Australia is holding Super rugby back
Roar Rookie By Altona Rebel, 31 Jan 2010 Nagti Pakeha is a Roar Rookie
- Tagged:
- currie cup, Heineken Cup, Rugby Union, Super Rugby
The biggest stumbling block for Super rugby since 2003 has been Australia. In 2003, rugby was going gangbusters in Australia, and 2004 should have been the time when Super rugby became more of a Heineken Cup-style format with the top four teams from the NPC, Currie Cup and the APC.
By now Super rugby should have 16 teams competing, with the three best teams from Japan competing, one from a new Pacific Islands competition (that should be set up anyway) consisting of two Fijian teams, one or two Samoan teams and one from Tonga (this competition would be funded by Super rugby). Then in 2011, with Sevens becoming an Olympic sport, we should be looking to form an American leg – you could have twelve 12 teams, four each from Argentina, America and Canada, with the top four playing in a new 20 team Super rugby competition.
Imagine the Mighty Hawks Bay Magpies (NZ) playing the New York Irish (we should copyright that), or the Reds playing Tokyo in the Super final. Now that’s something to talk about.
Instead, it’s 2010 and we’re getting excited about the Melbourne Rebels becoming part of Super rugby in 2011. Don’t get me wrong, I’ll be one of the first to sign up for a membership, But all we’re doing is restricting the NPC and Currie Cup to help Australian rugby, which hasn’t made a right decision since the 2003 World Cup.
It should be the other way round.
Recommend this story.
The Turkey 10
The Turkey 10 teams have now been selected, as Wild Turkey Bourbon's sport sponsorship kicks into the next exciting phase.
Choose which side you're going to support and get in the running to win $2,500!
Simply visit Wild Turkey Australia on Facebook for your chance to win.
Find out more.
- Explore:
- currie cup, Heineken Cup, Rugby Union, Super Rugby
January 31st 2010 @ 1:54am
rugbyfuture said | January 31st 2010 @ 1:54am | Report comment
that is such a bad ideato include any of the americas apart from argentina, they’re developing their own thing lets not get too excited. a h cup style would be good consisting of 4-4-4 from SA-NZ-Oz + 2 from the pacific championship (already exists with two from each of the big rugby islands) and possible inclusion of 4 from argies. this would be alot more viable.
January 31st 2010 @ 2:05am
rugbyfuture said | January 31st 2010 @ 2:05am | Report comment
also, side note, the actual reasons why australia and australia alone is holding the super rugby comp back is missing, all you say is this should have happened and how its stuffing up the NPC, but nothing is really said, or expanded upon other than, the H cup format shoulda been a go post RWC03.
January 31st 2010 @ 6:55am
Altona Rebel said | January 31st 2010 @ 6:55am | Report comment
The reason is simple; with Australia not forming an APC in 2003 we are looking at a super 15 next year with teams still only from NZ, SA and Australia.
But if an APC had of been formed with the Money raised from the World cup you could be looking at a Super Rugby Comp with 20 teams including countries like Japan, Argentina, America and Canada.
NZ, SA and even Japan already have there own local comps, with one to come in Argentina.
Only Australia doesn’t, and this is why Super rugby has not been able to capitalize on its popularity (not just by ex-pats) though out Asia and the Americas
January 31st 2010 @ 8:58am
Even looser said | January 31st 2010 @ 8:58am | Report comment
I’m not following you here at all AR.
How is Australia’s failure to start it’s own APC anything other than lost opportunities for Rugby within Australia?
January 31st 2010 @ 10:17am
rugbyfuture said | January 31st 2010 @ 10:17am | Report comment
the other unions could have demanded this system but they didn’t, they coulda helped in the setup of a provincial comp and they didnt. this dream that japan would consider competing with the southern hemisphere teams is idiotic, their alliance lands with the ARFU and they run on northern hemisphere seasons, as well as having such money in their own comp its unviable. as for America and canada again, they arent good enough to set up competitive teams.
Argentina already have their own competition based on club sides although fully amateur. I agree that the ARU, then led by the failure gary flowers stuffed up, but it would not be the fault of their own that this system isnt in place
its a hard call setting up a domestic in a country easily ten times the size of nz with only twice the population, where rugby league and AFL already have more prominent established competitions.
