NPR

Slick wrote: Sun Oct 01, 2023 8:26 pm

Margin__Walker wrote: Sun Oct 01, 2023 7:45 pm

Simian wrote: Sun Oct 01, 2023 7:39 pm

go for it. I get the appeal. but you must accept it's barely sustainable at that level.

who do you watch?

Slick's talking about preferring to watch local amateur rugby. Which is sustainable.

He's not pitching solutions for pro rugby.

Thanks, I thought I was going fucking nuts for a while there

you made a stupid point that, if 'the model', would kill rugby in Scotland

listening to people like you nearly did, tbf.

Slick wrote: Sun Oct 01, 2023 8:26 pm

Margin__Walker wrote: Sun Oct 01, 2023 7:45 pm

Simian wrote: Sun Oct 01, 2023 7:39 pm

go for it. I get the appeal. but you must accept it's barely sustainable at that level.

who do you watch?

Slick's talking about preferring to watch local amateur rugby. Which is sustainable.

He's not pitching solutions for pro rugby.

Thanks, I thought I was going fucking nuts for a while there

Ha, no worries. This thread took an odd turn.

Simian wrote: Sun Oct 01, 2023 8:34 pm

Slick wrote: Sun Oct 01, 2023 8:26 pm

Simian wrote: Sun Oct 01, 2023 7:51 pm if you think you can grow a sport when it's basically a charity, good luck

I have zero interest in growing the game, zero. Everything I hate about modern rugby comes from trying to grow the game

how strange. cos everything you comment on here wouldn't exist if you had your way, no? we'd be in a play off with Romania

I think you’re just trying to do my head in here. Nothing you say is making any sense

Simian wrote: Sun Oct 01, 2023 8:40 pm

Slick wrote: Sun Oct 01, 2023 8:26 pm

Margin__Walker wrote: Sun Oct 01, 2023 7:45 pm

Slick's talking about preferring to watch local amateur rugby. Which is sustainable.

He's not pitching solutions for pro rugby.

Thanks, I thought I was going fucking nuts for a while there

you made a stupid point that, if 'the model', would kill rugby in Scotland

listening to people like you nearly did, tbf.

Maybe we will try this again in the morning?

coming back to jersey, they lived beyond their means.

they divorced the am and pro clubs a while back

club team with a posh daddy who were effectively cash doping

I don't have much sympathy. reaped what they sowed.

Paddington Bear wrote: Sun Oct 01, 2023 6:55 pm

Hugo wrote: Sun Oct 01, 2023 5:09 pm Re. The challenges rugby faces being financially viable, you just can't discount the fact that rugby union was an amateur sport for over 100 years and professionalism goes against the sports grain.

The ethos of the sport is 19th century gentleman amateur, rugby is not a made for TV entertainment product like the NFL.

The bigger point on this is that football hasn’t been amateur and isn’t going anywhere. Rugby’s a very entertaining sport, it is just that its ethos is designed around the social occasion that is ‘international day’, to an extent that would still be recognisable to my Grandad and his contemporaries who’d travel to Twickenham a couple of times a year back in the day. Football’s ethos is much more based around the league calendar, for some the rhythm of the cup run etc. Football is a club based every week style sport in this country, rugby is an every so often occasion.

How many teams across the British Isles could get a gate of 5,000 regularly before professionalism? Leicester?

Good post.

I think you are dead right. Football is the only sport in Britain that has ever built a mass, week in, week out audience.

By my reckoning every other sport has a season where it occupies everyone's attention - athletics in the olympics, 6 nations, Wimbledon - but that does NOT equate to year round interest. In other words people don't go from watching athletics at the olympics to wanting to attend events throughout the UK.

Slick wrote: Sun Oct 01, 2023 8:26 pm

Simian wrote: Sun Oct 01, 2023 7:51 pm if you think you can grow a sport when it's basically a charity, good luck

I have zero interest in growing the game, zero. Everything I hate about modern rugby comes from trying to grow the game

how epically middle class of you

Simian wrote: Sun Oct 01, 2023 8:54 pm

Slick wrote: Sun Oct 01, 2023 8:26 pm

Simian wrote: Sun Oct 01, 2023 7:51 pm if you think you can grow a sport when it's basically a charity, good luck

I have zero interest in growing the game, zero. Everything I hate about modern rugby comes from trying to grow the game

how epically middle class of you

You’ve already attempted to answer this one. Off you go

Also, placing Rugby's struggles in some sort of context, how many other sports struggle in 2023:

Of the ones that I know:
Athletics - yes, athletics twitter is always bemoaning that its a dying sport.
Boxing - people say its a dying sport all the time. Certainly people think its golden age is long gone.
Football - astronomical sums at the top end, however, at lower levels some clubs barely survive and go to the wall.

PB, I've heard you say cricket is in a precarious position with youth numbers low, lack of terrestrial TV and such.

How many sports are really in rude health tbh?

Slick wrote: Sun Oct 01, 2023 8:56 pm

Simian wrote: Sun Oct 01, 2023 8:54 pm

Slick wrote: Sun Oct 01, 2023 8:26 pm

I have zero interest in growing the game, zero. Everything I hate about modern rugby comes from trying to grow the game

how epically middle class of you

You’ve already attempted to answer this one. Off you go

huh? you said you don't care about growing the game and would prefer to watch a 'sustainable' amateur game. I don't think it's unreasonable to ask how you see that panning out.

Hugo wrote: Sun Oct 01, 2023 9:04 pm Also, placing Rugby's struggles in some sort of context, how many other sports struggle in 2023:

Of the ones that I know:
Athletics - yes, athletics twitter is always bemoaning that its a dying sport.
Boxing - people say its a dying sport all the time. Certainly people think its golden age is long gone.
Football - astronomical sums at the top end, however, at lower levels some clubs barely survive and go to the wall.

