Argentina to join Super Rugby

[Bull]

One thing is for sure the structure of the comp will have to change, do away with the each team playing the compulsory derby games, look at making it an even number of teams 18 or 20 and then split it. Much like the AFC and NFC in NFL or look at the Heineken Cup structure. I feel rugby has to have 1 global season, it would be an advantage for all the nations, teams and comps and would allow internationals to be played with full strength teams.

I would like to have the SR comp finish before the June tests and RC starts, this way we as Saffas would get a better quality Currie Cup.

 

[Bull]

I have to agree with Taine Randell
http://www.sport24.co.za/Rugby/Super15/Randell-SA-doesnt-deserve-6-20140225

 

[donmcdazzle]

Have you guys not been following the Super Rugby the last 2 years???

SA already has a 6th team!! The Kings, who played last year in the place of the Lions.

There certainly are room for a 6th team in SA. We have the depth. And in recent years, we have had a growth of local tournaments to get more players to the top level. The Community Cup, the Varsity Cup and the Vodacom Cup. There is an expansion of players, and this has been the case and reason why the Currie Cup has been expanded to 8 teams instead of 6 for the premiership division.

While everyone wrote off the Kings (myself included), they had a great first season. Even winning while on tour, which in recent years have been a rarity for SA teams.

Almost every year a SA team finishes on the bottom. There is a lot of players, but not enough good ones. At least the teams don't have to rely on imports like the Aus teams though I suppose.

Having an Argentine team will be good for the players, new place to tour. But is anyone really going to get up at whatever time to watch some rubbish argy team in a half empty soccer stadium? I'm sick of it as a NZ rugby fan.

They need to abandon this failed concept ,failed in the sense that nobody in NZ cares anymore. Sure they have a TV deal and sponsorship now, but how sustainable is it when people lose interest in the games? If kids aren't going to the games and getting into footy now, why would they be keen on it as adults? I'm mad on rugby, but ainly because when i was a kid we loved going to the games and getting into the atmosphere of it. I used to go watch Manawatu in the second division and we had better crowds than what the Hurricanes get now. Provincial NPC games in the 90's certainly had better crowds and interest than Super games now. How screwed up is that. I've been saying it for ages, flag Super rugby, get the AB's back playing in the ITM cup every week, then have a Heineken Cup (or like the old Super 10) for the top provinces.

 

[Bull]

South African teams would be a lot more competitive if it wasn't for rubbish like quotas and transformation. A lot of players have left the country because of it and it has done and still does an immense amount of damage.

 

[TRF_heineken]

Almost every year a SA team finishes on the bottom. There is a lot of players, but not enough good ones. At least the teams don't have to rely on imports like the Aus teams though I suppose.

Having an Argentine team will be good for the players, new place to tour. But is anyone really going to get up at whatever time to watch some rubbish argy team in a half empty soccer stadium? I'm sick of it as a NZ rugby fan.

They need to abandon this failed concept ,failed in the sense that nobody in NZ cares anymore. Sure they have a TV deal and sponsorship now, but how sustainable is it when people lose interest in the games? If kids aren't going to the games and getting into footy now, why would they be keen on it as adults? I'm mad on rugby, but ainly because when i was a kid we loved going to the games and getting into the atmosphere of it. I used to go watch Manawatu in the second division and we had better crowds than what the Hurricanes get now. Provincial NPC games in the 90's certainly had better crowds and interest than Super games now. How screwed up is that. I've been saying it for ages, flag Super rugby, get the AB's back playing in the ITM cup every week, then have a Heineken Cup (or like the old Super 10) for the top provinces.

well there is a one in 3 chance that a team from your nation would end at the bottom of the log. I think that saying things like that, would be counter-productive. I would rather look at the bigger picture and the growth the teams have shown. SA are the only nation that have implemented the Promotion/Relegation of a Super Rugby team. That is already proof that we have the depth. If NZ or Aus had another franchise, then surely they would have made a plan to get that franchise involved. Especially since there seem to be a tendency for Aus and NZ to vote together at meetings. And with the Force having 8 South African players signed for this year's tournament it doesn't seem like they are likely to have another team up and ready, then how about other Saffas playing for Aussie teams here and there, Jacques Potgieter now with the Waratahs, for one...

