The future of NZ Rugby
-
@taniwharugby said in The future of NZ Super Rugby teams & the NPC:
@rotated keep banging that drum...there was manipulation of criteria designed to keep one team in and drop 2 others...granted one team has done nothing with the opportunity, while one has made every post a winner, and the team they were trying to save has done little too...
If it had been a fair process then while gutting you could eventually stomach it, but it wasnt so fighting it was the right thing to do.
I'm not really sure what you are on about. The consensus was (and would argue has always been) that there are too many teams in the top flight and too many players paid professional salaries for our limited resources. Without moving the competition to a sevens format teams either need to be demoted or amalgamated.
You can argue the toss over who those teams should be and why (and for what it's worth teams that seem intent of producing no All Blacks and Heartland quality performances year on year should be given the opportunity to do that where it is the norm) - but I would hope all unions are on board with a cull at the top level if it means preserving a second tier professional competition instead of dragging things down to a semi-pro facade with top tier all unions in tact.
Hopefully the NZRU board - including those who would with interests in provincial unions in the firing line - can put country before province and make the move and see the lawsuits out this time around.
@Kirwan makes a good point. The NPC was only around since the 70s. These 14 unions have no divine right to top flight rugby. It is not entirely clear why Manawatu should be here and not North Otago, Wanganui or even King Country who were a staple not that long ago when I started watching D1 NPC rugby.
All I ask is that the NZRU be given the chance to rationalize the Mitre 10 Cup before disbanding or amaterusing it completely. There should absolutely be a pathway to promotion/relegation (where there isn't now, and the same unions in the firing line would lobby against it) so those unions who are relegated due to a "manipulation of criteria" can rise to the top immediately as their crowd, finances, talent and on field performance carry them there.
-
There has always been politics involved in NZ rugby. When the NPC was formed in 1976 the 11 teams that were part of Div 1 was based on their results over the previous 5 seasons. The problems started with the rules around promotion-relegation for those initial years. The bottom North Island team in Div 1 was automatically relegated for the winner of Div 2 North while the bottom South Island team in Div 1 played a promotion-relegation game against the winner of Div 2 South. It was an artificial way of keeping the traditional SI provinces in Div 1 as the rule of the time stated there must be 4 SI provinces in Div 1. That was best highlighted in 1979 when Taranaki was relegated despite finishing above Southland, South Canterbury and Otago. Otago survived by beating Marlborough by 1 pt in the promotion-relegation game. This system was finally changed for the 1980 season.
-
@rotated said in The future of NZ Super Rugby teams & the NPC:
@taniwharugby said in The future of NZ Super Rugby teams & the NPC:
@rotated keep banging that drum...there was manipulation of criteria designed to keep one team in and drop 2 others...granted one team has done nothing with the opportunity, while one has made every post a winner, and the team they were trying to save has done little too...
If it had been a fair process then while gutting you could eventually stomach it, but it wasnt so fighting it was the right thing to do.
I'm not really sure what you are on about. The consensus was (and would argue has always been) that there are too many teams in the top flight and too many players paid professional salaries for our limited resources. Without moving the competition to a sevens format teams either need to be demoted or amalgamated.
You can argue the toss over who those teams should be and why (and for what it's worth teams that seem intent of producing no All Blacks and Heartland quality performances year on year should be given the opportunity to do that where it is the norm) - but I would hope all unions are on board with a cull at the top level if it means preserving a second tier professional competition instead of dragging things down to a semi-pro facade with top tier all unions in tact.
Hopefully the NZRU board - including those who would with interests in provincial unions in the firing line - can put country before province and make the move and see the lawsuits out this time around.
@Kirwan makes a good point. The NPC was only around since the 70s. These 14 unions have no divine right to top flight rugby. It is not entirely clear why Manawatu should be here and not North Otago, Wanganui or even King Country who were a staple not that long ago when I started watching D1 NPC rugby.
All I ask is that the NZRU be given the chance to rationalize the Mitre 10 Cup before disbanding or amaterusing it completely. There should absolutely be a pathway to promotion/relegation (where there isn't now, and the same unions in the firing line would lobby against it) so those unions who are relegated due to a "manipulation of criteria" can rise to the top immediately as their crowd, finances, talent and on field performance carry them there.
I supported the rationalisation at the time but I think they missed their chance. The NPC just isn't a competition which can exist on its own any more. The money it generates can't be worth much. The teams in the big cities get bugger all crowds. I think some of that could have been avoided if there was some rationalisation and the competition was treated more seriously. Unfortunately, that didn't happen and we have what we are left with.
I agree that the teams we have are a bit arbitrary but they do provide a good geographic spread. I don't think moving back to promotion/relegation and giving North Otago the chance to be in the first division is going to lead to anything. Plus NZRU won't want to see Waikato or Wellington in division 2 (which isn't completely unrealistic).
I think the Mitre 10 Cup probably has to stay as it is. Taking Super Rugby players out would be pointless. Super Rugby is only going to be 13 games isn't it? You can't be a professional and only play 13 games. I don't think it can be disbanded as we do need a bridge between 1st XV rugby and Super Rugby.
-
@kev said in The future of NZ Super Rugby teams & the NPC:
@Nepia NPC is the competition that matters. It is the competition that has made NZ rugby great. Take that away and in 20 years we will be like Scotland. We can’t compete with those that have more money.