PB, I've heard you say cricket is in a precarious position with youth numbers low, lack of terrestrial TV and such.

How many sports are really in rude health tbh?

Participation in golf seems to be growing, from what I gather anecdotally and also from looking online.

Is gaming a sport? Darts is classified as sport so I don't see why gaming can't be.

Skateboarding seems to be very popular, since it "came back" from 70s 80s popularity it seems to be hugely popular in terms of participation.

None of these really fit into going to an auditorium to watch a game of something - oh there's a thing, my mate in Aussie reckons AFL is becoming more popular

Tichtheid wrote: Sun Oct 01, 2023 9:10 pm

Hugo wrote: Sun Oct 01, 2023 9:04 pm Also, placing Rugby's struggles in some sort of context, how many other sports struggle in 2023:

Of the ones that I know:
Athletics - yes, athletics twitter is always bemoaning that its a dying sport.
Boxing - people say its a dying sport all the time. Certainly people think its golden age is long gone.
Football - astronomical sums at the top end, however, at lower levels some clubs barely survive and go to the wall.

PB, I've heard you say cricket is in a precarious position with youth numbers low, lack of terrestrial TV and such.

How many sports are really in rude health tbh?

Participation in golf seems to be growing, from what I gather anecdotally and also from looking online.

Is gaming a sport? Darts is classified as sport so I don't see why gaming can't be.

Skateboarding seems to be very popular, since it "came back" from 70s 80s popularity it seems to be hugely popular in terms of participation.

None of these really fit into going to an auditorium to watch a game of something - oh there's a thing, my mate in Aussie reckons AFL is becoming more popular

I imagine golf will always fare well. Can play from 8-80 & very limited risk of injury.

Also, you play when it suits you. On so many levels it really is the perfect pastime.

Hugo wrote: Sun Oct 01, 2023 9:04 pm Also, placing Rugby's struggles in some sort of context, how many other sports struggle in 2023:

Of the ones that I know:
Athletics - yes, athletics twitter is always bemoaning that its a dying sport.
Boxing - people say its a dying sport all the time. Certainly people think its golden age is long gone.
Football - astronomical sums at the top end, however, at lower levels some clubs barely survive and go to the wall.

PB, I've heard you say cricket is in a precarious position with youth numbers low, lack of terrestrial TV and such.

How many sports are really in rude health tbh?

Must say I’ve become more bullish on cricket the last few years - a rare winner from covid and participation is up a bit on where it was. A lot of the structural issues remain, terrestrial tv as you say being the big one. But overall I can be confident that grassroots cricket will exist in a recognisable form in 25/30 years in a way I really fear isn’t the case for rugby.

The pro game has a number of issues, but 16 of the 18 pro sides are turning a profit, the two that aren’t have special circumstances (Middlesex are tenants and forgot to pay their pensions properly for a 12 year period discovered late last year, Yorkshire dealing with the fall out from their racism scandal). Sic transit gloria etc but the national team are also pretty good and exceptionally entertaining.

But yes, overall your point is valid that we’re all scraping by regardless of team sport. It’s a way of life that just doesn’t seem compatible with modern life (bowling alone is what a generation old now?), and beyond the top of pro sport life is hard there as well. Rugby needs to cut its cloth accordingly.

Hugo wrote: Sun Oct 01, 2023 9:12 pm

I imagine golf will always fare well. Can play from 8-80 & very limited risk of injury.

Also, you play when it suits you. On so many levels it really is the perfect pastime.

Yeah my brother and I started around 8/9 years old, I gave up before I was 18, rugby took over for me, but my brother is still playing having just turned 60 - he was very good for a while, I think since he retired this year he is playing more than ever.

Tichtheid wrote: Sun Oct 01, 2023 9:20 pm

Hugo wrote: Sun Oct 01, 2023 9:12 pm

I imagine golf will always fare well. Can play from 8-80 & very limited risk of injury.

Also, you play when it suits you. On so many levels it really is the perfect pastime.

Yeah my brother and I started around 8/9 years old, I gave up before I was 18, rugby took over for me, but my brother is still playing having just turned 60 - he was very good for a while, I think since he retired this year he is playing more than ever.

Potentially a factor of getting a bit older but golf is exploding among friends and friends of friends, and me running a cricket club and a mate who skippers a rugby team can bond over the bloody nightmare it is. Being able to play at will and with people of your choosing only appears to be big factors, beyond the fact as any of us who have ever played will know that it can be hugely addictive

Paddington Bear wrote: Sun Oct 01, 2023 9:23 pm

Tichtheid wrote: Sun Oct 01, 2023 9:20 pm

Hugo wrote: Sun Oct 01, 2023 9:12 pm

I imagine golf will always fare well. Can play from 8-80 & very limited risk of injury.

Also, you play when it suits you. On so many levels it really is the perfect pastime.

Yeah my brother and I started around 8/9 years old, I gave up before I was 18, rugby took over for me, but my brother is still playing having just turned 60 - he was very good for a while, I think since he retired this year he is playing more than ever.

Potentially a factor of getting a bit older but golf is exploding among friends and friends of friends, and me running a cricket club and a mate who skippers a rugby team can bond over the bloody nightmare it is. Being able to play at will and with people of your choosing only appears to be big factors, beyond the fact as any of us who have ever played will know that it can be hugely addictive

That is what stops me going back to it - I really enjoyed playing but I know my personality and I would be there day and night now and it would end in divorce - I'm moving back to East Lothian next year too, so the temptation will be ridiculously high

Bit late to the party, but to address some specific points...

PornDog wrote: Sun Oct 01, 2023 11:06 am The idea of a First XV of players, like a clearly defined first team that should play every game if they are fit, has been part of the problem in England. It has lead to those players being played into the ground, being more highly valued and thus highly (over) paid, to the detriment of building a proper squad.

