Super Expansion

Expanding the Super 14 does not look like a good idea.

I think it has all come down to money, and what the aim behind super expansion is, it can only be money.

More teams mean more matches. More matches mean more attendance and more TV and that means more money. 22 games definately mean more money.

Do Super rugby need more games? Money is needed, certainly, but is more Rugby good for Super Rugby? Everybody seems to agree with the idea that the level has been dropped a level or two since the las Super Expansion. No, Cheetahs and Force are not responsible for it, but could it be that more games on an already crowded calendar are killing the cow?

14 Super rugby games + 6 3N games + at least 5 or 6 ANC or Currie Cup games + 4 November tests = 30 games per season.

Do we really intend to increase the number of the games a player must play and at the same time ask the player to maintain top form from week 1 to week 52?

Super Rugby needs a re-think and a schedule from January to June cannot be mantained. Beside, the expansion does not take into the equation both Argentina and the Islanders... which would certainly make for a healthier pool of players.

Please, Marinos, O'Neill and Tew, don't look at the short-term. I don't want enough money to retain the required players in order to win the 2011 RWC; What I want is to enjoy the Rugby from 2009 on.

1 comment:

Nursedude said...

I agree. I just think with the economy in the shitter in most places, is the money there? I see a lot of empty seats at too many of the super 14 games I watch on TV.