Where to for Super Rugby?

[sunnyboys]

So my question to Super Rugby proponents is this... and has always been this.

What level of crowd attendance and viewer numbers should RA consider acceptable for Super Rugby?

and what levels are financially sustainable for both state and national union?

Does it matter that the comp isn't watched or supported by a large majority of the rugby fan base? (700k+ watched the third test v ireland and the next week Super Rugby games were pulling less than 70k)

If this is acceptable, then we can pretty much refer to Super Rugby (in oz) as a development comp (much like NRC is) as opposed to it being a drawcard fan engagement comp.

personally i find that a truly sad result.


and yes apologies, on previous post i used 200 as the pro start date some reason!

 

[half]

Ok half, I am probably taking my idea from what I have seen at occasional soccer games I attend, generally junior I admit , and I only go because my mate that works for me sons both play. At all the games I have been to I have found the proportion of expats (or perhaps the accents) to be pretty high. Even quite a few of the clubs (around here anyway) seem to be considered (and by themselves) as say Greek, Italian etc etc clubs, which kind of leads me to think it is so. I in no way playing down soccer and it's importance in sport as I do truly believe it is the true world game, and probably is a sleeping giant here (and in NZ) just I not sure I have seen too much evidence it is as big as some say. I know how it surged in NZ during the 80s (and still more play soccer than rugby in NZ) but still seems to rank as a minority sport there for some reason. Same as here, although a lot of people could probably not know to many Wallabies, I don't know anyone personally (apart from the one mate and then I not sure about him) that can name any Socceroos apart from maybe Tim Cahill.

I not brushing soccer off half, not by any means, just giving an opinion on what I see. hell I can see how Aus rugby is gone backwards at the rate of knots too, when I first moved here I really thought it was a pretty strong game.

Dan

Thanks for the reply.

I don't want to get into a massive debate, especially as I posted it was not so much about the subject at hand, more the process of the decision making.

Why I am so interested in the decision making process is because much of my career has been analysing data and trends, and I have had some very interesting clients who work in this area as well.

The key when looking at something is to take a dis-passionate view of what you are looking at. Let facts and trends be you'er guide.

Key to the decision making process is choosing what data and trends to analysis. Further from what sources does your information come from i.e. is their built in bias in the data.

Your analysis of some kids game where many of the parents have non Aussies ascents is without trying too offend, too small a data set and secondly the new accents actually means they have a broader base which rugby struggles to attract.

My fear is much of the decision making process in many areas of management uses this kind of analysis.

 

[Braveheart81]

It's not really a question of being a Super Rugby proponent. It's more about weighing up the options and choosing the best of them, even if that option isn't ideal.

There's no doubt Super Rugby needs to make changes. It is struggling everywhere. Ultimately I think it will end up being a predominantly Trans Tasman comp.

It does matter that a lot of the rugby fan base isn't engaged but what would engage them en masse? Test rugby does bring all the rugby fans together that are disparately following Super Rugby, club rugby, schoolboy rugby etc.

Without a huge influx of money, a long domestic competition wouldn't be able to afford all our best players and what standard would it be then? Why would people who aren't engaged with Super Rugby or NRC watch it?

 

[Dan54]

Oh yep half, my opinion was based just on what I have seen and heard with the few people I know that are involved in soccer, by no means scientific mate!! But just discussing this very issue this morning with a couple of chippies on site, who know my sidekick through soccer, and they are adamant that soccer would be a real minority sport after teenage level without expats. Anyway thats neither here nor there as you say, the only other thing I have really looked at for soccer is the crowds apparently are averaging lower than super rugby. But anyway the thrust of my argument was and is that I doubt whether anyone would consider A league was anything but a second string comp in world soccer scale ( at best) and do we want Aus rugby players to be in same situation? Where like Soccer you would have to make up a test team with almost all overseas based players? Does anyone in their wildest imagination dream that Aus could field a competitive soccer team from A league players?
It's not a dig at soccer, or saying Aus need the kiwis to stay pertinent in world rugby, just saying they need strong international comps for state teams too, with anyone!

 

[The Honey Badger]

Australia (2-2) are equal with New Zealand (3-1) for RWC final appearances. The other three competitors, at this stage, are England (1-2), France (0-3) and South Africa (2-0). Australia would've only held the record outright between their appearing in 2003 final and England appearing in the 2007 final.

