Four Conference system planned for 2016

[Draggs]

Looks like ****!
Too complex and divided. I've said it before I don't give a **** about conferences, we have the Currie Cup for that. It would be like putting conferences in the RCC.

 

[LittleGuy]

Surely two conferences would work better as someone said earlier in the thread, are the powers that be truly that worried about removing the Force from the rest of the Oz teams?

This looks much more like an NFL type schedule/format than any rugby competition I've ever seen.

 

[smartcooky]

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.

So that means SAF are guaranteed to get two quarter-final teams (anyone who thinks that the Argentine or other team are going to qualify is dreaming), while the other two countries can only get one each. I guess when you've had years of underperforming at this level, rigging the competition in your own favour is one way to improve things.

All this fvck-arsing around so that South Africa can have their sixth team to meet their racist quota system!

 

[steblin]

It definatley looks like they are going down the who NFL conference fixture system, which I honestly don't think is a bad thing if they are determined to grow the system. I like the NFL and the NFL system, however it is definatley very alien for a Rugby competition. Those people wanting to see the best vs the best will still see that, in the knockout / playoff rounds in the finals.

That said, I don't know, it just doesn't feel right, 18 doesn't go into 4! Ending up with two pools of 4 vs two pools of five, if it ends up being the top two from each conference go through then statistically the teams in the 2 pools of four have a better chance of getting through to the finals. I know this doesn't take into account strength of schedule etc, but its facts, more people in your conference = more competition for the top 2 final spots.

If they want to make this system work fairly, then it either needs to be a Super 20! (Please note - I DO NOT THINK EVEN MORE TEAMS ARE A GOOD IDEA ;-) ) Where you would have:
Conference 1 - 3 SA + 2 Argentine
Conference 2 - 3 SA + 1 Asia + 1 Other
Conference 3 - Aus
Conference 4 - NZ

 

[Kiwiwomble]

...i'm out...*footsteps and door slam*

 

[Shaggy]

... How about just keeping the conference system the way it is ... 3 Conferences ... South Africa have their 6 teams in their Conference ... NZ has it's 5 plus the 1 from Argentina ... Australia has their 5 plus 1 from Asia

 

[LittleGuy]

... How about just keeping the conference system the way it is ... 3 Conferences ... South Africa have their 6 teams in their Conference ... NZ has it's 5 plus the 1 from Argentina ... Australia has their 5 plus 1 from Asia

The "powers that be" considered this....and rejected it on the grounds it was too logical and uncomplicated.

 

[Shaggy]

The "powers that be" considered this....and rejected it on the grounds it was too logical and uncomplicated.

LOL ... I see your point LG ... let me complicate it up a little then

As number of home games, player fatigue, and travel costs all seem to be an issue, I suggest that the "local derbies" home and away are retained, so each team plays a total of 10 games against the other conference members ... each team is allocated two teams from each of the other conferences to play, meaning that they host two games, and travel offshore for two games, making a total of 14 games played before the top six (as per the current systems rules) commence the finals series.

... you could have more inter-conference games, but 15 seems to be the target, as per the article.

 

[nzlizard]

Until the final format is revealed I will reserve judgement.

I like the idea of any progress that advances the game of rugby in NZ and any other nation, making the game bigger and stronger globally is the best end game.

For that to happen NZ / AUS / SA need to play each other at super level regularly, not doing this will be detrimental to each other.

Bringing Argentina into the fold is great as they offer a lot of potential to the game and having a super team that allows their international players to play together consistently can only improve there standard of play.

An Asian or other team gives the game global appeal and opens up new markets which will capitalize on the good work done by 7's, the initial team may struggle to perform but give it a few years and it may deliver.

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??

This should not just be income based but also result based as well, SA traditionally has 2 super teams that finish in the bottom 4-5, right now you have 4 teams in the bottom 6 and Aus have 2. If you get another team it will most prob just sit at the bottom also. Yes SA should maybe get some reward for generating the lions share of the income but in reality do you need another team and will it add value anywhere?

I am not in favor of NZ getting another team as well, it would add no value and only weaken our current teams, it certainly would not strengthen our national side and would potentially weaken the ITM cup with a bit of player drain.

 

[Shaggy]

Until the final format is revealed I will reserve judgement.

I like the idea of any progress that advances the game of rugby in NZ and any other nation, making the game bigger and stronger globally is the best end game.

For that to happen NZ / AUS / SA need to play each other at super level regularly, not doing this will be detrimental to each other.

Bringing Argentina into the fold is great as they offer a lot of potential to the game and having a super team that allows their international players to play together consistently can only improve there standard of play.

An Asian or other team gives the game global appeal and opens up new markets which will capitalize on the good work done by 7's, the initial team may struggle to perform but give it a few years and it may deliver.



This should not just be income based but also result based as well, SA traditionally has 2 super teams that finish in the bottom 4-5, right now you have 4 teams in the bottom 6 and Aus have 2. If you get another team it will most prob just sit at the bottom also. Yes SA should maybe get some reward for generating the lions share of the income but in reality do you need another team and will it add value anywhere?

