Where to for Super Rugby?

[Joe King]

I think there'll be a lot more discussion on future models after we find out how much Fox are willing to pay this year for Super Rugby:AU

 

[Quick Hands]

His desire was for an elite competition below the Wallabies and a strong club base, he was never going to venture down the rabbit hole of which teams especially on a Force podcast, but the whole premise of an elite competition will bring that question into play. The issue is will that approach in regards to Australian rugby work and generate growth, Super rugby hasn't exactly achieved that outcome.

An illustration of this hoggy comes from a look at 24 years of completed Super Rugby seasons:

2 Aussie teams have never played in an Super Rugby final

(2 NZ teams have played in an Super Rugby final 5 times i.e more than 25% of the time - 98,99,03,06,15)
(2 SA teams have played in an Super Rugby final 2 times - 07,10)

2 Aussie teams have made the Super Rugby top 4 in the same year twice - 2001 and 2002 back when we were reigning RWC champions and heading for 2003 RWC final. The high water mark of pro-rugby in Australia if ever there was one. Also noting that Australia held the Bledisloe Cup from 1998-2003.

There were 5 years when there was no Aussie team in the top 4 (i.e.25% of the time - 07,09,12,16,17)

By contrast there have been 5 years when there were 3 NZ teams in the top 4 (i.e. 25% of the time 98,03,09,16,17)

By any metric, our performance in Super Rugby has been in consistent decline and the performance of NZ teams rising over the past 24 years. SA teams have more or less performed at a consistent level in terms of finals and top 4.

Another indication of how Super Rugby just isn't working for Australian rugby. It shouldn't surprise anyone that the Wallabies have declined pretty much in lock step with how our Super Rugby teams have declined.

 

[Joe King]

I may need some help here, but the one big issue with a 10 team TT comp, even if we could manage the depth for 5 Oz teams, is that it's either too little content or too much.

A home and away season + at least one bye + 3 week finals = 22 weeks.

This is already too long for the window + I think NZ will want to at least keep open the option of engaging with Japanese teams and (hopefully) SA in a CL or finals system.

And I think they will want to avoid the perception of any unfair conferences or any kind of complicated structure. They'll want it to be as simple as simple for fan engagement this time round.

What do others think?

 

[KOB1987]

I may need some help here, but the one big issue with a 10 team TT comp, even if we could manage the depth for 5 Oz teams, is that it's either too little content or too much.

A home and away season + at least one bye + 3 week finals = 22 weeks.

This is already too long for the window + I think NZ will want to at least keep open the option of engaging with Japanese teams and (hopefully) SA in a CL or finals system.

And I think they will want to avoid the perception of any unfair conferences or any kind of complicated structure. They'll want it to be as simple as simple for fan engagement this time round.

What do others think?

That’s why in my domestic model a couple of pages back I had two conferences of 5 teams and they play teams in their own conference twice and teams from the other one once. You could devise a similar system for this and it means proportionately more local derbies. 13 weeks plus 2 finals weeks, one bye = 16 weeks

 

[WorkingClassRugger]

Is there a source for that, WCR? Thanks.

https://www.lanacion.com.ar/deporte...s-jaguares-estan-peligro-extincion-nid2371627

 

[waiopehu oldboy]

If the June International window gets pushed back to October, what's wrong with a 22-week TT comp?

 

[Joe King]

That’s why in my domestic model a couple of pages back I had two conferences of 5 teams and they play teams in their own conference twice and teams from the other one once. You could devise a similar system for this and it means proportionately more local derbies. 13 weeks plus 2 finals weeks, one bye = 16 weeks

I'm not sure that NZ fans could stomach the 'unfair' conference system again and so it makes me think NZR will want to avoid going down this path again. But maybe I'm overthinking it.

 

[Joe King]

If the June International window gets pushed back to October, what's wrong with a 22-week TT comp?

Yeah maybe.

 

[Joe King]

https://www.lanacion.com.ar/deporte...s-jaguares-estan-peligro-extincion-nid2371627

haha. Can you read this?! I fear I have misjudged you.

