• Help Support The Rugby Forum :

Four Conference system planned for 2016

And I thought the current stucture was over complicated.

Also it would make no sense for a Singapore team to be based in SA, SA is not closer to Singapore than Aus Perth and Singapore are in the same timezone. Also if you base a singapore team in SA how is that going to grow the game nobody is going to watch them in SA because they're not south african and its not going to help rugby grow in singapore because people can't go down and watch live rugby.
 
lynam1104 said:
And I thought the current stucture was over complicated.

Also it would make no sense for a Singapore team to be based in SA, SA is not closer to Singapore than Aus Perth and Singapore are in the same timezone. Also if you base a singapore team in SA how is that going to grow the game nobody is going to watch them in SA because they're not south african and its not going to help rugby grow in singapore because people can't go down and watch live rugby.
Click to expand...

I'm sure that both the Argentine team and the "other" team will be based in their own countries, and not in South Africa ... I agree that an Asian based team is better aligned with Australia, and if it is an Asian team, it may well change to that conference when further expansion happens ... while the time zone is less than ideal, each side gets at least 7 home games, and they play either all of the teams in the Australian or New Zealand conference (depending on which year it is), if it's Australia, the away games won't be too far out of your time zone
 
Last edited:
lynam1104 said:
And I thought the current stucture was over complicated.

Also it would make no sense for a Singapore team to be based in SA, SA is not closer to Singapore than Aus Perth and Singapore are in the same timezone. Also if you base a singapore team in SA how is that going to grow the game nobody is going to watch them in SA because they're not south african and its not going to help rugby grow in singapore because people can't go down and watch live rugby.
Click to expand...

AUS want an asian team in SR. Forcing it into a SA conference is retarded though I agree. Argentina had a team based in Stellenbosch near Cape Town and it actually worked quite well while they competed in our Vodacom Cup (a level down from Currie Cup and running concurrently with SR). Personally I think it should either be a 2nd Argentine team or a neighbouring African one in one of Namibia, Zimbabwe or Madasgascar which would be my preference since rugby is quite big there.
 
stormer2010 said:
AUS want an asian team in SR. Forcing it into a SA conference is retarded though I agree. Argentina had a team based in Stellenbosch near Cape Town and it actually worked quite well while they competed in our Vodacom Cup (a level down from Currie Cup and running concurrently with SR). Personally I think it should either be a 2nd Argentine team or a neighbouring African one in one of Namibia, Zimbabwe or Madasgascar which would be my preference since rugby is quite big there.
Click to expand...

After they moved to Potchefstrom for the 2011 season, they went through the season undefeated and won the Vodacom Cup.

You're right though about Argentina. IMO they should have two teams in Super Rugby.
 
stormer2010 said:
AUS want an asian team in SR. Forcing it into a SA conference is retarded though I agree. Argentina had a team based in Stellenbosch near Cape Town and it actually worked quite well while they competed in our Vodacom Cup (a level down from Currie Cup and running concurrently with SR). Personally I think it should either be a 2nd Argentine team or a neighbouring African one in one of Namibia, Zimbabwe or Madasgascar which would be my preference since rugby is quite big there.
Click to expand...

I think the aim is to grow the game in Argentina, and to give their players a chance to play professionally in their own country, so I'm pretty sure they'll be based in Argentina

... I read that they are considering other parts of Africa, Europe, Asia, and even North America for the extra team, and it will depend on who provides the best submission.

Yes, the time zones might not suit the South African teams, but it's a compromise to allow the sixth South African team isn't it
 
I'm new to this forum, but thought I'd add my two cents to the argument. I think that in the long run SuperRugby should be considered as the Champions League of rugby, and from a fan's point of view, a do or die element to each game would get viewership numbers up. Start by selling the selling the Currie Cup/Itm Cup rights as a combined package with SuperRugby, and use these two tournaments to promote local derbies (even possible to incorporate Aussie sides into Itm Cup due to proximity), and then create an 18 team, 3 pool (not conference) SuperRugby system. Teams play each side in their pool once, with the top two sides from each pool moving on to the finals series.


