Tier 2 & 3 Rugby Forum

SUPER RUGBY 2017

Posts: 411
Joined: Sun, 07 Dec 2014, 20:31
National Flag:
WalesWales

Re: SUPER RUGBY 2017

Postby Figaro » Tue, 11 Apr 2017, 09:12

BertSolomon wrote:
Bruce_ma_goose wrote:An Oz only contest would not garner enough TV money to compete with the increasing TV money in Europe. Breaking the Japanese market is essential for SANZAAR as people will not turn up or tune in to watch a competition with few, if any, international stars.

Football in Europe provides the evidence. Up until the mid 1990s you had European champion sides from Scotland, Yugoslavia, Sweden, Netherlands etc. Since TV money inequality took off these countries never have clubs reach the latter stages of European competitions and the quality of their leagues has plummeted with few international stars. No matter the quality of their youth systems, they will lose all their best players and be inferior to some clubs in the lower leagues of bigger TV markets.


But do you think cross-border leagues work? I think the jury is out.

Where countries have cultural and geographic common ground, and where a small country has a much bigger neighbour, they seem to work ok. So Canadian teams play in the NHL, NZ teams play in the NRL and A-League.

But in Super Rugby the teams are too widely scattered. Breaking the Japanese market is great in theory, but are fans really going to watch in big numbers?

Looking at most sports leagues worldwide, it seems to me that fans love the parochial rivalry of playing their near neighbours. In football, there’s been talk of a pan European Super League, but it would mean the likely end of ‘derby’ matches like Liverpool v Everton, which is why I think the concept has never gained much traction. I also think there will always be a lot of kudos about being champion of your country.


Didn't a fairly small Swiss side win the UEFA cup recently? But yes, your point is generally correct. What's become increasingly striking is how former bit-part players in the biggest leagues (like Southampton or Leicester) have become increasingly prevalent on a European level, at the expense of the big teams of smaller countries. There have been various attempts at an "Atlantic League" competition where some of the smaller countries have tried to band together (I think Scotland, Portugal, Sweden and the Netherlands were proposed at one point) to create a more lucrative competition, but UEFA have always blocked it.

As for cross-border competitions in general, I agree, the jury is still out. There is nothing quite like Super Rugby anywhere else (at least not in any sport I am familiar with) so it's hard to say whether its current problems are inherent to the structure or could have been avoided. The closest analogue is the Pro12, but there are some very significant differences from Super Rugby there: the distances are tiny by comparison (even since Italy joined), and the league is heavily subsidized by the profits made by the unions via the national sides (this is presumably the case to a certain extent for Super Rugby as well, but not as much); plus (ignoring the Italians) 7 of the 10 are within the same state, so it's actually less of a cross-border competition in many legal respects. There are also factors like the fact Pro12 games are watchable (and watched a lot) in England because they're on, and so on. Plus it's not clear that the Pro12 has really been a success either; I guess it depends on your definition of success.

Posts: 1446
Joined: Wed, 30 Apr 2014, 16:57

Re: SUPER RUGBY 2017

Postby 4N » Tue, 11 Apr 2017, 10:26

Super Rugby still considering North America:
http://www.americasrugbynews.com/2017/0 ... gby-teams/

User avatar
Posts: 457
Joined: Sat, 05 Jul 2014, 11:27

Re: SUPER RUGBY 2017

Postby ihateblazers » Tue, 11 Apr 2017, 11:21

To be honest i don't think that the Sunwolves have embarrassed themselves. With Canada and USA being of a similar level i could see them doing ok, like the Sunwolves get some foreign players to fill out the roster spots.

This is the main point from that article which sums up the problem:

“We want to see an engaging, vibrant and competitive competition that delivers a strong high performance pathway in all markets that will have a positive flow into the international game.”

If they want to have this expansive international outreach they need to change their priorities and get their head out of their arses and let professionals take over. They do not have the right mindset to grow a club competition commercially.

There needed to be freedom of movement between franchises to balance the competition and add vibrancy, and a removal of all restrictions for Pacific islanders and Argentinians across the competition ffs.

If you want to have strength v strength revert back to super 12, or change it to a cup style competition with seeded pools. Don't go half arsed.

Posts: 411
Joined: Sun, 07 Dec 2014, 20:31
National Flag:
WalesWales

Re: SUPER RUGBY 2017

Postby Figaro » Tue, 11 Apr 2017, 14:35

ihateblazers wrote:To be honest i don't think that the Sunwolves have embarrassed themselves. With Canada and USA being of a similar level i could see them doing ok, like the Sunwolves get some foreign players to fill out the roster spots.

This is the main point from that article which sums up the problem:

“We want to see an engaging, vibrant and competitive competition that delivers a strong high performance pathway in all markets that will have a positive flow into the international game.”

If they want to have this expansive international outreach they need to change their priorities and get their head out of their arses and let professionals take over. They do not have the right mindset to grow a club competition commercially.

