Super Rugby - The Future
-
@Kiwiwomble said in Super Rugby - The Future:
@Chris said in Super Rugby - The Future:
Young players are looking further up the chain for career opportunities.
@Chris said in Super Rugby - The Future:
Putting more Kiwis in to the Australian teams is just a band aid that would eventually kill the pathways underneath.
and maybe thats another issues...its not the same problems throughout Aus, In Vic it seems the opposite, the young guys around the club are looking at their future and seeing losing as a reason not to try, no one seems to care if its a kiwi or a pom in the rebels...they just want to see their team win, they also dont seem to see a 25 year old pro as a threat to a development or youth team contract/opportunity
Victoria not really being a Rugby state the mind set maybe different in Rugby circles.
But QLD is along with NSW the major Rugby states in Australia more depth when it is not pinched and have some development systems.
I would guess Rugby for an aspiring Victorian athlete would be a very last resort way behind AFL and Cricket and other sports as a choice so Victoria are having to import players due to its systems underneath the Rebels. I don't see that getting much better in time.Probably means the Rebels are doomed. -
@Nepia said in Super Rugby - The Future:
I'm an NPC-stan yet lots on here are Super-stans
i would very much like to revert to Provincial sides. The problem is the Super teams are 30 years old and are going nowhere.
Make the comp bigger, play it all year. 8 NZ sides, 5 Aussie ones, and two pacific ones. Play 20+ rounds and finals. -
@mariner4life I think I'd prefer two more NZ sides so both your Bay and my Bay make it so we can continue the battle of the bays. And I'm still not a fan of the 20+ rounds NRL style, but that's by the by.
I'll bottle the first person who suggests my Bay merge with the Poo or who posts an orange Vikings jesery.
-
@mariner4life said in Super Rugby - The Future:
Make the comp bigger, play it all year. 8 NZ sides, 5 Aussie ones, and two pacific ones. Play 20+ rounds and finals.
Or expanding on @gt12 's suggestion
8 NZ sides
6 Aus sides plus 2 PI sides
8 Japanese company sidesA first divsion of 12
A second division of 12First division is always 4 from each region. Automatic promotion/relegation for a side from each region
Cross over games with the other teams from your region for a domestic competition
Each year there is a:
SR champ
SR 2nd Div Champ
A NZ region champ
An Aus region champ
A Japanese region champBottom end of the top division would be really interesting to avoid the drop
Yes there would be yoyo teams but you'd never lose contact with the other teams from your region. A team in the 2nd division could still win the regions competition
-
@Nepia said in Super Rugby - The Future:
@mariner4life I think I'd prefer two more NZ sides so both your Bay and my Bay make it so we can continue the battle of the bays. And I'm still not a fan of the 20+ rounds NRL style, but that's by the by.
I'll bottle the first person who suggests my Bay merge with the Poo or who posts an orange Vikings jesery.
no mergers.
picking 8 would be hard, but they need to be fully professional (paid for by making any provincial comp below it fully amateur)
Obviously the existing 5, probably the two Bays on population alone. One of Harbour and Counties probably the other. -
@Duluth i don't hate that at all
Problem would be convincing Japan they even need us.
-
@Chris said in Super Rugby - The Future:
@Kiwiwomble said in Super Rugby - The Future:
@Chris said in Super Rugby - The Future:
Young players are looking further up the chain for career opportunities.
@Chris said in Super Rugby - The Future:
Putting more Kiwis in to the Australian teams is just a band aid that would eventually kill the pathways underneath.
and maybe thats another issues...its not the same problems throughout Aus, In Vic it seems the opposite, the young guys around the club are looking at their future and seeing losing as a reason not to try, no one seems to care if its a kiwi or a pom in the rebels...they just want to see their team win, they also dont seem to see a 25 year old pro as a threat to a development or youth team contract/opportunity
Victoria not really being a Rugby state the mind set maybe different in Rugby circles.
