Super Rugby - The Future
-
@dogmeat south island doesn't need another team. Northland are terrible. 15 people live in Taranaki and NP is a shithole. Harbour haven't been relevant since 1996.
there, solved.
-
I probably shouldn't comment anyway. I lost interest a long time ago. Went from watching every game of every round even though I didn't really have a team I followed to - I can't remember the last time I watched a SR game Finals included. I only follow it through KP's tipping comp - as can be easily gleaned from my results.
It just seems a relatively low quality muddled comp. Expanded too far. Way too many lopsided games, predictable and boring.
-
@mariner4life said in Super Rugby - The Future:
@dogmeat south island doesn't need another team. Northland are terrible. 15 people live in Taranaki and NP is a shithole. Harbour haven't been relevant since 1996.
there, solved.
@mariner4life said in Super Rugby - The Future:
@dogmeat south island doesn't need another team. Northland are terrible. 15 people live in Taranaki and NP is a shithole. Harbour haven't been relevant since they were shafted in 1995
there, solved.
Not still bitter at all
-
@Kiwiwomble said in Super Rugby - The Future:
@Chris cool, you are allowed to think that and opinion is noted and i agree if nothing is going to change....but the discussion is literally about what would be needed to improve things
I am a Rugby man and would like nothing more than the Rebels to succeed but I think you are battling too many elements in Vic.
IMO developing your own systems will grow the game at the grassroots level which to survive is needed,
The over all principle of stacking teams with NZ talent doesn't look good for the future of Australian rugby. -
@mariner4life said in Super Rugby - The Future:
@dogmeat south island doesn't need another team. Northland are terrible. 15 people live in Taranaki and NP is a shithole. Harbour haven't been relevant since 1996.
there, solved.
assuming this year is just a blip for the crusaders...there is the argument that diluting the Crusaders dominance was the first thing that needed to be done
-
@Chris said in Super Rugby - The Future:
@Kiwiwomble said in Super Rugby - The Future:
@Chris cool, you are allowed to think that and opinion is noted and i agree if nothing is going to change....but the discussion is literally about what would be needed to improve things
I am a Rugby man and would like nothing more than the Rebels to succeed but I think you are battling too many elements in Vic.
we know...youve said that a couple of times, noted
IMO developing your own systems will grow the game at the grassroots level which to survive is needed,
historically and in an environment lacking competition, agreed, but the kids we deal with down here at least are all about what they see on the socials so if they have to choose between the storm with all their trophies and the rebels getting a hiding more times than not...guess what theyre choosing, even if they have come through rebels youth system
giving them something to get excited about might/would help
The over all principle of stacking teams with NZ talent doesn't look good for the future of Australian rugby.
you do seem wilfully blind to the rest of what some are saying, determined to concentrate on the short term and not the idea of building on some success by attracting interest/investment/sponsors/participation
-
@Kiwiwomble said in Super Rugby - The Future:
@Chris said in Super Rugby - The Future:
@Kiwiwomble said in Super Rugby - The Future:
@Chris cool, you are allowed to think that and opinion is noted and i agree if nothing is going to change....but the discussion is literally about what would be needed to improve things
I am a Rugby man and would like nothing more than the Rebels to succeed but I think you are battling too many elements in Vic.
we know...youve said that a couple of times, noted
IMO developing your own systems will grow the game at the grassroots level which to survive is needed,
historically and in an environment lacking competition, agreed, but the kids we deal with down here at least are all about what they see on the socials so if they have to choose between the storm with all their trophies and the rebels getting a hiding more times than not...guess what theyre choosing, even if they have come through rebels youth system
giving them something to get excited about might/would help
The over all principle of stacking teams with NZ talent doesn't look good for the future of Australian rugby.
you do seem wilfully blind to the rest of what some are saying, determined to concentrate on the short term and not the idea of building on the success by attracting interest/investment/sponsors/participation
I do understand what you are saying, Just I totally agree.
-
@Chris i know you do (assume to mean disagree)...you said that at the start, its very clear
but you havent really convinced me why i should stop suggesting fixes much like i havent convinced you might any of these suggestions might work
so...im just going to carry on
-
@dogmeat said in Super Rugby - The Future:
Picking an additional 3 for NZ would be very difficult.
Ta$man, Taranaki, the two bays Counties, Harbour would all argue their case.
Northland as well.
