SANZAAR to cut 3 teams in 2018

[smartcooky]

The news that the Aussies wanted rid of the South Africans should give the South African teams every motivation to give the Aussies a right good spanking the next time they play each other!!!

If I had to choose between a New Zealand/Australia or New Zealand/South Africa Super Rugby competition, I choose the latter every day of the week.

 

[stadetousain90]

If I had to choose between a New Zealand/Australia or New Zealand/South Africa Super Rugby competition, I choose the latter every day of the week.

I completely understand, due to competitiveness. But that would probably hurt the tv ratings.

Australian rugby would also, likely, go belly up.

 

[saulan]

I completely understand, due to competitiveness. But that would probably hurt the tv ratings.

TV ratings would be hurt more if South Africa was dropped.

Australian rugby would also, likely, go belly up.

That's probably true, but in the end, no one is calling to kick them out, they just want to get rid of us. As it stands currently the future of rugby union in Australia isn't looking to bright anyway.

 

[TRF_heineken]

I completely understand, due to competitiveness. But that would probably hurt the tv ratings.

Only in Australia...

here's a few articles to give you a clearer picture of the viewership:
http://www.theroar.com.au/2012/07/19/super-rugby-viewership-breakdown/

This was the second season with fifteen teams in the competition. To look at the popularity of this season, I have been reviewing the viewership facts coming out of South Africa (RepUcomSA) for this season. Overall cumulative viewership across SuperSport (SA), Sky Sports (NZ) and Fox Sports (Aus) was a whopping 54, 972, 678.

Broken down regionally, you get a sense of demand and consumption of rugby in each country.

SuperSport 36 831 694 – 67% (175 389 per game)
Sky Sports 12 093 989 – 22% (57 590 per game)
Fox Sports 6 046 995 – 11% (28 795 per game)

The SuperSport number is colossal. At 36 million, it is over 1.5 times the population of Australia. However, given the population of New Zealand, the Sky Sports number is perhaps more impressive.

New Zealand (4 million) = 1 in 69 people
South Africa (50 million) = 1 in 285 people
Australia (22 million) = 1 in 764 people

I used this one because it gives you a good indication on what it might be when we revert back to 15 teams.

in 2016 this article showed how the figures were dwindling due to this new format:
http://www.biznews.com/rugby/2016/07/05/tv-audiences-turn-off-rugby/

This graph shows that Australia has always had the least amount of viewers of the 3 nations.

 

[Durbanite]

I'm very glad that NZ is protecting their partnership with SA and putting their foot down saying that playing SA is vital to NZ skills development, and oddly enough highlighting the need for travel to prepare NZ players for the rigours of playing rugby in other countries and touring. Even SA rugby in response to people calling for us to play in the northern leagues that they have made a commitment to SR and NZ/SANZAAR and that they believe that it's the best course for professional rugby in SA. Seems like our two unions are very much on the same page, and why wouldn't they be? The symbiotic relationships in the south have kept our teams strong, especially NZ. Perhaps when the SR broadcasting contract expires in 2020 they'll sing another song but for now it seems SA obviously want to remain in SR and NZ don't want them to go either. I must admit that ARU wanting us out is perplexing, both in terms of the health of the tournament and rugby in the south in general. Back on topic though, should we not consider the unlikely possibility of SARU holding a qualifying tournament to decide our 4 teams? Provided they could find the time to do so. They could also go nuts and just say the 4 top performing teams go through an the other two will have to play promotion-relegation the next season. I highly doubt the latter option because of the histories of the teams etc and the difficulty of keeping unions alive to even play in a promotion-relegation, but I wouldn't discount the possibility of the Cheetahs for example fighting for a chance to qualify rather than being axed right out.

 

[redunderthebed]

The two s.af teams I can understand but the rebels and force are long term projects that need to keep going.

16 teams is more than manageable have sunwolves in oz conference and jags in s.af conference.

 

[Kiwiwomble]

If I had to choose between a New Zealand/Australia or New Zealand/South Africa Super Rugby competition, I choose the latter every day of the week.

Interesting, I would go the other way round, just feels more natural

 

[TRF_stormer2010]

The two s.af teams I can understand but the rebels and force are long term projects that need to keep going.

16 teams is more than manageable have sunwolves in oz conference and jags in s.af conference.

I don't really understand your thought process in the first sentence but the 2nd would still result in lopsided conferences and; 5/5/6 and a warped, overly intricate format. Don't get me wrong. I wouldn't be against oddly numbered teams but then the conference system needs to go and that is Aus's baby; your top brass were the ones mainly pushing for conferences and playing home and away in-conference for SR to double up as a domestic league.

 

[nik]

The two s.af teams I can understand but the rebels and force are long term projects that need to keep going.

16 teams is more than manageable have sunwolves in oz conference and jags in s.af conference.