An example of proposed format would be:




Pool A:
Blues
Chiefs
Reds
Force
Sharks
Cheetahs


Pool B:
Brumbies
Bulls
Lions
Hurricanes
Highlanders
Asia/Pacific side (could be based in Aus)


Pool C:
Stormers
Crusaders
Rebels
Waratahs
Kings
Argentina team


This would make 5 games per side
This would evenly distribute sides from each "conference" over the 3 pools (assuming the Asia team is considered an "Aussie" side and the argentine side an "kiwi" side.).
Each side would then host a team from each conference at home, and play the other team from that conference away. The game in each pool involving the two sides from the same conference will be played at the home of the team ranked higher the previous season.






Prior to the playoffs, the pool winners and runners up will be seeded (similar to that in the Heineken cup) based on points scored in pool play.


Top 2 seeds will be given byes to the semi finals and will host the semis
Next 4 seeds play quarter finals: 3vs6 and 4vs5


Semi Finals: 1 vs lowest seeded qualifier and 2vs highest seeded qualifier


Final to be played at home ground of highest seeded team remaining




I believe this format would make for a very interesting competition, and also leaves enough time in the calendar to align the Currie Cup/Itm Cup into a gap where it would allow the Boks /All Blacks/ Wallabies to feature in these competitions and make the local derbies just as much of an spectacle.


SARU could even invite the Argentine side into the Currie Cup, considering the proximity of flying from Jhb to Beunos Aires
 
RichardRheeder said:
I'm new to this forum, but thought I'd add my two cents to the argument. I think that in the long run SuperRugby should be considered as the Champions League of rugby, and from a fan's point of view, a do or die element to each game would get viewership numbers up. Start by selling the selling the Currie Cup/Itm Cup rights as a combined package with SuperRugby, and use these two tournaments to promote local derbies (even possible to incorporate Aussie sides into Itm Cup due to proximity), and then create an 18 team, 3 pool (not conference) SuperRugby system. Teams play each side in their pool once, with the top two sides from each pool moving on to the finals series.


An example of proposed format would be:




Pool A:
Blues
Chiefs
Reds
Force
Sharks
Cheetahs


Pool B:
Brumbies
Bulls
Lions
Hurricanes
Highlanders
Asia/Pacific side (could be based in Aus)


Pool C:
Stormers
Crusaders
Rebels
Waratahs
Kings
Argentina team


This would make 5 games per side
This would evenly distribute sides from each "conference" over the 3 pools (assuming the Asia team is considered an "Aussie" side and the argentine side an "kiwi" side.).
Each side would then host a team from each conference at home, and play the other team from that conference away. The game in each pool involving the two sides from the same conference will be played at the home of the team ranked higher the previous season.






Prior to the playoffs, the pool winners and runners up will be seeded (similar to that in the Heineken cup) based on points scored in pool play.


Top 2 seeds will be given byes to the semi finals and will host the semis
Next 4 seeds play quarter finals: 3vs6 and 4vs5


Semi Finals: 1 vs lowest seeded qualifier and 2vs highest seeded qualifier


Final to be played at home ground of highest seeded team remaining




I believe this format would make for a very interesting competition, and also leaves enough time in the calendar to align the Currie Cup/Itm Cup into a gap where it would allow the Boks /All Blacks/ Wallabies to feature in these competitions and make the local derbies just as much of an spectacle.


SARU could even invite the Argentine side into the Currie Cup, considering the proximity of flying from Jhb to Beunos Aires
Click to expand...

Hi and welcome,

I agree that from a fans perspective, it would be great to watch, but wouldn't the sheer distance between some of the teams make the pooling of the teams that you suggest, impractical?

... I'm not saying it is, I'm maybe not getting the concept properly.

The mantra of SANZAR (at the moment anyway), is lessen the touring requirement on the players, and reduce travel costs.
 
Bmh8726CUAAy9D_.jpg

This is the format. are south African teams really going to travel less with games in Argentina and Japan or Singapore
 
Shaggy said:
Hi and welcome,

I agree that from a fans perspective, it would be great to watch, but wouldn't the sheer distance between some of the teams make the pooling of the teams that you suggest, impractical?

... I'm not saying it is, I'm maybe not getting the concept properly.

The mantra of SANZAR (at the moment anyway), is lessen the touring requirement on the players, and reduce travel costs.
Click to expand...


Thanx for the feedback :), actually by giving each team a bye during the group stage, the schedule will work out practically. SA teams would travel to Australasia for 2 weeks instead of 4, and Australasian teams travel to SA for only 1 week, considerably cutting down on traveling
 
My idea below:

What I propose is a competition split into two conference - East and West or Atlantic and Pacific.

