New Zealand 2 will deal a massive blow to NZ rugby

[Matiunz]

The demise of super rugby has been a disaster for the game in the southern hemisphere. At its peek it was the best quality union you could wish to see. Massive crowds, great open play. Aussie’s were competitive. Now it’s a financial millstone and is arguably killing the game at least in Australia. NZ really needs to finish it.

Don’t think it’s in NZs best interest to finish it. Although quality of opposition isn’t great at the moment the likes of SA and Argentina leaving showcased a need to play opposition with different styles to our own. Going it alone with just the NPC isn’t financially viable, yes the NPC is an important development tool but it also costs to run rather than a money, the current NZ super rugby sides are essentially combinations of 3 or so NPC teams so the quality of opposition would be reduced.

 

[Matiunz]

Games would be on the middle of the night here

That’s become largely irrelevant now with streaming games are essentially on demand and not too many will get up in the middle of the night to watch live and will instead just stream over breakfast the next day.

 

[Matiunz]

Out of the ‘big’ Union countries Ireland and Italy it is mostly a working class game also

 

[Gobsmacked]

Bahaha, you and your mate Wb have kept this thread running for 750 pages, but now all of a sudden you're too busy.

No shame in admitting you can't refute my points.

There was a point?
That's a stretch.

 

[Wb1234]

That’s become largely irrelevant now with streaming games are essentially on demand and not too many will get up in the middle of the night to watch live and will instead just stream over breakfast the next day.

Foxsports Australia only values live games

given a sa tv company wouldn’t pay much for the nrl rights, like for example the png or even Perth nrl sides rely upon eastern viewers to be worth anything to foxsports

 

[Matiunz]

Foxsports Australia only values live games

given a sa tv company wouldn’t pay much for the nrl rights, like for example the png or even Perth nrl sides rely upon eastern viewers to be worth anything to foxsports

I know live tv is important to 9 but curious how Kayo and Foxtel now etc factor into the viewing numbers.
Supersport in South Africa is a huge player in Africa pay tv and if NRL were in their interest would be a significant money spinner. They effectively funded the entire super rugby when the SA teams were in it

 

[Wb1234]

I know live tv is important to 9 but curious how Kayo and Foxtel now etc factor into the viewing numbers.
Supersport in South Africa is a huge player in Africa pay tv and if NRL were in their interest would be a significant money spinner. They effectively funded the entire super rugby when the SA teams were in it

Yeh but it’s league

France (league) has no tv deal and they have had a successful club for decades

Every game foxsports shows is not only live but also doesn’t clash with other games (unlike afl)

 

[Matua]

There was a point?
That's a stretch.

If your reading comprehension is so poor you can't work out the points in a numbered list then I'm unsurprised you're hiding from responding.

 

[flippikat]

Don’t think it’s in NZs best interest to finish it. Although quality of opposition isn’t great at the moment the likes of SA and Argentina leaving showcased a need to play opposition with different styles to our own. Going it alone with just the NPC isn’t financially viable, yes the NPC is an important development tool but it also costs to run rather than a money, the current NZ super rugby sides are essentially combinations of 3 or so NPC teams so the quality of opposition would be reduced.

I think ditching Super Rugby & going back to NPC could only work if the top few NPC teams end up in a more lucrative "champions league" style competition against the best of other countries competitions... but...

A) Other countries in the Pacific rim will struggle to produce strong domestic competitions in isolation as "qualifying competitions"

B) "Champions league" style setups have a habit of entrenching power in a few teams.. and if the top 4 or 5 NZ NPC provinces qualify, chances are it'll be the same provinces year-in and year-out.

Love it or hate it, the Super Rugby structure works for NZ, and the closest NZR will get to scrapping it and going back to NPC is re-drawing the Super Rugby franchise boundaries to go from 5 to 6 or 7 NZ Super Rugby teams.

Maybe these seven in a restructured Super Rugby.......

* Blues (Northland/North Harbour/Auckland/Counties) - an "Greater Auckland-Northland team"

* Chiefs (Waikato/Bay of Plenty, Thames Valley in Heartland rugby) - - Waikato/BOP - Based in Hamilton, a game in Rotorua

* New Western NI team (Taranaki/Manawatu, with King Country & Whanganui in Heartland rugby) - taking Taranaki from the Chiefs & the others from the Hurricanes - based in New Plymouth with a game or two in Palmerston North

* New Eastern NI team ( Hawkes Bay, with Poverty Bay, East Coast in Heartland Rugby - Hawkes Bay up to East Cape - based in Napier

* Hurricanes (Wellington, with Horowhenua-Kapiti & Wairarapa-Bush in Heartland Rugby) - Brings their focus into Wellington, maybe a trial each year in Masterton

* Crusaders (as per current feeder teams)

* Highlanders (as per current feeder teams)

[Edit] or they can just keep on the shambles of a thing they have now, honestly the current state just makes it easier for the NRL... and I hope we take it to them with a 2nd & later 3rd NZ NRL club.

