NZR review
-
@taniwharugby said in NZR review:
@mariner4life I think nzr have allowed things to fester too long to have a genuine shot at saving things too.
i fear you are correct, i think whatever we end up wit is going to have huge faults that might have been avoided if we had more slowly evolved the whole structure over time taking the fans along for the ride
-
How would these big teams in NPC go without their super rugby players. If Super was longer and NPC had the use of only a few of the Super players needing gametime.
There must be Heartland teams that wonder how they would go against the bottom Bunnings NPC team.
-
@mikedogz said in NZR review:
How would these big teams in NPC go without their super rugby players. If Super was longer and NPC had the use of only a few of the Super players needing gametime.
There must be Heartland teams that wonder how they would go against the bottom Bunnings NPC team.
SR needs to be longer, a proper season, taking over the NPC season. a full home and away with the teams, plus finals. The level below would have to play at the same time, non pro, and be based on clubs and maybe regional after? England has a county championship which is amateur as far as I know. SR players wouldn't play for anything but SR and international teams. I guess that is the way we are going
-
@Machpants agreed, it is not beyond repair, but the repair is going to significantly change the landscape.
-
@taniwharugby said in NZR review:
@mariner4life I think nzr have allowed things to Foster too long to have a genuine shot at saving things too.
FIFY
-
The only way it's going to work is if the NPC becomes non-professional and solely focused on the grass roots development of the game.
What this will do to our player base (and the law of unintended consequences) however is that literally hundreds of players (anyone not in a super rugby squad) would choose to leave NZ and play anywhere else in the world where they'd get paid.
-
@Machpants said in NZR review:
@mikedogz said in NZR review:
How would these big teams in NPC go without their super rugby players. If Super was longer and NPC had the use of only a few of the Super players needing gametime.
There must be Heartland teams that wonder how they would go against the bottom Bunnings NPC team.
SR needs to be longer, a proper season, taking over the NPC season. a full home and away with the teams, plus finals. The level below would have to play at the same time, non pro, and be based on clubs and maybe regional after? England has a county championship which is amateur as far as I know. SR players wouldn't play for anything but SR and international teams. I guess that is the way we are going
NPC can't survive as it is, with Super players. I really think they need to rebuild NPC as a feeder comp for Super; very very semi-pro at best, with enough match payments to keep the wolf from the door. Something like 15-20k/season/player gives you something like 500-600k player budget.
Then you take out the issue of fulltime professionals (Super) trying to compete directly with semi-amateur players. It's just that unions really want to run high performance programmes I think.
By the way, this doesn't solve the Club to NPC to Super quandry; you have to play a long enough Super season to make it worthwhile, and then you have the issue of matching up Club and NPC. Personally, I'd run Super - AB - Super - AB, and in parallel Club then NPC.
Then you have to figure out if you pull the Super centres out of NPC - which has headaches of its own. Maybe you don't; you play NPC during the day at smaller grounds, and Super at primetime night slots; Friday evening, Saturday afternoon/evening and Sunday late afternoon if neeeded. Leaves Club/NPC space for afternoon kickoffs Sat/Sun - but limited TV, multiple games simultaneously, and intentionally fan/family friendly venues and prices.
-
I doubt an amateur national competition would exist. TV interest would be low and the gate (if any, could you charge for this?) would be minimal. Travel costs are high in a national comp.
Maybe an amateur comp with regional pools? More likely ad hoc regional contests and friendlies. Similar to pre 1976 but with much less interest. -
@Duluth said in NZR review:
I think you can give up on promotion relegation. The report made it clear the number of pro teams is way too high. You are trying to suggest ways of keeping a similar number of teams.
Agree. But the report is not the word of God. Although NZR will likely treat it as such. And don't these reports usually just say what the paying organization wants. For example, if NZR wants to follow an unpopular or difficult path. Then get in the so-called experts and pay them good money to have a report to back their 'future' recommendations up.
-
@Duluth i think youre probably right, management/admin would become largely volunteer and teams might put together rep teams to recognise the best club players that might just be on paper (all australian aussie rules teams) or at most do a little tour, maybe ranfurly shield challenges, would look for sponsors for specific things like that
-
I dont' think the NPC will go, nor do I think it should. It should probably get a new format (or return to an old format) with more divisions and/or fewer teams. NPC in my view is a necessary pathway in-between club/school rugby and Super Rugby. The step from club/school rugby to SR is too big.
