Super Rugby Trans Tasman
-
@tim said in Super Rugby Trans Ta$man:
How about we go with @Duluth's idea and have 10 NZ teams. Maybe 8 would be enough?
id be interested in that but i think people just started saying we dont have the depth for that and/or thats getting to close to the NPC team anyway
-
@derpus said in Super Rugby Trans Ta$man:
@antipodean all the more reason to have our comp. If we simply cannot compete with NZ teams and this is the historical mean, why are we playing each other at all?
Naked self interest.
The fundamental fact is that an uncompetitive competition is doomed before it starts. Its contrary to the purpose of sport.
A couple of 'champions cup' style games and and the Bledisloe cup should be enough fodder for you. We can otherwise get on with our stuff.
The point is to raise standards. The Bledisloe has been played for every year for decades now solely to keep interest and competitiveness in Australian Rugby. Even now Australians aren't interested in the Bledisloe.
What's genuinely holding Australian rugby back is amateur administration. Which is ironic given they had a head start when the game went professional.
@antipodean hard to disagree with that. The administration is diabolical. But thats not a reason to agree to a bad comp structure.
The premises that we can improve by condensing teams or by playing Kiwis regularly doesn't seem to have worked in the past. Not sure why it will suddenly start working now.
-
@kiwiwomble It would even up the NZ and AU teams.
@tim said in Super Rugby Trans Ta$man:
@kiwiwomble It would even up the NZ and AU teams.
oh, i agree, i think 7 would be all that would be needed to drop the depth combined with the longer season, too many more and i can see the competition with the existing NPC teams
-
@tim said in Super Rugby Trans Ta$man:
@kiwiwomble It would even up the NZ and AU teams.
oh, i agree, i think 7 would be all that would be needed to drop the depth combined with the longer season, too many more and i can see the competition with the existing NPC teams
@kiwiwomble Then there is the option of a longer Super Rugby competition with 10 kiwi teams, and dropping the NPC to a development competition.
-
@kiwiwomble Then there is the option of a longer Super Rugby competition with 10 kiwi teams, and dropping the NPC to a development competition.
@tim said in Super Rugby Trans Ta$man:
@kiwiwomble Then there is the option of a longer Super Rugby competition with 10 kiwi teams, and dropping the NPC to a development competition.
im a purest at heart, i'd prefer Otago to win the NPC that the highlanders to win super rugby so i do start to waver when we talk of the NPC just being a development comp or almost having as many super teams as NPC...but if needs be
Thats why 7 kind of works for me, basically every 2 NPC teams become a super franchise...huge issue with where their support comes from though, who will leave the team they currently follow...also doubt they would put one in Nelson so it wont water down the crusaders too much so they could still end up thrashing everyone
-
thinking this through some more
one of the most likely options would be central north island...which would basically attract HB players...so all it would do is water down the Highlanders squad
we rely on those guys being ignored by their closest super teams
-
thinking this through some more
one of the most likely options would be central north island...which would basically attract HB players...so all it would do is water down the Highlanders squad
we rely on those guys being ignored by their closest super teams
@kiwiwomble said in Super Rugby Trans Ta$man:
central north island
Central Vikings would be a good name?
What say you @Nepia
-
@tim said in Super Rugby Trans Ta$man:
@kiwiwomble Then there is the option of a longer Super Rugby competition with 10 kiwi teams, and dropping the NPC to a development competition.
im a purest at heart, i'd prefer Otago to win the NPC that the highlanders to win super rugby so i do start to waver when we talk of the NPC just being a development comp or almost having as many super teams as NPC...but if needs be
Thats why 7 kind of works for me, basically every 2 NPC teams become a super franchise...huge issue with where their support comes from though, who will leave the team they currently follow...also doubt they would put one in Nelson so it wont water down the crusaders too much so they could still end up thrashing everyone
@kiwiwomble said in Super Rugby Trans Ta$man:
@tim said in Super Rugby Trans Ta$man:
@kiwiwomble Then there is the option of a longer Super Rugby competition with 10 kiwi teams, and dropping the NPC to a development competition.
im a purest at heart, i'd prefer Otago to win the NPC that the highlanders to win super rugby so i do start to waver when we talk of the NPC just being a development comp or almost having as many super teams as NPC...but if needs be
Thats why 7 kind of works for me, basically every 2 NPC teams become a super franchise...huge issue with where their support comes from though, who will leave the team they currently follow...also doubt they would put one in Nelson so it wont water down the crusaders too much so they could still end up thrashing everyone
Don't you just end up creating a couple of weak extra teams?
Saders and Highlanders would stay the same. Canes wouldn't change much. Auckland would lose Harbour but gain CM. Chiefs would lose CM and Naki.
The new franchises would be Taniwha/Harbour and Naki/Poo.
