Where to for Super Rugby?

[TOCC]

yeah nah, we don't have the money for decent imports and will end filling rosters with military medium NPC players

We can either reduce the amount of sides to concentrate what little quality we have or continue to get done badly

There's no evidence to support the argument that reducing teams will improve the quality of the remaining teams. Just look at the statistical success of teams in the 2000-2005, 2005-2010 and 2010-2015 era.

There is still the same talent identification and coaching issues, and it's fair to say that reducing the number of teams would have an impact on the Wallabies. Just as many Rebels and Force players debutd for the Wallabies in 2016 as there were Reds or Tahs.

 

[Rugbynutter39]

yeah nah, we don't have the money for decent imports and will end filling rosters with military medium NPC players

We can either reduce the amount of sides to concentrate what little quality we have or continue to get done badly

Reducing number of sides short term solution as we are in this mess because of neglect of grassroots. How is increasing participation at grass roots going to happen with even less professional sides. There are those that probably accept we are just a minor sport and can never improve and win market share from other codes. I don't agree as strength of game at world level.means if we had some major innovation with the product and bit of luck e.g. serious investment in rugby in this country say by an all sports I reckon other football codes would be worried about rugby as a serious long term threat. But no as is of course it isn't.

Sent from my EVA-L09 using Tapatalk

 

[Rugbynutter39]

There's no evidence to support the argument that reducing teams will improve the quality of the remaining teams. Just look at the statistical success of teams in the 2000-2005, 2005-2010 and 2010-2015 era.

There is still the same talent identification and coaching issues, and it's fair to say that reducing the number of teams would have an impact on the Wallabies. Just as many Rebels and Force players debutd for the Wallabies in 2016 as there were Reds or Tahs.

Yep look at how many local wa players now coming through to super rugby and wallaby level compared to 10 years ago.

Sent from my EVA-L09 using Tapatalk

 

[TOCC]

Reducing the number of teams will give a 12-24 month boost before things return to status quo.

We need to to accept that their are greater issue in coaching and development pathways rather then just blaming a 5th team. Culling a team will provide a short term boost as the experienced players are redistributed, but that benefit will only last a season or two. We need long term solutions, not quick fixes.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

 

[TOCC]

And I should add that culling a team completely ignores the bigger issue, which is that Super Rugby no longer engages with public and is a dying competition in Australia.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

 

[wamberal]

yeah nah, we don't have the money for decent imports and will end filling rosters with military medium NPC players

We can either reduce the amount of sides to concentrate what little quality we have or continue to get done badly

Or maybe we move towards a Trans-Tasman comp in which foreign players are allowed (especially as between Aussies and Keewees playing for the "other side"), the corollary being that an Aussie playing for a New Zealand franchise, or vice versa, would still be eligible for national selection.


This might have the effect of evening out competition, and thus improving the games as spectacles, benefiting everybody.


Worth a thought, anyway.

 

[Chronicle]

The concerning thing for me is that this discussion appeared to start in the wider media with the question of which team will go Force, Brumbies or Rebels.
For the life of me I cannot see how this addresses the issues with Super Rugby that I have seen raised over several years in the media and on sites like this.
Lack of Australian derbies, playing times outside peak viewing times, travel affecting performance, not playing every team on a home and away basis.
There has been no comment or discussion on how theses issues are to be addressed but we appear to have moved straight to a solution.
It is well known that a consultant will give you the report you want and we already have prominent figures such as Chieka saying he will accept 4 teams if it's in the best interest of Australian rugby so be prepared for it to happen.
I for one don't see why or how it will be beneficial when I don't know the format being proposed and see player opportunity reductions as a backward step in fostering and encouraging better rugby players

 

[Marcelo]

Reducing the number of teams will give a 12-24 month boost before things return to status quo.

We need to to accept that their are greater issue in coaching and development pathways rather then just blaming a 5th team. Culling a team will provide a short term boost as the experienced players are redistributed, but that benefit will only last a season or two. We need long term solutions, not quick fixes.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

That could be a solution. Redistributed the best 30 Aussies players to the 4/5 franchises like:

Front row
1- Sekope Kepu
2- James Slipper
3- Allan Ala'alatoa
4- TPN
5- Stephen Moore

 

[Omar Comin']

I think the ARU and SANZAAR will be underestimating the loss of goodwill they're going to receive here if they announce plans to cut an Australian team. They'll lose thousands of fans from the team that's cut and piss off many others. There'll be sniping in the media, all sorts of problems. And you can bet the resulting 16 team structure will also be divisive.

