Where to for Super Rugby?

[louie]

Just die then.

Fuck the Brumbies off. As we say in rugby, use it or lose it.

Yeah Ruggo they did use it. They made the final... the definition of using it.

It's not the Brumbies fault some genius thought to put on a final at night in -2 weather after the worst wallabies test series of all time.

 

[wamberal]

Yeah Ruggo they did use it. They made the final. the definition of using it.

It's not the Brumbies fault some genius thought to put on a final at night in -2 weather after the worst wallabies test series of all time.

i don't think there would have been the option to do otherwise, unfortunately.

 

[louie]

During the day would have been ideal for the fans.

 

[Braveheart81]

During the day would have been ideal for the fans.

There was a Raiders home game on Saturday and Sunday is too late as it impacts the winner who had to fly to South Africa.

 

[James Pettifer]

20,000 against the Tahs last year...

But all the crowds are down all around, and the Brumbies aren't the worst of them.

True, but they have fallen off a massive cliff in what is supposed to be a heartland for Rugby. In addition, they are the best of the Australian conference - for Rebels fans, we only won 1 game during the year, it isn't exactly great watching the team continue to suck.

 

[James Pettifer]

But the ARU (and oz rugby) could not continue to afford to prop up 5 Super Rugby teams as figures clear as day with funds given to prop up SRclubs - Rebels and lesser extent Force in particular.

Nah, I disagree. They are getting $20 million more per year than 2 years ago. Surely with some decent centralisation, reduction in expenses and selective pruning of contracts they can save a good $10-15 million a year and keep all 5 teams.

If the ARU are going to prop up teams, then they should be heavily involved in controlling their finances.


But I agree with all of the rest of your quote. We are in a bad position due to some clearly bad decisions and some decisions that looked good at the time but weren't good long term.

 

[Quick Hands]

During the day would have been ideal for the fans.

As super rugby is bascially a made for TV competition, there's almost zero chance of a day time semi-final on the east coast.

 

[Quick Hands]

Yep.... Super Rugby is a dying brand - people have long stopped giving a toss.

But it doesn't mean we can't fix this... as that Crimes article points out - Raiders crowds have gone up (and they're not going to make the finals), and they were getting beaten by the Brumbies for nearly 20 years.

As the article rightly points out, it's not a Canberra problem, it's a rugby problem. People watch the Raiders because they follow the NRL, fewer and fewer of the rusted on rugby people follow or understand super rugby anymore.

I agree that it's fixable, it's just that the fix doesn't involve super rugby IMO.

 

[Quick Hands]

Reds & Tahs crowds have also fallen off a cliff, so they should both go as well?

Maybe the issue lies beyond these specific teams?

I'd be happy if all 5 Aussie teams fell off the super rugby cliff.

 

[dru]

I'd be happy if all 5 Aussie teams fell off the super rugby cliff.

While I agree somewhat, it's an example of why cuttings the 'tabs would have made sense in a convoluted way. The national footprint would have remained. Sydney rugby fans would mostly have found swapping to SS painless. Would not lose rugby in NSW. And funds become available for the SRU.

A B Plan presents either rebuilding NSW in a trans Tasman, or a domestic comp could morph from the SS.

 

[Inside Shoulder]

I'd be happy if all 5 Aussie teams fell off the super rugby cliff.

I think I like that idea

 

[Runner]

Very poor crowd in Canberra with weather etc but also crowd down for the NZ match up in the pouring rain. Solution is to have NZ become a part of Australia again and then drop a few teams.
P.s. and how many were at the AFL. In one game the season crowd for the Waratahs.

 

[wamberal]

Very poor crowd in Canberra with weather etc but also crowd down for the NZ match up in the pouring rain. Solution is to have NZ become a part of Australia again and then drop a few teams.
P.s. and how many were at the AFL. In one game the season crowd for the Waratahs.

Can you talk to the New Zealanders about this, please?

 

[Mr Doug]

A lot has been said during "The Great Australian Super Rugby Elimination Debate" about New South Wales and Queensland being "the traditional Rugby States", and therefore should be exempt from 'extermination'.
I really wonder how much of a "Rugby State" Queensland is in 2017?

After 11/12 State Of Origin Rugby League series wins by Queensland, and the hype and promotion that surrounds both AFL teams (Brisbane Lions, and Gold Coast Suns), plus state-wide support for the round-ball game, it's very hard for our game to get a mention in the Queensland media. When Rugby is mentioned it usually follows NRL, AFL, soccer, golf, netball, basketball, motor racing, swimming, (and other 'seasonal sports')!
Late on Friday night, on ABC Brisbane radio news, there was no mention of the result of the Super Rugby QF between the Brumbies and The 'canes. On Saturday on Chn 7 TV Brisbane morning news there was no mention of this match, nor was there any mention of it on ABC News TV (national broadcast), in the morning bulletin I saw.

