Exit from Super Rugby?
- Thread starter kiap
- Start date
- Status
flat_eric
Alfred Walker (16)
I can't say I agree. I'm an avid Chicago Bulls fan. Have been since I was a kid because of the Michael Jordan legacy, but I haven't tasted any semblance of success in my time watching basketball and I still love and support the team. That's defiantly not the description of a bandwagoner. Just because you are not locally connected to a team doesn't make you a bandwagoner.
Back on topic, I agree with the general sentiment that this is an overly complex and somewhat ridiculous model for Super Rugby. I think fans get turned off by the lack of consistency in the competition's structure. It seems as if just as they begin to feel comfortable with it SANZAR goes ahead and changes it dramatically to satisfy a new television deal.
Why not keep it simple? 3 existing conferences. 1 extra team in each. 18 teams.
SaderCheif
Jimmy Flynn (14)
Is it the case of SA holding too much power or that this plan tries to appease everyone and in the process just creates a mess.
- It seemed that all three nations were in favour of some sort of expansion because they believe it is the pathway to a more lucrative competition, particularly in terms of the TV rights deal.
- South Africa wanted to add their 6th team to resolve their domestic issues.
- Australia wanted to retain as many derbies as possible because it is their best source of matchday revenue.
- New Zealand and South Africa both want less derbies because they play their own teams a lot already.
- New Zealand was very much against breaking away from South Africa.
The current plan involves 6 local derbies meaning that you only play two of the other domestic sides twice. Given that the desire of the Tahs, Reds and Brumbies in particular to keep the home and away derbies really only refers to the games against each other, the new proposal involving local derbies might not benefit them that much anyway. An extra home game against the Rebels or Force isn't any more valuable than a home game against just about any of the international sides. Presumably under the 6 local derby plan, you might get a home and away draw against the Reds or Brumbies and either the Force or Rebels. It seems like there are many detrimental aspects of this plan just so the Australian teams can retain one of their 'premium' home games.
If you split it into 3 pools of 6 and added the Asian team to Australia, you'd need to add rounds to keep home and away derbies against all the 'local' teams or cut down on the number of NZ and SA opponents. Under that sort of system, you could see an Australian side having to play away games in Japan, New Zealand, South Africa and Argentina in the same season if they get unlucky with the draw.
Clearly there is a sentiment amongst Australian rugby fans that South Africa causes all the friction and always gets their way. I don't really get that though. From the initial Super 12, Australia added the Force when South Africa added the Cheetahs. Adding the Force might have diluted Australia's talent pool but it helped add depth and increase our share of the TV rights deal. Adding the Rebels a few years later allowed Australia to get their wishes to have local derbies and finally have a 1/3 share of the TV rights deal. If you look at all the changes since Super Rugby started as the Super 12, they all benefited Australia most.
This compromise seems to endanger the ongoing integrity of the competition by making it overly complex. If the expansion teams in Argentina and Asia don't provide a substantial increase to the TV rights deal then it will have been a poor move.
Perhaps South Africa should have just been appeased by making it the Super 16 and bringing in a 6th South African team. The competition could remain 18 rounds with home and away local derbies for everyone except the South African conference who would keep 8 local derbies meaning you play 3 teams home and away and 2 teams only once. The Australian and New Zealand sides would not play against two South African sides a year under a 16 team comp but everything else would stay the same.
ChargerWA
Mark Loane (55)
A camel is a horse designed by committe (I actually think this analogy is unkind to camels, who are very good at what they do).
What a bastard of an idea.
Why not just give SA 6 teams and keep the same amount of teams in the other two conferences? Still top team from each conference and then the next best 3 into the finals. It just means that the SA teams won't all play each other twice. Big deal.
If this abomination does get off the ground they are going to have to think closely about who qualifies for the finals. Imagine a conference with the Sharks, Lions, Kings and an asian team. you could just book the Sharks in for a home final every year. Though I imagine the conferences would probably be Stormers, Cheetahs and Kings in one and the Sharks, Lions and Bulls in the other based upon geography. But either way, it is going to be very easy for good SA teams to qualify for the finals considering they will most likely have 5 guaranteed wins in each of their conferences.
What a bastard of an idea.
Why not just give SA 6 teams and keep the same amount of teams in the other two conferences? Still top team from each conference and then the next best 3 into the finals. It just means that the SA teams won't all play each other twice. Big deal.
