S18 on its way

[TOCC]

SANZAR wouldn't even be discussing this if they hadn't received a nod of approval from the broadcasters​

 

[Parse]

In the past, the lure of watching Super Rugby has been the idea that you are watching the best teams from the southern hemisphere slogging it out week after week against each until finally there's one team left standing. The conference system has diluted this slightly, we already have seen some people complaining about certain teams being gifted positions in the finals because they topped their conference.

This proposal will make it worse, it will no longer have that lure for the public, it will be more like watching the lower grades sorting themselves out, to see who gets to play in the final battles.

IMO, the best way to go is back to the home and away format we used to have. If they want to add more teams, regardless of country and expand the competition (and number of games to sell to broadcasters), then they should make these new teams earn the right to play in the most elite rugby competition in the world. By that, I mean a second tier, a B division competition. In saying this, I also think there should be some very good rewards for the "B" competition, with at least a couple of the teams being able to be promoted to the elite each year (with teams also being dropped to the B division of course), and there should also be a chance for the B graders to topple the Elite - lets allow the winners of the B grade to play the winners of the Elite or something. I am sure some smart people can come up with stuff to make the B division just as enjoyable to watch as the elite division.

 

[Inside Shoulder]

In the past, the lure of watching Super Rugby has been the idea that you are watching the best teams from the southern hemisphere slogging it out week after week against each until finally there's one team left standing. The conference system has diluted this slightly, we already have seen some people complaining about certain teams being gifted positions in the finals because they topped their conference.

This proposal will make it worse, it will no longer have that lure for the public, it will be more like watching the lower grades sorting themselves out, to see who gets to play in the final battles.

IMO, the best way to go is back to the home and away format we used to have. If they want to add more teams, regardless of country and expand the competition (and number of games to sell to broadcasters), then they should make these new teams earn the right to play in the most elite rugby competition in the world. By that, I mean a second tier, a B division competition. In saying this, I also think there should be some very good rewards for the "B" competition, with at least a couple of the teams being able to be promoted to the elite each year (with teams also being dropped to the B division of course), and there should also be a chance for the B graders to topple the Elite - lets allow the winners of the B grade to play the winners of the Elite or something. I am sure some smart people can come up with stuff to make the B division just as enjoyable to watch as the elite division.

Unless you have the same number from each country in both divisions it will skew the TV watching in the various countries and give an even more uneven travelling schedule than is already the case. If you were fair dinkum doing it on merit based on the last 2 seasons the Tahs - potentially the largest Oz TV market - would be in B division. NZ might only have 1 team worthy of B division.
There would be a wide gap between the top 2 or 3 in B and the rest.

 

[boyo]

It may be simplistic, but money talks, the rest can walk.

I don't see any decision being made on "what's good for the game", unfortunately.

 

[flat_eric]

No, the main thing from a revenue point of view is to give the Saffers something to watch that they actually will have an interest in. If they are two totally separate competitions, potential tv revenues will be diminished, especially from the Republic.

Not to mention the potential revenues from the finals stage. Money, money, money.

And that would be the only reason for keeping South Africa around. However, how much would this be offset by a better television product in our neck of the woods?

 

[No4918]

The broadcasters would probably be happy. Lose the midnight and day games and they have a lot more content for primetime. Franchises will probably be happier due to better crowds for these matches, less travel costs, and easier on players.

Ambivalent at the moment about the concept, certainly good and bad. If it was to happen with an aligning of north and south seasons I would be happier.

An 8 team final format featuring the top 2 of Aus & NZ plus maybe top 3 SA and highest Argies side. To keep some of the travel maybe make the finals cross conference.

 

[Pfitzy]

The two new teams in the AFL provide lop sided results, but so do the Demons, and they're not fielding a team of Colts like GWS

-----------------------
I hate autocorrect ...

 

[Bardon]

An 8 team final format featuring the top 2 of Aus & NZ plus maybe top 3 SA and highest Argies side. To keep some of the travel maybe make the finals cross conference.

