Spectators lose interest in Super Rugby

[Pampas]

I think people is overreacting to this new format. I agree is more complicated to understand for fans who are not big followers, and certanly some fans may lose interest, but many more started to follow after the expansion.
And despite all the downsides of this new system, the best teams qualified to quaterfinals and semis, and we have witnessed some great games.
The biggest problem this year has been the quality gap between kiwis teams and the rest, bar the Lions, worsened by the players exodus.

 

[smartcooky]

And a bogan is what, exactly?

If you are in England, think "Chav"

 

[Five Meters Out]

Like this beauty?

The hair is right, but his chap is too well dressed to be a true bogan. Needs a black T-shirt with "Motorhead" written on it, black jeans and very noisy car.

- - - Updated - - -

And a bogan is what, exactly? Something from Harry Potter?

- - - Updated - - -

With the exception of the stormers and Chiefs game attendance at the 3 quarter final has been pathetic. The canes have needed a smaller venue for years. Embarassing seeing all the empty yellow seats at their home games? Did they not win the overall standings? **** poor fan effort. Brumbies might have benefitted in those last 10 minutes if there'd have been more than 1500 fans in attendance. Well, that's what it looked and sounded like. Same for lions home to crusaders. Place was empty. Odd considering I live in a tier 2 rugby nation, and I am sure we'd at least equal some of these attendances, given the quality on display. Says a lot considering SH rugby is the flagship of the sport.

There were 18.000 at the Hurricanes v Sharks match, but to be fair the walk up crowd on the night would have been zero. It was pouring down and you couldn't stand upright in the wind. I can't recall worse conditions. Wellington people have seen it all before, but I felt sorry for Sharks players. They must have thought they'd got caught up in Hurricane Katrina. I reckon when their first couple of kicks at goal got blown off course they just gave up and said "Get me out of this hell hole".
The other thing with that stadium is those yellow seats that, when empty, stand out like a bright beacon as if to say, "We are not here".

 

[smartcooky]

There were 18.000 at the Hurricanes v Sharks match, but to be fair the walk up crowd on the night would have been zero. It was pouring down and you couldn't stand upright in the wind. I can't recall worse conditions. Wellington people have seen it all before, but I felt sorry for Sharks players. They must have thought they'd got caught up in Hurricane Katrina. I reckon when their first couple of kicks at goal got blown off course they just gave up and said "Get me out of this hell hole".
The other thing with that stadium is those yellow seats that, when empty, stand out like a bright beacon as if to say, "We are not here".

I was posted to Defence HQ in Wellington back in the 1980's (first time I had ever been there). I was unpacking some personal effects at RNZAF Shelley Bay and my room-mate (we had two-man rooms on those days) saw me unpack an umbrella, and he laughed.

"That'll be no use to you here Cooky, he said. "if its not raining, you won't need it, and if it is raining, you will never be able to use it."

 

[ianw16]

I was posted to Defence HQ in Wellington back in the 1980's (first time I had ever been there). I was unpacking some personal effects at RNZAF Shelley Bay and my room-mate (we had two-man rooms on those days) saw me unpack an umbrella, and he laughed.

"That'll be no use to you here Cooky, he said. "if its not raining, you won't need it, and if it is raining, you will never be able to use it."

Lol, yep, that about sums it up. Travelled down from Auckland with a mate to watch a NZ V Aus test in the early 80s. Typical Aucklanders; jumped on the Northerner in jeans and T-shirt. Got off, 12 hours later, could hardly stand up. Head for nearest pub. Very early, but found one open. Heavy wooden door, with a closer. Wouldn't close due to the wind. Eventually jump in a cab for Athletic Park. Say to taxi driver, "Christ, it's windy, eh?". "Nah, mate, bit of a breeze."
Sat in the vertiginous Millard Stand top tier in a bloody gale. Scared to stand up. All Blacks lost.
Chicago has nothing on that place.

 

[smartcooky]

Lol, yep, that about sums it up. Travelled down from Auckland with a mate to watch a NZ V Aus test in the early 80s. Typical Aucklanders; jumped on the Northerner in jeans and T-shirt. Got off, 12 hours later, could hardly stand up. Head for nearest pub. Very early, but found one open. Heavy wooden door, with a closer. Wouldn't close due to the wind. Eventually jump in a cab for Athletic Park. Say to taxi driver, "Christ, it's windy, eh?". "Nah, mate, bit of a breeze."
Sat in the vertiginous Millard Stand top tier in a bloody gale. Scared to stand up. All Blacks lost.
Chicago has nothing on that place.

19-16. Campese and one of the Ella brothers scored. I was there too, but not in the Millard Stand.