I am not in favor of NZ getting another team as well, it would add no value and only weaken our current teams, it certainly would not strengthen our national side and would potentially weaken the ITM cup with a bit of player drain.

I don't really think another New Zealand team is on the table, although I think it would add in retaining ITM cup players, it would probably decrease the quality of play, as I don't think we have enough quality players to fill six teams ... even if we did, do we have the cash to pay them.

I think from a spectators/quality of games/entertainment point of view, we would all like to see all of the teams play one another once, in a no conference system, however, the number of games/player welfare, travel costs, and the length of tours when teams are playing offshore, all seem to be factors that have to be taken into account. It's more than probably we will see less inter-conference matches

I don't think the proposed format is a fair one ... to me, South Africa having two conferences gives them twice the chance of making the playoffs as either Australia or New Zealand. To compound this, they have to compete against one less team in each conference

IMO, income generation should be dealt with at the division of the profit level, not used to provide any nation with an advantage to get their teams into the final

 

[smartcooky]

...i'm out...*footsteps and door slam*

Leave the door open for me Jabby, I'm right behind you!

ITM Cup is looking better and better, and at least you won't need a degree in Applied Mathematics to understand the format.

It definatley looks like they are going down the who NFL conference fixture system, which I honestly don't think is a bad thing if they are determined to grow the system. I like the NFL and the NFL system, however it is definatley very alien for a Rugby competition.

Not really.

Look at how the Heineken Cup works; currently, it is six pools (conferences) of four teams. I suspect the new one will be five pools of four (there are logistical reasons why they cannot go with four pools of five)

 

[ABs2011]

To be perfectly honest, I don't really care what they do so long as they ensure that week in week out we are seeing the best rugby which means the best players in action rather than half of the best players either being injured, "injured", or rested for big chunks of the season.

It would appear that the answer is to cut own the amount of rugby and cut down on the travel. Seems to me an NFL like 2 conference system with 2 divisions in each might be the way to go. I just wonder though if the cross conference games are necessary in the regular season? Maybe cross conference stuff could start from the finals on?

I'm glad they are looking at changes but Im not sure they have got it quite right in this model yet - that is if the motives are as I desire, to ensure the best quality of rugby with the best players...

 

[steblin]

http://www.allblacks.com/News/24906/new-era-for-super-rugby-in-new-zealand

Well looks like this is the confirmed structure.

 

[steblin]

There's some PDFs on that page with a visual breakdown of the conference and playoff structure

 

[Shaggy]

http://www.allblacks.com/News/24906/new-era-for-super-rugby-in-new-zealand

Well looks like this is the confirmed structure.

Looks like they are compensating for the smaller South African conference size by taking the top 3 South African sides, and the top 5 Australasian sides to make up the 8 teams for the finals

 

[smartcooky]

http://www.allblacks.com/News/24906/new-era-for-super-rugby-in-new-zealand

Well looks like this is the confirmed structure.

"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

Now its weighted in the NZ & AUS favour (5/10 v 3/8), but with SAF guaranteed two home quarterfinals. Fair balance I suppose, but what a complete cock-up this is.

 

[Kiwiwomble]

and people wonder why football is the worlds most popular team sport...what? a league where everyone plays everyone else home and away..crazy!...what? they five best teams get the chance to play the next level?...not just forcing historical rivals to works together in some new made up team?...never catch on!

 

[Shaggy]

Now its weighted in the NZ & AUS favour (5/10 v 3/8), but with SAF guaranteed two home quarterfinals. Fair balance I suppose, but what a complete cock-up this is.

It sounds like the players and coaches are happy (at least on the New Zealand side... less domestic derbies), The South Africans have their 6th side, and the Aussies have more trans-tasman clashes (which they wanted) ... I guess all that's left is the money from the broadcast deal (how much?) to placate the Australian provincial unions ... will it be enough to stop them from going broke?

... and of course ... will the fans except it?

 

[FlukeArtist]

Totally agree.
Super Rugby suffers due to SAs internal issues.
SA are the perrenial wooden spooners.
And what does SANZAR want to do? Dilute their talent pool further.

Stupidity.

 

[TRF_stormer2010]

Totally agree.
Super Rugby suffers due to SAs internal issues.
SA are the perrenial wooden spooners.
And what does SANZAR want to do? Dilute their talent pool further.

Stupidity.

I do agree SA needing 6 teams makes for some difficulty but the change does open up the door for good if the administrators can grab the opportunities. Lets face it SR as in 'S15' is not sustainable and a change is needed.

I'd argue about the SA talent pool. True this year our teams are struggling but last year our conference was hands down the strongest overall even if we didn't have a finalist (if you look at inter-conference points exchanges and total log points) so the word 'perrenial' in your post I'd call unfair and its important to note that SA is the conference blooding the most SR debutants this year.