What if the Kings were thrown into Super Rugby?
Roar Guru By sheek, 17 Feb 2012 The Crowd is a Roar Guru
- Tagged:
- rugby, Rugby Union, South Africa rugby, Southern Kings, Super Rugby
106 Have your say
Is the inclusion of the Southern Kings from 2013 really so impractical at this point in time? Putting aside the politics, and the rights and wrongs, I’ve looked at how the draw would need to be changed.
And it really doesn’t require much changing at all.
Firstly, and importantly, you can still have the three conferences.
The significant difference is that while Australia and New Zealand provinces would still get to play each other twice, the South African provinces would only play four of five fellow South African clubs, in order to fall in line with the same number of matches as the Aussies and Kiwis.
So how would the draw change with the introduction of the Kings?
The number of home and away matches would be 19, an increase by one on this year’s quota. How is this number arrived at? Well, each province plays every other province once for 15 matches.
The Aussie and Kiwi provinces then play return matches with their fellow provinces for another four matches, while the South Africans play four of five of their fellow provinces, also for four matches.
The top two from each conference still go through to the playoffs, which is conducted over three weekends.
The regular season would involve 19 matches per team over 21 weeks, with everyone getting two byes. Despite one extra week being added to the home and away season, the total number of matches will increase from 135 to 155 (assuming my maths is correct).
This would make the broadcasters happy, with more content and advertising space to sell.
I’m aware of the anomalies – the South Africans have six provinces to five each from the Aussies and Kiwis, half the teams will play 10 home games, and the other half will play nine and so on. But that part of it was no different under a Super 12 and Super 14 format.
The South Africans will be happy, since the introduction of the Kings will mean about an extra nine to 10 games in the Republic (again, assuming my maths is correct).
South Africans might still grumble, probably will, that only two of their six provinces can qualify for the finals, compared to two from five for each of the Aussies and Kiwis.
But hell, you can’t everything go your way!
Recommend this story.
The Turkey 10
The Turkey 10 teams have now been selected, as Wild Turkey Bourbon's sport sponsorship kicks into the next exciting phase.
Choose which side you're going to support and get in the running to win $2,500!
Simply visit Wild Turkey Australia on Facebook for your chance to win.
Find out more.
- Explore:
- rugby, Rugby Union, South Africa rugby, Southern Kings, Super Rugby
February 17th 2012 @ 7:32am
kiwidave said | February 17th 2012 @ 7:32am | Report comment
“The number of home and away matches would be 19, an increase by one on this year’s quota. How is this number arrived at? Well, each province plays every other province once for 15 matches.”
Actually, this year each team will play only four from each of the other conferences for a total of 16 (8 interconference, 8 within conference) matches over 18 weeks with two byes, as they did last year.
so your numbers would add three weeks to the season rather than one.
I agree with you in principle though that schedule disruption could be minimal.
In fact the kings could be added without increasing the number of games at all if teams just kept playing four teams from the (now six team) south african conference.
This would make the draw slightly more unbalanced though, if your team drew the kings, lions, cheetahs and only one of the bulls, sharks and lions then you might be pretty relaxed about it. If you had the opposite you’d be fairly ropeable.
Having established that the kings could be added, I think we have to ask whether the kings should be added.
Things that would need to be pondered include:
The addition of another weak team to a competition with a few easy beats already (I’m looking in your direction Lions).
The issue of fairness, is it ok for south africa to get an additional team because the threatened to throw their toys? On the other hand if they can afford another team why shouldn’t they get it?
The aforementioned unbalancing effect, the alternative is an even longer competition.
If we’re adding more teams should we consider Argentina?
February 17th 2012 @ 7:49am
kiwidave said | February 17th 2012 @ 7:49am | Report comment
Line 11 should say bulls, sharks and stormers.
February 17th 2012 @ 8:06am
sheek said | February 17th 2012 @ 8:06am | Report comment
Thanks KiwiDave,
My understanding was that the season was truncated last year because of the world cup, but would be normal this year. So I got that wrong.
I think those entrusted with doing the draw would be aware of the different strengths of each team. If a Kiwi or Aussie team was touring the Republic for its 3 matches, I doubt they would be expected to play all of Bulls, Sharks & Stormers away. But you might cop 2 out of 3.
February 17th 2012 @ 7:36am
brendon said | February 17th 2012 @ 7:36am | Report comment
the other way of looking at it is… If the kings were winning the currie cup year after year then you could make a case. But they arent doing that any year and arent anywhere near up to the quality of super rugby. I know everyone will say, look at the rebels etc but they are to even a comp out and develop into a team. The south african conference already has two teams in the bottom five every year so another one isnt justified. If the lions and cheetahs both finish above 12th then maybe a case could be made because it would mean south africa has 5 sides in the top 12. but until then and until the kings start winning, dont let them in
February 17th 2012 @ 7:44am
TembaVJ said | February 17th 2012 @ 7:44am | Report comment
The Lions just beat the king by 88 points in a pre season match.
I don’t know, I still feel it SARU’s plan to make as much noise possible to show they are trying.
