drawing crowds here but you could take games to smaller centres. Get creative. Could also use the PNC (Pacific Nations Cup) or Asia-Pacific Cup and ARC B as 2nd division providing a pathway toward the competition with a promotion playoff in each region on offer.

 

[Rugbynutter39]

SANZAAR has no obligation to include Fiji in TRC and I extremely doubt that they will. Not enough $ in it for them, watch for USA to come back into the fold.

SANZAAR just voted against Fiji team in Super Rugby....so do you really think they will add Fiji to the RC without something like the bigger League of Nations (and money behind it) deal. Nope....won't happen.....

 

[dru]

I am a little surprised at proposals here centred on alternate international input. Seems to me a spurious, or at least “to be proven” travel advantage - to the Americas anyway. Balanced by a lack of proven opposition.

The other fundamental is any proposal that does not resolve a much better number of home games and more consistent prime time broadcasting.

I have to note the reservations by some (with more than reasonable grounding) on the commercial viability of a domestic comp. increasingly my concern is the sustainability of a comp with key international elements. And where the currently implemented version seems to lack Australian interests.

It does seem that the Kiwis are offering less of a “don’t argue” to a Trans Tasman, and if this happens it may solve many (but not all) reservations from both sides of the domestic v international discussion.

In the mean time we should be thoroughly investigating what IS under our control. A move to professional “second tier” that is a) Domestic; b) opens a door to NZ

My suspiscion is that we will continue to muddle on the Kiwi skirts as the Kiwis muddle on African skirts.

 

[WorkingClassRugger]

I am a little surprised at proposals here centred on alternate international input. Seems to me a spurious, or at least “to be proven” travel advantage - to the Americas anyway. Balanced by a lack of proven opposition.

The other fundamental is any proposal that does not resolve a much better number of home games and more consistent prime time broadcasting.

I have to note the reservations by some (with more than reasonable grounding) on the commercial viability of a domestic comp. increasingly my concern is the sustainability of a comp with key international elements. And where the currently implemented version seems to lack Australian interests.

It does seem that the Kiwis are offering less of a “don’t argue” to a Trans Tasman, and if this happens it may solve many (but not all) reservations from both sides of the domestic v international discussion.

In the mean time we should be thoroughly investigating what IS under our control. A move to professional “second tier” that is a) Domestic; b) opens a door to NZ

My suspiscion is that we will continue to muddle on the Kiwi skirts as the Kiwis muddle on African skirts.

It doesn't necessarily need to be domestic. Just time zone friendly. I'm more looking at the international side of it as looking to grow into emerging markets. Rugby in a number of the countries I suggest in the Americas is on the periphery of public attention. There are structure in place or being put in place for many of them that will only increase that awareness. Big brands such as the RC nations have the opportunity to grow with them alongside the respective national teams.

Rugby in the SH needs to look for solutions beyond its continuous reliance on set parties in the NH etc. Asia and the Americas offer two compelling opportunities that can be developed over time.

 

[dru]

It doesn't necessarily need to be domestic. Just time zone friendly. I'm more looking at the international side of it as looking to grow into emerging markets. Rugby in a number of the countries I suggest in the Americas is on the periphery of public attention. There are structure in place or being put in place for many of them that will only increase that awareness. Big brands such as the RC nations have the opportunity to grow with them alongside the respective national teams.

Rugby in the SH needs to look for solutions beyond its continuous reliance on set parties in the NH etc. Asia and the Americas offer two compelling opportunities that can be developed over time.

WCR, in the absence of wishful thinking I don’t see how the Americas is time zone friendly - where this means playing during local Aus peak broadcast slots. Each time a game with an Aus team is playing overseas it transfers the economic opportunity overseas. This is meant to offer an alternative commercial advantage - that is proving to be on increasingly shaken foundations.

Let alone the need for sufficient home games to allow our teams a modicum of support in the crazy market that is Aus sport.

I worry that we swap one false dream for another. Better stick with what we know in that case.

 

[Joe King]

The SANZAAR nations should just decide to not play England anymore between World Cups. Still play the other European nations, but not England.