SANZAAR to cut 3 teams in 2018

[smartcooky]

Australian wont be losing any teams anytime soon, the only thing that will be losing is the ARU

If the ARU cannot find a way to cut one team then the remaining two SANZAAR partners might cut all five for them.

It actually make most sense to me to merge the Brumbies and the Waratahs. I don't even know what the Brumbies are even doing in the competition. ACT is not a state, its a territory within a state. Having the Brumbies with its own team is like including a Wellington team as well as the Hurricanes, or a Cape Town team as well as the Stormers in Super Rugby.

 

[TRF_stormer2010]

Super Xii with SA top 5 and Argentina (a strong team) forming a 6 team conference (conferences to reduce travel and tours) and NZ with 5 teams and Sunwolves (a relatively week milk-cow so that the NZ conference also has a 'Cheetahs')?

.. to be honest I'd miss Aus involvement for the sake of more variance but can't say I get excited by the Force or Rebels.

 

[TRF_heineken]

Super Xii with SA top 5 and Argentina (a strong team) forming a 6 team conference (conferences to reduce travel and tours) and NZ with 5 teams and Sunwolves (a relatively week milk-cow so that the NZ conference also has a 'Cheetahs')?

.. to be honest I'd miss Aus involvement for the sake of more variance but can't say I get excited by the Force or Rebels.

I only get excited about the Force when I see they load their team with Saffa players. But that's where it ends for me...

 

[galumay]

Makes more sense to cut SA from the comp and drop the silly experiment with the Sunwolves and Jaguares, have an NZ, Aus comp with 1 or 2 South Pacific teams.

Neither option will happen though, it will end up a butchered mess which will only damage the sport more, we will still have the conference system, the SW and Jags will be jammed into conferences that have nothing to do with their location.

I agree the Waratahs and Bush Ponies should be merged, the Rebels should go and keep the Farce - but that isnt going to happen because the other Unions will refuse to give up their extra teams.

 

[Brigantine]

I'm coming around to the view that Super Rugby can become a lot smaller. Fewer franchises, much shorter season, after which the same franchises can be included in domestic competitions with other teams.

11 weeks (plus 2 of finals) of Super 12 with Jags, Wolves, 4 teams each from NZ and SA, 2 from Aus, and then use (some of) the other 7 weeks for an expanded Currie Cup, domestic aussie comp with the 5 franchises (and perhaps the Blues too), and an expanded Mitre 10 Cup (perhaps including a smaller aussie east coast team or two, perhaps even a pacific team).


Everyone's focussing so much on what would make Super Rugby work, and not on what role Super Rugby should have in making Southern Hemisphere rugby work. Perhaps that role *isn't* spending 8+ weeks duplicating every other comp.

 

[TRF_heineken]

I'm coming around to the view that Super Rugby can become a lot smaller. Fewer franchises, much shorter season, after which the same franchises can be included in domestic competitions with other teams.

11 weeks (plus 2 of finals) of Super 12 with Jags, Wolves, 4 teams each from NZ and SA, 2 from Aus, and then use (some of) the other 7 weeks for an expanded Currie Cup, domestic aussie comp with the 5 franchises (and perhaps the Blues too), and an expanded Mitre 10 Cup (perhaps including a smaller aussie east coast team or two, perhaps even a pacific team).


Everyone's focussing so much on what would make Super Rugby work, and not on what role Super Rugby should have in making Southern Hemisphere rugby work. Perhaps that role *isn't* spending 8+ weeks duplicating every other comp.

The issue with that is that if we minimise it too much, a lot of the players will have no choice but to go to the NH to play top class rugby. So it's not going to be beneficial to the players if we shorten it by so much. This is the only intercontinental tournament for the entire Hemisphere based on clubs/franchises/unions. If we look at the number of professional players in the SH, there are more than enough players to have a spot in the tournament. The reason for the downscaling, is to keep it competitive, but also accomodate as many players as possible to prevent the mass exodus we see each year.

 

[Kiwiwomble]

If the ARU cannot find a way to cut one team then the remaining two SANZAAR partners might cut all five for them.

It actually make most sense to me to merge the Brumbies and the Waratahs. I don't even know what the Brumbies are even doing in the competition. ACT is not a state, its a territory within a state. Having the Brumbies with its own team is like including a Wellington team as well as the Hurricanes, or a Cape Town team as well as the Stormers in Super Rugby.

Really? They are former champions, if we're going to get into the semantics of geography then wales shouldn't have a team because they are a principality and not a county...actually come to think about it, the regions the nz teams represent are completely made up!

 

[InsaneAsylum]

Timeline:

<2011 - Super 14
2011 - Rebels are formed and join Super Rugby, 5 teams organised in 3 conferences.
...
Everything seems to be working OK
...
2015 - SARU demand a 6th team in the competition or they're taking their bat and ball and going home????
2016 - SARU get their wish, Kings come into the comp and the Jaguares and Sunwolves are created to expand into new markets. 4 conferences with 4 or 5 teams each.
...
Fans lose interest in the game, product doesn't seem to be working anymore
...
2017 - Brainless idea is hatched that to fix the comp Australia have to lose a team and South Africa lose 2??