That Millard Stand was a bloody scary place to be in a Wellington Northerly. The late Graham Moody, broadcaster, commentator and general all around great Wellingtonian, once told me that the broadcaster's box on top of the stand was a pretty frightening place to be on a stormy day. He reckoned it rattled and shook, and more than once he felt that the whole thing was going pitch over the back.

 

[ianw16]

19-16. Campese and one of the Ella brothers scored. I was there too, but not in the Millard Stand.

Sounds about right. Never been so glad to see Pukekohe as the train headed back north.

 

[Nubiwan]

19-16. Campese and one of the Ella brothers scored. I was there too, but not in the Millard Stand.

That Millard Stand was a bloody scary place to be in a Wellington Northerly. The late Graham Moody, broadcaster, commentator and general all around great Wellingtonian, once told me that the broadcaster's box on top of the stand was a pretty frightening place to be on a stormy day. He reckoned it rattled and shook, and more than once he felt that the whole thing was going pitch over the back.

That's ridiculous!!! I think that was a knock on Nisbo.

- - - Updated - - -

- - - Updated - - -



There were 18.000 at the Hurricanes v Sharks match, but to be fair the walk up crowd on the night would have been zero. It was pouring down and you couldn't stand upright in the wind. I can't recall worse conditions. Wellington people have seen it all before, but I felt sorry for Sharks players. They must have thought they'd got caught up in Hurricane Katrina. I reckon when their first couple of kicks at goal got blown off course they just gave up and said "Get me out of this hell hole".
The other thing with that stadium is those yellow seats that, when empty, stand out like a bright beacon as if to say, "We are not here".

No weather excuses for the semi final and still a fair few empty seats. Reasonably packed house for Lions match.

 

[Nubiwan]

If you are in England, think "Chav"

Got it! Thanks.

 

[Tony Manx]

New proposal leaves Australia and South Africa with one less Super Rugby team.

The board of Australian Rugby Union have been presented with a radical proposal for the future of Super Rugby, which would see Australia and South Africa lose a provincial side, reducing the tournament to 16 teams.

http://www.theroar.com.au/2016/08/2...-south-africa-with-one-less-super-rugby-team/

 

[Pieter Steph du Teague]

I reckon they should drop the Kings, Sun Wolves and Jaguares and go back to the 15 a side format. I think we can all agree it was more entertaining that way. I think developing rugby in Japan and Arge is important but having one team each that gets b*llocksed every week isn't the right way forward. Arge and Japan need to look to develop real competitions within their own countries and once they've grown some competitive teams then they can look to rejoin Super Rugby, maybe with a promotion/relegation format. Until then it should remain 5 teams each from the SANZAR teams.

I haven't made a comment on the Kings as there isn't much to be said other than why were they included?

 

[die_mole]

australia should drop a side and kings should be thrown out... i wouldn't mind there being someway for another south african province to challenge for a right to a super rugby license if they got their **** together

that brings it down to 16, possibly throw out sunwolves or just leave it at a 16 team competition

 

[Pieter Steph du Teague]

I'll be honest, I don't know much about Japanese rugby, but don't they have a pretty good rugby competition there already? Why did they add a team to Super Rugby when they've already got a top tier comp?

 

[die_mole]

I'll be honest, I don't know much about Japanese rugby, but don't they have a pretty good rugby competition there already? Why did they add a team to Super Rugby when they've already got a top tier comp?

i think super rugby wanted their money, only half their national team is sunwolves as i think players prefer the top league
and apparently japan is adding a second professional league
http://www.japantimes.co.jp/sports/...econd-tier-rugby-league-in-2017/#.V7-34ZgrI2w

 

[TRF_stormer2010]

I reckon they should drop the Kings, Sun Wolves and Jaguares and go back to the 15 a side format. I think we can all agree it was more entertaining that way. I think developing rugby in Japan and Arge is important but having one team each that gets b*llocksed every week isn't the right way forward. Arge and Japan need to look to develop real competitions within their own countries and once they've grown some competitive teams then they can look to rejoin Super Rugby, maybe with a promotion/relegation format. Until then it should remain 5 teams each from the SANZAR teams.

I haven't made a comment on the Kings as there isn't much to be said other than why were they included?

The Kings were included because the Eastern Province is the hotbed of 'black rugby' in SA if I can put it like that. The vast majority of registered black players are from the region and there was massive political pressure on SARU to include the province in SR (at the expense of the Lions in 2013 and now as a 6th side). This despite the EP provincial governing body being rotten to the core, players and staff not recieving their pay (they are in the process of being liquidated by court order after a sucessful suit from ex-players) and the fact that as a team they can't even top other smaller provincial sides like the Mpumalanga Pumas, Northern Cape Griquas or Boland Cavaliers who would be the next best sides (bar the 'traditional big 5' provinces) if we were going by merit and had to include a 6th side for a reason other than political grandstanding.

