• Welcome to the Green and Gold Rugby forums. As you can see we've upgraded the forums to new software. Your old logon details should work, just click the 'Login' button in the top right.

Where to for Super Rugby?

Status
Not open for further replies.

Rebels3

Jim Lenehan (48)
The proposal in the Roar wouldn’t work, as the tier below the 2 teams would require players to disperse every year to other areas of the country, packing up their lives and families each time and then moving back to Sydney and Brisbane. It would be a nightmare from a player perspective and lead to more players moving overseas looking for stability.

On another topic, I am amazed how many people now believe less teams = greater cohesion = better wallabies. Like in anything there is a level where too many teams ruins cohesion but equally too few teams ruins opportunity. So you might get greater cohesion but retaining less talent. Back in 2008 when Ireland were looking at their governance model they seriously thought about cutting Connacht, however the report commissioned came back with the following recommendation.

“At any given time, 25 to 30% of those players are injured in the pro game. At any given time, each team is allowed six international players max, non-Irish qualified players who are absolutely vital to the success. But four by six is 24 players. And then with your 25% out injured, if you have 100 players and 24 foreign, that’s 76 to choose from.

“So if you have only got 100 players, which effectively is three squads of 30, your Irish team base comes down to 50 fit players from which to run your international programme. Add another few people that aren’t on form and then you are heading into Scotland territory, of trying to run a game with two teams. Very simply, if you go from four to three, at any given time, you are going to have in the order of 50 to 60 players that your national coach can select from. There is very little room for error to have a squad. That assumes those 50 players are on form, and it also assumes that we have got depth with those players and the right players are available.

“When you do the maths, Ireland needed four squads of 30 in the professional game, because that gives you the wriggle room to play at the level.



We have clear proof in the Jaguares that less isn’t more and cohesion at the expense of opportunity isn’t ideal. Argentina btw during the Jaguares era have just experienced their longest losing streak in history. South Africa (who’s Super Rugby results are pretty similar to Australia’s) has just won the World Cup since expanding their professional base to 6 teams.

Here is the article on the report and the guy involved in it. The Australian system is even mentioned in it, stating the the Irish used to have a system very similar to Aus and it needed to change because of the issues with it. It’a a very relevant piece on reform at a professional level. I’d also say if RA wanted a consultant to work with, he might be the guy given his history across numerous countries in the game

https://amp.irishexaminer.com/sport...onnacht-433578.html?__twitter_impression=true
 

Omar Comin'

Chilla Wilson (44)
I think if you go with this option of 2 or 3 elite teams plus a separate semi-pro national competition that the latter needs to be bigger than 7 teams. I think it should be more like 12 teams and go through the full length of the season (21 rounds plus finals). Something along the lines of 5 NSW teams, 3 QLD, 1 Canberra, 1 Perth, 1 Melbourne and maybe a team from the Pacific Islands, or even a 2nd Melbourne team or one from Adelaide. Could be a mix of existing premier clubs that wish to step up, new entities and the likes of the Force and Rebels. But they need to be legitimate clubs IMO, not reserve grade Waratahs and Reds.

Such a competition should have decent reach and focus on building tribalism and community connection. Thats harder to do with only 7 or 8 teams as they won't be local enough.
 

KOB1987

Rod McCall (65)
I've read the Roar article and your proposal of condensing 4 teams into 2. But tell me what I'm missing as a Queensland fan living in Brisbane. Under your idea of combining the Queensland and NSW elite teams, how can I expect to see more than 1 'top level' game a month?

Using the proposed competitions that the Roar article has mentioned, but incorporating the combined QLD/NSW team. I, a simple fan of the game, would have to follow the 'Pacific Pro 10' competition, where I get to watch my combined team. I then have to follow a 'Qld Country' team in the 'NRC 7' who will need to share games in Brisbane, around Queensland and around the nation.

Remember, the Pacific Pro 10 runs from February to July and the NRC 7 March to July.

It's too convoluted. How can you honestly expect someone from outside the game to know what's going on with two separate competitions running at the same time.