January 31st 2010 @ 5:33pm
Ora said | January 31st 2010 @ 5:33pm | Report comment
I think you’ll find rugbyuture that Australia has 5 times the population of New Zealand
The majority of Australias population lives on the east coast and it really is only Perth that would struggle with the travel, then again why can’t Australia have a conference format?
January 31st 2010 @ 5:46pm
Bay35Pablo said | January 31st 2010 @ 5:46pm | Report comment
Ora, we may have 5 times the population but we still have less registered rugby players than NZ I think.
January 31st 2010 @ 5:55pm
Ora said | January 31st 2010 @ 5:55pm | Report comment
That was never the theme of the debate
Rugbyfuture made a statement that OZ had only twice the population which is ultimately far from the truth!
While New Zealand has more rugby players that shouldn’t really mean anything as it’s not a lot more.
What should be taken into account is New Zealand has a deeply imbedded rugby culture as does Australia with League and AFl this can be largely attributed to the groundwork of starting domestic competitions. Rugbys lower playing numbers in Australia could also be put down to this reason it gets little coverage and has no national competition to engage the fans.
However look at our cousins in Rugby League, Autsralia craps all over new Zealand when it comes to playing numbers and competitions but who are the world champions?
January 31st 2010 @ 10:38am
ohtani's jacket said | January 31st 2010 @ 10:38am | Report comment
Australia ought to have had a domestic competition in place a hundred years ago not seven. Do you really think NZ could have started its own domestic comp in 2003?
January 31st 2010 @ 6:16pm
sheek said | January 31st 2010 @ 6:16pm | Report comment
OJ,
True enough. The Ranfurly Shield, which has been around for a very long time, is a challenge comp rather than a formalised annual comp. The NPC/ANZC ‘only’ started in 1976.
The Currie Cup, while first contested way back in 1889, only became a formalised annual event in 1968. But at least these two comps enjoyed 20 & 28 years annual existence before professionalism.
But not having any kind of national comp in previous decades has now made the job so much harder for Australian rugby of implementing one.
Back in the 1970s we had the far-sighted Wallaby Shield. Two divisions. 1st Division – Sydney, NSW Country, Queensland, Victoria. 2nd Division – Qld Country, WA, SA, Tasmania (plus ACT when it separated from NSW Country).
Regrettably, this comp was shelved because it was too expensive to run. Even with hindsight, the ARU should have persevered.
January 31st 2010 @ 9:04pm
ohtani's jacket said | January 31st 2010 @ 9:04pm | Report comment
Fair enough, Sheek.
Even if Australia had established a national comp in the 70s, there’s no guarantee that we’d be playing a Heineken Cup style tournament now. Back in ’96, the idea really was that the Super rugby sides were “super” sides. Australia may very well have followed suit with Super rugby amalgamations.
February 1st 2010 @ 6:50am
sheek said | February 1st 2010 @ 6:50am | Report comment
OJ,
The interesting thing, as I’ve mentioned in many previous posts, is that the S12 was originally conceived in 1996 as the International Provincial Championship (IPC).
Which, by its very name, was intended o be a Heineken Cup style format.
But it was the Kiwis who quickly scrapped that idea (& moved to regions) when they realised leading All Blacks from weaker provinces would miss out on vital week-in, week-out, toughening-up rugby.
Whether Australia had a national comp back then, & how it might have impacted on subsequent events, is something we can never know with certainty.
For all the death-riding of Aussie domestic rugby (from all of us), the fact we’ve developed from 3 provinces in 1996 to 5 provinces in 2011, is no mean feat, & ought to be acknowledged.
The situation continues to evolve, & by 2015, when a new agreement (for 2016) might be struck, the landscape could be ripe for another twist.
I guess we’ll have to wait & see…..
February 2nd 2010 @ 6:50pm
ohtani's jacket said | February 2nd 2010 @ 6:50pm | Report comment
Sheek,
I think it was more the case in 1996 that people felt players would transfer from smaller unions to the Super 12 centres to increase their chances of winning a professional contract, so the NZRU tried to open up the competition to any player. Unfortunately, it didn’t work and the NPC has never been the same.
