Sixth NZ Super Rugby Team
-
@Duluth said in Sixth NZ Super Rugby Team:
In some positions we absolutely have the depth. However think of a position like hooker. We struggle to find 15 SR quality hookers now.. finding another 3 would be impossible.
Halfback is another problem. We have ~5 Test standard halfbacks, then a gap, then another 5 or so SR quality halfbacks, then a bigger gap followed by crap.
Aumua looks to be an outstanding prospect while Faiva, Mitchell or O'Reilly wouldn't fare too badly at a higher level.
-
This sixth franchise is going to need a coach. Bring back Hammer.....
I think part of the success for NZ franchises has been the depth within squads. When there's been injuries and forced restings, most of the time there has been quality to select replacements from. As it stands, most if not all the franchises will have a current or past international on the bench.
A new franchise will need 35+ players straight away. IMO coming up with a process to get them a solid base and not a bunch of newbies and also rans would be messy.
-
Terrible idea if you ask me.
Taking a squad of players, particularly decent players, out of the other 5 teams would have a massive impact on their depth and ultimately performance. This would lead to more of the poor quality imports we have started seeing over the last few years. Volavola, yamashita etc. This would be bad for NZ rugby. At the moment we have JUST enough depth for 5 teams. Lots of injuries and you have to start scraping the barrel.I also don't see parachuting a new team into the existing landscape as something that would be successful. By now people have decided who they support. There isn't some untapped area to cover. A " North of Auckland" team would have a hugeamount of Blues supporters in it's area. All those fans aren't going to just switch. Thats not even mentioning the fact that rewarding the city of the lowest performing existing team with an additional team is stupid.
Geographically a Bop, Shield Snorters, Manawatu, Taranaki would be the only one that would make sense to me.
Regardless of all that, i doubt NZ is where SANZAAAAAAAAR want to expand into. There is no untapped market in NZ. Places like the pacific island (although lacking money), japan, Argentina, Canada and USA are surely where they see expansion happening.
-
@taniwharugby said in Sixth NZ Super Rugby Team:
I think that the model NZRU run under sky shows bums on seats isn't a huge driver for them.
A 6th team would mean we would have more New Zealand derbys. In a round-robin with 5 teams you would have ten NZ vs NZ clashes. If you add a 6th team then currently you have 15 of them. Plus it would mean an extra game in New Zealand some weekends.
I'm dead against the concept but it could be good for broadcasters.
-
In France, the broadcaster of the SR competition (Canal Plus) has stopped broadcasting games of the round robin without a NZ team involved. The NZ derbies are systematically programmed. So, more NZ derbies means more viewers. Canal Plus is also broadcasting the Mitre 10 Cup. I don't know if many people watch it but I guess the main recruting agents of the French clubs do !
-
Always thought a 6th team would be a great idea, especially since it allows more players to be under contract in NZ vs. heading off overseas. I think we do have the depth to support a 6th competitive side, especially when you consider that across all 5 teams there are fringe AB / players of the future sitting on the bench.
An expansion draft would be the way to go. Expansion drafts are common in the US sport leagues when a new franchise has been awarded to a city. General rules are:
- Existing teams can protect a number of players from being drafted. So for rugby let’s make it 12.
- Once a player is selected from an existing team, the team can then protected another player.
-
If it ain't broke don't effin fix it.
-
@JayCee said in Sixth NZ Super Rugby Team:
Always thought a 6th team would be a great idea, especially since it allows more players to be under contract in NZ vs. heading off overseas. I think we do have the depth to support a 6th competitive side, especially when you consider that across all 5 teams there are fringe AB / players of the future sitting on the bench.
An expansion draft would be the way to go. Expansion drafts are common in the US sport leagues when a new franchise has been awarded to a city. General rules are:
- Existing teams can protect a number of players from being drafted. So for rugby let’s make it 12.
- Once a player is selected from an existing team, the team can then protected another player.
I don't want NZ rugby to resemble American sport like this.
If a bloke grows up in Christchurch then there is a good chance he wants to play for the Crusaders. It's a dangerous path when we are telling players where they have to live and play.
-
@Billy-Tell said in Sixth NZ Super Rugby Team:
If it ain't broke don't effin fix it.
It is broke, were too good for 5 teams.
-
Having a 6th , or even 7th team, is the logical way to go if they're heading down the conference route.
More teams in our half of the hemisphere so less travel.
But.
It's not about playing depth, or even geographic irritants ( the original Chiefs geographical make up)
It's whether NZRU can afford it, if they see it being self-financing.
There are about another 7 teams worth of SR talented players already overseas.
I wouldn't want 6 teams if it meant we couldn't have kept guys like Carter, McCaw etc because funds were diverted.
-
@Rapido said in Sixth NZ Super Rugby Team:
Having a 6th , or even 7th team, is the logical way to go if they're heading down the conference route.
Just to be clear I do not want any expansion. Having said that..
7 teams would allow for a closer link to the NPC teams. Each franchise could take players from 2 NPC sides
Northland/NH, Auckland/Counties, Taranaki/Waikato, BOP/Shield Snorters, Manawatu/Wellington, Ta$man/Canterbury, Otago/Southland
(Central North Island is harder to divide)The standard would be a lot lower but there is something appealing about a better link to the NPC sides.