But perhaps I'm just not seeing something.
Ok I get your point, and that’s probably the logic behind his proposal having one team based in Qld and one in NSW. Canberra just isn’t big enough and Melbourne and Perth just have to accept they are still emerging markets.
 

waiopehu oldboy

Stirling Mortlock (74)
Surely you'd reinstate the Force & give the guys who headed East the option of returning to WA, then fold what's left of Rebs into the Brumbies (can't see why on earth you'd shut down what's comfortably your most successful franchise) but with Rebs retaining a presence in NRC or whatever succeeds it. So four Aus teams, five NZ & a Fijian team, operating out of Western Sydney until it becomes practicable for them to base themselves in Suva (which likely won't be until 2022). If things in NH get to the point where the exodus of SH players reduces or reverses, then you could look at bringing the Rebs back up from NRC.
 

Rugbynutter39

Michael Lynagh (62)
I think if you go with this option of 2 or 3 elite teams plus a separate semi-pro national competition that the latter needs to be bigger than 7 teams. I think it should be more like 12 teams and go through the full length of the season (21 rounds plus finals). Something along the lines of 5 NSW teams, 3 QLD, 1 Canberra, 1 Perth, 1 Melbourne and maybe a team from the Pacific Islands, or even a 2nd Melbourne team or one from Adelaide. Could be a mix of existing premier clubs that wish to step up, new entities and the likes of the Force and Rebels. But they need to be legitimate clubs IMO, not reserve grade Waratahs and Reds.

Such a competition should have decent reach and focus on building tribalism and community connection. Thats harder to do with only 7 or 8 teams as they won't be local enough.
So back to national club championship
 

Mr Wobbly

Alan Cameron (40)
Regarding that Roar article. It reads to me like someone has come up with a conclusion and then an argument to support it. Who are the "influential rugby heads" that he consulted? None are named or quoted. Neither does he cite any successful examples of a similar structure in any sport, anywhere, to what he has proposed.

Kudos to the guy for at least coming up with something, but... I don't see anyone much getting behind his third rate NRC7 idea.

The current Third Tier competition, the NRC, is paid for entirely by Foxtel. The Super Rugby players aren't paid extra for NRC games and the club players get basically a token fee. There is no sponsorship money for third tier competitions anywhere. The NRC hasn't had a sponsor since Buildcorp pulled the pin in 2016.

How will this change with this new plan except become worse? Unless RA are in a position to foot the bill for the whole thing or they can find private owners for the clubs - (seriously, who would buy a team playing in a third tier competition?).

All of the Super Rugby players will leave Melbourne and Canberra, those that don't make the cut at NSW or QLD will go overseas or leave the game, y'know for somewhere they can be paid. Sure, every so often a player like a Jordan Uelese or a Rob Valetini will emerge from a local comp but where do they go? As young guns they will struggle to get a game in a stacked QLD or NSW team. What do they do, stay in Melbourne or Canberra and basically play for free until they're ready? The Force might be OK as long as they can rely on Forrest paying their bills and assuming they would prefer to play in this comp rather than GRR.

Who will coach these sides, will Wessells or McKellar and their respective coaching teams stay put? who will pay the staff, who will pay for promotions, who will pay the air fares and all the other associated costs?

I can almost hear the Kiwi commentators now talking about this..... Aussie have come up with a format they think they can win every year and want us to play in it..... LOL..... so the Wallabies can be better... LOLOLOL.

If was to go ahead, with our two teams and NZs five one thing is for sure, Australia will be NZs junior partner for ever, and ever, and ever.

Taking a precise of Darwin's Theory of Cohesiveness and extrapolating that to meaning that two teams is better than four (or five) is ridiculous.

The author claims "there is solid evidence that concentrating talent and creating a cohesive environment is a significant indicator of long-term success". I would like to see this evidence, where would I find it..... in Scotland or Italy?

Rebels3 pointed out that the Saffas have six teams, but that's not quite right. A big chunk of the Springboks don't play for any of those six teams, they're spread out all over the place. The Poms have 12 teams in the Premiership and they're going OK too. All six of the countries ranked above the Wallabies have at least four professional teams.

TL;DR: The format(s) suggested in that Roar article is(are) total bollocks!
 

waiopehu oldboy

Stirling Mortlock (74)
The Southern Brumbies always did make the most sense- unfortunately it would also take courage.

As was mentioned at the time, they cut the team they could rather than the one they should have. Personally I wouldn't cut the Rebs (but would bring back the Force & get Twiggy inside the tent), but if the way forward is four teams only then that's how I'd do it. When are the participation licences next up for renewal?

