Back to the future.

[WorkingClassRugger]

So what are the other 4 conferences? Do you need an equal number of teams in each? What determines who plays who in the 2nd phase? And do points gained during the first phase count towards the 2nd? (if they do you won't necessarily get the best 6 teams).

The strength of this model is its flexibility. Can work with current three right through to 8 conferences. It's all dependent on how many teams you want. But in regards to 5 conferences. The three core conferences are the Aus, NZ and SA conferences. The SA conference is already 6 strong so no need to do anything there. For our conference we could do as the NRC and add a Fijian squad while NZ could add a 6th franchises (Taranaki has expressed interest in the last two expansions). From there it does get a little trickier but ideally one of tbe two other conferences would come from in the form of the Campenato de Argentino (a 6 team provincial champion) and the top 6 teams from the Top League.

 

[TOCC]

Yeah those are good points. The problem is that it tends to lock in teams as being tier 1 or tier 2 and you get little movement between the tiers even over long periods of time. You see this in European rugby and soccer. The other complication is that in Super Rugby we have two nations with 1 team and this doesn't really fit into a champions league type model. And I think it's good to include these teams, especially in a shorter super rugby model. The Sunwolves for instance could evolve into a Top League rep side. And in future rep teams from other smaller unions could easily be added, e.g. South America or the US, maybe even Georgia.

Agree that's a risk with potential impacts on sponsorship and player signings etc... but, I think if the champions league seedings were determined by the preceding domestic season then it would be a fair reflection of their positions in each.

I tend to question whether the Sun Wolves concept is even necessary, why not just promote the top team from the Top League.

 

[Omar Comin']

From there it does get a little trickier but ideally one of tbe two other conferences would come from in the form of the Campenato de Argentino (a 6 team provincial champion) and the top 6 teams from the Top League.

The Argentinian provincial championship is entirely amateur though, those teams would be killed. I think even if they were convinced to make it professional (big, big if) that the wages would be too low to retain any of their top players. The primary reason there's just one Argentinian team in Super Rugby at the moment is because of economics, they could have had two teams if they could afford it. If we were to move towards a shorter Super Rugby (at least the international component) then it'd probably make more sense for Argentina to enter a representative team. Same with Japan. Including 6 teams from these countries doesn't make sense when they're struggling to compete with just 1.

 

[Omar Comin']

I tend to question whether the Sun Wolves concept is even necessary, why not just promote the top team from the Top League.

Because they'd be significantly weaker than the Sunwolves. Also there are some international players who play in both the Top League and Super Rugby for other teams. Finally, the Top League teams are company teams and have far less potential to get Japanese rugby fans and general sports fans behind them.

 

[TOCC]

Panasonic went alright at the Brisbane 10s...

Anyway, the make up of a Japanese team is low priority compared to more pressing concerns right now.

 

[WorkingClassRugger]

The Argentinian provincial championship is entirely amateur though, those teams would be killed. I think even if they were convinced to make it professional (big, big if) that the wages would be too low to retain any of their top players. The primary reason there's just one Argentinian team in Super Rugby at the moment is because of economics, they could have had two teams if they could afford it. If we were to move towards a shorter Super Rugby (at least the international component) then it'd probably make more sense for Argentina to enter a representative team. Same with Japan. Including 6 teams from these countries doesn't make sense when they're struggling to compete with just 1.

As I mentioned before it can work with anywhere from 3-8 conferences. If three is the better option go with three. Or four. It just depends. I think this format has a lot of appeal. The Pro12 are assessing their future at present and I think this model would be ideal if both they and SAZAAR decided to get really ambitious and merge.

In terms of competitiveness. You're assessment of Argentina is fairly fair. Though you could argue that even with one team they are struggling to maintain their top talent. The premise is opportunity. Being able to carve a career at home. Plus, you wouldn't go down this path without assessing the value. If it's worth it much of the cost could be covered.

As for Japan. They have the budgets to recruit. Even if they ran 7 imports as part of their 1st XVs across the 6 squads that would still mean a lot of Japanese talent is involved.

 

[waiopehu oldboy]

Any talk of a sixth NZ franchise is pie in the sky.

The Highlanders have the smallest population catchment of the existing five at ~314K. The only region that comes close is Bay of Plenty with ~257K but you'd be taking roughly a third of the Chiefs catchment in siting a franchise there. Hawkes Bay has ~150K but that's roughly a quarter of the Hurricanes catchment. Taranaki, meanwhile, has ~110K which is nowhere near enough IMO.

Auckland can barely sustain the Blues let alone a second team: South Auckland is loig heartland, westies aren't interested in anything that doesn't have an internal combustion engine, the eastern suburbs are Eastern in more ways than one & the North Shore aka Little Sethfricka has a population of ~225K but as noted above that would still make them the smallest population-wise, as well as stripping the Blues of at least a quarter of their current catchment.

