• Welcome to the Green and Gold Rugby forums. As you can see we've upgraded the forums to new software. Your old logon details should work, just click the 'Login' button in the top right.

Where to for Super Rugby?

WorkingClassRugger

Simon Poidevin (60)
Not sure I'm a fan of playing the domestic season alongside of the TT comp it creates to much confusion if that is what's proposed. also with Australia, the game needs some clear air to promote its domestic content.

I think we should have what is being implemented (but also think 6 teams each country), domestic season followed by TT, it also gives you options regards the format of the TT, could end up pools format which may allow you to add other teams ie: Japan


Yeah. Link up with Japan to get the top 4 from their new pro structure for a 16 team AP Cup competition played after each has finished. Two pools of 8 playing playing a single round of game with the winner of each pool playing in the final.
 

Adam84

Mark Loane (55)
The addition of Japanese teams is something to consider for 2022, not 2021.
The first Trans-Tasman game is only 6 months away, not a very long time in the covid era.
Neither union can afford to plan for, and sell something which falls over at the last minute.
 
  • Like
Reactions: dru

Sully

Tim Horan (67)
Staff member
Expanding Super Rugby into Japan is the same crap that fucked Super Rugby the first time. It's a no from me.

no.gif
 

Brumby Runner

Tim Horan (67)
Not sure I'm a fan of playing the domestic season alongside of the TT comp it creates to much confusion if that is what's proposed. also with Australia, the game needs some clear air to promote its domestic content.

I think we should have what is being implemented (but also think 6 teams each country), domestic season followed by TT, it also gives you options regards the format of the TT, could end up pools format which may allow you to add other teams ie: Japan

Hoggy I'm not at all sure what you are suggesting. My understanding of the proposed competitions for 2021 is that Aus and NZ will both have their domestic competitions run concurrently, to be followed by the TT competition. I do not believe either domestic competition will be run alongside the TT.
 

WorkingClassRugger

Simon Poidevin (60)
Once things settle down, and a regular competition can be established, I think the TT final really should be AUS vs NZL, super bowl style. Indeed, going full mini-NFL seems a fairly logical way to go for me (and probably what they should've done a few years ago when SARU wanted teams everywhere).

Assuming both Island teams get off the ground you'll have an Australian and New Zealand division of six teams each. Each team plays everyone in its own division twice (home and away) and each team in the other division once (alternating venues) for a 16 week regular season, with 8 home matches and 8 away matches. I see the NZ franchises have said they need at least six home matches to break even. I assume that's similar for Australia, so this satisfies that with a little bit more. Not quite sure how the bye's would work in this scenario though. Even numbers mean two teams would have a bye at the same time, and I don't think there would be bye's every round, so some rounds would have one fewer match than normal.

EDIT: Would also be separate points tables across the entire season.

For the post season you could do a straight top two divisional final leading to a TT final, or run it like SRAu did this season. If time permitted I'd prefer the SRAu version. So the total season would look something like this:

REGULAR SEASON
Play against all teams within your division twice (10 matches, 5 at home)
Play against all teams within the other division once (6 matches, 3 at home)

POST SEASON
Qualifying final: Regular season 2 vs 3 (hosted by 2)
Divisional final: Winner of qualifying final vs 1 (hosted by 1)
SR TT final: Winner of divisional finals play

If the player/depth disparity ever reaches the situation it did a few seasons ago, or one division simply has a collective shitter of a season, then sure, you potentially may get the odd season where the true final is in the divisional round, but frankly I don't really care. A TT final should be just that, trans-Tasman. A Beldisloe sneak peak. Also, just run with the David vs Goliath buildup in those cases.

Someone mentioned before about shopping the TT final around like they do the super bowl. I'd be on board with this if they could generate enough commercial and fan interest. Though I'd add the caveat that the final needs to alternate between the two countries, and maybe have some sort of mechanism limiting how often a particular city hosts it (assuming you don't want every final to always be in Auckland or Sydney). Even if they can't generate enough commercial interest to shop it around, I think having the TT final location set by the unions a year ahead of each season would be beneficial (and, again, alternating between the two countries).

There's 958 pages in this thread, and several posters who are clearly familiar with the NFL/American sports, so much (probably all) of this has likely been suggested before.

We could even tweak that a little further. Run the regular season as you suggest and crown a Aus and NZ Divisional Champion. So 16 games. Then the Top 2 teams from each division automatically progress to the 2nd week of the finals series while the other four from each play in cross divisional knockout games. So Aus 3 would play NZ 6 and vice versa. Winner of each of these games plays the 1 and 2 ranked teams in the 2nd week. That's four weeks of finals. Twenty weeks total.
 

Adam84

Mark Loane (55)
I
Expanding Super Rugby into Japan is the same crap that fucked Super Rugby the first time. It's a no from me.

View attachment 11927

If RA/NZRU want the broadcast dollars on offer from Japan, then it’s the right idea, previously it was just poorly executed.

And I think Super Rugby was fucked well before the Sunwolves joined
 
  • Like
Reactions: dru

dru

Nick Farr-Jones (63)
I

If RA/NZRU want the broadcast dollars on offer from Japan, then it’s the right idea, previously it was just poorly executed.