On the subject of an NRC-level comp, how practical would it be to have a pan-Sydney & a NSW Country team, and a SEQ & a (truly) Queensland Country one? Presumably Sydney & possibly SEQ would have an excess of players, maybe these could go into a draft of some kind?
 

Forcefield

Ken Catchpole (46)
The NRC7 is a stupid idea. Not enough people care about the NRC (not having a go at it, just commenting on its popularity). Why would we care about the NRC 7? I don't see it surviving. You can't have a second tier like that unless it is linked somehow to the top one. E.g. promotion/relegatipn (which I am not advocating for) or alignment between tiers.
 

KOB1987

Rod McCall (65)
Yes having thought about this further, I think we need to either go full blown domestic comp, or a reformatted TT/Pacific Super comp. One option that could work is a domestic comp and a shorter TT/rep season, but I’m not sure how to fit that into a season. Whatever way we go it depends on a) funding, and to a lesser extent b) what NZ want to do. At least we will likely get to test drive a domestic comp later this year.
 

The Honey Badger

Jim Lenehan (48)
MDiddy should rock up to RA with his proposal and his doco when he’s finished it.

The variation I would make would be not to call the two top sides NSW and Qld. Rather, to begin with amalgamate the Reds and Waratahs players and call them the Northern somethings, and the Brumbies and Rebels players and call them the Southern somethings. The former play all their home games out of NSW and Qld, and the latter out of ACT and Vic. Note this is not a merging of franchises, these are new fully professional outfits.

Next, scrap what he is calling the Junior Waratahs and Junior Reds, and simply call them the Waratahs and Reds. The rest of the NRC 7 (semi pro comp) is as per his proposal except i’d find an 8th team. The players in the two pro teams are spread evenly over the Aussie NRC teams, as close to their origins as is practical.

You are inventing another whole tier. cant see that gaining much traction
 

Omar Comin'

Chilla Wilson (44)
One option that could work is a domestic comp and a shorter TT/rep season, but I’m not sure how to fit that into a season.

You could do something like a 12-15 round domestic comp (6-8 teams), followed by either a short champions league, or some kind of sub-test rep tournament. Like an origin series with NSW, QLD, South Island and North Island (or however you'd best split NZ into 2 or 3 rep teams).
 

liquor box

Greg Davis (50)

However, there is room to develop around this rugby package. Former Wallaby Ben Alexander has already started an open forum on ways that a dynamic streaming platform owned and operated by Rugby Australia could capitalise on old and new content to provide a future revenue source. The revolution is both physical and digital.

I have long thought this is the best option, especially if it is combined with free to air.

One game a week on free to air with all other games plus rugby related content in a streaming service.

Maybe if you buy a membership or attend a game live then you get a season pass (or discount) on the streaming service.
 

liquor box

Greg Davis (50)
I think an NRC type competition need to be before the Super Rugby replacement competition.

I would probably cut back to having QLD, NSW and ACT in any Trans Tasman competition.

QLD have 2 x NRC teams, NSW have 2 x NRC teams, ACT have 2 x ACT teams.

I would have a a five week competition for the NRC, each second year you alternate the home or away game. Then a 2 week finals. Week 1 would be 1 v 4 and 2 v 3. Winners go through the grand final.

Have a two week gap before the Trans Tasman competition, one week could be the Australian 7's leg (if possible on the calendar), the second week could be a Junior Test, Women's Test and maybe previous seasons best two club sides.

Each weekend there is three games on TV.



I would then go to some type of Trans Tasman (or Asian Pacific) Competition.

I am a fan of short competitions like the NFL where every game is absolutely vital if you want to make the finals as you don't have time to work your way back into contention.

I would probably look at 3 x Australian teams, 5 x NZ teams, 1 x Japan and 1 x Fiji in the competition with a 9 week season alternating home and away every second season. Finals over three weeks. 1 v 4, 2 x 3. Highest placed winner gets a bye to the final. Lowest placed loser misses out and the two remaining play to be in the final.

It is a very short season.

Due to the short season I would have a Test against Fiji and Japan every year before Bledisloe Cup and Rugby Championship.
 

hoggy

Trevor Allan (34)
The problem with that approach is a lot of not much at all, you asking fans to engage with a bunch of short tournaments. It will be very hard to engage in any sort of meaningful tribalism on such short periods of time, or take forever to build.

