Too many franchises

[The Jones Boy]

The chat about the Super XV made me wonder if it is a possibility that a Pacific Island franchise (based in Auckland), a Japanese franchise, and an Argentinian franchise were to make an appearance then we would have 18 teams (not discounting the Kings as a possibility) then would it be worthwhile looking at the possibility of having 2 divisions of seeded teams?
Is that asking little too much for the rugby fan to be interested in?
Would it spread the sponsorship money too thinly?

 

[InsaneAsylum]

I don't mind the idea of two divisions of 9 teams with promotion/relegation.

 

[Canadian_Rugger]

Stupid idea, would create more of a gap between the haves and have nots... Super Rugby needs to work on building the brand and this is not the way to do it.

 

[Gena_ZA]

All about money, If they can bring in more foreign teams and sell more TV rights they will make it a Super 24 soon.
Like it? No
How can it work - only way is pools and then the top teams go in to 1/4's

 

[nickdnz]

I actually like the idea of two divisions...

A gap between the 'haves and have nots' would be pretty huge if hypothetically a Japanese, Argentinian and PI franchise were introduced into the current fold. Two divisions with promotion and relegation would at least raise the stakes each season. I personally would be pretty appalled if SANZAR introduced a PI team based in Auckland - as it would just harm a current NZ franchise...

As it is I think we'd more likely see a a more divisive conference system introduced which I think would be boring as *****. I'd rather stick to each team play eachother once which is a bit of an ask with travel - but isn't dramatically more so than the current system, while it would make a more fair tournament with less oversaturation of domestic games.

 

[Kiwiwomble]

I actually like the idea of two divisions...

A gap between the 'haves and have nots' would be pretty huge if hypothetically a Japanese, Argentinian and PI franchise were introduced into the current fold. Two divisions with promotion and relegation would at least raise the stakes each season. I personally would be pretty appalled if SANZAR introduced a PI team based in Auckland - as it would just harm a current NZ franchise...

As it is I think we'd more likely see a a more divisive conference system introduced which I think would be boring as *****. I'd rather stick to each team play eachother once which is a bit of an ask with travel - but isn't dramatically more so than the current system, while it would make a more fair tournament with less oversaturation of domestic games.

agreed, it would be nice to actually be playing for something, even when "wooden spooning" you fighting to stay in the league

 

[smartcooky]

agreed, it would be nice to actually be playing for something, even when "wooden spooning" you fighting to stay in the league

However, there is a downside.

If we were to add three and divide by two to get two divisions of eight, we will need to have an iron-clad contracts system that keeps potential All Blacks. Wallabies and Springboks in their 2nd Tier 8 teams, otherwise the best players will end up jumping ship to play in a Top-8 team, so they will end up with the big money, and we'll end up havign parachute payments for relegated teams and a whole host of problems along with it.

Just looking at last years results (on table points)

Upper 8
Chiefs
Bulls
Brumbies
Crusaders
Reds
Cheetah
Stormers
Sharks

Lower 8
Waratahs
Blues
Hurricanes
Rebels
Force
Kings
PIRA
Blossoms
Jaguars

Firstly, at least one of those teams I have highlighted in red will play at least three years in the Lower 8, and at least one of the other two will play two years there. That puts a number of All Blacks & Wallabies and a few Springboks out of top level rugby for some time! I can't see Shag, Link or Heyneke Mayer and their mates being too happy with this.

 

[nickdnz]

However, there is a downside.

If we were to add three and divide by two to get two divisions of eight, we will need to have an iron-clad contracts system that keeps potential All Blacks. Wallabies and Springboks in their 2nd Tier 8 teams, otherwise the best players will end up jumping ship to play in a Top-8 team, so they will end up with the big money, and we'll end up havign parachute payments for relegated teams and a whole host of problems along with it.

Just looking at last years results (on table points)

Upper 8
Chiefs
Bulls
Brumbies
Crusaders
Reds
Cheetah
Stormers
Sharks

Lower 8
Waratahs
Blues
Hurricanes
Rebels
Force
Kings
PIRA
Blossoms
Jaguars

Firstly, at least one of those teams I have highlighted in red will play at least three years in the Lower 8, and at least one of the other two will play two years there. That puts a number of All Blacks & Wallabies and a few Springboks out of top level rugby for some time! I can't see Shag, Link or Heyneke Mayer and their mates being too happy with this.

Alternatively, you could still have cross conference games like the ITM Cup currently has.

Like I said however - I'm much more in favour of an open league with no conferences..

 

[smartcooky]

Alternatively, you could still have cross conference games like the ITM Cup currently has.

Like I said however - I'm much more in favour of an open league with no conferences..

Yep, that's what I like about the ITM Cup, it keeps the standard of play in the second tier right up with the first, and exposes most of the player to the top sides

Look at Tasman this year. They won all but one of their games against their Championship opponents, and three of their four games against Premiership opponents, losing only to Canterbury, the eventual Premiers.

 

[Kiwiwomble]

However, there is a downside.

