Four Conference system planned for 2016

[Shaggy]

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.

I'm not sure I know what you are getting at with the extra games remark, all teams will be playing 15 games in pool play, which is one less than they do now, and there are less local derbies ... as for the conference draw, I think that you can't really say which South African conference will be the strongest because the make up of each hasn't been named yet (team strengths may change over the years too) ... at the very least, one team from each conference are guaranteed a spot in the playoffs, with the possibility of as many as four from either of the Australasian conferences (in addition to the conference winners the next best 3 teams from the Australasian conferences)

 

[William18]

I'm not sure I know what you are getting at with the extra games remark, all teams will be playing 15 games in pool play, which is one less than they do now, and there are less local derbies ... as for the conference draw, I think that you can't really say which South African conference will be the strongest because the make up of each hasn't been named yet (team strengths may change over the years too) ... at the very least, one team from each conference are guaranteed a spot in the playoffs, with the possibility of as many as four from either of the Australasian conferences (in addition to the conference winners the next best 3 teams from the Australasian conferences)

As I understand it, the Hurricanes will play:

4 games versus other teams in NZ conference
5 games versus Australian conference
4 games versus one South African conference
and 2 extra games from the NZ conference.

Those extra two games will lead to a very arbitrary nature of competition. Of course, after a certain amount of time the Hurricanes will have played everyone else twice but a teams strength can change from season to season. If we had to play the Crusaders and Chiefs twice this year but the Highlanders and Blues once then we would have a disadvantage.

I haven't said which South African conference will be stronger but in any one season one of them will probably be somewhat stronger than the other. This means that if the Australian teams are drawn to play the easier South African conference they will receive easier games and have a greater chance of qualifying for the playoffs. The New Zealand Conference will probably continue to be stronger than its Australian counterpart. If this is true then it would be a major advantage for the South African teams who have to play all the New Zealand teams in one season. It's arbitrary and leaves too much down to luck.

 

[Darwin]

Looks farcical. If that is the best system they can come up with they are obviously a bunch of idiots.

 

[Shaggy]

As I understand it, the Hurricanes will play:

4 games versus other teams in NZ conference
5 games versus Australian conference
4 games versus one South African conference
and 2 extra games from the NZ conference.

Those extra two games will lead to a very arbitrary nature of competition. Of course, after a certain amount of time the Hurricanes will have played everyone else twice but a teams strength can change from season to season. If we had to play the Crusaders and Chiefs twice this year but the Highlanders and Blues once then we would have a disadvantage.

I haven't said which South African conference will be stronger but in any one season one of them will probably be somewhat stronger than the other. This means that if the Australian teams are drawn to play the easier South African conference they will receive easier games and have a greater chance of qualifying for the playoffs. The New Zealand Conference will probably continue to be stronger than its Australian counterpart. If this is true then it would be a major advantage for the South African teams who have to play all the New Zealand teams in one season. It's arbitrary and leaves too much down to luck.

Your Hurricanes example is essentially correct as the Hurricanes would be playing 15 games, but the 2 games you have labelled as "extra" aren't really extra.

If you look at a South African example, lets say the Kings are in Conference 1 and it's Conference 1's turn to play the New Zealand Conference

There playing schedule would be:

They play the other 3 teams in Conference 1 twice (6 Games)
They play the 4 teams in the other South African Conference once (4 Games)
and they play the 5 NZ teams once (5 Games)

Total Games equals 15 ... the only difference between the South African conferences and the Australasian ones, is that they play all of the teams in their conference twice, where the Australasian ones only play some of their conference twice.

I do get your point about the relative strengths of the conferences, but I think they've tried to make it as fair as they can, by insuring that the conference that plays Australia one year, plays New Zealand the next

It seems that from the New Zealand players perspective, it will be easier, because it's the current 8 matches against the other New Zealand sides that they seem most worried about.

Looks farcical. If that is the best system they can come up with they are obviously a bunch of idiots.

I'm certainly not saying it's the greatest system, but I've got to admit that it's an impressive effort in compromise ... all of the SANZAR members have got something/what they want out of it ... it's only us fans that seem to be complaining

 

[TRF_stormer2010]

I've had some time to think and digest and have accepted that with the amount of teams currently and the travel distances involved there are only two options; conferences set up along the varying time zones effectively splitting the competition in half time-zone wise or a double tiered competition based on relative team strengths (my personal preference) so that you have two league-style (my preference) competitions but that would cut down on the amount of games and probably TV deals though I do think you'd end up with a better product. I'd have the top 6 from tier 1 and the top 2 teams from tier 2 enter the play-offs.

But my preference won't happen so conferences it is but I do have a problem with the fact that the conferences aren't the same size and I'd have only 2 conferences. So for things to even up it either means bring the Force into the SA conference or add two extra team to the SA conference. I just don't think Asia is a fit for the SA conference at all though. Getting to ~15 games per team though (assuming that is the bench mark 'understanding' with the broadcasters) becomes a problem though as things can become complicated if you want to keep tours at a minimum.

