Is it too late for a Super Rugby champions concept?

Eddard Do you hear me disagreeing with you, why couldn't Sanzar have set up a Pacific conference with say San Francisco (USA) Vancouver (Canada) Tokyo (Japan) Hong Kong (China) Singapore And while your at it a Pacific side based in Western Sydney. It just leaves me wandering why, when nations are asking to come in to the SANZAR fold.

If NZ want to play more competitive nations then Samoa, Fiji and Tonga are all ranked higher than Japan, US and Canada. In fact Samoa is ranked above TRC's Argentina. Why aren't Samoa considered for the TRC? And they have beaten the Wallabies recently - something the Pumas haven't been able to do. From a rugby perspective Samoa should be in. Let's be honest, NZRU's motivation is not really about competition is it? It's about the size of the economies. They want richer countries to become more competitive. Their heart is in the wrong place. PS: I have nothing against US, Canada and Japan. I hope they do become more competitive. http://www.irb.com/rankings/sportid=1/ranking/index.html

This is a great goal. But sending the Maori All Blacks and the All Blacks for one off matches isn't going to move the US and Canada up the pecking order. They need their players in top class professional environments year round. At the moment this is only really possible in Europe because Super Rugby is such a closed shop as a glorified national teams trial. Professional rugby in North America aligned with Super Rugby and the Rugby Championship would be a great goal, but the step before that would be getting their best players in the domestic competitions and/or super rugby in Australia, NZ and South Africa. This is starting to happen with Japanese players in super rugby, but I think there needs to be a bigger push. Asia and the Americas are big markets of potential growth. But if we want to benefit from it, we have to do the ground work...and it can't just be at test level.

Glenn Innes All I can say is this, the NZRFU have said that they want the USA (and Canada) further up the pecking order of rugby nations by the end of the decade. They have stated that the USA is one of their big causes in the near term, hence why they sent the Maori All Blacks in last year and are rumoured to be sending the All Blacks to Chicago this November. In other words the NZRFU want to be able to play more competitive nations going into the future, with Japan, Canada and the USA being just the start of this push.

Evidence? Well the Bledisloe Cup in Sydney hasn't sold out the last few years. It used to in minutes. Test matches against other opposition now rarely reach capacity. Viewing figures are much lower than they were 10-15 years ago too. Who would you propose we play all this extra test rugby against anyway? 5 games a year against the All Blacks and South Africa each? 3 times a year against the AB's is pushing it as it is. All the players for every other decent team play for European clubs and their domestic calendar is full. They struggle to fit in the time for test matches as it is.

"Because that is the way it's always been" is never a good reason to do anything. Everything being secondary to the national team is the reason we're in this mess. Meanwhile, rugby in France thrives despite the misfortunes of the national team because it has a strong domestic competition. Cricket is a great example because it's really prospering now after some lean years because of the success of the big bash league. It's a genuine competition with international stars in it providing regular quality content. It stands in its own right and isn't perceived as merely a development pathway. Ditto the A League in soccer. Australian soccer is no longer tied to the fortune of the Socceroos. When they're doing well, great! But if they're not doing so well it's not the end of the world for the sport in Australia.

To extend on what I said above is there any emperical evidence to suggest playing more Test matches will make the general public less interested in Rugby Union. I mean super Rugby has been with us for nearly twenty years and it still can't crack FTA in Australia but Test Rugby certainly can.So why not more Test Rugby and by extension more FTA coverage for the game... how could that be a bad thing? Iam not trying to be a smart arse this is an issue I have given some thought to as I have mentioned on other threads I am kind of agnostic about the NRC I keep swinging on the issue but really I can't see the mainstream following it because they just don't get into domestic Rugby in a big way and really never have. As a system for developing players it will be a success and by extension will help the Wallabies so indirectly will pay it's way but in purely commercial term I doubt it will cut it and has no hope of getting FTA coverage. People do like Test Rugby however even hardcore League people watch Test Rugby that is the ace in the Rugby Union pack so why not more of it?

Eddard - SuperRugby always will be treated as an extended trial for national selection because that is Rugby culture ... like cricket the focus is on the national team and beneath that only the harcore take an interest and everything is secondary to the success of the national team...this makes it very different to soccer or any other football game.

I can see this developing as the sport evolves. May have been on the table when they decided to bring in the third tier competition instead. The fact that club rugby is played in a competition that represents arguably the three best sporting nations, begs the question if rugby really needs a champions league. Download the ScoreCube app. for live scores and statistics across all sports at one glance:bit.ly/1j2iTeX

I remember back in 2005 when the S12 pulled in 250,000 in there first round of the comp.