There needed to be freedom of movement between franchises to balance the competition and add vibrancy, and a removal of all restrictions for Pacific islanders and Argentinians across the competition ffs.

If you want to have strength v strength revert back to super 12, or change it to a cup style competition with seeded pools. Don't go half arsed.


I think you're right, they're trying to have their cake and eat it in terms of keeping it an "elite" competition for current and budding All-Blacks as well as being a money-spinner in expanded markets.

If the measure of not being good enough is "Can be beaten by the Sunwolves", then what sense does it make to keep the SunWolves? And if the idea is to have no other team weak enough for the SunWolves to actually beat, then how on earth do they expect the game to spread and expand if the expansion team is a constant whipping boy?

Posts: 1446
Joined: Wed, 30 Apr 2014, 16:57

Re: SUPER RUGBY 2017

Postby 4N » Tue, 11 Apr 2017, 15:20

A combined US-Argentine side out of San Diego (just lost their NFL team) or Florida, Texas etc could be a way to expand without diluting the talent pool too much.

Agree that Pacific Island internationals shouldn't count as overseas signings. But the players unions especially in Australia may have a different view. They're already unhappy about losing an Australian side.

Posts: 2569
Joined: Thu, 17 Apr 2014, 02:51
Location: São Paulo
National Flag:
BrazilBrazil

Re: SUPER RUGBY 2017

Postby victorsra » Tue, 11 Apr 2017, 15:21

Interesting the flights from Buenos Aires to Auckland are not much longer than from Buenos Aires to Jo'burg, as there are no direct flghts from Argentina to South Africa (they need to make connection in São Paulo)... Googling it both can take around 14hours! If it is to have 3 groups of 5, why not 3 groups of 6 with the Jaguars in the NZ conference? It is a matter of finding TV times the can be watched by Argentines too (1 PM in NZ = 10 PM in Argentina, 2 PM = 11 PM, still ok for a NZ Saturday match/ Argentina's Friday night... or Sunday afternoon-Satuday night). Nobody needs to be axed!
Brazilian Rugby News: www.portaldorugby.com.br

Posts: 31
Joined: Wed, 15 Mar 2017, 11:00
National Flag:
EnglandEngland

Re: SUPER RUGBY 2017

Postby BertSolomon » Tue, 11 Apr 2017, 18:32

Figaro wrote:As for cross-border competitions in general, I agree, the jury is still out. There is nothing quite like Super Rugby anywhere else (at least not in any sport I am familiar with) so it's hard to say whether its current problems are inherent to the structure or could have been avoided.


Professionalism came to rugby union a century after most sports, but rather than look at what worked best for other pro leagues, SANZAR came up with a concept that had never been used before in any other sport. And still hasn't. I think that tells us something is badly wrong with the structure.

Figaro wrote:The closest analogue is the Pro12, but there are some very significant differences from Super Rugby there: the distances are tiny by comparison (even since Italy joined), and the league is heavily subsidized by the profits made by the unions via the national sides (this is presumably the case to a certain extent for Super Rugby as well, but not as much); plus (ignoring the Italians) 7 of the 10 are within the same state, so it's actually less of a cross-border competition in many legal respects. There are also factors like the fact Pro12 games are watchable (and watched a lot) in England because they're on, and so on.


The Pro 12 has worked ok for Ireland (where there was already a provincial tradition). Scotland had a pretty lean 10 years or so until performances picked up recently. It doesn't work for Wales and their top clubs/regions would be off tomorrow if the Aviva Premiership invited them in - Welsh football and cricket teams play in English competitions and that's what most Welsh rugby fans would prefer. For Italy the Pro 12 has been a disaster. No common culture or geography or history for fans to identify with. They've also destroyed what used to be a half decent domestic league.

Figaro wrote:Plus it's not clear that the Pro12 has really been a success either; I guess it depends on your definition of success.


I don't think a competition can be called successful when it relies so heavily on subsidies. It would be like claiming the British car industry was successful in the 1970s... :D :D :D

Posts: 1062
Joined: Fri, 25 Apr 2014, 14:11
National Flag:
ZimbabweZimbabwe

Re: SUPER RUGBY 2017

Postby Sables4EVA » Wed, 12 Apr 2017, 07:06

RugbyLiebe wrote:
Sables4EVA wrote:I think this is an opportunity to start something new. Whichever teams are dropped from Super Rugby can be used to start regional 2nd Div tournaments whereby the winners play off against the lowest Conference teams to see if they can be promoted.

Yes I know the financial problems, and all the other difficulties it would face but it would help spread the game and maybe improve the main competition by creating excitement over the bottom teams fates.

For Example
Eastern Qual Div
Dropped Aus team
2nd Japanese team
Singapore team
Teams from Tasmania, South Australia and Northern Territory

Western Qual Div
2 dropped SA teams
2nd Argentinian team
3 franchises based in African countries


Sorry but that's pure fantasy. Nobody wants to see a 2nd division. It won't happen It is a waste of money..


