Tier 2 & 3 Rugby Forum

Growing rugby in Tier 1 nations

Posts: 5766
Joined: Sat, 05 Jul 2014, 02:44
National Flag:
AustraliaAustralia

Re: Growing rugby in Tier 1 nations

Unread postby thatrugbyguy » Thu, 20 Feb 2020, 14:24

yeah, I’m sure the sevens teams and the Wallaroos will be exactly what TV bidders will be willing to pay for. Oh, what’s that? No-one gives a shit about sevens? Good luck Rugby Australia, your incompetence over the last 15 years is finally come back to bite you in the arse. You’ve fucked up the game at a grassroots level, kept the game behind a paywall for 20 years making it impossible to win new fans, and have abandoned Western Sydney and Perth. Well done.

Posts: 677
Joined: Thu, 12 Dec 2019, 21:26
National Flag:
EnglandEngland

Re: Growing rugby in Tier 1 nations

Unread postby Chester-Donnelly » Thu, 20 Feb 2020, 16:17

https://amp.theguardian.com/sport/2020/ ... ugby-union

Latest on English Championship funding cuts. RFU are giving the Championship clubs a bit more time to adjust. Typical of rugby for these negotiations to all be done in public.

I hope the Championship clubs use this time to establish replacement income streams, e.g. TV deal, increased ticket sales, merchandising, generating income from venues.

Posts: 3400
Joined: Wed, 14 Oct 2015, 13:30
National Flag:
GermanyGermany

Re: Growing rugby in Tier 1 nations

Unread postby RugbyLiebe » Thu, 20 Feb 2020, 16:28

The more I think about this, the more ridiculous this becomes.
Some clubs felt they had been ambushed, but Sweeney said: "I don’t think that’s reasonable. We’ve been in dialogue with the chairman of the Championship all through 2019. [Former interim chief executive] Nigel Melville was the primary point of contact and I’ve spoken to Nigel and spoken to the chairman of the Championship. Nigel made it evidently clear there would certainly be no increase, more likely a decrease."


I mean seriously, there is a slight difference between "more likely a decrease" and a 50%-cut. At least in the world I am living in. Based on what qualifications does the RFU recruit their guys? Is there a single competent guy involved in rugby at all on these admin levels?

Edit: also a good read:

https://www.bbc.com/sport/rugby-union/51570846

Nottingham chairman Alistair Bow:
"It shows me even more that the RFU clearly are not in touch with rugby outside the Premiership."
He added: "If it's not a cost-saving exercise, they should continue with the funding until we have a strategy that we can either work to or can't work to.
"In December most clubs are looking their budgets for the following season and by the end of January your strategy for signing players is pretty much complete.
"At this time you'd expect your squad is pretty much sorted for the following two years, you're generally building for a two-year period, so looking at a two-year deal with the RFU is positive, but fundamentally it won't help move us forward."
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.

User avatar
Posts: 657
Joined: Sat, 05 Jul 2014, 11:27
National Flag:
WalesWales

Re: Growing rugby in Tier 1 nations

Unread postby ihateblazers » Fri, 21 Feb 2020, 06:54

thatrugbyguy wrote:yeah, I’m sure the sevens teams and the Wallaroos will be exactly what TV bidders will be willing to pay for. Oh, what’s that? No-one gives a shit about sevens? Good luck Rugby Australia, your incompetence over the last 15 years is finally come back to bite you in the arse. You’ve fucked up the game at a grassroots level, kept the game behind a paywall for 20 years making it impossible to win new fans, and have abandoned Western Sydney and Perth. Well done.


They need to completely change their model. Top down doesn't work in a country with disintegrating grassroots. It works for New Zealand, Ireland, Wales (but not for long) since they have a product on the top of the pyramid (allblacks brand, 6 nations). Australia has nothing to sell, no one cares about the competitions that the Wallabies play in and certainly not super rugby. Leave Super rugby and set up a domestic competition which is privately funded. Maybe new Zealand will join, maybe not. Focus on the grassroots and expanding the pathways.

