Super Rugby 2023
-
@kiwi_expat said in Super Rugby 2023:
@mariner4life said in Super Rugby 2023:
And the odds reflect that. Four NZ teams paying between $3 and $6.50 to win the comp. The Brumbies at $11. The Highlanders at $34 (massive unders), Everyone else is three figures.
This weekend the Highlanders, Crusaders and Hurricanes are almost unbackable favourites, and two of them are playing away.
This is why many of us would like to see NZ players allowed to play for Australian teams and still eligible for All Black selection, yes it probably wouldn't be overly beneficial for us (a sacrifice I'd be willing to make as a fan...) but it's ultimately what needs to happen in order to optimally engage the Australian market. Look at the percentage of the top NRL players who are Kiwis, obviously NZ players are fully integrated within all NRL sides and our players have an enormous influence across every team - It's really what makes the comp isn't it?
It's a professional game, there should be complete open slather between NZ & Aus franchises, it's a no brainer.
The NRL isn't really analogous, the bulk of the teams are Australian except for the one random NZ side. The IP in the game, the good coaching etc is all in Australia. Rugby isn't like that.
But in saying that I don't have an issue with it but it would need some strict rules of player availability, stand downs etc. Because what if our top players go to Oz franchises and they work them into the ground Rodney style and they cease to be effective. Internationals are not an afterthought like in league, they are the goose that lays the golden egg so need to be protected.
The Broncos tore the Tigers a new one last night and that will happen to the lower ranked teams as the comp continues so it's not like the NRL is as perfect as the fans and media have been hyping it early this year.
-
@taniwharugby said in Super Rugby 2023:
NZR had the opportunity to re write things over a decade ago, however they did so with manipulated criteria designed to get a result.
I know anytime this conversation comes up, my team is always at the heart of conversation and always on the block in these hypothetical conversations, and I completely understand it.
If NZR was to grow a pair, I know I'd be pissed at my team being chopped, but I know that ultimately it would be for the greater good of NZ rugby's consolidation for survival, that said, I do wonder if we are too far past now and chopping teams now will actually push rugby off the edge.
If the Magpies were chopped I'd probably remain interested just because of the rugby but I'm not going to lie and pretend I'd be as interested as I am now.
At any rate I'm not sure we're at melting everything down yet. It's year two of a brand new comp in a time where sport just doesn't have the allure it did in the past. As I said earlier, or in another thread, I'd want TV money to subsidise tickets so we can get bigger crowds, which should lead to more interest across the board.
-
@Nepia On the issue of NRL, Kiwis make up a pretty descent amount of the talent in the competition, some figures go as high as 30%. At present changes are gradually being made which may indeed see Tier One eligible players being eligible to play Origin. At present Tier 2 nations can have players playing Origin and for their chosen country. This is most notable with Samoa and Tonga, who for the most part are also Kiwi eligible. A different issue to union I know. With the issue of Rugby in Australia, the Aussie and Drua are relying on our surplus talent to a large extent, probably in a similar way that the NRL is.
-
@Nepia said in Super Rugby 2023:
@taniwharugby said in Super Rugby 2023:
NZR had the opportunity to re write things over a decade ago, however they did so with manipulated criteria designed to get a result.
I know anytime this conversation comes up, my team is always at the heart of conversation and always on the block in these hypothetical conversations, and I completely understand it.
If NZR was to grow a pair, I know I'd be pissed at my team being chopped, but I know that ultimately it would be for the greater good of NZ rugby's consolidation for survival, that said, I do wonder if we are too far past now and chopping teams now will actually push rugby off the edge.
If the Magpies were chopped I'd probably remain interested just because of the rugby but I'm not going to lie and pretend I'd be as interested as I am now.
At any rate I'm not sure we're at melting everything down yet. It's year two of a brand new comp in a time where sport just doesn't have the allure it did in the past. As I said earlier, or in another thread, I'd want TV money to subsidise tickets so we can get bigger crowds, which should lead to more interest across the board.
TV money does subsidise tickets, to stay afloat without TV money clubs and franchises would have to charge much more
-
@kiwi_expat would you actually see enough players coming across for it to make a difference? Id be surprised. You'd still be more likely to get selected for the ABs from the Saders than the Tahs.
Plus arent the Aussie franchises operating with roughly half the money the NZ ones are? And how does it work with NZ/RA top up contracts? Would take a lot of adjustment to make it worthwhile.
The comp is just a failed idea. The games within each country are actually generally quite close and interesting (e.g. last night with Blues/Chiefs and Brumbies/Tahs both crackers). These are the games people are interested in, too, and get the best TV numbers and crowds. Its the crossover that doesn't work.
Shouldve just left it domestic with a champions style cup (maybe with Japan).
-
I don't trust the Aussies not to use Kiwis being eligible to play for the ABs while playing for an Aussie team as a back door way of poaching some talent.
-
@Crazy-Horse said in Super Rugby 2023:
I don't trust the Aussies not to use Kiwis being eligible to play for the ABs while playing for an Aussie team as a back door way of poaching some talent.
