Further dilution of Super Rugby

[FlukeArtist]

I have to say; I agree with a lot of what is written in this article.

http://www.stuff.co.nz/sport/rugby/opinion/9519174/Napier-Super-mediocrity-shouldn-t-be-rewarded

Over the years the Super Rugby product has been getting progressively worse, and people are caring less about it.

Something needs to be done to stop the dilution of the product.

NZ (as a rugby nation) is getting pretty apathetic towards Super Rugby now.
And I think that is just because the product is no longer what it once was in the early days of professionalism.

Giving SA an extra team because they can't sort out the problems in their own back yard is just weakening a competition which is already diluted.

Let's face facts; SA's record with 4 & 5 teams in the competition has been dire.
2 ***les since '96.
It's not a convincing argument that they have the playing personnel to support another team

 

[Kiwiwomble]

to make things worse, it would be one thing to become apathetic towards super rugby if they were turning they're attention back to the NPC or something but it seems they are starting to think international rugby can prosper without a strong domestic comp behind it, the AB's may still win but interest in general will drop in my opinion

 

[FlukeArtist]

Exactly Jabby.
Rugby in NZ has lost the provincial pride that came from the NPC teams too - that isn't helping.

I actually think Super Rugby is a pretty average product now.

 

[Kiwiwomble]

i've said before i prefer to watch Otago play waikato or canterbury than the highlanders play someone like the kings. probably because i think there is a pretty week connection to the highlanders, don't know if its better for other franchises.

Personally i think it is because i know the clubs the npc players have turned out for, there is a closer connection...don't really like having to Wikipedia a new player the highlanders bring in to make up the numbers

 

[nickdnz]

I think most people can agree that the model needs to be scrapped to find a new way of it working. I really don't care how many sh*t teams South Africa wants to field providing the conference system is destroyed, as having a conference with easier games makes it an unfair playing field. I was a much bigger fan of the Super 12/14 system where every team plays every other team - and the logistics for it aren't any worse than the current set up (infact it results in a fewer less games). The inclusion of an Argentinian team I'd be happy with - they need it to improve and so the team genuinely would have real worth, it introduces a relatively large market to Super Rugby and it really finalizes Argentina in the SANZAR plans. The logistics of flying to Argentina aren't brilliant, but I think its doable considering there are slightly less games anyway. Their inclusion really would be best without a conference system though.

In terms of the NPC, I've long said I'd like the NPC to become our premier competition/teams with an intercompetition between the domestic leagues of the other countries (ideally now Aus are getting a domestic competition). It just would seem to solve several issues including crowd attendances (people don't go to NPC games because they see them as meaningless especially in the big centres), apathy from smaller unions (as shown by Taranaki joining Chiefs territory), increased roster for more depth, with SR wages combining with NPC wages so you can maintain at least 200 fully professional players. Overall I think it would just make a better competition, which would still compete with the Blue Bulls etc, just in a different format.

 

[Draggs]

I think most people can agree that the model needs to be scrapped to find a new way of it working. I really don't care how many sh*t teams South Africa wants to field providing the conference system is destroyed, as having a conference with easier games makes it an unfair playing field. I was a much bigger fan of the Super 12/14 system where every team plays every other team - and the logistics for it aren't any worse than the current set up (infact it results in a fewer less games). The inclusion of an Argentinian team I'd be happy with - they need it to improve and so the team genuinely would have real worth, it introduces a relatively large market to Super Rugby and it really finalizes Argentina in the SANZAR plans. The logistics of flying to Argentina aren't brilliant, but I think its doable considering there are slightly less games anyway. Their inclusion really would be best without a conference system though.

Wholly agree. The conference system is just stupid. We already have the Currie Cup for domestic matches. We played WP/Stormers six times in 2012. That's just too much to keep interest. It also gives team unfair advantages if they have a weak team (Cough... Aussies...) Expansion is fine (no more than 16 please) but no conference.