Put simply, the NZ Super Rugby pie can only be sliced into five & any attempt to cut it six ways will destroy first one & I believe eventually all of the others.

 

[WorkingClassRugger]

Any talk of a sixth NZ franchise is pie in the sky.

The Highlanders have the smallest population catchment of the existing five at ~314K. The only region that comes close is Bay of Plenty with ~257K but you'd be taking roughly a quarter of the Chiefs catchment in siting a franchise there. Hawkes Bay has ~150K but that's roughly a quarter of the Hurricanes catchment. Taranaki, meanwhile, has ~110K which is nowhere near enough IMO.

Auckland can barely sustain the Blues let alone a second team: South Auckland is loig heartland, westies aren't interested in anything that doesn't have an internal combustion engine, the eastern suburbs are Eastern in more ways than one & the North Shore aka Little Sethfricka has a population of ~225K but as noted above that would still make them the smallest population-wise, as well as stripping the Blues of at least a quarter of their current catchment.

Put simply, the NZ Super Rugby pie can only be sliced into five & any attempt to cut it six ways will destroy first one & I believe eventually all of the others.

There are alternatives. Like a team from the Islands. Or if Argentina cannot manage a conference or a 2nd team for that matter then the Jagures. Or if SA nix the Kings and the Wild Knight bid for Super Rugby it could be reworked again. The point is, this model is very flexible and offers a great deal more fairness in my opinion.

 

[TOCC]

Why would New Zealand want a 6th team, their current development pathway is the best in the world


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

 

[TOCC]

Turn it to Sunwolves vs Hurricanes to see a live example of the two tiers which exist in Super Rugby..




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

 

[waiopehu oldboy]

Polynesia has the population (~1.2Mn resident plus large expat communities in Australasia) & talent to burn but GDP per capita of ~$US 4K c.f. Australia 51K & NZ 37K rather counts against them, too.

I, too, suspect the answer lies in SA & Australasia going their seperate ways at Super Rugby level, but you can't just plonk a new team down in location "x" without taking populations & GDP (as a measure of what a potential market might be worth to sponsors, advertisers, etc) into account.

 

[waiopehu oldboy]

Turn it to Sunwolves vs Hurricanes to see a live example of the two tiers which exist in Super Rugby..

Indeed. I'm wondering how they're gunna jam a third digit into the score graphic.......

 

[WorkingClassRugger]

Why would New Zealand want a 6th team, their current development pathway is the best in the world


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

Just a suggestion. Either way, you will need at least 6 teams in each conference for your two tiered model to work.

 

[TOCC]

Sunwolves losing 83-5 but we are discussing cutting an Australian team and not them?

Reality is that the Sunwolves were introduced without a real blueprint to succeed, SANZAAR didn't provide enough direction as to their introduction, and ultimately I believe some form of performance measure should have been placed upon them to justify their ongoing existence.

Japan might be a potentially lucrative tv market, but if they continue with this standard of Rugby then their ongoing participation in Super Rugby undermines the credibility of the competition.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

 

[RugbyReg]

Yep. They have to go. They can't get the team together until a few weeks before the comp for Pete's sake. They'll never match up.

It's an embarrassment. Cut them.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[NTT]

Sunwolves are stinking up the joint bigly.

 

[Rebels3]

Can I bring up one point which indicates how we continue to shoot ourself in the foot here in aus. The brumbies are playing at 530, we desperately need viewer numbers to satisfy sponsors and more importantly the broadcasters. So what do we do, put the club championship (which is a great idea btw) on at the same damn time. Yet tomorrow there is no content on tv. We continue to do this to ourself.

 

[Omar Comin']

On the other hand they had a full stadium and it looked like next to no one left before the end despite the score. Their fans were passionately cheering the Sunwolves final couple of consolation tries. And the Waratahs and Reds have both conceded more points in super rugby matches.

Surely the challenge in such circumstances is to improve the competitiveness of the team rather than get rid of them.

 

[waiopehu oldboy]

Sunwolves have now conceded 710 points in 16 matches incl 50+ in five of them: 92 v Cheetahs, 66 v Brumbies, 57 v Waratahs & 50 v Bulls last year & now 83 v Hurricanes this year. I seriously doubt any other team in Super Rugby history has been so awful on such a regular basis.

 

[NTT]

Surely the challenge in such circumstances is to improve the competitiveness of the team rather than get rid of them.

So why isn't that the solution to Australias perceived problems? All the old boy brigade from Sydney want to do is cut teams, especially if they're Australian and not based in Sydney.
A full stadium is nice but considering there was one stand short at the ground, that number looks inflated to me. Besides, we know damn well that crowds drop when teams start to make a habit of losing.
We are all in the same comp, shouldn't the same standards apply?