Four Conference system planned for 2016

[Shaggy]

This just in from the NZ Stuff website - Proposed change for 2016, Four Conferences, Two in South Africa

http://www.stuff.co.nz/sport/rugby/super-rugby/9993926/Super-Rugby-expansion-plans-revealed

Super Rugby is poised to move forward with a four-conference model in 2016 - with two based in South Africa.
Australian Rugby Union boss Bill Pulver has revealed the announcement of an expanded and restrucured model to take to broadcasters is only a fortnight away.
On the eve of an important meeting with provincial chief executives, Pulver has backed a Super 18 model for 2016 where Australian and New Zealand conferences would remain the same.
Australia's five teams would play two less "local derby" matches in a 15-game regular season but would strengthen their Anzac ties by increasing their four matches against Kiwi rivals to five.
Significant changes will be made in South Africa with their six teams, including the recalled Southern Kings, put in two pools with a new Argentine team and a final side, which the ARU hopes will be based in the Asian market.
Those two four-team conferences - including an overseas expansion team in each - will only face one of the two Australasian conferences each year, which reduces fears of an increase in travel.
"It's likely to be a four-conference model and this will be finalised in the next couple of weeks to be announced," Pulver said today.
While the ARU chief executive is supporting SANZAR's in-principle expansion plans, they're unlikely to be applauded by his provincial counterparts.
Pulver has been under pressure from the franchises and the players' association to pull Australia out of South Africa-driven plans to increase Super Rugby from 15 teams to 17 or 18.
Political pressure for more black participation saw SARU demand the Port Elizabeth-based Kings, who were relegated last season, be reinstated for good.
With South Africa providing almost half of the broadcast revenue, governing body SANZAR has listened to their powerful voice, and New Zealand are opposed to breaking the partnership.
Plans for less local derbies in Australia - dropping from eight to six, and meaning one less home game every second year - has upset state officials who believe it will see them go bust.
Pulver said he understood the concerns but backed the proposed changes as the best model to improve the competition and importantly boost broadcasting revenue.
"I'm more than happy to go along with it," he said. "I think it will be a terrific structure for the game."
Queensland Rugby Union chief executive Jim Carmichael hoped Australian officials remained open-minded about expansion plans to ensure the best result for the cash-strapped code.

"We don't have a preferred model, as yet. We have a preferred position, and that is not to prejudice Australian interests in the competition moving forward," Carmichael said.

"I'm okay to come to the table and hear alternative views as long as we are able to review those and ensure it ultimately delivers for Australian rugby."
While the Reds, NSW Waratahs and Brumbies are unhappy about the loss of derby matches, Pulver said less was more for the Melbourne Rebels and Western Force.


"In Brisbane, Sydney and Canberra they work very well," he said. "In Melbourne and Perth those two franchises aren't too excited in home derbies."
SANZAR'S PROPOSED MODEL FOR 2016
Teams: 18 - current 15 plus Southern Kings (RSA), Argentine team, plus one more
Conferences: 4 - Australia (5 teams), New Zealand (5), two based in South African (4 each, including one expansion team)
Matches: 15 per team

... Just re-reading this, it makes me wonder if the unnamed expansion team would be from Asia = I get that SANZAR are trying to tap into new, lucrative markets, but given that it will be part of a South African Conference, does it make sense time wise, for it to be Asian.

How do the South African posters on this forum, see the logical split up of your teams, between the two conferences?

 

[TRF Mr Fish]

Looks like a piece of ****.

 

[Shaggy]

Looks like a piece of ****.

The Article doesn't go into detail about how the teams in the finals will be made up ... I haven't done the maths on how many of those games in the round robin will be between South African Conference sides, and Australasian Conference sides

 

[TRF_heineken]

This just in from the NZ Stuff website - Proposed change for 2016, Four Conferences, Two in South Africa

http://www.stuff.co.nz/sport/rugby/super-rugby/9993926/Super-Rugby-expansion-plans-revealed

Super Rugby is poised to move forward with a four-conference model in 2016 - with two based in South Africa.

Those two four-team conferences - including an overseas expansion team in each - will only face one of the two Australasian conferences each year, which reduces fears of an increase in travel.

Political pressure for more black participation saw SARU demand the Port Elizabeth-based Kings, who were relegated last season, be reinstated for good.
With South Africa providing almost half of the broadcast revenue, governing body SANZAR has listened to their powerful voice, and New Zealand are opposed to breaking the partnership.

... Just re-reading this, it makes me wonder if the unnamed expansion team would be from Asia = I get that SANZAR are trying to tap into new, lucrative markets, but given that it will be part of a South African Conference, does it make sense time wise, for it to be Asian.

How do the South African posters on this forum, see the logical split up of your teams, between the two conferences?

