What is Good for Women's Rugby

@Crucial said in What is Good for Women's Rugby:

@booboo said in What is Good for Women's Rugby:

@Crucial I'm talking about creating an audience that is prepared to pay for sport beyond those who have invested in the excitement of a one-off event.

That's the thinking that NZR have to get past IMO

Does Women's Rugby have to be a profit centre? Maybe it can be like a breakeven supermarket product that gets people through the doors and strengthens the overall cashflow. Maybe even a loss leader by itself that drives benefits elsewhere. Eyes on the game are still eyes on the game as far as sponsors go and the task of NZR is not to be a corporation but to maintain the health of the game. Sure, money is a part of that, but it is blinkered views to expect that every cost centre is profitable. NPC is already propped up by the top end but we couldn't have the ABs without NPC.

I'm not convinced we're disagreeing with each other.

NZR (and other unions) need to create a market out of the not middle aged male die hard sports tragic.

@Stargazer said in What is Good for Women's Rugby:

@Bones I think Black Ferns is its own brand and I wouldn't change it.

How the other half live eh, moneybags

@Stargazer said in What is Good for Women's Rugby:

@Steve Then what are you doing in this thread?

Just throwing my tuppence in , against the circle jerk du jour.

Equality of opportunity is obviously what we all want but the train has over shot the station.

In the UK they are now mixing in womens scores with the mens, so you will see “Arsenal 1-0 Manchester City” and then realise 5 minutes later they aren’t even playing . It’s womens football they have sprinkled in to the mens scores in some sort of egalitarian move which has done nothing other than muddy the waters.

Similarly the breakdown or Aotearoa rugby pod is now spending half their show talking about the black ferns. They have done both genders a disservice. Give the womens game its own pod and own shows and let ex female players present and be pundits on it.

So instead of treating the women equal by giving them their own shows, the solution is to dilute the mens product by stealing air time from talking about the mens game . We lose out on the X’s and O’s to shoe horn in our virtue signalling quota.

So while people boo from the cheap seats at my initial post , I believe it’s a fair position to hold. The men would beat the women every day of the week and twice on Sundays . They are the superior athletes . It’s an uncomfortable and inconvenient truth for some. I want to watch my favourite sports. shows without them diluting their service with an inferior product .

@Steve said in What is Good for Women's Rugby:

@Stargazer said in What is Good for Women's Rugby:

@Steve Then what are you doing in this thread?

Just throwing my tuppence in , against the circle jerk du jour.

Equality of opportunity is obviously what we all want but the train has over shot the station.

In the UK they are now mixing in womens scores with the mens, so you will see “Arsenal 1-0 Manchester City” and then realise 5 minutes later they aren’t even playing . It’s womens football they have sprinkled in to the mens scores in some sort of egalitarian move which has done nothing other than muddy the waters.

Similarly the breakdown or Aotearoa rugby pod is now spending half their show talking about the black ferns. They have done both genders a disservice. Give the womens game its own pod and own shows and let ex female players present and be pundits on it.

So instead of treating the women equal by giving them their own shows, the solution is to dilute the mens product by stealing air time from talking about the mens game . We lose out on the X’s and O’s to shoe horn in our virtue signalling quota.

So while people boo from the cheap seats at my initial post , I believe it’s a fair position to hold. The men would beat the women every day of the week and twice on Sundays . They are the superior athletes . It’s an uncomfortable and inconvenient truth for some. I want to watch my favourite sports. shows without them diluting their service with an inferior product .

Sport is still sport and most watch it for the potential and real entertainment, drama and excitement it brings. Some of that only really comes with investment or interest in the game although even non followers of women’s rugby would have been treated to a dramatic exciting RWC final.
I don’t follow League. Have never had an interest in it. I don’t complain when it is talked about on the sports news though. As for the the rugby shows, They talk and women’s rugby in proportion. Was there another RWC on last week? No, so it was their moment in the spotlight.
I understand that you don’t have an interest in women’s rugby so find that part of a show boring but that doesn’t mean the show should cater only to you.
Inferior product? Different product more like. You can only see inferiority if you are expecting something else. That RWC final was the best rugby watch I have had all year and probably the most memorable since 2011. I can’t call that inferior.
You are welcome to your opinion though so now you have shared it can you get out of the thread? In the pub analogy you are the guy butting into a conversation about beer and telling everyone you don’t like what they are drinking and they should all just drink what you do.