 

[WorkingClassRugger]

That’s why in my domestic model a couple of pages back I had two conferences of 5 teams and they play teams in their own conference twice and teams from the other one once. You could devise a similar system for this and it means proportionately more local derbies. 13 weeks plus 2 finals weeks, one bye = 16 weeks

Too little content to justify any serious level of investment on behalf of a broadcaster. A reason why the A-League got the deal it previously had was because it offered 26 weeks of largely domestic product. We need to be able to offer something of similar value. This article https://www.rugbyrama.fr/rugby/top-14/2018-2019/top-14-et-goze-lacha-le-scoop_sto7761888/story.shtml
suggests that there's movement afoot to move the RC to align with the 6Ns and move the July test back to Sept/Oct which could open up a window for a more extensive structure to take place. If the TT was to be essentially a 1.5 round structure then I'd like to see it involve 12 teams to stretch it out to 16 weeks plus a 6 team finals series for a total of 19 weeks. With the option of a AP Cup with the Top League at some point.

 

[WorkingClassRugger]

haha. Can you read this?! I fear I have misjudged you.

Google Translate.

 

[KOB1987]

Too little content to justify any serious level of investment on behalf of a broadcaster. A reason why the A-League got the deal it previously had was because it offered 26 weeks of largely domestic product. We need to be able to offer something of similar value. This article https://www.rugbyrama.fr/rugby/top-14/2018-2019/top-14-et-goze-lacha-le-scoop_sto7761888/story.shtml
suggests that there's movement afoot to move the RC to align with the 6Ns and move the July test back to Sept/Oct which could open up a window for a more extensive structure to take place. If the TT was to be essentially a 1.5 round structure then I'd like to see it involve 12 teams to stretch it out to 16 weeks plus a 6 team finals series for a total of 19 weeks. With the option of a AP Cup with the Top League at some point.

The July tests and then the RC would be considered content, no? If those moves eventuate then sure, but otherwise the comp has to be finished before the test season starts in July. If that happens it’s not likely to be at least for a few years so we have to design something for the next few years regardless.

 

[Rebels3]

An illustration of this hoggy comes from a look at 24 years of completed Super Rugby seasons:

2 Aussie teams have never played in an Super Rugby final

(2 NZ teams have played in an Super Rugby final 5 times i.e more than 25% of the time - 98,99,03,06,15)
(2 SA teams have played in an Super Rugby final 2 times - 07,10)

2 Aussie teams have made the Super Rugby top 4 in the same year twice - 2001 and 2002 back when we were reigning RWC champions and heading for 2003 RWC final. The high water mark of pro-rugby in Australia if ever there was one. Also noting that Australia held the Bledisloe Cup from 1998-2003.

There were 5 years when there was no Aussie team in the top 4 (i.e.25% of the time - 07,09,12,16,17)

By contrast there have been 5 years when there were 3 NZ teams in the top 4 (i.e. 25% of the time 98,03,09,16,17)

By any metric, our performance in Super Rugby has been in consistent decline and the performance of NZ teams rising over the past 24 years. SA teams have more or less performed at a consistent level in terms of finals and top 4.

Another indication of how Super Rugby just isn't working for Australian rugby. It shouldn't surprise anyone that the Wallabies have declined pretty much in lock step with how our Super Rugby teams have declined.

I’m not a fan of Super Rugby going forward but these stats lack context. I worked for years in a research company and these stats would never be seriously put to market as it’s devoid of context such as the fact NZ has had more teams for many more years than Aus has, so a comparison of performance of one against another doesn’t tell any story unless you are trying to make a point via presenting stats that back up an argument you are trying to put across. If you want another comparison I’d suggest you use a country that has included and then reduced teams at a similar rate, SA would be the comparison for this. Other comparisons you could look at would be the development of team performance on an individual basis from their inception. Highlanders after 5/10/15yrs vs any team you wants etc.

If you’re looking for Australian performance I suggest you look at each club individually over an aggregated period of around 2/3 seasons (around 30 games) and see if their performance had declined compared to their own historical performance, looking at each individual segment. Then look at if a correlation came during a period with team expansion. Then look for peaks and lows of performance.

 

[Omar Comin']

If Fox are really only going to offer $10-18 million per year then RA may as well look to start its own streaming service instead.

 

[WorkingClassRugger]

The July tests and then the RC would be considered content, no? If those moves eventuate then sure, but otherwise the comp has to be finished before the test season. If that happens it’s not likely to be at least for a few years so we have to design something for the next few years regardless.

I'm referring to a domestic structure. Tests do add value but they've been the sole driver for some time. We need to get to the point where both Tests and domestic structures are fairly comparable in their value to broadcasters. As one is clearly higher than the other the best way of doing so it by providing a solid schedule of games. Put simply. Sixty-five games (5 games a week for 13 weeks) at 50k are worth less than 90-132 (18-22 weeks depending on whether it's a 10 or 12 team format) games with the same ratings.