The other point of argument would be that, "just because you have the players, doesn't mean they would be competitive at Super Rugby Level". Well how would we know that, if they aren't given a chance to prove themselves?? The Kings, even though they finished last, did have very good players in their squad, some of them are even now regular starters for other teams this year, SP Marais & Shaun Venter have been playing 2 full games for the Sharks and Cheetahs respectively. And what about the Lions? finally they have a South African coach, and are now showing why they are such a menace during the Currie Cup.

In conclusion, there have been an upward curve for the SA teams and players, and that has also been evident in the Springbok's performance. While we had one team finishing last (in their first ever Super Rugby tournament), our other 4 teams all finished in the top 8!

 

[Don't Skip Leg Day]

No one wants to see another South African team! People want to see something exciting like a pacific island team or Japanese team! Having another South African team will weaken the others in the competition by sharing the players....or you'll see more imports.

Just look at the French and English league, the more teams the more average players and the more imports.

 

[TRF_heineken]

No one wants to see another South African team! People want to see something exciting like a pacific island team or Japanese team! Having another South African team will weaken the others in the competition by sharing the players....or you'll see more imports.

Just look at the French and English league, the more teams the more average players and the more imports.

Having another SA team might lessen the amount of South African imports in the French or English league! Last time I checked, the controlling body of the Super Rugby tournament was SANZAR (South Africa, New Zealand and Australian Rugby), so it is only fair that these nations get the wishes they desire for their own tournament.

I think everyone here is thinking that I just want more SA teams. Not true, I want an expansion to a model that is better for every team/nation. the current conference system is not working and is more a frustration than anything else. I just don't see the point of having 17 teams if they expand again. it makes no sense to have an uneven amount of teams as it makes it damn near impossible to give each team a fair chance at winning. Having 18 or 20 teams makes the possibilities better and then you can look at a model with pools and playoffs etc....

 

[smartcooky]

I just don't see the point of having 17 teams if they expand again. it makes no sense to have an uneven amount of teams as it makes it damn near impossible to give each team a fair chance at winning. Having 18 or 20 teams makes the possibilities better and then you can look at a model with pools and playoffs etc....

In a straight round robin with only one round, an uneven number of teams has two distinct advantages

1. A built in bye

2. All teams have the same number of home games as away games.

In Super 12, each team played 11 matches. Half the teams had 6 home and 5 away, the other half had 5 home and 6 away (in Super 14, it was 13, 7 & 6)

You can never get an even split of home & away matches with an even number of teams without either...

a. a pool/conference system or
b. a full-double round home and away schedule

 

[TRF_heineken]

In a straight round robin with only one round, an uneven number of teams has two distict advabtages

1. A built in bye

2. All teams have the same number of home games as away games.

In Super 12, each team played 11 matches. Half the teams had 6 home and 5 away, the other half had 5 home and 6 away (in Super 14, it was 13, 7 & 6)

So each team will play 16 regular matches... that's about 4 months of games just for the regular season! it's a bit of a stretch, but yeah it could work. But would that mean that SANZAR would go back to the old model? they seem to look at changing it as much as they can, and never seem to admit when things go wrong...

 

[goodNumber10]

go up to 18, Bring in Argentina, the Kings and a Japanese team..

Two pools of 9, top four teams in each seeded on the last years standing so Chiefs 1st seed, Brumbies 2nd and so on - make up rest of pool from fair draw but maintain as equal representation from each country as possible. So SA, Aus, NZ, SA, AUS, NZ then draw the last three at random.

Round robin home and away within your pool, top four straight into play offs. Does away with the mornonic conference system, does away with the tedious "derbies" and makes them special as they will only come by luck of the draw or in play off stages.

