It is a debate that has been raging for a good 10 or 15 years now, should the Currie Cup include all 14 unions, or just the so-called big 5/6?
There are interesting times ahead in SA Rugby in the next few weeks with the announcement of the Australian Super rugby franchise.
Hoskins and Co are pretty positive in their belief that they have a great chance to outbid the Melbourne franchise and be awarded the very lucrative deal in their bid as the Southern Kings.
More interesting for me however would be the impact Super rugby, whether the Kings win the bid or not, will have on the oldest domestic competition in the world, the Currie Cup.
If the Kings do get the franchise there will be a massive push to include them in the local competition in 2010 to prepare them for the rigours of Super rugby set to kick off with the new 15-team format in 2011. Should they not get it you can be sure there will still be a massive push to include them in something given the history of the region and the pressure on SA Rugby to assist them in getting some form of professional setup going, which in all probability will mean inclusion in the Currie Cup in 2010 in the very least.
Currently the Currie Cup runs as an 8-team premier league, and a 6-team first division league with the top 2 teams in the premier league involved in a promotion relegation battle with the 2 bottom premier league teams.
Last year saw the Leopards take the place of the hapless Valke in the premier division when they won their promotion/relegation play-off against the then premier division Valke.
Subsequently, the Valke has lost every single game since their demotion in the ‘weaker’ first division league. Mainly because they lost just about all their players, coaches and sponsors. It is a massive fall from grace and highlights the huge problem we sit with in SA Rugby.
In addition, the promoted Leopards has only managed one win so far in the premier division and that was against bottom of the log Boland who has occupied one of the bottom two spots in the premier division since the current competition structure was implemented.
Simply given the obvious results anyone can make a very strong case for Currie Cup rugby to reduce the numbers in the premier division from 8 to 6 where there will be a greater emphasis on strength-vs-strength in the premier division of the competition.
The benefits of this is obvious but no more so than for the money men who know that a strength-vs-strength format means more people through the gates, and more viewers on the tube.
But is this beneficial to SA Rugby in the long run?
If the new Super rugby competition has the expected influence on the Currie Cup and how the competition will be structured, you can prepare yourself for an almighty battle from the smaller unions, who by the way makes up the majority of the President’s Council (the body that control most decision making in SA Rugby).
Personally I think a smaller premier division group (strength-vs-strength), or even a split in how the local competition is structured in a premier and first division to whichever numbers, is not healthy for South African rugby.
There are reasons the current big 5 are in the positions they are, they have money. More importantly, that money was mainly generated through their entrenchment in the very lucrative Super rugby competition for more than 10 years now.
Of course the argument will be that it is useless to have a Bulls play against a Border and score 100+ points against them in a league match, and that a strength-vs-strength format will be much better for the game, even if it means that Border has to play against a first division team rather than a premier division team because they are more on par – but we then also have to ask ourselves why we cannot get a Border, or Boland or Valke to start competing at the level of a Bulls, Sharks or WP?
There is no shortage of player numbers in South Africa to sustain a 14-team competition, hell a country like New Zealand does this successfully and they do not even have a quarter of the playing numbers we have.
So it has to come down to how these unions are administered and the finances they generate.
Of course most will highlight the historical cases of corruption and gross mismanagement in most of these smaller unions, but that can be sorted out through proper management and implementation of structures from SA Rugby – if Griquas could do it, so could any other small union.
There has been many suggestions on what we could look to do in South African rugby to improve structures and distribute the wealth of our rugby evenly throughout the 14 provinces. The question now remains whether it should be done or not?
I believe it should, because just as the political history in South Africa will show you, control by a small minority, no matter how successful or beneficial to those in power, means nothing for the development and growth of the country itself, or the nation. Our strength lies in our numbers, and for as long as the minority controls the power and money in SA Rugby, we will never realise our full potential.
29@Morne – Not bad….
I’m wondering whether one should not amalgamate 4 of the smaller Unions with 4 of the other small Unions, creating a system where the 8 small Unions are now 4 “Small Franchises” consisting double the player base and so being more competative… also at the same time instituting a Draft System prohibiting the Big Unions from over-contracting and thus keep these players available at the newly created “Small Franchses”.
Good example of how this has actually worked this season, look at Griquas, with a few of the Valke having joined there, some other quality players having joined from elsewhere… and viola… they actually stand a chance of reaching the semi’s at the cost of the Lions and possibly the Cheetahs.
Let these 4 “Small Franchises” play in the strenght vs strenght CC… 10 Teams, consisting of the traditional 6 strong Unions PLUS 4 “Small Franchises” (aided by the Draft).
But hey… who the fark am I to suggest such radical innovation….