I agree but the 10 OZ sides will have to be NRL.

So then instead of having multiple games of interest to watch every weekend, we would have 1? And the success of the sport would be even more tied to the success of one team? Test rugby should have a sense of occasion and specialness. Play too much of it and that goes. The next level down is where you want the majority of the content. It's where you can better develop tribalism, local derby's, community engagement and global sporting brands. The problem for rugby is that the 2nd tier is not treated this way. Super Rugby is treated like an extended trial for 3 national teams more than anything else. Meanwhile the leagues it competes against for fans and talent are treated as the bread and butter and grow bigger and bigger.

AndyS You have hit the nail right on the head, If we take on the Europeans at Club Rugby we will lose and lose badly. The Europeans are about to set up a three tier pan European comp that will grow the game across Europe. Because if it lives up to that promise of becoming the main rugby event of Europe can you imagine the money advertisers will throw at it. Some insiders are already saying that the money available for club rugby over the next decade will rise exponentially. Also the talk coming out of North America is that they want a US/Canada pro comp up and running by the end of 2015, with this being spearheaded by a group (one of about five) called Rugbylaw who is holding a combine in April/May for NFL rejects who they think can be trained as pro rugby players. Then there has been talk that Japans Top League may set up teams on the Asian mainland, (just rumour mind you). What am I saying, if people on this site think we have competition for our players now, you wait, you havn't seen anything yet. If these people up in the Northern Hemisphere get there act together where do you think they are going to look for new talent for there multi-million dollar clubs. To think we in the southern hemisphere can all go it alone and be successful is just wishful thinking, for a start how are we going to keep our best players or semi-best players, the money they will be offered will be just staggering. People need to think of these things when trying to tell us of the GOOD OLD DAYS.

@Thundertguts. I did indeed enjoy exceptional wines with my dinner at The Club. Tomorrow? Super Rugby's inability to attract a crowd will still be a challenge for Sanzar but I'll be fine. Thank you very much.

Gee Katipo, I think you had 1 too many oysters for dinner washed down with that 1954 Grange you had been saving for a special occasion leading to hallucinations about a non existent competition and an existing competition which wont exist in the future to be replaced with a 6 monthly RWC. Tomorrow will look better!!

@formerflanker. I wish! If it were up to me there would be hooped jerseys everywhere! I suspect the NRC will be a raging success. So why wait 4 or 5 years to turn Super Rugby in to a Champions league? I'll probably lose this argument to the conservative majority but rugby exists in a competitive environment. The writings on the wall. Act fast. The quick and the dead as they say.

@Glen Innes. That's an interesting perspective. You have provided genuine insights there. Good thinking.

My head hurts with all this thinking. Can't we just leave things the way they are for 4 years and see if the new national championship gets the Australian crowds and viewers back? Seriously - constant tinkering with laws, competitions, jersey colours, points for tries and field goals, and marketing strategies all obscure the real changes taking place in our game I.e. improving our coaching depth and player skill sets. Give Oz rugby time to build to world domination status (again!) and the problems of sponsorship revenue, broadcast rights, and crowd numbers will be eradicated.

Maybe the answer for Rugby Union is to except it's limitations and play to it's strengths.Rugby has always been based around the cricket model which makes it unique among the football games. In other words the emphasis has always been on test Rugby as against soccer where domestic leagues rule and the international game is really all about the World Cup once every four years. Maybe the answer is one out of left field.. shorten Super Rugby and lengthen the RWC and by extension give the sporting public more of what they are actually interested in ie Test Match Rugby. In Australia the mainstream are really only interested in the Wallabies so give them what they want.... more of the Wallabies .Kiwis will probably scream that "we are different we love Rugby" well the crowds your teams pull for Super Rugby games hardly indicates the kind of passion that Victorians have for AFL for eg. If you love it beneath international level you are very reserved about it and really just like Australia everything seems to revolve around The All Blacks... that is when the stadiums are full so why not play more test matches. Also the vast Stadiums of The South African republic look pretty empty for most super Rugby games so once again give the fans what they want...Test Rugby. Other than Soccer Rugby is the only football game with a meaningful international scene but unlike football it has never really had big domestic leagues even in the nations were it is mainstream - it has always been more like cricket with an international focus. So why not play to your strengths(*and in Australia your main rivals weakness) shorten Super Rugby and extend the RWC to four rounds home and away and then the top two Nations play a best of three series to decide the champions.You might just be suprised how well this formulae would work.

A shorter season with an obvious break is a must. The sense of occasion has left rugby now. For example a week after the Super Rugby final we are straight into test matches and then after the test match season, Super rugby is less than two months away from starting.