EDIT: To make a quick and shitty (somewhat) visual record:

1987: FRA (1), NZL (1)
1991: AUS (1), ENG (1), FRA (1), NZL (1)
1995: NZL (2), AUS (1), ENG (1), FRA (1), SAF (1)
1999: AUS (2), FRA (2), NZL (2), ENG (1), SAF (1)
2003: AUS (3), ENG (2), FRA (2), NZL (2), SAF (1)
2007: AUS (3), ENG (3), FRA (2), NZL (2), SAF (2)
2011: AUS (3), ENG (3), FRA (3), NZL (3), SAF (2)
2015: AUS (4), NZL (4), ENG (3), FRA (3), SAF (2)

I hope 1 more nation can get into that elite group next year (Ireland).

So the point is, we are not too shabby. At least by this measure at international level.

If Foley had his kicking boots on, the Bled would be in the cupboard now.


IMO, it is way more important for the long term health of the game to build a competition that is supported by the masses.

The standard of that comp is immaterial, really doesn't matter. Bums on seats and eyeballs on screens, has got to be the priority. Get that, you have funding.

Most of us don't like the South African involment in Super. Its huge negative to the product. Its not time zone friendly.

AUS needs to go it alone.

Sent from my MHA-L09 using Tapatalk

 

[WorkingClassRugger]

I hope 1 more nation can get into that elite group next year (Ireland).

So the point is, we are not too shabby. At least by this measure at international level.

If Foley had his kicking boots on, the Bled would be in the cupboard now.


IMO, it is way more important for the long term health of the game to build a competition that is supported by the masses.

The standard of that comp is immaterial, really doesn't matter. Bums on seats and eyeballs on screens, has got to be the priority. Get that, you have funding.

Most of us don't like the South African involment in Super. Its huge negative to the product. Its not time zone friendly.

AUS needs to go it alone.

Sent from my MHA-L09 using Tapatalk

We cannot even hold onto the assumption that if for nothing else that maintaining the current brand identities is all that worthwhile any more. Such is the damage. I'd love for RA to get really brave with the NRC and shift it's window further back until after the NRL and AFL finals series and play it in spring/early summer and test the waters in that slot. Market the bloody thing and see what we get. If it achieves nothing then fine. At least we tried something.

 

[barbarian]

If this is acceptable, then we can pretty much refer to Super Rugby (in oz) as a development comp (much like NRC is) as opposed to it being a drawcard fan engagement comp.

Nobody thinks the current situation is acceptable. I think the debate here has moved well past that.

The question is whether the proposed alternatives are any better than the current situation.
.

 

[half]

Nobody thinks the current situation is acceptable. I think the debate here has moved well past that.

The question is whether the proposed alternatives are any better than the current situation.
.

Nail Head Bar.

The debate we need to have, is alternative solutions, mine is to introduce private capital to fund and run a new competition, glad to listen to other ideas or whats wrong with my suggestion.

Dan, you have totally missed my point, it has little almost nothing to do with the subject matter your discussing i.e how big or not so big is soccer in Australia, its about how you arrive at your conclusion i.e. the decision making process and what analysis is it based on.

 

[sunnyboys]

and i think "better" is a truly subjective aspiration - and as result this thread has as many pages as does! and that's all well and good. none of us here (as far as i can tell) are in a position to actually make a call on any of this...

from reading every different opinion on this issue over many years now, its pretty clear that uncovering "better" probably wont happen without a leap of faith - how big that leap is varies depending on the ideas discussed. and how much are you willing to risk on the chance of uncovering "better". and that makes it really difficult for administrators to walk away from current revenue streams on the promise of others.

For me the 3 biggest issues needed to be over come for the Feb/Mar to July period (thinking of 2020 calendar here) are:

1. Pay TV
2. Maladministration by state unions - which is reflected in match results.
3. Match scheduling - gaps between home games/leaving prime time slots empty etc.

Overcome these and Super Rugby would look much healthier. and we might not even have to think about what "better" might look like.

Actually, does anyone think they could get a comp played during march-July to be a success whilst shown solely on Pay TV? I don't think there is any competition design that can overcome that hurdle.

 

[Rugbynutter39]

There is an easy first best solution for super rugby that could work which is to ensure equalisation of teams participating by allowing players who play in the comp to be eligible for their national team regardless of which team they play for but to impose some control by quota's on how many marquee players you can have.

Why do we need that? For simple reason professional rugby in this country competes against well funded and strongly supported football codes (AFL, NRL and A-league) who are unencumbered by cross border issues and can better ensure measures to allow for equalisation of teams and uncertainty of outcome. The latter is critical for any successful sporting competition and fan interest. The problem is when a country like NZ has a strong purple patch and period of dominance (which gone on for long time) and there is not the option to add more NZ teams etc it kills interest in the game in our country in what is a highly competitive football landscape and people gravitate to other codes in oz which have better equalisation of teams and uncertainty of outcome.