I know for a fact that any competition similar to this would create a big buzz and excitement in the African countries. Your dismissal of this is very naive and lacks an understanding of the game in other areas. How do you expect the game to grow if you do not spread it?

And of course it is fantasy, that is the point.

Posts: 411
Joined: Sun, 07 Dec 2014, 20:31
National Flag:
WalesWales

Re: SUPER RUGBY 2017

Postby Figaro » Wed, 12 Apr 2017, 07:45

BertSolomon wrote:The Pro 12 has worked ok for Ireland (where there was already a provincial tradition). Scotland had a pretty lean 10 years or so until performances picked up recently. It doesn't work for Wales and their top clubs/regions would be off tomorrow if the Aviva Premiership invited them in - Welsh football and cricket teams play in English competitions and that's what most Welsh rugby fans would prefer. For Italy the Pro 12 has been a disaster. No common culture or geography or history for fans to identify with. They've also destroyed what used to be a half decent domestic league.


There's only one Welsh cricket team and Wales doesn't even have a national side, so I'm not sure that comparison is really relevant. I think regions *could* have worked a lot better in Wales, if they had been properly established, and not the club mergers that actually happened. For example, two parts of Wales that do have a distinct regional identity - the Valleys and the North - weren't given a region, and instead regions were invented where there wasn't a particular regional identity (cf. Ospreylia and Gwent), based simply on there being some clubs there that didn't want to be cut out from pro Rugby.

Everyone goes on about how Welsh fans would prefer an Anglo-Welsh league, but I'm not convinced of this. European games versus English sides don't get better attendances than those versus French or Celtic sides (there's a slight boost when we play nearby sides like Gloucester or Bath, but that's just the travelling contingent). Contrary to popular belief, domestic Rugby has *never* been that popular in Wales - people have mostly supported the national side, and enjoyed the occasional local derby. Even "famous" club sides like Pontypool and Ebbw Vale averaged <1,000 crows pre-regions.

Posts: 1302
Joined: Wed, 14 Oct 2015, 13:30
National Flag:
GermanyGermany

Re: SUPER RUGBY 2017

Postby RugbyLiebe » Wed, 12 Apr 2017, 08:00

Sables4EVA wrote:
RugbyLiebe wrote:
Sables4EVA wrote:I think this is an opportunity to start something new. Whichever teams are dropped from Super Rugby can be used to start regional 2nd Div tournaments whereby the winners play off against the lowest Conference teams to see if they can be promoted.

Yes I know the financial problems, and all the other difficulties it would face but it would help spread the game and maybe improve the main competition by creating excitement over the bottom teams fates.

For Example
Eastern Qual Div
Dropped Aus team
2nd Japanese team
Singapore team
Teams from Tasmania, South Australia and Northern Territory

Western Qual Div
2 dropped SA teams
2nd Argentinian team
3 franchises based in African countries


Sorry but that's pure fantasy. Nobody wants to see a 2nd division. It won't happen It is a waste of money..


I know for a fact that any competition similar to this would create a big buzz and excitement in the African countries. Your dismissal of this is very naive and lacks an understanding of the game in other areas. How do you expect the game to grow if you do not spread it?

And of course it is fantasy, that is the point.


1.) name one closed shop pro-league with two divisions in any sport worldwide
2.) try to work out why there is none outside of provincial competitions (semi-pro at best) and especially not in a franchise system.
3.) try to think about why it was never tried in 100+ years of pro-sports.
4.) how do you grow the game: 1st by scouting more players from those countries 2nd: by adding teams to a conference not a second division (I actually do think that an African franchise could create a buzz, it's not that African sports leagues outside North or South Africa are known for their pro sport leagues. A pro rugby team could change that)
5.) How do these really basic facts about pro sports league lead to you thinking that I'm naive and I have no understanding of the game in other areas? What do you actually mean by other areas? Geographical areas?
6.) Fantasy is good. But if it is mixed with a little bit realism it is better. I have the feeling that sometimes there is a little bit too much fantasy in rugby and a little lack of realism.
How to grow rugby worldwide?
Look at the world ranking in July. Teams ranked 1-10 have to play one team from 11-20 (they don't play in a regular competition) away the next year. 11-20 play 21-30 away and so on. Yes, it really is that simple.

Posts: 31
Joined: Wed, 15 Mar 2017, 11:00
National Flag:
EnglandEngland

Re: SUPER RUGBY 2017

Postby BertSolomon » Wed, 12 Apr 2017, 09:04

Figaro wrote:Contrary to popular belief, domestic Rugby has *never* been that popular in Wales - people have mostly supported the national side, and enjoyed the occasional local derby. Even "famous" club sides like Pontypool and Ebbw Vale averaged <1,000 crows pre-regions.


