Super Rugby Trans Tasman
-
we may as well close the thread, its just everyone dumping on everyones elses ideas, makes me think there is now solutions and rugby at that level is dead
@mariner4life and too reiterate, i wasnt saying flag the trans Ta$man level of rugby, was just saying im looking forward to the NPC
-
@mariner4life said in Super Rugby Trans Ta$man:
@kiwimurph said in Super Rugby Trans Ta$man:
@mariner4life Then you've got the other issue of Aus potentially missing out on a domestic final (compared to Super AU). With Super AU the final was a huge success for them (40k crowd - huge ratings). I can see why Rugby Au want to harness that and not lose it.
Even if you had a 'best Aus vs best Aus' final after a combined comp - it would lose it's lustre if it's for example the 4th ranked team playing the 6th ranked team (out of 10 Aus-NZ teams).
With Super AU they've got a domestic comp that leads nicely to a final with 2 guaranteed Aus teams.
yep, great, wonderful
Where does the money come from to pay for everything?
And, as with Super Rugby Aotearoa it's simply not enough content. Not enough games on a weekend. Not enough weekends.
I agree. There's no easy answers.
-
@antipodean all the more reason to have our comp. If we simply cannot compete with NZ teams and this is the historical mean, why are we playing each other at all?
The fundamental fact is that an uncompetitive competition is doomed before it starts. Its contrary to the purpose of sport.
A couple of 'champions cup' style games and and the Bledisloe cup should be enough fodder for you. We can otherwise get on with our stuff.
-
@mariner4life said in Super Rugby Trans Ta$man:
@kiwiwomble said in Super Rugby Trans Ta$man:
grow fans that will still watch team when theyre not winning
AFL fans aside, that is not the Australian way. You gotta win or you are forgotten.
The aussie way is also to preach that anyone and everyone needs to be a leader so anyone and everyone from the workplace to the PM’s office (and, yesterday, deputy PM) spend all their time stealing each other’s glory but avoiding any accountability then going the extra mile to ensure they replace the person above them (who is too busy trying to replace the person above them)…
Oh and governance. Everyone is into governance if it means writing badly formed and ill-thought out policy (and “strategy”) that nobody has time to read let alone follow... -
-
@derpus said in Super Rugby Trans Ta$man:
@antipodean all the more reason to have our comp. If we simply cannot compete with NZ teams and this is the historical mean, why are we playing each other at all?
Naked self interest.
The fundamental fact is that an uncompetitive competition is doomed before it starts. Its contrary to the purpose of sport.
A couple of 'champions cup' style games and and the Bledisloe cup should be enough fodder for you. We can otherwise get on with our stuff.
The point is to raise standards. The Bledisloe has been played for every year for decades now solely to keep interest and competitiveness in Australian Rugby. Even now Australians aren't interested in the Bledisloe.
What's genuinely holding Australian rugby back is amateur administration. Which is ironic given they had a head start when the game went professional.
-
@tim said in Super Rugby Trans Ta$man:
How about we go with @Duluth's idea and have 10 NZ teams. Maybe 8 would be enough?
id be interested in that but i think people just started saying we dont have the depth for that and/or thats getting to close to the NPC team anyway
-
@kiwiwomble It would even up the NZ and AU teams.
-
@antipodean hard to disagree with that. The administration is diabolical. But thats not a reason to agree to a bad comp structure.
The premises that we can improve by condensing teams or by playing Kiwis regularly doesn't seem to have worked in the past. Not sure why it will suddenly start working now.
-
@tim said in Super Rugby Trans Ta$man:
@kiwiwomble It would even up the NZ and AU teams.
oh, i agree, i think 7 would be all that would be needed to drop the depth combined with the longer season, too many more and i can see the competition with the existing NPC teams
-
@kiwiwomble Then there is the option of a longer Super Rugby competition with 10 kiwi teams, and dropping the NPC to a development competition.
-
@tim said in Super Rugby Trans Ta$man:
@kiwiwomble Then there is the option of a longer Super Rugby competition with 10 kiwi teams, and dropping the NPC to a development competition.
im a purest at heart, i'd prefer Otago to win the NPC that the highlanders to win super rugby so i do start to waver when we talk of the NPC just being a development comp or almost having as many super teams as NPC...but if needs be
Thats why 7 kind of works for me, basically every 2 NPC teams become a super franchise...huge issue with where their support comes from though, who will leave the team they currently follow...also doubt they would put one in Nelson so it wont water down the crusaders too much so they could still end up thrashing everyone
-
thinking this through some more
one of the most likely options would be central north island...which would basically attract HB players...so all it would do is water down the Highlanders squad
we rely on those guys being ignored by their closest super teams
-
@kiwiwomble said in Super Rugby Trans Ta$man:
central north island
Central Vikings would be a good name?
What say you @Nepia
-
@kiwiwomble said in Super Rugby Trans Ta$man:
@tim said in Super Rugby Trans Ta$man:
@kiwiwomble Then there is the option of a longer Super Rugby competition with 10 kiwi teams, and dropping the NPC to a development competition.
im a purest at heart, i'd prefer Otago to win the NPC that the highlanders to win super rugby so i do start to waver when we talk of the NPC just being a development comp or almost having as many super teams as NPC...but if needs be
Thats why 7 kind of works for me, basically every 2 NPC teams become a super franchise...huge issue with where their support comes from though, who will leave the team they currently follow...also doubt they would put one in Nelson so it wont water down the crusaders too much so they could still end up thrashing everyone
Don't you just end up creating a couple of weak extra teams?
Saders and Highlanders would stay the same. Canes wouldn't change much. Auckland would lose Harbour but gain CM. Chiefs would lose CM and Naki.
The new franchises would be Taniwha/Harbour and Naki/Poo.
Yipee. -
@crucial well, the idea is to weaken some teams, i did say it possible woulnd't weaken the one you really need to if you were going to make a more competitive comp, and it wouldnt be fair to so anything specific to weaken the crusaders...so back to the drawing board
-
@tim said in Super Rugby Trans Ta$man:
@kiwiwomble Then there is the option of a longer Super Rugby competition with 10 kiwi teams, and dropping the NPC to a development competition.
i am on board with this. Except i would drop 4 unions to the Heartland champs, and have 10 NPC sides.
-
@taniwharugby said in Super Rugby Trans Ta$man:
@kiwiwomble said in Super Rugby Trans Ta$man:
central north island
Central Vikings would be a good name?
What say you @Nepia
Seriously Mods, how’s that downvote button coming along?
-
@mariner4life said in Super Rugby Trans Ta$man:
@tim said in Super Rugby Trans Ta$man:
@kiwiwomble Then there is the option of a longer Super Rugby competition with 10 kiwi teams, and dropping the NPC to a development competition.
i am on board with this. Except i would drop 4 unions to the Heartland champs, and have 10 NPC sides.
this has always been my prefered option but normally get shot down with "the unions are too small" etc
if this was replacing both the NPC and SR would you make it a 28 game home and away?
and would you have promotion and relegation so those four teams ad a chance to come back up? based on last year that wold put Naki, soutland counties and Manawatu down
