Super Rugby Changes

[TRF Mr Fish]

So while we wait with bated breath to hear what the new structure will be for the next Super Rugby competition, I've come up with what I think is a pretty reasonable model which achieves a few important objectives:

• Less travel
• Introduces Super Rugby to new markets
• Shorter season
• South Africa get their sixth team
• Fair chances for all teams to qualify for the finals regardless of geographic location

What I propose is a competition split into two conference - East and West or Atlantic and Pacific.

The Atlantic conference includes the five current South African teams as well as the Kings. Also included is an Argentine team and one extra team, either a seventh South African side, a second Argentine side, or perhaps simply an 'Africas' side. This gives a total of eight teams.

The Pacific conference includes the five current New Zealand teams, the Force, Reds, Waratahs, Brumbies and one extra team, either the Rebels or a team from the Pacific (PI or Japan).

The competition would take place over 17-18 weeks, including finals.

Round 1 of the competition would involve teams playing all the other teams in their conference. Obviously this means the Pacfic conference would have nine rounds of matches, whereas the Atlantic conference would have seven. In order to accommodate for this, the Atlantic conference would start the competition a week later, and finish the first round a week earlier. Every team would also have one bye.

The second round involves the teams being split into the premiership (top 5 from Pacific conference/top four from Atlantic conference) and the championship (bottom five from Pacific conference/bottom four from Atlantic conference). Each team would then play every other team within their new pool that they haven't already played (i.e. an Atlantic team would play the five Pacific teams and vice versa). This would result in the Pacific teams each getting a second bye during this round, which conveniently makes up for the two that the Atlantic teams received during round 1. All points from round 1 will be carried forward into round 2.

At the end of round 2, the top six (or four) from the premiership will play off and the top six (four) from the championship will play off, to decide the ultimate winners.

To illustrate more clearly, this is an example schedule for an Atlantic team:

1. BYE
2. v ATL (H)
3. v ATL (A)
4. BYE
5. v ATL (H)
6. v ATL (A)
7. v ATL (H)
8. v ATL (A)
9. v ATL (H)
10. BYE
11. v PAC (A)
12. v PAC (A
13. v PAC (A)
14. v PAC (H)
15. v PAC (H)
16. FINALS
17. FINALS
18. FINALS

And this is an example schedule for a Pacific team:

1. v PAC (H)
2. v PAC (H)
3. v PAC (A)
4. v PAC (H)
5. v PAC (H)
6. BYE
7. v PAC (A)
8. v PAC (A)
9. v PAC (H)
10. v PAC (A)
11. V ATL (H)
12. v ATL (H)
13. BYE
14. v ATL (A)
15. v ATL (A)
16. FINALS
17. FINALS
18. FINALS

The even number of teams means every bye week two teams must have a bye, which ensures that no team is lumped with a bye in the first few rounds of the competition. For the Atlantic conference, byes would occur between rounds 4 and 7 whereas for the Pacific conference byes would occur between rounds 4 and 8.

Some will say that the Atlantic teams have a weaker conference and therefore an easier shot at making the finals, which isn't true. It will certainly be easier to make the premiership from the Atlantic conference, but that means that Atlantic teams will face tougher opposition in round 2. Regardless, the any team which considers themselves genuine ***le contenders should be able to place in the top 5 of the Pacific conference.

What are people's thoughts on this kind of competition?

 

[TRF Mr Fish]

Some will question why South Africa deserve six teams in the competition, let alone seven.

On the basis of depth, this is understandable. With six or seven teams the South African teams will certainly be worse off (especially in the short team), but unlike Australia South Africa actually have the rugby population to benefit from increase places in the long term. Certainly though, I think this is a fair argument against an increase in sides from South Africa.

However, whilst the integrity of the competition may be devalued slightly, this is the professional era, and rugby can't survive without revenue.

As it stands, NZ, SA and OZ share revenue equally (i.e. 33% of the revenue goes to NZ, 33% to Australia etc.). This seems fair, given the equal number of teams in the competition. However, when you see where the revenue is sourced from it paints a different picture. In 2012 67% of viewers were based in South Africa, with 22% in NZ and 11% in Australia. The reason NZ and AU pander to the needs of South Africa is because the South African revenue is really the backbone of the competition. Giving the South Africans an extra team or two is completely justifiable when you consider this (and provides more damning evidence which suggests five Australian teams is unnecessary).