If this abomination does get off the ground they are going to have to think closely about who qualifies for the finals. Imagine a conference with the Sharks, Lions, Kings and an asian team. you could just book the Sharks in for a home final every year. Though I imagine the conferences would probably be Stormers, Cheetahs and Kings in one and the Sharks, Lions and Bulls in the other based upon geography. But either way, it is going to be very easy for good SA teams to qualify for the finals considering they will most likely have 5 guaranteed wins in each of their conferences.
Benaud
Tom Lawton (22)
I can accept that expansion is what is desired. South Africa want a 6th team (despite having 4 of the 5 weakest teams already). Argentina and a team based somewhere in Asia make sense as the others. Now we have 18 teams.
Surely if you accept that premise, the best conference system is 3 conferences of 6. I can't see any conceivable way to spin it otherwise. The Asian team would join the Australian conference and the Argentinian team would join the NZ conference. And the finals system works the same way it works now. How you split local derbies vs international matches is still open for debate and flexible in that arrangement.
The model proposed has 2 conferences of 5 teams and 2 conferences of 4 teams. The conferences of 5 are substantially stronger on average than the conferences of 4. So comparison for finals purposes is basically impossible. The suggestion of treating them equally for finals purposes creates a gross imbalance favouring the weakest pools, and is designed to guarantee the Sharks and Bulls a place in the finals (and the winner a home final) regardless of performance. This is pretty clearly unsustainable.
What is most disturbing is the Australia and New Zealand boards are aware that the plan is designed to favour South African sides, putting their teams at an inherent disadvantage. Yet they are bowing to these desires and cheering them on anyway due to South Africa's financial might. They've been bullied into cheerful compliance. And it will ultimately cost the future of the game.
Surely if you accept that premise, the best conference system is 3 conferences of 6. I can't see any conceivable way to spin it otherwise. The Asian team would join the Australian conference and the Argentinian team would join the NZ conference. And the finals system works the same way it works now. How you split local derbies vs international matches is still open for debate and flexible in that arrangement.
The model proposed has 2 conferences of 5 teams and 2 conferences of 4 teams. The conferences of 5 are substantially stronger on average than the conferences of 4. So comparison for finals purposes is basically impossible. The suggestion of treating them equally for finals purposes creates a gross imbalance favouring the weakest pools, and is designed to guarantee the Sharks and Bulls a place in the finals (and the winner a home final) regardless of performance. This is pretty clearly unsustainable.
What is most disturbing is the Australia and New Zealand boards are aware that the plan is designed to favour South African sides, putting their teams at an inherent disadvantage. Yet they are bowing to these desires and cheering them on anyway due to South Africa's financial might. They've been bullied into cheerful compliance. And it will ultimately cost the future of the game.
Are they bowing to pressure from South Africa or are they pushing for their own desires as well which is resulting in this ungodly compromise?
It seems that the best way to have an 18 team competition is just to make it a single round robin. This compromise really only provides the Tahs, Reds and Brumbies with a guaranteed home game against one of the other two so clinging onto the local derby concept because it is financially beneficial for them has major issues with the integrity of the overall competition.
Pfitzy
George Gregan (70)
There are several issues with how things work in any of these scenarios:
1) You can't have the Force in a conference based in RSA. Its still an 11 hour flight to Joburg without connections to the other places, which is grossly unfair compared to the eastern states (and I include NZ in that).
2) Making the Asian or Argentine teams travel is also fucked, though that could be mitigated from their POV by having their home games consecutively.
3) A three-pool approach with a 6th South African team, and an Asian team in either NZ or OZ conference, still leaves the question of Argentina and their time zone issues - they end up with the longest commute regardless.
4) In any of the above three, you have teams making a one-stop flight to another time zone which can't suit everyone. But it probably has to be done to accommodate Argentina.
The European setup seems to work for them - as others from up there have stated: there is the hatred for neighbours and excitement for strangers that fuels the fire.
But three static pools doesn't always work either, and doesn't create any competition between organisations to improve (just sign better players/coaches) so we need to have a qualification process available where possible for teams to aim at.
In the first few years it will probably be the Super franchises as the main competitors, but over time I'd like to see as system where each nation runs their domestic competitions at the back half of the year, and qualifies teams out of that for a three month (ish), play-everybody-once championship like Super 12 used to be.
e.g. In New Zealand, the semifinalists from the ITM Cup Premiership qualify, and the winners of the Championship join them. Same with Currie Cup.
In Australia we have the four semifinalists from NRC - which may grow into a similar system as the above as the NRC expands. In Argentina and Japan, they bring their club champions to the competition each year.
Qualifying teams get a financial incentive for stepping up to the next level, and have the off-season to prepare their squads for the Super level of competition.