Player A may be subjectively a better player than Player B, but if A has played 4 games in a row and is carrying a bunch of knocks, then you are going to get a better performance out of B who is raring to go. Proper squad management seems to be a lesson only now being learned in PRL.

Player rotation has always been an absolute necessity for us, with the IRFU not only holding back players for internationals, but also defining additional rest periods. So the question became, how do we best manage this? It has never been a question of fighting against the concept, because that was impossible. Proper squad rotation and squad development is a vital skill that coaches need to learn and develop - a lack of which was one of the reasons that cost Matt O'Connor his job at Leinster and really should have long ago cost JvG his job at Munster.

To me, it seems like the problem is ultimately that there are too many games on the calendar. Rather than running players into the ground or using what should be prestigious top-flight leagues as little more than developmental pathways, I think the answer is clearly to cut games from the calendar. There's actually lots of reasons to do that, namely player welfare, but less is more from a commercial perspective, as well.

When I've suggested this in the past, people tend to go apeshit as cutting games will also clearly cut into revenues in the short term, but again, the idea should be to create something compelling and sustainable over the long run. Meaningless competitions on a congested calendar is neither.

And, maybe this would also go some way to eliminating the conflict that seems to exist with supporting your local club (which I for one think is massively important and ultimately cuts more to *the point* of sports, which you guys understand a hell of a lot better than Americans...I'd hate for you all to lose that, even though you seem to be trending in our direction of become fatass franchise-sports-watchers rather than grassroots-sports-players anyway). But maybe this speaks to the deeper issue, as that's the sort of thing though where like...how is this even allowed to be a problem? It's not like I've never heard this issue expressed before, so Slick isn't unusual at all in this regard. Surely the braniacs in charge can see the dilemma here?

On that note, and maybe if I could synthesize this whole conversation into one takeaway: I think it's clear there needs to be a lot more cohesion among all levels in the game, from grassroots to pro rugby to international level, on and off the field. Because it's one thing if we're talking about competition from other sports, that just is what it is, but it's actually stupid and sad that what I'm seeing is basically that rugby can't get out of its own way, and is in a lot of ways basically cannibalizing itself. Too many parties pulling in too many different directions, fighting one another for a bigger piece of a not-exceptionally-large pie.

Simian wrote: Sun Oct 01, 2023 11:54 am The NBA and NFL model works because their week in week games sit at the top of the pile (are the highest level they play at) and because the tier down from the pros involves a huge number of players, is already ultra ‘professional’ and an incredibly high standard. That will never be the case with rugby. So, like porndog says, the pro game needs to develop players because it’s very rare that players arrive ready to play at that level, necessitating rotation.

Not sure if you mean players need to be rotated in from the amateur ranks for purposes of making them fit for the pro level, or rotated into the pro game for purposes of developing them to eventually (if they're good enough) play at the top level, i.e. international in this game. If the latter, I heard this argument before when involved in a similar discussion on PR way back when (yes, I've been banging on about this for some time), that the system as-is is ideal because though you don't see the First XV all that much, this frees up space to blood youngsters. To which I say: here, players are developed in the top flight, i.e. in the NFL and NBA, by bringing them off the bench, filling in for injuries, and by coaches finding their balls and making changes to the lineup when the season starts to go south and the stalwarts lose form...and I see no reason this wouldn't be the case in rugby if the system were rejigged to make it so that the best players realistically could (and therefore likely would) play every game and rotation thus no longer made sense.

And if this is what you meant, I mean, if you're referring to college football and college basketball, it absolutely is not "an incredibly high standard" relative to the NFL and NBA; you don't see it much anymore, but even a decade ago you'd still occasionally see international rugby sides play pro clubs/provinces on tours, and in some cases the contest was pretty close. If an NFL or NBA team played a college team, it would be a triple-digit scoreline. There are some special talents that form an exception, of course, but most just need -- and get -- developmental snaps/minutes in the big show.

Slick wrote: Sun Oct 01, 2023 11:56 am

Fonz wrote: Sun Oct 01, 2023 2:49 am

Paddington Bear wrote: Sat Sep 30, 2023 9:11 pm You’re right - most rugby fans here just watch the 6N. I’m the same with golf, I watch the majors and the Ryder Cup and switch off to it otherwise. There isn’t a format change that would alter that, that’s just the way it is.

While I take the point in the first paragraph as to ceiling, I mean, theoretically we're already preaching to the converted here when we're talking about drawing in rugby fans...l'll put my cards here on the table by saying - as a fellow converted - there is nothing that makes me want to watch Prem rugby.

On the other side of things, look how the NFL draws people into the game who've got no business ever giving a damn about American football, solely based on the sheer entertainment value the league just naturally provides. I've seen this stateside too with the EPL, which brings in far greater viewer numbers than American soccer to this day; the product is undeniable. There needs to be a rugby version of that, and not just a couple weeks every year or every 4 years. That's step A1 of any serious growth plan.

I think the vast majority of rugby people would rather go down to their local club on a Saturday than go and watch a pro game. I’m certainly one.

If there was no conflict, would you go watch a pro game?

Hugo wrote: Sun Oct 01, 2023 5:09 pm Re. The challenges rugby faces being financially viable, you just can't discount the fact that rugby union was an amateur sport for over 100 years and professionalism goes against the sports grain.

The ethos of the sport is 19th century gentleman amateur, rugby is not a made for TV entertainment product like the NFL.

How do you mean exactly?

Fonz wrote: Sun Oct 01, 2023 11:54 pm

Hugo wrote: Sun Oct 01, 2023 5:09 pm Re. The challenges rugby faces being financially viable, you just can't discount the fact that rugby union was an amateur sport for over 100 years and professionalism goes against the sports grain.