Posts: 5766
Joined: Sat, 05 Jul 2014, 02:44
National Flag:
AustraliaAustralia

Re: Growing rugby in Tier 1 nations

Unread postby thatrugbyguy » Fri, 21 Feb 2020, 10:52

Seriously, in 2003 after the World Cup the game was in prime position to cement itself as the second or third most popular sport in the country. The ARU had something like $50m in the bank, enough to really change the landscape had it been spent correctly at the grassroots level. But the emphasis was always on the Wallabies being the driving force, that Australia being a top 3 rugby nation, beating the All Black with regularity like we had been doing for the previous 6 or 7 years, was going to be enough. It wasn't. I've never seen a sporting organisation waste so much so quickly. Ever 12 years the Lions inject a much needed cash boost but the reality is it's a bandaid solution. The ARU acts as if it's still 2003 where stadiums around the country we selling out for both domestic and international matches. Twiggy Forrest offered to foot the bill to help the game and they rejected it. It's now time to for the ARU to crawl back along their hands and knees for his help. The entire sport needs restructuring in this country.

Posts: 1709
Joined: Sun, 18 May 2014, 13:27
National Flag:
AustraliaAustralia

Re: Growing rugby in Tier 1 nations

Unread postby Working Class Rugger » Fri, 21 Feb 2020, 22:20

thatrugbyguy wrote:yeah, I’m sure the sevens teams and the Wallaroos will be exactly what TV bidders will be willing to pay for. Oh, what’s that? No-one gives a shit about sevens? Good luck Rugby Australia, your incompetence over the last 15 years is finally come back to bite you in the arse. You’ve fucked up the game at a grassroots level, kept the game behind a paywall for 20 years making it impossible to win new fans, and have abandoned Western Sydney and Perth. Well done.


Apparently Foxtel actually offered the same deal as the one currently to RA prior to their public dummy spit and declaration they are walking away. RA apparently asked for around $150m/season. Which they'd know isn't realistic. But they are setting the parameters of the negotiations. This is all according to mumbrella.com.au which is supposedly a solid source for media related news. If Castle manages to navigate an outcome roughly somewhere in the middle of both figures she's a fucking genius.
Last edited by Working Class Rugger on Fri, 21 Feb 2020, 22:44, edited 1 time in total.

Posts: 677
Joined: Thu, 12 Dec 2019, 21:26
National Flag:
EnglandEngland

Re: Growing rugby in Tier 1 nations

Unread postby Chester-Donnelly » Fri, 21 Feb 2020, 22:27

The British and Irish league is just wishful thinking from the Welsh in my opinion. The English don't want it so it won't happen.
The Pro 14 is undermined by too many one-sided games. Any teams performing as badly as the Southern Kings would be relegated from English Premiership or the Top 14.
The SARU is considering pulling out of Super Rugby after the next world cup.

This is how I think the Pro 14 can be improved.
Add the 4 South African Super Rugby teams and divide the league into 2 divisions.
Using current league positions.
Division 1: Bulls, Sharks, Lions, Stormers, Cheetahs, Leinster, Munster, Ulster, Edinburgh, Scarlets.
Division 2: Cardiff, Ospreys, Dragons, Glasgow, Connacht, Benetton, Zebre, Kings.
2 teams should be promoted / relegated each year.
There is the opportunity for Italy and South Africa to add more teams to division 2.

Posts: 1709
Joined: Sun, 18 May 2014, 13:27
National Flag:
AustraliaAustralia

Re: Growing rugby in Tier 1 nations

Unread postby Working Class Rugger » Fri, 21 Feb 2020, 22:44

Chester-Donnelly wrote:The British and Irish league is just wishful thinking from the Welsh in my opinion. The English don't want it so it won't happen.
The Pro 14 is undermined by too many one-sided games. Any teams performing as badly as the Southern Kings would be relegated from English Premiership or the Top 14.
The SARU is considering pulling out of Super Rugby after the next world cup.

This is how I think the Pro 14 can be improved.
Add the 4 South African Super Rugby teams and divide the league into 2 divisions.
Using current league positions.
Division 1: Bulls, Sharks, Lions, Stormers, Cheetahs, Leinster, Munster, Ulster, Edinburgh, Scarlets.
Division 2: Cardiff, Ospreys, Dragons, Glasgow, Connacht, Benetton, Zebre, Kings.
2 teams should be promoted / relegated each year.
There is the opportunity for Italy and South Africa to add more teams to division 2.