 

[Shaggy]

I've had some time to think and digest and have accepted that with the amount of teams currently and the travel distances involved there are only two options; conferences set up along the varying time zones effectively splitting the competition in half time-zone wise or a double tiered competition based on relative team strengths (my personal preference) so that you have two league-style (my preference) competitions but that would cut down on the amount of games and probably TV deals though I do think you'd end up with a better product. I'd have the top 6 from tier 1 and the top 2 teams from tier 2 enter the play-offs.

But my preference won't happen so conferences it is but I do have a problem with the fact that the conferences aren't the same size and I'd have only 2 conferences. So for things to even up it either means bring the Force into the SA conference or add two extra team to the SA conference. I just don't think Asia is a fit for the SA conference at all though. Getting to ~15 games per team though (assuming that is the bench mark 'understanding' with the broadcasters) becomes a problem though as things can become complicated if you want to keep tours at a minimum.

I'm pretty sure they won't stop at 18 teams, if they can get the Argentine team up to speed, they could expand the number of teams there, include some teams from Canada and the US, and have an America's conference, All of the South African Sides could be in one conference, The Australian Conference could include an Asian side, and the New Zealand one could have another Asian or PI side ... who knows, but, point is, they are always looking to expand, so some redistribution of the Conferences is bound to happen at a latter date

 

[William18]

Looks farcical. If that is the best system they can come up with they are obviously a bunch of idiots.

Well, I'm not saying it is a great system but what do you propose? Let's think about the interests here:

- ARU: they want Super Rugby to take the role of a domestic competition which can compete with the AFL and NRL. They realise that their only way of doing this is through involvement from other countries. They see their domestic competition as a pathway for players but have correctly surmised that a made up competition with no name players will not penetrate the over crowded Australian sporting market.
- NZ players: A reduction in the amount of travel, games played and local derbies which are considered to be too taxing.
- Broadcasters: They want to ensure that local derbies are maximised as these games rate well comparative to overseas games.
- NZRU: Want to ensure that Super Rugby continues to act as a pathway to the All Blacks and retaining top players in the country. This means being highly receptive to player concerns and creating a competitive competition albeit once which is clearly second fiddle.
- SARU: Want to ensure that they are well compensated and taking advantage of their large population to translate that into increased revenues.

Try balancing those interests. It isn't easy and I don't think anyone has posted an alternative proposal which does all these things.

 

[The big Kangaroo]

What you want from any competition is for the best team to win. We know from history that new teams finish near bottom of the table. So the Argentina team, the undecided Teams and the kings will most likely not win many games in there first season. going by this season we have 4 South African Team in the bottom half of the competition with Cheetahs and Stormers in 14th and 15th. When the competition Expands this will leave the best south African Teams lost of easy games with the new teams and there usual bottom of the table teams. So the best South African will finish first on the table every time then have a run of home finals and we know that teams struggle to win finals matches in another country. I would not be surprised if a South African team wins the ***le most years.

 

[Shaggy]

What you want from any competition is for the best team to win. We know from history that new teams finish near bottom of the table. So the Argentina team, the undecided Teams and the kings will most likely not win many games in there first season. going by this season we have 4 South African Team in the bottom half of the competition with Cheetahs and Stormers in 14th and 15th. When the competition Expands this will leave the best south African Teams lost of easy games with the new teams and there usual bottom of the table teams. So the best South African will finish first on the table every time then have a run of home finals and we know that teams struggle to win finals matches in another country. I would not be surprised if a South African team wins the ***le most years.

I don't know about that ... the South African sides seem more competitive amongst themselves this year. I think that only having 3 semifinal spots is also a great leveler

 

[Darwin]

Well, I'm not saying it is a great system but what do you propose?

Super 12

No system is going to be perfect, but creating a competition with uneven numbers of sides in each conference, weird teams (Singapore?), and a complicated system of match-ups is not the way to go. It may well be what the National Unions want, but people aren't going to watch an inferior product with a competition structure that no-one comprehends....

 

[The big Kangaroo]

I don't know about that ... the South African sides seem more competitive amongst themselves this year. I think that only having 3 semifinal spots is also a great leveler

okay take the bit about this year im not trying to the south African teams are not at the same standard as the other teams or anything but they do usually have the wooden spoon and 3 new teams entering. I can see the best south African racking up the competition points fishing at the top of the table and usually the team that finishes 1st wins the comp.

 

[Shaggy]

Super 12

No system is going to be perfect, but creating a competition with uneven numbers of sides in each conference, weird teams (Singapore?), and a complicated system of match-ups is not the way to go. It may well be what the National Unions want, but people aren't going to watch an inferior product with a competition structure that no-one comprehends....