Sorry, but that's not true. For years, the world record crowd for a club match was 48,000 for Cardiff v Newport in 1951. That record was broken in the late 1980s by a Schweppes Welsh Cup final, which regularly pulled in 50,000+ for finals in that period. Semi-finals and other big cup games would also get 15,000 to 20,000. Even smaller Welsh club grounds like Aberavon and Ebbw Vale have still got big terraces (take a look on Google Earth) which are evidence of the size of crowd they used to get back in the day.

Unfortunately, with the rise of TV money and Wales having a small market of under 3 million, the old WRU Premiership pre regions was never likely to compete with the Top 14 and AP. But I think Cardiff, Swansea, maybe Llanelli would thrive in a combined Anglo-Welsh premiership, and teams like Neath, Bridgend, Pontypridd would be happier in an Anglo-Welsh championship/second division than they are with the current set up.

Posts: 1302
Joined: Wed, 14 Oct 2015, 13:30
National Flag:
GermanyGermany

Re: SUPER RUGBY 2017

Postby RugbyLiebe » Wed, 12 Apr 2017, 09:26

BertSolomon wrote:
Figaro wrote:Contrary to popular belief, domestic Rugby has *never* been that popular in Wales - people have mostly supported the national side, and enjoyed the occasional local derby. Even "famous" club sides like Pontypool and Ebbw Vale averaged <1,000 crows pre-regions.


Sorry, but that's not true. For years, the world record crowd for a club match was 48,000 for Cardiff v Newport in 1951. That record was broken in the late 1980s by a Schweppes Welsh Cup final, which regularly pulled in 50,000+ for finals in that period. Semi-finals and other big cup games would also get 15,000 to 20,000. Even smaller Welsh club grounds like Aberavon and Ebbw Vale have still got big terraces (take a look on Google Earth) which are evidence of the size of crowd they used to get back in the day.

Unfortunately, with the rise of TV money and Wales having a small market of under 3 million, the old WRU Premiership pre regions was never likely to compete with the Top 14 and AP. But I think Cardiff, Swansea, maybe Llanelli would thrive in a combined Anglo-Welsh premiership, and teams like Neath, Bridgend, Pontypridd would be happier in an Anglo-Welsh championship/second division than they are with the current set up.


http://www.walesonline.co.uk/sport/rugb ... by-2024649

Interesting read this article.
Ebbw Vale had an average attendance of 353 in their last season before the Pro12 2002/03.
How to grow rugby worldwide?
Look at the world ranking in July. Teams ranked 1-10 have to play one team from 11-20 (they don't play in a regular competition) away the next year. 11-20 play 21-30 away and so on. Yes, it really is that simple.

Posts: 411
Joined: Sun, 07 Dec 2014, 20:31
National Flag:
WalesWales

Re: SUPER RUGBY 2017

Postby Figaro » Wed, 12 Apr 2017, 10:03

RugbyLiebe wrote:
BertSolomon wrote:
Figaro wrote:Contrary to popular belief, domestic Rugby has *never* been that popular in Wales - people have mostly supported the national side, and enjoyed the occasional local derby. Even "famous" club sides like Pontypool and Ebbw Vale averaged <1,000 crows pre-regions.


Sorry, but that's not true. For years, the world record crowd for a club match was 48,000 for Cardiff v Newport in 1951. That record was broken in the late 1980s by a Schweppes Welsh Cup final, which regularly pulled in 50,000+ for finals in that period. Semi-finals and other big cup games would also get 15,000 to 20,000. Even smaller Welsh club grounds like Aberavon and Ebbw Vale have still got big terraces (take a look on Google Earth) which are evidence of the size of crowd they used to get back in the day.

Unfortunately, with the rise of TV money and Wales having a small market of under 3 million, the old WRU Premiership pre regions was never likely to compete with the Top 14 and AP. But I think Cardiff, Swansea, maybe Llanelli would thrive in a combined Anglo-Welsh premiership, and teams like Neath, Bridgend, Pontypridd would be happier in an Anglo-Welsh championship/second division than they are with the current set up.


http://www.walesonline.co.uk/sport/rugb ... by-2024649

Interesting read this article.
Ebbw Vale had an average attendance of 353 in their last season before the Pro12 2002/03.


Yep, there were individual record attendances, and everyone turned up for the cup finals - most often not even supporters of the teams in question - but even the biggest teams didn't come close to the current regions in terms of their average over the season. There was relatively little interest in week-in-week-out league games against opposition from the other end of the valleys.

To be fair, we're not talking about big centres of population here - Cardiff has about 350k residents, Swansea 200k and Newport 150k, but the other classic Welsh clubs are from fairly small towns (Llanelli 40k; Pontypridd 20k, Neath 20k, Bridgend 20k, Pontypool 15k, Caerphilly 12k, Ebbw Vale 15k...). It's not realistic to expect more than about 5% of the population of any given settlement, maybe 10% at the very most, to show up week-in-week-out for a local sports team. In a city like Cardiff that's 15k supporters, which is what they should be averaging (the football side get about 20k), but in Neath that's only 1,000 people or so. Compare that with the size of the cities represented in the English premiership: most have a few hundred thousand residents, or more.