January 31st 2010 @ 8:46am
sheek said | January 31st 2010 @ 8:46am | Report comment
Altona Rebel,
In your other life, you must be one of those sports clothing manufacturers inundating upon us those ridiculous futuristic rugby jerseys! They are a total lack of taste & respect for tradition…..
Besides all that, your suggestion is horribly impractical. Massive traveling distances to cover, plus equally massive differences in standards of ability.
We’re not responsible for developing the game in North America & Asia. Or I should say, SANZAR by itself isn’t responsible.
Australian rugby has its own problems to deal with, eg, premier rugby bleeding money profusely, a critically small player participation base, & a lack of quality coaches.
Problems that won’t be overcome with a comp involving teams from South Africa across to the Pacific/Tasman, then from South up to North America & back across to Japan & mainland Asia.
January 31st 2010 @ 10:25am
Rob C said | January 31st 2010 @ 10:25am | Report comment
This is hilarious, rugby can’t even get a leg-up in this country. It is a long way 4th in popularity in Australia with poor TV ratings and reduced revenue streams and you are talking about having a competition that covers many countries and many thousands of km’s. Talk about living in the clouds. Rugby is doing the right thing by not thinking too big. There are many grass roots issues that need to be resolved before rugby will ever be mainstream in this country. The most significant being the toffs snobby elitist attitude which alienates the sport from many Australian working class families (core Australia). The second being the added complication of too many rules that slows the sport down into a bore fest… Until these issues are resolved I would stick to the status quo and not live in never never land.
January 31st 2010 @ 10:40am
Norm said | January 31st 2010 @ 10:40am | Report comment
-” The most significant being the toffs snobby elitist attitude which alienates the sport from many Australian working class families (core Australia).”…never were truer words spoken.
January 31st 2010 @ 10:45am
rugbyfuture said | January 31st 2010 @ 10:45am | Report comment
“cough” Troll “cough”
January 31st 2010 @ 10:57am
Norm said | January 31st 2010 @ 10:57am | Report comment
The truth hurts.
January 31st 2010 @ 11:05am
rugbyfuture said | January 31st 2010 @ 11:05am | Report comment
well ill be one of those toffs to you and say, that although you can’t afford to get out of australia and need a passport, there are broader horizons of rugby than it is in australia, just because our players put priorities on education it doesnt mean they’re snobs, TPN came from granville south and now goes to uni at UNSW, there are alot more working class ruggers out there then you might think, just like theres white collar mungos. The one thing that you might want to examine is the increasing islander, kiwi and saffa populations who arent so “toff”. one of the main problems of attracting fans and players is because public and catholic schools won’t allow rugby being played in the schools, so really, it is them who is restricting rugby, not rugby itself. fortunately because the demographic of supporters of rugby is white collar it means it always has money and good administration skills behind it, thats more than you can say for league.
point is though, that we’re sticking to our posts, so you stick to yours, something hypocrite leagueys don’t seem to manage.
January 31st 2010 @ 12:01pm
Norm said | January 31st 2010 @ 12:01pm | Report comment
-”public and catholic schools won’t allow rugby being played in the schools”…You’re confusing lack of interest with regulations.
- “rugby…always has money and good administration skills behind it, thats more than you can say for league”…Does Concord Oval or the ARC ring a bell with you or how about the upcoming sold out NRL All Star game or even State of Origin.
- :we’re sticking to our posts, so you stick to yours, something hypocrite leagueys don’t seem to manage”…I thought we lived in a free country not something akin to apartheid SA or Vichy France.
January 31st 2010 @ 12:17pm
rugbyfuture said | January 31st 2010 @ 12:17pm | Report comment
yet, continually the CAS, GPS, ISA, CIC etc get panned for not allowing league into the schools? I warn you that there are approaches onto these schools and we will soon experience it ourselves as to whether it is a rule or just a general disinterest.
concord oval was built and administered in the amateur era for one thing and the nswru and ARU have managed to survive. the ARC made a loss of only 5 million dollars, which is actually a fairly good loss for such a large startup company, also the ARU still managed to be in profit a year after by more than that and the estimated loss figures if the ARC continued. the nrl all stars game and state of origin are very good efforts on behalf of the rugby league communities, however the nrl’s clubs are all unsustainable, not too good for a bench mark proffesional competition in the world. the kangaroos still arent seeing their money from the 4 nations and the clubs are collectively trying to change the system, yet again to try and become more sustainable, which is an experiment and far from any proven result.