I don't think there should be too many 'projects' allowed in Super Rugby. The Force have had a while and there just doesn't seem to be much improvement. Australia can only have 1 'project'. Same goes for South Africa. The real projects are Jaguares (so far the best expansion side IMO) and Sunwolves. Super Rugby needs elite teams playing a good brand of rugby that attracts viewers and a competition structure that's not as convoluted as the current one.

 

[TRF_heineken]

I don't think there should be too many 'projects' allowed in Super Rugby. The Force have had a while and there just doesn't seem to be much improvement. Australia can only have 1 'project'. Same goes for South Africa. The real projects are Jaguares (so far the best expansion side IMO) and Sunwolves. Super Rugby needs elite teams playing a good brand of rugby that attracts viewers and a competition structure that's not as convoluted as the current one.

Well, the Force were the first team that was introduced when we started the expansion, and then followed by the Cheetahs and the Rebels followed by the Kings, Sunwolves and Jaguares. The Force had the most time of all these newly added franchises to prove their worth.

So what we have seen here is that the projects as you call them, haven't been so successful as SANZAAR thought it would. I think that the Jaguares and the Sunwolves are going to be successful, because they represent a whole new area/region, and their resources in players and fans haven't been depleted before they were introduced.

 

[Enforcer]

Your comments show a complete lack of understanding about the rugby development in the West. There has been a significant development of rugby players capable of representing Australia. Oh and David Pocock grew up and learnt rugby in Zimbabwe and developed with the Force before representing the Wallabies.

Victoria is far more AFL dominated than WA and is not growing the game through youth whilst that isn't the case in WA. It's also worth noting that Perth Spirit won the NRC last year

A short sighted view would be to turn back all the progress made in the West since the Force were introduced and see how that works out for Australian rugby. If the Force do go then the ARU would be hard pressed to ever get support back in the West. They may as well take the planned Tests to the East and do their best there as they won't get the support here but time will tell what eventuates there.

i hope for the good of Australian rugby that WA is not forsaken because the ARU couldn't organise themselves better.

- - - Updated - - -

Your comments show a complete lack of understanding about the rugby development in the West. There has been a significant development of rugby players capable of representing Australia. Oh and David Pocock grew up and learnt rugby in Zimbabwe and developed with the Force before representing the Wallabies.

Victoria is far more AFL dominated than WA and is not growing the game through youth whilst that isn't the case in WA. It's also worth noting that Perth Spirit won the NRC last year

A short sighted view would be to turn back all the progress made in the West since the Force were introduced and see how that works out for Australian rugby. If the Force do go then the ARU would be hard pressed to ever get support back in the West. They may as well take the planned Tests to the East and do their best there as they won't get the support here but time will tell what eventuates there.

i hope for the good of Australian rugby that WA is not forsaken because the ARU couldn't organise themselves better.

 

[SomeOke]

Your comments show a complete lack of understanding about the rugby development in the West. There has been a significant development of rugby players capable of representing Australia. Oh and David Pocock grew up and learnt rugby in Zimbabwe and developed with the Force before representing the Wallabies.

Victoria is far more AFL dominated than WA and is not growing the game through youth whilst that isn't the case in WA. It's also worth noting that Perth Spirit won the NRC last year

A short sighted view would be to turn back all the progress made in the West since the Force were introduced and see how that works out for Australian rugby. If the Force do go then the ARU would be hard pressed to ever get support back in the West. They may as well take the planned Tests to the East and do their best there as they won't get the support here but time will tell what eventuates there.

i hope for the good of Australian rugby that WA is not forsaken because the ARU couldn't organise themselves better.

I'd prefer the Force to stay myself but my understanding is that they can't boot the Rebels because they are privately owned, and the ARU would have to pay a large sum to buy them out. Making Force the only real option, unless they want to merge the Brumbies and the Tahs and base them out of Sydney, but those unions have a far longer history (both have won the competition even).

 

[mdaclarke]

I never realised how strong the viewing figures are in South Africa compared to Australia and New Zealand. It would be interesting to know how much the TV deals are worth as it appears to me that New Zealand are growing fat off South African money!

It is interesting that under the new scheme the teams will play 15 regular games each year. If you could have a single league of 16 teams with each team playing each other once with the same number of games. This would mean that only the Kings and the Force/Brumbies/Rebels would have to be ditched. I know the travel is difficult but I wonder if that would have been an idea, the Cheetah's could have been saved.

 

[CocoPampas]

I know that this format change have several problems to look at.
But now I'm thinking about an issue that it seems to not been mentioned yet.

All know that the SANZAAR is still thinking about future expansion. And while almost all the planned expansion can be delayed and wait some more years, I was expecting the UAR to get a second team ASAP.
Indeed I thought that this second team would be there in 2020.

We (Argentina Rugby) desperate need the second team to make our national team structure sustentable.
It means that we should expect a new change in 2 years?
Is the only way to make an expantion to add 3 teams to keep a similar format?
If the answer to bouth question is yes, where is the SANZAAR going to find 2 more competitive teams near Australia/New Zealand?