Regionalisation was the right move for Wales. Unfortunately, it was completely bungled. They should have established, for example, a Valleys region, preferably based in a central location not tied to a major existing club, and with a new brand and identity based on the region itself. What they did instead was establish the Celtic Warriors, a merger of Pontypridd and Bridgend, to represent a "region" that was partially valleys, partially not, had never really existed as a cultural unit, and required roundabout through other parts of the country to get from one end to the other (the fastest way from Pontypridd to Bridgend is via Cardiff). The new regional badge and kit was a merger of the two unrelated emblems of the two clubs (a raven and a bridge), successfully alienating every supporter of any club other than the big two; they then pissed off the Pontypridd supporters by having all the games in Bridgend, which was at the far end of the "region" and distant from most of the fanbase. Unsurprisingly, crowds were crap (though still better than Bridgend had ever managed), and the region was cut.

It's no coincidence that the two most successful regions are the Ospreys, which are the side which have best embraced regionalism (losing the merged logo, losing "Neath-Swansea" from the name, and having a new brand), and the Scarlets, who had a strong history of being supported throughout their region (because of the lack of any other strong teams in Dyfed).

The Dragons are a mess, and might not even exist this time next year.

Posts: 1446
Joined: Wed, 30 Apr 2014, 16:57

Re: SUPER RUGBY 2017

Postby 4N » Wed, 12 Apr 2017, 17:59

RugbyLiebe wrote:1.) name one closed shop pro-league with two divisions in any sport worldwide
2.) try to work out why there is none outside of provincial competitions (semi-pro at best) and especially not in a franchise system.
3.) try to think about why it was never tried in 100+ years of pro-sports.


NBA/D-League

That said, I don't think a Super Rugby D2 (with or without promotion-relegation) is feasible for economic reasons. Too much travel and it wouldn't get the required broadcast deals in bigger markets.

Edit: when you refer to "closed shop" - do you actually mean a league or leagues featuring promotion and relegation between just two tiers? Because I don't really understand the point if so, and while franchises aren't as common in RU since it's a younger pro sport with an amateur history, two divisions exist in the Currie Cup and de-facto in English professional rugby.

Posts: 2569
Joined: Thu, 17 Apr 2014, 02:51
Location: São Paulo
National Flag:
BrazilBrazil

Re: SUPER RUGBY 2017

Postby victorsra » Wed, 12 Apr 2017, 19:46

But national (South African, Australian and even NZ) second division are possible for Super Rugby, with bottom teams from each country facing playoffs. But Oceania doesn't have a promotion/relegation culture in their sports.

South Africa in the other hand has. It would be much more interesting maybe for teams like the Griquas, Leopards, Pumas to have a first semestre facing Cheetahs and Kings in such a second divison than keep playing those damn uninteresting current Super Challenge (in the past Vodacom Cup) in South Africa. And probably Bulls, Sharks, Lions and WP supporters won't miss their second squads playing the Super Challenge.

Instead of having 4/5 Super Rugby franchise + 14 (in SA and NZ, 8 in AUS) national championship provincal teams, sometimes I think SA, NZ and AUS would have a more sustainable professional rugby with 10 about franchises, the current Super Rugby teams + new franchises merging other provinces and splitting those 10 in two divisions.

Somethng like (let's call the second divisions as "Premier Rugby"):

NZ = 5 Super Rugby + 5 NZ Premier Rugby (+ Pacific Islanders,making 6 teams in the NZ Premier Rugby);
SA = 4 Super Rugby + 6 SA Premier Rugby;
AUS = 4 Super Rugby + 6 AUS Premier Rugby;

New teams would have 10/12 matches in the first semestre + Mitre Cup/Currie Cup/NRC in the second semestre. Better for business 10 full-pro teams playing from March to October than 5 teams from March to July + 14 teams from August to October.
Brazilian Rugby News: www.portaldorugby.com.br

User avatar
Posts: 1847
Joined: Tue, 15 Apr 2014, 18:36
National Flag:
RomaniaRomania

Re: SUPER RUGBY 2017

Postby iul » Thu, 13 Apr 2017, 06:14

victorsra wrote:But national (South African, Australian and even NZ) second division are possible for Super Rugby, with bottom teams from each country facing playoffs. But Oceania doesn't have a promotion/relegation culture in their sports.

South Africa in the other hand has. It would be much more interesting maybe for teams like the Griquas, Leopards, Pumas to have a first semestre facing Cheetahs and Kings in such a second divison than keep playing those damn uninteresting current Super Challenge (in the past Vodacom Cup) in South Africa. And probably Bulls, Sharks, Lions and WP supporters won't miss their second squads playing the Super Challenge.