They'll go to conferences. If SA makes the jump en masse that's how they'll go about it. 3x6 team conferences. That way teams get their derbies and then at least one game against everyone else for 22 rounds. The key will be to run a single table. People will bitch about conference strengths but that's what the other 12 games are about exposing whether a team that might be dominating their conference is actually any good.

Posts: 677
Joined: Thu, 12 Dec 2019, 21:26
National Flag:
EnglandEngland

Re: Growing rugby in Tier 1 nations

Unread postby Chester-Donnelly » Fri, 21 Feb 2020, 23:02

Working Class Rugger wrote:
Chester-Donnelly wrote:The British and Irish league is just wishful thinking from the Welsh in my opinion. The English don't want it so it won't happen.
The Pro 14 is undermined by too many one-sided games. Any teams performing as badly as the Southern Kings would be relegated from English Premiership or the Top 14.
The SARU is considering pulling out of Super Rugby after the next world cup.

This is how I think the Pro 14 can be improved.
Add the 4 South African Super Rugby teams and divide the league into 2 divisions.
Using current league positions.
Division 1: Bulls, Sharks, Lions, Stormers, Cheetahs, Leinster, Munster, Ulster, Edinburgh, Scarlets.
Division 2: Cardiff, Ospreys, Dragons, Glasgow, Connacht, Benetton, Zebre, Kings.
2 teams should be promoted / relegated each year.
There is the opportunity for Italy and South Africa to add more teams to division 2.


They'll go to conferences. If SA makes the jump en masse that's how they'll go about it. 3x6 team conferences. That way teams get their derbies and then at least one game against everyone else for 22 rounds. The key will be to run a single table. People will bitch about conference strengths but that's what the other 12 games are about exposing whether a team that might be dominating their conference is actually any good.


I think you are probably right. But I prefer promotion and relegation. I wish Southern Kings well. I want them to continue, but Leinster vs Kings is a pointless fixture which benefits no one at the moment. Every game in division 1 would be exciting. Division 2 would be a level that developing teams could join; maybe a Georgia or a Spain team one day.

Posts: 1709
Joined: Sun, 18 May 2014, 13:27
National Flag:
AustraliaAustralia

Re: Growing rugby in Tier 1 nations

Unread postby Working Class Rugger » Fri, 21 Feb 2020, 23:35

Chester-Donnelly wrote:
Working Class Rugger wrote:
Chester-Donnelly wrote:The British and Irish league is just wishful thinking from the Welsh in my opinion. The English don't want it so it won't happen.
The Pro 14 is undermined by too many one-sided games. Any teams performing as badly as the Southern Kings would be relegated from English Premiership or the Top 14.
The SARU is considering pulling out of Super Rugby after the next world cup.

This is how I think the Pro 14 can be improved.
Add the 4 South African Super Rugby teams and divide the league into 2 divisions.
Using current league positions.
Division 1: Bulls, Sharks, Lions, Stormers, Cheetahs, Leinster, Munster, Ulster, Edinburgh, Scarlets.
Division 2: Cardiff, Ospreys, Dragons, Glasgow, Connacht, Benetton, Zebre, Kings.
2 teams should be promoted / relegated each year.
There is the opportunity for Italy and South Africa to add more teams to division 2.


They'll go to conferences. If SA makes the jump en masse that's how they'll go about it. 3x6 team conferences. That way teams get their derbies and then at least one game against everyone else for 22 rounds. The key will be to run a single table. People will bitch about conference strengths but that's what the other 12 games are about exposing whether a team that might be dominating their conference is actually any good.


I think you are probably right. But I prefer promotion and relegation. I wish Southern Kings well. I want them to continue, but Leinster vs Kings is a pointless fixture which benefits no one at the moment. Every game in division 1 would be exciting. Division 2 would be a level that developing teams could join; maybe a Georgia or a Spain team one day.