The Atlantic conference includes the five current South African teams as well as the Kings. Also included is an Argentine team and one extra team, either a seventh South African side, a second Argentine side, or perhaps simply an 'Africas' side. This gives a total of eight teams.

The Pacific conference includes the five current New Zealand teams, the Force, Reds, Waratahs, Brumbies and one extra team, either the Rebels or a team from the Pacific (PI or Japan).

The competition would take place over 17-18 weeks, including finals.

Round 1 of the competition would involve teams playing all the other teams in their conference. Obviously this means the Pacfic conference would have nine rounds of matches, whereas the Atlantic conference would have seven. In order to accommodate for this, the Atlantic conference would start the competition a week later, and finish the first round a week earlier. Every team would also have one bye.

The second round involves the teams being split into the premiership (top 5 from Pacific conference/top four from Atlantic conference) and the championship (bottom five from Pacific conference/bottom four from Atlantic conference). Each team would then play every other team within their new pool that they haven't already played (i.e. an Atlantic team would play the five Pacific teams and vice versa). This would result in the Pacific teams each getting a second bye during this round, which conveniently makes up for the two that the Atlantic teams received during round 1. All points from round 1 will be carried forward into round 2.

At the end of round 2, the top six (or four) from the premiership will play off and the top six (four) from the championship will play off, to decide the ultimate winners.

To illustrate more clearly, this is an example schedule for an Atlantic team:

  1. BYE
  2. v ATL (H)
  3. v ATL (A)
  4. BYE
  5. v ATL (H)
  6. v ATL (A)
  7. v ATL (H)
  8. v ATL (A)
  9. v ATL (H)
  10. BYE
  11. v PAC (A)
  12. v PAC (A
  13. v PAC (A)
  14. v PAC (H)
  15. v PAC (H)
  16. FINALS
  17. FINALS
  18. FINALS

And this is an example schedule for a Pacific team:

  1. v PAC (H)
  2. v PAC (H)
  3. v PAC (A)
  4. v PAC (H)
  5. v PAC (H)
  6. BYE
  7. v PAC (A)
  8. v PAC (A)
  9. v PAC (H)
  10. v PAC (A)
  11. V ATL (H)
  12. v ATL (H)
  13. BYE
  14. v ATL (A)
  15. v ATL (A)
  16. FINALS
  17. FINALS
  18. FINALS

The even number of teams means every bye week two teams must have a bye, which ensures that no team is lumped with a bye in the first few rounds of the competition. For the Atlantic conference, byes would occur between rounds 4 and 7 whereas for the Pacific conference byes would occur between rounds 4 and 8.

Some will say that the Atlantic teams have a weaker conference and therefore an easier shot at making the finals, which isn't true. It will certainly be easier to make the premiership from the Atlantic conference, but that means that Atlantic teams will face tougher opposition in round 2. Regardless, the any team which considers themselves genuine ***le contenders should be able to place in the top 5 of the Pacific conference.
Click to expand...
 
I hate the conference system now...this is such bull sht.

It seems like every union was so busy getting their interest sorted - that they don't really care that the product will be sht.

The Competition:

• Expanded competition to 18 teams from 2016 - South Africa 6th, Argentina, plus new team
• Shorter competition - from 21 weeks to 20 weeks
• All teams play one less match in a regular season - from 16 matches to 15
• Four conferences playing in two regional Groups - South Africa and Australasia
• The Australasia Group made up of two conferences - Australia (five teams) and New Zealand (five teams)
• South African Group made up of two conferences - South Africa 1 (three teams plus one from Argentina), and South Africa 2 (three teams plus the 18th team)
• Each team plays 15 regular season matches - eight home/seven away or vice versa every second year
• A total 135 regular season matches and seven Finals Series matches (compared to 120 and five)

The Finals Series ... eight contenders, three weeks:

• Playoff format features an eight-team knock-out Finals Series playing in a quarters, semis and final format
• Five teams qualify from the Australasia Group, three teams from the South Africa Group
• All four conference winners automatically advance to Finals Series
• The next three highest ranked teams in the Australasia Group and the next highest team in the South Africa Group, will make up the wildcard contenders, and also advance to the Finals Series
Click to expand...

http://www.planetrugby.com/story/0,25883,16024_9291149,00.html

Such a convoluted, arbitrary piece of sht.
 
