Can we replace Super Rugby?
-
@kirwan said in Can we replace Super Rugby?:
@stargazer said in Can we replace Super Rugby?:
@tim Again, revenue from games doesn't come from crowd numbers but from sponsors and broadcasting deals.
Who care about the number of consumers they can reach, which obviously follows population.
Rugby is dying in the south of the South Island. Look at the trouble Southland have putting a competitive team together.
The population drift north has weakened rugby in the area. And we can’t afford to artificially prop up regions for fun.
Ironically Sir Johns proposal is the closest we’d get to a lifeline in that area.
No, they follow tv viewers, who can be all over the country and not just local population.
-
-
@stargazer said in Can we replace Super Rugby?:
@kruse Just don't call them Vikings.
Do it!
Retro jerseys and everything.
Great times!Cue: @Nepia runs to the thread.....
-
@crucial said in Can we replace Super Rugby?:
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)
Drafts in the USA also bring serious dollars to the drafted players, so it's worth relocating. But - they usually happen after a few years from school; not sure what that looks like here where people are falling over themselves to sign 18 year olds who might be the next big thing
-
Another batshit crazy proposal from SJK. I have absolutely no interest in financially tying NZ Rugby to Australia alone, if it can be avoided.
On the draft front though I have long been in favour of an entry draft from Mitre 10 Cup to Super Rugby for NZ franchises, with players declaring after their first year and the teams drafting the rights of the players.
It would give the Mitre 10 Cup a lot more context, would hopefully avoid some positional logjams within franchises and negate the need for extensive franchise scouting budgets which is the biggest waste of money in NZRU currently.
-
@nzzp said in Can we replace Super Rugby?:
@crucial said in Can we replace Super Rugby?:
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)
Drafts in the USA also bring serious dollars to the drafted players, so it's worth relocating. But - they usually happen after a few years from school; not sure what that looks like here where people are falling over themselves to sign 18 year olds who might be the next big thing
The NBA even realized this a decade or so ago when too many players were getting draft out of high school and flopping.
The idea would be to prevent the NZ franchises from falling all over themselves by doing it in a structured way. The only difference is the US leagues are all the best and richest in their sport, while if we tried to artificially restrict the market or opportunities for younger players there is a possibility we bleed more players than we currently do to Aussie league, NH clubs, Aussie unions etc.
The relocation thing was going on before the game even went professional. Look at the Crusaders now, and given most of these blokes are going to end up in Italy or Japan at the end of their career it's of little concern, outside of possibly considering the cost of living in Auckland relative to the other four franchises.
-
@rotated said in Can we replace Super Rugby?:
Another batshit crazy proposal from SJK. I have absolutely no interest in financially tying NZ Rugby to Australia alone, if it can be avoided.
On the draft front though I have long been in favour of an entry draft from Mitre 10 Cup to Super Rugby for NZ franchises, with players declaring after their first year and the teams drafting the rights of the players.
It would give the Mitre 10 Cup a lot more context, would hopefully avoid some positional logjams within franchises and negate the need for extensive franchise scouting budgets which is the biggest waste of money in NZRU currently.
That was actually the system. When you signed a NZRU contract so you could play NPC you declared your availablity to a Super franchise. They had first dibs on you and you only entered the draft if they turned you down
-
@tim without forgetting we started as part of the Chiefs.
Sure some younger kids have grown up with the Blues as thier team, they have never been mine, and the Chiefs weren't either....so I support all NZ teams with more interest in teams who have players from Northland.
Hell the first game I went to was the Chiefs v Blues, a home game for the Chiefs at Albany.
I have never actively hated the Blues, I just never supported them any more than anyone else, I have disliked the way it has been run very Auckland centric for so long and ignoring a lot on the Northside of the bridge and done little to try and engage fans as well.
While the board are still muppets, I think the past few years they have tried to engage Northland fans a bit more, which is obviously good.
Would like a proper round robin super game up here again one day, but can't see it.
As to the main topic question...not likely of we want to retain players as we do now.
-
@tim said in Can we replace Super Rugby?:
@stargazer Hamilton and Waikato are double the size of Dunedin and Otago.
