Another great NRC season, but we know it could be better

Same at concord

The rays had a merch tent at concord selling training jerseys for $15 that looked pretty snazzy, but interestingly enough not actual jerseys...

I think that is pretty close to agreement. The NRC probably isn't going to engage wholesale with casual consumers of sport or generate a squillion dollars, but it wasn't intended to and Brett's article wasn't claiming it would or should. It has a job to do that was previously going undone, without which the sport was operating with one hand behind its back in identifying and developing talent. It could still do that job better, but to do so it has to operate as well as it possibly can within its role and Brett was identifying some ways it was letting itself down. The better it does the more easily the sport might do the bigger job, but there are a couple of other areas in which improvement is also desperately needed. One might even argue that the inability to identify and progress improvements in this aspect may even indicate some of the other areas aren't going so well...

The Drua could be joined by another PI based team in the near future with WR looking to fund another entrant in the NRC. https://www.stuff.co.nz/sport/rugby/international/107840178/Samoa-Tonga-could-be-next-as-Fiji-clinch-Australian-rugby-minor-premiership

It’s not a contradiction. It’s saying if fan engagement with the NRC is what’s required to unlock it’s potential as a player development tool- then stop flogging the horse. It ain’t going to happen through the NRC. We can agree this semi professional, 2 month competition is a dirt cheap product can’t we? Surely you can see it’s been set up to run as cheaply as possible to give it the best chance at survival. It’s minimal overheads are covered by it’s broadcast rights agreement with Fox Sports. Given the minuscule numbers tuning in, one can only assume the decision to outlay the peanuts (in the scheme of things) they chip in is a strategy to fill up space and continue to position themselves as the home of rugby in Australia. Sure, there’s always going to be some people tuning into the NRC. I’m actually one of them. And I’m sure even Fox Sports wouldn’t bother with it if there weren’t (and they may still pull the pin in 2020). But it’s operating in a space that make it difficult to capture significant interest to (A) engage fans which rugby so desperately needs to do at the moment and (B) become a cash cow that would sure come in handy given the game’s precarious financial position. When you look at the big picture and identify the desperate need rugby has in this country to engage fans (and make money), attempting to utilize the NRC for these purposes is like taking to a house engulfed by flames with a watering can. Tinkering with the formula as Brett’s suggested may make up some ground and that’s great. But are we talking about rivers turning gold or at least a noticeable shift in Australia’s rugby landscape? Given the realities for the competition, I think not. May be it will be enough for Fox Sports to justify continuing to prop it up.

You say you accept that engagement translates to the quality of players development, then directly contradict yourself saying that if the NRCs return in player development is dependent on this, RA should wind up the experiment now? The NRC was built to be self sustaining; by definition that means it must engage fans. If no-one watches, there is no rag (oily or otherwise), no NRC and no player development into the tiers above. Its target audience may be the rusted on fans, but it entirely relies on them. And Brett's article is mostly about that - how the competition can better engage with that audience it already has and already wants to watch. He is not writing about putting it on FTA, replacing SR or conquering the world, just better exploiting the niche the competition has and maximising what it can achieve within that space. And in an ideal world, perhaps even recover some of the old fans that the professional game has already turned off.

I totally accept and agree: engagement = income and both = player development. That’s not the point of my original comment. The realities of the NRC suggest that it isn’t the vehicle to deliver substantial returns on either engagement or income. And if it’s return in the player development space is dependent on this, RA should wind up the experiment now. This isn’t news to RA either. They learnt their lesson with the ARC which was wound up following it’s inaugural year. It’s why the NRC was built to be self sustaining and able to run on the smell of an oily rag where its existence isn’t dependent on fan engagement. RA knows full well; a concept that doesn’t involve the best players in the country while relying on semi professionals to fill spots, that’s played in a small window for effectively the purpose of tightening up a development pathway is only going to draw in so much fan interest (eg. not a lot). And that market is really coming from a small percentage of the rusted on fan base. The casual/new fans that are required to really start to turn around the fortunes of the game are well beyond the reach of a concept like the NRC. It’s equivalent to Rugby League trying to increase its fan base and earning potential threw the Q Cup. Eg. A waste of time. I wholeheartedly agree that the best player development strategy is engaging an audience and in particular capturing the hearts and minds of young fans. But the NRC isn’t and never will be the tool to achieve this. A reality I believe RA are fully aware of and effectively acknowledged upon its establishment. I’ve been critical of the NRC from it’s inception because it doesn’t target what the game is crying out for- fan engagement. RA seem to understand it’s not a high interest concept but can’t seem to make the connection that a captivated audience is the best way to boost our future playing stocks. I still fail to see the NRC having any great impact in this space either, but while it’s not costing RA anything, its existence is neither here nor there.

I'd have to disagree. At all levels, fan engagement is income, and income will directly determine both the quality and longevity of the player development you are talking about. Get the eyes, especially in all those locations that just four SR professional teams don't/won't/can't engage with, then you get the money to pay coaches/players better, make a better product, pay a wage and get much better players fed up to the tiers above. If was just about the players and the running around, they could just play it untelevised down at a local sports ground Wednesday afternoon. But if they did, it would be all cost, the accountants would have it dead within a year, and then there would be neither fans nor development.

