One domestic NZ competition?
-
edit - This is split from the Trans Ta$man thread. Should there be one NZ domestic competition instead of the current two (SRA & NPC)?
@derpus said in Super Rugby Trans Ta$man:
@shark if you actually look at win percentage and overall success in the comp only the Brumbies have ever been consistently competitive. And even they only won the comp a couple times more than a decade ago.
I love this fantasy world you guys have concocted where RA are gunna start cutting teams to ensure SR is suitable for NZ.
It's purely for your benefit. NZ Rugby needs Oz to be strong, if you fail, we fail too.
I'm starting to lean towards having 10 NZ sides (basically the NPC sides) to dilute the NZ teams and consolidate NPC and Super Rugby for us. Would be more competitive, and a more interesting comp. NZ is too small to have two rugby comps running.
-
@kirwan said in Super Rugby Trans Ta$man:
I'm starting to lean towards having 10 NZ sides (basically the NPC sides) to dilute the NZ teams and consolidate NPC and Super Rugby for us. Would be more competitive, and a more interesting comp. NZ is too small to have two rugby comps running.
Even though it's highly unlikely BOP are part of that, i am totally on board.
-
Doesn't it really depend on the objective?
A low quality competition with lots of matches that will probably draw smaller crowds and TB audiences?
Or, do we want a smaller competition, fewer matches and a higher standard?
I prefer the latter. Sometimes less is more.
-
-
@bovidae said in Super Rugby Trans Ta$man:
@snowy When the NPC was the only show in town the crowd numbers and TV audience were much higher. I don't expect NZR to go back to a provincial-only competition although I think that most long-term fans would prefer that.
I don't think that they will either. They need they international component to bring in revenue but it will be the standard that could be questioned with dilution of talent.
-
@snowy said in Super Rugby Trans Ta$man:
Doesn't it really depend on the objective?
A low quality competition with lots of matches that will probably draw smaller crowds and TB audiences?
Or, do we want a smaller competition, fewer matches and a higher standard?
I prefer the latter. Sometimes less is more.
i think i prefer the former, some will remember ive been advocating falling back to the NPC since i got here
for a lot including myself its about a few hours of switching off, maybe have a beer, catch up with some mates not necessarily 80 mins of perfectly executed plays
I enjoy the local clubs games just as much (if not more) than super level.
I think more games of a lower level has more chance to attract fans. This lower level we talk about is still going to be far about local club rugby so lets not pretend its going to be dross....but more games is more chances for someone to catch a game live. i dont know about the rest of you but its very easy for me to be busy for the four home games (if i lived in dunners) of SRA...and then its very easy to just disconnect
-
@mariner4life said in Super Rugby Trans Ta$man:
@kirwan said in Super Rugby Trans Ta$man:
I'm starting to lean towards having 10 NZ sides (basically the NPC sides) to dilute the NZ teams and consolidate NPC and Super Rugby for us. Would be more competitive, and a more interesting comp. NZ is too small to have two rugby comps running.
Even though it's highly unlikely BOP are part of that, i am totally on board.
You guys would probably combine with Counties - and, probably Thames Valley and King Country.
-
@kiwiwomble Just about time for me. I can't watch that many games over a weekend, too much to do, so fewer games with the best players is my preference. I am a bit of an addict too so if the games are there I will watch and nothing else gets done. Unhappy wife, etc.
-
@snowy i think thats where im different to several on here, pre COVID i generally would only watch my teams play and then finals etc, the odd other game if i had nothing else to do. definitely didn't watch most games...hence why my "XV's" are normally stacked with highlanders and missing obvious choices for everyone else
-
@kirwan said in Super Rugby Trans Ta$man:
I'm starting to lean towards having 10 NZ sides (basically the NPC sides) to dilute the NZ teams and consolidate NPC and Super Rugby for us. Would be more competitive, and a more interesting comp. NZ is too small to have two rugby comps running.
Covid gave a chance to rationalise the structure on rugby in NZ and so far we've missed the chance.. hopefully it's not too late.
Currently there are 19 pro and semi-pro teams in NZ that cover the country twice over. Next year that bloats out further to 20 with a geographically ambiguous, (mostly) racially selected team.
There's two domestic competitions and and a cross border competition. Again more bloatWe should concentrate on a single domestic competition that works first of all. That insulates us from more covid border shutdowns and incompetence of other national unions. International province/franchise matches are secondary
I think we had a glimpse of what a we've been missing out on last year with the Canterbury v Taranaki shield game. The All Blacks were playing, the standard was high and people gave a shit.
5 is too few, 14 is too many
-
@duluth said in Super Rugby Trans Ta$man:
@kirwan said in Super Rugby Trans Ta$man:
We should concentrate on a single domestic competition that works first of all. That insulates us from more covid border shutdowns and incompetence of other national unions. International Province/franchise matches are secondary
This, 100%. As should Aus. Can meet in the middle in some kind of Champions Cup format after domestic.
-
@kiwiwomble said in Super Rugby Trans Ta$man:
@snowy i think thats where im different to several on here, pre COVID i generally would only watch my teams play and then finals etc, the odd other game if i had nothing else to do. definitely didn't watch most games...hence why my "XV's" are normally stacked with highlanders and missing obvious choices for everyone else
I try and watch everything and there was an awful lot of it.