I don't see how they could be unions. Maybe a union could fund a license purchase?
My preference has actually been for more NZ teams than 8
The 'easiest' way to expand and not piss off the current private license holders would be to turn every license into two. The holder could then attempt to run two teams or make money from the sale of the extra license
Blues split in two at the bridge
Crusaders split into Ta$man & Christchurch
Rest of the North Island can be split in a few different ways
The Highlanders extra license would have to go to the North Island somewhereSo 10 teams, 7 North Island & 3 South Island. Its a good split in terms of population and players original location
10 sides doesn't fit the symmetry of that 3 regions thing I suggested in the last post though
-
@Duluth im out of my depth with things like licences etc....but why couldnt a union enter a team in a competition?
-
@Kiwiwomble said in Super Rugby - The Future:
@Duluth im out of my depth with things like licences etc....but why couldnt a union enter a team in a competition?
Because they are poor.
Private franchises pay for a license and try to make money in the market (obviously it's more complex than that with the NZR relationship)
Most unions lose money and only Auckland has decent cash reserves
-
@Duluth oh, i thought you meant legally they wouldnt be allowed for some reason
I'm just assuming launching a large new comp would give them the opportunity to attract new sponsors or private investors, if we're talking such a new format then it would need a new TV deal with the proceeds going directly to the teams
in my mind we're not just talking about exactly the same PU team running out there without change in their income
-
The complexity in any additional NZ teams will be in the contracts the current license holders have. The license is for a certain period of time but I presume there'll be a clauses about the number of teams and/or location of other teams
That's why the license doubling may work. All current license holders aren't ripped off
-
@Duluth said in Super Rugby - The Future:
@dogmeat said in Super Rugby - The Future:
Picking an additional 3 for NZ would be very difficult.
Ta$man, Taranaki, the two bays Counties, Harbour would all argue their case.
Northland as well.
I don't see how they could be unions. Maybe a union could fund a license purchase?
My preference has actually been for more NZ teams than 8
The 'easiest' way to expand and not piss off the current private license holders would be to turn every license into two. The holder could then attempt to run two teams or make money from the sale of the extra license
Blues split in two at the bridge
Crusaders split into Ta$man & Christchurch
Rest of the North Island can be split in a few different ways
The Highlanders extra license would have to go to the North Island somewhereSo 10 teams, 7 North Island & 3 South Island. Its a good split in terms of population and players original location
10 sides doesn't fit the symmetry of that 3 regions thing I suggested in the last post though
I think it would work if there were two interrelated competitions, however fitting in the J-league would be a potential issue (unless the club championship competition was carried out roughly during our NPC time period).
But, for discussion sake, the J-league runs their competition and then sends some teams to the club competition, as do we, as do Aus.
10 NZ sides (Divided into 5 & 5)
6 Aus sides including 2 PI sides (i.e., no Rebels, so 3 & 3)
6 Japanese company sides (Either the top 6 from the J-league Div 1 or ask them to split the Div 1 into Div 1 and Super, split 3 & 3 in which case it could run alongside the J-league)Club Premier (D1): 11 teams
Club Championship (D2): 11 teams -
-
@Duluth said in Super Rugby - The Future:
Odd numbers isn't great
As long as the cross over games within the region were scheduled well there wouldn't be too many byes
Depending on the timing, we could arguably have 12 teams, or of course, Oz could have 6+2, in which case it would be 12 + 12.
I really feel like the opportunity to really integrate with Japan was missed when they set up the League one realignment of the competitions there. They had 12 teams in Div 1 and we could have got them to put 6 of them into Super and had Super (6), Div 1 (12), Div 2 (5) - in other words, essentially keeping the same three-tiered system they have introduced, but with the absolute cream on top in Super rugby.
-
@Duluth more coherent than just about every other proposal I've seen!
Questions for me are seasonal in Japan (and possibly US), and also whether the quality of rugby is high enough to prepare players for international rugby.
I think Super over the years was a key driver in the SAANZAR success.
Edit: and the corllary - the recent drop in quality leads to those sides not being as dominant
-
Can NZ afford 350 fully professional players? Because that's what 10 teams looks like
-
@mariner4life said in Super Rugby - The Future:
Can NZ afford 350 fully professional players? Because that's what 10 teams looks like
No.
But possibly 8 sides if the revenue gets generated ...
