• Help Support The Rugby Forum :

2nd tier rugby in Australia

Tickets to my uni's Aussie Rules team were $8 across the board for adults. The rugby was free. But there were two rugby teams. Main problem is just the universities' lack of facilities.

I was smart when I was in the States - went to UNC's first exhibition basketball game of the season, on homecoming weekend. $10 and an assured win. ;)
 
Tickets to my uni's Aussie Rules team were $8 across the board for adults. The rugby was free. But there were two rugby teams. Main problem is just the universities' lack of facilities.

I was smart when I was in the States - went to UNC's first exhibition basketball game of the season, on homecoming weekend. $10 and an assured win. ;)

Funny, I have some good friends in N.C. that are massive tarheels fans. The best man in my wedding for example.
Anyway, I don't think this set up has to imitate the size and grandeur that american college football enjoys, but just the overall setup.
There are smaller sports played at every university (women's soccer for example) that would be much better comparisons. They have relatively small grounds, maybe a couple of stands, etc. I think it should be started, and if it blossoms into something huge, then wow...well done. If not, at least it creates a good competition within the universities.
 
Anything has to be better than our current system. Our only collegiate sport is the University Games, which is a week-long ****-up with sport attached.
 
Tickets to my uni's Aussie Rules team were $8 across the board for adults. The rugby was free. But there were two rugby teams. Main problem is just the universities' lack of facilities.

I was smart when I was in the States - went to UNC's first exhibition basketball game of the season, on homecoming weekend. $10 and an assured win. ;)

The impact of the lack of facilities could be lessened by kicking the Chalks out...
 
The impact of the lack of facilities could be lessened by kicking the Chalks out...

I was a Chalk, sort of (studied IT, nobody really wanted us). But all my friends were Aggies. And Proddies, but they don't count because all they do is film games. ;)
 
Adam Freier ways in on our little debate. His idea is a novel one, but it shows some merit. At least there is discussion about the topic of an Australian national rugby competition by someone more influential than me...

A national cup final would be a great springboard
Adam Freier
September 26, 2010
The tug of war of rugby's nurseries is a fine and delicate matter. On one side we have the dusty grass floors of park rugby. The other side is a Project Runway-style process of identifying talent early and churning them through the high-performance structure of the ''academies''.
My path was a little skewed: I was able to work from the ranks of Randwick Colts through to third grade and eventually into first and so on. But if that were the same path I chose this year, would I have the same results and a framed Wallabies cap hanging in my study?
Times are definitely changing: the importance of Sevens and the under-20s is considered a lot more critical, while coaches are now using a similar system to that of the Socceroos, using the world stage to develop their young talent, with players such as James Slipper showing promise in the Wallabies this year.
So how can we reward those who battle on through the turf of our local clubs, whom many would say are as good, if not better, then those in front of them? It's a hot debate - many of our Sydney practices have the view that the gap between professional rugby teams and club sides are growing further and further apart.
I see club footy as the oxygen that keeps our great game alive, yet, I have also seen first-hand the nurturing and hothousing of our stars of tomorrow at the Waratahs, and seen players like Damien Fitzpatrick and Lachie McCaffery develop and now dominate the Shute Shield. They have had the best of both worlds.
So how can we get the clubs to be showcased across the country?
How are we ever going to compete with AFL and NRL? We sit back and let those two codes put on two huge shows in two weeks. We just chip away behind the scenes on the ABC while the other grand finals suck up all the attention.
How would it look if all club rugby across the country - whether in Victoria, Wollongong or Brisbane - were to finish in the first week of September? We'd have the Australian rugby championships.
Not the ARC, I hear you say, but rugby could greatly benefit by taking our clubs out of their own state backyards. Last week, we spoke about local derbies, with Super rugby hosting more State of Origin-style of matches, but how good would it be if those derbies also took place at club level? Following some healthy correspondence from a Nudgee old boy in Brisbane, here is the suggestion:
❏ A round robin of the best three teams past the post in Brisbane and Sydney, with a culmination of the best Victorian side of locals plus Western Australia's, each fielding their own competition's best XV.
❏ Eight teams, two pools with the grand final at Suncorp Stadium in Brisbane.
It wouldn't be a sell-out, but imagine what it could do for Australian rugby. A national competition with clubs not being split or instructed to merge. A feast of tribalism, true local supporters knowing that some day they could win an FA Cup-style competition.
It would enable Robbie Deans and the Wallabies selectors to have a highly competitive group of players, not sprinting around in a Sevens team or playing against young men in the schools or juniors, but out there mixing it with the country's best.
There would be no squad of Wallabies unavailable for selection; better still, imagine the hype knowing that there were spots on the line for a Wallaby jersey as Robbie needs to fill his spring tour squad with players who demonstrate the best form. Kurtley Beale in the Myrtle Green against Quade Cooper and his men of the Souths Army. Two great sides in front of a sunny Suncorp Stadium.
Just consider it: my theory might not be exactly what you're thinking. But surely when you are sitting back watching 90,000 people filling the MCG with INXS and success before a ball is even bounced, you must be wondering: what can rugby do to tap into this spring sporting madness?