Why the hell does Australia have to pay for SANZAAR's mistake by losing a team - SANZAAR can eat a huge fat bag of dicks, because it's not going to fix their problem. They created the problem by trying to expand too quickly, so they can fix it another way.

Do they not realise that the comp is broken because there are 4 conferences of mixed numbers, that nobody in Australia will watch a Jaguares game unless they are playing in Australia, that the Sunwolves are worse than the Rebels and the Force, that SA actually need 5 teams.

It's too late now to wind back to 15 teams, people have invested money and time into supporting a team and SANZAAR + ARU are inviting trouble with these decisions.

The only way forward is a 2 tier comp of 9 teams with promotion and relegation

Tier 1
Crusaders, Chiefs, Hurricanes, Highlanders, Brumbies, Waratahs, Sharks, Lions, Stormers

Tier 2
Blues, Reds, Rebels, Force, Jaguares, Sunwolves, Cheetahs, Kings, Bulls

2 separate ladders/logs, Top 4 teams make the finals/playoffs. At the end of each season Tier 2 champion + runner up move up to Tier 1, Tier 1 bottom 2 drop back to Tier 2

 

[stadetousain90]

Really? They are former champions, if we're going to get into the semantics of geography then wales shouldn't have a team because they are a principality and not a county...actually come to think about it, the regions the nz teams represent are completely made up!

The Principality of Wales existed between 1216 and 1536.

Definition of Wales: country in southwestern Great Britain, a division of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland bordering on the Irish Sea, Saint George's Channel, and the Celtic Sea; capital Cardiff area 8016 square miles (20,761 square kilometers), population 3,063,456 - https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/Wales

In 2008 the Welsh Government issued a statement on this very issue:
"Wales is not a principality. Although we are joined with England by land, and we are part of Great Britain, Wales is a country in its own right." - http://www.wales.com/about-wales/frequently-asked-questions

Also: http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/wales/entries/1fa3ef03-d94a-3a3c-a22f-093c74467401

 

[Kiwiwomble]

The Principality of Wales existed between 1216 and 1536.

Definition of Wales: country in southwestern Great Britain, a division of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland bordering on the Irish Sea, Saint George's Channel, and the Celtic Sea; capital Cardiff area 8016 square miles (20,761 square kilometers), population 3,063,456 - https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/Wales

Also, in 2008 the Welsh Government issued a statement on this very issue:
"Wales is not a principality. Although we are joined with England by land, and we are part of Great Britain, Wales is a country in its own right." - http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/wales/entries/1fa3ef03-d94a-3a3c-a22f-093c74467401

Not really the point but I stand corrected, nice googling

 

[stadetousain90]

Not really the point but I stand corrected, nice googling

Of course I Googled, I didn't have the references saved on my computer. I thought it was common knowledge though, but apparently you were ignorant on the matter.

 

[Brigantine]

if we minimise it too much, a lot of the players will have no choice but to go to the NH to play top class rugby. So it's not going to be beneficial to the players if we shorten it by so much.

I hear you, we need to have a certain number of teams/games that are competitive enough.

This is the only intercontinental tournament for the entire Hemisphere based on clubs/franchises/unions.

And the other competitions *aren't* competitive enough, as they are now, even at the top.

What I'm getting at is that sufficiently competitive games don't automatically need to be part of the Super Rugby competition.

To separate out the basic point, I'll give this example: Have all of the games scheduled for 2018 still take place, but only 12 games are counted in the Super Rugby competition, and the second round of conference games is spun off in each conference as a separate competition with it's own identity. The teams and competitions are still just as competitive.

But then in the future the 3 new competitions can each be independently modified or expanded according to each country's priorities.

The only way forward is a 2 tier comp of 9 teams with promotion and relegation

Tier 1
Crusaders, Chiefs, Hurricanes, Highlanders, Brumbies, Waratahs, Sharks, Lions, Stormers

Tier 2
Blues, Reds, Rebels, Force, Jaguares, Sunwolves, Cheetahs, Kings, Bulls

2 separate ladders/logs, Top 4 teams make the finals/playoffs. At the end of each season Tier 2 champion + runner up move up to Tier 1, Tier 1 bottom 2 drop back to Tier 2

As long as there are enough cross-division games, I don't think this is too crazy.

8 games each vs your own division, 6 vs the other division (skipping one group e.g. 1A only plays vs 2B and 2C).
Optionally a 2 game return leg within your group, but I wouldn't.

Group 1A: Crusaders, Hurricanes, Highlanders
Group 1B: Chiefs, Brumbies, Waratahs
Group 1C: Sharks, Lions, Stormers
Group 2A: Rebels, Force, Kings
Group 2B: Jaguares, Cheetahs, Bulls
Group 2C: Blues, Reds, Sunwolves

The groups would change with every promotion and relegation, but as long as 1A and 2A etc. are as far apart on the globe as possible, the competitiveness/travel balance should be ok.