Over time, more teams from Japan, Argentina, and the Islands can be added, as the financial benefits start to flow down.
Eventually, each nation should be running an 8-10 team domestic competition that will run two rounds during winter, with defined breaks for these top tier games to play smaller pools for championship games, just like Europe e.g. HEC running alongside English/Celtic/French leagues.
1) You can't have the Force in a conference based in RSA. Its still an 11 hour flight to Joburg without connections to the other places, which is grossly unfair compared to the eastern states (and I include NZ in that).
2) Making the Asian or Argentine teams travel is also fucked, though that could be mitigated from their POV by having their home games consecutively.
3) A three-pool approach with a 6th South African team, and an Asian team in either NZ or OZ conference, still leaves the question of Argentina and their time zone issues - they end up with the longest commute regardless.
4) In any of the above three, you have teams making a one-stop flight to another time zone which can't suit everyone. But it probably has to be done to accommodate Argentina.
The European setup seems to work for them - as others from up there have stated: there is the hatred for neighbours and excitement for strangers that fuels the fire.
But three static pools doesn't always work either, and doesn't create any competition between organisations to improve (just sign better players/coaches) so we need to have a qualification process available where possible for teams to aim at.
In the first few years it will probably be the Super franchises as the main competitors, but over time I'd like to see as system where each nation runs their domestic competitions at the back half of the year, and qualifies teams out of that for a three month (ish), play-everybody-once championship like Super 12 used to be.
e.g. In New Zealand, the semifinalists from the ITM Cup Premiership qualify, and the winners of the Championship join them. Same with Currie Cup.
In Australia we have the four semifinalists from NRC - which may grow into a similar system as the above as the NRC expands. In Argentina and Japan, they bring their club champions to the competition each year.
Qualifying teams get a financial incentive for stepping up to the next level, and have the off-season to prepare their squads for the Super level of competition.
Over time, more teams from Japan, Argentina, and the Islands can be added, as the financial benefits start to flow down.
Eventually, each nation should be running an 8-10 team domestic competition that will run two rounds during winter, with defined breaks for these top tier games to play smaller pools for championship games, just like Europe e.g. HEC running alongside English/Celtic/French leagues.
Blue
Andrew Slack (58)
Hang on a sec.
I don't for a moment deny that SARU is an incompetent, self serving mess, but like Braveheart notes, they are not necessarily the big bad bully here.
Everyone has an agenda here.
Why if it is so bad for Australia is Bill Pulver the one to break it to the media like it's some big coup?
Big bad Saffas. They wanted the Cheetahs and you got the Force and then the Rebels. I don't hear anyone complaining about having those two teams now. SA got what it wanted but so did Australia so let's tone down the hypocrisy for a minute.
Aus players are tired of travel, their union is bitching, there is this unfounded rumor that more derbies will result in more TV money etc etc. Pulver is the one who seems to be pushing this nutjob structure and now SA are the bad guys for pushing their agenda?
I'd say the blame for where we are needs to be shared nice and evenly.
Meanwhile New Zealand seems to be sitting in the corner keeping quiet as long as they get the money.
I don't for a moment deny that SARU is an incompetent, self serving mess, but like Braveheart notes, they are not necessarily the big bad bully here.
Everyone has an agenda here.
Why if it is so bad for Australia is Bill Pulver the one to break it to the media like it's some big coup?
Big bad Saffas. They wanted the Cheetahs and you got the Force and then the Rebels. I don't hear anyone complaining about having those two teams now. SA got what it wanted but so did Australia so let's tone down the hypocrisy for a minute.
Aus players are tired of travel, their union is bitching, there is this unfounded rumor that more derbies will result in more TV money etc etc. Pulver is the one who seems to be pushing this nutjob structure and now SA are the bad guys for pushing their agenda?
I'd say the blame for where we are needs to be shared nice and evenly.
Meanwhile New Zealand seems to be sitting in the corner keeping quiet as long as they get the money.
Pfitzy
George Gregan (70)
But that's because those teams finally look to be stabilising, while South Africa has had five teams in basket-case land that has suffered promotion/relegation and still isn't delivering.
RUPA is ALWAYS bitching. They're like any fucking union - they think the other end of the stick is always better, even though theirs is covered in blow and diamonds.
Benaud
Tom Lawton (22)
I suspect New Zealand will sit up soon.
The design is such that the Sharks and Bulls play all 3 of the new minnows plus the Lions each year and avoid either Australia or New Zealand teams altogether. They only have one other team in their pool - either the bottom placed side or the second bottom placed side on this year's ladder. With top billing thus pre-arranged, they are granted a home final.