Instead of having 4/5 Super Rugby franchise + 14 (in SA and NZ, 8 in AUS) national championship provincal teams, sometimes I think SA, NZ and AUS would have a more sustainable professional rugby with 10 about franchises, the current Super Rugby teams + new franchises merging other provinces and splitting those 10 in two divisions.

Somethng like (let's call the second divisions as "Premier Rugby"):

NZ = 5 Super Rugby + 5 NZ Premier Rugby (+ Pacific Islanders,making 6 teams in the NZ Premier Rugby);
SA = 4 Super Rugby + 6 SA Premier Rugby;
AUS = 4 Super Rugby + 6 AUS Premier Rugby;

New teams would have 10/12 matches in the first semestre + Mitre Cup/Currie Cup/NRC in the second semestre. Better for business 10 full-pro teams playing from March to October than 5 teams from March to July + 14 teams from August to October.

IIRC in the first seasons of SR the Saffers didn't have dedicated SR sides and they just sent their best 4 teams from the previous year's Currie Cup. Maybe something like that would work. Let each country do their own thing domestically and then send the best teams to a shorter, euro cups style superugby.

Posts: 2957
Joined: Sat, 05 Jul 2014, 02:44
National Flag:
AustraliaAustralia

Re: SUPER RUGBY 2017

Postby thatrugbyguy » Thu, 13 Apr 2017, 07:28

Promotion and relegation isn't part of Australian and New Zealand sporting culture. They've tried for years to get a second A-League division but it's always been put off because its not feasible. No TV network wants to pay money for what they deem a lower standard of sport.

Posts: 1302
Joined: Wed, 14 Oct 2015, 13:30
National Flag:
GermanyGermany

Re: SUPER RUGBY 2017

Postby RugbyLiebe » Thu, 13 Apr 2017, 08:06

4N wrote:
RugbyLiebe wrote:1.) name one closed shop pro-league with two divisions in any sport worldwide
2.) try to work out why there is none outside of provincial competitions (semi-pro at best) and especially not in a franchise system.
3.) try to think about why it was never tried in 100+ years of pro-sports.


NBA/D-League

That said, I don't think a Super Rugby D2 (with or without promotion-relegation) is feasible for economic reasons. Too much travel and it wouldn't get the required broadcast deals in bigger markets.

Edit: when you refer to "closed shop" - do you actually mean a league or leagues featuring promotion and relegation between just two tiers? Because I don't really understand the point if so, and while franchises aren't as common in RU since it's a younger pro sport with an amateur history, two divisions exist in the Currie Cup and de-facto in English professional rugby.


I meant exactly your Edit. Currie Cup is a region's competition. Therefore it is closed by definition (apart from some other teams admitted every now and then). This would be the closest thing to be something like what Sables suggested. But as this is also provincial league it is a little bit different (or did any provinces drop out of the Currie Cup?) But yeah this is the closest I can think of (Actually because of this I wrote "semi-pro at best"). How are tv ratings reacting to the 2nd division?

I have my doubts about English rugby. Clubs do get promoted to the RFU Championship, right?

NBA-D-League is a different thing, as it is a reserve-team-league, financed by the NBA itself and no team will ever be promoted to the NBA due to their results.
How to grow rugby worldwide?
Look at the world ranking in July. Teams ranked 1-10 have to play one team from 11-20 (they don't play in a regular competition) away the next year. 11-20 play 21-30 away and so on. Yes, it really is that simple.

Posts: 411
Joined: Sun, 07 Dec 2014, 20:31
National Flag:
WalesWales

Re: SUPER RUGBY 2017

Postby Figaro » Thu, 13 Apr 2017, 09:58

RugbyLiebe wrote:
I have my doubts about English rugby. Clubs do get promoted to the RFU Championship, right?


Yes. There is a pathway right up to the top from the very bottom. In practice, there is a huge gulf in class between the very top teams in the Championship (fully pro teams like London Welsh (of old), Bristol, or now London Irish) and the Moseleys/Richmonds/Ealing Trailfinders making up the numbers; and the competition is a mixture of Pro and Semi-Pro teams (I think Richmond are even nominally Amateur). But in theory there's no reason why a club couldn't decide to go professional, buy in / train up a good squad, and get promoted to the English Premiership.

Posts: 31
Joined: Wed, 15 Mar 2017, 11:00
National Flag:
EnglandEngland

Re: SUPER RUGBY 2017

Postby BertSolomon » Thu, 13 Apr 2017, 11:12

RugbyLiebe wrote:http://www.walesonline.co.uk/sport/rugb ... by-2024649

Interesting read this article.
Ebbw Vale had an average attendance of 353 in their last season before the Pro12 2002/03.


Those statistics are pretty dodgy. As the journalist notes, Ebbw Vale didn’t publish attendances for some of their fixtures, so how has he come up with an average home attendance?

According to the Wiki entry for that Celtic league season, Vale published a 1,000 attendance for one of their three home games, but nothing for the other two. So I’m guessing that’s how he’s come up with his average.