Tauranga is bigger than Dunedin too.
Rather than look at the population bases for each province, the player numbers are more relevant as that is the resource you are drawing from.
-
Fuck kirwan is a piston wristed gibbon. I’ve stopped watching the breakdown because of his constant ranting.
There’s plenty of tribalism amongst chiefs, highlanders, hurricanes and crusaders fans.
Perhaps if he blues weren’t such a shamble and started winning then their fans would care more.
-
@taniwharugby said in Can we replace Super Rugby?:
Hell the first game I went to was the Chiefs v Blues, a home game for the Chiefs at Albany.
The NZRU wanted the Chiefs to be based in Albany. Most of the unions involved had a tanty and it was moved to Hamilton.
-
@crucial said in Can we replace Super Rugby?:
That was actually the system. When you signed a NZRU contract so you could play NPC you declared your availablity to a Super franchise. They had first dibs on you and you only entered the draft if they turned you down
I actually think a system like that could still work. However the SR teams would need to be made up of an equal number of NPC sides
7 SR sides each having 2 NPC sides
I can't be proved wrong because it will never happen. I can't see the NZRU making drastic changes to SR in NZ unless the competition completely collapses (because of SA or Aus)
-
@sammyc said in Can we replace Super Rugby?:
Fuck kirwan is a piston wristed gibbon. I’ve stopped watching the breakdown because of his constant ranting.
There’s plenty of tribalism amongst chiefs, highlanders, hurricanes and crusaders fans.
Perhaps if he blues weren’t such a shamble and started winning then their fans would care more.
I just don't think he's all that bright. He was an apprentice butcher that had some amazing talents that he translated into a career in rugby (hugely successful as a player, but not even serviceable as a coach). Because of that he's become worldly and he presents well, and thus his opinions are given some weight that they may not deserve.
Much like Colin Meads (God rest his soul) and Buck Shelford are (or were) asked for their opinions and often gave classic underthought sound bites. Reputation, past ability and career longevity doesn't necessarily indicate deep intellectual ability.
I glanced over his proposal and don't really understand what he's trying to achieve.
But I'm not going to suggest an alternative, just criticize others
.I did used to like the process of the top 125 players in a given year being guaranteed a place, the Super Franchises getting first dibs on players from their region and the others being distributed. Meant that there was connection with the locals in the team, and all the best players played Super Rugby. Didn't always work 100% but was more successful than not.
-
@booboo said in Can we replace Super Rugby?:
Much like Colin Meads (God rest his soul) and Buck Shelford are (or were) asked for their opinions and often gave classic underthought sound bites. Reputation, past ability and career longevity doesn't necessarily indicate deep intellectual ability.
Basically this. The guy has been wrong on almost every major issue relating to Auckland/The Blues/Eden Park so I don't care what he has to say about SR
I still haven't bothered reading his proposal. I'm more interested what anonymous TSFers have to say
As for the discussion about the SR map, I've been criticising it for at least 15 years on this site. The 5 teams do not align well to population, player numbers or money. 40% of professional contracts being in the South Island does not make sense.
I've never advocated getting rid of the Highlanders but the North Island map should be redrawn with at least one more team.
That would keep more of a natural progression from club -> NPC -> local SR side.There would be an imbalance initially but it would sort itself out in a couple of seasons. Also a slight weakening of the NZ sides would be better for the competition and the player complaints about derby matches
I can't be proven wrong because it won't happen. Stakeholders of teams that benefit from the imbalance will not let it happen
-
@duluth said in Can we replace Super Rugby?:
I've never advocated getting rid of the Highlanders but the North Island map should be redrawn with at least one more team.
NZR seem happy with only 5 SR teams. I remember there was a suggestion we increase to 6 teams when Aust and SA reduced their number of SR teams. That will come down to $$$ as paying the salaries of another 38 players will cost NZR money they don't have.
-
I don't see the issue of needing players to come from the region as an issue. That way Auckland get all the props and Canterbury all the first fives, for example. So good players don't get time and teams are unbalanced.
