Ideas for NRC 2015
- Thread starter Hugh Jarse
- Start date
- Status
Rugbynutter39
Michael Lynagh (62)
Cutting teams etc is wrong focus - not saying they might not need to - but first sort out marketing and understand real potential by doing things properly in supporting a new fledgling competition....
For me from value for money perspective, wandering up to see a Sydney stars game with either the family and kids or a couple of mates was unreal....as cheap entry, attacking rugby and relaxed atmosphere...
Just peeved that rugby finally has a great concept but not given it a real chance.....rule changes innovative as the constant going for 3 points with penalties will kill the game long term if not addressed IMO
NRC rule changes on this shows what it could be....just not marketed it to get people to see this
For me from value for money perspective, wandering up to see a Sydney stars game with either the family and kids or a couple of mates was unreal....as cheap entry, attacking rugby and relaxed atmosphere...
Just peeved that rugby finally has a great concept but not given it a real chance.....rule changes innovative as the constant going for 3 points with penalties will kill the game long term if not addressed IMO
NRC rule changes on this shows what it could be....just not marketed it to get people to see this
T
TOCC
Guest
i have more faith in the NRC demonstrating exciting rugby then super rugby does... this needs to be encouraged and marketed accordingly.
RugbyFuture
Lord Logo
to be fair I was told by someone the ARU were treating last years comp as a demo basically and support would be created for 2015.
Wilson
David Codey (61)
Was shitty to see the lack of promotion from the ARU last year, but there is some merit in running that first year at the bare minimum before going all in on the second year - assuming they actually do.
That said there was a lot of more or less free promo they could've done last year but didn't.
That said there was a lot of more or less free promo they could've done last year but didn't.
Rugbynutter39
Michael Lynagh (62)
I actually think behind NRC and rule changes there is something bigger here to reinvigorate rugby...as come on how many of us get so frustrated to see attacking team hitting the line and so close to scoring a try - only to be blown up and watch some dude take a kick for goal. I don't pay money to watch guys kick for penalty goals! who does???????
Rugby has been playing in 18th Century rules for what should be a 21st century code other codes like cricket have already learnt from in re-invigorating itself to appeal to modern audiences e.g cricket introducing new and evolving concepts outside of traditional test cricket e.g. first 50 over cricket then moving to T20 and big bash which helped to reinvigorate cricket.
Lets face it rugby a laggard in terms of change - Probably reason why rugby league evolved from rugby as code too inflexible to move away from its traditions.
Rugby has great things to excite crowds....the penalty thing and constant kick for penalty goals is not what crowds want. IRC is the wake up to this but no marketing to promote what is different. As watched England and Ireland game and what could have been great spectacle was limited by attacking raids on try line overtaken by kicks for penalty goals. I like most getting frustrated when constant good attacking raids on the line get overtaken by kicks for penalty goals.
Truly believe NRC on to something with rule changes - just needs some support behind it as key to rugby's survival in what is an increasingly competitive landscape for fans attention....Rugby will not survive as major football code in this country unless it adapts and evolves its product to meet evolving fans needs.
Rugby has been playing in 18th Century rules for what should be a 21st century code other codes like cricket have already learnt from in re-invigorating itself to appeal to modern audiences e.g cricket introducing new and evolving concepts outside of traditional test cricket e.g. first 50 over cricket then moving to T20 and big bash which helped to reinvigorate cricket.
Lets face it rugby a laggard in terms of change - Probably reason why rugby league evolved from rugby as code too inflexible to move away from its traditions.
Rugby has great things to excite crowds....the penalty thing and constant kick for penalty goals is not what crowds want. IRC is the wake up to this but no marketing to promote what is different. As watched England and Ireland game and what could have been great spectacle was limited by attacking raids on try line overtaken by kicks for penalty goals. I like most getting frustrated when constant good attacking raids on the line get overtaken by kicks for penalty goals.
Truly believe NRC on to something with rule changes - just needs some support behind it as key to rugby's survival in what is an increasingly competitive landscape for fans attention....Rugby will not survive as major football code in this country unless it adapts and evolves its product to meet evolving fans needs.
wamberal
Phil Kearns (64)
Very difficult to square the circle.