No arguments here. In terms of quality of content setting up divisions would be better. But that's not how the Pro14 is set up nor would it be something any of them would likely be willing to accept. As for the Kings. They should be let die off. Something I look back on in lamentation with the knowledge that hindsight is a wonderful thing after the fact is the expansion of the S12 tournament beyond the original 12. What should have happened was that competition should have expanded it's calendar not the teams. And for that as a SANZAAR based fan I apologise for the Kings.

Posts: 5766
Joined: Sat, 05 Jul 2014, 02:44
National Flag:
AustraliaAustralia

Re: Growing rugby in Tier 1 nations

Unread postby thatrugbyguy » Sat, 22 Feb 2020, 01:31

It's shocking to me how such a good competition disintegrated so quickly. Super Rugby was something I looked forward to every season, even when it expanded to 14 teams the quality was still there. The moment self interest from each union started showing through is the moment the competition began to fail.

Posts: 1709
Joined: Sun, 18 May 2014, 13:27
National Flag:
AustraliaAustralia

Re: Growing rugby in Tier 1 nations

Unread postby Working Class Rugger » Sat, 22 Feb 2020, 01:46

thatrugbyguy wrote:It's shocking to me how such a good competition disintegrated so quickly. Super Rugby was something I looked forward to every season, even when it expanded to 14 teams the quality was still there. The moment self interest from each union started showing through is the moment the competition began to fail.


It still maintained its integrity at 15. It's when they expanded to 18 and completely stuffed the conference set ups is when things turned. As above. The path of expansion they should have looked toward was in the schedule. To a double round robin whle maintaining the original number of teams. From an Australian perspective we could have then involved Perth and Melbourne in a structure below that. Like the NRC as a means of creating the pathway. Because truth be told. Having 3 really competitiive teams would draw in more viewers and fans than 4 'meh' teams without the mess that was the Force affair. And a 22 round season would only involve 4 games in Sth Africa meaning 18 games would be in our timezones.

In terms of SA and the political need to involve more black players which lead to the introduction of the Kings. Well, they'd have had to just deal with doing that without adding them. Set up pathways within the teams they had then to introduce more black players.

Posts: 6915
Joined: Thu, 17 Apr 2014, 02:51
Location: São Paulo
National Flag:
BrazilBrazil

Re: Growing rugby in Tier 1 nations

Unread postby victorsra » Sat, 22 Feb 2020, 02:35

thatrugbyguy wrote:Seriously, in 2003 after the World Cup the game was in prime position to cement itself as the second or third most popular sport in the country. The ARU had something like $50m in the bank, enough to really change the landscape had it been spent correctly at the grassroots level. But the emphasis was always on the Wallabies being the driving force, that Australia being a top 3 rugby nation, beating the All Black with regularity like we had been doing for the previous 6 or 7 years, was going to be enough. It wasn't. I've never seen a sporting organisation waste so much so quickly. Ever 12 years the Lions inject a much needed cash boost but the reality is it's a bandaid solution. The ARU acts as if it's still 2003 where stadiums around the country we selling out for both domestic and international matches. Twiggy Forrest offered to foot the bill to help the game and they rejected it. It's now time to for the ARU to crawl back along their hands and knees for his help. The entire sport needs restructuring in this country.


I guess for Rugby a 3rd football code place in Australia would be enough, right?
Brazilian Rugby News: www.portaldorugby.com.br

Posts: 494
Joined: Mon, 12 Mar 2018, 02:19
National Flag:
EnglandEngland

Re: Growing rugby in Tier 1 nations

Unread postby Blurandski » Sat, 22 Feb 2020, 02:44

RugbyLiebe wrote:The more I think about this, the more ridiculous this becomes.
Some clubs felt they had been ambushed, but Sweeney said: "I don’t think that’s reasonable. We’ve been in dialogue with the chairman of the Championship all through 2019. [Former interim chief executive] Nigel Melville was the primary point of contact and I’ve spoken to Nigel and spoken to the chairman of the Championship. Nigel made it evidently clear there would certainly be no increase, more likely a decrease."