You do realise that the NPC only started in like the late 1970s. For much of the tile between then and the start of Super Rugby, the ABs were shit, being regularly beaten by the Aussies. Since the advent of Super Rugby, our overall winning % has increased, we’ve won like 3 Grand Slams, won 2 world cups and had many other significant achievements (such as blanking the Lions and winning in RSA for the first time)
-
@junior NPC was only one form of provincial based rugby that together with club rugby that has provided a wide base for success at the top over a very long period of time. More importantly Rugby In NZ because of its high participation rates has enjoyed a very privileged position in NZ society. You remove support for that wide base and the layers in between and you will (have been) ruin the long term future of the sport. Any short term success will be overtaken by impacts of reduced participation.
The problem Rugby has is it is paying its professional players too much. You have Clubs all around the world living beyond their means and inflating salaries for players. It’s just like the housing market. The fundamentals aren’t there and World Rugby needs to manage the game.
-
@kev said in The future of NZ Super Rugby teams & the NPC:
@junior NPC was only one form of provincial based rugby that together with club rugby that has provided a wide base for success at the top over a very long period of time. More importantly Rugby In NZ because of its high participation rates has enjoyed a very privileged position in NZ society. You remove support for that wide base and the layers in between and you will (have been) ruin the long term future of the sport. Any short term success will be overtaken by impacts of reduced participation.
The problem Rugby has is it is paying its professional players too much. You have Clubs all around the world living beyond their means and inflating salaries for players. It’s just like the housing market. The fundamentals aren’t there and World Rugby needs to manage the game.
Would love to see stats on this versus other sports. I imagine cricketers would take a greater % for themselves than rugby players but could be wrong. Even if you are right, it's hard to know what to do about it.
-
Also, NZR are an incorporated society, which means they can't operate for the pecuniary gain of members, which are the provincial unions in their case. In English, that means NZR can't just run at a profit and distribute cash to the unions, they have to pay the unions for services rendered, like junior coaching, staff, players, equipment etc. That will also shape the outcome of any review.
-
-
The Rugby Championship will be revamped in 2021 with an old-fashioned tour theme being injected that will see the All Blacks play the Springboks at home only every other year.
The shift in format will put an end to the All Blacks having to travel to both Argentina and South Africa in one calendar year.
Instead, they will play two home tests against one of the Pumas or Boks and two away tests against the other.
The Wallabies will do the same in mirror image, with the fixtures reversing the next year to ensure that whichever side the All Blacks played at home in 2021 they play away in 2022.
Australia and New Zealand will continue to play each other home and away as will South Africa and Argentina.
-
Here is a link to an accessible article
Rugby Championship set for significant revamp next year
The Rugby Championship is set for its first overhaul since Argentina was admitted into the competition eight years ago.
-
This will make the competition really change - two away tests against the Boks is a massive task, versus two away against Argentina. Playing each team once plus each getting longer tours from NH sides would have been better way of doing things, and of course, adding Japan and Fiji.
-
@gt12 said in The future of NZ Rugby:
This will make the competition really change - two away tests against the Boks is a massive task, versus two away against Argentina. Playing each team once plus each getting longer tours from NH sides would have been better way of doing things, and of course, adding Japan and Fiji.
just realised, though, that it makes a tour worthwhile again. 10 days in Argentina or SA, 2 AB tests away from home, plus maybe a midweek game. Would be awesome fun!
-
"The added bonus of making the Rugby Championship a more difficult competition to win by reverting the number of annual matches to just four per side is also a prominent factor in the scheduling overhaul."
That is totaly wrong, there is still the same number of matches. RP/NZH can't count, muppets.
-
Still think they would have been better off following the 6N format, where you still play each team, but alternate home and away each year.
Only having the Boks 1 time in NZ every other year would mean those ones when they are here more significant again.
But I guess thats the point, lets just do something different and see how that works?
-
Rugby: SANZAAR faces axe as details of NZ Rugby's 'Aratipu' review emerge (video in article)
Southern hemisphere rugby could be set for a major shakeup , with doubts emerging over the ongoing existence of SANZAAR. Sources tell Newshub that the governing body could disband altogether to leave international unions to go it alone, in one of a handful of key recommendations to come from the 'Aratipu' report commissioned by New Zealand Rugby in April. Newshub can reveal that SANZAAR's days of running the competition appear to be over from next year. As it stands, Super Rugby involves teams from New Zealand, Australia, South Africa and Argentina. The draft 'Aratipu' review recommends major changes from 2021 - namely a trans- Ta$man competition with the addition of a team from the Pacific. Without teams from South Africa and Argentina, SANZAAR's governance of the competition would inevitably cease. The proposed changes to the competition have been welcomed by those involved. "As long as it keeps the qualities that are making this competition really successful," says Blues coach Leon MacDonald. "Strong teams right across the board, strong games... there's a little bit of a recipe here that as long as they don't deviate too far away from would be well received." But the 'Aratipu' review highlights the need for Super Rugby to be a feeder into something with much broader international appeal. It's understood that is what's seen as the missing piece to the Super Rugby puzzle and was identified by review chair Don Mackinnon from the outset. "Do we look at a Heineken cup type playoff model in the short to medium term whereby we're looking at the best of the best playing," Mackinnon queried at the announcement of the review in April. Crusaders coach Scott Robertson has also expressed his desire for there to be something more for the Super Rugby winners. "I love the idea of how we can connect up if we have a competition down here and then we can link to the north, that would make it pretty special," Robertson suggested in May. SANZAAR's sole purpose moving forward would be to oversee the Rugby Championship. But Tuesday's developments suggest that after quarter of a century, southern hemisphere rugby's united front could soon be over.So, really not that much more than we already knew.
-