I for one am glad that they are finally realising that SA has a major role to play in this tournament. We generate half the income, why shouldn't it be fair that we get half the conferences??

The idea is to make the travelling less, and by adding an Argentine and Asian team, they need to find a central avenue to accomodate the new guys. It makes sense that it should be in SA. We have the 6 franchises with their own stadiums. And then we have had international games at some of the 2010 FIFA World Cup stadiums the last 4 years too. In total I think we have about 10-12 stadiums capable of hosting matches in SA.

 

[Shaggy]

I for one am glad that they are finally realising that SA has a major role to play in this tournament. We generate half the income, why shouldn't it be fair that we get half the conferences??

The idea is to make the travelling less, and by adding an Argentine and Asian team, they need to find a central avenue to accomodate the new guys. It makes sense that it should be in SA. We have the 6 franchises with their own stadiums. And then we have had international games at some of the 2010 FIFA World Cup stadiums the last 4 years too. In total I think we have about 10-12 stadiums capable of hosting matches in SA.

Okay, but why not reduce the travel even further, and go to a two conference system ... South Africa gets the Kings back, plus the two new teams, and the Force. The other conference is the five New Zealand teams, plus the four eastern Australian teams. Every team within each conference plays each other twice (home and away), with the finals made up of the top six teams (3 from each conference), playing of in the same setup as it is currently ... they could even fix it so that Australia or New Zealand has at least one team in the top three of their conference

 

[TRF_heineken]

Okay, but why not reduce the travel even further, and go to a two conference system ... South Africa gets the Kings back, plus the two new teams, and the Force. The other conference is the five New Zealand teams, plus the four eastern Australian teams. Every team within each conference plays each other twice (home and away), with the finals made up of the top six teams (3 from each conference), playing of in the same setup as it is currently ... they could even fix it so that Australia or New Zealand has at least one team in the top three of their conference

Yeah that could work too. But I think that is what will be discussed at the meeting.

I think the plan is now in it's carcass phase, and at the meeting, the meat will be added.

The idea put forward is a step in the right direction. Now it's just a matter of agreeing on how the model will look like.

 

[TRF_stormer2010]

Oh, goodness but I see where they are coming from I just think it'll lead to less competitive games fro SA teams.

In the Vodacom cup we split SA into two conferences, North and South I expect we'll see something similar with the coastal, Southern teams Sharks, Stormers and Kings + Argentina 1 and then Northern, interior teams; the Bulls, Cheetahs, Lions and the extra team into another conference.

Personally I wonder about Asia.. I understand the idea of Asia being a more lucrative market but the fit is just not right. In my mind it should either be a 2nd Argentine team to strengthen the RC ties if they could fund it or an African team in either Namibia, Zimbabwe, Kenya or Madagascar simply because of location.

Aus and NZ probably need to be the conferences (assuming we are stuck with it) to tap into Asia for 1) extra funds and 2) timezone wise it just makes more sense. The SA/Arg conferences can tap into the Americas in the future;


NZ and Aus conferences 6 teams each; 5 current from Aus and NZ and 2 Asian teams while SA can have 6 SA teams and the Arg conference can have 2 to 4 Arg teams and look to include teams from Uruguay, Brazil?, Canada or USA? But that's for next time and we can have the top 2 from each conference play QFs, SFs and finals.

 

[Shaggy]

Yeah that could work too. But I think that is what will be discussed at the meeting.

I think the plan is now in it's carcass phase, and at the meeting, the meat will be added.

The idea put forward is a step in the right direction. Now it's just a matter of agreeing on how the model will look like.

True, but all of the reading I've done on the subject, it's been Australia that's been against the 18 team comp, because of lost revenue from the local Derbies ... the fact that they are backing it now, seems to suggest that the SANZAR partners are agreed on this plan, and they just need the Broadcasters to agree.

... I've got to admit, I am torn on this issue ... many people like the local derbies, but I don't think the New Zealand players like playing each other so much. I like the inter conference games, but, have to admit that it might not be fair travel wise, and that playing each other less, might increase the enjoyment when they do play.

 

[TRF_heineken]

True, but all of the reading I've done on the subject, it's been Australia that's been against the 18 team comp, because of lost revenue from the local Derbies ... the fact that they are backing it now, seems to suggest that the SANZAR partners are agreed on this plan, and they just need the Broadcasters to agree.

... I've got to admit, I am torn on this issue ... many people like the local derbies, but I don't think the New Zealand players like playing each other so much. I like the inter conference games, but, have to admit that it might not be fair travel wise, and that playing each other less, might increase the enjoyment when they do play.

I think SA and NZ are in the same boat here. I think this is the first year since the 3-conference system was invoked, where Australia's teams have been performing very well.

The interconference matches in NZ and SA are brutal, and causes major upsets regularly. This causes that teams stay within contention of one another in their own conference. but when you use the comined log (which ultimately picks the teams in contention for the playoffs), the derbies are the cause for teams not making the playoff.