I mean seriously, there is a slight difference between "more likely a decrease" and a 50%-cut. At least in the world I am living in. Based on what qualifications does the RFU recruit their guys? Is there a single competent guy involved in rugby at all on these admin levels?

Edit: also a good read:

https://www.bbc.com/sport/rugby-union/51570846

Nottingham chairman Alistair Bow:
"It shows me even more that the RFU clearly are not in touch with rugby outside the Premiership."
He added: "If it's not a cost-saving exercise, they should continue with the funding until we have a strategy that we can either work to or can't work to.
"In December most clubs are looking their budgets for the following season and by the end of January your strategy for signing players is pretty much complete.
"At this time you'd expect your squad is pretty much sorted for the following two years, you're generally building for a two-year period, so looking at a two-year deal with the RFU is positive, but fundamentally it won't help move us forward."


There's a lot to be said about the RFU. I'm lucky in I've had substantial contact with directors of a decent number Prem clubs. There's one hell of a book to be written on corruption if anyone is willing to go through 5 years of libel court cases. By far the biggest scandal in British sport with regards to regulatory capture. Making an offer to hire the person you're negotiating with works very well. Both CVC and PRL know this.

User avatar
Posts: 657
Joined: Sat, 05 Jul 2014, 11:27
National Flag:
WalesWales

Re: Growing rugby in Tier 1 nations

Unread postby ihateblazers » Sat, 22 Feb 2020, 06:09

Working Class Rugger wrote:
thatrugbyguy wrote:It's shocking to me how such a good competition disintegrated so quickly. Super Rugby was something I looked forward to every season, even when it expanded to 14 teams the quality was still there. The moment self interest from each union started showing through is the moment the competition began to fail.


It still maintained its integrity at 15. It's when they expanded to 18 and completely stuffed the conference set ups is when things turned. As above. The path of expansion they should have looked toward was in the schedule. To a double round robin whle maintaining the original number of teams. From an Australian perspective we could have then involved Perth and Melbourne in a structure below that. Like the NRC as a means of creating the pathway. Because truth be told. Having 3 really competitiive teams would draw in more viewers and fans than 4 'meh' teams without the mess that was the Force affair. And a 22 round season would only involve 4 games in Sth Africa meaning 18 games would be in our timezones.

In terms of SA and the political need to involve more black players which lead to the introduction of the Kings. Well, they'd have had to just deal with doing that without adding them. Set up pathways within the teams they had then to introduce more black players.


I think there needs to be an analysis of how and why SANZAR changed the format to really understand what the issues are. The underlying reasoning is to drive broadcast revenue in order to keep international players at home. Even with this uplift in revenue the reality is as we are seeing that it is an impossible task and all they are doing is delaying the inevitable and in Australia's case destroying their game.

Obviously, introducing the Southern Kings in South Africa was politically forced and that was out of SARU's hands. Australia felt they needed to engage more in local markets with Melbourne and grow the player base with the Force. Changing to the conference format with the new team expansions was seen as a necessity in terms of scheduling, to keep the same amount of games, but it was also to engage more with domestic audiences and increase the amount of derbies. Then the expansion to Argentina came and Japan. The Argentinians are kind of a necessity I guess, being involved in the Rugby Championship and all. Japan was a move to try and grow the commercial market of Super Rugby. With those added teams it caused a hell of a lot of issues in terms of formatting resulting in the mess with the weird conferences.

Throughout the history of Super Rugby each difference nation has been pulling in different directions without a clear consensus of what they want out of the competition. South Africa fucked Japan from the get go and they've always been a pain in the arse for NZ and AUS in terms of negotiations for whatever reasoning. NZ wants to keep South Africa happy because all they care about is keeping the status quo and getting to play their teams to prepare their Allblacks which drives the game in NZ. Australia has been caught in the middle because they see that they need to engage with the domestic audience more and grow the time zone in Asia-Pacific but the others do not think the same way.

It is obvious that the quality of Super Rugby on the field has now dropped and the tv ratings and crowds have also dropped significantly. What is the purpose of Super Rugby and what do the SANZAR nations want to do with it? Do you want it to be a world class sporting competition and grow it commercially or do you just want to prepare you international players and keep 100% control? I don't think SANZAR has a consensus on this. As long as this level of disfunction continues it will remain a mess.