But in any case, these were just three of Vale’s home fixtures that season, and in a competition that had low prestige. A more valid comparison of attendances would have been a Welsh Premiership season in the late 90s.

Fake news.

Posts: 31
Joined: Wed, 15 Mar 2017, 11:00
National Flag:
EnglandEngland

Re: SUPER RUGBY 2017

Postby BertSolomon » Thu, 13 Apr 2017, 11:26

Figaro wrote:Yep, there were individual record attendances, and everyone turned up for the cup finals - most often not even supporters of the teams in question - but even the biggest teams didn't come close to the current regions in terms of their average over the season. There was relatively little interest in week-in-week-out league games against opposition from the other end of the valleys.


There was plenty of interest. As mentioned before, do you really think these clubs would have built big grounds just for one-off games?

Figaro wrote:Regionalisation was the right move for Wales.


Long term, I wonder what will happen to the pipeline of players that Welsh clubs produced for the national team - the quality of their club rugby used to be the envy of Europe if not the world. Now that the clubs have been reduced to vassals, where is their incentive to invest in developing talent?

Figaro wrote:It's no coincidence that the two most successful regions are the Ospreys, which are the side which have best embraced regionalism (losing the merged logo, losing "Neath-Swansea" from the name, and having a new brand), and the Scarlets, who had a strong history of being supported throughout their region (because of the lack of any other strong teams in Dyfed).


Something else I don't get with regions is the names. They have no connection with where they are based. This came from NZ and Super Rugby along with the rest of the regional concept but I can't see how it helps form bonds between teams and supporters. It's something you don't see in any other sports, with one or two long-standing exceptions like Arsenal and Juventus.

Posts: 411
Joined: Sun, 07 Dec 2014, 20:31
National Flag:
WalesWales

Re: SUPER RUGBY 2017

Postby Figaro » Thu, 13 Apr 2017, 13:23

BertSolomon wrote:
Figaro wrote:Yep, there were individual record attendances, and everyone turned up for the cup finals - most often not even supporters of the teams in question - but even the biggest teams didn't come close to the current regions in terms of their average over the season. There was relatively little interest in week-in-week-out league games against opposition from the other end of the valleys.


There was plenty of interest. As mentioned before, do you really think these clubs would have built big grounds just for one-off games?


They were playing those derby games once a year or so, so it was worth having the stands put in, plus they were community facilities. Most of the places your're talking about are just concrete terraces on earth banks, built back in the 1960s, so you're not talking about a massive expenditure like a proper modern stand would cost. Week-in-week out most of the clubs - except those in the big cities - had crowds of about 1,000 at best.

Figaro wrote:Regionalisation was the right move for Wales.


Long term, I wonder what will happen to the pipeline of players that Welsh clubs produced for the national team - the quality of their club rugby used to be the envy of Europe if not the world. Now that the clubs have been reduced to vassals, where is their incentive to invest in developing talent?


They're not really responsible for developing talent, most of that is done at regional level now. The post-regional era has been the most successful in Welsh rugby (for the national side) since the 1970s, so there's no evidence that the regions have had a detrimental effect on development - if anything it's been the opposite.

Figaro wrote:It's no coincidence that the two most successful regions are the Ospreys, which are the side which have best embraced regionalism (losing the merged logo, losing "Neath-Swansea" from the name, and having a new brand), and the Scarlets, who had a strong history of being supported throughout their region (because of the lack of any other strong teams in Dyfed).


Something else I don't get with regions is the names. They have no connection with where they are based. This came from NZ and Super Rugby along with the rest of the regional concept but I can't see how it helps form bonds between teams and supporters. It's something you don't see in any other sports, with one or two long-standing exceptions like Arsenal and Juventus.


I partially agree, but a problem you have in Wales at least is that the regions (at least, the ones that were established) don't have names. There's never been a name for the area that the Ospreys represent - it's Swansea and the Gower, the Swansea Valley, the Vale of Neath, Ogmore Vale, and Bridgend - a bit of a mouthful. It used to exist as a local government area but was just called West Glamorgan; if they'd named it after that it's not a very memorable name (and the Warriors would have been Mid Glamorgan with the Blues South Glamorgan, so you would have had three teams with Glamorgan in their names).

Like I mentioned, the areas that do have some kind of regional identity - beyond a town, valley or city identity - are the Valleys, and North Wales, which should have been chosen as locations for regions.

The other problem with the names as well was the terrible compromise that was struck between creating new entities that weren't seen to be favouring one club over the others, and the attempt to keep the fans of the clubs on board - hence the Scarlets being de facto and de jure a continuation of Llanelli RFC, who had always been known informally as "The Scarlets"; the tortuous compromise that is "Newport Gwent Dragons" (Newport is in Gwent, but Newport RFC insisted that the new team had to have Newport in the name), and the wisely ditched "Neath-Swansea Ospreys" (there's no such place as Neath-Swansea any more than there is such a place as "Manchester-Liverpool").

