The justification is that the sport would be doomed without the hundreds of millions dollars TV has pumped in.
But there is an increasing whiff of false economy to this argument; Peter is robbing Paul and Peters are proving to be less loyal to the code.
The overall declining interest in rugby suggests that the convenience of TV viewing has pulled significant numbers of fans out of stadiums.
There have been significant push factors aiding the exodus - uncovered seats, and unsatisfactory food and beverages, to name a few.
But the experience of lying on the couch to watch rugby, however well stocked the fridge, is just not the same.
TV can't properly portray the intensity of the collisions; the microphones don't pick up the clatter of human flesh.
While high definition provides crystal clear images, even a throbbing 52 inches of plasma can't retain the entire field in the picture to track where the space really is. Throw in the continued confusion around some of the rules and the spattering of unimaginative rugby and it is easy to understand why New Zealand viewing figures fell by five per cent last season.
The overall attendance in Super Rugby climbed by 697,000 compared with 2010, but much of that was due to the extra games and by the huge crowds enjoyed by the Reds.
A separate figure for New Zealand hasn't been released but, with Christchurch taken out and the World Cup being the chief goal for most fans, it is almost certain that total attendance was significantly down last year.
There lies the conundrum for the NZRU; the World Cup saw a new audience drawn to rugby and the early indications are positive many have been persuaded to stick with it.
But will they still be coming to grounds midway through the season when they realise the experience is not in the same class as the World Cup?
Can Super Rugby win back a fan base and achieve its desire of full stadiums and improved television audiences?
"We are wanting to drive viewership and put bums on seats," says Sanzar chief executive Greg Peters.
"The two goals are actually aligned as the broadcasters want full stadiums; it looks better for them when grounds are full.
"There is no doubt that it is going to be a challenge to win people back to grounds and that the onus is on the franchises in the way that they play the game. We have to create an experience that will pull fans in; whether that be with pricing in New Zealand or success or the overall experience."
In terms of improving that experience, it seems there are fewer more effective ways to do that than playing earlier in the day.
The administrators say they can't because TV won't stand for it and TV pays the money.
But TV is seeing its audience dwindle in the current format while night kick-offs do little to engage the young.
As a classic example of rugby's ability to abandon common sense, the Blues asked to play their round five game against the Hurricanes on a Sunday afternoon, rather than Friday.
They wanted an extra day's rest after playing the Stormers in Cape Town but the request was denied.
It didn't suit TV who wanted a Friday night game in the usual 7.30pm time slot.
No wonder rugby continues to limp when it is so content to shoot itself in the foot.
Rugby needs to wrestle back some power from the broadcasters. While it is true Sky TV has invested heavily in rugby, who could deny they have in fact received more in return?
What would Sky be without rugby's broadcast rights - rights, it has to be said, they have never had to pay full value for due to rugby's stunning ability to continually undersell the product.
The goal of full stadiums and bigger audiences will never be achieved in the current format: it's impossible to grow a fan base when those paying for tickets know they are an afterthought.