http://www.smh.com.au/rugby-union/u...ld-be-a-great-springboard-20100925-15rik.html
 
Another rugby heavyweight involved in Australian provincial rugby speaks about the flaws of the current system.

High time club game was made meaningful
PETER FENTON
October 4, 2010
Sydney University 46 Randwick 6
So 5410 intrepid rugby supporters attended the time-honoured Shute Shield final between guess who? That's right. Again. This is much the same number as last year but 10,000 fewer than it drew year after year, before professionalism. Knockin' em dead aren't we? The national coach rightly took the Wallabies and Waratahs out of their cocoons, encouraging and allowing them to play club rugby. The finals series produced some great games but only the club faithful gave a damn. Why? Let me tell you.
The competition is dysfunctional. Any competition where the top couple of teams can beat the bottom couple by a hundred points is dysfunctional. Rugby, sporting more academics than any code, is the only game not intelligent enough to produce a competitive club competition. No salary cap, no draft, no remuneration for junior clubs that produce a Wallaby, nothing. Just let' em play. Let the rich poach from the poor, and don't send any newly contracted players to the poorer clubs. The professional players' agreement prevents this. So the rich get richer, the poor get poorer, and those at the top end worry only that the Wallabies or Waratahs are doing OK.
Some see it unfair that that representative stars come back and take the places of those who've battled all season. That is nothing compared with the fact that they all come back to the same bloody clubs. Sort that out and interest will again rise. At a time when all sports are under the pump to attract participants and customers, rugby remains essentially reactive not proactive. At its peril.
Advertisement: Story continues below And what of playing a sudden-death semi on Woollahra Oval with more dust and less grass than at the Darwin Cup, and another at University's own picturesque, historic but drowsy arena? Could the game have been made to look more social and less professional? Not surprisingly, no television nor radio news bulletins can be guaranteed to even give results.
Wonderful workers are left dying on the vine at battling clubs where the cost of running teams increases every year, and sponsorship runs parallel with fan apathy. All the time those running this marvellous game are desperately hoping the Wallabies and Waratahs win so that the bank balance holds up. This is a really great game. It must be to have survived its administrations.
Peter Fenton is a club premiership coach and former Sydney coach.

http://www.smh.com.au/rugby-union/u...-game-was-made-meaningful-20101003-162s6.html
 
Last edited:
I see plenty of comment here that the 2007 ARC failed; it didn't fail, it was simply never given a chance. You have Ol' Possum Head to thank for that, he pole-axed it because it was the brainchild of his predecessor, Gary Flowers.

It is difficult to compare the ARC with the ITM Cup, because New Zealand's NPC was not a "created" competition, it was born in 1976 from a pre-existing tradition of representative rugby going back to the late 1800's, between regions defined by Provincial boundaries that go back even longer.

The best comparison to make is possibly to look at what happened with Super 12. It came from the original South Pacific Championship (1986-90) involving six teams from Auckland, Wellington, Canterbury, NSW, Queensland and Fiji, which was followed by the Super 10 (where South African teams were added) from 1993 to 95.

