Argentina to join Super Rugby

[TRF_heineken]

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.

Every team will tour!

And at the moment SA teams tour for about 5 weeks. They currently play 4 games in Australasia. 2 in NZ and 2 in Aus. plus they travel the Sunday or Monday directly after their last match, so it is basically 5 weeks.

As Stormer says, it will become and issue when the teams have to travel to Aus, NZ and Argentina all in one tour programme. But on the other hand, it makes the travelling for the Aus and NZ teams also more, as they now have to travel to SA and Argentina. I think the structure will be changed that an SA team will tour to Australasia and play the Aussies and the NZ teams. then maybe come back to SA, play a few games in the Republic, and then have a one off tour to Argentina.

The other issue would be that not all teams will go to Argentina, as their team will also have to play away games. I'm curious to see how they are going to balance it out.

 

[steblin]

Well this came out of left field! (At least for me, but I might have had my head buried in the ground...)

Singapore favorites to get the last team in a Super 18 tournament from 2016. Discuss...

http://www.superxv.com/news/super15_rugby_news.asp?id=41687#.UxbmxYwayK0

 

[TRF Mr Fish]

Hmmm that gives us a better chance of seeing something along the lines of what I outlined in this thread: http://www.therugbyforum.com/threads/32792-Super-Rugby-Changes

That being said, in this situation there's going to be 7 teams in one conference and 11 in the other, as it stands...

 

[nickdnz]

I was this earlier and I'm betting my left nut Singapore will not get a team. It would make no sense. Why would SANZAR want them when they don't have an established rugby following or more importantly, an established playing base? The reality is they would just drain the player pool from the unions..

 

[TRF_stormer2010]

As I read the article I understood that they meant there'd be 3 confereces of 6 teams.

Would we then see 6 SA sides in 1, 5 NZ and 1 Arg teams in a another and 5 Aus sides with... Singapore as the 3 conferences as per this supposed proposal?

I certainly hope not. I, and the article suggests SARU (I hope) don't like the conference system on the whole; Aus has a domestic tournament now and we should scrap the idea of playing double games inter-conference altogether.

 

[Kiwiwomble]

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.

i really like this idea, good compromise, the only thing i'll add to the "we wont see the top players every year" argument is most of them are moaning about playing too much rugby anyway

the problem i have with the whole conference system is that it is a pseudo domestic comp...you just end up with one domestic comp that doesn't have the best players (itm) and another that doesn't have the Parochial connection to the fans

 

[Shaggy]

... and this article on the Australian Fox sport website, also about the Singapore franchise, and the difficulties they would face ... probably get a good TV viewing numbers, but like this guy Turner says, they would need local player participation

http://www.foxsports.com.au/rugby/s...ugby-competition/story-e6frf4qu-1226846211273

 

[steblin]

Backed by wealthy people, untapped TV market. Once again all about the $, not the quality of rugby or the competition.

Don't get me wrong, I know Super Rugby and all professional rugby is a business, but there has to be a balance. In terms of quality to add to the competition, a Japanese or PI team would be better hands down. However if Singapore have big money backers, which it sounds like they do, that may not matter... I'm also all for growing Union into new markets, but not by throwing them a Super team. Super Rugby used to stand for elite level Rugby Union, it should stay that way.

 

[Shaggy]

Backed by wealthy people, untapped TV market. Once again all about the $, not the quality of rugby or the competition.

Don't get me wrong, I know Super Rugby and all professional rugby is a business, but there has to be a balance. In terms of quality to add to the competition, a Japanese or PI team would be better hands down. However if Singapore have big money backers, which it sounds like they do, that may not matter... I'm also all for growing Union into new markets, but not by throwing them a Super team. Super Rugby used to stand for elite level Rugby Union, it should stay that way.

Exactly, all about the money ... maybe they'll get growth in local player numbers in Singapore (and the rest of Asia) eventually, but I would expect that initially the players would come from the expats, the Pacific Islands, and the Japanese leagues. - maybe there's an opportunity to get some North American players involved as well

... I agree that SANZAR need to also look at the strength of the new sides, and not just the money, but they are all about what's best for South Africa, Australia, and New Zealand financially, and not really about the growth of the game, which is more the IRB's responsibility.