I think switching to premier domestic leagues with a cup style competition for Super Rugby is the way to go. Bring the top league clubs into a super rugby cup and use it as an avenue to grow the super rugby team brands in Japan and utilise the Japanese market. It's the only way to pull together.

Posts: 5766
Joined: Sat, 05 Jul 2014, 02:44
National Flag:
AustraliaAustralia

Re: Growing rugby in Tier 1 nations

Unread postby thatrugbyguy » Sat, 22 Feb 2020, 06:44

South African internal politics should never have been a concern for Australia and New Zealand. I would never have voted in favour of allowing South African politics to interfere with the sport, because that's exactly what ended up happening.

Posts: 1709
Joined: Sun, 18 May 2014, 13:27
National Flag:
AustraliaAustralia

Re: Growing rugby in Tier 1 nations

Unread postby Working Class Rugger » Sat, 22 Feb 2020, 07:17

ihateblazers wrote:
Working Class Rugger wrote:
thatrugbyguy wrote:It's shocking to me how such a good competition disintegrated so quickly. Super Rugby was something I looked forward to every season, even when it expanded to 14 teams the quality was still there. The moment self interest from each union started showing through is the moment the competition began to fail.


It still maintained its integrity at 15. It's when they expanded to 18 and completely stuffed the conference set ups is when things turned. As above. The path of expansion they should have looked toward was in the schedule. To a double round robin whle maintaining the original number of teams. From an Australian perspective we could have then involved Perth and Melbourne in a structure below that. Like the NRC as a means of creating the pathway. Because truth be told. Having 3 really competitiive teams would draw in more viewers and fans than 4 'meh' teams without the mess that was the Force affair. And a 22 round season would only involve 4 games in Sth Africa meaning 18 games would be in our timezones.

In terms of SA and the political need to involve more black players which lead to the introduction of the Kings. Well, they'd have had to just deal with doing that without adding them. Set up pathways within the teams they had then to introduce more black players.


I think there needs to be an analysis of how and why SANZAR changed the format to really understand what the issues are. The underlying reasoning is to drive broadcast revenue in order to keep international players at home. Even with this uplift in revenue the reality is as we are seeing that it is an impossible task and all they are doing is delaying the inevitable and in Australia's case destroying their game.

Obviously, introducing the Southern Kings in South Africa was politically forced and that was out of SARU's hands. Australia felt they needed to engage more in local markets with Melbourne and grow the player base with the Force. Changing to the conference format with the new team expansions was seen as a necessity in terms of scheduling, to keep the same amount of games, but it was also to engage more with domestic audiences and increase the amount of derbies. Then the expansion to Argentina came and Japan. The Argentinians are kind of a necessity I guess, being involved in the Rugby Championship and all. Japan was a move to try and grow the commercial market of Super Rugby. With those added teams it caused a hell of a lot of issues in terms of formatting resulting in the mess with the weird conferences.

Throughout the history of Super Rugby each difference nation has been pulling in different directions without a clear consensus of what they want out of the competition. South Africa fucked Japan from the get go and they've always been a pain in the arse for NZ and AUS in terms of negotiations for whatever reasoning. NZ wants to keep South Africa happy because all they care about is keeping the status quo and getting to play their teams to prepare their Allblacks which drives the game in NZ. Australia has been caught in the middle because they see that they need to engage with the domestic audience more and grow the time zone in Asia-Pacific but the others do not think the same way.

It is obvious that the quality of Super Rugby on the field has now dropped and the tv ratings and crowds have also dropped significantly. What is the purpose of Super Rugby and what do the SANZAR nations want to do with it? Do you want it to be a world class sporting competition and grow it commercially or do you just want to prepare you international players and keep 100% control? I don't think SANZAR has a consensus on this. As long as this level of disfunction continues it will remain a mess.

I think switching to premier domestic leagues with a cup style competition for Super Rugby is the way to go. Bring the top league clubs into a super rugby cup and use it as an avenue to grow the super rugby team brands in Japan and utilise the Japanese market. It's the only way to pull together.