16 pool games each team - QF - SF - Final - 19 games total if you win get to the final. 35 games total season.

job done.

 

[goodNumber10]

One thing is for sure the structure of the comp will have to change, do away with the each team playing the compulsory derby games, look at making it an even number of teams 18 or 20 and then split it. Much like the AFC and NFC in NFL or look at the Heineken Cup structure. I feel rugby has to have 1 global season, it would be an advantage for all the nations, teams and comps and would allow internationals to be played with full strength teams.

I would like to have the SR comp finish before the June tests and RC starts, this way we as Saffas would get a better quality Currie Cup.

I'd love the season to be global.... for the life of me i don't understand why the NH season runs september to May, Feb to August makes way more sense, and in this day and age hard grounds isn't an issue.

 

[TRF_stormer2010]

I still say a two tier competion with 12 teams at the top is the way to go. Round robin format totalling 11 regular season games at the top tier with play-offs for the top 4. Short and sweet, strength vs strength and each team plays each other team. Allows for the domestic leagues to still have some place in rugby in NZ, SA and to develop the new Aussie domestic league. Less games means more rest for the players. Each SANZAR nation gets 4 spots for their top 4 teams

The 2nd tier can be more flexible and accommodate the rest plus poosible expansion; Highlanders, Lions, Kings and Force (are the bottom teams of each nation if we look at 2013) along with allowing for PI, Japanese and particularly Argie teams. SANZAR nations can decide whether they allow for promo/relegation matches between the two tiers.

 

[smartcooky]

I still say a two tier competition with 12 teams at the top is the way to go. Round robin format totalling 11 regular season games at the top tier with play-offs for the top 4. Short and sweet, strength vs strength and each team plays each other team. Allows for the domestic leagues to still have some place in rugby in NZ, SA and to develop the new Aussie domestic league. Less games means more rest for the players. Each SANZAR nation gets 4 spots for their top 4 teams

The 2nd tier can be more flexible and accommodate the rest plus possible expansion; Highlanders, Lions, Kings and Force (are the bottom teams of each nation if we look at 2013) along with allowing for PI, Japanese and particularly Argie teams. SANZAR nations can decide whether they allow for promo/relegation matches between the two tiers.

Its a good idea, but who is going to pay for the running of the second tier when it loses money hand over fist? Rupert Murdoch's mob will not want to put money into a second division. It might be easy to do this sort of thing from a South African perspective. All you have to do is promote/relegate your teams out of the Currie Cup, since your Super Rugby teams ARE Currie Cup teams. However, its not so easy for us because our Super Rugby teams ARE NOT ITM Cup teams; they are regional franchises, not provincial teams; Auckland is part of the Blues but they are not the Blues; Canterbury is part of the Crusaders but the are not the Crusaders.

I think nickdnz likes the idea of Super Rugby following something like the script of the original South Pacific Championship and then the Super 10, and if we had done that in the first place in 1996, we probably would not be having these problems now. ITM Cup teams would have to qualify to play in Super Rugby. The problem with that, however, is that the NZ Super Rugby teams would not involve our top 150 players. For example, the 2013 ITM Cup Top 5 teams were Wellington, Canterbury, Auckland, Counties-Manukau & Waikato. Those teams would then have been the Super Rugby teams for 2014. This means the the following current All Blacks would not be playing Super Rugby this year;

Ben Afeaki (North Harbour)
Tony Woodcock (North Harbour)
Ben Smith (Otago)
Sam Cane (Bay of Plenty)
Aaron Cruden (Manawatu)
Ben Franks (Hawkes Bay)
Aaron Smith (Otago)
Beauden Barrett (Taranaki)
Israel Dagg (Hawkes Bay)

This would not be a good situation for NZ Rugby, having All Blacks not playing at the top level, but its not unresolvable. I would have like to have seen something like this...