The best case scenario if Wales had stuck with clubs would have been more or less the same as the situation now, namely, a few moderately successful clubs sides in the three cities, with the rest continuing to operate at a semi-pro level. You might also have seen mergers, like has happened in Italian club Rugby, which would have effectively produced regional sides; in the last few pre-regionalization seasons some of the clubs were already pooling players in Europe.

Posts: 2569
Joined: Thu, 17 Apr 2014, 02:51
Location: São Paulo
National Flag:
BrazilBrazil

Re: SUPER RUGBY 2017

Postby victorsra » Thu, 13 Apr 2017, 15:13

The best case scenario if Wales had stuck with clubs would have been more or less the same as the situation now, namely, a few moderately successful clubs sides in the three cities, with the rest continuing to operate at a semi-pro level.


If Llanelli, Swansea and Cardiff would probably have been the dominant forces anyway, it would be better and more fair for the small clubs to get rid of the regions anyway and place a promotion/relegation playoff between bottom Welsh PRO12 and Welsh Premiership winners. At least teams like Neath, Bridgend and Pontypridd wouldn't have been left in ostracism. And the PRO12 clubs could keep getting money from WRU and dual-contract players. And a team like Newport if even with dual-players and WRU money is beaten by Pontypridd it just means they shouldn't be in PRO12 anyway. What can be done is place a couple of conditions to allow promotion, like the Premiership and the Top 14 do.

Interesting article about Welsh clubs situation: http://www.walesonline.co.uk/sport/rugb ... t-11823052

You might also have seen mergers, like has happened in Italian club Rugby, which would have effectively produced regional sides


It failed in Italy. You mean the ill-fated Aironi. Zebre and Treviso are not the result of merges and now there aren't any merged teams left in the Eccellenza.
Brazilian Rugby News: www.portaldorugby.com.br

Posts: 1062
Joined: Fri, 25 Apr 2014, 14:11
National Flag:
ZimbabweZimbabwe

Re: SUPER RUGBY 2017

Postby Sables4EVA » Fri, 14 Apr 2017, 07:22

RugbyLiebe wrote:
1.) name one closed shop pro-league with two divisions in any sport worldwide
2.) try to work out why there is none outside of provincial competitions (semi-pro at best) and especially not in a franchise system.
3.) try to think about why it was never tried in 100+ years of pro-sports.
4.) how do you grow the game: 1st by scouting more players from those countries 2nd: by adding teams to a conference not a second division (I actually do think that an African franchise could create a buzz, it's not that African sports leagues outside North or South Africa are known for their pro sport leagues. A pro rugby team could change that)
5.) How do these really basic facts about pro sports league lead to you thinking that I'm naive and I have no understanding of the game in other areas? What do you actually mean by other areas? Geographical areas?
6.) Fantasy is good. But if it is mixed with a little bit realism it is better. I have the feeling that sometimes there is a little bit too much fantasy in rugby and a little lack of realism.


Again, who said anything about a closed league, where so you get that assumption from? If this was the case then why is there a Serie B in Italian football, or a Championship in English football or English Rugby, these are all pro sports and successful 2nd division examples of which there are all over the world, The English system goes to multiple levels even, so why would it not work all of a sudden in Super Rugby??? My thinking is based on the same system as the UEFA Champions league where each region has a conference and the top teams go through to the global competition. So point 1) is meaningless, 2) and 3) are plain wrong and shows why I think you are naive as per point 5).

4) One of the biggest problems we have is the poaching of players from other countries as international level, so now we do it at the next level down too? Why not give them something local to aspire to?

6) Sometimes you need a bit of fantasy to get the ball rolling.

I am fully aware of the financial difficulties something like this would create too, but I think the lower profile leagues would generate more interest regionally and provide a bit of sensibility to the global competitions.

Posts: 1302
Joined: Wed, 14 Oct 2015, 13:30
National Flag:
GermanyGermany

Re: SUPER RUGBY 2017

Postby RugbyLiebe » Fri, 14 Apr 2017, 07:37

Super Rugby is a closed shop so off course everybody assumes that you mean the Super Rugby model when you talk about Super Rugby.

Your comparision with the English league system shows that you are not really familiar how it works. Educate yourself about it, before you insult others. If I was a billionaire and I founded the AFC Rugbyliebe and started in the lowest English league I could in theory bring this club up to Premier League.

As there are no clubs in the SANZAAR area comparing those two totally different systems makes no sense.
Also a Champions league system makes absolutely no sense as you would exclude a very high number of national team players from the highest playing standard AND they can't really change teams because they play for their provinces.
How to grow rugby worldwide?
Look at the world ranking in July. Teams ranked 1-10 have to play one team from 11-20 (they don't play in a regular competition) away the next year. 11-20 play 21-30 away and so on. Yes, it really is that simple.

PreviousNext

Return to Rugby Forum

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Baidu [Spider], Buffalo, Google Adsense [Bot] and 12 guests