As someone who watches a lot of Super Rugby but has never bothered too much with the internal politics, can anyone tell me why,

A) The South African Rugby Union appears to have so much power and can demand more teams etc.

B) An Argentinian team is supposed to both play well and help grow the game effectively back home while playing on the other sie of the world.

C) Why no Pacific Island franchise has been added but I've seen rumours of bids from teams in America, Spain (?), Hong Kong to fill the vacant spot

D) Is the current system fundamentally flawed in any way?

I'm just generally confused by all of this. Seems a bit of a poor move.
 
Patchey said:
As someone who watches a lot of Super Rugby but has never bothered too much with the internal politics, can anyone tell me why,

A) The South African Rugby Union appears to have so much power and can demand more teams etc.
Click to expand...
Money; we bring the most to the table; at least half and it even used to be more in the past.
Patchey said:
B) An Argentinian team is supposed to both play well and help grow the game effectively back home while playing on the other sie of the world.
Click to expand...
Argentina has to start somewhere. This is better than nothing and its not as if they are bringing anything to the table really so why bend over backwards to accommodate them is pretty the reason as far as I'm thinking.
Patchey said:
C) Why no Pacific Island franchise has been added but I've seen rumours of bids from teams in America, Spain (?), Hong Kong to fill the vacant spot
Click to expand...

Money; they can't bring any to the table. This is also why no other African team like Namibia, Zim or Madasgascar will probably ever feature. Again, why should SANZAR nations make a loss to accommodate other nations.
Patchey said:
D) Is the current system fundamentally flawed in any way?
Click to expand...
Fundamentally? Probably not but all parties have some problems with it and the SA government is putting massive pressure on SARU which isn't helping reasonable options being thoroughly considered.
Patchey said:
I'm just generally confused by all of this. Seems a bit of a poor move.
Click to expand...
Agreed. Any change brings with it opportunity but I'm not sure I trust SANZAR to use it to create an actual better product looking at the track record.
 
WTF?????????' I can't understand!

stormer2010 said:
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
Click to expand...

Yeaaaaaaah, why a Japanese team in SA???? They should be in the NZ/AUS conference

stormer2010 said:
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.
Click to expand...

We have to wait 100 years for Brazil and Uruguay have teams with a high level to play in Super Rugby. To give you an idea, at present, there is a difference of 80 points between the Uruguay National team (The Teros) and Argentina A (Pampas XV). The same difference between SA and Namibia or Zimbabwe.
 
Last edited:
surprised to know Hong Kong is being considered for the 18th team
maybe due to holding bledisloe cup twice, lions tour last year and match between Toulouse and Racing Metro
 
Conrad Smith said:
WTF?????????' I can't understand!



Yeaaaaaaah, why a Japanese team in SA???? They should be in the NZ/AUS conference



We have to wait 100 years for Brazil and Uruguay have teams with a high level to play in Super Rugby. To give you an idea, at present, there is a difference of 80 points between the Uruguay National team (The Teros) and Argentina A (Pampas XV). The same difference between SA and Namibia or Zimbabwe.
Click to expand...

The reason the new team (it might not be from Asia) will be in one of the South African Conferences is simply because that where it's needed to make up the numbers ... New Zealand and Australia already have enough teams in their conferences.

I could see some reorganisation of the conferences if they ever get to over 20 teams
 
Throw it all out and start again

Two divisions of 9 teams. For example, using pick&go's ranking system ranking today as a staring point.....



Seed the three highest ranked teams from each country into the Premiership division

Premiership Division
Crusaders
Chiefs
Hurricanes
Brumbies
Force
Waratahs
Sharks
Bulls
Stormers

Seed the rest into the Championship Division

Championship Division
Highlanders
Blues
Reds
Rebels
Lions
Kings
Cheetahs
Argentina team
Asia Team

Note: No whining from the members about where teams are seeded. The seedings would be based on the rankings at the end of the 2015 season (I don't have a crystal ball) and besides, we have to start somewhere.