The difference between Super 12 and its predecessors is that, in New Zealand anyway, the teams were "made up". Crusaders, Highlanders, Chiefs etc, didn't exist as entities prior to 1996. As a consequence, fans had a lot of difficulty identifying with the teams, so the concept was very poorly supported. For the first ever Crusaders home game v the Blues, less than 1000 people turned up to watch. It wasn't Canterbury playing Auckland so hardly anyone cared. This was made even more difficult by the Crusaders not even playing in a red and black jersey; it was some horrible white number with red and black collar and wrist bands... ugly!!

Serious doubt was cast over the future of a professional competition that was very poorly attended, so a big marking campaign was undertaken to try to get people to identify with their teams.

The beginning of Super 12 and the first (and only) year of the 2007 ARC are very similar. Punters couldn't identify with the teams, even thought their names (Central Coast, Perth etc) said they ought to. Crowds were poor, ranging in the 2000 to 5000 per match. The distribution of talent looked promising, with teams from Western Sydney, Central Coast, Western Australian and Victoria making up the semi-finalists, but a complete lack of guts and imagination saw the whole thing canned. They saw it as a money loser, rather than seeing it as an investment in Australia's rugby future.

The ARU looks enviously at our ITM Cup as a great competition, and it is, but I have news for them; it loses a PACKET of money every year. The ITM cup costs big losses for the NZRU every year, but they see it as a cost if doing business. They view it somewhat like a school. All Schools cost money to run, so they run at a loss. School fees do not even begin to cover the cost of running a school in materials, wages, power, rates, water, building maintenance etc etc. However, you MUST have schools as an investment in your country's future.

So what did the ARU do with the money they saved by not having the ARC? Well they spent it on the likes of Wendell Sailor, Lote Tuquiri, Matt Rogers and a host of other useless Diet Rugby players, instead of spending it on developing rugby union players. Every $1 they spent paying inflated wages to useless League players, would have given them the equivalent of over $5 worth of value if they had spent it on developing their own players. The combined wages that were paid to this array of League mercenaries between 2007 and 2008 was close to the entire cost of running the ARC over the same time period.
 
I agree about throwing $$$ at League Players. The only one which has paid off is Berrick Barnes (and he wasn't even a massive high-profile signing).
 
Agree with cooky on this one. In South Africa it's the same thing with the Currie Cup. It's a competition that has been there for so many years. Provincial rugby is the cornerstone of society starting in primary school. The difference between South Africa and New Zealand when it comes to Super Rugby is that the franchises are more recognized as their own teams since most

of them use the same names/emblems/kits.

The Natal Sharks (formerly Natal) are called The Sharks and play in a complete black jersey in stead of a black jersey with a white bar
The Blue Bulls (formerly Northern Transvaal) are called Bulls and play in a bit more commercial kit with basically the same colors
The Golden Lions (formerly Transvaal) are called Lions and play in red and white in stead of white with a red bar
The Central Cheetahs (a combination of the Free State Cheetahs and Griquas) play in a kit which is a combination of theorange-white of the Cheetahs and the green/blue kit of Griquas which makes it the only real franchise with 2 big provincial clubs in 1 team
The Stormers (mainly Western Province) is the only team with a name that is completely different from the team(s) of which is

consists.

In New Zealand the provincial clubs kept their old names (e.g. Canterbury, Waikato, Otago) while the franchises have the commercial names like Crusaders, Hurricanes, Chiefs etc. That will also be one of the reasons NZ rugby fans won't indentify themselves with the franchises as easily as South Africans do.

The other difference is the number of teams. In New Zealand there is one competition with 14 teams with a round-robin system. In South Africa we have a Premier Division with 8 teams and a First division with 6 teams, both divisions with a double round-robin system.

The big difference is that the teams in the Premier Division are mainly the suppliers of the 5 franchises where in New Zealand a franchise is made up by 3, 4, sometimes even 5 or 6 provincial clubs. That doesn't help with connecting to the fans which results in empty stadiums throughout the Super14 (and from now on Super15) competition. It's something that has been bugging me for some time now.
C
When you look at the number or spectators in the stadiums it's just a big disappointment. The Highlanders-Blues game for instance, a match between 2 NZ teams, only got 6700 people to come to the stadium where the other teams have more than 20.000 people in the stadium almost weekly

The Hurricanes and Chiefs have an average attendance of 10.000 - 13.000 in stadiums that can fit 3 times as much people. Even the Crusaders can only fill half the stadium.