If we were to add three and divide by two to get two divisions of eight, we will need to have an iron-clad contracts system that keeps potential All Blacks. Wallabies and Springboks in their 2nd Tier 8 teams, otherwise the best players will end up jumping ship to play in a Top-8 team, so they will end up with the big money, and we'll end up havign parachute payments for relegated teams and a whole host of problems along with it.

Just looking at last years results (on table points)

Upper 8
Chiefs
Bulls
Brumbies
Crusaders
Reds
Cheetah
Stormers
Sharks

Lower 8
Waratahs
Blues
Hurricanes
Rebels
Force
Kings
PIRA
Blossoms
Jaguars

Firstly, at least one of those teams I have highlighted in red will play at least three years in the Lower 8, and at least one of the other two will play two years there. That puts a number of All Blacks & Wallabies and a few Springboks out of top level rugby for some time! I can't see Shag, Link or Heyneke Mayer and their mates being too happy with this.

damn cantabrian! you've axed the Highlanders already!

I cant stand the whole we need to make a comp around the best players, i support teams, not players. I want a comp that is fun to watch and not just a vehicle for international rugby.

also cant stand the cross conference games, all it does is make the comp unfair because teams are playing different teams to each other, i've said it before, if an aussie team has to play the kings and highlanders in the cross conference games and another has to play the bulls and crusaders....its not exactly fair is it

 

[smartcooky]

damn cantabrian! you've axed the Highlanders already!

I cant stand the whole we need to make a comp around the best players, i support teams, not players. I want a comp that is fun to watch and not just a vehicle for international rugby.

also cant stand the cross conference games, all it does is make the comp unfair because teams are playing different teams to each other, i've said it before, if an aussie team has to play the kings and highlanders in the cross conference games and another has to play the bulls and crusaders....its not exactly fair is it

Oops! Sorry Jabs

 

[TRF_stormer2010]

I'm for a two tier league with promotion/relegation but with 12 teams in each league. Start it off with the top 4 from each current conference to have:

1 Stormers
2 Sharks
3 Bulls
4 Cheetahs
5 Chiefs
6 Crusaders
7 Blues
8 Hurricanes
9 Brumbies
10 Reds
11 Waratahs
12 Rebels

Each of these teams can beat any other on a given day. Everyone plays everyone else with the only randomizing factor being timing and whether it's home or away (and which side you get at home of the 5 ; 6 split). Strength vs strength or at least near enough.

We already have 16 viable SR teams (I'm counting both Kings and Lions). Adding 8 more shouldn't be too hard if Argentina can come to the party and if Japan and the PI nations are viable options. You could even have countries like Uruguay, Namibia, Madagascar and Zimbabwe field a team like a Welwitchia XV which could be essentially their national teams. Otherwise there is no reason why the top structure can't remain at 12 and the bottom one starts at 8 with the eye of expansion.

1 Highlanders
2 Force
3 Lions
4 Kings
5 Argentina 1
6 Argentina 2
7 Japan 1
8 Japan 2
9 Tonga 1
10 Samoa 1
11 Fiji 1
12 Namibia 1
(Aus 6? / NZ 6? / Uruguay1, Madagascar1, Argentina 3/4?, Zimbabwe1)

 

[Kiwiwomble]

1st! go the Highlanders!​....we take what we can get

 

[Kapa O Pango]

Brian O'Driscoll for the Chiefs maybe.

 

[IRISH RUGBY MAN]

Brian O'Driscoll for the Chiefs maybe.

We can only dream mate

 

[flying tiger]

Without centrally contracted players the PI teams are dead in the water.

With th salary cap increases and higher player payments in the EU the Unions should be looking at increasing existing player payments not expanding the player base.

Apart from Japan and ArgentinaI can't see a corresponding increase in revenue by increasing the number of teams. This is more expensive but not more profitable.

 

[FlukeArtist]

NO!!

No more teams!!

That is what screwed up Super Rugby to start with.

If anything, we should be culling teams.
But unfortunately, SA Rugby's problems are now spilling over into Super Rugby and we are adding a sixth SA team in now.

 

[TRF_stormer2010]

NO!!

No more teams!!

That is what screwed up Super Rugby to start with.

If anything, we should be culling teams.
But unfortunately, SA Rugby's problems are now spilling over into Super Rugby and we are adding a sixth SA team in now.

Well, I wouldn't call it a problem; us wanting an extra team. In SA our 'franchises' are nothing more than the bigger provinces. So that basically means that supporters of the smaller unions are left outside. I don't blame the EP fans that they want a team, PE is a big city and rugby is big in the region. If they had an equal platform and were able to keep hold of their players (Johan Goosen, Jan Serfontein and Siya Kolisi are 3 youngsters with promise I can think of off the top of my head from the region) they'd be golden.

I myself am actually a Boland supporter but we are under the yoke of the WP and Stormers in premier rugby.

I do agree though that 16 teams in one tournament of this format is too many. I personally like 12 without conferences and then we coud accomodate the lesser teams in a 2nd tier with promotion/relegation to keep things competitive.