Each division plays only within its own division, a full round robin, home and away = 16 rounds in 18 weeks (each team plays 16 matches and has two byes)

Top Four semis and winner to the final = 2 rounds in two weeks

Total 20 weeks

At the end of the season, three Championship teams are promoted, and three Premiership teams are relegated

The two Championship finalists go up and the highest table ranked of the two losing semifinalsts all go up (regardless of country) and replace the three bottom placed teams in the Premiership (regardless of country)

As for the travel, the players need to harden up. The only hard part about travelling is getting from one country to another. Once you're in a country, the travelling is hardly any different from what the home teams have to, e.g, it is no more difficult for the Crusaders to travel from Cape Town to Durban than it is for the Stormers or the Sharks. In the past, The All Blacks, Wallabies and Springboks all used to go on 25 to 35 match tours to the other side of the world in airliners that were nowhere near the comfort level of today's Business Class airliners. What players do these days in the way of travel is a doddle by comparison.
 
smartcooky said:
Throw it all out and start again

Two divisions of 9 teams. For example, using pick&go's ranking system ranking today as a staring point.....



Seed the three highest ranked teams from each country into the Premiership division

Premiership Division
Crusaders
Chiefs
Hurricanes
Brumbies
Force
Waratahs
Sharks
Bulls
Stormers

Seed the rest into the Championship Division

Championship Division
Highlanders
Blues
Reds
Rebels
Lions
Kings
Cheetahs
Argentina team
Asia Team

Note: No whining from the members about where teams are seeded. The seedings would be based on the rankings at the end of the 2015 season (I don't have a crystal ball) and besides, we have to start somewhere.

Each division plays only within its own division, a full round robin, home and away = 16 rounds in 18 weeks (each team plays 16 matches and has two byes)

Top Four semis and winner to the final = 2 rounds in two weeks

Total 20 weeks

At the end of the season, three Championship teams are promoted, and three Premiership teams are relegated

The two Championship finalists go up and the highest table ranked of the two losing semifinalsts all go up (regardless of country) and replace the three bottom placed teams in the Premiership (regardless of country)

As for the travel, the players need to harden up. The only hard part about travelling is getting from one country to another. Once you're in a country, the travelling is hardly any different from what the home teams have to, e.g, it is no more difficult for the Crusaders to travel from Cape Town to Durban than it is for the Stormers or the Sharks. In the past, The All Blacks, Wallabies and Springboks all used to go on 25 to 35 match tours to the other side of the world in airliners that were nowhere near the comfort level of today's Business Class airliners. What players do these days in the way of travel is a doddle by comparison.
Click to expand...

It terms of rugby quality, your idea is better than the model proposed, however, SANZAR wouldn't go for it, because there is a potential for one (or more) countries to be excluded from the process from the Semi finals onward. There is also a mathematical chance (though it's probably a slim one), that the top division could be made up of teams from just two of the SANZAR partner countries, in any given year.

Neither of those scenarios would great for the tournament in terms of viewer numbers (which would translate to revenue in the long run)
 
Patchey said:
As someone who watches a lot of Super Rugby but has never bothered too much with the internal politics, can anyone tell me why,

A) The South African Rugby Union appears to have so much power and can demand more teams etc.

B) An Argentinian team is supposed to both play well and help grow the game effectively back home while playing on the other sie of the world.

C) Why no Pacific Island franchise has been added but I've seen rumours of bids from teams in America, Spain (?), Hong Kong to fill the vacant spot

D) Is the current system fundamentally flawed in any way?

I'm just generally confused by all of this. Seems a bit of a poor move.
Click to expand...

The fundamental flaw with Super Rugby is considered to be the derby games in New Zealand. The players don't like going up against other NZ teams twice a season.

What I don't like about this new system from a NZ perspective is the two extra games we will play. A team's results will be very different based on which South African conference they are drawn against. I hoped the solution would just be a Super 16 with an extra team from South Africa where each team plays each other once.
 

Similar threads

TRF_Olyy
Aphiwe Dyantyi banned for four years
2
Replies
35
Views
9K
TRF_heineken
TRF_heineken
Dai Perk
Time for the USA question again...
2 3
Replies
55
Views
10K
jw_rally
jw_rally
Felipe
Last chance for the Jaguares in super rugby
Replies
3
Views
4K
Kiwiwomble
Kiwiwomble
Al Bangor
Australian Conference Question
Replies
6
Views
1K
Al Bangor
Al Bangor
G
Four. More. Years. (The All Blacks future and players to watch in Super Rugby)
Replies
5
Views
1K
Fetcher
F

Latest posts

Top