Can we replace Super Rugby?
-
SJK thinks so....
It's basically a concept that I think many of us would love to see. The only downside is that the pool required dips into numbers of 'lower standard' players and, unless there are some rules around caps/eligibility etc we could rapidly go back to the days of a couple of unions hoarding the top level talent to the expense of the provinces.
I have no issue with the Aucklands and Canterburys capturing talent that has been developed through their systems but it gets messy when young players developed in HB, Naki, BOP etc are lured away with promises of higher exposure. Maybe a better transfer compensation system?
-
@rocky-rockbottom said in Can we replace Super Rugby?:
@crucial said in Can we replace Super Rugby?:
unless there are some rules around caps/eligibility etc we could rapidly go back to the days of a couple of unions hoarding the top level talent to the expense of the provinces.
seppo-style draft
My problem with that is that (for me) it removes some of the tribalism that we are trying to get back.
I've never quite understood the concept of supporting a team from your 'home' that is full of players from other places and the players you should be proud of because they are from your town/school/club are off wearing another provinces colours.
I'm not stupid enough to think that can be eliminated, and there are plenty of valid reasons for players that restrictions would be an unfair constraint. I do think that provinces should at least be given a good chance to hang on to local talent though and the best way of doing this is to ensure (maybe artificially) that the teams have even funding/spending. I think we may have this model working OK in the NPC at the moment.There will always be the unfortunate situations where homegrown talent ends up elsewhere, but I don't think we need to make it a cornerstone of recruitment by spreading players around the country. (it is also unfair on young families)
-
My first question with respect to a new competition format would be whether it's financially viable. Competitions aren't financed through ticket sales but by sponsors and broadcasters. They'd need to be interested.
Also, the player pool isn't equal. Auckland, and to a lesser degree Canterbury, Wellington, Waikato and Otago have far more players to pick from. If NPC stays semi-professional, smaller provinces will keep on losing players to provinces with universities and more employment opportunities. If some players (e.g., players straight out of school) are required by a SR franchise they've signed with to play for the NPC team of the SR franchise's home base, than the other provinces from a SR franchises catchment will keep on losing players.
So while smaller provinces have smaller player pools, they also lose players to bigger provinces with bigger player pools. And what happens then? Bigger provinces can pick and choose. The unwanted players, yes, you guessed it, end up in smaller provinces to fill the gaps. As a supporter of a smaller province, I find that very frustrating and I don't quite see how this suggested new format is going to improve that. Even if some of our local talent didn't end up in bigger provinces, we still would lack depth in some positions. Smaller provinces sometimes need imports, but it would help if we could retain our local talent (the Bay would have George Bridge, Caleb Makene, Bailyn Sullivan; for example. Hugh Renton wouldn't have left; Dominic Bird would have played for us).
-
-
I’d be happy with going back to strong NPC sides. Maybe put a limit on how many players can contracted, so encourage a spread of talent to smaller population areas.
If it’s done right, the top 14 NZ sides should have enough to contract young players coming up in their area.
Besides, if it’s done right the tribalism will keep players local especially if they get a chance to play on the same competition.
-
@tim I disagree entirely. Premiership/Championship status has absolutely nothing to do, and shouldn't have anything to do with where SR franchises are based.
Premiership/Championship status also doesn't have anything to do with the size of their home base. Nelson, Pukekohe and Hamilton are all smaller than Dunedin.
-
@stargazer said in Can we replace Super Rugby?:
@tim I disagree entirely. Premiership/Championship status has absolutely nothing to do, and shouldn't have anything to do with where SR franchises are based.
Premiership/Championship status also doesn't have anything to do with the size of their home base. Nelson, Pukekohe and Hamilton are all smaller than Dunedin.
Which doesn’t negate the main point that there should be at least two SR teams in Auckland. Just based on population alone.
-
@kirwan Only if players from an area can't play for franchises based in other areas. As long as talent from the Auckland area gets the opportunity to play SR (for one of the 5 franchises), there's no need for two franchises in the Auckland area. I doubt two franchises in Auckland would both be able to attract sufficient crowds to fill big stadiums.
-
@stargazer Hamilton and Waikato are double the size of Dunedin and Otago.
-
-
@stargazer said in Can we replace Super Rugby?:
@kirwan Only if players from an area can't play for franchises based in other areas. As long as talent from the Auckland area gets the opportunity to play SR (for one of the 5 franchises), there's no need for two franchises in the Auckland area. I doubt two franchises in Auckland would both be able to attract sufficient crowds to fill big stadiums.
They would if they tap into the tribalism that Sir John is talking about.
Two sides, Harbour and Auckland would go great.
And so generous of you to send the Auckland region players around the country to prop up their miserable depth.
-
-
@stargazer said in Can we replace Super Rugby?:
@tim Maybe, but Nelson and Pukekohe arent'.
Population of Counties Manukau is over 500,000. Dunedin is 120,000.
-
-
@stargazer said in Can we replace Super Rugby?:
@kirwan Well, they also sign players from outside Auckland, so why not?
In one post you complain about your province potentially losing local players, but you are happy for the same to happen to Auckland.
If I was uncharitable I’d call that hypocritical.
-
-
-
You can't convince me. Population size isn't everything. If they'd pull the Highlanders in favour of another franchise in the Auckland area, that would kill off rugby in the south of the South Island. All local rugby talent would move north. You can see what's happening in Southland. That would also happent in Otago. I don't see any justification for that.
-
@crucial said in Can we replace Super Rugby?:
SJK is correct in one thing. The provincialism aspect is a huge thing to draw on. This thread already shows that. First time in ages we have had partisan debate on rugby (instead of religion, politics etc) and the replies are coming thick and fast.
Always cared more about Auckland rugby than the Blues. Same with posters like TR and Hooroo for their teams.
Byproduct of the manufactured nature of SR teams and the draft designed to weaken Aucklands dominance.
-
@duluth The obvious adjustment to make is to remove the Highlanders and have two Auckland based teams: Counties-Manukau/Auckland, and North Harbour/Northland. About 1,800,000 people in the Auckland and Northland regions, with Auckland growing at 45,000 per year.