 

[half]

I think the ARU and SANZAAR will be underestimating the loss of goodwill they're going to receive here if they announce plans to cut an Australian team. They'll lose thousands of fans from the team that's cut and piss off many others. There'll be sniping in the media, all sorts of problems. And you can bet the resulting 16 team structure will also be divisive.

+ 9999999999999999999999

 

[John S]

There'll be sniping in the media, all sorts of problems.

Well, the sniping has begun: http://www.smh.com.au/rugby-union/u...-to-get-rid-of-us-rebels-20170306-gurpie.html

 

[Blue]

There's no evidence to support the argument that reducing teams will improve the quality of the remaining teams.

No but there is ample evidence that the introduction of more teams has reduced the quality. Unless you are suggesting that in the case of the Rebels and Kings it is a mere coincidence?

I'm not disagreeing with you at all, but there is a chance that dilution of the player pool plays a role?

Let's try answer this question: which of the players at the Rebels and Kings will genuinely strengthen the other teams? I frankly have no clue really.

Debracini is a better 10 that could help the Force and Brumbies (and why the feck he is wasted at 15 raises another question but I digress). Then there is Hodge. Who else at the Rebels could push for a starting spot elsewhere?

Kings have a decent looking openside and the little winger is a cracking player. The one lock looks a decent munter that could help the Cheetahs and for the moment the starting props look like the Bulls could do with them because theirs are shite.

Oh dear. About 8 good players? Is that all? Or am I missing something?

 

[half]

Worth watching Star Wars cartoon mock of the Death Star blowing up.

Could this be the S board meeting.

 

[Rebels3]

No but there is ample evidence that the introduction of more teams has reduced the quality. Unless you are suggesting that in the case of the Rebels and Kings it is a mere coincidence?

I'm not disagreeing with you at all, but there is a chance that dilution of the player pool plays a role?

Let's try answer this question: which of the players at the Rebels and Kings will genuinely strengthen the other teams? I frankly have no clue really.

Debracini is a better 10 that could help the Force and Brumbies (and why the feck he is wasted at 15 raises another question but I digress). Then there is Hodge. Who else at the Rebels could push for a starting spot elsewhere?

Kings have a decent looking openside and the little winger is a cracking player. The one lock looks a decent munter that could help the Cheetahs and for the moment the starting props look like the Bulls could do with them because theirs are shite.

Oh dear. About 8 good players? Is that all? Or am I missing something?

Naivalu - Reds wing spot
Hodge - Brumbies fullback
Weekes - Force Front row
Hanson - Brumbies hooker
Timani - Brumbies no8
Smith - Force front row
Stirzacker - reds scrum half

Actually looking at that, only 2 of these players have played 2 full games (with one of them being out of position)

plus several players would be good squad players (Reid etc.) however the big question everyone misses is reduced teams = reduced content = reduced money. Obviously it's not as simple as this equation as better results will mean higher viewing audiences, but these viewing audiences would be counter acted from the disenfranchisement and loss of viewers from the market cut adrift or rugby fans who have had enough. So at the end of the day all would of achieved is 30 less players to pick from and a reduction of talent been offered an opportunity.

you might save on travel costs or even gain in crowd attendance at places with a marginally better playing performance but the fact is, if these players were to move to the different franchises who is going to pay them the money they are on now? Lets take another team as example... the Force and lets say Ben McCalman is the 3rd highest player at the Force under the cap earning $250k a year but ends up at the Brumbies, who is going to pay him the same wage? Do you pay him what he earn't at the Force at the expense of another player in a similar wage and cut them adrift? or do you expect McCalman to accept a wage below what he has been earning, one which reflects his importance to the team? End of the day you'd get a few that stay for family reasons but you'd get a multitude of them heading overseas, which would lead to the squads being around the similar standard to what it is now.

 

[Inside Shoulder]

Obviously it's not as simple as this equation as better results will mean higher viewing audiences, but these viewing audiences would be counter acted from the disenfranchisement and loss of viewers from the market cut adrift or rugby fans who have had enough.

I wonder about that: are those who watch the Rebels who live in Melbourne watching it because of loyalty to Melbourne or because of a love of the game?
You would think that Foxtel would know precisely how many sign ups they had since the Rebels started and how many renewals they have had: surely those figures would be (a) crucial and (b)readily obtainable.
I suspect they are rusted on and many are expats.
Would the ARU have a right to see those figures?
[Exchange Rebels/Melbourne for Perth/Force]

 

[TOCC]

No but there is ample evidence that the introduction of more teams has reduced the quality. Unless you are suggesting that in the case of the Rebels and Kings it is a mere coincidence?

I'm not disagreeing with you at all, but there is a chance that dilution of the player pool plays a role?

