Club, Province, National team, else (Lions, etc.)

[die_mole]

Out of interest why? They're essentially clubs at the professional level.

1. They seem to be this beauracratic tradition thing, just make them clubs so they don't feel like all star teams like they do now. Especially with super rugby since they have like 4 teams in the lesser comp that feed the region team who are in turn fed by clubs.

2. They have interests outside of producing the best rugby.

3. They are less likely than clubs to provide opportunities to tier 2 players and in general have less diverse teams.

 

[Groundhog]

1. They seem to be this beauracratic tradition thing, just make them clubs so they don't feel like all star teams like they do now. Especially with super rugby since they have like 4 teams in the lesser comp that feed the region team who are in turn fed by clubs.

2. They have interests outside of producing the best rugby.

3. They are less likely than clubs to provide opportunities to tier 2 players and in general have less diverse teams.

1 what?
2 seriously what?
3 what on earth?

 

[die_mole]

1 what?
2 seriously what?
3 what on earth?

1. i guess clubs are just a lot easier to understand... i tried explaining super rugby to my friends who i'm trying to get into to rugby and it was impossible... nothing to do with conferences just how the teams are made up

2 & 3 are kind of the same thing: the representative teams are supposed to push homegrown players instead of just winning... they also play in leagues in which promotion and relegation don't exist so the incentive to win isn't as strong. also the irfu constantly interferes in the management of the teams

 

[Leonormous Boozer]

Would you group Leinster, Munster, Ulster and Connacht with that mole? Think there are crossed wires!

 

[die_mole]

Would you group Leinster, Munster, Ulster and Connacht with that mole? Think there are crossed wires!

Somewhat, they aren't near as confusing since there isn't a competition between them and the club level. They also have a location name so it sounds more like a club to them.

 

[big ginger 8]

1. i guess clubs are just a lot easier to understand... i tried explaining super rugby to my friends who i'm trying to get into to rugby and it was impossible... nothing to do with conferences just how the teams are made up

2 & 3 are kind of the same thing: the representative teams are supposed to push homegrown players instead of just winning... they also play in leagues in which promotion and relegation don't exist so the incentive to win isn't as strong. also the irfu constantly interferes in the management of the teams

I'd have thought it wouldn't be too difficult an explanation to American's after-all baseball and hockey teams have farm teams.

They still have plenty of incentive to win as that is where a lot of the revenue comes from. Playing in Europe is also a bigger deal than the Pro12 so qualifying for it and winning in the ECC are definitely wanted.

The IRFU own the teams their interference which isn't really a negative thing, they're tinkering is very limited, is essentially the same thing as Craig or Boudjellal interfering except they are somewhat more in touch with the game (although there are still a certain amount of 'suits).

 

[die_mole]

I'd have thought it wouldn't be too difficult an explanation to American's after-all baseball and hockey teams have farm teams.

They still have plenty of incentive to win as that is where a lot of the revenue comes from. Playing in Europe is also a bigger deal than the Pro12 so qualifying for it and winning in the ECC are definitely wanted.

The IRFU own the teams their interference which isn't really a negative thing, they're tinkering is very limited, is essentially the same thing as Craig or Boudjellal interfering except they are somewhat more in touch with the game (although there are still a certain amount of 'suits).

I think the fact that it is like a farm system but different makes it really hard to get. If M10, currie cup, and nrc were just minor leagues that ran concurrently it would be easier to understand. Instead some of the super rugby guys play international and others play in the domestic league.

That's kind of my point, the provinces only really care about having players ready for international and European play. You can pretty much predict which teams are going to qualify for Europe each year (conncacht was the wrench in the bucket last year).

Boudjellal and the irfu have very different incentives. He wants to win and make money. The irfu wants Ireland to win and make money.

 

[Brigantine]

their aura has been diminished by the hype and overt commercialisation.

That's how I feel about the All Blacks. The media circus and so many players having their own public image or advertising.