I honestly don't know why NZ and Aus are bickering about the travelling. travelling to each other is so quick and easy, and then to travel to SA is just for 2 games at the moment. Whereas SA teams have to travel to Australasia to play double the amount of games after at 9 hours of flying. the fact is SA teams have it worst off with regards to travelling than NZ and Aus. There has to be a way to make it as fair as possible for everyone.

 

[Shaggy]

I think SA and NZ are in the same boat here. I think this is the first year since the 3-conference system was invoked, where Australia's teams have been performing very well.

The interconference matches in NZ and SA are brutal, and causes major upsets regularly. This causes that teams stay within contention of one another in their own conference. but when you use the comined log (which ultimately picks the teams in contention for the playoffs), the derbies are the cause for teams not making the playoff.

I honestly don't know why NZ and Aus are bickering about the travelling. travelling to each other is so quick and easy, and then to travel to SA is just for 2 games at the moment. Whereas SA teams have to travel to Australasia to play double the amount of games after at 9 hours of flying. the fact is SA teams have it worst off with regards to travelling than NZ and Aus. There has to be a way to make it as fair as possible for everyone.

I might be wrong, but I don't think they are concerned about travel ... I believe that the travel issue is out of consideration for the South African sides ... Australia is concerned that their provincial unions will go broke, due to less home games, New Zealand doesn't want it's revenue stream by a potential rift between the Sanzar partners, and I think I read earlier in the season, that some of the NZ players don't want to play each other as often as they do

 

[TRF_heineken]

I might be wrong, but I don't think they are concerned about travel ... I believe that the travel issue is out of consideration for the South African sides ... Australia is concerned that their provincial unions will go broke, due to less home games, New Zealand doesn't want it's revenue stream by a potential rift between the Sanzar partners, and I think I read earlier in the season, that some of the NZ players don't want to play each other as often as they do

I think they are concerned about travel as it has a direct influence on their finances. It would be very interesting to see the costs involved for teams to travel during a season. the travel argument might not have been mentioned now, but it has been a topic during past discussions.

The conference system was introduced in the first place to assist in the travel costs involved. With the 18-team plan, there are options to not have a conference system at all, where every team plays one another once. But I know that it won't happen, as the Aussies want as many games they could possibly get in Australia.

 

[TRF Mr Fish]

I think they are concerned about travel as it has a direct influence on their finances. It would be very interesting to see the costs involved for teams to travel during a season. the travel argument might not have been mentioned now, but it has been a topic during past discussions.

The conference system was introduced in the first place to assist in the travel costs involved. With the 18-team plan, there are options to not have a conference system at all, where every team plays one another once. But I know that it won't happen, as the Aussies want as many games they could possibly get in Australia.

NZ wants games in SA, they just don't want more than two a season.

 

[Shaggy]

I think they are concerned about travel as it has a direct influence on their finances. It would be very interesting to see the costs involved for teams to travel during a season. the travel argument might not have been mentioned now, but it has been a topic during past discussions.

The conference system was introduced in the first place to assist in the travel costs involved. With the 18-team plan, there are options to not have a conference system at all, where every team plays one another once. But I know that it won't happen, as the Aussies want as many games they could possibly get in Australia.

Yep, one conference would be great, if everyone played everyone ... it would make for a pretty long tour for the South African sides though ... I know you are right, and it won't happen. I guess the two conference system would be the best I can hope for, but it looks like it will be four conferences

 

[The big Kangaroo]

I wonder how the the travel would going to work if a team based out of Singapore or Japan Playing most of the games against South African Teams.

 

[TRF_heineken]

I wonder how the the travel would going to work if a team based out of Singapore or Japan Playing most of the games against South African Teams.

Well Singapore is still closer to SA than Australia. So I guess it would be the same as it is now with the Aussie teams.

But, if it wasn't a conference system, it work nicely when team tour. on their way to Australasia from SA, they stop in Singapore and on their way back, they could stop at Perth, or vice versa.

 

[smartcooky]

Just looks like a shambolic mess.

How are they going to work the post-season?

 

[TRF_heineken]

Here's Supersport's explanation of how it would possibly work:

NEW SUPER RUGBY FORMAT EXPLAINED

SOUTH AFRICAN CONFERENCES

CONFERENCE 1 (teams as examples, conferences not finalised)
Sharks
Lions
Cheetahs
Argentina team

CONFERENCE 2
Bulls
Stormers
Southern Kings
Team to be confirmed (possibly Asian)

The teams in these conferences will start the season playing within their conference, in other words against the other three teams on a home and away basis. They will then proceed to the next phase of the season, which will see them play either the five teams in the New Zealand conference or the Australian conference.

