Super Rugby 2020
-
@taniwharugby I know, a mighty team saddled with 2nd division dross!
-
@taniwharugby said in Super Rugby 2020:
while @Toddy might well be
it may be the reality that if some of our unions want to survive in a world without Super Rugby as we know it, merging might be the only way.God, Northland/North Harbour
i get that, but i hate the idea. it dilutes the product. Neither Northland fans, nor Harbour fans, are going to buy-in to a team they see half the time. And can you really see either Bays supporting the other one?
Promotion/relegation would be good. And no bullshit relegation game either. Up and down. HB, Northland, Manawatu and Southland with the best heartland unions looking to come back up.
-
-
@mariner4life I didnt say I thought it was a good idea...
@Duluth yeah, that would make sense, but I reckon Harbour would not buy it given the history of the name, so it'd have to be something lame like Northern Districts
-
The better way to do it is having three or four separate competitions (maybe 5 or 6) with intrapool play followed by a short round robin/crossovers (if time) and finals for a few teams.
I'd have 5 NZ super teams, 5 SA, a 5 team Aus comp with one Pacific Island team or get the Force back, one Japan pool, then possibly an Argentinian/US pool.
Then take 10 teams to a final series for the Super Trophy Championship.
The Super Cup/Plate would be played for by the 10 teams under that.
-
@gt12 said in Super Rugby 2020:
The better way to do it is having three or four separate competitions (maybe 5 or 6) with intrapool play followed by a short round robin/crossovers (if time) and finals for a few teams.
I'd have 5 NZ super teams, 5 SA, a 5 team Aus comp with one Pacific Island team or get the Force back, one Japan pool, then possibly an Argentinian/US pool.
Then take 10 teams to a final series for the Super Trophy Championship.
The Super Cup/Plate would be played for by the 10 teams under that.
no disrespect. but yuck.
The breaking up of the competition has been a big factor in the death of Super Rugby. And bringing in more teams. I have zero interest in the Japanese, or the Argentinians, who just add hassle.
-
@mariner4life said in Super Rugby 2020:
respect. but yuck.
The breaking up of the competition has been a big factor in the death of Super Rugby. And bringing in more teams. I have zero interest in the Japanese, or the Argentinians, who just add hassle.but the main reason around trying to reinvigorate the comp is the speculation SA wont be part of it, we have to find the new money somewhere, and that is Japan!
-
It's unsurprising how we got to this. Super Rugby was an awesome product and got diluted as a product in the search for additional revenue. The faulty formula of more teams = more money + same quality product.
-
It will depend on what NZR and RA want to achieve with a trans- Ta$man competition. Obviously they will want to maximise TV revenue and provide both fans and players with competitive high-quality games. That probably means just combining the existing SR teams into a 10-team competition by adding the Force. But does Australia have the depth for 5 teams? They dumped the Force for a reason, rightly or wrongly.
However, a round-robin and SFs makes for a very short season (9-11 games). Not feasible for the broadcasters or NZR/RA to generate income for player salaries. Home and away games will increase the number of games broadcasted but the NZ teams have been vocal in not wanting to have 8 derby games each season in any new SR competition.
Having a competition with the existing 14 NZ M10 Cup provinces and 5 Aust teams, and playing each other only once (alternating home and away fixtures each year) would involve the largest number of players for both countries. Such a comp then becomes a battle of attrition like the NRL.
But I can't see RA being interested in this format as they would be wanting an more equal share of revenue despite having only ~25% of the teams. And the salaries for NZ players will likely reduce too if NZR are paying more players than the 190 currently contracted in SR. Back to a combined SR 10-team competition which somehow fits an NPC into the season.
-
@Bovidae said in Super Rugby 2020:
However, a round-robin and SFs makes for a very short season (9-11 games). Not feasible for the broadcasters or NZR/RA to generate income for player salaries. Home and away games will increase the number of games broadcasted but the NZ teams have been vocal in not wanting to have 8 derby games each season in any new SR competition.
I wonder if they might change their tune if the trade off is far less travel.
