Does Adelaide really need the rugby codes?

Interesting points again. I don't think we have to like one of the Rugby codes (obviously to like the other) to see its arrival in every capital city as a good thing, to have variety for varieties sake as Sheek was perhaps alluding to above. Also personally I find the Rugbys these days (without a contested scrum) RL and RU are quite complimentary sports, not so obviously competing. But coming from other sporting backgrounds perhaps they are seen as too similar. (And yes I do believe in expansion to Tasmania, but only for its own sake not just as part of a continuation of the arms race [or the gold rush which is a term in some ways I would prefer to use]...and they should all come together. Or perhaps the AFL and Soccer in the first phase and then the NRL and Super Rugby second...or perhaps if you really want to compromise...the NRL and Soccer to begin with as part of bringing an AFL down. If we let the market in Tassie have its way they'd prob only settle for an AFL team...and why wouldn't you if you get what you truly want anyway!) If we continue with the Missouri compromise idea or the federation (perfect world map style, where Adelaide is part of the same country as Melbourne or especially Perth, not caught in between desert and a lake which doesn't fill all too often!) there are two major principles we can extrapolate from it. First there is the idea(l) of protecting the rights to and of local/discrete socio-political entities (otherwise known as states) and their identities which spring up in their own way. And second to allow a greater geo-socio-political continuum to carry greater and in some ways more worldly (which for me is usually more pragmatic and less of a good idea and more the things we have to change out of necessity) ideas to areas that perhaps haven't got a fair deal in gaining access to them. If I can use Kansas as an example again. Whilst it was Missouri the South bloc really wanted, as it was by then a well-settled territory with absolutely massive strategic (and symbolic value) they allowed Kanas to become a 'free state' in spite of its economic and cultural ties to the South. If Kansas was a truly Midwestern (or what Americans call Midswestern now) area, like Iowa then...it certainly isn't these days. It is now a farming economy...which like with other 'southern' states had very few alternatives. So this was inevitable in terms of socio-economic outcomes, but the line sealed the region off from its natural allies and basically prevented significant migration and investment for a generation, until it became a State leading up to the American Civil War (in the 1850s I believe) Basically the line was an entirely arbitrary one to keep everyone not too dissatisfied. But even Iowa had strong links to the South, through Missouri on the way to Louisiana, down the Mississippi/Missouri complex....but was economically linked to Chicago and the Great Lakes. Now I believe Iowa is considered Midwest, as is Missouri (which was a site of intense investment following the Confederation's defeat.) but Kanas is seen as truly Western (naturally its over the Mississippi-Missouri complex, but it's also a great plains state topographically). And the majority of Western states tend to be underpopulated and economically and finacially-poor (in that they lack the attractive/prospective populations or industries even of the Deep South, because of being 'screwed' or 'bleed' by the compromise. Adelaide, while it isn't so disadvantaged relatively, it is now (I've heard ;) ) quite financially-poor, in that it doesn't have the same capital for its weight of population, which is only a little smaller than Auckland (by the way a New Zealand falcons AFL team would be a great site of expansion :D ) which is both a good and a bad thing I guess. So there's no being 'screwed' and the compromise should be a good thing, given we're talking about sport, which Adelaide people do as well as any other Australasian. But I guess my point is, that Melbourne has a strong influence over the state (which isn't a bad thing in a sense, but it is a disadvantageous position) and South Australia's certainly not like Texas, which profitted wonderfully from Confederation time onwards (and this is before they found the oil), as it is geographically 'isolated'. But if only there was a demographic continuum from Melbourne to Adelaide, maybe Sth Australia would be more like Alabama-Georgia and the pop stagflation would be an interesting curiosity of that past. That is why it is not entirely wrong to say South Australia is like another country (but I'd never say it disparagingly). This isolation could be used to keep changes away, but wouldn't this defeat the purpose of being part of the federation in other fields? Also if you stay true to the federation idea (not become caught up in the blocs that unfortunately Kanas had to just deal with) there is plenty of protection for your local identity, which can be protected from the worst costs of being opened up (or being bled if you want) by enshrining just one team per Rugby code (which would prob require artificial financial backing to undermine short-term market loyalties) even if this is an uphill battle, even if the Rugbys are sold short in the South.

Interesting points all. Just one springs to mind as getting towards what I think the crux of the issue is here. If indeed Adelaide/Sth Australia is like Kansas (or what would become the State of Kanas after it became organised territory) in 1820, the code wars which seems to be building momentum towards nationalising of the three codes that haven't got there sufficiently yet (but not necessarily becoming truly national like jamesb suggests) seems to be leading very quickly away (financially and demographically) away from Adelaide in spite of the fact that South Australia is still a significant symbolic part of the federation. If South Australia/Adelaide becomes treated as a marginal space between the growing demographic power and economy of Queensland and Western Australia (in proportion to the overal balance between NSW and Victoria) I suggest this would be to ignore the significant position South Australia has played in the federalisation of Australia's (only truly national) sport. This is something that should not be denied South Australia, even if this role becomes more and more symbolic over time as the balance of power shifts further and further away from the all states are equal ideal of the commonwealth. This is I believe why the market as king approach betrays the idea(l) of sporting power, such as you can realistically conceive of it, as being vested in all states. Never equally of course, as sport is usually governed by a degree of democracy. I believe the market, which seems not to want the Rugbys in Adelaide at the first grade level (though if you have any counter viewpoint please do share) will, though it suits Adelaide's interests in the short term, will continue to undermine the heritage South Australia has in the evolution of the growth of Australia's codes more longer term. I say this only because (as a non-South Australian) I think this outcome would be VERY bad for Australasian sport (which is a world-beater for the most part in terms of the number of sports pathways enshrined) as a whole, which would be and already is heading for domination by much fewer than what we all 'signed up' for. The alternative is a diplomatic compromise, yes giving Melbourne over to one Rugby apiece (most probably selling yarra-land quite short in my opinion) but also a requirement that Adelaide, where this is most likely to be the least sustainable (without outside help) gain one apiece. The AFL and SANZAR have given the model (tho of course it's not been part of any organised deal as it were) and perhaps Adelaide could be the end of this compromise-solution.