... Sure they will ... and they'll B*tch and moan about how there team is disadvantaged

 

[Darwin]

... Sure they will ... and they'll B*tch and moan about how there team is disadvantaged

If it wasn't for the unfair system the Highlanders would have won the last 5 Super Rugby seasons

 

[Shaggy]

If it wasn't for the unfair system the Highlanders would have won the last 5 Super Rugby seasons

... I wasn't aware of that ... I knew about the rule that all of the other teams had to make that Smith guy look good

 

[Darwin]

... I wasn't aware of that ... I knew about the rule that all of the other teams had to make that Smith guy look good

That Smith guy is not amused

 

[Shaggy]

That Smith guy is not amused

How do you know that was the "Smith" I was referring to

 

[Darwin]

How do you know that was the "Smith" I was referring to

There is another Smith in Super Rugby?

 

[Jayatron]

I've been thinking about the new conference system , and firstly I agree with most that it is a mess. I read that most are suggesting different conference systems, but what about - and apologies if this has been mentioned already - but why not abandon the traditional Super Rugby format of a straight league/conference system and copy the Northern Hemisphere and make Super Rugby into European Cup format?

Why not go back to the traditional domestic leagues, Currie Cup for example, and have teams qualify for the 'Super Rugby' tournament based on league position. From my understanding, or ignorance, the South African Super Rugby sides are more or less the same as the Currie Cup sides, and the new Australian Rugby Championship mirrors the Oz Super Rugby sides, so SA could go back to the Currie Cup and the Ozs could play in a new expanded ARC, a mixture of the Oz franchises and ARC teams - obviously with the talent spread.

Not sure about New Zealand, abandon their Super Rugby teams? Maybe just join the Australian SR teams in creating a new league, not sure. This format, in my mind, would offer a lot more room for expansion, could add top Japanese teams (I'm sure the companies that own these teams would jump at this based on the international exposure they would have) Argentina teams, and even add Namibian and Kenyan teams that could attempt to qualify through the Currie Cup if they were allowed to join the Currie Cup. Could even get American and Pacific Island teams as well.

Just for an idea, one group could look like, seeded obviously to make play-offs better:
The Sharks (SA)
Western Force (Oz)
Highlanders (NZ)
Panasonic Wild Knights (JP)
Tucuman (AG)

Obviously, group stages with finals after that. Could do last 16 for more games.

So is this an idea? Could it work, and would people want to watch it?

 

[TRF_stormer2010]

okay take the bit about this year im not trying to the south African teams are not at the same standard as the other teams or anything but they do usually have the wooden spoon and 3 new teams entering. I can see the best south African racking up the competition points fishing at the top of the table and usually the team that finishes 1st wins the comp.

This is pretty funny coming from 1) an Aussie and 2) a Reds fan. My goodness, this is the first year the Aus conference hasn't been the ***** of the competition and we are not done yet.

Not that I diasagree with the points you are making regarding unfair advantages having weaker teams in your conference but it just makes me laugh to hear it from a Reds fan.

I've been thinking about the new conference system , and firstly I agree with most that it is a mess. I read that most are suggesting different conference systems, but what about - and apologies if this has been mentioned already - but why not abandon the traditional Super Rugby format of a straight league/conference system and copy the Northern Hemisphere and make Super Rugby into European Cup format?


Why not go back to the traditional domestic leagues, Currie Cup for example, and have teams qualify for the 'Super Rugby' tournament based on league position. From my understanding, or ignorance, the South African Super Rugby sides are more or less the same as the Currie Cup sides, and the new Australian Rugby Championship mirrors the Oz Super Rugby sides, so SA could go back to the Currie Cup and the Ozs could play in a new expanded ARC, a mixture of the Oz franchises and ARC teams - obviously with the talent spread.


Not sure about New Zealand, abandon their Super Rugby teams? Maybe just join the Australian SR teams in creating a new league, not sure. This format, in my mind, would offer a lot more room for expansion, could add top Japanese teams (I'm sure the companies that own these teams would jump at this based on the international exposure they would have) Argentina teams, and even add Namibian and Kenyan teams that could attempt to qualify through the Currie Cup if they were allowed to join the Currie Cup. Could even get American and Pacific Island teams as well.


Just for an idea, one group could look like, seeded obviously to make play-offs better:
The Sharks (SA)
Western Force (Oz)
Highlanders (NZ)
Panasonic Wild Knights (JP)
Tucuman (AG)


Obviously, group stages with finals after that. Could do last 16 for more games.


So is this an idea? Could it work, and would people want to watch it?

Personally I'd love this to happen but it does have some issues that the partners involved see as critical:

- it would actually mean more travelling assuming it's home/away games in the pool stages.
- less derbies is good for SA and NZ (the players/teams at least) but bad for Aus and the broadcasters as these are the money-making games.
- puts a lot of pressure on the new Aus domestic league to earn money for the ARU
- NZ's ITM cup or franchize teams will need to do major overhauling to fit into the format

But for SA this would not be a problem as upping the importance of the Currie cup and a smaller SR is what many want in any case and our top teams in SR = CC teams.

 

[austingtir]

Im sick of the political interference from the SA govt. Thats the thing that ****** me off the most. The NZ and Aus govts have next to nothing to do with the running of any of the comps between the three countries but SARFU gets dictated to like a lapdog at every instance.

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/spo...clubs/story-e6frg7o6-1226884353105#mm-premium

Big questions should be asked of the IRB over this!