well apparently you werent here when there was a collective agreement by both sides to keep away, since you blokes complained so much about us talking in your posts. obviously you arent aware of no war zones. and using those two as examples, as has been debated before, i would put to league that it wouldn’t have been aphartied in south africa (since it was a national and cultural political policy wholistic of south africa at the time) but league practically doesnt exist there. and vichy france is an excuse which you guys use for league in france not being popular, yet frnace was at its strongest point post vichy and failed to capitalise on any momentum regained. it was post vichy that the shamateurism of FIRA was buying over the players of the thirteen man game because it was getting the better players at the time. There has been comment, there has been competition, now stick to the agreement or we will stop sticking to ours.
January 31st 2010 @ 12:54pm
Norm said | January 31st 2010 @ 12:54pm | Report comment
Collective Agreement! And if I don’t stick to it neither will you? How about you stick it up your jumper. Nobody speaks for me except me and nobody tells me what to do except me (well if you don’t count my wife in both instances), so put that in your pipe and smoke it.
January 31st 2010 @ 12:57pm
rugbyfuture said | January 31st 2010 @ 12:57pm | Report comment
but do you agree or disagree on the other issues?
thats a bit of a nobby thing to say for someone who says the ruggers and rah rahs are being up themselves.
February 3rd 2010 @ 7:15pm
Banger said | February 3rd 2010 @ 7:15pm | Report comment
Catholic Schools? I can understand the perception, while most of the regional ones focus on league in QLD and NSW a lot also play union.
Also correct me if I am wrong but I am nearly certain that St Josephs Hunter’s Hill, St Joseph’s Nudgee College and Marist Brother’s Ashgrove are the three schools that have produced the most wallabies, and they are all Catholic.
January 31st 2010 @ 11:19am
JF said | January 31st 2010 @ 11:19am | Report comment
“The most significant being the toffs snobby elitist attitude which alienates the sport from many Australian working class families (core Australia).”
This is such a myth, it is like saying that RL alienates the middle classes from the game because of the sports working class roots. What rubbish.
January 31st 2010 @ 11:41am
Norm said | January 31st 2010 @ 11:41am | Report comment
You only have to read the majority of Aust rugby Roar posters to see that it is not a myth.
January 31st 2010 @ 11:55am
JF said | January 31st 2010 @ 11:55am | Report comment
Differentiation – not elitism.
January 31st 2010 @ 2:50pm
Bay35Pablo said | January 31st 2010 @ 2:50pm | Report comment
Use whatever you want to justify that chip on your shoulder.
The subbies team I played for had as many tradies as it had professionals.
January 31st 2010 @ 3:13pm
Norm said | January 31st 2010 @ 3:13pm | Report comment
The tradies are private school boys who didn’t make it to uni.
January 31st 2010 @ 4:34pm
Justin said | January 31st 2010 @ 4:34pm | Report comment
We have more blue than white collar at my club but stereotypes live on for those in denial
January 31st 2010 @ 5:19pm
Bay35Pablo said | January 31st 2010 @ 5:19pm | Report comment
Norm, as opposed to me, the public school boy who ended up being the high paid white collar?
Plenty of government school tradies …. country boys some of ‘em too.
February 1st 2010 @ 7:18am
Dave said | February 1st 2010 @ 7:18am | Report comment
The majority of Pacific Islands rugby union players in Australia all went to privatre schools as well ? Common Norm, Get over it.
January 31st 2010 @ 3:32pm
rugbyfuture said | January 31st 2010 @ 3:32pm | Report comment
those bloody private schoolboys are everywhere!
norm …. but doesnt that make them true blue, blue blooded rebels, tearing away from the fractured world and socio economic bounds? therefore making them as working class as anybody?
January 31st 2010 @ 10:34am
ohtani's jacket said | January 31st 2010 @ 10:34am | Report comment
Twenty teams? There shouldn’t even be 15 teams.