Considering the teams representing where I live, my pecking order would be:
1 - Province (Auckland)
2 - Nation (All Blacks) - held back by the circus mentioned above
3 - Franchise (Blues) - would be higher if they weren't so uncompetitive in our conference.
4 - Ahh maybe Former High School (MAGS 1st XV)
5 - Club (??? I don't even know who that would be)

But in terms of other teams I like to follow:
1 - Nation (Germany, Japan, Scotland, Switzerland, whoever is playing against England)
2 - What category does EPCR even fit into? (I follow teams from Germany, Ireland, Scotland) I see it as the NH version of Super franchises, and the teams from Scotland, Wales, 2 of the Italian teams are regional franchises, Ireland's teams are provincial, most are just pro clubs (which don't interest me except maybe the Romanian/Russian ones), and then some EPCRQ teams are practically national A sides (I include the enhanced HRK team here)
2.1 - Franchise (Sunwolves)
3 - Amateur / Semi-Pro Club (Rugby Bundesliga results)
4 - Provincial (Pro12, and Ranfurley shield matches between Mitre 10 teams and Heartland teams)
5 - Novelty teams - GB&I Lions, Maori All Blacks, Barbarians, NZ Ambassadors XV
6 - Pro Club leagues incl. ones based on imported stars. (Primarily the ill-fated American one, but also the Japanese top league along with AP and Top14)

 

[TRF_heineken]

1. They seem to be this beauracratic tradition thing, just make them clubs so they don't feel like all star teams like they do now. Especially with super rugby since they have like 4 teams in the lesser comp that feed the region team who are in turn fed by clubs.

2. They have interests outside of producing the best rugby.

3. They are less likely than clubs to provide opportunities to tier 2 players and in general have less diverse teams.

That is completely false! Maybe you don't grab the concept as it is a foreign concept to the USA.

If we take Super Rugby and specifically the South African teams, then the franchise won't exist without the provincial team/union. Our Currie Cup teams are based on their geographical location and the unions cover certain territories. But one of the prime reasons why it is beneficial, is that all the franchises in Super Rugby has a feeding ground to work from where players of equal merit gets selected for a team. It levels the playing field.

Remember that SARU (South African Rugby Union) are the major shareholder for all unions, and wants rugby in it's totality for the nation to be of a high standard.

If you want to talk about beaurocracy, then you have to point the finger to SARU, not the unions. SARU and our government makes the political decisions, not the unions.

The unions and franchises have always done what was best for themselves. As an example, lets use the 2010 Super Rugby season. SA were hosting the FIFA world cup, and The Bulls home ground, Loftus Versfeld was one of the stadium to host matches. When it was time for the playoffs, the Bulls who were top of the overall log, couldn't play at their home ground, due to the agreement the BBRU signed with FIFA, so they had to get another stadium. Now in Pretoria they could have picked from 6 different stadiums, but they decided to pick Orlando Stadium which was in Soweto and closer to the Lions than to the Bulls, but it turned out to be a masterstroke as not only was the Semi-final and the final at the stadium sold out events, the Bulls managed to get a lot more traditionally black supporters with this move. Their number of fans has since 2010 escalated from about 3 million fans to above 5 million, and since then hasn't really declined.

 

[dullonien]

National. Wales are easily my no 1 priority.

Lions. Something special. The bickering and rivalry with team selection beforehand is offset wonderfully by everyone coming together when the tour begins. Would help massively if they could overcome NZ this summer to prove they still have a place in modern professional rugby.

Regions. All four of the regions. Comes so low because as a Mid Walian I don't identify with any one region or historic top tier club.

Local club. Aberystwyth.

 

[Mrs. Peter Quinn]

Regions/provinces CAN be meaningless for sport unless backed up by some administrative boundary or unless they coincide with some other e.g religious differences. For example the Irish provinces clearly have some relevance. Otherwise many people just feel like they fall into the gap between them. The Welsh regions don't seem to mean anything to anybody.

 

[die_mole]

That is completely false! Maybe you don't grab the concept as it is a foreign concept to the USA.

If we take Super Rugby and specifically the South African teams, then the franchise won't exist without the provincial team/union. Our Currie Cup teams are based on their geographical location and the unions cover certain territories. But one of the prime reasons why it is beneficial, is that all the franchises in Super Rugby has a feeding ground to work from where players of equal merit gets selected for a team. It levels the playing field.

Remember that SARU (South African Rugby Union) are the major shareholder for all unions, and wants rugby in it's totality for the nation to be of a high standard.

If you want to talk about beaurocracy, then you have to point the finger to SARU, not the unions. SARU and our government makes the political decisions, not the unions.