What makes a team supportable, to me at least, is the playing roster is stable. Dmac's origins don't bother me, if he stays with Waikato and Chiefs. That Weber plays for Hawke's Bay doesn't bother me as a Chiefs supporter, because he's consistent for both province and franchise.
Whereas it was hard to love SBW after his coming and going. Let alone the sort of nonsense with European football.
Edit: I'd not be fond of the French rugby thing where the squads are rotated so much either.
-
Jk's idea is fucking terrible. It is exactly the sort of poor thought out crap he always comes up with then talks over anyone who sees a problem with it.
There are so many holes in the concept that i can only be bothered using dot points.
-
where is the money coming from for this diluted competition? More teams with the same player pool = reduced quality = less desirable product.
-
How is this so called tribalism helping the npc ?
There are no crowds at those games either.
People just need to accept that Super rugby is a different thing to npc. You aren't going to get even representation across populations. However Super rugby now has 20 years of tradition behind it. The only thing that is artificial about it now is the ever changing structure. -
Why the hell would we kill off both super rugby AND our npc to board the sinking ship that is Australian rugby?
-
How is this concept going to help NZ rugby stay on top? One of our biggest strengths is being able to have 5 Super rugby teams of high quality so players are regularly playing with and against high quality players. However with the player drain to overseas clubs maintaining 5 has sometimes been a stretch. How is diluting it out to 14 teams a good idea?
-
Jk hasn't got a clue. Manly vs Auckland vs cheetahs vs fiji?
WTF. Manly is a premier grade club. It has about 2 feeder "subbies" clubs. How is that comparable to Auckland or Cheetahs or Fiji? If Manly is in then im assuming Randwick and Sydney uni are too. But if they are why not the Rats, Eastwood etc. Im assuming that teams from Qld and Canberra will want to be involved too. He is just pulling this stuff out his arse.
How about we stop the obsession with Super rugby expansion. Scrap the conferences. Fuck Argentina off. Fuck japan off. Create some sort of Southern hemisphere champions cup knockout if we must. Stop parachuting ABs into the npc around finals time and create some sort of draft system for the end of the npc so players who play well can be picked up for super rugby when the likes of Michael Collins are filling up all the available spots before the season even starts.
-
-
@crucial said in Can we replace Super Rugby?:
@stargazer said in Can we replace Super Rugby?:
@kruse Just don't call them Vikings.
Do it!
Retro jerseys and everything.
Great times!Cue: @Nepia runs to the thread.....
Although, it can't be any worse than being part of the Hurricanes who will promote a one legged eunuch before a Magpies player.Plus, HB dominated the Vikings - yep, I'm all for it - The Hawkes Bay Vikings.
-
@kirwan be nice if the Blues actually played a game in Whangarei as opposed to preseason games.
During the bad ole days when Andy Dalton ruled both Auckland and Blues rugby,nepotism ruled big time..and I can tell you it grinded a lot of gears with Taniwha supporters..I am definitely not saying Northland had better players,but when you saw for example Toby Morland who was not even the number 1 halfback for Otago transfered to Auckland and picked up a Blues contract...
it had that feeling of looking after ones nest..
And in those times,any Northlanders that received contracts with other franchises were more likely to be followed in those respective teams.
Thankfully in recent times a few more Northland and Harbour boys have made the cut,fair to say not all have measured up,but at least a pathway to play in their own franchise was realised.
Off to Eden Park now to hopefully watch Auckland do the business.. -
Something I've put a bunch of time into thinking about. Basically I think that the structure is right from a performance and player welfare point of view. However I think that the marketing could be improved in 3 areas:
- Make going to the rugby special family time again
- Connect with the community
- Create a social buzz around the game
I go into more depth in my article and video but what changes do you think we need in NZ rugby it's soon going to be running an unsustainable deficit apparently.
Does New Zealand Rugby/Super Rugby need fixing?
With all the negativity you see in the mainstream press surly something must be broken in New Zealand rugby. From my point of view there are 2 sides to rugby that we need to look at when asking if …
PS I'm new to the forum so sorry if it's not acceptable posting links like this.
