Where to for Super Rugby?

[hoggy]

Surely it's not that hard.

Run a 6 team Super AU where the top 2 qualify for SuperRugby, bottom 4 in "insert sponsor here Cup" for the following season.
Run a 6 team Super Ao where the top 4 qualify for SuperRugby, bottom 2 in "insert sponsor here Cup" for the following season.
Japanese rugby have top 2 qualify for SuperRugby, next 2 in "insert sponsor here Cup" for the following season.

Play 3 weeks of local rugby then 1 week international.

NZ teams get to have their softer matches & Aus & Japan get to play the tough NZ teams.

The issue you have with a set up like that is scheduling, you are okay with the first part of the season domestic, but the second half "sponsors cup" needs to be scheduled over three countries with what one or two weeks notice, I don't think that is practical for a variety of reasons.

Okay just saw the following season, but that does bring up the issue of form each year.

 

[Dan54]

Surely it's not that hard.

Run a 6 team Super AU where the top 2 qualify for SuperRugby, bottom 4 in "insert sponsor here Cup" for the following season.
Run a 6 team Super Ao where the top 4 qualify for SuperRugby, bottom 2 in "insert sponsor here Cup" for the following season.
Japanese rugby have top 2 qualify for SuperRugby, next 2 in "insert sponsor here Cup" for the following season.

Play 3 weeks of local rugby then 1 week international.

NZ teams get to have their softer matches & Aus & Japan get to play the tough NZ teams.

And goes back to old chestnut of only 2 Aus teams in Super, and everyone getting nickers in a twist.
But as Hoggy says you would have to play it the next year for scheduling etc, and to keep it current would have to be beginning of year, as it no good a team qualifying and the coming bottom of comp before the next year's comp starts.

 

[Rugbynutter39]

And goes back to old chestnut of only 2 Aus teams in Super, and everyone getting nickers in a twist.
But as Hoggy says you would have to play it the next year for scheduling etc, and to keep it current would have to be beginning of year, as it no good a team qualifying and the coming bottom of comp before the next year's comp starts.

I had to laugh on comment ‘surely it’s not that hard’ - I think the only thing we have come to the conclusion after
1000 pages it is bloody hard to design something that works, is successful and everybody wins and agrees to.

I have come to the conclusion that at least have more qualified people in our RA leadership (Hamish with his media / broadcast background and big bash experience) to best represent oz rugby interests and make the best decisions on the available information.

 

[Rebels3]

I propose a motion that anyone that mentions 2 teams gets 6 game suspension with 50% reduction if they plead they don’t understand how that would create political warfare in Australia that would kill the game off

Also a 6 game suspension for anyone that mentions a format that doesn’t include a minimum of 15/16 competitive games for teams to play. 50% reduction on the suspension if they admit they have 0 commercial sense for tv dollars, providing enough content for sponsors, etc.

 

[Dan54]

I had to laugh on comment ‘surely it’s not that hard’ - I think the only thing we have come to the conclusion after
1000 pages it is bloody hard to design something that works, is successful and everybody wins and agrees to.

I have come to the conclusion that at least have more qualified people in our RA leadership (Hamish with his media / broadcast background and big bash experience) to best represent oz rugby interests and make the best decisions on the available information.

I tend to be like you and figure people who know a whole lot more than me will work out what it will be.
Bugger it all, what happened to the days when I had an answer to all problems?


Oh shit I just remembered some of my answers weren't as good as I originally thought!

 

[Rugbynutter39]

I tend to be like you and figure people who know a whole lot more than me will work out what it will be.
Bugger it all, what happened to the days when I had an answer to all problems?


Oh shit I just remembered some of my answers weren't as good as I originally thought!

The difference is we have leadership have confidence in...you will note these threads 2 years ago were full of criticism of RA including from me. I think recognition that recent leadership made a lot of progress (including when castle appointed) in a challenging environment. I like Hamish’s background and moreso network of formal and informal advisors could draw on for guidance and views.

And at some point you have to back your leaders who are better credialed and informed to make the best decisions with the best available info at that time. Two years ago would have been hard to do that but much easier to do with actions and messaging that come out of RA.

Does not mean as enthusiasts we can’t have some fun to debate what different possibilities could be..

 

[Bullrush]

ATM, RA keep saying they want to play the NZ teams somehow.

What if three AU teams were only allowed to pick Australian players, but the other two AU teams could pick from anywhere?

Would NZR be happy to pick ABs from those two AU teams if a full season TT depended on it?

This is what I keep saying but expanded even more.

Any player that plays in Super Rugby - Australia or NZ - should be eligible to play for the ABs/Wallabies so long as they meet the usual citizenship/residency requirements.

More NZ players playing in Australia, probably more Aussie players playing in NZ - a REAL franchise type situation where players can move to other teams within the competition without losing the chance of playing their way up into higher honours.

 

[Rugbynutter39]

This is what I keep saying but expanded even more.

Any player that plays in Super Rugby - Australia or NZ - should be eligible to play for the ABs/Wallabies so long as they meet the usual citizenship/residency requirements.

More NZ players playing in Australia, probably more Aussie players playing in NZ - a REAL franchise type situation where players can move to other teams within the competition without losing the chance of playing their way up into higher honours.

That argument sounds familiar...must have read it somewhere on here

 

[Bullrush]

That argument sounds familiar.must have read it somewhere on here

 

[Adam84]

This is what I keep saying but expanded even more.

