It's been interesting to watch the reaction to "Chasing the Sun 2", the story of the Springboks' second straight Rugby World Cup triumph and fourth Webb Ellis crown overall.
While South Africans bathe in the success of Rassie, Siya and Co. - the coach and captain so revered at home and abroad that they have ascended to first-name recognition alone - the natural reaction from those outside the Republic is to look inward.
What are the Springboks doing that we aren't? How can we replicate their success? Should we try a 7-1 bench split? These are all questions likely being thrown around executive boardrooms across rugby's other leading nations.
Some aspects of the Springboks' success cannot be duplicated - Kolisi's unifying presence an obvious example - but the structure on which it is built and how it all comes together to produce the strongest World Cup squad possible are certainly worth investigation from their Tier 1 counterparts.
Part of that structure was the decision to let the country's biggest and best players fly the coup, to pack up their kitbags and head for Europe, the U.K. or Japan, yet still remain eligible for Test selection.
It is a decision in stark contrast to their great rivals, New Zealand, and to a slightly lesser extent Australia, who have slowly created an environment where signing with an overseas club does not bring your Test career to an immediate halt.
The caveat being, however, that you must have a reasonably decorated resume to retain your Test match eligibility.
The [Matt] Giteau Law has now been in place for the best part of a decade following former Wallabies coach Michael Cheika's decision to select the then-Toulon-based playmaker and his teammate Drew Mitchell.
Their inclusion for the 2015 World Cup proved a masterstroke as the Wallabies made it all the way to the decider, dispatching hosts England in a memorable pool game in the process, underlined by a try-scoring swan dive into a Twickenham corner adorned with fans in gold, by Giteau himself.
But the 60-cap or seven years' Super Rugby service requirements meant, at that time, that there were only a few individuals Cheika could have targeted, and even fewer he wanted, hence the change in policy being dubbed the Giteau Law.
Fast forward to 2022, however, and the Giteau Law was finally rebranded [officially anyway] as the Overseas Player Selection Policy, coinciding with a reduction in the number of Test caps or years of Super Rugby service to 30 and five respectively.
Then, under Eddie Jones last year, it was largely blown up completely - a bit like the Wallabies' campaign in general.
Over the weekend, as another episode from "Chasing the Sun 2" gave South Africans all the feels, a report suggested that Rugby Australia was poised to abolish its Giteau Law policy, a move that would go against everything that Wallabies coach Joe Schmidt has said this year.
Doing so would be Australian rugby's version of "let it rip and see where we end up".
The answer to that would be nowhere good, not at least without a total rethink of the game Down Under.
The RugbyPass report turned out to be bogus, with the World Rugby-owned site removing the story completely after, as ESPN understands, RA relayed that it was not even remotely correct.
And it doesn't take a genius to work out why.
Firstly, as RA returns to the negotiating table with Stan Sport and other potential broadcast partners, an exodus of another layer of Australian talent would be a hammer blow to Super Rugby Pacific, the competition that, along with the Wallabies, is the financial bedrock of the game Down Under.
Australia's teams have this season improved in trans-Tasman play as a collective, already equalling their combined 2023 winning record of five matches with seven rounds to play. That is certainly cause for optimism as it pertains to the Wallabies, but one that must be tempered by the fact that none of those victories have come against the top two New Zealand teams, the Hurricanes and Blues.
And for results to improve further, for there to be genuine head-to-head unpredictability ahead of each individual round, Australia not only needs its best players on home soil, but so too those who graft away at a level below.
The national body can only top up so many contracts, and potentially even fewer moving forward, without a significant improvement in its bottom line, meaning that the lure of a gold jersey remains a key bargaining tool at the negotiating table.
Ponder a talented 21-year-old weighing up a better overseas offer with a Super Rugby contract that doesn't include a RA top-up, the gentle nudging from their agent to take more cash, then, suddenly, the impediment to their Wallabies dream is removed? It's not being overly bold to suggest such an individual, in many cases, would be up and off.
At the other end of the spectrum, would those veteran and often unheralded forwards continue to toil away deep into their 20s knowing they were just as much hope of Wallabies selection by playing abroad as at home? Rugby's great strength compared with rugby league is its ability to offer a life across the globe, but it would become a major issue in Australia without some form of Test eligibility requirement keeping them at home.
That's not to say it could potentially help the Wallabies at Test level in the shorter term, certainly that is the belief of Giteau and Mitchell themselves, the original beneficiaries of the change in policy.
According to the duo, Australia is limiting its ability on the world stage by not selecting its best players, no matter where on earth they have hitched their club wagon. All Blacks great Sonny Bill Williams is another who insists the law is counterproductive, coincidentally as New Zealand rugby has a similar conversation itself.
But there is no doubting that such a move - for either country - would do severe damage to Super Rugby Pacific in its current form. With expansion into Japan - and maybe this is where the issue is offset in the future - that could be somewhat nullified, and even add a positive new dimension to the tournament, perhaps further aided by a draft or transfer system.
The other option would be to return to, and grow, a domestic-only professional competition, but that may take some selling to broadcasters.
As it stands this season in Australia, Schmidt is on the record as saying his preference is to pick his Wallabies squad from home soil as much as is possible. While we won't know the exact make-up of the Kiwi's first Australian group until June, it's expected that only a handful of players will return from offshore for the Rugby Championship and even fewer for Tests against Wales and Georgia.
For the moment, the current 30-cap or five years' Super Rugby service threshold feels about right, but with many younger players set to advance beyond that marker within the next couple of years, you can guarantee player managers will be sourcing offers for their clients from outside Australia who qualify under the current guidelines.
And when it comes to the production line of talent South Africa boasts, Australia simply can't compete. There is no Currie Cup third tier bringing on the next generation, no flourishing nationwide junior backbone that sees thousands of people watch schoolboy games up and down the land. There is also no AFL nor rugby league of note to contend with in South Africa.
So while Rassie begins the quest for an unprecedented third straight Rugby World Cup crown, any decision by Australia to replicate what has arguably been South Africa's most important move would do irrevocable damage to the game Down Under in its current form.
Fly closer to the Springboks and Australian rugby may as well be Icarus - rather than Chasing the Sun, they will simply be burned by it.