Super Rugby - The Future
-
i thought there had been some very strong rumours going around that we would see the Jag's back if the rebels folded, i take it that was all hot air?
-
2026 was the rumour. The team has to be recreated
-
@Kiwiwomble said in Super Rugby - The Future:
i thought there had been some very strong rumours going around that we would see the Jag's back if the rebels folded, i take it that was all hot air?
The Jaguares are unlikely to ever return to the competition, especially without South Africa involved. I think it's a pipe dream or, at best, a 'we're exploring all options' sort of scenario that will never unfold once any sort of conversations are had.
-
@Machpants said in Super Rugby - The Future:
@KiwiMurph said in Super Rugby - The Future:
@Machpants said in Super Rugby - The Future:
@KiwiMurph said in Super Rugby - The Future:
@Machpants said in Super Rugby - The Future:
@Chris said in Super Rugby - The Future:
@KiwiMurph said in Super Rugby - The Future:
@Chris so is that an 18 round regular season if you factor in 2 byes?
It would have to be to make it work, not locked in the preferred version so I hear probably will end up being tweaked maybe to 5 teams played twice to pull back the weeks they can fit in.
They are keen to start the comp a week earlier than normal.Why do you need byes with 11 teams, fuck that. Not required, rotate if required
The byes aren't in addition to the forced bye.
With an 11 team league every team with have at least one bye every 11 weeks.
That's enough
If you have more than an 11 week regular season you have to have multiple byes with an 11 team comp in order for teams to play the same number of games.
Not if they do home and away, as it should be. To actually make a decent length comp. Play through the internationals, they do it in NH, great leveler for the over powerful teams. Or pause, as I think the premiership did this year
If you have an 11 team comp with 20 games for each team (home and away) each team still has 2 byes because not every team can play every week.
-
@MajorRage said in Super Rugby - The Future:
I just can't see Australians supporting Australian teams full of Kiwis.
um that kind of already happens, they just adopt them as dopey country cousins.
-
@KiwiMurph said in Super Rugby - The Future:
@Machpants said in Super Rugby - The Future:
@KiwiMurph said in Super Rugby - The Future:
@Machpants said in Super Rugby - The Future:
@KiwiMurph said in Super Rugby - The Future:
@Machpants said in Super Rugby - The Future:
@Chris said in Super Rugby - The Future:
@KiwiMurph said in Super Rugby - The Future:
@Chris so is that an 18 round regular season if you factor in 2 byes?
It would have to be to make it work, not locked in the preferred version so I hear probably will end up being tweaked maybe to 5 teams played twice to pull back the weeks they can fit in.
They are keen to start the comp a week earlier than normal.Why do you need byes with 11 teams, fuck that. Not required, rotate if required
The byes aren't in addition to the forced bye.
With an 11 team league every team with have at least one bye every 11 weeks.
That's enough
If you have more than an 11 week regular season you have to have multiple byes with an 11 team comp in order for teams to play the same number of games.
Not if they do home and away, as it should be. To actually make a decent length comp. Play through the internationals, they do it in NH, great leveler for the over powerful teams. Or pause, as I think the premiership did this year
If you have an 11 team comp with 20 games for each team (home and away) each team still has 2 byes because not every team can play every week.
Yup that's what I am after, not wasting weeks
-
@MajorRage said in Super Rugby - The Future:
I just can't see Australians supporting Australian teams full of Kiwis.
i dont think most aussie care when talking about the club game, theyre far more passionate about their club teams than kiwis are IMO and just want them to win, when you see how popular League and AFL are when one has a small international game and the other none at all
-
A comp based on continents would be interesting, Europe could divide into 2 or 3, and N America could be competitive...
-
@KiwiMurph I think if you have a season this long we should go straight into the semis.
-
@nostrildamus said in Super Rugby - The Future:
A comp based on continents would be interesting, Europe could divide into 2 or 3, and N America could be competitive...
Then you'd need a 7s type end with cup, plate etc. to keep the interest when inevitably there's three NZ teams and the Brumbies in the semis.
-
Rugby Direct podcast talks to Super Rugby Pacific board chair Kevin Malloy:
Rugby Direct: Reviewing the semi-finals and Super Rugby Pacific board chair Kevin Malloy discuss the future of the competition
This week on Rugby Direct, Elliott Smith and Liam Napier review the Super Rugby semi-finals as the Blues and Chiefs advance to Saturday night's decider, at
-
@ruggabee said in Super Rugby - The Future:
@KiwiMurph said in Super Rugby - The Future:
@Machpants said in Super Rugby - The Future:
@KiwiMurph said in Super Rugby - The Future:
@Machpants said in Super Rugby - The Future:
@Chris said in Super Rugby - The Future:
@KiwiMurph said in Super Rugby - The Future:
@Chris so is that an 18 round regular season if you factor in 2 byes?
It would have to be to make it work, not locked in the preferred version so I hear probably will end up being tweaked maybe to 5 teams played twice to pull back the weeks they can fit in.