Only condition is that teams who run out of money need to be left to fend for themselves.

 

[FNS]

How about SARU + Jags. 2+1 matches beetween groups. Same for NZ+Aus+SW...and then best 8 to a playoff. That should ease a lot the traveling, plus generate a "rivalry" of who`s the best, people will anticipate this playoffs.

As for cutting teams they probably cut us if they could xD.

 

[stadetousain90]

How about SARU + Jags. 2+1 matches beetween groups. Same for NZ+Aus+SW...and then best 8 to a playoff. That should ease a lot the traveling, plus generate a "rivalry" of who`s the best, people will anticipate this playoffs.

As for cutting teams they probably cut us if they could xD.

To be honest, the way they did expansion was a little crazy. With Argentina in SANZAAR, Jaguares was obvious. But, y'all needed an American counter-part. Whether it should've been North or South American is beyond my knowledge to suggest, but adding Japan with y'all was a stretch. Now there are TWO geographically isolated franchises.

 

[Kiwiwomble]

Of course I Googled, I didn't have the references saved on my computer. I thought it was common knowledge though, but apparently you were ignorant on the matter.

I actually had a few people within the last couple of years explain to me it was a principality and I was wrong in thinking it was a country so I guess I'll go and find them and show them this

 

[nush]

I personally think it help the Wallabies by reducing the number. But seems like everyone doesn't seem to think so, so I was thinking what if they make Super Rugby a cup competition that teams from the different nations need to qualify for something like European Rugby Champions cup. Do you guys think it will work?

 

[Kiwiwomble]

I think it will help them, just sad to see these identities go, the force have over a decade of history, just wish there was another option

 

[TRF_heineken]

And the other competitions *aren't* competitive enough, as they are now, even at the top.

What I'm getting at is that sufficiently competitive games don't automatically need to be part of the Super Rugby competition.

To separate out the basic point, I'll give this example: Have all of the games scheduled for 2018 still take place, but only 12 games are counted in the Super Rugby competition, and the second round of conference games is spun off in each conference as a separate competition with it's own identity. The teams and competitions are still just as competitive.

But then in the future the 3 new competitions can each be independently modified or expanded according to each country's priorities.

Hold on, are you talking about competitions or matches? Because there is a massive difference.

The other SH competitions are the Currie Cup, the Mitre 10 cup and the Australian league, and I guess you can add the Japanese league as well. But they are local tournaments/competitions, where you only play against teams in your own country. There isn't another league where the teams of Griquas in South Africa will play against North Harbour from New Zealand.

Just wat to make sure you understand?

As long as there are enough cross-division games, I don't think this is too crazy.

8 games each vs your own division, 6 vs the other division (skipping one group e.g. 1A only plays vs 2B and 2C).
Optionally a 2 game return leg within your group, but I wouldn't.

Group 1A: Crusaders, Hurricanes, Highlanders
Group 1B: Chiefs, Brumbies, Waratahs
Group 1C: Sharks, Lions, Stormers
Group 2A: Rebels, Force, Kings
Group 2B: Jaguares, Cheetahs, Bulls
Group 2C: Blues, Reds, Sunwolves

The groups would change with every promotion and relegation, but as long as 1A and 2A etc. are as far apart on the globe as possible, the competitiveness/travel balance should be ok.

Only condition is that teams who run out of money need to be left to fend for themselves.

Teams that financially run out of money can't fend for themselves... They don't have the money for it. That is the essential problem. When a team goes under liquidation, it always happens that a new investor comes in and does a financial takeover. And usually those guys have enough fingers in other pies, to ensure the survival of the team/franchise/union.

Take the Kings as prime example. They went under liquidation, and then there were talks that a bigshot American company wanted to buy them, but with many conditions added to the scheme, which SARU couldn't agree on, so SARU had no other choice but to take over the administration of the Kings, and pay the players and staff salaries.

 

[Brigantine]

The Principality of Wales existed between 1216 and 1536.

Definition of Wales: country in southwestern Great Britain, a division of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland bordering on the Irish Sea, Saint George's Channel, and the Celtic Sea; capital Cardiff area 8016 square miles (20,761 square kilometers), population 3,063,456 - https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/Wales

In 2008 the Welsh Government issued a statement on this very issue:
"Wales is not a principality. Although we are joined with England by land, and we are part of Great Britain, Wales is a country in its own right." - http://www.wales.com/about-wales/frequently-asked-questions

Also: http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/wales/entries/1fa3ef03-d94a-3a3c-a22f-093c74467401

So is Andorra a country then? Or should they be kicked out of Rugby Europe?

 

[stadetousain90]

So is Andorra a country then? Or should they be kicked out of Rugby Europe?

Of course they are a country, who would argue otherwise? It is a sovereign state, at that.