I'd be on board with a super 10 - right back where we started. ABs available, etc. We don't need or ten games of rugby every weekend and I enjoy watching the best players do their thing so I'm with @Duluth in concept, but we probably do need some sort of champions league to keep the international thing going.
-
@mariner4life said in Super Rugby Trans Ta$man:
@kirwan said in Super Rugby Trans Ta$man:
I'm starting to lean towards having 10 NZ sides (basically the NPC sides) to dilute the NZ teams and consolidate NPC and Super Rugby for us. Would be more competitive, and a more interesting comp. NZ is too small to have two rugby comps running.
Even though it's highly unlikely BOP are part of that, i am totally on board.
BOP would definitely be in. The ones at risk would be Northland, Southland, Counties and Manuwatu IMO.
-
@kirwan said in Super Rugby Trans Ta$man:
@mariner4life said in Super Rugby Trans Ta$man:
@kirwan said in Super Rugby Trans Ta$man:
I'm starting to lean towards having 10 NZ sides (basically the NPC sides) to dilute the NZ teams and consolidate NPC and Super Rugby for us. Would be more competitive, and a more interesting comp. NZ is too small to have two rugby comps running.
Even though it's highly unlikely BOP are part of that, i am totally on board.
BOP would definitely be in. The ones at risk would be Northland, Southland, Counties and Manuwatu IMO.
couple of replies
@Chris-B no way should their be amalgamations, just a waste of time that erodes why you would return the game to its provinical routes
@Kirwan i reckon Counties would be in based on Population alone. South Auckland is too big to ignore.
My idea is probably unworkable and rubbish, but i would have 10 professional teams that are based on the 10 biggest/best unions.
I would still have provincial rugby behind it as well, including sides from the 10 unions with pro teams. But thus comp is 100% strict amateur, and is a rep comp for club (and possibly academy) players.
It's probably too expensive and unworkable, and TR is going to hate me again like he did when the 14 team NPC was created, but...
-
@mariner4life said in Super Rugby Trans Ta$man:
My idea is probably unworkable and rubbish, but i would have 10 professional teams that are based on the 10 biggest/best unions.
I would still have provincial rugby behind it as well, including sides from the 10 unions with pro teams. But thus comp is 100% strict amateur, and is a rep comp for club (and possibly academy) players.
I wind up with something similar but from the other direction.
I completely agree on the strict amateur competition for existing unions
Unfortunately the franchises as entities won't vanish into thin air. For a start there are existing private license holders.
I would turn every current license into 2 licenses. These could be sold on etc. Basically each franchise would split in two
Blues - split at the bridge
Crusaders - Christchurch and Ta$man
Highlanders - cannot split within their current geography. Their second license would be a team based in the Hawkes Bay.The Lower NI sides are a bit tougher. There's some other ways this could be done but maybe something like this?
Chiefs - Hamilton and Tauranga
Hurricanes - Wellington and New Plymouth (I know Taranaki are technically a Chiefs area)Then there would need to be some player swapping to get the players where they would prefer to be based. It wouldn't exactly match NPC alliances, but it would essentially become that in a few years
It would be up to the sides if they want to adopt existing unions branding (North Auckland in cambridge blue? Maybe Wellington keeps the Hurricanes branding etc)
-
@mariner4life said in One domestic NZ competition?:
My idea is probably unworkable and rubbish, but i would have 10 professional teams that are based on the 10 biggest/best unions.
horse head coming your way sir...given BOP are the third largest union*, by your own logic they're in
*I assuming this is based on player numbers, the stat is on their website
-
could be a grumpy old man in me or just someone that thinks you get what you earn
making a comp that covers all geographic areas, artificially, just comes across as everyone needs a turn and to be included etc
we have rugby that covers the whole country...its call the existing unions.
Remember this comes from someone thats seen otago fail to ever make it out of the championship
promotion to the premiership and then the right to play in a SR/champions league type deal is or should be a driving factor and if we cant then we dont deserve to be there and we'd just end up with something like we have right now with the aussie teams
just having a comp with nothing really riding on it, in my mind, is one of the reasons SR went a bit stale.
"we've lost a couple of games and cant make the playoffs? oh well never mind, next year"...proceed to not care as much
-
They've always said that the step between NPC and test rugby is too big. You need a higher quality comp (played by the best players) in-between. To sift out the best players and to give them more difficult games to enhance the physicality and improve their skillset.
Also, I'd be against anything that favours bigger and richer NPC provinces, and enable them to "poach" (for lack of a better word) talent away from smaller/poorer provinces. Nothing they'd create should lead to a talent drain of small/poor provinces; we already see in school rugby what that leads to. I'd also be against anything else that widens the big/rich province v small/poor province devide. If you create something new in-between Test and NPC level, to take the place of Super Rugby, that should be a factor to be taken into account.
Also, all 14 current NPC provinces should find a home in a new comp. Merging provinces can lead to loss of tribal support, because supporters of the merged provinces no longer recognise themselves in the merged team. They don't feel represented and will stop watching.
I'm one of those rugby nerds that watches almost all SR and NPC games. Thanks to having a partner who is just as rugby mad as I am, I follow almost everything from (mostly local) school rugby to test rugby without jeopardising my relationship. I'm passionate about my province and would be against anything that drains my team of talent or lessens my province's chances to play in a meaningful competition with the best other provinces. I also think that supporters of less successful provincial teams should feel that their province has the same opportunities and is similarly protected against talented player drain.