 

[Larksea]

it is kinda shocking that SA want another team when SA teams have finished dead last 13 out of 18 years.

it does seem that some of the problem is that they cant get the right players and spread the talent properly, they always have 1-2 teams overloaded with the best players and 1-2 teams with 1-2 star players and a bunch of no names (yes a bit of an exaggeration but still true)

NZ has different problems, we actually have more player talent than we can home in our 5 super rugby teams, the success of the All Black 7s and the amount of Kiwis playing rugby in in Aussie Super teams and all over the world is a clear sign of that.

So we do have the player and coaching talent for another team but we don't have the money or the fans to support another team. A new team would only generate a small amount of extra fans and TV income, most of the fan support and money would just take away from other teams.

In NZ I think we just have to accept the fact that we will continue lose players overseas at a huge rate but just focus on keeping the top players in NZ for the prime of their carriers and providing our 7s players with pay and an environment on a level with the best in super rugby. The reality is that is actually happening and all 5 franchises are strong and have a strong player base at least on paper, when a team doesn't do well its generally because of an injury crisis or bad coaching/culture.

 

[FlukeArtist]

it is kinda shocking that SA want another team when SA teams have finished dead last 13 out of 18 years.

it does seem that some of the problem is that they cant get the right players and spread the talent properly, they always have 1-2 teams overloaded with the best players and 1-2 teams with 1-2 star players and a bunch of no names (yes a bit of an exaggeration but still true)

NZ has different problems, we actually have more player talent than we can home in our 5 super rugby teams, the success of the All Black 7s and the amount of Kiwis playing rugby in in Aussie Super teams and all over the world is a clear sign of that.

So we do have the player and coaching talent for another team but we don't have the money or the fans to support another team. A new team would only generate a small amount of extra fans and TV income, most of the fan support and money would just take away from other teams.

In NZ I think we just have to accept the fact that we will continue lose players overseas at a huge rate but just focus on keeping the top players in NZ for the prime of their carriers and providing our 7s players with pay and an environment on a level with the best in super rugby. The reality is that is actually happening and all 5 franchises are strong and have a strong player base at least on paper, when a team doesn't do well its generally because of an injury crisis or bad coaching/culture.

I honestly think we'd be better off having our own domestic competitions through out the year, and the top teams playing in a "champions league" type comp.
Because honestly; As an Auckland fan, I don't really care about playing the Aussie and SA teams as much as I care about playing other NZ teams. I think a lot of kiwis feel this way too.
A lot of us fans miss the provincial pride that went along with the old NPC.
It is missing from Super Rugby.

I kind of wish that when the SARFU do their usual "give into our demands or we will join the UK" that the NZRFU and the ARFU just let them walk.
But it would be the worst possible thing SA could do for their own rugby development IMO.

 

[Chikwa]

I honestly think we'd be better off having our own domestic competitions through out the year, and the top teams playing in a "champions league" type comp.
Because honestly; As an Auckland fan, I don't really care about playing the Aussie and SA teams as much as I care about playing other NZ teams. I think a lot of kiwis feel this way too.
A lot of us fans miss the provincial pride that went along with the old NPC.
It is missing from Super Rugby.

I kind of wish that when the SARFU do their usual "give into our demands or we will join the UK" that the NZRFU and the ARFU just let them walk.
But it would be the worst possible thing SA could do for their own rugby development IMO.

True time to call their bluff.They ll come running back with their tails between their legs.

 

[Draggs]

True time to call their bluff.They ll come running back with their tails between their legs.

SA calls the tune right now. It would be in nobody's best interest for SA to leave though. Half the reason SA team faulter is super **** management. The kings were given little time to develop a side, while the Lions are the proverbial yoyo. They were also led by that fool Mitchell and Amir before him. I hope Kings bring Gold in, could whip them into shape. We need to get the CC set before trying to expand the S15 again.

 

[FlukeArtist]

SA calls the tune right now. It would be in nobody's best interest for SA to leave though. Half the reason SA team faulter is super **** management. The kings were given little time to develop a side, while the Lions are the proverbial yoyo. They were also led by that fool Mitchell and Amir before him. I hope Kings bring Gold in, could whip them into shape. We need to get the CC set before trying to expand the S15 again.