-
@KiwiMurph said in Super Rugby 2020:
@Bovidae said in Super Rugby 2020:
However, a round-robin and SFs makes for a very short season (9-11 games). Not feasible for the broadcasters or NZR/RA to generate income for player salaries. Home and away games will increase the number of games broadcasted but the NZ teams have been vocal in not wanting to have 8 derby games each season in any new SR competition.
I wonder if they might change their tune if the trade off is far less travel.
I'm not interested in it either
-
@gt12 said in Super Rugby 2020:
The better way to do it is having three or four separate competitions (maybe 5 or 6) with intrapool play followed by a short round robin/crossovers (if time) and finals for a few teams.
I'd have 5 NZ super teams, 5 SA, a 5 team Aus comp with one Pacific Island team or get the Force back, one Japan pool, then possibly an Argentinian/US pool.
Then take 10 teams to a final series for the Super Trophy Championship.
The Super Cup/Plate would be played for by the 10 teams under that.
That format I don't think will gain a lot of interest and would dilute the SR comp even more.
-
@KiwiMurph said in Super Rugby 2020:
@Bovidae said in Super Rugby 2020:
However, a round-robin and SFs makes for a very short season (9-11 games). Not feasible for the broadcasters or NZR/RA to generate income for player salaries. Home and away games will increase the number of games broadcasted but the NZ teams have been vocal in not wanting to have 8 derby games each season in any new SR competition.
I wonder if they might change their tune if the trade off is far less travel.
It's only going to be trans- Ta$man travel. I don't think they would want to have an uneven comp where NZ teams play home and away derbies, Aust teams do the same, and then they play each other once. The criticism of the current format is that it is complicated as teams don't play the same teams each season so there is an element of luck in the draw. A round-robin solves that problem.
-
@taniwharugby said in Super Rugby 2020:
@mariner4life I didnt say I thought it was a good idea...
@Duluth yeah, that would make sense, but I reckon Harbour would not buy it given the history of the name, so it'd have to be something lame like Northern Districts
The Winterless (North) Vikings?
-
@Bovidae said in Super Rugby 2020:
@KiwiMurph said in Super Rugby 2020:
@Bovidae said in Super Rugby 2020:
However, a round-robin and SFs makes for a very short season (9-11 games). Not feasible for the broadcasters or NZR/RA to generate income for player salaries. Home and away games will increase the number of games broadcasted but the NZ teams have been vocal in not wanting to have 8 derby games each season in any new SR competition.
I wonder if they might change their tune if the trade off is far less travel.
It's only going to be trans- Ta$man travel. I don't think they would want to have an uneven comp where NZ teams play home and away derbies, Aust teams do the same, and then they play each other once. The criticism of the current format is that it is complicated as teams don't play the same teams each season so there is an element of luck in the draw. A round-robin solves that problem.
I meant a reduction in travel compared to right now (ie no trips to Africa/Argie/Japan).
Why not just do a dual round robin? Play everyone twice.
-
@KiwiMurph 8 team comp, unless they resurrect Force, means 16 weeks. Should get rid of bye weekends, and just allow bigger squads.
-
@Machpants said in Super Rugby 2020:
@KiwiMurph 8 team comp, unless they resurrect Force, means 16 weeks. Should get rid of bye weekends, and just allow bigger squads.
8 team comp means a 14 week comp - so a couple of 'bye' weeks is the shot I'd say.
This is also interim only I think, the physicality of NZ conference is super demanding on the players. It's one of the things they tried to avoid.
Also, this hopefully drive positive change in the Aussies being exposed to ongoing top level competition, week in week out. Will reset the benchmarks (and maybe wear them out for the bledisloe)
-
@nzzp On your last point, Australia has had some good U20 and school boy teams in the last few years. Add that to Rennie coaching and holding the Bledisloe doesn't look so assured leading up to the next RWC.
Waratahs are rebuilding this year and the Reds are coming along nicely.
-
Whether it would change your mind or not, I'm not sure I explained it the way I meant either - NZ teams would play each other in the NZ competition first (there is no reason why we couldn't provincial unions here either I guess). From those games (I imagine home and away), the top two would go through to the next stage which involves play offs with teams from other countries.