 

[Wb1234]

Dolphins have cut him, what about the warriors ?

 

[SpaceMonkey]

I think ditching Super Rugby & going back to NPC could only work if the top few NPC teams end up in a more lucrative "champions league" style competition against the best of other countries competitions... but...

A) Other countries in the Pacific rim will struggle to produce strong domestic competitions in isolation as "qualifying competitions"

B) "Champions league" style setups have a habit of entrenching power in a few teams.. and if the top 4 or 5 NZ NPC provinces qualify, chances are it'll be the same provinces year-in and year-out.

Love it or hate it, the Super Rugby structure works for NZ, and the closest NZR will get to scrapping it and going back to NPC is re-drawing the Super Rugby franchise boundaries to go from 5 to 6 or 7 NZ Super Rugby teams.

Maybe these seven in a restructured Super Rugby.......

* Blues (Northland/North Harbour/Auckland/Counties) - an "Greater Auckland-Northland team"

* Chiefs (Waikato/Bay of Plenty, Thames Valley in Heartland rugby) - - Waikato/BOP - Based in Hamilton, a game in Rotorua

* New Western NI team (Taranaki/Manawatu, with King Country & Whanganui in Heartland rugby) - taking Taranaki from the Chiefs & the others from the Hurricanes - based in New Plymouth with a game or two in Palmerston North

* New Eastern NI team ( Hawkes Bay, with Poverty Bay, East Coast in Heartland Rugby - Hawkes Bay up to East Cape - based in Napier

* Hurricanes (Wellington, with Horowhenua-Kapiti & Wairarapa-Bush in Heartland Rugby) - Brings their focus into Wellington, maybe a trial each year in Masterton

* Crusaders (as per current feeder teams)

* Highlanders (as per current feeder teams)

[Edit] or they can just keep on the shambles of a thing they have now, honestly the current state just makes it easier for the NRL... and I hope we take it to them with a 2nd & later 3rd NZ NRL club.

Too many North teams IMO- those Eastern and western NI teams are really going to struggle for numbers. I’d Just go Auckland/Waikato+BoB/Lower NI+Wellington/Canterbury/Otago, and even then Otago at least is going to be pretty short population wise.

 

[flippikat]

Too many North teams IMO- those Eastern and western NI teams are really going to struggle for numbers. I’d Just go Auckland/Waikato+BoB/Lower NI+Wellington/Canterbury/Otago, and even then Otago at least is going to be pretty short population wise.

Yeah, 7 Super Rugby teams does run the risk of spreading talent too thinly - but my point was that IF NZ Rugby wanted to appeal to the "scrap Super Rugby" crowd & make our representation a bit more provincial, then 2 more teams based around Taranaki & Hawkes Bay would be the option - as those two provinces have been pretty competitive at NPC level & offer a greater geographical spread of teams.

 

[Gobsmacked]

Yeah, 7 Super Rugby teams does run the risk of spreading talent too thinly - but my point was that IF NZ Rugby wanted to appeal to the "scrap Super Rugby" crowd & make our representation a bit more provincial, then 2 more teams based around Taranaki & Hawkes Bay would be the option - as those two provinces have been pretty competitive at NPC level & offer a greater geographical spread of teams.

I really would like to see Rugby crash and burn but if I had to play devils advocate .
First: All blacks criteria lifted to include all players playing in the pacific ( same for all pacific countries)
Second: abolish resting All blacks
Third: split Moana pacific into Samoa and Tonga and play there ( the lifted criteria will ensure they can fill the talent gaps)
Fourth: abandon Perth in Favour of a Sydney rival ( having a far flung franchise in an AFL dominated state in favour instead of only 1 team in the biggest city in the pacific with the richest Rugby pedigree in the world is dumb)
Fifth: have a top 6 with the top 2 progressing to the second round.

Luckily for me they won't do any of those things

 

[flippikat]

I really would like to see Rugby crash and burn but if I had to play devils advocate .
First: All blacks criteria lifted to include all players playing in the pacific ( same for all pacific countries)
Second: abolish resting All blacks
Third: split Moana pacific into Samoa and Tonga and play there ( the lifted criteria will ensure they can fill the talent gaps)
Fourth: abandon Perth in Favour of a Sydney rival ( having a far flung franchise in an AFL dominated state in favour instead of only 1 team in the biggest city in the pacific with the richest Rugby pedigree in the world is dumb)
Fifth: have a top 6 with the top 2 progressing to the second round.