That is why Super Rugby will never work in its current form in this country unless their is a preparedness to have a more open borders policy. Twiggy has recognised this in trying to create WSR with marquee concept and his push to try and get oz players eligible for wallabies for any WSR team they play for. Wake up this is the only way Super Rugby can have a future in this country as otherwise professional rugby will continue to diminish into insignificance (pretty close to that now)! This is the reality one must accept and really not that hard to see as stats on fans leaving by the truckload over the years (Game attendance + TV ratings) in this country is clear evidence that this is unrefutable.

 

[Braveheart81]

There is an easy first best solution for super rugby that could work which is to ensure equalisation of teams participating by allowing players who play in the comp to be eligible for their national team regardless of which team they play for but to impose some control by quota's on how many marquee players you can have.

Why do we need that? For simple reason professional rugby in this country competes against well funded and strongly supported football codes (AFL, NRL and A-league) who are unencumbered by cross border issues and can better ensure measures to allow for equalisation of teams and uncertainty of outcome. The latter is critical for any successful sporting competition and fan interest. The problem is when a country like NZ has a strong purple patch and period of dominance (which gone on for long time) and there is not the option to add more NZ teams etc it kills interest in the game in our country in what is a highly competitive football landscape and people gravitate to other codes in oz which have better equalisation of teams and uncertainty of outcome.

That is why Super Rugby will never work in its current form in this country unless their is a preparedness to have a more open borders policy. Twiggy has recognised this in trying to create WSR with marquee concept and his push to try and get oz players eligible for wallabies for any WSR team they play for. Wake up this is the only way Super Rugby can have a future in this country as otherwise professional rugby will continue to diminish into insignificance (pretty close to that now)! This is the reality one must accept and really not that hard to see as stats on fans leaving by the truckload over the years (Game attendance + TV ratings) in this country is clear evidence that this is unrefutable.

What makes you think this would achieve anything more than our teams filling the bottom half of their roster with New Zealanders and potentially a few top spots as well?

It might make our teams better but it would reduce the number of Aussie players in the competition by a substantial number.

 

[Braveheart81]

Actually, does anyone think they could get a comp played during march-July to be a success whilst shown solely on Pay TV? I don't think there is any competition design that can overcome that hurdle.

On what basis does a competition at any time generate enough interest to attract FTA interest (even if it is basically free content)?

Half our tests don't rate highly enough to justify FTA prime time numbers for a main channel.

I just don't see being on FTA as providing any sort of guarantee that a new competition will generate substantial interest.

 

[Rugbynutter39]

What makes you think this would achieve anything more than our teams filling the bottom half of their roster with New Zealanders and potentially a few top spots as well?



It might make our teams better but it would reduce the number of Aussie players in the competition by a substantial number.

Because by making a better product that appeals to more fans would then provide avenue for growth. If no one is interested in watching rugby then you clearly can't support many teams. Short term pain for long term gain as at this rate we would only be seeing a further reduction in oz teams participating imho if continue down the current trajectory. Better still with open borders policy allow Twiggy and Force to get involved as with open borders policy no reason then could not support the Force as well. Hopefully in time as improve fan interest and provide more pathways we get better players wanting to join rugby instead of NRL etc....

Plus Braveheart what I am proposing is same successful model employed by many domestic comps including English and French professional domestic comps (who allow foreigners to play in it) and English soccer premiership etc etc. Proven model that works and hence refutes your argument as in these countries the sports are very popular despite this.

 

[Rugbynutter39]

and i think "better" is a truly subjective aspiration - and as result this thread has as many pages as does! and that's all well and good. none of us here (as far as i can tell) are in a position to actually make a call on any of this.



from reading every different opinion on this issue over many years now, its pretty clear that uncovering "better" probably wont happen without a leap of faith - how big that leap is varies depending on the ideas discussed. and how much are you willing to risk on the chance of uncovering "better". and that makes it really difficult for administrators to walk away from current revenue streams on the promise of others.



For me the 3 biggest issues needed to be over come for the Feb/Mar to July period (thinking of 2020 calendar here) are:



1. Pay TV

2. Maladministration by state unions - which is reflected in match results.

3. Match scheduling - gaps between home games/leaving prime time slots empty etc.



Overcome these and Super Rugby would look much healthier. and we might not even have to think about what "better" might look like.



Actually, does anyone think they could get a comp played during march-July to be a success whilst shown solely on Pay TV? I don't think there is any competition design that can overcome that hurdle.