Bakkies, do you not know the Goondiwindi Trotting Ducks?

Brett, this article implies the NRC has a responsibility and the capacity to be utilised by RA as a fan engagement tool. To me that’s akin to the NRL using Matt Lodge to promote the women in league round. It’s just not the vessel to achieve this goal. Isn’t it’s purpose to kick start Australian rugby’s production line and better prepare players for the rigors of Super Rugby? Sure, the minor tweaks you’ve suggested require minimal effort and investment. But due to the realities of the structure of the competition, I think the expected return on these is also minimal at best. In my opinion, RA is much better served focusing their attention and resources in sorting out the current issues with Super Rugby where fan engagement is a real KPI (and obviously suffering badly at the moment). As far as the NRC is concerned; the strategies required in this space revolve around more adequately feeding those fully professional tiers that sit above it. That’s where I thought this article might be going because it really is the concepts core responsibility and the evidence suggests that like Super Rugby and fan engagement, it’s coming well short on this front.

NRC is certainly growing in status. Brett and QC both helping that.

Why were Sydney Rays so poor? I saw two of their games and they had a good contingent of super rugby players, and a few Wallabies. To me they looked like they were not interested. Maybe we're need to fast track some Colts to the team.

Melbourne does seem hard done by in this year's scheduling. Maybe if you had 4 home games you might want to take 1 or 2 to the regions, the *Melbourne* Rising playing fewer games in Melbourne than Queensland Country are playing in Brisbane does seem inconducive to building a supporter base.

Melbourne Rising have three “home” games this season; one in Adelaide, one in Geelong and tomorrow final game in Ballarat. While I am all for spreading the word to the regions, it is impossible to build a rusted on supporter base when you play home games at a different venue every game all of which are several hundred kilometres apart. I think Rising need to focus home games on one venue and in my opinion the best rugby venue outside AAMI Park in Melbourne is Box Hill’s ground. With the right promotion and allowing people to know where they can see their team play, and perhaps even develop a “home ground advantage”, I believe a better possibility exists for supporter growth and a club culture to be developed. Having teams wandering all over the place for home games does nothing for establishing and entrenching a club or a competition; it just seems Mickey Mouse.

Perhaps, and presumably Canberra went that way for particular reasons at the time. So, given that no-one will ever be able to mandate every single aspect of a competition and how it relates to everyone involved (as we found out with the ARC), and everyone will have a different perspective on what is good, right and even possible, a philosophical question - is it better to go with whatever turns out to be possible in the real world and try to improve it in time, or just sit around and do nothing but think about it unless it can be guaranteed that every single planet will align for everyone simultaneously and forever? There is plenty that could be improved in the NRC; Brett's article just highlights just a few of the easy ones. After that there is a longer list of harder ones. But there will never, ever be a perfect competition. Hope you brought a good book if that is what you are waiting for.

Anyway AndyS, i recant. my generation & many more before placed a lot of store in things like tradition. but i don't know what today's generation think. They seem to only want to live in the moment. Like t20 cricket. Forgotten as soon as it's over. There's a horse race on tomorrow called The Everest, at Randwick. It has no tradition to speak of, but it's the most expensive horse race in the world. The world. that's the hook, it's expensive. so damn expensive. Maybe I'm wrong about tradition. Maybe the NRC clubs should call themselves after how much they think they're worth, or would like to be worth. Like the $90m Vikings, or $80m Brisbane City, or $60.5m Force, etc.

AndyS, Ultimately what I think as an individual is irrelevant. However, it would seem I am surrounded by plenty of other people who struggled to be engaged by the NRC. Having teams that resonate with their constituents, or likely constituents, seems like a smart idea. Except that rugby seems to think it is above such basic concepts. You might describe some of my exceptions as cosmetic, but they've made little effort to change for five years. For example, no-one has ever satisfactorily explained to me how the Vikings are not Tuggeranong in disguise because apparently they own rugby in the ACT. Yet the Vikings have only a narrow support base, despite drawing players from all 7 Canberra clubs, they are still seen as just an extension of Tuggeranong, playing in red & white. Consequently, the Vikings do not represent all Canberrans who follow rugby. If you're trying to develop a national comp, the first priority must be selecting teams that appeal to their likely fanbase. Hey, shoot me down if I'm wrong but this would seem to be a pretty basic premise - appeal to your fanbase.

The RA talks about centralisation but yet doesn't have the gonads to put a stop to this. This is also the body that turned down 50 million and the Chairman and vice Chairman thumbed their nose at Twiggy. I used to have a lot of respect for Brett Robinson but like Eales he has ruined it by being involved in this fiasco. They need to tell the SRU that it is going ahead and the presence of a western Sydney professional side will actually benefit your clubs as juniors can represent the area they are from. This is the only chance that Rugby has of going in the area with money as the sport is up against AFL which has unlimited funds. Now they have blown it and the sport may not have the chance again. Once again they have not shown enough steel and made another wrong decision. They need to go before the game goes.

Jindabyne Bushpigs is one of the best.