1. In any given year, the Top 5 NPC/ITM Cup teams qualify for the following year's Super Rugby.

2. The All Black selectors then select a number of players from the teams that did not qualify, that they want to see exposed to Super Rugby.

3. Those players go into a draft, and are drafted into the qualifying teams, but they MUST go back to their ITM Cup team after the conclusion of Super Rugby.

4. The NZRU meets all of the costs incurred by the five teams involved in Super Rugby out of the News Contract (as it does now) and any excess funds are distributed evenly among all 14 ITM Cup teams.

I see this as the only practical way to have a qualifying arrangement and still have NZ's best players involved in Super Rugby. IMO, it would also work well for the South Africans; Top 5 Currie Cup play Super Rugby the following year, draft players from the remaining nine teams etc. As for the Aussies, its up to them what they do.

 

[donmcdazzle]

Ben Afeaki (North Harbour)
Tony Woodcock (North Harbour)
Ben Smith (Otago)
Sam Cane (Bay of Plenty)
Aaron Cruden (Manawatu)
Ben Franks (Hawkes Bay)
Aaron Smith (Otago)
Beauden Barrett (Taranaki)
Israel Dagg (Hawkes Bay)

Aaron Smith is Manawatu, sorry but we don't get many AB's so we need to make the most of the ones we do have!

 

[TRF_stormer2010]

Its a good idea, but who is going to pay for the running of the second tier when it loses money hand over fist? Rupert Murdoch's mob will not want to put money into a second division. It might be easy to do this sort of thing from a South African perspective. All you have to do is promote/relegate your teams out of the Currie Cup, since your Super Rugby teams ARE Currie Cup teams. However, its not so easy for us because our Super Rugby teams ARE NOT ITM Cup teams; they are regional franchises, not provincial teams; Auckland is part of the Blues but they are not the Blues; Canterbury is part of the Crusaders but the are not the Crusaders.

I think nickdnz likes the idea of Super Rugby following something like the script of the original South Pacific Championship and then the Super 10, and if we had done that in the first place in 1996, we probably would not be having these problems now. ITM Cup teams would have to qualify to play in Super Rugby. The problem with that, however, is that the NZ Super Rugby teams would not involve our top 150 players. For example, the 2013 ITM Cup Top 5 teams were Wellington, Canterbury, Auckland, Counties-Manukau & Waikato. Those teams would then have been the Super Rugby teams for 2014. This means the the following current All Blacks would not be playing Super Rugby this year;

Ben Afeaki (North Harbour)
Tony Woodcock (North Harbour)
Ben Smith (Otago)
Sam Cane (Bay of Plenty)
Aaron Cruden (Manawatu)
Ben Franks (Hawkes Bay)
Aaron Smith (Otago)
Beauden Barrett (Taranaki)
Israel Dagg (Hawkes Bay)

This would not be a good situation for NZ Rugby, having All Blacks not playing at the top level, but its not unresolvable. I would have like to have seen something like this...

1. In any given year, the Top 5 NPC/ITM Cup teams qualify for the following year's Super Rugby.

2. The All Black selectors then select a number of players from the teams that did not qualify, that they want to see exposed to Super Rugby.

3. Those players go into a draft, and are drafted into the qualifying teams, but they MUST go back to their ITM Cup team after the conclusion of Super Rugby.

4. The NZRU meets all of the costs incurred by the five teams involved in Super Rugby out of the News Contract (as it does now) and any excess funds are distributed evenly among all 14 ITM Cup teams.

I see this as the only practical way to have a qualifying arrangement and still have NZ's best players involved in Super Rugby. IMO, it would also work well for the South Africans; Top 5 Currie Cup play Super Rugby the following year, draft players from the remaining nine teams etc. As for the Aussies, its up to them what they do.

