Spectators lose interest in Super Rugby

[LeinsterMan (NotTigsMan)]

Can't see NA happening not with Top 14 and Pro 12 happening from a logistics POV it makes more sense to go for those than Super rugby.

Also would the tier 2 teams be able to keep financially?

 

[Cruz_del_Sur]

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,

I'm clearly biased here but if you are going to drop from 18 to 16/15 teams, based on performance, despite an appalling season, we are not in the bottom 3.
Give us another season and let's have this conversation again.

 

[LeinsterMan (NotTigsMan)]

I'm clearly biased here but if you are going to drop from 18 to 16/15 teams, based on performance, despite an appalling season, we are not in the bottom 3.
Give us another season and let's have this conversation again.

Yeh Jags have a talented squad they just pushed SA they do need better coaching.

But honestly i can see them doing very well second time around now that they know what to expect.

 

[Brigantine]

Drop the Force and Rebels, and move the Blues into the Australian conference. Fixed.

But yeah the way I read it they're looking to go back to a simple worldwide round robin format. Main question is whether they'll start in 2017 or 2018.

 

[comprar]

Found the Aus Average in 2006 which was total 624,443/ average 24,017.

 

[Car]

Rugbypass had this opinion piece on the conference system:
https://news.rugbypass.com/view/fans-voice-super-rugby-lose-the-conference-system

I didn't get to watch last season, but it really doesn't seem fair at all and looks unnecessarily complicated.

 

[The Jones Boy]

Drop one Aussie franchise and one saffer franchise.
That will let the talent level creep up in their conferences.
Maybe the Force and the Kings.
The Kings are woeful and Western Aussie is all about Aussie rules, the second game out there is really league so the Force won't be missed and their top players will easily be housed in the other franchises

 

[Gena_ZA]

I would go as far as say drop 2 ZA teams or have them merge with bigger unions
Kings with Sharks and Cheetahs with Lions

 

[Bruce_ma gooshvili]

Rugbypass had this opinion piece on the conference system:
https://news.rugbypass.com/view/fans-voice-super-rugby-lose-the-conference-system

I didn't get to watch last season, but it really doesn't seem fair at all and looks unnecessarily complicated.

It's an entirely valid argument, but completely simplistic. It only makes sense if you are happy with less TV money and most of your top players playing in France and England as the wage differences continues to widen sharply and hoping that fans will turn out to watch international reserves being the "star" players in the league. To suggest you cut the number of teams, scrap the conference system and things will be just like the gold old days is not realistic. That is not one of the options in the real world as proven by Pro12 in Europe exploring exactly the same options out of the understanding that they too will also lose their best players and devalue the league if they don't expand the territories they cover and gain more TV money.

The alternative is Super Rugby moving in the next 10 years towards incorporating an Asian Conference and an Americas Conference in the hope of getting enough TV money to retain the top talent. The problem is while that destination might be much better than the current situation, getting there over the next 10 years means accepting a less competitive league as it transitions and the talent in Asia and the Americas gradually improves.

 

[die_mole]

can they cut teams or rearrange teams right now? that would most likely violate the terms of their tv deal

pulling teams would result in less tv money and the sports tv bubble is about to burst so their next contract they sign is probably not going to be much better than the one they have now... two contracts from now it will probably be less

expanding the territory of the league will be the only way to increase league revenue... and with players already leaving for more money i couldn't imagine what would happen if tv revenue drops or stagnates compared to revenue in other countries

 

[Car]

It's an entirely valid argument, but completely simplistic. It only makes sense if you are happy with less TV money and most of your top players playing in France and England as the wage differences continues to widen sharply and hoping that fans will turn out to watch international reserves being the "star" players in the league.

It's also too simplistic to assume that more teams will automatically lead to more TV money as interest already went down and might go down further if the level is going down further/ the competition is becoming more lopsided due to teams that actually aren't good enough. More matches can also put people off. The NFL is doing much better than the NBA even though (or maybe because?) it has fewer games and isn't as easy to get into (both actively and passively). You have to watch out you don't end up devaluing your competition by playing too much against teams no-one cares about.

