SARU gets Super Rugby Wish

[TRF_heineken]

Cape Town - South Africa will in future be able to field six teams in the Super Rugby competition, it was confirmed on Tuesday.

It's no secret that the SA Rugby Union (SARU) wants to see the Super Rugby competition be expanded to 16 teams to accommodate all six SA franchises, including the Kings - who played in this year's event at the expense of the Lions.

But the Kings won't form part of next year's event after they lost a promotion-relegation series to the Lions last month. This prompted SARU to keep pushing SANZAR for an extension of the event, with their wish now seemingly set to come true.

This expansion from the current 15-team competition is likely to come into effect from 2016, when the new Super Rugby broadcasting deals come into effect.

According to SuperSport Blitz, SANZAR boss Greg Peters gave SARU CEO Jurie Roux this assurance on Tuesday.

SuperSport also announced the news via their Twitter account.

"SANZAR CEO Greg Peters & SARU CEO Jurie Roux confirm SA will have a 6th #SuperRugby team when the competition’s new structure is finalised."

Courtesy of Sport24

 

[TRF_stormer2010]

I wonder what the format will be. Either add another team to each of the other conferences or scrap the conference system in it's entirety. A strength vs strength comp with 2 tiers would be best still IMO. 12 teams in each tier with promo/relegation matches each year between tiers.

 

[TRF_heineken]

What I gathered from the interview Supersport had with Greg Peters, the infication is that SA will get a 6th team and then Argentina, NZ and Asia might also be allocated an additional team(s).

We could possibly have a super 18 or 20...

 

[psychic duck]

I am surprised their seems to be serious talk of Japan getting involved in this.

 

[TRF_heineken]

I am surprised their seems to be serious talk of Japan getting involved in this.

Hmmm... This could be a sneaky tactic by SANZAR to get their Japan-based players eligible to be selected for the National team... I like it

 

[psychic duck]

Hmmm... This could be a sneaky tactic by SANZAR to get their Japan-based players eligible to be selected for the National team... I like it

I'd imagine if Japan came into Super Rugby they would have to merge clubs into areas and the Top League would become like the Currie Cup or ITM Cup. Either that or the leading clubs will enter.

Either way they need to make sure that they maintain the foreigners like Fourie du Preez in their side, but also make sure that all the elite national team level Japanese players get the chance to play at a high level, and the chance to play isn't wasted on a lesser Japanese player or too many foreigners.

 

[Dougydeluxe]

It sounds like the Super 15 will slowly but surely start to look very similar to the NFL and their conference system. I really enjoy home & away games against every team. But also having a select number of teams that you play often can create some real rivalry and also lead to a lot more traveling fans.

 

[InsaneAsylum]

We shouldn't have a 6th team in Australia, maybe SA and NZ can have their 6th team and then include a team from Asia or Argentina.

no problem with SA as they have the infrastructure in place, but where would NZ base it's 6th franchise? what stadium would they utilise/build/renovate? and how would the provinces be re-distributed to suit an extra franchise? north island or south?

 

[smartcooky]

It sounds like the Super 15 will slowly but surely start to look very similar to the NFL and their conference system. I really enjoy home & away games against every team. But also having a select number of teams that you play often can create some real rivalry and also lead to a lot more traveling fans.

I like the NFL system. It recognises a reality that we have taken a long time in Super Rugby to come to terms with; the fact that it is simply impractical for teams to be travelling east and west, thousands of kilometres across several time zones for the whole season. The thing is, the AFC/NFC Conferences things is how it always been for them has existed for a long time (since 1960) and the fans are used to it. You never hear calls from fans about the draw being unfair because such and such a team never had to play some other team tam to get to the post-season. They've never known it any other way!

We shouldn't have a 6th team in Australia, maybe SA and NZ can have their 6th team and then include a team from Asia or Argentina.

no problem with SA as they have the infrastructure in place, but where would NZ base it's 6th franchise? what stadium would they utilise/build/renovate? and how would the provinces be re-distributed to suit an extra franchise? north island or south?

I agree IA. Australia already has two weak franchises (the Force and the Rebels) and the addition of a 6th team would further weaken the overall strength of Australian Rugby. Where are they going to find another 30+ Australian players of elite standard when they haven even been able to find them for the Rebels.

As for NZ, well, I don't want another franchise here as not only will it dilute the talent, it would require a redrawing of the boundaries of at least two existing franchises. The affected franchises would not be pleased about that.

I would be happy enough if a "Pacific Islands" franchise wanted to base themselves here. They could use Mount Smart Stadium when the Warriors NRL team moves to Eden Park.

I think one of the options thay are looking at is a two confeence system, with Australia and NZ in one Conference. and Saouth Africa and Argentina in the other

AIUI, there are two likely candidate formats being looked at (abbreviated from he NZ Herald website)

The split tournament
Australia and New Zealand form a trans-Tasman conference and South Africa and Argentina play separately with the top teams from each moving into a combined playoff, but that idea comes with four problems:
1. the drop in revenue of not initially involving South Africa is likely to be greater than the drop in travel costs of not having to go there.
2. the NZRU High Performance team wants young players to be exposed to games in the Republic at Super Rugby level, while the senior players could do without the travel as they will be on duty in South Africa for the All Blacks
3. introducing Argentinian sides is problematic. For the sake of integrity, the two conferences surely have to have equal numbers of teams? If there are 10 in the trans-Tasman conference, there has to be 10 in the other. South Africa want six teams regardless and could probably whistle up another two - so the talk is of two sides being formed in Argentina.
4. Where they would get the players from - the bulk of the Pumas are offshore in France earning big money - could it really be an equitable set-up given the amount of travel that would be involved?