No because immediately you exclude 70% of your market who don't have pay Tv.

 

[Rugbynutter39]

I would agree FTA not the magic silver bullet as got to get the product right first and you won't solve super rugby woes by just putting on FTA as product is wrong so hence does not matter where you put it - it won't rate well

 

[sunnyboys]

Rugbynutter39, totally agree that talent equalisation is a factor in nearly all sports leagues. Super Rugby is quite unique in not having any system in place that includes ALL teams.

 

[cyclopath]

And probably Cyclo you may agree that the upswing of Aus rugby was certainly helped by Aus rugby state teams playing more teams from other countries?

Not really. We had various provincial teams at times that did well (corresponding with some groupings of great players and coaches), but never a consistent level of improvement in all, as we see in NZ. NSW around the early 90s smashed Wales by 60 points; Qld won early Super titles in Super 6 and 10 (3 in all); Brumbies had a good few years obviously (2 wins), but otherwise there has not been a consistent high level across the board at all. I mean NSW made Super finals in 2005 and 2008 but have consistently underperformed, the Brumbies last win was 14 years ago, and we know the rapid trajectory down for the Reds and Tahs after wins this decade.
I'd say that the general performance since the instigation of Super Rugby (especially the professional comps from 1996 on) has been middling with a few peaks.

 

[Strewthcobber]

I would agree FTA not the magic silver bullet as got to get the product right first and you won't solve super rugby woes by just putting on FTA as product is wrong so hence does not matter where you put it - it won't rate well

Non-test rugby ratings are so low that FTA won't even consider showing it - and if they did it would be buried on a secondary channel with ratings so low then it's barely worth it. All you do is give up Pay TV $$$ for barely any return.

See A-League on Ten this year

 

[The Honey Badger]

So many things wrong with the current product.

The Irregularity of the current structure pretty well kills it. We need a regular match in Sydney and Brisbane every weekend. Which means more teams or more comps or both.

FTA is must, we have had our locked behind a pay wall experience and it doesn't help promote the game to a wider audience. If anything it just reinforces the elitist tag many of our potential wider audience holds.

I would love to see Twiggy put a team in Sydney and Brisbane. This would allow regular televised games in the 2 heartland cities. It would alternate between super and WSR week in week out. Be even better if a Shute shield game was televised as a curtain raiser.

Super really would be Super if we could ditch the Saffers. And just play in our time zone.

Our biggest potential is to create a product to rival State of Origin, I have suggested calling it "State of the Union". Will take time to build it, but a home and away series involving QLD, NSW, VIC, WA, ACT and potentially a combined team for the others. League will only ever be a 2 state game, this is a key advantage Rugby should exploit.

So 2 comps, Super and WRC

Regular (weekly) rugby games in major cities

FTA

A National provincial tournament



Sent from my MHA-L09 using Tapatalk

 

[Braveheart81]

Because by making a better product that appeals to more fans would then provide avenue for growth. If no one is interested in watching rugby then you clearly can't support many teams. Short term pain for long term gain as at this rate we would only be seeing a further reduction in oz teams participating imho if continue down the current trajectory. Better still with open borders policy allow Twiggy and Force to get involved as with open borders policy no reason then could not support the Force as well. Hopefully in time as improve fan interest and provide more pathways we get better players wanting to join rugby instead of NRL etc..

Plus Braveheart what I am proposing is same successful model employed by many domestic comps including English and French professional domestic comps (who allow foreigners to play in it) and English soccer premiership etc etc. Proven model that works and hence refutes your argument as in these countries the sports are very popular despite this.

Would it be worth greatly reducing the number of Australian professional players we have playing locally?

The English and French leagues are operating with 12 and 14 teams respectively. There are a lot more contracts available. I'm not sure it refutes my argument when we only have four teams. It might be a bit more popular but it has downsides.

I do see that opening up contracting to anyone from anywhere with no marquee rules would improve our teams. I think it would do so on the back of importing lots of NZ players who can't get Super Rugby contracts or to give them better Super Rugby contracts plus potentially a few top line players. The flow of players in the opposite direction would be negligible.

The Waratahs won the comp in 2014. That didn't suddenly bring vast numbers of fans out of the woodwork in 2015 because the team was more successful.

I agree that it would make our teams a bit more competitive and would probably interest a few people who don't like our inability to compete with NZ. I think it would have a very significant impact on the number of Australian players playing in the competition.

Things absolutely need to change in Super Rugby. I just think making our teams slightly more successful is going to have a pretty minimal effect on increasing the popularity of the competition. I also think substantially reducing the number of local players in the teams will have an adverse effect on popularity.