 

[Cruz_del_Sur]

I didn't get to watch last season, but it really doesn't seem fair at all and looks unnecessarily complicated.

It is very complicated but whether it is necessary or not is quite a judgement call from rugbypass. As Bruce mentioned, TV money is an issue and the conferences offer a complicated but reasonable solution. Sure, one NZ team didn't qualify to the playoffs though they probably should had the system been different, but it was one out of 5. That's good enough in my book. The entire idea is to have at least one member from each conference in the finals, and that is driven by tv viewership.

An all vs all league would also increase the travelling, which is already quite high for some teams. Jaguares had to play at home in Arg, in RSA, against the Sunwolves away and against NZ away. That's a plethora of time zones. Logistically it is a nightmare.

I am on Europe/RSA time zone. Jaguares games were either at 7am (on a sat), 3-5 pm, or at 1am on sundays. I repeat, it is a logistical nightmare. There is no easy way to schedule this. Something's gotta give.

 

[Bruce_ma gooshvili]

It's also too simplistic to assume that more teams will automatically lead to more TV money as interest already went down and might go down further if the level is going down further/ the competition is becoming more lopsided due to teams that actually aren't good enough. More matches can also put people off. The NFL is doing much better than the NBA even though (or maybe because?) it has fewer games and isn't as easy to get into (both actively and passively). You have to watch out you don't end up devaluing your competition by playing too much against teams no-one cares about.

All totally valid Car. But Japan alone has a population twice that of the whole SANZAR and is far more affluent per head of population. It is hypothetical, but if the sport really catches on there as a result of RWC and SuperRugby then I can't imagine a scenario where a SuperRugby with Japan in it gets a worse TV deal than a SANZAR only option. I can't imagine a scenario where a SANZAR only Super Rugby (without Japan) didn't lose a large chunk of its top international players to the new TV deals of France and England.

The other consideration that Super Rugby and Pro12 have disasterously failed to consider, using the example of the NFL expansion in the 1990s, is for existing teams to supply a decent player each from their squad to the new franchises to ensure they are remotely competitive in their first years (obviously there might have to be financial incentives to the player for them to make the move). I am sure there'd be other options to make the league more competitive during this transitional period but both leagues just seem to think expanding the cheapest way possible is the way to go and to hell with the level of competition.

Apologies if I appear frustrated. There are comparisons for me with global political developments where some believe that we can turn the clocks back to 1970s and create all sorts of new jobs (that in reality have been taken over by robots and provide far superior and more affordable craftmanship than any human could for anything approaching the same price). The past is no more attainable in Super Rugby than it is economically.

 

[Car]

All totally valid Car. But Japan alone has a population twice that of the whole SANZAR and is far more affluent per head of population. It is hypothetical, but if the sport really catches on there as a result of RWC and SuperRugby then I can't imagine a scenario where a SuperRugby with Japan in it gets a worse TV deal than a SANZAR only option. I can't imagine a scenario where a SANZAR only Super Rugby (without Japan) didn't lose a large chunk of its top international players to the new TV deals of France and England.

I'm not against Japan and especially Argentina. They had to earn it and the doors to SANZAR were closed for Argentina for far too long. But you just should not only look at the money, but also take the current level and the current market size into consideration. That goes more towards the likes of the US or also Germany. In ice hockey, the regularly extended the number of countries at the A World Championship when we would have been relegated without it. They feared we might slip away without it. What happened? The sport can only dream of the popularity it used to have in the 80s and 90s. In handball, they gave us a wild card for the 2015 World Championship, only to fail to reach a TV deal for this one. There were free streams on Youtube, but despite a lot of media coverage about the whole disaster surrounding it (I'm still not sure what really happened), the ratings were rather poor. In both cases, even fans here thought the preferential treatment was just ridiculous.