One of the major issues with SR it that it's never been viewed as a commercial product by those in charge of the structure. Which is sad. In terms of drawing in more TV revenue I tend to believe expanding the schedule would have had more of an impact than adding new teams. Even though I supported the inclusion of the Force. From an Australian perspective if our original 3 were consistently contenders for the title year on year then we'd likely be seeing much, much stronger interest from fans both at the ground and on TV. Which would have directly lead to increases in revenues.

User avatar
Posts: 1334
Joined: Thu, 28 Apr 2016, 14:02
Location: Las Canteras, Uruguay
National Flag:
UruguayUruguay

Re: Growing rugby in Tier 1 nations

Unread postby NaBUru38 » Tue, 25 Feb 2020, 22:29

I don't understand why you consider than expanding to 18 teams was a bad idea. The smaller crowds and TV ratings have nothing to do with that.

Posts: 1709
Joined: Sun, 18 May 2014, 13:27
National Flag:
AustraliaAustralia

Re: Growing rugby in Tier 1 nations

Unread postby Working Class Rugger » Tue, 25 Feb 2020, 23:21

NaBUru38 wrote:I don't understand why you consider than expanding to 18 teams was a bad idea. The smaller crowds and TV ratings have nothing to do with that.


Not so much the expansion to 18 teams more how they handled it.

Posts: 6915
Joined: Thu, 17 Apr 2014, 02:51
Location: São Paulo
National Flag:
BrazilBrazil

Re: Growing rugby in Tier 1 nations

Unread postby victorsra » Wed, 26 Feb 2020, 03:06

The expansion itself was never a problem IMO. The problem was how SR dealed with it, ie the format. The main conceptual mistake was to believe all teams from the Atlantic (SA/ARG) should play the Pacific teams and vice versa. What's the economic logic behind Cheetahs vs Rebels, Kings vs Sunwolves, etc...? For me cross Pacific-Atlantic matches should only happen in a final stage, between only the stronger teams.
Brazilian Rugby News: www.portaldorugby.com.br

Posts: 29
Joined: Fri, 03 Aug 2018, 15:33
National Flag:
New ZealandNew Zealand

Re: Growing rugby in Tier 1 nations

Unread postby Thesjhughes » Wed, 26 Feb 2020, 04:53

victorsra wrote:The expansion itself was never a problem IMO. The problem was how SR dealed with it, ie the format. The main conceptual mistake was to believe all teams from the Atlantic (SA/ARG) should play the Pacific teams and vice versa. What's the economic logic behind Cheetahs vs Rebels, Kings vs Sunwolves, etc...? For me cross Pacific-Atlantic matches should only happen in a final stage, between only the stronger teams.

Hi victorsra The South Africans do not want to pay local derby they do enough of it in the Currie Cup. They want to play the New Zealanders and Australians mainly the New Zealand teams The problem with the super Rugby for four different countries have different ideas of what they want to do with the competition.

Posts: 1709
Joined: Sun, 18 May 2014, 13:27
National Flag:
AustraliaAustralia

Re: Growing rugby in Tier 1 nations

Unread postby Working Class Rugger » Wed, 26 Feb 2020, 05:45

Thesjhughes wrote:
victorsra wrote:The expansion itself was never a problem IMO. The problem was how SR dealed with it, ie the format. The main conceptual mistake was to believe all teams from the Atlantic (SA/ARG) should play the Pacific teams and vice versa. What's the economic logic behind Cheetahs vs Rebels, Kings vs Sunwolves, etc...? For me cross Pacific-Atlantic matches should only happen in a final stage, between only the stronger teams.

Hi victorsra The South Africans do not want to pay local derby they do enough of it in the Currie Cup. They want to play the New Zealanders and Australians mainly the New Zealand teams The problem with the super Rugby for four different countries have different ideas of what they want to do with the competition.


Personally, I think SR needs to evolve to become an add on to more domestic/regional based structures. Focus on making the Currie Cup, Mitre 10 Cup and NRC the primary competitions. Running for 14 weeks plus finals and the make SR an added on competition. Have everyone look to have say 8 teams each running finals etc. Get the new Japanese league involved. All teams go into a 32 team sudden death playoff system to crown a Champion. That or go to an 8x4 pools system with 3 games each and top 8 finals system.