The ethos of the sport is 19th century gentleman amateur, rugby is not a made for TV entertainment product like the NFL.

How do you mean exactly?

The NFL is tailor made for TV - frequent stoppages in play that allow for ads, spectacular hits, shiny kits, bright helmets, games 3 hours long. In fact correct me if Im wrong but the NFL did not become the phenomenon it is until after the invention of the TV.

Rugby was not made with TV audiences in mind and it spent 100 years rejecting professionalism. Its a 19th century sport.

Simian wrote: Sun Oct 01, 2023 8:07 pm

Paddington Bear wrote: Sun Oct 01, 2023 7:56 pm

Simian wrote: Sun Oct 01, 2023 7:42 pm

I would contest the point that 'rugby's a very entertains sport"

all sports have nuances in the laws. rugby is unique in those laws being central to watching the game

we have a sport where the nuance in the laws is central and you need to know them for the game to make sense

edit: this is why folk I know watching rugby fir the first time love NRL

To enjoy the sport in the ‘it’s on in the pub’ sense, you need to know very little about the laws. Indeed half an hour in any stand in the country will reveal it’s perfectly possible to invest a lot of time into the sport without understanding the laws

really? I find watching with folk who're newbies find the breakdown utterly baffling!

I think I can fairly claim to have done my fair share of evangelizing, and for the most part the noobs I've exposed to the game appear to have genuinely liked it and not had too much trouble following along. Now these would mostly be guys who watched (American) football, so that probably helps some in that they're used to lots of obscure rules and I can easily analogize to the game they know, but still. I think rugby is really intuitive in many ways, one of the things that makes it great IMO.

Only really ever heard soccer people bitch that "wahhhh it's soooo hard to understand all these rullleeesss wahhhh"

I really, really don't think the sport has an issue being enjoyable.

Hugo wrote: Mon Oct 02, 2023 12:04 am

Fonz wrote: Sun Oct 01, 2023 11:54 pm

Hugo wrote: Sun Oct 01, 2023 5:09 pm Re. The challenges rugby faces being financially viable, you just can't discount the fact that rugby union was an amateur sport for over 100 years and professionalism goes against the sports grain.

The ethos of the sport is 19th century gentleman amateur, rugby is not a made for TV entertainment product like the NFL.

How do you mean exactly?

The NFL is tailor made for TV - frequent stoppages in play that allow for ads, spectacular hits, shiny kits, bright helmets, games 3 hours long. In fact correct me if Im wrong but the NFL did not become the phenomenon it is until after the invention of the TV.

Rugby was not made with TV audiences in mind and it spent 100 years rejecting professionalism. Its a 19th century sport.

Well I do see I missed that you're speaking as to financial viability, rather than the sport's entertainment value as such. Obviously, stoppages and ads do a hell of a lot more for the former than the latter. But in any case, to be sure, the game they play on Sundays now was very much made with TV audiences in mind (and why -- hate to admit it -- I've fallen out of love with the game), but that wasn't always the case. I would say that the NFL was much less "tailor made for TV" going back even to my childhood 20-odd years ago, and far less so going back further: fewer ads, shorter games, tactics and rules skewed a little more toward ball control & brute force rather than finesse & muh hi-scoring offenses, etc. It became king after TV, yes, but it also developed as a pro sport later than the old kings (namely baseball and boxing) for unrelated reasons, was always huge at college level, and reached ascendancy well before it became the flashy game we know today.

Slick wrote: Sun Oct 01, 2023 8:26 pm

Simian wrote: Sun Oct 01, 2023 7:51 pm if you think you can grow a sport when it's basically a charity, good luck

I have zero interest in growing the game, zero. Everything I hate about modern rugby comes from trying to grow the game

I must say, it took me a loooooong time to understand viewpoints like this, but as time goes on...I totally get this.

Fonz wrote: Mon Oct 02, 2023 12:45 am

Hugo wrote: Mon Oct 02, 2023 12:04 am

Fonz wrote: Sun Oct 01, 2023 11:54 pm

How do you mean exactly?

The NFL is tailor made for TV - frequent stoppages in play that allow for ads, spectacular hits, shiny kits, bright helmets, games 3 hours long. In fact correct me if Im wrong but the NFL did not become the phenomenon it is until after the invention of the TV.

Rugby was not made with TV audiences in mind and it spent 100 years rejecting professionalism. Its a 19th century sport.

Well I do see I missed that you're speaking as to financial viability, rather than the sport's entertainment value as such. Obviously, stoppages and ads do a hell of a lot more for the former than the latter. But in any case, to be sure, the game they play on Sundays now was very much made with TV audiences in mind (and why -- hate to admit it -- I've fallen out of love with the game), but that wasn't always the case. I would say that the NFL was much less "tailor made for TV" going back even to my childhood 20-odd years ago, and far less so going back further: fewer ads, shorter games, tactics and rules skewed a little more toward ball control & brute force rather than finesse & muh hi-scoring offenses, etc. It became king after TV, yes, but it also developed as a pro sport later than the old kings (namely baseball and boxing) for unrelated reasons, was always huge at college level, and reached ascendancy well before it became the flashy game we know today.

The NFL also has fantasy football and redzone (live highlights if you will) which is incredibly popular. It also has madden etc. And nowadays every few weeks they do a game solely for children (turning the players into toy story characters yesterday). Constantly innovating to grow.

Rugby isn't popular enough for a fantasy product, it's too confusing (and not financially viable) to have a video game. So falls further behind. They need to make the game higher scoring and create space. The way to do that is more yellow cards and have strict time limits for scrums and lineouts.