You just can't ignore on-pitch performances and an affluent, big country might not transform into good TV deals. The German sports market is notoriously difficult for non-German football. Yes, that's partly off topic (well, who knows with Super Rugby?), but if the level is too bad and people feel it's not about sports any more, that could backfire.

I wonder if it wouldn't make more sense in the long run to move the Sunwolves to another conference? Australia might be better since the level is weaker.

 

[die_mole]

just did some quick google maps stuff and argentina and japan being in the africa conference doesn't really make much sense

jaguares with new zealand teams and sunwolves with australia makes more sense in terms of flights

unless they go to a single round robin the conference system is here to to stay (honestly it's one of the easiest things to figure out)

 

[The Jones Boy]

One Aussie team out.
One Saffer team out.
The quality in the other teams will rise a little and make them more competitive. The bar will be raised for the entry level standard.
Perfection.

 

[smartcooky]

can they cut teams or rearrange teams right now? that would most likely violate the terms of their tv deal

pulling teams would result in less tv money and the sports tv bubble is about to burst so their next contract they sign is probably not going to be much better than the one they have now... two contracts from now it will probably be less

expanding the territory of the league will be the only way to increase league revenue... and with players already leaving for more money i couldn't imagine what would happen if tv revenue drops or stagnates compared to revenue in other countries

I pretty much agree with all of this.

Fans need to accept that the idea of "everyone plays everyone else" is gone for good. While this might be fine in places like England where the land area covered by the 12 Aviva Premiership teams can be covered with a large blanket (for Kiwi fans, the entire Aviva Premiership takes place in a land area less than the size of the South Island; for Aussie fans, half the size of Victoria). Travel is a breeze... you can drive/bus/train from place to place in just a few hours.

Competitions with formats using conferences/pools/groups are the way of the future. I think something like cross between the European Rugby Champions Cup and NFL with regional conferences is the way things will go on the future.. for example

New Zealand Conference (5 teams + Jaguares)
Australian Conference (5 teams + Sunwolves)
African Conference (6 teams)

Every team plays every other team within their own conference home and away (8 matches)
Every team plays four teams from each other conference, 2 home and 2 away (8 matches)
Quarter finals. Top two teams in each conference qualify (6 teams) plus the two best placed 3rd placed teams. Seeding by table points.

 

[die_mole]

I pretty much agree with all of this.

Fans need to accept that the idea of "everyone plays everyone else" is gone for good. While this might be fine in places like England where the land area covered by the 12 Aviva Premiership teams can be covered with a large blanket (for Kiwi fans, the entire Aviva Premiership takes place in a land area less than the size of the South Island; for Aussie fans, half the size of Victoria). Travel is a breeze... you can drive/bus/train from place to place in just a few hours.

Competitions with formats using conferences/pools/groups are the way of the future. I think something like cross between the European Rugby Champions Cup and NFL with regional conferences is the way things will go on the future.. for example

New Zealand Conference (5 teams + Jaguares)
Australian Conference (5 teams + Sunwolves)
African Conference (6 teams)

Every team plays every other team within their own conference home and away (8 matches)
Every team plays four teams from each other conference, 2 home and 2 away (8 matches)
Quarter finals. Top two teams in each conference qualify (6 teams) plus the two best placed 3rd placed teams. Seeding by table points.

i thought i was crazy and the only one to notice how out of place jaguares and sunwolves are in the african conference

new zealand is as easy a flight as south africa is for argentina and australia is much closer to japan than south africa

it would also make the scheduling much easier and qualification for playoffs would be simpler

 

[marianodan]

just did some quick google maps stuff and argentina and japan being in the africa conference doesn't really make much sense

jaguares with new zealand teams and sunwolves with australia makes more sense in terms of flights

I doesn't make sense for Japan but for us it definitely does. Time Zone difference with SA is 4 hours, with NZ is 16...

 

[die_mole]

I doesn't make sense for Japan but for us it definitely does. Time Zone difference with SA is 4 hours, with NZ is 16...

japan to cape town is 20 horu flight while japan to sydney is 10 hours