Any player that plays in Super Rugby - Australia or NZ - should be eligible to play for the ABs/Wallabies so long as they meet the usual citizenship/residency requirements.

More NZ players playing in Australia, probably more Aussie players playing in NZ - a REAL franchise type situation where players can move to other teams within the competition without losing the chance of playing their way up into higher honours.

This makes too much sense.
Maybe then I’d actually have greater interest in some of the kiwi teams as well if there were Aussies playing in them

 

[Pfitzy]

The only issue with opening the borders in that fashion: which NZ star player would jeopardise their career by entering our system?

Based on the evidence of 1 game from 15, our coaching ranks and back office aren't exactly up to scratch.

Like nuclear power: you could lift the legal ban, but who would front up to actually do it?

 

[Rugbynutter39]

This makes too much sense.
Maybe then I’d actually have greater interest in some of the kiwi teams as well if there were Aussies playing in them

Franchise model is what would be best for creating interest in the competition and growth yet sadly there is a lack of vision by some key stakeholders blindsighted by concerns it may impact on their national team (despite countries all around the world including in soccer who successfully navigate this). I think this is my opinion the lack of maturity of rugby as a professional sport given late comer to professionalism out of the football codes.

 

[Rugbynutter39]

The only issue with opening the borders in that fashion: which NZ star player would jeopardise their career by entering our system?

Based on the evidence of 1 game from 15, our coaching ranks and back office aren't exactly up to scratch.

Like nuclear power: you could lift the legal ban, but who would front up to actually do it?

I think it may stem the flow for sure but equally it provides additional options without knowing that you would have to move back to nz to represent all blacks. Bigger picture without doubt there is no magic silver bullet as reform required at multiple levels including in our coaching and player development.

 

[John S]

Franchise model is what would be best for creating interest in the competition and growth yet sadly there is a lack of vision by some key stakeholders blindsighted by concerns it may impact on their national team (despite countries all around the world including in soccer who successfully navigate this). I think this is my opinion the lack of maturity of rugby as a professional sport given late comer to professionalism out of the football codes.

But then how we avoid getting a situation where like in France, the clubs are reluctant to release players for international duty?

 

[Pfitzy]

I think it may stem the flow for sure but equally it provides additional options without knowing that you would have to move back to nz to represent all blacks.

My concern is that our franchies would suddenly offer NZ fringe players more dollars than they're ever likely to see at home, so we'd end up pushing out our own players in some cases.

Bigger picture without doubt there is no magic silver bullet as reform required at multiple levels including in our coaching and player development.

So much reform. So little time. Or desire

 

[hoggy]

But then how we avoid getting a situation where like in France, the clubs are reluctant to release players for international duty?

But it also highlights the issue of how much Test rugby dominates the calendar. When you are playing up to 15/16 tests per year, you place obstacles in the calendar (like the June Test window).
we've have had situations where some top players were playing more tests than domestic games.

Yes Test rugby brought in the revenue, but at the cost of ever making the 2nd tier financially viable, competitions like Super rugby come with a list strings attached so long they ultimately are doomed to fail.

And PE is good, but any investor with half a brain is soon gonna say "hang on a minute"

Look I don't pretend to have an answer, but until a genuine compromise comes regards some relief in the Test calendar, then any structure below that will always struggle with the weight from above.

 

[Dan54]

But it also highlights the issue of how much Test rugby dominates the calendar. When you are playing up to 15/16 tests per year, you place obstacles in the calendar (like the June Test window).
we've have had situations where some top players were playing more tests than domestic games.

Yes Test rugby brought in the revenue, but at the cost of ever making the 2nd tier financially viable, competitions like Super rugby come with a list strings attached so long they ultimately are doomed to fail.

And PE is good, but any investor with half a brain is soon gonna say "hang on a minute"

Look I don't pretend to have an answer, but until a genuine compromise comes regards some relief in the Test calendar, then any structure below that will always struggle with the weight from above.

Yep everyone has to remember that test rugby is what pays the bills!
It's unfortunate, but a fact of life, much as we would all like it to work the other way, we get stuck in a world of reality!
I in my dream world would see test rugby being played in Sept/Oct all around the world, and test team only playing 6-8 tests a year with a set of 'Junior' or "A' teams playing around same time, but haven't even begun to think how it would work, just a dreaworld scenario for me!

 

[Rugbynutter39]

My concern is that our franchies would suddenly offer NZ fringe players more dollars than they're ever likely to see at home, so we'd end up pushing out our own players in some cases.




So much reform. So little time. Or desire

End of the day franchise model works all around the globe and you have to trust that your talent identification systems avoid that problem. I reckon the Chances of players pushed out by fringe kiwi players at scale pretty low

 

[Pfitzy]

End of the day franchise model works all around the globe and you have to trust that your talent identification systems avoid that problem. I reckon the Chances of players pushed out by fringe kiwi players at scale pretty low

I certainly believe that the top tier isn't actually our problem - it is how we're feeding it. All the change at Super Rugby level is meaningless unless we get our talent identification systems right.

 

[Dan54]

End of the day franchise model works all around the globe and you have to trust that your talent identification systems avoid that problem. I reckon the Chances of players pushed out by fringe kiwi players at scale pretty low

Franchise models don't work all around the world,with complete freedom. In England, Wales etc you actually have to play in the country to play test rugby. It's actually a fallacy to say it's only NZ and Aus that have the rule.