I like neeps wrote: Mon Oct 02, 2023 7:45 am

Fonz wrote: Mon Oct 02, 2023 12:45 am

Hugo wrote: Mon Oct 02, 2023 12:04 am


The NFL is tailor made for TV - frequent stoppages in play that allow for ads, spectacular hits, shiny kits, bright helmets, games 3 hours long. In fact correct me if Im wrong but the NFL did not become the phenomenon it is until after the invention of the TV.

Rugby was not made with TV audiences in mind and it spent 100 years rejecting professionalism. Its a 19th century sport.

Well I do see I missed that you're speaking as to financial viability, rather than the sport's entertainment value as such. Obviously, stoppages and ads do a hell of a lot more for the former than the latter. But in any case, to be sure, the game they play on Sundays now was very much made with TV audiences in mind (and why -- hate to admit it -- I've fallen out of love with the game), but that wasn't always the case. I would say that the NFL was much less "tailor made for TV" going back even to my childhood 20-odd years ago, and far less so going back further: fewer ads, shorter games, tactics and rules skewed a little more toward ball control & brute force rather than finesse & muh hi-scoring offenses, etc. It became king after TV, yes, but it also developed as a pro sport later than the old kings (namely baseball and boxing) for unrelated reasons, was always huge at college level, and reached ascendancy well before it became the flashy game we know today.

The NFL also has fantasy football and redzone (live highlights if you will) which is incredibly popular. It also has madden etc. And nowadays every few weeks they do a game solely for children (turning the players into toy story characters yesterday). Constantly innovating to grow.

Rugby isn't popular enough for a fantasy product, it's too confusing (and not financially viable) to have a video game. So falls further behind. They need to make the game higher scoring and create space. The way to do that is more yellow cards and have strict time limits for scrums and lineouts.

American sports works as a closed shop. They offer huge consistency of “uniforms”, format, teams, season structure etc. I’ll mention him again - my grandad would find everything bar international day in the 6N wildly unrecognisable in our sport now. Paddington Bear Bruckheimer III of Long Island would find the New York Giants and Yankees to be very similar beasts in recognisable structures to Paddington Bear Bruckheimer I.

I get so bored of hearing about how it’s all about exciting product and short attention spans. NFL and baseball take forever and are far slower moving and generally lower scoring than their rugby and t20 cricket equivalents. A huge amount of both is stuff absolutely for the purists.

Our national sport will sell out massive stadiums and have millions watching Arsenal draw 0-0 with Burnley. Chucking the ball around doesn’t magic our problems away

Arsenal season tickets cost between £1400 and £1900. There is a five to ten year waiting list, I read that some fans are paying £12K for debentures to skip the waiting list, the capacity at the Emirates is just shy of sixty one thousand.

Rugby clubs won’t ever compete with that, oh and Arsenal are only one of seven premier league teams in London

Fonz - fewer games is certainly a reasonable talking point. It certainly was before when Super Rugby was at its height and they were playing far fewer games than we were in the North.

However I also think there is a cultural difference between Yank sports and, well, every other sport in the world. Player development happens on the pitch. Players need gametime to develop. The Kiwis have the NPC and the Saffas have the Currie Cup that filled that role (the Aussies had and have fuck all - most probably a part of their problem now). In the North we had long seasons with more games.

In the US it would be quite a common occurrence that a player wont have played a single game after leaving High School until the become a Senior in college. That's just not how things are done over here, and even players being held back in Academies from playing lower tier games with their clubs has been strongly criticised as harming their development and has been rowed back on a bit.

So while there is a valid less is more argument (and I think fewer international games among the Tier 1 teams in Autumn/Summer is something to be explored), there is also a lot of value in those additional games where you do get to blood new players, fans get to know them and new dynasties are evolved. Of course there's a way to integrate these new players properly and fielding complete shadow sides (like is happening all too frequently now in Europe) is certainly not the way to do it.

For what it's worth, there are now 6 fewer premiership games in this season's fixture list than there were in last season's.

More by accident than design, granted.

Paddington Bear wrote: Mon Oct 02, 2023 8:54 am

I like neeps wrote: Mon Oct 02, 2023 7:45 am

Fonz wrote: Mon Oct 02, 2023 12:45 am

Well I do see I missed that you're speaking as to financial viability, rather than the sport's entertainment value as such. Obviously, stoppages and ads do a hell of a lot more for the former than the latter. But in any case, to be sure, the game they play on Sundays now was very much made with TV audiences in mind (and why -- hate to admit it -- I've fallen out of love with the game), but that wasn't always the case. I would say that the NFL was much less "tailor made for TV" going back even to my childhood 20-odd years ago, and far less so going back further: fewer ads, shorter games, tactics and rules skewed a little more toward ball control & brute force rather than finesse & muh hi-scoring offenses, etc. It became king after TV, yes, but it also developed as a pro sport later than the old kings (namely baseball and boxing) for unrelated reasons, was always huge at college level, and reached ascendancy well before it became the flashy game we know today.

The NFL also has fantasy football and redzone (live highlights if you will) which is incredibly popular. It also has madden etc. And nowadays every few weeks they do a game solely for children (turning the players into toy story characters yesterday). Constantly innovating to grow.

Rugby isn't popular enough for a fantasy product, it's too confusing (and not financially viable) to have a video game. So falls further behind. They need to make the game higher scoring and create space. The way to do that is more yellow cards and have strict time limits for scrums and lineouts.

American sports works as a closed shop. They offer huge consistency of “uniforms”, format, teams, season structure etc. I’ll mention him again - my grandad would find everything bar international day in the 6N wildly unrecognisable in our sport now. Paddington Bear Bruckheimer III of Long Island would find the New York Giants and Yankees to be very similar beasts in recognisable structures to Paddington Bear Bruckheimer I.

I get so bored of hearing about how it’s all about exciting product and short attention spans. NFL and baseball take forever and are far slower moving and generally lower scoring than their rugby and t20 cricket equivalents. A huge amount of both is stuff absolutely for the purists.