I'll be completely honest with you here Draggs,
I could not care less if NZ teams did not play the SA teams.
About the only people that would care about that in Auckland (and other parts of NZ) is the hoards of ex-pat Sharks/Bulls/Stormers fans that turn up at Eden Park when they play the Blues there.
The games are not big draw cards for the native NZers. And I don't know anyone that gets up in the middle of the night to watch NZ teams play in SA.


In saying that though, I think familiarity breeds contempt.
Maybe it wouldn't matter so much if there weren't all the home and away games against the other NZ opposition?

Anyway- I think the best thing for the Super Rugby Comp would be to strip the competition back to what it used to be.

The current format is simply not getting buy-in from the fans. Or players apparently.

 

[Draggs]

I'll be completely honest with you here Draggs,
I could not care less if NZ teams did not play the SA teams.
About the only people that would care about that in Auckland (and other parts of NZ) is the hoards of ex-pat Sharks/Bulls/Stormers fans that turn up at Eden Park when they play the Blues there.
The games are not big draw cards for the native NZers. And I don't know anyone that gets up in the middle of the night to watch NZ teams play in SA.


In saying that though, I think familiarity breeds contempt.
Maybe it wouldn't matter so much if there weren't all the home and away games against the other NZ opposition?

Anyway- I think the best thing for the Super Rugby Comp would be to strip the competition back to what it used to be.

The current format is simply not getting buy-in from the fans. Or players apparently.

That's fair. I agree about the home and away stuff, get rid of conferences. We already have it with CC and ITM, and soon NRC. What would you like to see instead?

Also, S15 needs to finish end of May. No more June pause and then resume for July and august. It is waaaaay too long. Start it first week in February, end it in May and start CC mid July.

 

[FlukeArtist]

That's fair. I agree about the home and away stuff, get rid of conferences. We already have it with CC and ITM, and soon NRC. What would you like to see instead?

Also, S15 needs to finish end of May. No more June pause and then resume for July and august. It is waaaaay too long. Start it first week in February, end it in May and start CC mid July.

Agree mate,

WAY too long.

I was stunned yesterday and saw that the first pre-season game is just over a month away!
I know that has been the norm for a few years now, but we've only had the last ABs test 2-3 weeks ago!

Anyway, I think they'll have to change something soon because this can't be maintained for much longer in my opinion.
I think the players will start revolting.
Especially considering that more teams/games are being added.

 

[Kiwiwomble]

Super rugby is a catch 22 and always will be, RSA hold the card because they bring all this income....but that income is SO important because the super comp costs a bomb to run (flights between RSA and Nz/Aus etc), i thought they said the conference system was supposed to lower the amount of travel...

i'll say it again, top five itm team play super rugby the next year, give the itm cup some meaning and crowds will return, even giving meaning to playing for 5, depending on the draw of course you could have five game all meaning somehting on that last round of the ITM cup, and the same same ness of thew current structure will be gone

 

[FlukeArtist]

Super rugby is a catch 22 and always will be, RSA hold the card because they bring all this income....but that income is SO important because the super comp costs a bomb to run (flights between RSA and Nz/Aus etc), i thought they said the conference system was supposed to lower the amount of travel...

i'll say it again, top five itm team play super rugby the next year, give the itm cup some meaning and crowds will return, even giving meaning to playing for 5, depending on the draw of course you could have five game all meaning somehting on that last round of the ITM cup, and the same same ness of thew current structure will be gone

Onkly problem with that mate is that we'll end up with Auckland, Waikato, Welly, Canty definitely there, and the other unions fighting it out for the last spot.
Still... might not be a bad thing though... anyone could end up filling that last spot

Don't know if it can be worked now that the NZRFU has sold 50% stakes in all of the Super franchises now though

 

[Kiwiwomble]

i actually went though this recently and speaking broadly that only happened about half the time, the rest of the time there were two "unlikely" teams and what was better was they changed so we saw southland, taranaki, BOP, counties and Hawkes Bay i think all get shots

 