If Super rugby were a major source of revenue for SANZAR I could see the justification in expanding it, but it’s only worth about 30% of the broadcasting deal. If the rights to the Super 15 were negotiated separately from the total package that SANZAR offers, I think people would be shocked at how little it’s worth.
They’re not expanding this competition on the basis of demand, therefore they’ve hardly received anything at all for the extra teams they’ve added. The last deal needed to be $500m over 5 years to have any significant gain and it was only $323m which included separate payments for the Currie Cup and NPC.
At least the NZRU are smart enough not to expand from their original five teams. They actually get a bit of extra revenue each time and results-wise they’ve managed to stay on top.
January 31st 2010 @ 10:45am
rugbyfuture said | January 31st 2010 @ 10:45am | Report comment
i think you missed his point here ohtani, he’s talking about domestic competitions leading into a 20 team H cup
January 31st 2010 @ 11:20am
ohtani's jacket said | January 31st 2010 @ 11:20am | Report comment
It’s a nice idea in theory, but the rights to the ANZC are only worth $20m and the rights to the Currie Cup $56m. News Ltd. and Super Sport would have to give NZ and SA tens of millions more for the rights to their domestic comps if you took away the Super 15 and replaced it with a HC comp. Money that would have to be spread over all the provinces so that each of them operated like a Super rugby franchise.
It’ll never happen because there’s no market to onsell the rights for the ANZC and Currie Cup. As it is, the overseas rights to the Tri-Nations and Super 14 are not worth particularly much. France is the largest market they have in that respect.
North America and Argentina would have to start their own professional comps and the JRFU barely receive anything for the rights to the Top League. Besides, those countries play rugby in the opposite season which Roar contributors always overlook.
January 31st 2010 @ 11:38am
JF said | January 31st 2010 @ 11:38am | Report comment
The domestic comps are only worth that much because of Super Rugby. If Super Rugby was abolished and replaced by a championship, it would increase the value of the domestic comps and would allow Australia to develop a domestic comp. The point is, people would rather support real provices than hybrid franchises. A championship that involves real provinces would generate greater support and therefore revenue, than Super Rugby will ever be able to.
January 31st 2010 @ 12:19pm
ohtani's jacket said | January 31st 2010 @ 12:19pm | Report comment
I’m afraid that’s just not true.
The ANZC and Currie Cup only have one primary market each — the New Zealand and South African markets respectively. If they were to be made the premier competitions in each country it would no doubt led to a rise in attendance, viewership, sponsorship and so forth, but there’s very few overseas markets you could sell it to. This isn’t the EPL, NFL, MLB or NBA we’re talking about. Do you really think Fox would pay for the rights to all ANZC and Currie Cup games? At a stretch, they might pick up the odd game each round.
Most overseas markets would only be interested in the HC games. The reason SANZAR make any money from their News Ltd. deal is the idea that people are watching Super rugby games live in different markets around the world. Won’t happen with the ANZC and Currie Cup. The global rights to SANZAR competitions are small as it is. They’d only get smaller if it were broken down into domestic comps.
January 31st 2010 @ 12:58pm
JF said | January 31st 2010 @ 12:58pm | Report comment
I am not saying that NPC and CC revenues will replace Super Rugby revenue, but it is the championship that would be of greater value overall compared to Super Rugby. I see too many kiwis and saffas that are simply indifferent towards Super Rugby – they would rather support their NPC/CC team. Imagine a Western Province – Hawkes Bay HC final, this would be of massive interest throughout the rugby world. Is their any other football competition in the world that changes the teams halfway through the season? Look at European Rugby or Football, great domestic competitions and championships based on the great teams with distinct identities. Teams like Canterbury and Natal could become massive names in the rugby world in the same way teams as Stade Francais and Munster are in Europe. The current super franchises simply lack the identity and subsequent supporter base that could turn the SH championship into a huge, lucrative, internation competition.
January 31st 2010 @ 8:56pm
ohtani's jacket said | January 31st 2010 @ 8:56pm | Report comment
I don’t doubt what you’re saying, JF.
I just think SANZAR are locked into the Super rugby model and it would be extremely difficult for them to change tack at this point.
The ARU have made it pretty clear that the ARC was a failure of the previous administration and the way forward is a fifth franchise. From their perspective, a conference system is an Australian domestic comp.