AUSTRALASIAN CONFERENCES

NEW ZEALAND CONFERENCE
Highlanders
Blues
Crusaders
Chiefs
Hurricanes

AUSTRALIAN CONFERENCE
Rebels
Reds
Waratahs
Western Force
Brumbies

After this phase the teams in SA conference 1 will play against the teams in SA conference 2, meaning another four games, with two of them being played at home and two away.

Eight teams go into Finals phase.

The top four teams will proceed straight to the semifinals, with the other four sides (the means of arriving at those still to be determined) playing in the quarterfinals.

 

[TRF_stormer2010]

Sounds unnecessarilly complex.

So any SA team will play SA teams 10 times and then either all 5 NZ or all 5 Aus teams (I'd really hope for a 2/3 split to keep some semblence of balance) for a total of 5 'foreign teams' (counting the Arg and extra team as SA here) for 15 games total

So any lets say NZ team plays each team in his conference home and away (totalling 8 games in-conference), 4 games against SA opposition (based on the description from the SA POV you provided) but then that only leaves 3 games over against Aus opposition..
If they only play 1 game in-conference that's 4 plus 5 against Aus opponents and 4 only against SA (since the other 4 will play against Aussie opposition) that's also not adding up to 15..

So something isn't addiing up here or the NZ and Aus teams won't be playing each team of the other or not full home/away fixtures in-conference. Either way it just complicates the whole thing beyond the point where any reasonable person will give a **** since it'll be too much effort to work out what's actually going on and the whole thing would be totally unbalanced in any case since luck of the draw will be key which just makes for a poor format.

 

[TRF_heineken]

Sounds unnecessarilly complex.

So any SA team will play SA teams 10 times and then either all 5 NZ or all 5 Aus teams (I'd really hope for a 2/3 split to keep some semblence of balance) for a total of 5 'foreign teams' (counting the Arg and extra team as SA here) for 15 games total

So any lets say NZ team plays each team in his conference home and away (totalling 8 games in-conference), 4 games against SA opposition (based on the description from the SA POV you provided) but then that only leaves 3 games over against Aus opposition..
If they only play 1 game in-conference that's 4 plus 5 against Aus opponents and 4 only against SA (since the other 4 will play against Aussie opposition) that's also not adding up to 15..

So something isn't addiing up here or the NZ and Aus teams won't be playing each team of the other or not full home/away fixtures in-conference. Either way it just complicates the whole thing beyond the point where any reasonable person will give a **** since it'll be too much effort to work out what's actually going on and the whole thing would be totally unbalanced in any case since luck of the draw will be key which just makes for a poor format.

Based on the model I got from Supersport, let's use the Bulls as an example:

The Bulls are in 1 conference, along with the Stormers, Southern Kings and Singapore (for example). the Bulls will play each of them twice. that equates to 6 games. Then they move on to the next phase, which is to play either the NZ or Aus teams, which is another 5 games. So the Bulls will have played 11 games so far. Then they play the teams in the other SA Conference once. which is another 4 games. So in total, the Bulls played 15 games in the regular season. Which is the same amount that the Aussie and NZ conferences also will play, the only difference is that the Bulls will not play any of the Aussie teams in one season, and in the next season, they won't play any NZ team.

IMHO I don't like the model, as I want to see the best play against the best. That is what was my initial irritation with the current conference system, as they shy away from every team playing against one another.

 

[TRF_stormer2010]

Based on the model I got from Supersport, let's use the Bulls as an example:

The Bulls are in 1 conference, along with the Stormers, Southern Kings and Singapore (for example). the Bulls will play each of them twice. that equates to 6 games. Then they move on to the next phase, which is to play either the NZ or Aus teams, which is another 5 games. So the Bulls will have played 11 games so far. Then they play the teams in the other SA Conference once. which is another 4 games. So in total, the Bulls played 15 games in the regular season. Which is the same amount that the Aussie and NZ conferences also will play, the only difference is that the Bulls will not play any of the Aussie teams in one season, and in the next season, they won't play any NZ team.

IMHO I don't like the model, as I want to see the best play against the best. That is what was my initial irritation with the current conference system, as they shy away from every team playing against one another.

Okay I read the OP again which says NZ and Aus teams will play 2 less derbies to get to 15... it just feels kinda lopsided, yeah. Because if the draw goes skew for them a team like.. lets take the Reds might miss out on games against (as I see the SA conferences) 'Asia1', Cheetahs, Lions, 1 game in-conference against the Rebels and Force (although they are in good form ATM) while a team like the Bulls could play 'Asia1', Lions and Cheetahs twice each and also totally miss all the NZ teams...

Looks like the deck will be stacked in our teams' favor which is a nice change (although playing with a loaded deck only gives a dick satisfaction) but in a perfect world all would get done to get as fair and equal a format as possible..