Our national sport will sell out massive stadiums and have millions watching Arsenal draw 0-0 with Burnley. Chucking the ball around doesn’t magic our problems away

The product isn't just the game though? This is the biggest mistake rugby is making. The NFL (and football) has created products around the game: madden/fifa, fantasy. So you're always engaged with the sport, not just for a few hours at the weekend during a match. Fantasy is the key, you're talking matchups, you're becoming knowledgeable about every team, you're checking lineups/performances weekly.

Betting also plays a part, NFL is really pushing gambling now as football does. I find it morally wrong but it's keeping people invested in the sport. At what cost ofc but still it's a clear strategy both sports have.

In today's world of sports products the actual match is almost secondary really.

NFL and baseball supporters seem very keen on stats, batting averages and catches and whatnot, that keeps fans engaged

I like neeps wrote: Mon Oct 02, 2023 9:29 am

Paddington Bear wrote: Mon Oct 02, 2023 8:54 am

I like neeps wrote: Mon Oct 02, 2023 7:45 am

The NFL also has fantasy football and redzone (live highlights if you will) which is incredibly popular. It also has madden etc. And nowadays every few weeks they do a game solely for children (turning the players into toy story characters yesterday). Constantly innovating to grow.

Rugby isn't popular enough for a fantasy product, it's too confusing (and not financially viable) to have a video game. So falls further behind. They need to make the game higher scoring and create space. The way to do that is more yellow cards and have strict time limits for scrums and lineouts.

American sports works as a closed shop. They offer huge consistency of “uniforms”, format, teams, season structure etc. I’ll mention him again - my grandad would find everything bar international day in the 6N wildly unrecognisable in our sport now. Paddington Bear Bruckheimer III of Long Island would find the New York Giants and Yankees to be very similar beasts in recognisable structures to Paddington Bear Bruckheimer I.

I get so bored of hearing about how it’s all about exciting product and short attention spans. NFL and baseball take forever and are far slower moving and generally lower scoring than their rugby and t20 cricket equivalents. A huge amount of both is stuff absolutely for the purists.

Our national sport will sell out massive stadiums and have millions watching Arsenal draw 0-0 with Burnley. Chucking the ball around doesn’t magic our problems away

The product isn't just the game though? This is the biggest mistake rugby is making. The NFL (and football) has created products around the game: madden/fifa, fantasy. So you're always engaged with the sport, not just for a few hours at the weekend during a match. Fantasy is the key, you're talking matchups, you're becoming knowledgeable about every team, you're checking lineups/performances weekly.

Betting also plays a part, NFL is really pushing gambling now as football does. I find it morally wrong but it's keeping people invested in the sport. At what cost ofc but still it's a clear strategy both sports have.

In today's world of sports products the actual match is almost secondary really.

I'd amplify that by saying a lot of sports have succeeded in making matchday an 'event' rather than just a game.

I've only been to a handful of NFL games but a whole load of people sat near me were barely watching (admittedly in the cheap seats on sale via seat exchanges, so presumably sporting tourists like me) - it was as much about the tailgate barbeque and the razzmatazz as it was about the intricacies of the rush defence.

Rugby is much more about the game as the centrepiece, although with beers before and after. I think most of us wince when the brought in things like the flamethrowers, and to be honest all attempts at glamming up a wet and windy friday night at the Rec, for example, tended to fall flat.

6N/Autumn Internationals excepted, you mainly go to rugby because you want to watch rugby. To be honest, I'd rather keep it that way.

Fonz wrote: Mon Oct 02, 2023 12:46 am

Slick wrote: Sun Oct 01, 2023 8:26 pm

Simian wrote: Sun Oct 01, 2023 7:51 pm if you think you can grow a sport when it's basically a charity, good luck

I have zero interest in growing the game, zero. Everything I hate about modern rugby comes from trying to grow the game

I must say, it took me a loooooong time to understand viewpoints like this, but as time goes on...I totally get this.

I should probably qualify this by saying I am of course all for "growing the game" in terms of Tier 2/3 and getting more kids involved as I wholeheartedly believe rugby is a force for good.

What I'm not interested in is all the changes and nonsense that goes on at the pro end to chase a non existent new audience and then has a detrimental effect further down the pyramid.

inactionman wrote: Mon Oct 02, 2023 9:43 am

I like neeps wrote: Mon Oct 02, 2023 9:29 am

Paddington Bear wrote: Mon Oct 02, 2023 8:54 am

American sports works as a closed shop. They offer huge consistency of “uniforms”, format, teams, season structure etc. I’ll mention him again - my grandad would find everything bar international day in the 6N wildly unrecognisable in our sport now. Paddington Bear Bruckheimer III of Long Island would find the New York Giants and Yankees to be very similar beasts in recognisable structures to Paddington Bear Bruckheimer I.

I get so bored of hearing about how it’s all about exciting product and short attention spans. NFL and baseball take forever and are far slower moving and generally lower scoring than their rugby and t20 cricket equivalents. A huge amount of both is stuff absolutely for the purists.

Our national sport will sell out massive stadiums and have millions watching Arsenal draw 0-0 with Burnley. Chucking the ball around doesn’t magic our problems away

The product isn't just the game though? This is the biggest mistake rugby is making. The NFL (and football) has created products around the game: madden/fifa, fantasy. So you're always engaged with the sport, not just for a few hours at the weekend during a match. Fantasy is the key, you're talking matchups, you're becoming knowledgeable about every team, you're checking lineups/performances weekly.

Betting also plays a part, NFL is really pushing gambling now as football does. I find it morally wrong but it's keeping people invested in the sport. At what cost ofc but still it's a clear strategy both sports have.

In today's world of sports products the actual match is almost secondary really.

