Super Rugby Pacific 2025

[JRugby2]

Proposal to make the finals procession more interesting - final and semis are at neutral venues.

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

 

[JRugby2]

Who the fuck is Alex Harford

Is Pasitoa really that shit.
I know he's starting at 12....

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]

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

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).

 

[Braveheart81]

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.

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]

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.

 

[Braveheart81]

What even is a neutral venue in super rugby?

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]

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.

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]

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).

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']

That idea would probably have got some legs in the early 2000s, but these days, not even the local talent get enough attention or support. I'm not sure the average fan would really care about a competition flooded with internationals.

Same with the suggestion above yours, I don't think the average Aussie or NZ fan would really connect with a whole heap of Americans coming into the comp.

By that I mean, I'm not sure it does anything to really improve the marketing or quality of the comp.

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.

 

[Derpus]

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.

And yet.... biggest sporting comp in the world.

 

[dru]

And yet.... biggest sporting comp in the world.

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]

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.

 

[The Ghost of Raelene]

English Soccer is fair because they play so much the best team does come out in front and iv'e had these pub arguments with mates form the UK and they hate the idea of finals and a side that finished 5th could end up winning it all yet didn't prove it through the year. All what you grow up on.

A lot of Rugby fans in Aus are use to this concept though. The School Boys comps are almost all first past the post.