 

[WorkingClassRugger]

If Fox are really only going to offer $10-18 million per year then RA may as well look to start its own streaming service instead.

I'd like to see some data on the likely subscription uptake of such a service and the tolerance for price of those likely to do so. It would provide us with the opportunity to provide a game of the week to a FTA provider in a favourable slot free of charge as a means of driving growth and hopefully traffic to the platform.

 

[Quick Hands]

I’m not a fan of Super Rugby going forward but these stats lack context. I worked for years in a research company and these stats would never be seriously put to market as it’s devoid of context such as the fact NZ has had more teams for many more years than Aus has, so a comparison of performance of one against another doesn’t tell any story unless you are trying to make a point via presenting stats that back up an argument you are trying to put across. If you want another comparison I’d suggest you use a country that has included and then reduced teams at a similar rate, SA would be the comparison for this. Other comparisons you could look at would be the development of team performance on an individual basis from their inception. Highlanders after 5/10/15yrs vs any team you wants etc.

If you’re looking for Australian performance I suggest you look at each club individually over an aggregated period of around 2/3 seasons (around 30 games) and see if their performance had declined compared to their own historical performance, looking at each individual segment. Then look at if a correlation came during a period with team expansion. Then look for peaks and lows of performance.

It sounds like you're much better at statistics than I am, so you're welcome to spend your time on a much deeper analysis. I'm not sure what your point is, but go for it.

The years when NZ and Aus had the same number of teams were the worst years of Australian performance and the best years of NZ performance. i.e. when they both had 5 teams. Doesn't fill me with confidence on the mooted 10 teams TT with 5 x 5.

If you can find a statistical analysis of 24 years of Super Rugby which says anything other than over that time NZ teams have consistently outperformed Australian teams, you'll need all your statistical expertise. I wait in great anticipation.

 

[KOB1987]

I'm referring to a domestic structure. Tests do add value but they've been the sole driver for some time. We need to get to the point where both Tests and domestic structures are fairly comparable in their value to broadcasters. As one is clearly higher than the other the best way of doing so it by providing a solid schedule of games. Put simply. Sixty-five games (5 games a week for 13 weeks) at 50k are worth less than 90-132 (18-22 weeks depending on whether it's a 10 or 12 team format) games with the same ratings.

I’m going to disagree with that because Rugby is a unique offering. The NRL play their rep games on a Wednesday night in the middle of the season, that’s part of their content package. As are their tests, which probably rate lower than a standard NRL game. And their World Cup is a joke. Soccer is different again because as an international side we are uncompetitive against anyone ranked higher than about 50th. When we play a test (friendly) it’s only ever against about a tier 4 team and we still lose. If they have games at a provincial level I’ve never seen one advertised.

Rugby on the other hand is an international sport that generates genuine interest nationally when the Wallabies are performing well. Everything else is just a feeder for that. Even during this current 2 decade long period of underperformance we have made a World Cup final and been ranked number 1 in the world. Any package sold to a broadcaster has to include the Wallabies tests as part of the deal.

EDIT: also meant to mention that the tests take up so much of the season time-wise, and as they are the most important component of the game here, EVERYTHING needs to be built around this. Same with the ABs.

 

[Rebels3]

It sounds like you're much better at statistics than I am, so you're welcome to spend your time on a much deeper analysis. I'm not sure what your point is, but go for it.

The years when NZ and Aus had the same number of teams were the worst years of Australian performance and the best years of NZ performance. i.e. when they both had 5 teams. Doesn't fill me with confidence on the mooted 10 teams TT with 5 x 5.

If you can find a statistical analysis of 24 years of Super Rugby which says anything other than over that time NZ teams have consistently outperformed Australian teams, you'll need all your statistical expertise. I wait in great anticipation.

I’m looking for context not snapshots of data. You could easily argue that the Reds and Tahs have had their greatest seasons under 5 teams but we all know that isn’t a true explanation of what’s been happening. You presented stats like gospel and I called you out for why it shouldn’t be seen as.

 

[Slim 293]

2 Aussie teams have made the Super Rugby top 4 in the same year twice - 2001 and 2002 back when we were reigning RWC champions and heading for 2003 RWC final. The high water mark of pro-rugby in Australia if ever there was one. Also noting that Australia held the Bledisloe Cup from 1998-2003.

Nope......... three times:

2001
2002
2014


And in 2015 the Waratahs and Brumbies both made the semi-finals.

Australia was more successful with five teams than in the Super 14 era.