South Africa, on the other hand, probably undersold the value of the Currie Cup fights (and foolishly threw in inbound tours in the deal) but they needed cash in a hurry and Super Sport came them an advance up front. Nevertheless, they probably feel that the Currie Cup is in reasonably good shape.
In a sense, it’s the NZRU that are struggling to juggle all three tiers of professional rugby, but there would have to be serious debate about whether ANZC and a SANZAR championship could sustain professional rugby in NZ. If we got the same money for it (or more), great, but if the money shrunk we’d be in trouble.
January 31st 2010 @ 1:16pm
rugbyfuture said | January 31st 2010 @ 1:16pm | Report comment
taking away super rugby would not force australia to set up a domestic comp, it would need time to slowly emerge, it’ll happen soon.
January 31st 2010 @ 1:15pm
rugbyfuture said | January 31st 2010 @ 1:15pm | Report comment
i think the idea of a SANZAAR championship is a good one, and that dissolving the super rugby comp the way it is would increase the revenue and the worldwide appeal of the various domestic rugby comps but it would take time to recooperate. Argentina are going proffesional and joining SANZAR soon though so that will be in plae (hence SANZAAR) but the idea of north america and japan joining is stupid though.
January 31st 2010 @ 1:32pm
JF said | January 31st 2010 @ 1:32pm | Report comment
Yes, the change would have to be gradual, a post-super comp would have to be established first to be run concurrently with NPC/CC. When the new competition is established, Super Rugby can be replaced by the championship.
Argentina would be a perfect fit further down the track – 8 provincial teams with 4 qualifying for the championship. Forget Japan, forget Nth America. Expansion could come in the form of challenge cups – the competitions the non-qualifying teams play during championship rounds. Pacific – non-qualifying Aus and NZ teams playing each other would provide an opportunity for PI teams to join a competition. Likewise African and Sth American Challenge Cups could be developed to expand the game in those regions.
January 31st 2010 @ 10:53am
ohtani's jacket said | January 31st 2010 @ 10:53am | Report comment
What’s with this mythical Tokyo side?
Japan has two top sides in Tokyo and they’re both based in Fuchu city, which is one of the 23 cities that make up the Tokyo metropolis. Theoretically, you could merge the Top League sides and have Kanto, Kyushu and Kansai representives in Super rugby. These would represent the three major prefectures that form the Japanese Top League, but it’s a bit like everytime John O’Neill visits Japan. The JRFU officials smile and nod, O’Neill thinks they’re all on the same page and the JRFU continue to have no intention whatsoever of joining Super rugby.
January 31st 2010 @ 11:05am
JF said | January 31st 2010 @ 11:05am | Report comment
It is Super Rugby that is holding southern hemisphere rugby back. Instead of having 2 mighty domestic leagues (CC and NPC) and a newly developed Australian domestic competition that leads into a SH championship, we have contrived franchises representing the great rugby nations of SA and NZ and no Australian competition.
Australia will never have a domestic competition while the current Super Rugby format stays in place. SH rugby will never reach its potential for attracting interest and generating revenue while the CC and NPC are devalued into secondary competitions. Forget expansion, we must first get the format right to both streamline and maximise support for rugby union in the SH.
January 31st 2010 @ 1:29pm
damo said | January 31st 2010 @ 1:29pm | Report comment
Like the Irishman, who was asked for directions to Dublin, said-
” Well first of all, you shouldn’t be starting from here”
Whatever should have happened in OZ rugby is now irrelevant. Wherever rugby goes it starts from here.
Full page of rugby news in the Melbourne focused Australian newspaper yesterday. And the Rebels haven’t even signed a player, let alone laced up a boot, let alone packed a scrum. The place is warming up. And the other S14 teams are feeling it too. The games will tell.
But why are you guys talking about the Super 15? It was more fun a while ago when
Norm, of the ‘rugby has no right to exist’ school of thought,
was blowing his lid..
January 31st 2010 @ 3:06pm
Norm said | January 31st 2010 @ 3:06pm | Report comment
-”Norm, of the ‘rugby has no right to exist’ school of thought”…err I have never said that. Not for the first time have the rugby union brigade misrepresented the opposing view. Does this portraying yourself as a victim syndrome have its origins in your schooldays? Bullied by Flashman at your private school? With that attitude it’s no wonder the game of rugby struggles in this country.