The unions and franchises have always done what was best for themselves. As an example, lets use the 2010 Super Rugby season. SA were hosting the FIFA world cup, and The Bulls home ground, Loftus Versfeld was one of the stadium to host matches. When it was time for the playoffs, the Bulls who were top of the overall log, couldn't play at their home ground, due to the agreement the BBRU signed with FIFA, so they had to get another stadium. Now in Pretoria they could have picked from 6 different stadiums, but they decided to pick Orlando Stadium which was in Soweto and closer to the Lions than to the Bulls, but it turned out to be a masterstroke as not only was the Semi-final and the final at the stadium sold out events, the Bulls managed to get a lot more traditionally black supporters with this move. Their number of fans has since 2010 escalated from about 3 million fans to above 5 million, and since then hasn't really declined.

It's the SARU control of the team that I don't like. If the province/region got to act independently then I wouldn't view them differently than clubs.

It reminds me a lot of our major league soccer, where one interest group has a stake in multiple teams. Although soccer is becoming more popular in the states it gets less viewership than the premier league.

And I mentioned this to BG8. The feeder teams make sense it's just that the season isn't st the same time and some of the SR players also play there that's really confusing.

 

[Brigantine]

Regions/provinces CAN be meaningless for sport unless backed up by some administrative boundary or unless they coincide with some other e.g religious differences. For example the Irish provinces clearly have some relevance. Otherwise many people just feel like they fall into the gap between them. The Welsh regions don't seem to mean anything to anybody.

+1. With the exception of the NZ rugby provinces, given all the history and rugby's prominence relative to other places. (although they are strong *rugby* administrative boundaries - AFAIK there's nothing like the AIL or Fed 1 etc. where clubs in different provinces face off against each other).

The Super franchises in NZ and SA only get their meaning from their affiliations with provincial teams. If the provincial teams were meaningless, the franchise would be too.

 

[smartcooky]

+1. With the exception of the NZ rugby provinces, given all the history and rugby's prominence relative to other places. (although they are strong *rugby* administrative boundaries - AFAIK there's nothing like the AIL or Fed 1 etc. where clubs in different provinces face off against each other).

The Super franchises in NZ and SA only get their meaning from their affiliations with provincial teams. If the provincial teams were meaningless, the franchise would be too.

I think some people here simply do not understand why rugby in New Zealand became provincialised rather than based on city clubs the way it is in Europe. Its was not a decision that was consciously made by NZ rugby authorities of the time. The way rugby competition evolved in NZ was born out of geographical constraints.

When Rugby first began being played in NZ in the 1870s, unlike Britain where there were many city based clubs who could travel to play each other by use of the extensive railway and road system, no such thing was possible in this country. Most of New Zealand’s early colonial settlements were built on the coast. European settlers relied on sea and river transport to link their isolated communities. Overland travel was often extremely difficult, especially in heavily forested, swampy or mountainous areas. As a result, rugby clubs sprang up regionally, within these coastal cites, and within easy traveling distances of each other. No club from one city would have realistically been able play a club from another city. Auckland to Wellington was a week by road or sea, so Auckland v Wellington was out of the question.

As a local example, today, a club in Nelson can travel to Blenheim for a match by road. Its about 1½ hours by car, 2 hours by bus over the Whangamoa Saddle and the Rai Saddle. In 1875 there was no road or rail link between Nelson and Blenheim. It was a 2½ day journey by sailing ship to Picton followed by an all day ride in a horse-drawn coach to Blenheim... that is a week's return journey.

Also, in the history of NZ rugby, there were at one a time a lot more provinces than the 26 we have now. Tasman, for example, used to be two Provinces; Nelson Bays and Marlborough. Before the 1960's Nelson Bays itself was actually three rugby provinces... Nelson RFU, Motueka RFU and Golden Bay RFU. While modern day Nelson and Motueka are only 30 km (25 minutes) apart via "The Coastal Highway" in the late 1800's it was a half day journey by horse or horse-drawn coach over the tortuous "Coach Road" (now known as "Old Coach Road"). Travel to Golden Bay was a further day and a half, either by boat (from Nelson or Motueka to Port Tarakohe near Takaka) or a coach ride to the top of the Takaka Hills, then a two hour walk via what can only be described as little more that a goat track, to connect with another coach that would take you down the other side. In mid winter, the Takaka Hill roads were impassable.

 

[GMAC]

Country, Lions, Club

 

[TRF_heineken]

It's the SARU control of the team that I don't like. If the province/region got to act independently then I wouldn't view them differently than clubs.

It reminds me a lot of our major league soccer, where one interest group has a stake in multiple teams. Although soccer is becoming more popular in the states it gets less viewership than the premier league.