But QLD is along with NSW the major Rugby states in Australia more depth when it is not pinched and have some development systems.
I would guess Rugby for an aspiring Victorian athlete would be a very last resort way behind AFL and Cricket and other sports as a choice so Victoria are having to import players due to its systems underneath the Rebels. I don't see that getting much better in time.Probably means the Rebels are doomed.isn;t that at least one of the things we're talking about? how to make aussie more competitive? QLD doesnt HAVE to bring in outside tallent if they can current provide through existing pathways....but in vic, if we want to attract more young people to play it...then i think we need to show them what success looks like for the rebels (or a new non bankrupt organisation)
-
@mariner4life said in Super Rugby - The Future:
@Duluth i don't hate that at all
Problem would be convincing Japan they even need us.
I think we provide interesting teams to play
-
@Kiwiwomble said in Super Rugby - The Future:
@Chris said in Super Rugby - The Future:
@Kiwiwomble said in Super Rugby - The Future:
@Chris said in Super Rugby - The Future:
Young players are looking further up the chain for career opportunities.
@Chris said in Super Rugby - The Future:
Putting more Kiwis in to the Australian teams is just a band aid that would eventually kill the pathways underneath.
and maybe thats another issues...its not the same problems throughout Aus, In Vic it seems the opposite, the young guys around the club are looking at their future and seeing losing as a reason not to try, no one seems to care if its a kiwi or a pom in the rebels...they just want to see their team win, they also dont seem to see a 25 year old pro as a threat to a development or youth team contract/opportunity
Victoria not really being a Rugby state the mind set maybe different in Rugby circles.
But QLD is along with NSW the major Rugby states in Australia more depth when it is not pinched and have some development systems.
I would guess Rugby for an aspiring Victorian athlete would be a very last resort way behind AFL and Cricket and other sports as a choice so Victoria are having to import players due to its systems underneath the Rebels. I don't see that getting much better in time.Probably means the Rebels are doomed.isn;t that at least one of the things we're talking about? how to make aussie more competitive? QLD doesnt HAVE to bring in outside tallent if they can current provide through existing pathways....but in vic, if we want to attract more young people to play it...then i think we need to show them what success looks like for the rebels (or a new non bankrupt organisation)
I think rugby is not going to be financial in Melbourne so it is fighting a lost cause.
-
@Chris cool, you are allowed to think that and opinion is noted and i agree if nothing is going to change....but the discussion is literally about what would be needed to improve things
-
@Duluth How do you get 6 Australian sides? they struggle to get 3 competitive sides.
I get that you are diluting the strength of the NZ sides but I think there would be some absolute hidings. The traditional Super bases would go in with so many advantages
Picking an additional 3 for NZ would be very difficult.
Ta$man, Taranaki, the two bays Counties, Harbour would all argue their case.
Northland as well.
-
@dogmeat south island doesn't need another team. Northland are terrible. 15 people live in Taranaki and NP is a shithole. Harbour haven't been relevant since 1996.
there, solved.
-
I probably shouldn't comment anyway. I lost interest a long time ago. Went from watching every game of every round even though I didn't really have a team I followed to - I can't remember the last time I watched a SR game Finals included. I only follow it through KP's tipping comp - as can be easily gleaned from my results.
It just seems a relatively low quality muddled comp. Expanded too far. Way too many lopsided games, predictable and boring.
-
@mariner4life said in Super Rugby - The Future:
@dogmeat south island doesn't need another team. Northland are terrible. 15 people live in Taranaki and NP is a shithole. Harbour haven't been relevant since 1996.
there, solved.
@mariner4life said in Super Rugby - The Future:
@dogmeat south island doesn't need another team. Northland are terrible. 15 people live in Taranaki and NP is a shithole. Harbour haven't been relevant since they were shafted in 1995
there, solved.