The problem with Super Rugby is either the lack of support from the fans or the size of the stadiums. When you look at the domestic Super Rugby matches (Stormers - Bulls had 48.000, Bulls - Sharks had 50.000 etc) it shows you that these matches are much more popular with the fans resulting in packed stadiums and the way we like to see it. Great atmosphere and all.

When you look at the domestic matches of the NZ franchises, there is a big difference. Blues - Hurricanes had 23.000 visitors, Crusaders - Highlanders had 22.000. That's about it.

If they decide to introduce a domestic league in Australia, they have to keep in mind that the fans should be able to identify themselves in the new formed teams.

Sorry, I am drifting away from the subject again....
 
Agree with cooky on this one. In South Africa it's the same thing with the Currie Cup. It's a competition that has been there for so many years. Provincial rugby is the cornerstone of society starting in primary school. The difference between South Africa and New Zealand when it comes to Super Rugby is that the franchises are more recognized as their own teams since most

of them use the same names/emblems/kits.

The Natal Sharks (formerly Natal) are called The Sharks and play in a complete black jersey in stead of a black jersey with a white bar
The Blue Bulls (formerly Northern Transvaal) are called Bulls and play in a bit more commercial kit with basically the same colors
The Golden Lions (formerly Transvaal) are called Lions and play in red and white in stead of white with a red bar
The Central Cheetahs (a combination of the Free State Cheetahs and Griquas) play in a kit which is a combination of theorange-white of the Cheetahs and the green/blue kit of Griquas which makes it the only real franchise with 2 big provincial clubs in 1 team
The Stormers (mainly Western Province) is the only team with a name that is completely different from the team(s) of which is

consists.

In New Zealand the provincial clubs kept their old names (e.g. Canterbury, Waikato, Otago) while the franchises have the commercial names like Crusaders, Hurricanes, Chiefs etc. That will also be one of the reasons NZ rugby fans won't indentify themselves with the franchises as easily as South Africans do.

The other difference is the number of teams. In New Zealand there is one competition with 14 teams with a round-robin system. In South Africa we have a Premier Division with 8 teams and a First division with 6 teams, both divisions with a double round-robin system.

The big difference is that the teams in the Premier Division are mainly the suppliers of the 5 franchises where in New Zealand a franchise is made up by 3, 4, sometimes even 5 or 6 provincial clubs. That doesn't help with connecting to the fans which results in empty stadiums throughout the Super14 (and from now on Super15) competition. It's something that has been bugging me for some time now.
C
When you look at the number or spectators in the stadiums it's just a big disappointment. The Highlanders-Blues game for instance, a match between 2 NZ teams, only got 6700 people to come to the stadium where the other teams have more than 20.000 people in the stadium almost weekly

The Hurricanes and Chiefs have an average attendance of 10.000 - 13.000 in stadiums that can fit 3 times as much people. Even the Crusaders can only fill half the stadium.

The problem with Super Rugby is either the lack of support from the fans or the size of the stadiums. When you look at the domestic Super Rugby matches (Stormers - Bulls had 48.000, Bulls - Sharks had 50.000 etc) it shows you that these matches are much more popular with the fans resulting in packed stadiums and the way we like to see it. Great atmosphere and all.

When you look at the domestic matches of the NZ franchises, there is a big difference. Blues - Hurricanes had 23.000 visitors, Crusaders - Highlanders had 22.000. That's about it.

If they decide to introduce a domestic league in Australia, they have to keep in mind that the fans should be able to identify themselves in the new formed teams.

Sorry, I am drifting away from the subject again....

There are a few reason for poor NZ attendances. One thing people tend to overlook when comparing South African numbers to NZ figures is that the population of NZ is 4 million and the population of SA is about 50 million. No matter how good the rugby is NZ crowds are never going to be comparable. Getting a crowd of 50k in NZ is actually a huge chunk of the population. To put it in perspective there were more rugby fans in the stadium during the Currie cup final than there are men women and children living in New Plymouth (NZs 11th most populace city.)