If it was an 8 team quarterfinal I'd prefer to see the top 4 teams from the 2 conferences square off. It may result in no teams from 1 or 2 countries making the quarterfinal some years. But without separate country conferences there's no need to give any country guaranteed QFs spots.

 

[Parse]

Unless you have the same number from each country in both divisions it will skew the TV watching in the various countries and give an even more uneven travelling schedule than is already the case. If you were fair dinkum doing it on merit based on the last 2 seasons the Tahs - potentially the largest Oz TV market - would be in B division. NZ might only have 1 team worthy of B division.
There would be a wide gap between the top 2 or 3 in B and the rest.

Slightly different to what I was thinking when I wrote it. Super 12 was a good model, admittedly with countries having different amounts of teams, still it was widely watched and it's competition is what gave the Super Rugby series it's reputation. Although it's too late now, I would rather all the expansion teams came into a B conference from then on, leaving open for teams from the PI and Asia (or where ever) as well as the 2 new teams from Aus and the 1 extra (plus 1 more wanted) from SA. Obviously today that's no longer possible because we have a conference system. But I would rather see it split into 2 divisions. You'd have to make the first year equal eg: top 3 or 4 from Aus/SA/NZ in 2015 stays the rest go into "B" with other new teams allowed into B no matter where they are from as long as they can prove financial viability.

I am thinking maximum 12 teams in the elite here, there would be less weeks in the standard rounds but more in the finals/playoffs. True you could quite possibly end up with 5 NZ teams in the 12 after a year, but then that's up to each union to make their teams more competitive.

What will kill this series off is the constant week after week of the top teams beating, or even flogging, the bottom teams. People will wonder whats the use of adding all these new teams just to get flogged each week and won't bother watching the games on TV, let alone front up to the park. True they stage the occasional upset and even now you can see how much broadcasters beat up such events eg: Force beating Crusaders, to try and lure people to watch other upcoming games the Force are playing because they know most people are switching the channel on these types of match ups.

 

[TOCC]

Slightly different to what I was thinking when I wrote it. Super 12 was a good model, admittedly with countries having different amounts of teams, still it was widely watched and it's competition is what gave the Super Rugby series it's reputation. Although it's too late now, I would rather all the expansion teams came into a B conference from then on, leaving open for teams from the PI and Asia (or where ever) as well as the 2 new teams from Aus and the 1 extra (plus 1 more wanted) from SA. Obviously today that's no longer possible because we have a conference system. But I would rather see it split into 2 divisions. You'd have to make the first year equal eg: top 3 or 4 from Aus/SA/NZ in 2015 stays the rest go into "B" with other new teams allowed into B no matter where they are from as long as they can prove financial viability.

I am thinking maximum 12 teams in the elite here, there would be less weeks in the standard rounds but more in the finals/playoffs. True you could quite possibly end up with 5 NZ teams in the 12 after a year, but then that's up to each union to make their teams more competitive.

What will kill this series off is the constant week after week of the top teams beating, or even flogging, the bottom teams. People will wonder whats the use of adding all these new teams just to get flogged each week and won't bother watching the games on TV, let alone front up to the park. True they stage the occasional upset and even now you can see how much broadcasters beat up such events eg: Force beating Crusaders, to try and lure people to watch other upcoming games the Force are playing because they know most people are switching the channel on these types of match ups.

Commercially that would be an absolute failure...
Sponsors won't sponsor teams in B Division, fans are less likely to turn up and it's probable the broadcasters wouldn't even show many of the games...

Thus you would have players leaving the B Division teams and gravitating towards the A Division teams creating an endless cycle similar to that in Premier League football. Yet unlike Premier League football, neither Australia or New Zealand have the economies to support teams in a B Division, they will go bankrupt before they are promoted...

 

[Rassie]

No offense but there is already a Argentine team playing in the same section of SA teams. That is in the Vodacom cup that is. Competing against Super Rugby left overs having hard time beating them. What will they do against Super Rugby franchises?