Not still bitter at all
-
@Kiwiwomble said in Super Rugby - The Future:
@Chris cool, you are allowed to think that and opinion is noted and i agree if nothing is going to change....but the discussion is literally about what would be needed to improve things
I am a Rugby man and would like nothing more than the Rebels to succeed but I think you are battling too many elements in Vic.
IMO developing your own systems will grow the game at the grassroots level which to survive is needed,
The over all principle of stacking teams with NZ talent doesn't look good for the future of Australian rugby. -
@mariner4life said in Super Rugby - The Future:
@dogmeat south island doesn't need another team. Northland are terrible. 15 people live in Taranaki and NP is a shithole. Harbour haven't been relevant since 1996.
there, solved.
assuming this year is just a blip for the crusaders...there is the argument that diluting the Crusaders dominance was the first thing that needed to be done
-
@Chris said in Super Rugby - The Future:
@Kiwiwomble said in Super Rugby - The Future:
@Chris cool, you are allowed to think that and opinion is noted and i agree if nothing is going to change....but the discussion is literally about what would be needed to improve things
I am a Rugby man and would like nothing more than the Rebels to succeed but I think you are battling too many elements in Vic.
we know...youve said that a couple of times, noted
IMO developing your own systems will grow the game at the grassroots level which to survive is needed,
historically and in an environment lacking competition, agreed, but the kids we deal with down here at least are all about what they see on the socials so if they have to choose between the storm with all their trophies and the rebels getting a hiding more times than not...guess what theyre choosing, even if they have come through rebels youth system
giving them something to get excited about might/would help
The over all principle of stacking teams with NZ talent doesn't look good for the future of Australian rugby.
you do seem wilfully blind to the rest of what some are saying, determined to concentrate on the short term and not the idea of building on some success by attracting interest/investment/sponsors/participation
-
@Kiwiwomble said in Super Rugby - The Future:
@Chris said in Super Rugby - The Future:
@Kiwiwomble said in Super Rugby - The Future:
@Chris cool, you are allowed to think that and opinion is noted and i agree if nothing is going to change....but the discussion is literally about what would be needed to improve things
I am a Rugby man and would like nothing more than the Rebels to succeed but I think you are battling too many elements in Vic.
we know...youve said that a couple of times, noted
IMO developing your own systems will grow the game at the grassroots level which to survive is needed,
historically and in an environment lacking competition, agreed, but the kids we deal with down here at least are all about what they see on the socials so if they have to choose between the storm with all their trophies and the rebels getting a hiding more times than not...guess what theyre choosing, even if they have come through rebels youth system
giving them something to get excited about might/would help
The over all principle of stacking teams with NZ talent doesn't look good for the future of Australian rugby.
you do seem wilfully blind to the rest of what some are saying, determined to concentrate on the short term and not the idea of building on the success by attracting interest/investment/sponsors/participation
I do understand what you are saying, Just I totally agree.
-
@Chris i know you do (assume to mean disagree)...you said that at the start, its very clear
but you havent really convinced me why i should stop suggesting fixes much like i havent convinced you might any of these suggestions might work
so...im just going to carry on
-
@dogmeat said in Super Rugby - The Future:
Picking an additional 3 for NZ would be very difficult.
Ta$man, Taranaki, the two bays Counties, Harbour would all argue their case.
Northland as well.
I don't see how they could be unions. Maybe a union could fund a license purchase?
My preference has actually been for more NZ teams than 8
The 'easiest' way to expand and not piss off the current private license holders would be to turn every license into two. The holder could then attempt to run two teams or make money from the sale of the extra license
Blues split in two at the bridge
Crusaders split into Ta$man & Christchurch
Rest of the North Island can be split in a few different ways
The Highlanders extra license would have to go to the North Island somewhereSo 10 teams, 7 North Island & 3 South Island. Its a good split in terms of population and players original location
10 sides doesn't fit the symmetry of that 3 regions thing I suggested in the last post though
