Can we replace Super Rugby?
-
@stargazer said in Can we replace Super Rugby?:
@kirwan said in Can we replace Super Rugby?:
@stargazer said in Can we replace Super Rugby?:
@kirwan Well, they also sign players from outside Auckland, so why not?
In one post you complain about your province potentially losing local players, but you are happy for the same to happen to Auckland.
If I was uncharitable I’d call that hypocritical.
You're confusing Super Rugby and NPC.
It’s the main topic of this thread genius.
-
@stargazer New Zealand needs to maximise the value of its domestic competitions. The best way to do that is to concentrate on the largest populations. The investment of a franchise for 300,000 people just can't be justified.
-
-
-
@kirwan said in Can we replace Super Rugby?:
@crucial said in Can we replace Super Rugby?:
SJK is correct in one thing. The provincialism aspect is a huge thing to draw on. This thread already shows that. First time in ages we have had partisan debate on rugby (instead of religion, politics etc) and the replies are coming thick and fast.
Always cared more about Auckland rugby than the Blues. Same with posters like TR and Hooroo for their teams.
Byproduct of the manufactured nature of SR teams and the draft designed to weaken Aucklands dominance.
Same with me. Counties is my Team. Chiefs are a pro rugby set up that I follow.
-
@stargazer More people will watch if they have a team representing them, if they're being intensely marketed too. The Blues have never represented the North Shore, Rodney, or Northland.
-
NPC populations were mentioned
Teams Population Auckland 872,600 Waikato 350,900 Otago 146,400 Canterbury 512,900 Wellington 416,700 Hawkes Bay 164,000 Taranaki 130,800 BOP 252,200 Counties 468,700 Ta$man 152,500 Northland 175,400 Southland 98,400 Manawatu 132,600 North Harbour 315,900 -
@stargazer said in Can we replace Super Rugby?:
@tim Again, revenue from games doesn't come from crowd numbers but from sponsors and broadcasting deals.
Who care about the number of consumers they can reach, which obviously follows population.
Rugby is dying in the south of the South Island. Look at the trouble Southland have putting a competitive team together.
The population drift north has weakened rugby in the area. And we can’t afford to artificially prop up regions for fun.
Ironically Sir Johns proposal is the closest we’d get to a lifeline in that area.
-
@stargazer said in Can we replace Super Rugby?:
@kirwan Obviously, my comment about small provinces losing players to other provinces was only related to NPC.
So you are fine about it in one competition but not another? That’s a dishonest position.
-
@duluth said in Can we replace Super Rugby?:
Just looking at those numbers, it seems like a good idea to level the field would be to merge Taranaki, Manawatu, Hawkes Bay - into some sort of "Central" team.
-
@tim said in Can we replace Super Rugby?:
@stargazer More people will watch if they have a team representing them, if they're being intensely marketed too. The Blues have never represented the North Shore, Rodney, or Northland.
Christ, Northland supporters actively dislike the Blues.
-
@kirwan said in Can we replace Super Rugby?:
@stargazer said in Can we replace Super Rugby?:
@tim Again, revenue from games doesn't come from crowd numbers but from sponsors and broadcasting deals.
Who care about the number of consumers they can reach, which obviously follows population.
Rugby is dying in the south of the South Island. Look at the trouble Southland have putting a competitive team together.
The population drift north has weakened rugby in the area. And we can’t afford to artificially prop up regions for fun.
Ironically Sir Johns proposal is the closest we’d get to a lifeline in that area.
No, they follow tv viewers, who can be all over the country and not just local population.
-
-
@stargazer said in Can we replace Super Rugby?:
@kruse Just don't call them Vikings.
Do it!
Retro jerseys and everything.
Great times!Cue: @Nepia runs to the thread.....
-
@crucial said in Can we replace Super Rugby?:
There will always be the unfortunate situations where homegrown talent ends up elsewhere, but I don't think we need to make it a cornerstone of recruitment by spreading players around the country. (it is also unfair on young families)
Drafts in the USA also bring serious dollars to the drafted players, so it's worth relocating. But - they usually happen after a few years from school; not sure what that looks like here where people are falling over themselves to sign 18 year olds who might be the next big thing
-
Another batshit crazy proposal from SJK. I have absolutely no interest in financially tying NZ Rugby to Australia alone, if it can be avoided.
On the draft front though I have long been in favour of an entry draft from Mitre 10 Cup to Super Rugby for NZ franchises, with players declaring after their first year and the teams drafting the rights of the players.
It would give the Mitre 10 Cup a lot more context, would hopefully avoid some positional logjams within franchises and negate the need for extensive franchise scouting budgets which is the biggest waste of money in NZRU currently.
-
@nzzp said in Can we replace Super Rugby?:
@crucial said in Can we replace Super Rugby?:
There will always be the unfortunate situations where homegrown talent ends up elsewhere, but I don't think we need to make it a cornerstone of recruitment by spreading players around the country. (it is also unfair on young families)
Drafts in the USA also bring serious dollars to the drafted players, so it's worth relocating. But - they usually happen after a few years from school; not sure what that looks like here where people are falling over themselves to sign 18 year olds who might be the next big thing
The NBA even realized this a decade or so ago when too many players were getting draft out of high school and flopping.
The idea would be to prevent the NZ franchises from falling all over themselves by doing it in a structured way. The only difference is the US leagues are all the best and richest in their sport, while if we tried to artificially restrict the market or opportunities for younger players there is a possibility we bleed more players than we currently do to Aussie league, NH clubs, Aussie unions etc.
The relocation thing was going on before the game even went professional. Look at the Crusaders now, and given most of these blokes are going to end up in Italy or Japan at the end of their career it's of little concern, outside of possibly considering the cost of living in Auckland relative to the other four franchises.
-
@rotated said in Can we replace Super Rugby?:
Another batshit crazy proposal from SJK. I have absolutely no interest in financially tying NZ Rugby to Australia alone, if it can be avoided.
On the draft front though I have long been in favour of an entry draft from Mitre 10 Cup to Super Rugby for NZ franchises, with players declaring after their first year and the teams drafting the rights of the players.
It would give the Mitre 10 Cup a lot more context, would hopefully avoid some positional logjams within franchises and negate the need for extensive franchise scouting budgets which is the biggest waste of money in NZRU currently.
That was actually the system. When you signed a NZRU contract so you could play NPC you declared your availablity to a Super franchise. They had first dibs on you and you only entered the draft if they turned you down