 

[smartcooky]

The SARU want Six teams, but they don't want to travel for more than five weeks.

Well, there is logistically no way for that to happen with a full, single round-robin of 18 teams

1. Every team in a full single round robin of 18 teams has to play 17 matches;

2. They will have to play either eight or nine of those matches away.

3. Each South African team will have to play either two or three away matches against South African opposition

4. That leaves them with either six or seven away games outside of South Africa.

It cannot work, and there is no work-around.

The only thing I can see working is to adopt something similar to what the NFL does, within its conferences. Teams play in their own divisions, and then play selected "inter-divisional" matches against teams in other divisions within their own conference.

This is how such a system might work for Super 18

1. The competition is again divided into three conferences as above. Singapore (Dragons) play in the Aussie Conference, URBA Condors play in the New Zealand Conference.

2. Each team plays every team in their own conference ONCE (5 matches)

3. Each team plays four of the six teams in each of the other conferences, two at home, two away in each conference (8 matches)

4. Total of 13 regular season matches

5. Eight team quarter finals (Conference winners and runners up and the best two third placed teams)

6. This would make a 16 week competition, and if you added two bye rounds for everyone, it could run in 18 weeks.

 

[lynam1104]

As I live in singapore I can probably provide a bit of insight into this.

Firstly, the level of competition would not be up to it the highest level here is a small enough club league dominated by expats nowhere near super rugby level.
A super rugby team would help grow the game which is growing fast here, its important to note that locals do partake in rugby. Rugby is very popular in elite local schools and efforts and being made to get it into the public schools.
In terms of crowds i'm not sure tbh, the SCC 7's gets good numbers every year but I don't know how it would do week in week out.
The singapore government/sports council look to be really focusing on growing rugby now which, they've got a underage national set up which is pretty poorly run but its there and can only get better with more players and funds.
The new stadium is going to be excellent open june this year 55,000 seats retraceable roof and can host a huge range of sports and with this the SRU is going to bid for a spot on the 7's circuit and the 2018 7's world cup.
I think part of what makes Singapore appealing is the fact that its not out of the way and is a great travel hub, its in the same time zone as perth!

 

[TRF Mr Fish]

The SARU want Six teams, but they don't want to travel for more than five weeks.

Well, there is logistically no way for that to happen with a full, single round-robin of 18 teams

1. Every team in a full single round robin of 18 teams has to play 17 matches;

2. They will have to play either eight or nine of those matches away.

3. Each South African team will have to play either two or three away matches against South African opposition

4. That leaves them with either six or seven away games outside of South Africa.

It cannot work, and there is no work-around.

The only thing I can see working is to adopt something similar to what the NFL does, within its conferences. Teams play in their own divisions, and then play selected "inter-divisional" matches against teams in other divisions within their own conference.

This is how such a system might work for Super 18

1. The competition is again divided into three conferences as above. Singapore (Dragons) play in the Aussie Conference, URBA Condors play in the New Zealand Conference.

2. Each team plays every team in their own conference ONCE (5 matches)

3. Each team plays four of the six teams in each of the other conferences, two at home, two away in each conference (8 matches)

4. Total of 13 regular season matches

5. Eight team quarter finals (Conference winners and runners up and the best two third placed teams)

6. This would make a 16 week competition, and if you added two bye rounds for everyone, it could run in 18 weeks.

Having Argentina play in a conference based in NZ would be unlikely, I think? They'd be absolutely slaughtered by travel.

From what the NZRU have said, there will definitely still be conferences, and the competition will likely last 20 weeks.

 

[Kiwiwomble]

if the NZRU buys into the format i'll stop watching...the toughest conference (NZ) then has trips to Argentina as part of its inter conference games

there are very good reasons it seems that in the last few years i have found myself going back and watching club and first XV rugby

it doesn't need to be the top players to be enjoyable

 

[donmcdazzle]

What a bloody shambles. How do you sign off on new teams when you don't even know what the format will be?! As soon as they started having uneven schedules (ie teams not playing certain other teams but playing some twice) I turned off, the old way where you played everyone once was the best. Back to Super 12 as an elite competition.