They are keen to start the comp a week earlier than normal.Why do you need byes with 11 teams, fuck that. Not required, rotate if required
The byes aren't in addition to the forced bye.
With an 11 team league every team with have at least one bye every 11 weeks.
That's enough
If you have more than an 11 week regular season you have to have multiple byes with an 11 team comp in order for teams to play the same number of games.
and that's why I have a real gripe with the Rebels getting dissolved by moronic ARU, 1 step forwards - 2 steps back...
Aust finally make a good decision
It was a must-make decision. They really can only afford and have enough depth for 3 teams but 4 is much better than 5
-
@Tim said in Super Rugby - The Future:
Rugby Direct podcast talks to Super Rugby Pacific board chair Kevin Malloy:
Rugby Direct: Reviewing the semi-finals and Super Rugby Pacific board chair Kevin Malloy discuss the future of the competition
This week on Rugby Direct, Elliott Smith and Liam Napier review the Super Rugby semi-finals as the Blues and Chiefs advance to Saturday night's decider, at
Stopped listening to Elliott Smith and Liam Napier.
But Kevin was good,
I thought Jack was already on Board but surely rugby interviewer should know.
Its July 22nd so getting close
-
There's been recent discussion about All Blacks playing for Aussie Super sides and Wallabies playing for NZ Super sides to try and make Super Rugby more appealing as a whole. Imagine Ardie Savea playing for the Reds or Rob Valetini playing for the Canes. Would a competition structure that allows players to move to any Super team but still be eligible for their international side work?
There would obviously be many flaws to this from an AB perspective as we have stronger players, but this would be one way to make teams more even and improve the competition as a whole (from an Aussie perspective). If you kept Super Rugby to just Aus/NZ teams then you could even incorporate a transfer/draft structure similar to the NBA/NFL etc. Food for thought indeed.
-
Gregor Paul: The only viable country for Super Rugby expansion
OPINION: Super Rugby is at a crossroads over whether to reduce or expand club numbers.
And of all the clubs battling financial headwinds, none have been more challenged than Moana Pasifika, who have yet to find a home base and build a dedicated following and therefore have been deemed to be carrying a high degree of financial vulnerability.
But the Herald can reveal that Moana have secured their future by striking a significant deal with a new financial partner.
The club have confirmed that the new partnership has given them long-term security, and with that, they can now offer prospective new players the certainty they need to join Moana.
IIRC they named a health insurance company, but edited it out?
EDIT:
Here it is:
But the Herald can reveal that Moana have secured their future by striking a significant deal with a new financial partner – believed to be South Seas Healthcare, or trustees of South Seas Healthcare.
-
@Canes4life said in Super Rugby - The Future:
There's been recent discussion about All Blacks playing for Aussie Super sides and Wallabies playing for NZ Super sides to try and make Super Rugby more appealing as a whole. Imagine Ardie Savea playing for the Reds or Rob Valetini playing for the Canes.
Barely any of our guys would make a first XV over there. They've been brought up on 8-10 schoolboys games a year max, followed by an academy system narrower than a goat track. There's a reason we lose the physical battles: our development systems are shit.
Going to 3 teams won't change that.
-
@NTA said in Super Rugby - The Future:
@Canes4life said in Super Rugby - The Future:
There's been recent discussion about All Blacks playing for Aussie Super sides and Wallabies playing for NZ Super sides to try and make Super Rugby more appealing as a whole. Imagine Ardie Savea playing for the Reds or Rob Valetini playing for the Canes.
Barely any of our guys would make a first XV over there. They've been brought up on 8-10 schoolboys games a year max, followed by an academy system narrower than a goat track. There's a reason we lose the physical battles: our development systems are shit.
Going to 3 teams won't change that.
Maybe the Aussie teams go down to two teams then.
We need to find a way of making all teams more even though otherwise it will just be the same five or six sides competing for the playoffs every year which will get boring in the long run.
-
@Canes4life it is diminishing returns. The effect of dropping pro teams here is less TV money.
Drop in TV money = drop in investment = drop in talent development = drop in competitiveness = calls for another team to be dropped. Rewind, play, stop, rewind, play, stop etc.
Might as well just kick us out and be done with it if that is the answer
It isn't of course - the investment of whatever money rugby has here needs to be better directed, and our entire system needs bringing out of the 80s.
-
@NTA said in Super Rugby - The Future:
@Canes4life it is diminishing returns. The effect of dropping pro teams here is less TV money.
Drop in TV money = drop in investment = drop in talent development = drop in competitiveness = calls for another team to be dropped. Rewind, play, stop, rewind, play, stop etc.
Might as well just kick us out and be done with it if that is the answer
It isn't of course - the investment of whatever money rugby has here needs to be better directed, and our entire system needs bringing out of the 80s.
Yeah I don't know what the answer is here but Aus rugby really needs to be more competitive, otherwise Super Rugby will never improve.