[Kiwiwomble]

2013 = wellington, cant, auck, counties and waikato
2012 = wellington, cant, auck, Taranaki and waikato
2011 = wai, cant, tara, BOP, Auck
2010 = wellington, cant, auck, Taranaki and waikato
2009 = cant, well, south, Hawkes, Auck
2008 = well, cant, hawkes, BOP, South
2007 = auck, cant, well, Hawkes, wai
2006 = Auck, NH, well, BOP, Tara

not a bad representation of the "unlikely" teams over the last 8 years and that is without the extra motivation the team in six or seventh would have to get up and make the top five, you can also gartantee these teams would fill every super game the next season, probably set them up financially for a couple of years

 

[TRF Mr Fish]

2013 = wellington, cant, auck, counties and waikato
2012 = wellington, cant, auck, Taranaki and waikato
2011 = wai, cant, tara, BOP, Auck
2010 = wellington, cant, auck, Taranaki and waikato
2009 = cant, well, south, Hawkes, Auck
2008 = well, cant, hawkes, BOP, South
2007 = auck, cant, well, Hawkes, wai
2006 = Auck, NH, well, BOP, Tara

not a bad representation of the "unlikely" teams over the last 8 years and that is without the extra motivation the team in six or seventh would have to get up and make the top five, you can also gartantee these teams would fill every super game the next season, probably set them up financially for a couple of years

Where'd you get your 2006 teams from...? Those aren't correct... (EDIT: Oh you accidentally went with the top five teams from Pool A )

Regardless, players would move to the strongest regions, to guarantee they get to play in the top competition.

It simply isn't feasible, the strong will get stronger, the weak will get weaker. We want the best 150 players playing in the top flight, give or take.

 

[nickdnz]

Where'd you get your 2006 teams from...? Those aren't correct... (EDIT: Oh you accidentally went with the top five teams from Pool A )

Regardless, players would move to the strongest regions, to guarantee they get to play in the top competition.

It simply isn't feasible, the strong will get stronger, the weak will get weaker. We want the best 150 players playing in the top flight, give or take.

Well if funds are provided to the unions in a similar way that they currently are to Super Rugby I see no reason why this would be the case. What it would allow is for more starting spots to be offered to players who would otherwise be riding the bench in Super Rugby.

Take Wellington for example. Would Sean Treeby stay at Wellington with Conrad Smith there - or would he transfer to a team like Otago where he can get more game time?

In the current system you have five teams play top rugby - of which I would argue around 110 players get meaningful game time (generously speaking). The remaining players may get 80 minutes if they're lucky a season. After Super Rugby they play in the ITM Cup, which involves no All Blacks and a few teirs lower in terms of management, coaching and opposition.

It seems to me that making the domestic competition a priority and giving them resources (with NZRU supervision) would eventually increase the competitiveness to be at Super Rugby level among all unions (it's the disparity of wealth in the unions which creates the gap). In the current set up its hardly as if the division of talent is fairly spread either (although as a Chiefs fan it may be easy to overlook ).

 

[Kiwiwomble]

Where'd you get your 2006 teams from...? Those aren't correct... (EDIT: Oh you accidentally went with the top five teams from Pool A )

Regardless, players would move to the strongest regions, to guarantee they get to play in the top competition.

It simply isn't feasible, the strong will get stronger, the weak will get weaker. We want the best 150 players playing in the top flight, give or take.

my bad, a little two quick in the old reading department

the point still stands, the way i see it is we end up having to pick each position in the ab's out of only five players, the five starters for the super teams....

in my option it has become harder to get out of the ab's than in, you play well in super...make the ab's...play average...drop back and take the spot in your super team as your an ab...so no one else gets the chance to shine in your position...so you make the ab again

i'm getting bored with it, i'm tired of supporting set of blokes in npc...and then another in super...and then another in international, if you cant follow those threads all the way through the system you become disenfranchised...i was almost cheering for japan this year over the ab's because i had watch Tanaka play a full season of club rugby to make the otago team...and then play the whole npc to make the highlanders and then obviously play international