Definitely more motivation for them than us
-
@Crazy-Horse said in Super Rugby 2023:
I don't trust the Aussies not to use Kiwis being eligible to play for the ABs while playing for an Aussie team as a back door way of poaching some talent.
The better way to do it is stipulate that they have to have been captured by NZ to be eligible for selection from an Oz team.
-
@gt12 said in Super Rugby 2023:
@Crazy-Horse said in Super Rugby 2023:
I don't trust the Aussies not to use Kiwis being eligible to play for the ABs while playing for an Aussie team as a back door way of poaching some talent.
The better way to do it is stipulate that they have to have been captured by NZ to be eligible for selection from an Oz team.
Nah, they have to live there, just playing for a team for third of the year is not enough. No need
-
@Derpus said in Super Rugby 2023:
Shouldve just left it domestic with a champions style cup (maybe with Japan).
The problem there is not enough games.
The current format has 14 regular season games.
You cannot get that with domestic + champions style cup.
-
@KiwiMurph Not with just the 5 existing teams but I would have liked at the very least and Western Sydney team added, Country/City in Queensland, etc etc
-
@taniwharugby said in Super Rugby 2023:
@gt12 ha yeah I didn't reply to the posts further up that were talking about npc teams as opposed to super.
Apologies mate, I was still on super.
-
@Crazy-Horse said in Super Rugby 2023:
I don't trust the Aussies not to use Kiwis being eligible to play for the ABs while playing for an Aussie team as a back door way of poaching some talent.
I against it as Aus (or NZ) teams would have no reason not to run test players from other country into ground to start with.
-
@Derpus said in Super Rugby 2023:
@KiwiMurph Not with just the 5 existing teams but I would have liked at the very least and Western Sydney team added, Country/City in Queensland, etc etc
I don't think that's realistic in the short term.
-
@KiwiMurph said in Super Rugby 2023:
@Derpus said in Super Rugby 2023:
Shouldve just left it domestic with a champions style cup (maybe with Japan).
The problem there is not enough games.
The current format has 14 regular season games.
You cannot get that with domestic + champions style cup.
yeah, thats why it would need to be the NPC teams, full round robin and then the second season the top teams also play champions league, maybe have a domestic cup comp for those that aren't. Either that or the extra attrition might mean those playing champions league to not do as well in the league and so new teams get to make the top 4
@Nepia said in Super Rugby 2023:
... in a time where sport just doesn't have the allure it did in the past.
I think the issue is other sports are still very popular, i thin the AFL had record crowds in the first couple of rounds, so i feel we're watching rugby slowly die, not sport in general
The more i think about it them more i think rugby needs to decide,
a ) do whatever we need to have the "best" international game, which is what we're doing now, possibly ignore things like AB players playing in aus etc, ignore introducing more possibly weaker teams in new areas
b ) do what is needed for "the game in general" to be more sustainable and popular
I feel focusing on A means we might see the game die other than international, looking at B might mean lowering the overall quality and might mean some fans need to accept the sacrifice but well have local rugby to watch
-
@Kiwiwomble Option b might mean that we will never win the RWC again.
-
@Kiwiwomble said in Super Rugby 2023:
I think the issue is other sports are still very popular, i thin the AFL had record crowds in the first couple of rounds, so i feel we're watching rugby slowly die, not sport in general
That comment was in reference to NZ, not Oz. There's no other sport that people are watching in large numbers instead of rugby. Most Sky Sport subscriptions are still primarily for rugby first and then other sports. Of the other sports league is dead at domestic level in NZ outside a small hardcore in Auckland, so it's really only soccer/basketball as alternative participation sports but I doubt they're driving subscriptions for Sky.
Also, I don't a and b need be mutually exclusive.
-
@Stargazer yeah, that would be the sacrifice but i feel A ends up at the same point eventually, we cant focus on the show piece and let the foundations flounder...at least with B there is still the chance, a strong club comp has a chance of developing the players needed
i feel we're already seeing it, we're focusing on the AB's....but when we flounder a bit in a position (see 6, see 10,12,13)...so you look at the other options and realise the next level down just doesn't have the breadth of options
I honestly don't feel we can have both
@Nepia said in Super Rugby 2023:
@Kiwiwomble said in Super Rugby 2023:
I think the issue is other sports are still very popular, i thin the AFL had record crowds in the first couple of rounds, so i feel we're watching rugby slowly die, not sport in general
That comment was in reference to NZ, not Oz. There's no other sport that people are watching in large numbers instead of rugby. Most Sky Sport subscriptions are still primarily for rugby first and then other sports. Of the other sports league is dead at domestic level in NZ outside a small hardcore in Auckland, so it's really only soccer/basketball as alternative participation sports but I doubt they're driving subscriptions for Sky.
Also, I don't a and b need be mutually exclusive.
is that not damning on rugby, the rest of the world getting back to watching their sports and NZ is kind of blah
i dont think they are mutually exclusive, i think B at least has the possibility of providing the players for an good international team