Also, and maybe people from the SR main centres just don't understand this, but in the smaller provinces you won't get the same sort of tribalism for SR that you see in NPC. That tribalism in the main centres may have (in part) shifted from NPC to SR because of having the SR franchise there. The connection with a SR franchise is to a great degree missing outside the SR main centres. Remove NPC, and the interest in watching rugby will diminish in provinces without a team in the main competition because it's not "for us" and "from us".
I disagree with the idea of adding more NZ teams to an enlarged SR (replacing NPC). It will dilute the player pool in NZ and the quality of rugby would go down. Rugby in NZ could end up in a same downward spiral as Australia that has too many teams. SR should be an elite competition with better quality rugby. You don't get bums on seats with rugby at the level of the Rebels, Waratahs or Reds if that's your highest level of competition. Nor would it be a good preparation for the All Blacks.
Whatever they do, some things are crucial:
- unions/clubs should be forced to stay within their budget;
- a system should be set-up that ensures that there is a pathway to pro-rugby in provinces that miss out on having a team in the major competition(s). Otherwise, a lot of talent may remain undiscovered, or stops playing. This is not just scouting. It's also player development in some form (e.g. regular rugby clinics). Super Rugby franchises should probably have more than one academy and follow the example of the Crusaders, e.g. the Hurricanes should have an Academy in Welington and Napier; the Chiefs in Hamilton and Tauranga etc etc
- whatever a new NPC competition will look like, unions/clubs with already big player pools shouldn't be allowed to drain away the best players from other provinces. I disagree with the comment that the NPC isn't a provincial competition anymore, because there's some player movement between provinces. More than the core of most teams is still from the province. Smaller provinces sometimes need players from bigger provinces because their pool of players is smaller & local players at an adequate level may not be available. Some player movement from big to small provinces takes away some of the imbalance that exists. Player movement from small to big provinces is - in principle - undesirable.
- irrespective of competition format: NZR needs to up its game and promote the competition(s) properly, increase fan engagement etc.
- also irrespective of competition format: all games should be either televised or livestreamed. If broadcasting a game is taking away bums on seats, do a regional black-out of the game, but still broadcast a game outside the region where it's played. Otherwise, people could never see their own team play away games.
Edited to add an extra point:
- whatever changes will be made, every decision should take into consideration the effect it will have on retaining players in NZ. There have been a lot of complaints this season about the replacement of injured players and that the depth isn't as good anymore as it was, because so many of the fringe players were playing in the MLR. They have to make sure this doesn't get worse.
-
@Stargazer said in NZR review:
- irrespective of competition format: NZR needs to up its game and promote the competition(s) properly, increase fan engagement etc.
i haven't had a chance to look through the report, do you know if there is any mention of this kind of thing, i agree i dont think a "fixed" format is enough, we need to sell it to the fans both old and new...and keep selling it, especially if its going to be closed so the same product every year
-
@Kiwiwomble I've started reading the report, but have far from finished it.
-
@SouthernMann I get your point Southern, I ask why RA is trying to come up with a 3rd tier comp I agree almost all players are earmarked at college age, but by christ the day we go down the school, academy, super route I believe we will suffer big time. I understand some players perhaps don't need playing and learning with anadd against experienced players, but I think the majority it help, and is one of our strengths!
-
Quick note (as I haven't finished reading the report I don't want to get too much into it until I've finished) but isn't the competition makeup discussion jumping the gun? This is a report on governance, and mostly on the make up of the Board, the report writers have made clear "their" thoughts on the competition makeup, but it's worthwhile considering that one key stakeholder does not rate a proper mention in this report - Sky. They state they spoke with broadcasters but I can't see where that filters down into the actual report itself. Any decision on competition makeup, regardless of the outcome of this report will made in conjunction with Sky (or some other magical broadcaster NZR think they can find).
-
@Nepia said in NZR review:
Quick note (as I haven't finished reading the report I don't want to get too much into it until I've finished) but isn't the competition makeup discussion jumping the gun? This is a report on governance, and mostly on the make up of the Board, the report writers have made clear "their" thoughts on the competition makeup, but it's worthwhile considering that one key stakeholder does not rate a proper mention in this report - Sky. They state they spoke with broadcasters but I can't see where that filters down into the actual report itself. Any decision on competition makeup, regardless of the outcome of this report will made in conjunction with Sky (or some other magical broadcaster NZR think they can find).
the nerve of this bloke, getting his facts straight before wading in like he's better than us