Hehehehe
Eishhhhhhhh, nou’t ek WEEEEEEEEEEER reg bo-oor die manne se koppe gecomment… niemand verstaan ‘n woord wat ek in # 31 kwytgeraak het nie…
Dit het net by die een oor ingevlieg, rondgedwaal en by die ander uitgevlieg………
……nnnnnnnnnnnnnyyyyyaaaaaaaawwwwwwww…………
32@grootblousmile –
hmmmmmmm,
jou hoed pas seker nie meer nie, nê? 😀
33@Ashley – So gepraat van hoedens…. ek moet juis al my gholfkepse so effe groter skuiwe die afgelope ruk…
Donner, ek beter by my favourite hairdresser uitkom…. ek begin lyk soos Jopie…
@Morn̩ РWas going to say before i read your post number 29 it would make the Curry cup very long and dont know if i personaly would be that interested in watching very weak teams playing the strong teams.
As long as they dont mess with the top teams they must do what they must do.
34@grootblousmile –
wou nog vir jou ñ foto van my aanstuur vir die blog
was nie seker
in watter formaat j dit wil hê
hoe groot die foto moet wees
en of ek ñ foto van me, mini-me en die baas kan gebruik nie!!
helloooooooooooooooooooooooo!!
wie’s bennekant riekenaar?
36@Ashley – Stuur maar…. enige rekenaar foto tipe filetjie… jpg, bmp, tif, gif, jpeg, tiff, giff, flash animation….
Ek sal hom size om te pas, jou skewe neus effe edit laat jy ordintlik lyk… tanne in PhotoShop….. hehehe
38@grootblousmile –
dankie broetsie
ek stuur! 😀
39@Ashley – Ek wag… het jy hom met ‘n posduif gestuur ?
41@grootblousmile –
😀
wats ñ “posduif”, OOM?
..
ok, gbs
hy’s oppad na die webmaster-thingy toe!!
41@Ashley – Hiehiehiehie
Bwahahaha
Ek het die fototjie gekry…….. sorry ek lag so lekker…
Hahahaha
Hehehehe
Mini-me lyk op ‘n druppel nes jy….. trek hom maar mooi aan, seblief….
Hehehe
Goed om ‘n gesig by die naam te voeg, ek sal jou foto nou verwerk en opsit….
42@grootblousmile –
hey gedra jou
daai was 1 van my trotste oomblikke, hehehehe
43@Ashley – OK, jou foto is op… en jy het nou toegang tot die Bloggers Photo Gallery bladsy ook.
Jy weet mos maar ek trek net jou been….
44@grootblousmile –
hey, waas mini-me?
45@Ashley – Blog Mini-me ook hier… heheehehe
46@grootblousmile –
jaaaaaa, ok man
btw
vi’ wat het jy my so donker ingekleur?
@Polla – The NFL solution is the answer. It really works to level the teams & improve competition.
@grootblousmile – Bwaaaahahahaha
Ashley waar kry jy daai haarstyl? Jy vasgehaak inni 70’s?
En hoekom pak jy nie ‘n tandjie uit nie?
Ek spot sommer. Great to put a face to a voice. Wens anner manne wil ook.
Welkom by die “not so faceless” people.
47@Ashley – Sorry, ek het uit ligte kleure gehardloop… ons blog is nog so bietjie witterig…. kry paar gabbas en ander negosiewinkelhandelaars om aan te sluit… solank hulle netnie All Blacks skree nie… hehehe
Morne
This is a very good article and you make some very valid points. I think the 2 main problems with Rugby in SA is the following:
1) Corruption & mismanagement amongst the administrators of the game (SARU & mostly the smaller unions – we can talk about this later)
2) lack of “money rich” supporters
South Africans are very passionate about rugby, much more than the people over here, but here is 12 teams in the Premiership – and this is only England. But the supporters here are probably more “money rich” which means less supporters can support more clubs. I think this why SA battle to support more than 5 teams
@grootblousmile –
Ek stem saam met jou GBS. Vat byvoorbeeld die Bulle se slot (ek dink hy is Willem Steenkamp). Nou dat Victor weg is, speel hy nie. Ek voel hy moet vir die Pumas of valke speel sodat hy speeltyd kry.
@LondonBul –
Ek rate nog glad nie vir Wilhelm Steenkamp nie. Jare word gepraat dat hy die volgende Matfield gaan wees. Ek het regtig nog niks gesien wat dit bewys nie. Dalk blom hy eers later.
Users Online
Total 342 users including 0 member, 342 guests, 0 bot online
Most users ever online were 3735, on 31 August 2022 @ 6:23 pm
No Counter as from 31 October 2009: 41,819,937 Page Impressions
_