Yes, I know. I'm thinking about a problem that will came up in 3 years, while the ARU and the SARU are trying to figure out how are they going to make this works next year.
But what can I say? I'm thinking in Argentina future, and this change seems to be prepareing a perfect storm for us...

 

[SomeOke]

I know that this format change have several problems to look at.
But now I'm thinking about an issue that it seems to not been mentioned yet.

All know that the SANZAAR is still thinking about future expansion. And while almost all the planned expansion can be delayed and wait some more years, I was expecting the UAR to get a second team ASAP.
Indeed I thought that this second team would be there in 2020.

We (Argentina Rugby) desperate need the second team to make our national team structure sustentable.
It means that we should expect a new change in 2 years?
Is the only way to make an expantion to add 3 teams to keep a similar format?
If the answer to bouth question is yes, where is the SANZAAR going to find 2 more competitive teams near Australia/New Zealand?

Yes, I know. I'm thinking about a problem that will came up in 3 years, while the ARU and the SARU are trying to figure out how are they going to make this works next year.
But what can I say? I'm thinking in Argentina future, and this change seems to be prepareing a perfect storm for us...

No one's going to be happy with any given solution but if we expand the competition to that degree we are going to have no choice but to create a Heineken Cup/Champions League type format. When you get 20+ teams across 4 continents, it's just not possible for all the teams to play each other.

 

[smartcooky]

I never realised how strong the viewing figures are in South Africa compared to Australia and New Zealand. It would be interesting to know how much the TV deals are worth as it appears to me that New Zealand are growing fat off South African money!

This is not the case at all.

Out of the US$400m SANZAAR TV rights deal, South Africa gets almost half (US$180m), while New Zealand and Australia have the remainder split between them 55:45

Image from G&GR

TV viewership in NZ is much higher per population than the other two countries... four times higher than in South Africa and eleven times higher than in Australia.

It is interesting that under the new scheme the teams will play 15 regular games each year.

This is wrong. Its 16 regular games each year

1. Eight matches (four home + four away) against the teams in your own conference
2. Four Home games against teams from the two other conferences (two teams from each conference)
3. Four Away games against teams from the two other conferences (two teams from each conference)

Total 16

Top Six into the post season with a modified McIntyre playoff system

Week 1
Seed 1 & Seed 2 week off
Elimination QF 1 - Seed 3 v Seed 6
Elimination QF 2 - Seed 4 v Seed 5

Week 2
Semi Final 1 - Seed 1 v lowest seeded winner
Semi Final 2 - Seed 2 v highest seeded winner

Week 3
Grand Final

If you could have a single league of 16 teams with each team playing each other once with the same number of games. This would mean that only the Kings and the Force/Brumbies/Rebels would have to be ditched. I know the travel is difficult but I wonder if that would have been an idea, the Cheetah's could have been saved.

The travel will be a killer, especially for the South African teams, who would have to go on a six week tour to New Zeland and Australia, with at least four of them also going to Argentina, and that before the post season.

On average, All Black player spend over 280 out of 365 days of each year away, sleeping in a hotel room instead of their own homes. Asking more of them is too much. Fan s in England and France have no idea of the mental and physical impact this has on the players because the whole of their domestic competitions are played over a land area the size of a SH Province! (e.g. England has less Land area than the South Island of NZ).

 

[mdaclarke]

Makes me wonder :-

1. why New Zealand can keep their players and be competitive with half the money of the South Africans?
2. why have a conference system if it means more games, especially when the conference system appears to be unpopular with fans?

 

[Penne Rara]

Let me try to answer

1- Even though their budget is rather small in comparison to other big rugby nations, there's a real rugby philosophy in NZ. Every player grows up to become an All Black. Of course, not everyone becomes one, it requires an incredible amount of work and also talent.
All that prestige is worth having a crack, at least.
However, I doubt that the NZRU keeps all their players. They also lose quite a lot of them who go offshore, either in Australia because of a league drain or elsewhere because they're just not good enough to get to Super Rugby level. Garden-Bachop is just an example among many others. The kiwis out there will correct me if I'm wrong

2 - The first reasons I can think of are jet lag and travel fatigue. It is obvious that you can't force players to travel that much when it means that they'll begin the match while being already exhausted and most of the time, that's just granting an additional advantage to the home team.
The comp will become super busy and sure, maybe you'll enjoy watching teams from different countries playing each other every week, but it'll also mean that it will need to be shortened to only 6 or 7 weeks if you want players to get enough rest.

 

[Kiwiwomble]

2. why have a conference system if it means more games, especially when the conference system appears to be unpopular with fans?

This is what I don't get either

 

[mdaclarke]

I get the difficulties with travel, but they managed it from 1996 to 2010, a total of 15 years.