Expand to 18 teams under the existing format
The competition continues mostly as is but expands to 18 teams. South Africa are adamant they want six teams - which would mean the New Zealand and Australian conferences each adding another team. There is a desire to introduce teams from different countries but it would challenge the integrity concept if a team from Japan was in the Australian conference - on the basis they would have to travel an awful lot. Under an this format there could be home and away fixtures within each conference as there are now - with the New Zealand sides playing three of the six sides in each of the other two conferences. This format would keep the tournament at its current length of 21 weeks - 16 pool games, two byes and a three-week play-off series.

Also at issue here are the players and the Player's Associations in the three SANZAR countries. They have some things they won't compromise on
1. the length of off season: they don't want the season to start before March to ensure that test players are given a 12-14 week rest and reconditioning window.
2. the June window has to be moved to July to allow Super Rugby, in whatever format, to be played in one continuous block.

The optimum outcome for the players would be an 18-week, unbroken competition, that starts in the first week of March and ends in the last week of June. They would head straight into the 'July' test programme and then a few weeks off before the commencement of the Rugby Championship - staying basically as is.

Problems will begin if the June window can't be shifted, and if that does happen, then SANZAR are looking at the possibility of Super Rugby being played concurrently with the test programme as happens in the NH with the Six Nations.

 

[Dizzy]

We shouldn't have a 6th team in Australia, maybe SA and NZ can have their 6th team and then include a team from Asia or Argentina.

no problem with SA as they have the infrastructure in place, but where would NZ base it's 6th franchise? what stadium would they utilise/build/renovate? and how would the provinces be re-distributed to suit an extra franchise? north island or south?

Man I would love for a Hawkes Bay franchise.. Our players are too divided throughout the 5 franchises and have been forever not just for the last two seasons... I mean, we range from Dannevirke all the way up to Wairoa/Gisborne.. The Chiefs team is literally a Hawkes Bay franchise where as we're supposed to be aligned with Hurricanes.. Lol... When the earthquake happened the Crusaders held a home game in Hawkes Bay vs the Chiefs and the Chiefs had something like 13 Hawkes Bay players as opposed to the Crusaders 2-3... So I think Hawkes Bay IS a valid option...

 

[TRF_Ezequiel]

That would be a great idea. A 6th NZ franchise (Call them Bay City Rollers haha) and a PI franchise to go with the 6th SA team would make up a perfect system with 3 conferences.

 

[Hulk Hogan]

If Sanzar controlled world hunger South Africa would just have to sook about it for a few years and then when world hunger was up for its television rights renewal South Africa would get their wish and Sanzar would grant it.

 

[jessta]

i dislike how they keep raping the tournament! how is super rugby going to gain new followers if it changes its format every year. super 14 was the best when everyone played each other once and the best teams made final, everythings all backwards now

 

[nickdnz]

I don't want another NZ team. Say what you like but it would only harm NZ's conferences and its not like Hawkes Bay (or Taranaki which seems more likely) would ever be able to be extremely competitive - without making another franchise considerably less competitive.

i dislike how they keep raping the tournament! how is super rugby going to gain new followers if it changes its format every year. super 14 was the best when everyone played each other once and the best teams made final, everythings all backwards now

Totally agree - playing NZ teams twice a season is boring. Its literally taken away any point in the rivalries. Playing eachother once was just a fairest way - even if it meant that all four of the playoff spots went to one country - at least those teams that were there earned it. Now you get teams getting home matches by virtue of finishing the highest in a weak conference.

 

[Draggs]

Wholly agree. This conference thing is pointless. S14 was ideal. I really hate the June gap. End it May, internationals June, and CC and ITM mid July.

 

[InsaneAsylum]

S14 was great.... although I now get to see regular rugby games in my home city. you wouldn't believe what a privilege that is

 

[TRF Mr Fish]

I don't want another NZ team. Say what you like but it would only harm NZ's conferences and its not like Hawkes Bay (or Taranaki which seems more likely) would ever be able to be extremely competitive - without making another franchise considerably less competitive.



Totally agree - playing NZ teams twice a season is boring. Its literally taken away any point in the rivalries. Playing eachother once was just a fairest way - even if it meant that all four of the playoff spots went to one country - at least those teams that were there earned it. Now you get teams getting home matches by virtue of finishing the highest in a weak conference.

And Taranaki is about to invest in the Chiefs too!

 

[Hulk Hogan]

I agree Super 14 was the best tourny by far.

 

[TRF_heineken]

With adding more teams, I think the teams will play less games, if that makes any sense.

If there is a total of between 18 to 22 teams in the new format, you can make a couple scenario's.

if it's 18, you could go the route of 3 pools of 6 teams (like the current conference system). or 2 pools of 9 and use a ranking system.

if it goes to 20, then you could have 4 pools of 5 teams, or 5 pools of 4 teams with a playoff section. or 2 pools of 10 or one big pool with each team playing one another once.

There are a bunch of possibilities and at the moment we can only speculate to ad nauseam... let's wait and see. the only thing we know for certain is that SA will have 6 teams in the tournament by 2016.

 

[donmcdazzle]

They've screwed it up now. Super 12/14 was the best format then they got greedy.