January 31st 2010 @ 4:33pm
sheek said | January 31st 2010 @ 4:33pm | Report comment
Damo,
“Whatever should have happened in OZ rugby is now irrelevant. Wherever rugby goes it starts from here”.
How very, very true……
We all have our ‘wish lists’, which is all very well, but when faced with reality, whatever we come up with, has to begin by dealing with the situation as we find it right now.
This is an unpleasant truth we must acknowledge, before moving forward.
January 31st 2010 @ 2:11pm
simon said | January 31st 2010 @ 2:11pm | Report comment
So why don’t they go in this direction? And no subjective stupid answers please.
Is it possible that Super rugby could eventually expand at a sustainable rate to the point where we have 8 teams in each conference with an international finals system?
January 31st 2010 @ 5:57pm
sheek said | January 31st 2010 @ 5:57pm | Report comment
My direction, which I want to spare other readers from, since I’ve gone on about it often enough, is briefly (!), this:
When the next SR (S15) agreement expires (end 2015), the SR should remain, but as a Heineken Cup style truncated comp. Even though it would be truncated, it would still be significant as a revenue driver.
The SR would contain 12 teams (top 3 teams form each of SA, NZ, OZ & Argentina domestic comps qualify). Two pools x 8 playing 7 games over 8 weekends (one bye). Followed by quarters, semis & final. Everyone plays min 7 matches, max 10 (for finalists).
The reduction of 8 home & away games goes towards national comp (specifically in Australia). SA & NZ aren’t affected in this matter, but it allows them to give greater priority to domestic comp.
Add Argentina to 3N making it 4N. Each country still plays 6 games (2 against other 3). With premier rugby, find window to allow leading Wallabies & provincial players to appear up to 6 times for their clubs (better than the current virtual zero).
I tinker with the model constantly, but this is the gist of it.
I wouldn’t consider the Asian or North American countries as part of SANZAR super rugby for a whole raft of reasons, just two of them being the massive difference in playing standards & the massive traveling distances.
January 31st 2010 @ 9:00pm
simon said | January 31st 2010 @ 9:00pm | Report comment
My bet is that Super Rugby earns much more revenue than the individual domestic comps would, even combined with a truncated SR comp. 10 weeks plus of Super Rugby without the guarantee of the best players making the cut, won’t do it for the broadcasters unfortunately.
Sorry to make this point each time Sheek, it’s just not going to be financially viable enough to keep players playing Southern Hemisphere rugby – the whole reason for Super Rugby in the first place. This is a big reason why SA and NZ agreed to move to the franchise model. It was simply necessary from their point of view.
February 1st 2010 @ 4:10pm
AndyS said | February 1st 2010 @ 4:10pm | Report comment
But from your own post above Sheek, first time around the Kiwis scrapped the idea of a HC style competition and moved to regions when they realised leading All Blacks from weaker provinces would miss out on week-in, week-out rugby. Why would that not still be the case?
More to the point, say such a model had been implemented from last year – what would Ioane, Horwill, Hynes and Genia be doing this year to press their claims for Wallabies selection?
January 31st 2010 @ 3:00pm
ROY said | January 31st 2010 @ 3:00pm | Report comment
Won’t we have a heinekin cup style when super 15 starts? – Top five from three nations, plus 2 rounds between each domestic teams?
It’s not Australia’s fault that NZ and Sth Af tried to merge all their sides into stupid franchises, with shit names and lost all their history and tradition. Tell me would any of this be a problem if the top 5 sides in NZ NPC teams qualified and top SAf Currie Cup sides qualified? Australia is not responsible for ensuring all NZ and SAf’s top players get a game.
January 31st 2010 @ 6:00pm
sheek said | January 31st 2010 @ 6:00pm | Report comment
Roy,
No, we won’t. The 15 franchises, 5 each country, are conglomerate regions, not provinces or districts. My idea is that the provinces or national clubs qualify for the SR (HC style) via their own domestic comps.
This means, like the HC, the teams making up the comp may & will change from year to year. At present, the regions are static, except for expansion teams, of course.