@Steve You barking up wrong tree , or certainly wrong thread. I watch rugby pod and breakdown and enjoy they talk about the parts of the game that has interest. I enjoy when they speak about U20s rugby, NPC, Super, having refs on etc as well, you know they are shows about the sport, not one particular part of it,
I freely admit to being someone who used to go women's rugby , who's interested get em in the kitchen making aftermatch feed etc, and then I watched a bit and came to a conclusion, I love the game of rugby , hell I watch kids play, 2nd/3rd div club stuff, it's all bloody great to me. None really better, but almost all have owns strengths I enjoy!

@Dan54 said in What is Good for Women's Rugby:

who's interested get em in the kitchen making aftermatch feed etc,

Superb.

You are welcome to your opinion though so now you have shared it can you get out of the thread?

Ughh, you were doing so well until that line. His first post was crap, but to his credit he followed it up with a more well thought out criticism.

It's a pet peeve of mine when people tell people where to post, we certainly have plenty of digressions in other threads. Stop trying to be a gatekeeper, we have plenty of mods that will split threads if moves too far off topic.

This is a discussion forum, not a "post only what I agree with forum"

@Kirwan said in What is Good for Women's Rugby:

You are welcome to your opinion though so now you have shared it can you get out of the thread?

Ughh, you were doing so well until that line. His first post was crap, but to his credit he followed it up with a more well thought out criticism.

It's a pet peeve of mine when people tell people where to post, we certainly have plenty of digressions in other threads. Stop trying to be a gatekeeper, we have plenty of mods that will split threads if moves too far off topic.

This is a discussion forum, not a "post only what I agree with forum"

Was I meant to put a winking emoji after the line or something? The post wasn’t aggressive, it was a thought out response. Maybe it was only in my head that was obviously a tongue in cheek comment.
Just like the pub analogy where that person would be told to fuck off in a joking manner.
The radar here is totally out of whack at times.

@Crucial said in What is Good for Women's Rugby:

@Kirwan said in What is Good for Women's Rugby:

You are welcome to your opinion though so now you have shared it can you get out of the thread?

Ughh, you were doing so well until that line. His first post was crap, but to his credit he followed it up with a more well thought out criticism.

It's a pet peeve of mine when people tell people where to post, we certainly have plenty of digressions in other threads. Stop trying to be a gatekeeper, we have plenty of mods that will split threads if moves too far off topic.

This is a discussion forum, not a "post only what I agree with forum"

Was I meant to put a winking emoji after the line or something? The post wasn’t aggressive, it was a thought out response. Maybe it was only in my head that was obviously a tongue in cheek comment.
Just like the pub analogy where that person would be told to fuck off in a joking manner.
The radar here is totally out of whack at times.

Nah, you were just meant to not tell someone to post in another thread. You aren't the only one that does it.

@Steve said in What is Good for Women's Rugby:

@Stargazer said in What is Good for Women's Rugby:

So while people boo from the cheap seats at my initial post , I believe it’s a fair position to hold. The men would beat the women every day of the week and twice on Sundays . They are the superior athletes . It’s an uncomfortable and inconvenient truth for some. I want to watch my favourite sports. shows without them diluting their service with an inferior product .

1. I can boo from expensive seats too. You aren't watching so you have no seat at all!
2. Some people watch for entertainment, arguably there were games by the Ferns where they played smarter and more entertaining games than the ABs.
3. The ABs have been diluting themselves lately.
4. Rugby is surely not just about physical performance it is also about strategy. So for well-rounded sports fans, the Ferns are really interesting to watch due to Smith having such an influence so quickly.
5. The ABs don't seem to think they are being diluted given Aaron Smith etc tweets.