Posts: 781
Joined: Mon, 03 Jun 2019, 19:53
National Flag:
New ZealandNew Zealand

Re: Growing rugby in Tier 1 nations

Unread postby Edgar » Wed, 26 Feb 2020, 08:44

Working Class Rugger wrote:
NaBUru38 wrote:I don't understand why you consider than expanding to 18 teams was a bad idea. The smaller crowds and TV ratings have nothing to do with that.


Not so much the expansion to 18 teams more how they handled it.


Exactly. Super 18 could have worked brilliantly if they'd been more patient, enforced stricter criteria and stayed within perceived geographical confines. The Kings and Sunwolves simply weren't up to scratch, the latter's inclusion destroyed the championship's geographical identity and with the two South African conferences and convoluted playoffs system this undermined the tournament's credibility. Simply put, they treated the fans like idiots and assumed they'd just go along with any old formula.

Meanwhile, this guy's got some interesting ideas. Not sure I agree with 7-point tries, and the five-phase maximum would just about complete rugby's gradual metamorphosis into league in the professional era. But some of the ideas certainly have merit. I'd personally like to see drop-goals reduced to a point, so that basically they would only be useful as tie-breakers (as in league). & yes, bring back the geographical names if you want to market the game to an international audience. They were only ever dispensed with due to petty small town provincialism in the first place.

1. One point for a penalty goal but three points for a goal kicked as a result of a penalty for foul play.

2. Conversions and field goals would be worth two points and tries seven points.

3. Only nine technical reasons why penalties can be awarded for breaches of scrums, lineouts, rucks and mauls, thus eliminating all those archaic rules produced by lawyers who like to sit around and debate how many angels can sit on the point of a pin.

4. Kicking out on the full in general play would be outlawed.

5. A team could have only five phases of the ball to gain ground. If not, it sacrifices possession. If it makes “forward progress”, as Rex Mossop said, it holds the ball indefinitely.

https://www.foxsports.com.au/rugby/aust ... a6b2871255

Posts: 3400
Joined: Wed, 14 Oct 2015, 13:30
National Flag:
GermanyGermany

Re: Growing rugby in Tier 1 nations

Unread postby RugbyLiebe » Wed, 26 Feb 2020, 09:05

The basic problem with Super Rugby is, that closed shops only work, when you got a kind of draft system.
Every league that doesn't apply to this basic rule fails or has a lot of teams going bankrupt. In Super Rugby as teams are owned by the Unions, the Unions slowly go bust.

The second problem are the fans themself. Rugby fans seem to produce an extremely negative atmosphere when something new comes along. I also don't understand why always in rugby somebody picks on the worst teams and wants them out. That's a mentality problem and it will be tough for rugby in the future, if this doesn't change.
Personally I had the feeling that Super Rugby 18 was actually quite balanced (and I saw mostly games from a losing/failing team as I support the Melbourne Rebels) it didn't in a lot of games show in the end result, but the product itself was good.

The third problem is marketing. I actually paid to watch Super Rugby. It was super complicated and didn't work properly. So I stopped after some time. I don't get, why they seem to not market this at all and try to go new markets.
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.

User avatar
Posts: 1334
Joined: Thu, 28 Apr 2016, 14:02
Location: Las Canteras, Uruguay
National Flag:
UruguayUruguay

Re: Growing rugby in Tier 1 nations

Unread postby NaBUru38 » Wed, 26 Feb 2020, 16:36

victorsra wrote: The main conceptual mistake was to believe all teams from the Atlantic (SA/ARG) should play the Pacific teams and vice versa. What's the economic logic behind Cheetahs vs Rebels, Kings vs Sunwolves, etc...? For me cross Pacific-Atlantic matches should only happen in a final stage, between only the stronger teams.

Well, the Super Rugby has went the opposite way. The Jaguares now play 3-4 matches in Aus/NZ, versus 2-3 in 2016-2017.

PreviousNext

Return to Rugby Forum

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot] and 27 guests