Ja, I understand the men with the money bags will for the a very large part determine the set up. Like your demonstrating while it will be very easy for SA to adapt to such a set up (which would mean the lesser unions like the Boland- my actual team and part of the Stormers in SR- have a chance in the bottom tier- which I would love to follow), NZ could- as per your suggestion- adapt without too much difficulty. Taking AB players out of the ITM teams not qualifying for the top tier and moving them to the top would mean that the ITM sides in the bottom tier (if any) would be hamstrung though. That lessens the value of the 2nd tier but I think it is up to each partner to handle that however they see fit. To give the bottom tier some significance maybe if we have the top 6 of tier 1 AND the top 2 of tier 2 qualify for the main play-offs it might add some flavor while adding significance to the 2nd tier. Or even the top 2 of each country (6), the team next best from whichever country and the top team from tier 2. Then Aus would at least be guarenteed 2 teams in a final and we may even see a team from Arg or Japan or a PI nation in the final as top of tier 2.

Aus don't even have a settled set up so they should be able to adapt quite easily.

I just feel this strength vs strength setup which doesn't drag on forever is the best product of rugby so should be more valuable ITO quality if not quantity (unless the 2nd tier reaches its potential as a product as well) and shouldn't (at least in a 'better' world) effect the money earned. This is of course mere wishful speculation.

 

[TRF Mr Fish]

So it sounds like the NZRU has agreed to the 17 team format, which would last 20 weeks (one fewer than currently), would not have full home/away match derbies, and would still see some teams not play each other during the season.

What does this mean? Well, it means I have no freaking clue what the competition will look like... It will probably be very complicated, which won't bode well with the public. I'm thinking we might see two conferences, SA/ARG (7 teams) and AU/NZ (10 teams), but the details I can't be sure of...

 

[RoosTah]

If they could support it, I'd like to have seen the Argentinians given three provincial teams and then split the Super Rugby into two strict conferences of Aus-NZ and Arg-SA for the round robin. After that you have a top 10 knockout finals series.

 

[smartcooky]

So it sounds like the NZRU has agreed to the 17 team format, which would last 20 weeks (one fewer than currently), would not have full home/away match derbies, and would still see some teams not play each other during the season.

What does this mean? Well, it means I have no freaking clue what the competition will look like... It will probably be very complicated, which won't bode well with the public. I'm thinking we might see two conferences, SA/ARG (7 teams) and AU/NZ (10 teams), but the details I can't be sure of...

Why?

For 17 teams
Regular Season incl. a bye = 17 weeks
Post season (QF, SF, Final) = 3 weeks
= 20 weeks


Simples

 

[TRF Mr Fish]

Why?

For 17 teams
Regular Season incl. a bye = 17 weeks
Post season (QF, SF, Final) = 3 weeks
= 20 weeks


Simples

I believe the South Africans don't want to have to tour for 5 weeks a season, but don't quote me on that I also think they want to keep some sort of conference structure because otherwise the Argentinians will have no show away from home. Their closest away match will be against the Lions, and that's 10 hours from Argentina. Imagine if they had to head to Australia and New Zealand for 5 weeks too, they'd be absolutely knackered.

 

[TRF_stormer2010]

The travelling does become an issue with Argentina added. Stating that some teams will still miss out on playing each other does not forbode anything good; as far as I can work something out that fits that description we are looking at some form of conferences..

For the life of me I can't see why SA would want to keep any form of conference structure even taking into account Arg (we've been dealing with longer tours for quite some time now) as we have the Currie cup where we face each other home and away. If we continue facing each other home and away in SR as well we'll see teams playing 5/6 times against each other most years assuming the SA teams that reach the SR play-offs are also the teams that reach the CC play-offs. I'll wtach each game, yes, but it does irk me.

NZ wouldn't want the conference structure to stay seeing as they have the toughest conference.

Aus really shouldn't be dictating anything and should focus on the development of their domestic comp and not having NZ and SA prop up their game (not just with money and the conference system but with our players).

I get the sinking feeling that the new format will be a further step towards ridiculousness whereas SANZAR has- with this chance to change SR into near any format- the chance to get things back on track.