An equivalent arrangement in the soccer world cup might be:
Pool A: Germany, Spain, Belgium, Italy, England
Pool B: Brazil, Argentina, Colombia, Uruguay, Chile
Pool C: France, Ecuador, Cameroon, Algeria
Pool D: Russia, Ghana, Costa Rica, Honduras.
Top teams progress.
The design is such that the Sharks and Bulls play all 3 of the new minnows plus the Lions each year and avoid either Australia or New Zealand teams altogether. They only have one other team in their pool - either the bottom placed side or the second bottom placed side on this year's ladder. With top billing thus pre-arranged, they are granted a home final.
An equivalent arrangement in the soccer world cup might be:
Pool A: Germany, Spain, Belgium, Italy, England
Pool B: Brazil, Argentina, Colombia, Uruguay, Chile
Pool C: France, Ecuador, Cameroon, Algeria
Pool D: Russia, Ghana, Costa Rica, Honduras.
Top teams progress.
gel
Ken Catchpole (46)
Just on this point, I don't think it is fair to draw any conclusions based on who delivers the message.
Bill Pulver has a history of publicly floating thought bubbles since he took over the reins - they probably thought he would be best to deliver the message because delivering such news is really his forte.
The only thing we know for certain is that the representatives from SANZAR have come up with this idea so must be thinking it is a good idea.
Dan54
Tim Horan (67)
Well I am for one quite prepared to give this new system a go, if it is exactly how it ends up. I tell you one thing it has proven for sure, as there was meant to be no talking about it until end of June, we all know now you can't trust Aussies to keep their big mouth shut!!!!
I not sure if what the best model is, but as I 've seen about twenty eleven differents one mooted on this bored ,I would suugest that most want
1 Games at the time of day that suits them!!
2 Either more or less derbies (hard to work out which)
3 No more games against SA, NZ or any team that upsets any particular poster
4 An arrangment where only ref ****** will do my games because all the rest are against **** and so therefore that team never gets a fair go!!
Personally I don't see whats so hard to organise.
I not sure if what the best model is, but as I 've seen about twenty eleven differents one mooted on this bored ,I would suugest that most want
1 Games at the time of day that suits them!!
2 Either more or less derbies (hard to work out which)
3 No more games against SA, NZ or any team that upsets any particular poster
4 An arrangment where only ref ****** will do my games because all the rest are against **** and so therefore that team never gets a fair go!!
Personally I don't see whats so hard to organise.
Dan54
Tim Horan (67)
You wouldn't want to go into a final series if all your lead up games were that easy Benaud, think that is advantage NZ/Aus, and also advanteg to All Blacks/Wallabies!!
redveincheese
Billy Sheehan (19)
Seems a lot of small details have been left out of the announcement, most importantly how will the finals qualifications be handled. If the most obvious arrangement of 1 qualifier from each group for the semis is how they are going to roll then that's a disaster for AUS and NZteams who will only ever see one team per year qualify and hence no chance at having 2 teams or 2 home final games, with SA guaranteed 2 finals matches in SA. Perhaps they may stick with the wildcard concept somehow, but the whole thing seems a dogs breakfast.
This setup in my view will do nothing to improve any aspect of the game in OZ and I am at a loss to understand how it will benefit NZ as well.
This setup in my view will do nothing to improve any aspect of the game in OZ and I am at a loss to understand how it will benefit NZ as well.
Benaud
Tom Lawton (22)
I think the one thing we can say with certainty is the current 4-conference model suggested can't work no matter how it is spun. If the Kings must be added to the South African conference, that might end up being the only change. The option of a further 2 teams is being touted, but ultimately the only way they could be added is to the Australian and NZ conferences.
Blue
Andrew Slack (58)
Who are the five teams?
And boy those Rebels have really blazed a trail and until this season the Force was a farce. Those two have until this year hardly been any better that the Cheetahs and Lions oh and neither has come close to a semi final and the Cheetahs have.
The Rebels hold no more justification for their existence than the Lions or Cheetahs.
Pfitzy
George Gregan (70)
All of them right now. Bulls, Lions/Cats, and Kings historically. This is the worst year I can remember though. The Bulls were powerful when they were the Springboks but that was a very high peak considering their role as whipping boys in the comp.
Fuck I did qualify what I was saying above you ornery ranga! Our teams have been getting progressively more stable, but yours are up and down (mostly down) like a fucking yo-yo.
And in a nation like yours which is apparently a rugby haven for big beefeaters with horrid accents, you should be competing with the Kiwis at every turn. Instead, by being where you are its a far bigger tragedy.
- Status