JRugby2
Bill McLean (32)
I assume one of the reasons would advocate for this is the money side of things, but I hate this from the perspective of it's a middle finger to fans who support the teams doing well.
Fans > profit
Super Rugby Pacific 2025
- Thread starter rugbyAU
- Start date
Fans > profit
JRugby2
Bill McLean (32)
I think Pasitoa has just changed his game to suit being a unit with some ball skills as opposed to the out and out 10 he started his career as.
Derpus
Phil Waugh (73)
I was thinking more that the team that finishes top is all but guaranteed the trophy under the current rules because they also have home advantage. Obviously not guaranteed but it is a bit procession-y.
if its so stacked in the top teams favour just make them winners (eg EPL).
They generally finish on top because they're the best teams. I don't think it is home ground advantage that it moving the dial so much as it is a superior team playing a weaker team.
Home ground advantage was more pronounced when South Africa were in the comp because the travel there had a real impact (in either direction).
I don't think you improve the comp by potentially making the Chiefs play the Crusaders in Sydney in front of half the number of fans because you're trying to make it slightly harder for whichever team finished first to win.
Wilson
John Eales (66)
What even is a neutral venue in super rugby? Two Australian teams playing in NZ and vice versa sure, but an Australian team against NZ team?
You'd only get truly neutral in Fiji, and costs aside, that feels like a massive travel burden for the winner and wherever they have to head for the next round of finals.
You'd only get truly neutral in Fiji, and costs aside, that feels like a massive travel burden for the winner and wherever they have to head for the next round of finals.
I would assume the idea would be that it isn't necessarily a neutral venue for the final but one that is decided before the season based on bids (like the Super Bowl or Champions League final etc.).
The problem is that it clearly isn't the massive drawcard that one of those iconic events is so why would the NSW Government for example tip in a chunk of money to secure it?
Derpus
Phil Waugh (73)
Yeah I agree, was just setting out my original thinking. Play-offs seem kinda pointless but I guess good for fan engagement (if you are a Kiwi).
dru
David Wilson (68)
In a sporting vein, I dont agree. To be the best team you nee to have overtaken the clearly second best team in a winner takes all final.
On a side note, I lived in England for ten years and was always perplexed on the football champions. They did back it up with the various cup comps, but finishing minor premiers and being declared champions felt weird to me.
Simply run out the comp, then take the best in a knock out finals series. English football has it wrong.
Omar Comin'
Chilla Wilson (44)
Something like 2-3 American players per team on development contracts (funded by WR (World Rugby) and/or other sponsors) wouldn't make any difference to the comp or fan interest (and a few foreign imports in Aus and NZ teams has never hurt). They'd probably barely play any Super Rugby minutes anyway, it'd just be a way to get more American players into high performance environments and improve their national team over time. If any of them prove to be good enough to make it into match day squads than I think that's neutral in terms of fan interest - fans mostly just want to see their team play well and win.
dru
David Wilson (68)
Yeah. I followed it for years. I felt it was empty. At least the way they chose the end of season "winner". And then the cups came in starting with local community, knock-out comp all the way. And that empty thing? It was validated. Now the cups, that is interesting, but fail the opportunity for a team to build during the season. That "points at the season end" thing is a blunt instrument. But in the broader view with the cups, it is not stupid, just a clumsy way of pulling things together, but if you're charging through European football as "The biggest sporting comp" then you aught be honest enough to look at the way it has devolved. And created other comps to resolve it's lack of soul.
Ultimately, in a team sport, the season winner needs to have faced a "winner takes all" completion game and it needs to have been against the team that is recognisably second best, as a highlight end to the season.
Dan54
David Wilson (68)
I think the EPL is a fairer comp, you are judged over whole year. The only reason really for KO finals is really for drama and tv. Top team can win every game in round robin, have a load of injuries or just one bad game and get knocked out in QF. 6Ns and RC work well for me, no finals. I quite like idea of round robin comp to win championship, then all teams in for a KO comp for another cup (like soccer). Would give a better idea of best team for year, won't happen and understand why.