And I think Super Rugby was fucked well before the Sunwolves joined

The NO is to the former “Super” comp. Domestic followed by a new style Super is great. No reason we can’t find room for Japan there or they for us.
 

dru

Nick Farr-Jones (63)
So I can’t help a small single digit at NZ. Fossie talking about WBs winding up NZ and that this is, apparently, a common tactic against ABs. BS. Just BS. It is completely a programmed approach by NZ to their opposition. But the opposition is responding.

Fancy that.
 

Rugbynutter39

Steve Williams (59)
It would be in the form of a short Cup competition. It's hardly full integration. It also allows us to tap into a major market.

Yep keep the home conference system where you play each side twice and the cup competition where you play each side once. You would have to though do some sort of cup, plate and shield type division structure like sevens to make it work given difference between different leagues but doable and workable - especially as should have room to move to at least 20 games per season if not 22.
 

Rebels3

Jim Lenehan (48)
I think it’s important that we have an outright Australian champion in something every year. We shouldn’t put ourselves in a position where there is no success for long periods again. Media needs to celebrate something and fans need to celebrate something.

I’m all for SRAU and then a different TT or Asian-Pacific Cup afterwards.

About the only flexibility I’d have with the domestic would be pacific team/s playing in SRAU as there is little chance of complete domination.
 

Derpus

John Eales (66)
You'd think, Force aside, there would have to be a cap on the number of foreign players per team. Maybe 4?

Plus i like the idea of each proposed move being assessed on it's merits. Wild example, Brumbies shouldn't be allowed to sign Nico Sanchez.
 

PhilClinton

Nicholas Shehadie (39)
This seems very counter intuitive to everything we've heard to date regarding squads being cut and salaries being slashed.

If franchises are being told to run lean for the next few years, but also encouraged to sign Puma and Springbok players, the two directives don't match up.

Realistically I don't think our franchises would be able to offer anywhere near the money some of the top level players would command in Japan or Europe, but it's still very confusing.
 

Blackadder

Desmond Connor (43)
You'd think, Force aside, there would have to be a cap on the number of foreign players per team. Maybe 4?

Plus i like the idea of each proposed move being assessed on it's merits. Wild example, Brumbies shouldn't be allowed to sign Nico Sanchez.

We are meant to be building the depth up for the Wallabies and give pathways for the players coming through. If not they will continue to go elsewhere. A few foreign players here and there for experience but overall build Australian players up
 

Derpus

John Eales (66)
Sounds good, doesnt work. We need depth to be competitive, being competitive will do more for player development than throwing in young guys who arent up to it to get flogged.

That whole 'more spots for development' thing didnt really pan out too well with our expansion teams.
 

Derpus

John Eales (66)
This seems very counter intuitive to everything we've heard to date regarding squads being cut and salaries being slashed.

If franchises are being told to run lean for the next few years, but also encouraged to sign Puma and Springbok players, the two directives don't match up.

Realistically I don't think our franchises would be able to offer anywhere near the money some of the top level players would command in Japan or Europe, but it's still very confusing.
They wont be signing Matera or Sanchez. It will be the younger less fancied players.
(who are obviously still International quality). There are only so many European or Japanese contracts available.

I think having some Pumas around Australia would be good. Not convinced by the Saffas run off though. They will be way lower quality.
 

KevinO

Greg Davis (50)
We are meant to be building the depth up for the Wallabies and give pathways for the players coming through. If not they will continue to go elsewhere. A few foreign players here and there for experience but overall build Australian players up

This is where the Irish system has shown success, the ARU has the power to say nope. that's a position we need to build depth so you have to choose home grown. Than if it's a position where there are 3-4 good options already the team can choose a foreign player.

Thing is at the moment, the only positions that a foreign player should be able to fill is TH, 12 and FB
 

PhilClinton

Nicholas Shehadie (39)
They wont be signing Matera or Sanchez. It will be the younger less fancied players.
(who are obviously still International quality). There are only so many European or Japanese contracts available.

I think having some Pumas around Australia would be good. Not convinced by the Saffas run off though. They will be way lower quality.


I agree it would be beneficial, my issue is with the economics of it based on the current position of Super Rugby teams in Australia. If this message is coming from RA, are they going to stump up some dosh for these blokes?

Without knowing the exact figures I would imagine a player capped by the Pumas/Springboks would probably demand salary of double (or more) of a young Australian player coming through the system yet to cement themselves in Super Rugby. Does that mean we are giving up two, maybe three possible Wallabies to sign one Argentinian?
 

Derpus

John Eales (66)
I agree it would be beneficial, my issue is with the economics of it based on the current position of Super Rugby teams in Australia. If this message is coming from RA, are they going to stump up some dosh for these blokes?

Without knowing the exact figures I would imagine a player capped by the Pumas/Springboks would probably demand salary of double (or more) of a young Australian player coming through the system yet to cement themselves in Super Rugby. Does that mean we are giving up two, maybe three possible Wallabies to sign one Argentinian?

And that's why you need to assess each move on it's merits. For example, i would no issue with the Tash signing Alemano, because who the fuck else are they going to throw in? It's only blocking a pathway if there is someone waiting to step up.

Equally why most of the SR franchises shouldn't sign a 10. We have young quality 10s ready to step up across the teams (WF excluded)
 
Top