Its also very true that people don't identify with the faceless super rugby franchise teams. The apparent stupidity of the NZRU is really quite concerning in that respect. It seems that they have seen the popularity of the itm cup and have decided that that is soley down to the fact that it is NZ teams playing other NZ teams. Now we have this overdose of "local derbys" in the super 14, on top of the ITM cup becoming a 7 team deal. Its effectively the same competition! Now i fear it will turn both competitions stale..
 
Population is only partly a reason, ranger. South Africa might have 45 million people but the majority is not interested in rugby. Football is the main sport for 80% of the population. We have cricket which is the sport for mainly colored and English-heritage people which leaves rugby for mainly the Afrikaners. I know that the sports have supporters from all over the country and I don't want to sound like a racist but rugby is still mainly a white sport in SA. Many black people still resent the sport although there has been a shift in priorities lately, luckily!

Players like Chester Williams, Paulse, Mvovo, Habana, Mtawarira, Maku, Ralepelle, Nokwe, the Ndungane twins, Floors, Johnson, de Jongh and Pietersen for instance have succeeded in making the sport more acceptable for those who use to hate it. Still, when you look at the stadiums it's mainly white people in the stands which is 7 million at most in the country itself.

The whole franchise thing just doesn't work in NZ because people cannot identify themselves with any of the teams.
 
I think Super Rugby has picked up a little bit more in terms of recognition, but there are plenty of problems with the crowds, and most of it is down to stupidity.

A S14 game for the Hurricanes, cost roughly $35. Now it doesn't seem that much, but it mounts up for a very large auidence of teenagers and lower income adults. $35 for the cheapest tickets with $50 tickets for the most expensive, is too much to pay when there is low interest. I'd much rather keep the $35 and spend it in town, after watching the game at the local. So people may go to one or two games every season. If you made tickets $15, with the highest priced tickets going for $35-40, I'm sure most games would have a great auidence and make even more money. It's just pathetic that they cost as much as they do, when auidences are that low. Auidences for the Heineken Cup can afford to be high, because there is so much interest in the games, and competiton for seats.

The other thing which stop franchises getting huge auidences, is that in reality it is a hastle for someone who supports Manuwatu to get to Wellington, and see players whom only one or two play for their local team. Hawkes Bay is almost more of a general franchise than a Hurricanes one, because so much of the players whom play for the Hurricanes, are Wellington players. Hawkes Bay have slightly more players playing for other franchises (2 Chiefs, 3 Crusaders, 1 Rebel) as they do for the Hurricanes (5), and Karl Lowe is the only one in the starting line up. For the Hurricanes to fill their stadium, 10% of the greater Wellington region has to attend a game. For a stadium to be filled to capacity in Cape Town, only 1.85% of the population have to go to the game. So obviously it will be much easier to fill a stadium in South Africa, over a stadium in New Zealand. So people really have to go a long way out of their way to see the Hurricanes play, which with such small cities, doesn't really happen.
 
So either the stadiums are too big, the tickets to expensive or the supporters cannot identify themselves with the franchise. Maybe all of the above.

Too bad because it's such a nice idea.

But how about the ITM Cup? The Cup final, the most prestigious match in provincial rugby in NZ, only attracted 10.000 spectators at Lancaster Park in Christchurch where they can fit 4 times as much people. What will happen with the World Cup next year? Will there be gaps in the stands as well? How many people will show up? They have 5 stadiums with 30.000 seats or more.

England-Scotland, Australia-Ireland, Fiji-Samoa are matches who are not going to attract 60.000 people at Eden Park
Argentina-England, England-Georgia, Argentina-Scotland, Australia-Italy and Australia-Russia are matches who probably won't attract the 40.000 people it can take.

Isn't that worrying for the World Cup now that you mention the ticket prices? The World Cup will be more expensive than the Super15 and ITM Cup. Will people think it's worth it to spend that money on the matches mentioned above?
 
So either the stadiums are too big, the tickets to expensive or the supporters cannot identify themselves with the franchise. Maybe all of the above.

Too bad because it's such a nice idea.

But how about the ITM Cup? The Cup final, the most prestigious match in provincial rugby in NZ, only attracted 10.000 spectators at Lancaster Park in Christchurch where they can fit 4 times as much people. What will happen with the World Cup next year? Will there be gaps in the stands as well? How many people will show up? They have 5 stadiums with 30.000 seats or more.

