Steve Deane: Another cunning plan from the NZRU

Sometimes it's hard not to feel sorry for the whipping boy that is the NZRU. Usually, it's harder not to whip them.

When you talk to the folk who run rugby's governing body, it's clear they are no dummies. But sometimes clever people do stupid things. As far as the national championship goes, it has become a case of "what are these idiots going to do next"? Create a whole new raft of unnecessary problems is what.

The news coming out of Wellington at the weekend that the NZRU and its provincial unions have resolved to press ahead with a 10-team national championship premier division is beyond belief. Work is to continue on how to provide meaningful competition for the four unions that miss out. Ideas on the table include B-teams from the bigger unions or maybe even Australian teams making up the numbers.

Only the NZRU could attempt to solve a problem of having too many teams trying to play too many games in too short a time by adding more teams. This is what we get after months of debate - an idea so staggering in its stupidity it defies belief.

For starters most, if not all, of the unions likely to be relegated to the second tier don't consider playing against B-teams to be meaningful. Simply telling them it is won't make it so. And as for introducing a transtasman travel element - yeah that'll sure help cut costs.

Sky TV, the competition's likely broadcaster, is on record as saying it would welcome a refreshed finals format. And yet the NZRU plans to offer up more of the same moribund tosh. All parties have agreed the competition must run for 11 weeks. So let's have a 10-team nine-match round robin followed by straight semis and a final, they say. And we'll figure out what to do with the other four teams later. Brilliant. Innovative. Invigorating. Crap.

It shouldn't be this hard. Given the parameters of an 11-week competition, 14 teams, four or five home games, a full round robin and promotion-relegation, there are any number of solutions that don't involve adding more teams. None of them include a 10-team top division.

Here's one. An eight-team top division and six-team second division a la the hugely successful Currie Cup. In the top division, the teams would play a full seven-match round robin.

At its completion they are split into a top and bottom four.

The top teams play another three-match round robin to determine the finalists, the bottom teams play to determine the bottom two for a relegation play-off. In the second division, all six teams play each other home and away - 10 matches over 10 weeks. The top two play off for a promotion spot. If teams such as Wanganui or North Otago want to be promoted from the Heartland Championship, then simply introduce a second division relegation match as well.

Let's see: Full round robin - check. Eleven weeks - check. Five home games - check. A reinvigorated format that should capture public interest - check. Meaningful competition for all - check. Promotion /relegation - check.

Other variations involving extended finals formats similar to league could also be developed with ease. With the ideas men from all 27 unions having attended two separate talk-fests in Wellington already, it's impossible to believe that these options haven't been considered. So why haven't they found favour?

One possibility is that, with the B-team competition cancelled this year as a cost-cutting measure, the bigger unions are trying to find a back door way of getting their B-sides back up and running.

This would certainly help the likes of Auckland and Wellington with their player development, but it would be the death knell for the likes of Counties, Northland or Tasman.

Unable to pull crowds to meaningless fixtures, the smaller unions would wither even further. Their coffers would run dry, the good players would leave. And yet this is the option currently being pursued.

The NZRU has already had two chances to sort this mess out. This mob are down to their third strike - if they swing and miss they should be booted out.