For example your NRC team is going to have what 2 home games for the year, whats the point. It has always been hard for rugby fans here to attach themselves to something meaningful, lots of content but all over the place.
 

Bandar

Bob Loudon (25)
Need to have the one team support playing for a full season. Asking people to support multiple teams for a series of competitions won't attract interest.

Personally I think we need an 8 team domestic competition running for 16 rounds (everyone gets 2 byes). During this season there are a further 6 byes to play Champions Cup and the Also Ran's Cup (we get 4 teams in each). That is a total of 21 rounds plus finals for each comp.

It seems to work OK in Europe...

My Southern Hemisphere Comps

Australia
ACT Brumbies, Melbourne Rebels, NSW Waratahs, QLD Reds, Western Force & Western Sydney Rams with Fiji Drua & Japan Sunwolves

South Africa
Free State Cheaters, Gauteng Lions, Kimberly Griquas, KwaZulu-Natal Sharks, Northern Gauteng Bulls, Southern Kings & Western Province Stormers with the Namabian Welwitschias

New Zealand
Auckland Blues, BOP, Christchurch Crusaders, Dunedin Highlanders, Hamilton Chiefs & Wellington Hurricanes with Manuma Samoa & Tonga Sea-Eagles

SLAR
Cafeteros (Colombia), Corinthians (Brazil), Ceibos (Argentina), Jaguares (Argentina), Olimpia Lions (Paraguay), Penarol (Uraguay), Rosario (Argentina) & Selknam (Chile)
 

Rebels3

Jim Lenehan (48)
Need to have the one team support playing for a full season. Asking people to support multiple teams for a series of competitions won't attract interest.

Personally I think we need an 8 team domestic competition running for 16 rounds (everyone gets 2 byes). During this season there are a further 6 byes to play Champions Cup and the Also Ran's Cup (we get 4 teams in each). That is a total of 21 rounds plus finals for each comp.

It seems to work OK in Europe.

My Southern Hemisphere Comps

Australia
ACT Brumbies, Melbourne Rebels, NSW Waratahs, QLD Reds, Western Force & Western Sydney Rams with Fiji Drua & Japan Sunwolves

South Africa
Free State Cheaters, Gauteng Lions, Kimberly Griquas, KwaZulu-Natal Sharks, Northern Gauteng Bulls, Southern Kings & Western Province Stormers with the Namabian Welwitschias

New Zealand
Auckland Blues, BOP, Christchurch Crusaders, Dunedin Highlanders, Hamilton Chiefs & Wellington Hurricanes with Manuma Samoa & Tonga Sea-Eagles

SLAR
Cafeteros (Colombia), Corinthians (Brazil), Ceibos (Argentina), Jaguares (Argentina), Olimpia Lions (Paraguay), Penarol (Uraguay), Rosario (Argentina) & Selknam (Chile)
This is the model that the most successful sport in the world uses in every competition. Infact you are at risk of losing fifa membership if you don’t have this model.

It’s also the model the European Rugby sides use.

I’d probably remove the Japanese side and let them have their own qualifiers from their own domestic top league
 

Quick Hands

David Wilson (68)
Need to have the one team support playing for a full season. Asking people to support multiple teams for a series of competitions won't attract interest.

Personally I think we need an 8 team domestic competition running for 16 rounds (everyone gets 2 byes). During this season there are a further 6 byes to play Champions Cup and the Also Ran's Cup (we get 4 teams in each). That is a total of 21 rounds plus finals for each comp.

It seems to work OK in Europe.

My Southern Hemisphere Comps

Australia
ACT Brumbies, Melbourne Rebels, NSW Waratahs, QLD Reds, Western Force & Western Sydney Rams with Fiji Drua & Japan Sunwolves


New Zealand
Auckland Blues, BOP, Christchurch Crusaders, Dunedin Highlanders, Hamilton Chiefs & Wellington Hurricanes with Manuma Samoa & Tonga Sea-Eagles

I wouldn't use NSW, Qld or ACT in team names - Sydney, Brisbane and Canberra would work better.

I wouldn't have Japan involved at this point. Travel is huge and adds to the expense.

NZ have the strongest rugby infrastructure and player base, so I can't really see the logic in the putting Tonga and Samoa there. If they are involved they should be in an Australian competition.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top