England-Scotland, Australia-Ireland, Fiji-Samoa are matches who are not going to attract 60.000 people at Eden Park
Argentina-England, England-Georgia, Argentina-Scotland, Australia-Italy and Australia-Russia are matches who probably won't attract the 40.000 people it can take.

Isn't that worrying for the World Cup now that you mention the ticket prices? The World Cup will be more expensive than the Super15 and ITM Cup. Will people think it's worth it to spend that money on the matches mentioned above?

I can tell you know, every All Black game will well and truely be sold out. New Zealand rarely has to worry about selling national tickets. I agree the ITM Cup final was a bit of a joke in terms of people in the stands, but once again for Christchurch to fill up their stadiums, it would be the equivelent of getting 300,000 people to go to the Curry Cup Final, and with so few All Blacks playing, people just copped out.

I think, despite all my efforts, I've missed out on every All Blacks game, so I guess I'll be watching teams like Romania, Georga, Namibia and Russia play, for cheaper tickets. There are over 70,000 tourists estimated to be coming, with the stadiums in which some of the teams are playing, much smaller than Westpack or Eden Park. At this stage I don't know how well tickets will sell, but I don't think it'll be as bad as the S14/ITM Cup, especially considering the ticket prices will be dropping to make sure there are buts in seats, when matches don't look like sell outs. More often than not, I think people realize that the RWC is likely to be a one time thing, so people will get involved. In this years ITM Cup, Canterbury, right after the earthquake, probably figured there were more important things to spend their money on.
 
Ah yes. I forgot about the earthquake in Christchurch. But still, the matches with teams other than New Zealand or Australia won't be that popular for the fans in NZ. I don't see a lot of South Africans going that way because it's just too expensive.

Looking even at the stadiums in Wellington and Rotorua, there are matches where I doubt they can attract 30.000 people.

France-Tonga
Ireland-Russia
Fiji-Namibia

Not matches to attract a packed stadium.

The only matches played in Wellington outside the AB match, that might attract a lot of spectators might be Australia-USA and South Africa-Fiji. Even the match between the Springboks and Wales won't attract 36.000 people which is not a nice prospect.

$350 (NZD) for a quarter final and $600 (NZD) for a semi final is just way too much for the people to cough up. I got these prices of the official RWC website where they say they will be similar to the 2007 RWC.
 
A 2nd tier competition should be like the A-league you state the number of teams you want you offer x amount of licenses to compete in the league and strict criteria of which can recieve the license.

This can be a good opportunity for places like Adelaide and regional centres to have teams.
 
So either the stadiums are too big, the tickets to expensive or the supporters cannot identify themselves with the franchise. Maybe all of the above.

Too bad because it's such a nice idea.

But how about the ITM Cup? The Cup final, the most prestigious match in provincial rugby in NZ, only attracted 10.000 spectators at Lancaster Park in Christchurch where they can fit 4 times as much people. What will happen with the World Cup next year? Will there be gaps in the stands as well? How many people will show up? They have 5 stadiums with 30.000 seats or more.

England-Scotland, Australia-Ireland, Fiji-Samoa are matches who are not going to attract 60.000 people at Eden Park
Argentina-England, England-Georgia, Argentina-Scotland, Australia-Italy and Australia-Russia are matches who probably won't attract the 40.000 people it can take.

Isn't that worrying for the World Cup now that you mention the ticket prices? The World Cup will be more expensive than the Super15 and ITM Cup. Will people think it's worth it to spend that money on the matches mentioned above?

Not true.

Rugby World Cup boss Martin Snedden has vowed the "sold- out" sign will be displayed outside the gates of all 48 tournament matches.

With just 236 days remaining before the September 9 kick-off, Snedden has spoken of his belief that the tournament will defy the troubled global economy and be a huge crowd-puller.

"Our Rugby World Cup will capture New Zealand. It's already well on the way to doing so," Snedden said in an article in the just-released International Rugby Board's 2011 Yearbook. "For us, this is a genuine once-in- a-lifetime opportunity, something really unique.
 

Latest posts

Top