Yes, the Laws of the Game are not keeping up with the needs of the Australian sporting marketplace.
However, if we tamper with the Laws unilaterally we are in danger of killing the game for sure.
The main thing we have going for us is that rugby has a genuine international dimension. Local rules are a chimera. They might (or might not) lead to a minor flutter of interest, but at the expense of reducing our elite player pool's ability to compete in international contests. We would start promoting players who are good at "our game" but not good at the international game.
So we would have even less success in the international arena than we do now.
That would mean less sponsorship, lower attendances, lower ratings, you name it. The international level is our cash cow, it would be stupid in the extreme to strangle it.
Very few here are old enough to remember the "Australian dispensation", which was a local law, recognised by the IRB (in its previous incarnation) which allowed domestic games to be played under rule which prohibited kicking the ball out on the full except from behind the 22 metre (25 yard) line.
Eventually, of course, that rule was adopted internationally.
I mention that as an example of where, properly handled, local ideas can become part of the game.
However, unilateral action will go nowhere. We need to be doing all we can at the official, international, level to ensure that the Laws are update and, particularly, that the match officials understand that they are there to ensure that the game is played in a way that is open, comprehensible, and appealing to a mass audience.
For too long international rugby has functioned more like a cult than like a popular religion, to coin a phrase.
The IRB needs to understand that it is in the entertainment business, competing with lots of alternative products, not only sport of course.
Yes, the Laws of the Game are not keeping up with the needs of the Australian sporting marketplace.
However, if we tamper with the Laws unilaterally we are in danger of killing the game for sure.
The main thing we have going for us is that rugby has a genuine international dimension. Local rules are a chimera. They might (or might not) lead to a minor flutter of interest, but at the expense of reducing our elite player pool's ability to compete in international contests. We would start promoting players who are good at "our game" but not good at the international game.
So we would have even less success in the international arena than we do now.
That would mean less sponsorship, lower attendances, lower ratings, you name it. The international level is our cash cow, it would be stupid in the extreme to strangle it.
Very few here are old enough to remember the "Australian dispensation", which was a local law, recognised by the IRB (in its previous incarnation) which allowed domestic games to be played under rule which prohibited kicking the ball out on the full except from behind the 22 metre (25 yard) line.
Eventually, of course, that rule was adopted internationally.
I mention that as an example of where, properly handled, local ideas can become part of the game.
However, unilateral action will go nowhere. We need to be doing all we can at the official, international, level to ensure that the Laws are update and, particularly, that the match officials understand that they are there to ensure that the game is played in a way that is open, comprehensible, and appealing to a mass audience.
For too long international rugby has functioned more like a cult than like a popular religion, to coin a phrase.
The IRB needs to understand that it is in the entertainment business, competing with lots of alternative products, not only sport of course.
Pass it to Dunning!
Bob Loudon (25)
How about this for an idea? Adelaide does have an NRC team next year, but like the Country Eagles, they train in Sydney and fly over for games. Or Brisbane since they probably have enough players for a third side.
Maybe the Sydney Stars can relocate. I don't like leaving Sydney's east without an NRC team but still. The Adelaide NRC game between the Rams and the Spirit outsold all the Stars games. And that was without a local team on the field.
Maybe the Sydney Stars can relocate. I don't like leaving Sydney's east without an NRC team but still. The Adelaide NRC game between the Rams and the Spirit outsold all the Stars games. And that was without a local team on the field.
AussieDominance
Trevor Allan (34)
Regarding your point above the Sydney stars is an interesting concept in itself. I could never see them having a large supporter base. But the benefit they have in theoretically being Sydney Uni is obviously very large.
Somehow they need to create a new band of supporters that aren't aligned through SUFC and this I think will be critical to the franchise success.
Somehow they need to create a new band of supporters that aren't aligned through SUFC and this I think will be critical to the franchise success.
GunnerDownUnder
Jim Clark (26)
I still think we should copy the ITM cup and have 2 divisions of 7 teams, play same amount of games also (ie inter division and same division) have a shield that works the same way also.