I'd amplify that by saying a lot of sports have succeeded in making matchday an 'event' rather than just a game.

I've only been to a handful of NFL games but a whole load of people sat near me were barely watching (admittedly in the cheap seats on sale via seat exchanges, so presumably sporting tourists like me) - it was as much about the tailgate barbeque and the razzmatazz as it was about the intricacies of the rush defence.

Rugby is much more about the game as the centrepiece, although with beers before and after. I think most of us wince when the brought in things like the flamethrowers, and to be honest all attempts at glamming up a wet and windy friday night at the Rec, for example, tended to fall flat.

6N/Autumn Internationals excepted, you mainly go to rugby because you want to watch rugby. To be honest, I'd rather keep it that way.

I have to say if your experiences of a night at the Rec are ‘not a piss up’ they are different to mine!
But yes, as a general point *most* prem rugby is just about the rugby.

Fonz wrote: Sun Oct 01, 2023 11:51 pm

Slick wrote: Sun Oct 01, 2023 11:56 am

Fonz wrote: Sun Oct 01, 2023 2:49 am

While I take the point in the first paragraph as to ceiling, I mean, theoretically we're already preaching to the converted here when we're talking about drawing in rugby fans...l'll put my cards here on the table by saying - as a fellow converted - there is nothing that makes me want to watch Prem rugby.

On the other side of things, look how the NFL draws people into the game who've got no business ever giving a damn about American football, solely based on the sheer entertainment value the league just naturally provides. I've seen this stateside too with the EPL, which brings in far greater viewer numbers than American soccer to this day; the product is undeniable. There needs to be a rugby version of that, and not just a couple weeks every year or every 4 years. That's step A1 of any serious growth plan.

I think the vast majority of rugby people would rather go down to their local club on a Saturday than go and watch a pro game. I’m certainly one.

If there was no conflict, would you go watch a pro game?

I'll probably go to 3 or 4 pro games a year (excluding 6N and some of the Autumn games). It's a decent night out with mates and usually interested in seeing the Saffer teams. I'll also watch most Edinburgh/Glasgow URC games on TV. It's not an ideological thing really, I just prefer standing on a touchline with clubmates and having a drink and chat in the clubhouse after, and I guess the feelgood feeling of helping my club in a small way.

inactionman wrote: Mon Oct 02, 2023 9:43 am

I like neeps wrote: Mon Oct 02, 2023 9:29 am

Paddington Bear wrote: Mon Oct 02, 2023 8:54 am

American sports works as a closed shop. They offer huge consistency of “uniforms”, format, teams, season structure etc. I’ll mention him again - my grandad would find everything bar international day in the 6N wildly unrecognisable in our sport now. Paddington Bear Bruckheimer III of Long Island would find the New York Giants and Yankees to be very similar beasts in recognisable structures to Paddington Bear Bruckheimer I.

I get so bored of hearing about how it’s all about exciting product and short attention spans. NFL and baseball take forever and are far slower moving and generally lower scoring than their rugby and t20 cricket equivalents. A huge amount of both is stuff absolutely for the purists.

Our national sport will sell out massive stadiums and have millions watching Arsenal draw 0-0 with Burnley. Chucking the ball around doesn’t magic our problems away

The product isn't just the game though? This is the biggest mistake rugby is making. The NFL (and football) has created products around the game: madden/fifa, fantasy. So you're always engaged with the sport, not just for a few hours at the weekend during a match. Fantasy is the key, you're talking matchups, you're becoming knowledgeable about every team, you're checking lineups/performances weekly.

Betting also plays a part, NFL is really pushing gambling now as football does. I find it morally wrong but it's keeping people invested in the sport. At what cost ofc but still it's a clear strategy both sports have.

In today's world of sports products the actual match is almost secondary really.

I'd amplify that by saying a lot of sports have succeeded in making matchday an 'event' rather than just a game.

I've only been to a handful of NFL games but a whole load of people sat near me were barely watching (admittedly in the cheap seats on sale via seat exchanges, so presumably sporting tourists like me) - it was as much about the tailgate barbeque and the razzmatazz as it was about the intricacies of the rush defence.

Rugby is much more about the game as the centrepiece, although with beers before and after. I think most of us wince when the brought in things like the flamethrowers, and to be honest all attempts at glamming up a wet and windy friday night at the Rec, for example, tended to fall flat.

6N/Autumn Internationals excepted, you mainly go to rugby because you want to watch rugby. To be honest, I'd rather keep it that way.

By far the most griping I hear about going to Murrayfield these days is that half the folk there are just there for the event. I guess it's just an ingrained thing for us, the "event" is, as has been said, having a few beers with mates and opposition supporters before and after the game, and no number of crap bands or face painting is going to change that.

I know quite a few people that don't go to Murrayfield now because there are too many non rugby people there. The fear for the game as a whole is that the people they try and attract with all the crap razzmatazz are the people that will move onto the next shiny thing and the core has had enough and will be difficult to get back. It's a lot of people that don't understand rugby, or the rugby psyche, that are running the game.

Paddington Bear wrote: Mon Oct 02, 2023 10:23 am

inactionman wrote: Mon Oct 02, 2023 9:43 am

I like neeps wrote: Mon Oct 02, 2023 9:29 am

The product isn't just the game though? This is the biggest mistake rugby is making. The NFL (and football) has created products around the game: madden/fifa, fantasy. So you're always engaged with the sport, not just for a few hours at the weekend during a match. Fantasy is the key, you're talking matchups, you're becoming knowledgeable about every team, you're checking lineups/performances weekly.

Betting also plays a part, NFL is really pushing gambling now as football does. I find it morally wrong but it's keeping people invested in the sport. At what cost ofc but still it's a clear strategy both sports have.

In today's world of sports products the actual match is almost secondary really.