 

[Parse]

Commercially that would be an absolute failure.
Sponsors won't sponsor teams in B Division, fans are less likely to turn up and it's probable the broadcasters wouldn't even show many of the games.

Thus you would have players leaving the B Division teams and gravitating towards the A Division teams creating an endless cycle similar to that in Premier League football. Yet unlike Premier League football, neither Australia or New Zealand have the economies to support teams in a B Division, they will go bankrupt before they are promoted.

I agree, you are most probably 100% correct. But, I don't see the proposal of this S18 as any better. it will also end up a commercial failure. Simply put, they really can't add any more teams unless there's a financial base to expand it. And by this I mean a bigger market for the series, which means bringing in cash from viewers from places like Japan or the USA. Coddling up a few more teams from SA, Argentina etc isn't going to help the $ especially for the broadcasters - they will just have more dead rubbers to find a program slot for. With this S18 proposal, the broadcasters are really only going to get the results they want when it gets down to the nitty gritty end of the season.

 

[Omar Comin']

No offense but there is already a Argentine team playing in the same section of SA teams. That is in the Vodacom cup that is. Competing against Super Rugby left overs having hard time beating them. What will they do against Super Rugby franchises?

The Pampas are a development side of young amateur players. Any Argentinian teams in super rugby would be professional teams that would include some of their international players that currently play in Europe.

 

[Omar Comin']

What I would like to see is a 15 round trans tasman competition (including 2 weeks for semi finals and final) played at the same time as an extended Currie Cup or South Africa plus Argentina league. Once these leagues finish have a completely separate 6 week super rugby cup tournament involving all teams with seeding based on league positions. 3 weeks of pool play followed by quarters, semis and final.

I think this would work better than a closed conferences super rugby tournament with cross conference finals. With closed conferences it wouldn't really feel like the one tournament anyway.

 

[Rassie]

The Pampas are the Argentine B side who use to play matches against Chile and other South American teams beating them by a 100 points and so. The whole Argentine league is semi professional and noway in hell would the Super Rugby money be enough to lure the players back from Europe.

Playing in a league with Argentine clubs would be taking a step backwards and would have no benefit for SA. Stronger competition means better players

 

[Blue]

Blasphemy there is never enough rugby!

This is true.

I am an atheist but I just involuntarily crossed myself three times. Any other suggestions?

 

[Omar Comin']

The Pampas are the Argentine B side who use to play matches against Chile and other South American teams beating them by a 100 points and so. The whole Argentine league is semi professional and noway in hell would the Super Rugby money be enough to lure the players back from Europe.

Playing in a league with Argentine clubs would be taking a step backwards and would have no benefit for SA. Stronger competition means better players

The actual Argentina B side plays in the June internationals (they have a separate squad for the RC). It's made up mostly of players based in Europe. Argentina's superstars may continue to play in Europe but a lot of their good players and particularly their best young players that would be on low-mid level european contracts would be recruited by the professional Argentinian teams. Those teams would also be able to recruit imports. Argentina have good talent coming through the juniors, their u-20's have done well the last 2 years for example - better than Australia! I don't see why 2 teams from Argentina wouldn't be competitive. It's not spreading their talent too thin.

 

[wamberal]

It may be simplistic, but money talks, the rest can walk.

I don't see any decision being made on "what's good for the game", unfortunately.

Oh, the irony. That would be a good motto for our perpetual SS champions: "Money talks, the rest can walk".


The good of the game.



Now, where's my Latin dictionary?

 

[Cpt Crow Eater]

Now, where's my Latin dictionary?

Might need more than a dictionary to learn that one. No one one to speak it with either!

 

[southsider]

No offense but there is already a Argentine team playing in the same section of SA teams. That is in the Vodacom cup that is. Competing against Super Rugby left overs having hard time beating them. What will they do against Super Rugby franchises?

id very much hope that a Argentinian team playing super rugby would attract a higher level of player than a Argentinian team playing in the Vodacom cup would. Besides the kings wernt even in currie cup 1st division were they? yet your still very persistent that they should be part of the 6 teams to represent sth africa