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
General Rugby Union
Would a move north be better for South African domestic 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="TRF_stormer2010" data-source="post: 731113" data-attributes="member: 39190"><p>Even if it might be advantages to SA and that is a big 'might' how are we going to convince 'Europe' to accept us? The grass is not always greener on the other side. Maybe just water it on this side. The bokke are no.2 in the world and I'll bet a lot of it has to do with the good (can be a lot better mind you) rugby structures we have in place in the Varisty cup, Currie cup and Super rugby where our guys go up through very competitive setups. The main issues we face are not rugby related and we won't fix them by changing our rugby structures other than getting rid of political and union interference in Super rugby (this is mainly an issue for the Stormers and Kings specifically).</p><p></p><p>I think the next move is the right one for SA despite the inevitable growing pains we are likely to see. For once the setup of the format actually favors us. We've been the 'odd one out' till now- it's just a fact of geography and culture (linked to geography), nothing sinister. That now counts in our favor somewhat. Similar to the US NFL conference system where teams are grouped geographically simply because of the distances of travel involved. Again, nothing sinister.</p><p></p><p>Japan being in our conference at this stage is a bit ad-hoc but I see it as a first step in the right direction and I see a conference system grouped along the lines of 4 conferences making up 2 groups in the future in an East-West style set-up that'll be more symmetrical:</p><p></p><p>East conference (12)</p><p>SA (6) </p><p>Argentina (2) / USA (2) / Canada (2)</p><p></p><p>West conference (12)</p><p>NZ (5)</p><p>Aus (5)</p><p>Japan (2)</p><p></p><p>Sure the conference with NZ and Aus teams will be the strongest for the start but I am sure the American teams will grow quickly enough with proper competition and Argentina dispersed across only 2 teams should make for highly competitive teams pretty much off the bat- have you seen the players already contracted to the new Arg team- they'll be up for it for sure.</p><p></p><p>The reality is rugby has gone pro and money talks. Adding new markets such as Argentina and the big economies of the North Americas and Japan can only be good for our own game if we get more money we can keep mre of our talents and be more competitive. It'll take tie though but I feel it's our best move.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="TRF_stormer2010, post: 731113, member: 39190"] Even if it might be advantages to SA and that is a big 'might' how are we going to convince 'Europe' to accept us? The grass is not always greener on the other side. Maybe just water it on this side. The bokke are no.2 in the world and I'll bet a lot of it has to do with the good (can be a lot better mind you) rugby structures we have in place in the Varisty cup, Currie cup and Super rugby where our guys go up through very competitive setups. The main issues we face are not rugby related and we won't fix them by changing our rugby structures other than getting rid of political and union interference in Super rugby (this is mainly an issue for the Stormers and Kings specifically). I think the next move is the right one for SA despite the inevitable growing pains we are likely to see. For once the setup of the format actually favors us. We've been the 'odd one out' till now- it's just a fact of geography and culture (linked to geography), nothing sinister. That now counts in our favor somewhat. Similar to the US NFL conference system where teams are grouped geographically simply because of the distances of travel involved. Again, nothing sinister. Japan being in our conference at this stage is a bit ad-hoc but I see it as a first step in the right direction and I see a conference system grouped along the lines of 4 conferences making up 2 groups in the future in an East-West style set-up that'll be more symmetrical: East conference (12) SA (6) Argentina (2) / USA (2) / Canada (2) West conference (12) NZ (5) Aus (5) Japan (2) Sure the conference with NZ and Aus teams will be the strongest for the start but I am sure the American teams will grow quickly enough with proper competition and Argentina dispersed across only 2 teams should make for highly competitive teams pretty much off the bat- have you seen the players already contracted to the new Arg team- they'll be up for it for sure. The reality is rugby has gone pro and money talks. Adding new markets such as Argentina and the big economies of the North Americas and Japan can only be good for our own game if we get more money we can keep mre of our talents and be more competitive. It'll take tie though but I feel it's our best move. [/QUOTE]
Verification
Post reply
Forums
Rugby Union
General Rugby Union
Would a move north be better for South African domestic rugby?
Top