Yipee. -
@kiwiwomble said in Super Rugby Trans Ta$man:
@tim said in Super Rugby Trans Ta$man:
@kiwiwomble Then there is the option of a longer Super Rugby competition with 10 kiwi teams, and dropping the NPC to a development competition.
im a purest at heart, i'd prefer Otago to win the NPC that the highlanders to win super rugby so i do start to waver when we talk of the NPC just being a development comp or almost having as many super teams as NPC...but if needs be
Thats why 7 kind of works for me, basically every 2 NPC teams become a super franchise...huge issue with where their support comes from though, who will leave the team they currently follow...also doubt they would put one in Nelson so it wont water down the crusaders too much so they could still end up thrashing everyone
Don't you just end up creating a couple of weak extra teams?
Saders and Highlanders would stay the same. Canes wouldn't change much. Auckland would lose Harbour but gain CM. Chiefs would lose CM and Naki.
The new franchises would be Taniwha/Harbour and Naki/Poo.
Yipee.@crucial well, the idea is to weaken some teams, i did say it possible woulnd't weaken the one you really need to if you were going to make a more competitive comp, and it wouldnt be fair to so anything specific to weaken the crusaders...so back to the drawing board
-
@kiwiwomble Then there is the option of a longer Super Rugby competition with 10 kiwi teams, and dropping the NPC to a development competition.
@tim said in Super Rugby Trans Ta$man:
@kiwiwomble Then there is the option of a longer Super Rugby competition with 10 kiwi teams, and dropping the NPC to a development competition.
i am on board with this. Except i would drop 4 unions to the Heartland champs, and have 10 NPC sides.
-
@kiwiwomble said in Super Rugby Trans Ta$man:
central north island
Central Vikings would be a good name?
What say you @Nepia
@taniwharugby said in Super Rugby Trans Ta$man:
@kiwiwomble said in Super Rugby Trans Ta$man:
central north island
Central Vikings would be a good name?
What say you @Nepia
Seriously Mods, how’s that downvote button coming along?
-
@tim said in Super Rugby Trans Ta$man:
@kiwiwomble Then there is the option of a longer Super Rugby competition with 10 kiwi teams, and dropping the NPC to a development competition.
i am on board with this. Except i would drop 4 unions to the Heartland champs, and have 10 NPC sides.
@mariner4life said in Super Rugby Trans Ta$man:
@tim said in Super Rugby Trans Ta$man:
@kiwiwomble Then there is the option of a longer Super Rugby competition with 10 kiwi teams, and dropping the NPC to a development competition.
i am on board with this. Except i would drop 4 unions to the Heartland champs, and have 10 NPC sides.
this has always been my prefered option but normally get shot down with "the unions are too small" etc
if this was replacing both the NPC and SR would you make it a 28 game home and away?
and would you have promotion and relegation so those four teams ad a chance to come back up? based on last year that wold put Naki, soutland counties and Manawatu down
-
@mariner4life said in Super Rugby Trans Ta$man:
@tim said in Super Rugby Trans Ta$man:
@kiwiwomble Then there is the option of a longer Super Rugby competition with 10 kiwi teams, and dropping the NPC to a development competition.
i am on board with this. Except i would drop 4 unions to the Heartland champs, and have 10 NPC sides.
this has always been my prefered option but normally get shot down with "the unions are too small" etc
if this was replacing both the NPC and SR would you make it a 28 game home and away?
and would you have promotion and relegation so those four teams ad a chance to come back up? based on last year that wold put Naki, soutland counties and Manawatu down
@kiwiwomble said in Super Rugby Trans Ta$man:
and would you have promotion and relegation so those four teams ad a chance to come back up
what's the point? once they are done from there it's too far back.
You have to be realistic
-
@antipodean hard to disagree with that. The administration is diabolical. But thats not a reason to agree to a bad comp structure.
The premises that we can improve by condensing teams or by playing Kiwis regularly doesn't seem to have worked in the past. Not sure why it will suddenly start working now.
@derpus said in Super Rugby Trans Ta$man:
@antipodean hard to disagree with that. The administration is diabolical. But thats not a reason to agree to a bad comp structure.
The premises that we can improve by condensing teams or by playing Kiwis regularly doesn't seem to have worked in the past. Not sure why it will suddenly start working now.
Consider the counterfactual then, would Australian rugby be better/ worse off if it hadn't?
I'd be supportive of doubling the NZ franchises in a one conference ladder with semi finals. More content for broadcasters, certainty for supporters that there'll be fixtures on every weekend and avoids teams taking the piss having All Blacks on the bench waiting to replace All Blacks.
I'd also get rid of the RC.
-
@kiwiwomble said in Super Rugby Trans Ta$man:
and would you have promotion and relegation so those four teams ad a chance to come back up
what's the point? once they are done from there it's too far back.