I'd amplify that by saying a lot of sports have succeeded in making matchday an 'event' rather than just a game.

I've only been to a handful of NFL games but a whole load of people sat near me were barely watching (admittedly in the cheap seats on sale via seat exchanges, so presumably sporting tourists like me) - it was as much about the tailgate barbeque and the razzmatazz as it was about the intricacies of the rush defence.

Rugby is much more about the game as the centrepiece, although with beers before and after. I think most of us wince when the brought in things like the flamethrowers, and to be honest all attempts at glamming up a wet and windy friday night at the Rec, for example, tended to fall flat.

6N/Autumn Internationals excepted, you mainly go to rugby because you want to watch rugby. To be honest, I'd rather keep it that way.

I have to say if your experiences of a night at the Rec are ‘not a piss up’ they are different to mine!
But yes, as a general point *most* prem rugby is just about the rugby.

Even if drinking, the fans are still ultimately there to watch a rugby match. To be honest, there are plenty of nice pubs in Bath so you'd have to have a good reason to prefer to stand on some scaffolding in the rain watching Bath drop the ball every 30 seconds.

inactionman wrote: Mon Oct 02, 2023 9:43 am

I like neeps wrote: Mon Oct 02, 2023 9:29 am

Paddington Bear wrote: Mon Oct 02, 2023 8:54 am

American sports works as a closed shop. They offer huge consistency of “uniforms”, format, teams, season structure etc. I’ll mention him again - my grandad would find everything bar international day in the 6N wildly unrecognisable in our sport now. Paddington Bear Bruckheimer III of Long Island would find the New York Giants and Yankees to be very similar beasts in recognisable structures to Paddington Bear Bruckheimer I.

I get so bored of hearing about how it’s all about exciting product and short attention spans. NFL and baseball take forever and are far slower moving and generally lower scoring than their rugby and t20 cricket equivalents. A huge amount of both is stuff absolutely for the purists.

Our national sport will sell out massive stadiums and have millions watching Arsenal draw 0-0 with Burnley. Chucking the ball around doesn’t magic our problems away

The product isn't just the game though? This is the biggest mistake rugby is making. The NFL (and football) has created products around the game: madden/fifa, fantasy. So you're always engaged with the sport, not just for a few hours at the weekend during a match. Fantasy is the key, you're talking matchups, you're becoming knowledgeable about every team, you're checking lineups/performances weekly.

Betting also plays a part, NFL is really pushing gambling now as football does. I find it morally wrong but it's keeping people invested in the sport. At what cost ofc but still it's a clear strategy both sports have.

In today's world of sports products the actual match is almost secondary really.

I'd amplify that by saying a lot of sports have succeeded in making matchday an 'event' rather than just a game.

I've only been to a handful of NFL games but a whole load of people sat near me were barely watching (admittedly in the cheap seats on sale via seat exchanges, so presumably sporting tourists like me) - it was as much about the tailgate barbeque and the razzmatazz as it was about the intricacies of the rush defence.

Rugby is much more about the game as the centrepiece, although with beers before and after. I think most of us wince when the brought in things like the flamethrowers, and to be honest all attempts at glamming up a wet and windy friday night at the Rec, for example, tended to fall flat.

6N/Autumn Internationals excepted, you mainly go to rugby because you want to watch rugby. To be honest, I'd rather keep it that way.

Tailgating is an incredible experience that's far better than the match I agree. Wembley games are so lacking without it.

The only rugby that's an event not a match is the six nations and what is rugby's money spinner, it's no surprise.

I like neeps wrote: Mon Oct 02, 2023 11:42 am

inactionman wrote: Mon Oct 02, 2023 9:43 am

I like neeps wrote: Mon Oct 02, 2023 9:29 am

The product isn't just the game though? This is the biggest mistake rugby is making. The NFL (and football) has created products around the game: madden/fifa, fantasy. So you're always engaged with the sport, not just for a few hours at the weekend during a match. Fantasy is the key, you're talking matchups, you're becoming knowledgeable about every team, you're checking lineups/performances weekly.

Betting also plays a part, NFL is really pushing gambling now as football does. I find it morally wrong but it's keeping people invested in the sport. At what cost ofc but still it's a clear strategy both sports have.

In today's world of sports products the actual match is almost secondary really.

I'd amplify that by saying a lot of sports have succeeded in making matchday an 'event' rather than just a game.

I've only been to a handful of NFL games but a whole load of people sat near me were barely watching (admittedly in the cheap seats on sale via seat exchanges, so presumably sporting tourists like me) - it was as much about the tailgate barbeque and the razzmatazz as it was about the intricacies of the rush defence.

Rugby is much more about the game as the centrepiece, although with beers before and after. I think most of us wince when the brought in things like the flamethrowers, and to be honest all attempts at glamming up a wet and windy friday night at the Rec, for example, tended to fall flat.

6N/Autumn Internationals excepted, you mainly go to rugby because you want to watch rugby. To be honest, I'd rather keep it that way.

Tailgating is an incredible experience that's far better than the match I agree. Wembley games are so lacking without it.

The only rugby that's an event not a match is the six nations and what is rugby's money spinner, it's no surprise.

Used to love going to the West Car Park at Twickenham before matches. The old Middlesex 7's as well were a fucking fantastic day out before they got serious and changed the rules on entry etc.

Don't they, or didn't they used to have, a similar thing at Murrayfield?

Somewhat interestingly given several posts talking about fantasy sport, the Premiershiper has just announced it's own official game



https://www.superbru.com/premiershiprug ... 33gQL8iDvs

At this point, the only thing that will save Pro rugby in the UK is rivalry.

You'll get bums on seats for NGD v Bath/Bristol/Glaws - A British league or a British Isle league with the Irish and 2 divisions is what awaits - anything else is just noise.