Menu
Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
New posts
Latest activity
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles and first posts only
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Help Support The Rugby Forum :
Forums
Rugby Union
Super Rugby
Spectators lose interest in Super Rugby
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="adam31" data-source="post: 806899" data-attributes="member: 12788"><p>Outsider looking in, but when living in NZ around 2000, I saw a lot more excitement for Super Rugby than now. Here is what I see the problems are:</p><p></p><p>1. Why does SA have six teams, for their financial impact to the league? It appears the Kings are disorganized, why were they allowed in? From what I understand because they complained enough. When it was the Super 12, NZ had 5 teams. They still have 5 teams. Australia complained and got their 5th team. South Africa then complained and got their 5th team (Cheetahs). SA should have been stopped there. The Kings issue is where this started to go downhill. Maybe if NZ, AUs and SA all had 6 teams, this would be going better? </p><p>2. Too much travel. Before Japan and Argentina were allowed in, there were already travel problems with going to South Africa. The owners took the expansion money grab. To my understanding that is why SuperRugby now is divided into conferences, which stated above fans do not like. Maybe also as I said above, it was kept as a three country tournament (SA, NZ, Aus), there would be more interest for the fans and less travel for the players. You then dilute talent in NZ and make things are more competitive. But what is done is done.</p><p>3. Too much temptation for players to go overseas due to money. It sickened me to see Daniel Carter go play for a French side. But I respect the "bloke" tons for staying with SuperRugby and even his provincial team for so long. Good on him!</p><p>4. Schedule too long and broken up due to other competitions (Tri-Nations etc), in the middle of the SuperRugby season. Takes the focus off. I don't recall an interruption in the early 2000s.</p><p></p><p>How do you fix these problems and go back to the way it used to be? I only see by going back to the "way it used to be". Shorten season, lower travel, raise salaries. Looks as if though the golden goose has stopped laying the golden eggs. Too much expansion now.</p><p></p><p>Maybe you put Japan Argentina and such in its own league and expand further, then have a playoff towards the end of the year between the lowest established team and the highest expansion team.</p><p></p><p>I have enjoyed watching SuperRugby for a while here in the States. Glad the matches are on ESPN3 where I can get them for free now. I used to watch all the NZ matches but now there are too many and I don't have time to see them all. Too much of a good thing has, I must admit, caused me to lose some interest.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="adam31, post: 806899, member: 12788"] Outsider looking in, but when living in NZ around 2000, I saw a lot more excitement for Super Rugby than now. Here is what I see the problems are: 1. Why does SA have six teams, for their financial impact to the league? It appears the Kings are disorganized, why were they allowed in? From what I understand because they complained enough. When it was the Super 12, NZ had 5 teams. They still have 5 teams. Australia complained and got their 5th team. South Africa then complained and got their 5th team (Cheetahs). SA should have been stopped there. The Kings issue is where this started to go downhill. Maybe if NZ, AUs and SA all had 6 teams, this would be going better? 2. Too much travel. Before Japan and Argentina were allowed in, there were already travel problems with going to South Africa. The owners took the expansion money grab. To my understanding that is why SuperRugby now is divided into conferences, which stated above fans do not like. Maybe also as I said above, it was kept as a three country tournament (SA, NZ, Aus), there would be more interest for the fans and less travel for the players. You then dilute talent in NZ and make things are more competitive. But what is done is done. 3. Too much temptation for players to go overseas due to money. It sickened me to see Daniel Carter go play for a French side. But I respect the "bloke" tons for staying with SuperRugby and even his provincial team for so long. Good on him! 4. Schedule too long and broken up due to other competitions (Tri-Nations etc), in the middle of the SuperRugby season. Takes the focus off. I don't recall an interruption in the early 2000s. How do you fix these problems and go back to the way it used to be? I only see by going back to the "way it used to be". Shorten season, lower travel, raise salaries. Looks as if though the golden goose has stopped laying the golden eggs. Too much expansion now. Maybe you put Japan Argentina and such in its own league and expand further, then have a playoff towards the end of the year between the lowest established team and the highest expansion team. I have enjoyed watching SuperRugby for a while here in the States. Glad the matches are on ESPN3 where I can get them for free now. I used to watch all the NZ matches but now there are too many and I don't have time to see them all. Too much of a good thing has, I must admit, caused me to lose some interest. [/QUOTE]
Verification
Post reply
Forums
Rugby Union
Super Rugby
Spectators lose interest in Super Rugby
Top