You have to be realistic
@mariner4life said in Super Rugby Trans Ta$man:
@kiwiwomble said in Super Rugby Trans Ta$man:
and would you have promotion and relegation so those four teams ad a chance to come back up
what's the point? once they are done from there it's too far back.
You have to be realistic
...thats the point with a promotion and relegation game though, if you win you've kind of proven you as good as the other team
The point is to add some spice to games at the bottom of the table, have to avoid coming last so you wont risk dropping
It would be hard to say the Naki deserve to go down forever and northand stay up forever (based on last years results) when they finished on the same points
-
The (least amount of) tinkering way to 'solve' SRTT in almost it's current form. (Assuming going to full round-robin once pandemic is over).
-
A 6th NZ team, the Knightiwhas, not Moana Pacifica, to weaken the NZ teams. (As I've said ad-nauseum - MP won't weaken NZ franchises but they will be weak themselves as the poor little cousin with no equal access to uncle's wallet).
-
Allow open contracting of all Australian, NZ, Pacific players anywhere within the comp.
-
Elevate Razor to AB coach. Appoint Ian Foster or Mark Hammett as Crusaders coach. Jokes aside, the Canterbury coaching conveyer belt is looking as sick as the CBHS first-five factory. just get Razor out will probably solve it no matter who they appoint.
As I'd prefer the whole thing to implode rather than limp on, I don't usually tout this wisdom. I'm not one for tinkering on this one.
-
-
@mariner4life said in Super Rugby Trans Ta$man:
@kiwiwomble said in Super Rugby Trans Ta$man:
and would you have promotion and relegation so those four teams ad a chance to come back up
what's the point? once they are done from there it's too far back.
You have to be realistic
...thats the point with a promotion and relegation game though, if you win you've kind of proven you as good as the other team
The point is to add some spice to games at the bottom of the table, have to avoid coming last so you wont risk dropping
It would be hard to say the Naki deserve to go down forever and northand stay up forever (based on last years results) when they finished on the same points
@kiwiwomble would it be auto promotion or play off?
As we know the latter more often than not, doesnt work, the gap between the bottom team in the 1st div to the best in the 2nd div is usually too large.
-
@kiwiwomble would it be auto promotion or play off?
As we know the latter more often than not, doesnt work, the gap between the bottom team in the 1st div to the best in the 2nd div is usually too large.
@taniwharugby id be happy with auto but i think rugby people tend to prefer a playoff
it may not often result in anyone dropping but at least proves teams are where they belong
-
@kiwimurph said in Super Rugby Trans Ta$man:
@mariner4life said in Super Rugby Trans Ta$man:
@kiwiwomble said in Super Rugby Trans Ta$man:
@mariner4life whats the compromise though?
I don't know! I don't know what they both want!! i can't see why a 10 team home and away can't work, with a top 4. But then i am not in possession of all teh facts.
And, i totally get the lack of appeal in Australia for a comp that doesn't look, on current evidence, that will have any Aussie teams in the post-season.
Doesn't the second part answer the first?
yes, but i don't know how you get an Aussie team in without conferences. And you can't run a conference when you just play everyone home and away. So then it's 3 rounds, 2 v Domestic, 1 v Trans- Ta$man (like this year but more mixed). Conference winners to the semi along with 2 "wildcards"?
I can hear the howls of outrage from NZ fans already.
@mariner4life said in Super Rugby Trans Ta$man:
@kiwimurph said in Super Rugby Trans Ta$man:
@mariner4life said in Super Rugby Trans Ta$man:
@kiwiwomble said in Super Rugby Trans Ta$man:
@mariner4life whats the compromise though?
I don't know! I don't know what they both want!! i can't see why a 10 team home and away can't work, with a top 4. But then i am not in possession of all teh facts.
And, i totally get the lack of appeal in Australia for a comp that doesn't look, on current evidence, that will have any Aussie teams in the post-season.
Doesn't the second part answer the first?
yes, but i don't know how you get an Aussie team in without conferences. And you can't run a conference when you just play everyone home and away. So then it's 3 rounds, 2 v Domestic, 1 v Trans- Ta$man (like this year but more mixed). Conference winners to the semi along with 2 "wildcards"?
I can hear the howls of outrage from NZ fans already.
This will be very unpopular, but we have to have conferences with probably that system you just explained, which means that the 'Final' may not have the best two teams in the comp - just like the NBA and many other conference competitions.
12 team competition divided into two conferences by country who go to a Conference/Country (i.e., Super Rugby Oz, Super Rugby Aotearoa) Championship and the winners play in the Trans-tasman final.
I'd set it up so that on either side, three teams qualify for the post season.
Conference winner gets the first week off while 2nd and 3rd play.
Country/Conference final
Trans-tasman final.It's not pretty but it will probably pay the bills.