Much is said about the standard of our players, our coaches, and our game's corporate management, however, the ARU and the Super Rugby franchises are less than impressive, when it comes to promoting the game of Rugby, (to the general public), certainly here in Queensland.
I've said this on a previous occasion, whilst I was managing the Bond Uni Colts Rugby team, (in the late 1990's), there were 5 Rugby Development Officers for the State of Queensland. At that time there were 25 AFL Development Officers throughout Queensland, promoting the game in schools!
When I was on a Rugby club committee in Central North (NSW), in the 1970's and 80's, the local ABC radio station (2NU Tamworth), was always complaining that they couldn't broadcast results in their Saturday night sports report if the hosting Rugby clubs didn't make the effort to ring through the scores from the day's matches!
When it comes to keeping our code in the media, and therefore, in font of the community, maybe nothing has changed?!

 

[farva]

There are a whole bunch of metrics that the ARU could rank the teams on to decide who gets the cut. Has anyone tried that?

Here is a real rough one that someone can take to pieces if they know better.

Recent Success
Ill take the 2017 standings:
Brumbies
Force
Reds
Tahs
Rebels

Financial Viability
Lets look at major sponsors - Force has the largest then Brumbies I think. Do the Rebels have one yet?
Force
Brumbies
Tahs
Reds
Rebels

Player Numbers in the district
Tahs
Reds
Force
Brumbies
Rebels

Potential for Future Development - state population size
Tahs
Rebels
Reds
Force
Brumbies

Crowd size (2017)
Reds
Tahs
Force
Brumbies
Rebels

Current Wallabies from that district
So looking at players who grew up playing the game in that district as opposed to moved from outside. Today, not 2004.
Tahs
Reds
Force
Brumbies
Rebels

So if we give 5 for the best, 1 for the worst, we have:

Tahs: 24
Reds: 21
Force: 20
Brumbies: 16
Rebels: 9

From these metrics, the Rebels are clearly the lowest scoring, and why the ARU selected the Force and the Rebels and not the Brumbies, Reds and Tahs to be in danger is bizarre.

As I said, please tear it to shreds and lets come up with something that can stand up to challenge.

 

[Rugbynutter39]

Mate not just a QLD thing as usually trying to find rugby news in Sydney papers is knowing going to very back of sports section usually....discussion of rugby in papers dropped off in direct correlation to fans jumping off / turning away from rugby.

The negativity really impacting

 

[I like to watch]

^^^^Good post.
It's an interesting concept, shouldn't future potential have a much heavier weighting than current performance (which also feeds into current crowd figures)
But that brings up the question how you quantify potential.
There are many questions to which there are no definitive answers.
pretty sure the ARU would like a redo on this one.

 

[Rugbynutter39]

If you take for last 10 years for on field success - Brumbies would be head and shoulders above the rest as well. And given such a key metric is number 1 reason I agree they can't be cut and should not be cut. And luckily otherwise they have been so successful as yes on most other metrics would be more likely to be cut.

 

[farva]

If you take for last 10 years for on field success - Brumbies would be head and shoulders above the rest as well. And given such a key metric is number 1 reason I agree they can't be cut and should not be cut. And luckily otherwise they have been so successful as yes on most other metrics would be more likely to be cut.

Sure, and the Brumbies were the top team this year. Does past support matter? To an extent but when you are looking at a long term plan to cut a team, especially when the reason is cost, there are plenty of other reasons to consider. I listed the Brumbies as the top team in the success section. And that is because at the moment they are.

 

[FiveStarStu]

snip

I'll take the bait.

Notwithstanding the fact that the Force have now lost their major sponsor for 2018, financial viability has a lot more to do than just sponsorship. It focuses on your wider ability to trade so is influenced by future outlook of the company and the market.

The financial viability of both the Rebels and the Force has been smashed this year, and is purely theoretical until the ARU make a decision. If I put my Rebels hat on I'd say we were slightly more viable due to the logistics of private ownership providing a barrier to being wound up, but from a neutral standpoint I'd rate them both last. If I were a bank I wouldn't lend to either of them.

Financial Viability
Tahs
Reds
Brumbies
Rebels & Force

---

As for recent success, again it's relative as both teams have historically sucked but since they have both been in the competition the Rebels have sucked less than the Force. Picking a result from one year is counterintuitive to a system intended to choose the best long-term option.

Recent success
Tahs
Reds
Brumbies
Rebels
Force

---

One of the criticisms I really don't get about the Rebels' Wallabies numbers is that they're not real because some players were born overseas. It's strange for several reasons:

1. They're still Wallabies.
2. They were still brought up in the Rebels' professional pathway - they didn't get off a plane and into a gold jersey except for that one time.
3. The Force pathway has been around for long enough to provide a stream of (to your definition) 'home grown' Wallabies for this generation. Until we start playing teenagers the Rebels are unable to compare.

---

Potential for Future Development - state population size: Surely you'd do this based on state population growth instead of current size, in which case the Rebels would be first (and the Brumbies wouldn't qualify for either as they're not a state ).

---

In all, the main incorrect assumption in your list is that all of your points are of equal weight. In doing so you've forgotten who we're dealing with. It is very clear by the fact that this process is still going that the ARU places much greater weight on some factors - financial, broadcast times, legal liability - at the expense of others.

If this were a basic pros/cons list, the Rebels would have been gone within 48 hours, due, no doubt, to the last in first out principle. It's not though, it's an international business with a ton of moving parts and stakeholders. While I am disgusted at the process the ARU have conducted and how they have conducted it, I understand its complexity.

The saddest thing is, I don't think the ARU did, or do.