 

[TRF_heineken]

It will be interesting to see what's going to happen now with the Kings.

They are being Liquidated, that process has already started. This after the court ruled in favour of the applicants and also because of the Kings getting a so-called big name sponsor, that would inject R80 million into the franchise, but it happened to be a bogus sponsor.

The other thing is that they don't have their good ol' chum in Oregon Hoskins at SARU anymore, after he resigned. Now what this may entail, I don't know yet, but I have an idea that the bigger Unions will now get more assistance from SARU to strengthen SA Rugby.

Now I know that SARU will be very hesitant to accept any plans in them dropping a team they fought so hard to get, regardless of the merits involved in getting that team.

What my suggestion would be is to see which team finishes at the top of the other teams in the Currie Cup premier division, that doesn't already have a Super Rugby franchise, and give them the Kings spot in Super Rugby. Then use that Union's home stadium as the base of operations and make a combined team of the 3 unions not involved in Super Rugby. So basically we will take Boland, Pumas and EP Kings, as the Griquas are part of the Cheetahs franchise. See which 3 of them finishes higher than the other 2 and award them the Kings spot. They can still play under the Kings name etc. But the home ground may not be the Nelson Mandela Bay stadium, and their players won't necessarily all be from that region.

 

[Bruce_ma gooshvili]

It's a real tough one for the organisers. The conference system would become less painful and expensive once they reach around 22-24 clubs (enough to fill Americas and Japan conferences). Obviously if they reduce numbers they get further away from that goal. Would 16 teams be too much to go back of playing each side home and away?

 

[saulan]

It's a real tough one for the organisers. The conference system would become less painful and expensive once they reach around 22-24 clubs (enough to fill Americas and Japan conferences). Obviously if they reduce numbers they get further away from that goal. Would 16 teams be too much to go back of playing each side home and away?

Home and away not a chance, that would be 30 matches per team without the knock out phase and with byes and the knock outs they may stretch it out to 40 weeks, almost the whole year. But that isn't what people are calling for though. What people want is every team playing each other once, and that would definitely be possible with 16 teams. (They currently play 15 I think, with 16 teams there is no change).

 

[TRF_heineken]

Home and away not a chance, that would be 30 matches per team without the knock out phase and with byes and the knock outs they may stretch it out to 40 weeks, almost the whole year. But that isn't what people are calling for though. What people want is every team playing each other once, and that would definitely be possible with 16 teams. (They currently play 15 I think, with 16 teams there is no change).

The problem is that it during the Super 15/16 the teams played more matches in the regular season than they are doing now with the conference system. And one of the big talking points are player burnout and that the season is too long. So the balancing act the administrators have to do becomes so much more difficult as the needs of the fans, the players and the franchises all have to be weighed into the scales.

If we go to more teams, we will lose the identity of what Super Rugby has always been, which was a strength vs. strength contest. We all want the teams to play each other at least once. We don't want a NH or American model, we want our old model back. It wasn't broken, it didn't need fixing.

 

[TRF_stormer2010]

2 tiers of competition.

12 teams in the top tier, 4 strongest from between SA, NZ and Aus, each union determining its own measure of strength whether nomination or qualification.
Lets take a sample of this year;
Lions, Sharks, Stormers, Bulls, Hurricanes, Highlanders, Chiefs, Crusaders, Waratahs, Brumbies, Reds and Rebels.

One game against each other home or away. 11 matches (4 on tour) total. 1 return match against the other 3 from your nation (acknowledging the fact that derbies are important to the organizers and we need to get the number of games up to a viable amount) so 14 games total. The top 6 go on to a finals series.

12 teams in the bottom tier
Lets get the North Americas on board as we've broken our Americas duck with the Jaguares and we've broken our NH duck with the Sunwolves. So we have the Blues, Cheetahs, Jaguares, Force, Sunwolves, Kings and then 6 others from between existing nations and then possibly the USA, Canada, Brazil, Uruguay, Fiji, Samoa, Tonga, Singapore or whichever national union or club entity makes for the 6 best bids. Top 2 join the top 6 from tier 1 for the finals series.

Splitting them up keeps things managable and keeps it strength vs relative strength. Having the top teams from the bottom tier join the finals keeps the tier 2 relavant to the competition as a whole and acknowledges that a team can have a break-out year much like the Lions did this year. Again, using this year as a sample we'd have had the Blues and Jaguares contend with our play-off teams. The Blues certainly were hitting their straps at the end there. Might have been interesting t have seen them in the finals.