Luckily for me they won't do any of those things

You're right - having no cross-city rival in Super Rugby for Sydney is daft. The obvious split is North & South of the bridge given RU's demographic & spread of clubs.

 

[Wb1234]

You're right - having no cross-city rival in Super Rugby for Sydney is daft. The obvious split is North & South of the bridge given RU's demographic & spread of clubs.

North and east

 

[Gobsmacked]

You're right - having no cross-city rival in Super Rugby for Sydney is daft. The obvious split is North & South of the bridge given RU's demographic & spread of clubs.

It's the cheapest easiest commute with talent, corporates and population. 1 club is hilarious. For 2 games at least a year , you might actually attract the imagination of the Sydney market. Super Rugby might actually sell out a couple of games.
Union is far too pompous and arrogant for these changes though.
If anything screams elitism, it's the top down approach from the All blacks, as though to only look after the fruit and ignore the roots.
If they made Super Rugby a competitive, drama filled spectal and prioritised that comp... the only results would be a stronger NZ, Australia and pacific.
Instead you have a pampered protected bunch of pussies that the general public of the working class can't possibly connect with.

 

[flippikat]

It's the cheapest easiest commute with talent, corporates and population. 1 club is hilarious. For 2 games at least a year , you might actually attract the imagination of the Sydney market. Super Rugby might actually sell out a couple of games.
Union is far too pompous and arrogant for these changes though.
If anything screams elitism, it's the top down approach from the All blacks, as though to only look after the fruit and ignore the roots.
If they made Super Rugby a competitive, drama filled spectal and prioritised that comp... the only results would be a stronger NZ, Australia and pacific.
Instead you have a pampered protected bunch of pussies that the general public of the working class can't possibly connect with.

Yup, the current 11 teams, but replacing NSW & the Force with 2 Sydney teams (North & East), then adding 2 NZ teams (New Plymouth & Napier based), then splitting Moana Pasifika into Samoa & Tonga - with test players able to play for ANY SR team would be a solid 14 team competition for RU - with scope to expand later if need be.

Luckily they can't see that, which is a good thing.

 

[Matiunz]

Yeah, 7 Super Rugby teams does run the risk of spreading talent too thinly - but my point was that IF NZ Rugby wanted to appeal to the "scrap Super Rugby" crowd & make our representation a bit more provincial, then 2 more teams based around Taranaki & Hawkes Bay would be the option - as those two provinces have been pretty competitive at NPC level & offer a greater geographical spread of teams.

Yeah a Hawkes bay/Manawatu/Taranaki is probably the last super rugby franchise you could get while still being competitive. Only problem is distance between the ‘base’ cities might be a bit stretched. Napier- New Plymouth you’re looking at about a 5 hour drive, the other issue is where it’d be based- Palmy is the more central option but even when it was just HB and Manawatu who merged for the Vikings it didnt really work

 

[Matiunz]

Yup, the current 11 teams, but replacing NSW & the Force with 2 Sydney teams (North & East), then adding 2 NZ teams (New Plymouth & Napier based), then splitting Moana Pasifika into Samoa & Tonga - with test players able to play for ANY SR team would be a solid 14 team competition for RU - with scope to expand later if need be.

Luckily they can't see that, which is a good thing.

In reality Aus Rugby probably is best to consolidate its strong holds on the East coast and they really were best both provincially and Nationally when they had just the 3 teams.
Samoa and Tonga is a bit of a pipe dream, Moana Pasifika struggle to attract both players and crowds based in NZ but people forget how small both islands are- we are talking about 200k and 100k.Vast Majority of Current Samoan and Tongan players are 2nd/3rd and even 4th generation NZers and Australians that have never lived in their heritage nations, convincing them to move there full time would be tough, as well as the funding side of things, as it is they’re funded by NZ and Aus who also need to look after their own finances.
The Drua have a much bigger population to draw from and have been quite successful but even they are reliant on Aus funding

 

[SpaceMonkey]

Yeah, 7 Super Rugby teams does run the risk of spreading talent too thinly - but my point was that IF NZ Rugby wanted to appeal to the "scrap Super Rugby" crowd & make our representation a bit more provincial, then 2 more teams based around Taranaki & Hawkes Bay would be the option - as those two provinces have been pretty competitive at NPC level & offer a greater geographical spread of teams.

I think if you did that you’d want to separate Waikato and the BOP, and Auckland and North Harbour/Counties-Manukau. That’d give you a pretty even spread of resources.