 

[steblin]

As I live in singapore I can probably provide a bit of insight into this.

Firstly, the level of competition would not be up to it the highest level here is a small enough club league dominated by expats nowhere near super rugby level.
A super rugby team would help grow the game which is growing fast here, its important to note that locals do partake in rugby. Rugby is very popular in elite local schools and efforts and being made to get it into the public schools.
In terms of crowds i'm not sure tbh, the SCC 7's gets good numbers every year but I don't know how it would do week in week out.
The singapore government/sports council look to be really focusing on growing rugby now which, they've got a underage national set up which is pretty poorly run but its there and can only get better with more players and funds.
The new stadium is going to be excellent open june this year 55,000 seats retraceable roof and can host a huge range of sports and with this the SRU is going to bid for a spot on the 7's circuit and the 2018 7's world cup.
I think part of what makes Singapore appealing is the fact that its not out of the way and is a great travel hub, its in the same time zone as perth!

This hits on a great point, I'd read elsewhere as well that in Singapore there seems to be push towards Rugby Union as a more popular sport, and as a Rugby Union fan I think that's great. However, the Super Rugby competition should not be used as the primary means of bringing Rugby into new markets. It waters down the product and makes the brand, as a whole, worse. What they need is a proper development path for people and places who want to have teams to show that they are capable in competing in Super Rugby. How long will the fans of a new Singapore team last if they get stomped every year? Question is, how do you do this outside of domestic competitions? Do you have a lower level 'affiliation tournament' that runs in between TV rights deals that helps decides who makes it into the Super Rugby competition? However that works on the assumption Super Rugby will increase in teams every time ... which is of course dumb, at some point its got to hit critical mass, and at that point the dreaded word of 'relegation' will come into play. Either that or you run that system until it reaches its maximum size and then unless a team leaves or folds, there's no more changes.

 

[steblin]

What a bloody shambles. How do you sign off on new teams when you don't even know what the format will be?! As soon as they started having uneven schedules (ie teams not playing certain other teams but playing some twice) I turned off, the old way where you played everyone once was the best. Back to Super 12 as an elite competition.

I'm actually a big fan of the NFL style conference system, it breeds and focuses the rivalries more, which I've always thought adds to the experience of following sports. It gives the teams a guaranteed amount of games with minimal travel, a chance for fans to maybe even go to away games too. The downside is, just like the NFL, you do end up with some lopsided divisions and some teams with easier schedules than others, but dynasties don't last forever ...

 

[TRF_stormer2010]

I'm actually a big fan of the NFL style conference system, it breeds and focuses the rivalries more, which I've always thought adds to the experience of following sports. It gives the teams a guaranteed amount of games with minimal travel, a chance for fans to maybe even go to away games too. The downside is, just like the NFL, you do end up with some lopsided divisions and some teams with easier schedules than others, but dynasties don't last forever ...

But with the seperate domestic tournaments of SA, NZ and now Aus that is where the rivalries are and have been bred.. at least if NZ drops the franchize system they have and have ITM sides play in SR with the top players maybe set aside by the NZRU and picked up by the qualifying sides via drafts. In SA our frnachizes are nothing more than the bigger provincial unions with the 6 bigger metropolitan areas.

Then you'll see that hostility amplified on when these sides face off on a bigger stage in SR rather than fizzle out due to these conference teams playing each other 6 times a year.


I wish I had the means to buy the comp; I still think a two tier competition of 12 in the top tier and working towards 12 in the bottom is the best option to get the benefit of promoting rugby through exxpansion but maintaining a premier competition.

Top 12 would be Chiefs, Sharks, Waratahs, Bulls, Crusaders, Brumbies, Reds, Blues, Cheetahs, Stormers, Hurricanes and Rebels.

Then in the 2nd tier have the Lions, Highlanders, Kings, Force, Arg1, Arg2, Samoa1, Tonga1, Fiji1, Singapore1, Uruguay1, USA1, Canada1, Kenya1, Madagascar1 etc etc maybe here in a 2 conference system of Eastern and Western hemispheres.

I do think that it's important to have the bottom tier relate to the top so maybe have an 8 team play-off with the top 6 from tier1 and the top 2 from tier 2.