Let's try answer this question: which of the players at the Rebels and Kings will genuinely strengthen the other teams? I frankly have no clue really.

Debracini is a better 10 that could help the Force and Brumbies (and why the feck he is wasted at 15 raises another question but I digress). Then there is Hodge. Who else at the Rebels could push for a starting spot elsewhere?

Kings have a decent looking openside and the little winger is a cracking player. The one lock looks a decent munter that could help the Cheetahs and for the moment the starting props look like the Bulls could do with them because theirs are shite.

Oh dear. About 8 good players? Is that all? Or am I missing something?

Yep agree on all accounts, I guess then what you need to ask is whether culling one team and and potentially improving the quality is enough to bring the audiences back. In Australia at least, the market has shifted since 2001, there's now more live sport, more professional competitions to follow and more teams from the AFL/NRL/A-League to support and I strongly doubt that culling a team would see a surge in the popularity of Super Rugby.

 

[NTT]

Debricezini is a better option at 10 for the Force? Im pretty happy with Lance and Prior based on their improvements through the NRC and into Super Rugby this year. Ditto Weeks and Smith, we have Ainsley and Vui coming through at tighthead. Both will be at the forefront of Australian propping for the next 10 years. Faulkner needs to lift his game and all signs are he is this year. There are players in Melbourne that you would obviously look at mainly McMahon, Naivalu and Hodge but the performances of the Rising and the Rebels over the last 15 months doesn't convince me what the Force is building is worse than what Melbourne are building. Ther are a quite a few lads in the Rebels U20s though that are going to be very handy at the next level as long as they're developed right.

 

[Blue]

Yep agree on all accounts, I guess then what you need to ask is whether culling one team and and potentially improving the quality is enough to bring the audiences back. In Australia at least, the market has shifted since 2001, there's now more live sport, more professional competitions to follow and more teams from the AFL/NRL/A-League to support and I strongly doubt that culling a team would see a surge in the popularity of Super Rugby.

Australian audiiences tend to be pretty fickle if their team is losing. Especially in Rugby. Just look back to the Tahs good couple of years and the Reds good run under Link. Stadiums were full and there was a buzz about the game. The media was positive.

It becomes super fast vicious circle once the media decides to lay into the game.

But there is a bunch of stuff that has to happen in the game. This is just one bit of the puzzle.

It's a tough one.

 

[KOB1987]

Exactly BH. If we had 10 teams of required standard, they would be presently playing in the NRC. But 9 was too many and has dropped to 8.

I've only quoted your post BR as it gives me a starting point. I've just read this entire thread and have drawn upon the ideas of others to come up with this. Back in the day the progression for a player was club - rep side (city/country) - state - Wallabies. So it takes on a bit of that traditional approach.

The main problem with the NRC is that 30-40 players who are in the Wallabies squad are excluded from playing (by and large). Inject these players into the system then it not only increases the interest in the competition but also the depth of the player base, and 10 teams is sustainable for a domestic competition (3-4 Wallabies go to each team).

It goes something like this (I'm mainly looking at it from an Aussie perspective):

1. Feb-May - a 10 team NRC comp in Australia is operated whilst the 14 team M10 comp is taking place in NZ. (SAF/ARG/JPN do their own thing in similar formats, CC obviously in SAF). 2 of the Aussie teams are aligned with each of the existing Super Rugby franchises.
2. June test Window includes Bledisloe 1 (except Lions years)
3. July-September - each of the 5 Super Rugby franchises selects their 32 (or so) man squad from their 2 NRC sides, those not selected go back to club rugby. The same thing happens in NZ. Each team plays every one once so comp goes for 9 weeks then 2 weeks of finals.
4. October-November -TRC but only play each other once plus Bledisloe 3 (or 1 & 2 in Lions years). Maybe during this period a Super Rugby franchise less the internationals play the curtain raisers as a development type thing e.g. the Brumbies play the Stormers at the Capetown fixture.
5. November-December - End of year tours.

 

[Gnostic]

One thing that hasn't been spoken about is the fact that does the ARU simply have the cash to fund 5 teams?

Speak all you want about the Fox broadcast deal, but the fact is that since Super Rugby has started through gross mismanagement and/or plain incompetence every single Franchise has had to be bailed out, some multiple times. A recent article on the Rebels future the CEO said that the "ARU cannot afford" to cut the Rebels, does that intimate some hidden penalties if the ARU was to act? Have they been given a financial guarantee? Did one Super side make a genuine profit last year before creative accounting?

All of this is on top of the fact that the sides are just not sustainable playing like busted arses as they have so far this year and all of last year.