Force support two teams - Spirit and SA team
Rebels support two teams - Rising and TAS or 2nd team based in VIC
Brumbies support two teams - Vikings and ???
Reds support four teams - 2 in Brisbane, Gold Coast based Bond team, Country QLD
Tahs support four teams - NSW Country, Rays, Rams, Stars (change name though)
I also think expanding Shute Shield to 16 teams would help - add Newcastle team, Illawarra team, Cockatoos team and Balmain.
Four teams then aligned to NRC team.
Force support two teams - Spirit and SA team
Rebels support two teams - Rising and TAS or 2nd team based in VIC
Brumbies support two teams - Vikings and ???
Reds support four teams - 2 in Brisbane, Gold Coast based Bond team, Country QLD
Tahs support four teams - NSW Country, Rays, Rams, Stars (change name though)
I also think expanding Shute Shield to 16 teams would help - add Newcastle team, Illawarra team, Cockatoos team and Balmain.
Four teams then aligned to NRC team.
WorkingClassRugger
David Codey (61)
A mass expansion of the NRC would probably be a little unworkable in the near future. Though I do like the expansion of the Shute Shield to include a couple of the nearby Country regions. Illawarra, Newcastle and Central Coast plus probably Balmain.
This would allow for a restructure of the Shield. The could either play each other once then the top 8 play elimination finals for a total of 18 weeks or they could split it into two pools and play a home and away structure in each pool before going to a 6 team finals as we have now for a total of 17 weeks.
Joe King
Dave Cowper (27)
I'm not a huge follower of league, but I often turn it on for a bit on Friday night because it's on FTA. I realise that it's on FTA because it's popular enough, but I'm just wondering how much being on FTA actually adds to it's popularity. I'm wondering how many people actually start to get into league because they can watch it on FTA. And I'm wondering what would happen if the NRC was on FTA on an alternative channel on Friday night. Maybe I'm just biased, but why wouldn't a FTA channel take a punt, and make something of it? From the games I saw, the law variations used in 2014 made it such an exciting spectacle to watch.
Omar Comin'
Chilla Wilson (44)
So the lesson is that we can demonstrate at a fairly high level the impact of small law changes - and if the consequences are mostly positive then that will increase the chances of there being changes at international level.
boyo
Mark Ella (57)
Omar Comin'
Chilla Wilson (44)
I think popularity is more to do with historical factors. AFL has been on FTA in Sydney for ages and it has rarely got big audiences and it certainly hasn't got anywhere near the NRL.
English Premier League is all on Pay TV in the UK and it just keeps getting bigger and bigger.
English Premier League is all on Pay TV in the UK and it just keeps getting bigger and bigger.
GunnerDownUnder
Jim Clark (26)
Match of the day is on prime male viewing time on free to air and always has been
League and afl are bigger here because to be honest thy engage with the public in a far better and wider way
Very few people that turn up to Union dont have a direct link to the game ie play past or present, have son, father, brother, partner that plays past or present but league and afl crowds have a large proportion that just support a team
League and afl are bigger here because to be honest thy engage with the public in a far better and wider way
Very few people that turn up to Union dont have a direct link to the game ie play past or present, have son, father, brother, partner that plays past or present but league and afl crowds have a large proportion that just support a team
T
TOCC
Guest
I think you could argue that a large part of the 'public engagement' comes from been on FTA on one of the major commercial tv channels for the last 2 decades.
But i think there are other threads which specifically the reasons for Rugby Unions battle for tv ratings and community exposure. Getting the NRC on FTA is a nice idea, but its not a realistic one at this stage, Foxtel holds the option to extend the contract and even if they didn't, the NRC didn't generate good enough ratings to spark the interest of any of the FTA networks.
WorkingClassRugger
David Codey (61)
The fan engagement side of it is probably the biggest part of it. The likes of the NRL and AFL are very active in this regard.
Omar Comin'
Chilla Wilson (44)
Yeah, but Match of the Day is a highlights show not live sport. Just pointing out how different it is to the situation here where the biggest games each weekend in the NRL and AFL are on FTA.
Who knows, that might not always be the case.
- Status