And I mentioned this to BG8. The feeder teams make sense it's just that the season isn't st the same time and some of the SR players also play there that's really confusing.

SARU is the Governing Body of SA Rugby, no province/union/region would be able to act independently without them as they make the rules and regulations and also provide funds to the Unions to keep them afloat. Also SARU are the ones that organise matches and tournaments. Without SARU, our domestic rugby would struggle.

But I don't understand what you mean by the season isn't the same? We have Super Rugby from February to July, and while that is running, we have the Varsity Cup for players under 23 playing for their universities. There is also a new tournament starting this year for the amateur clubs. When Super Rugby is over, we have the Rugby Championship, and at the end of that, the Currie Cup starts. But here's the thing, the Springboks playing in the RC won't be playing Currie Cup. For player welfare, they are prevented from playing Currie Cup unless they are released from the bok-squad.

I think our season is pretty easy to manage.

 

[die_mole]

SARU is the Governing Body of SA Rugby, no province/union/region would be able to act independently without them as they make the rules and regulations and also provide funds to the Unions to keep them afloat. Also SARU are the ones that organise matches and tournaments. Without SARU, our domestic rugby would struggle.

But I don't understand what you mean by the season isn't the same? We have Super Rugby from February to July, and while that is running, we have the Varsity Cup for players under 23 playing for their universities. There is also a new tournament starting this year for the amateur clubs. When Super Rugby is over, we have the Rugby Championship, and at the end of that, the Currie Cup starts. But here's the thing, the Springboks playing in the RC won't be playing Currie Cup. For player welfare, they are prevented from playing Currie Cup unless they are released from the bok-squad.

I think our season is pretty easy to manage.

i guess the big thing is that our regulatory boards have almost no say over how sports are played domestically. High school is controlled by a national organization with power delegated to individual state organizations. College by NCAA and pro sports by the respective league. This is why we have 3 different sets of rules for football, baseball, basketball, and ice hockey etc,. Rugby is a little different since NFHS (high school organization) and NCAA do not regulate (although NCAA is starting to regulate women's rugby but they don't have different rules or officials, which has caused some problems). The league set up rules for the leagues but they only take ownership stakes when the team is in dire financial situations. Last time this happened there were some questionable personnel decisions.

The confusion comes from the Currie Cup being played afterward. I understand it but it's hard to explain to rugby newcomers. Like the guys who aren't good enough for national team but still played SR go play in the domestic competition but what team they play for in Super Rugby is determined by what team they play for in the domestic comp. So how does a player switch teams within super rugby if they never actually play in the domestic comp? Like Sonny Bill switching from Chiefs to Blues without ever playing in the M10 the past few years?

It's all about the sports environment you grew up in i guess. It seems to be way too bureaucratic with SARU, NZRU, ARU, and UAR involved in a competition set up by SANZAAR. I'm sure there are logistical, historical, and culturual reasons but it seems that they are way too many regulatory bodies involved.

Like I said before, whatever floats your boat.

 

[Caitlyn Jenner]

For me.....
All Blacks > Hurricanes > Manawatu Turbos

Not a whole lot of difference between club and country though

 

[FrankHeaven]

To me, there is no way that watching England play can compete with the connection I have with a club I've followed since youth, represented in the past, turn up to watch in all winds and weathers every other week and have a say in the running of. I imagine that only a Cornishman would put county rugby ahead of the Lions, the passion for county rugby down here is massive, many would put Cornwall way ahead of England in the pecking order.

I'd say the same, having been introduced to the game in Cornwall and at my Dad's club Bristol. There is an attachment to a club in Cornwall and other parts of the West Country handed down through generations, which is similar to football's tribalism. But it's not found much in rugby, apart from in South Wales (hence the problems with regional teams) and France, which is why the club game there is so strong and sometimes perceived as detrimental to the national team's interests.

For me, both club and country should have equal priority. If the club game is strong, it will ultimately help the national union by promoting the game and developing players.

 

[Maverick1987]

So mine would be England, Leicester Tigers, Local club Luctonians, Every other English club in Europe then that's it really . Lions has gone way down over the last 3 or 4 tours because I've gotten fed up with the nationalistic bull crap that goes with it (imo needs a huge overhaul in the way it works . For me getting rid of it would be better . I can understand the fun side of it but this is professional sport now not the 1970s)