Fear not next year will be the same as this year.
February 17th 2012 @ 8:09am
Darwin Stubbie said | February 17th 2012 @ 8:09am | Report comment
The only question that needs pondering do we really need another crap side in SR … We already have at least 6 teams that have no chance of getting within a sniff of the finals … Adding another would be just poor mgmt – this is meant to be an elite competition – not a development one or a political football
February 17th 2012 @ 8:11am
peeeko said | February 17th 2012 @ 8:11am | Report comment
i agree darwin stubbie snd brendon – the cheetahs and lions have been cellar dwellers for most of the last decade, i think an extra SA team would detract not add to the comp
February 17th 2012 @ 8:48am
Rugbug said | February 17th 2012 @ 8:48am | Report comment
Absolutely agree,
As you say Darwin there are plenty of teams alredy getting routinely thumped year in year out.
Merit and merit only is the basis for inclusion
February 17th 2012 @ 2:39pm
Justin said | February 17th 2012 @ 2:39pm | Report comment
Maybe, and I know what you are saying but it can easily be argued that there are just as many crap teams in the AFL and NRL.
Every competition across the globe has “crap” teams. Why? Because someone has to lose every week…
February 17th 2012 @ 2:48pm
Rugbug said | February 17th 2012 @ 2:48pm | Report comment
There’s a difference between being crap and losing Justin.
Not all teams that lose are crap some are jcompetitive and fight all the way.
The Lions are in all essence are absolutely crap team having finsished 11 times in the bottom four of the SR competition and are pretty much a guaranteed 5 point haul for every other team maybe except, the Rebels, Force and Cheetahs
February 17th 2012 @ 8:12am
sheek said | February 17th 2012 @ 8:12am | Report comment
Brendon,
Personally, I don’t believe the Kings should be elevated, so the article is more a discussion point than a belief. However, the politics behind this are brutally tough. The black dominant government in South Africa is determined to have the Kings in the super rugby.
It will be interesting to see how Australia & NZ stand up to the pressure…..
February 17th 2012 @ 8:33am
Darwin Stubbie said | February 17th 2012 @ 8:33am | Report comment
But they already have – I heard Tew on NZ sports radio last year saying that it had been made clear to SARU that if they wanted the kings they needed to provide the solution within the current structure … and he said it can’t be done – so they only way it would was to drop an existing team
As temba says this is just noise from SA – to make a fuss, look as though they’ve done all they could – so the can say SANZAR is the one who forced the outcome
February 17th 2012 @ 8:37am
hog said | February 17th 2012 @ 8:37am | Report comment
you can also look at it another way, can Rugby afford not to embrace a black dominated team from SA especially when you consider the future.
Blacks outnumber whites 10-1 in SA and for Rugby to grow it must embrace the black community.
I agree the politics about the whole thing are rather dubious, but at the same time one wonders why the Cheetahs were introduced a few years ago when it was the perfect time then to introduce the Kings politics goes both ways.
February 17th 2012 @ 8:26am
kingplaymaker said | February 17th 2012 @ 8:26am | Report comment
sheek Australia and New Zealand are a pair of CLOTS.
They have wanted South Africa to move back the Currie Cup for years and years and now the perfect opportunity to make them do it appears: they should simply say, yes you can have your team if you move the Currie Cup, if you won’t, you don’t. South Africa have absolutely no room to move here.
February 17th 2012 @ 8:36am
sheek said | February 17th 2012 @ 8:36am | Report comment
KPM,
This is tough on everybody. The Kings will be playing super rugby next year irrespective.
Either as a 16th team or a replacement 15th team for another Saffie franchise.
The other Saffie teams have managed to thwart the Kings previously, but it’s like a tsunami that keeps on coming.
The two teams in the firing line to be replaced are either the Lions or Cheetahs. The Lions reside in SA’s largest city Johannesburg, & the Cheetahs are from the cradle of Afrikaaner-dom, Bloemfontein.
Cutting either team is fraught with its own poison. It’s going to be messy, & SANZAR will be caught up in it, unless they can demonstrate some tough leadership.
If ever the saying, “politics & sport shouldn’t mix” was needed, this is it……….
February 17th 2012 @ 9:32am
kingplaymaker said | February 17th 2012 @ 9:32am | Report comment
sheek if that’s the case, then whatever happens the other two should aim to get something out of it for themselves, rather than nothing.
February 19th 2012 @ 1:59am
Boertjie said | February 19th 2012 @ 1:59am | Report comment
No Sheek, you have it wrong – they won’t.
Exactly how SARU is going to get out of it’s mess I don’t know, but they will somehow.
Problem remains that the Eastern Cape is not living upto it’s name as the Cradle of
Black rugby. (For black read black African.)
After six years of to and fro they can still only manage about 25% of the
match 22 – and they keep on losing by big scores.
Even the black dominated Nelson Mandela University can only muster 4 blacks
in their 22.
So the Kings will have to BUY their black players from the other provinces – and
there are not that many. And it will actually defeat the purpose in most ways.
February 17th 2012 @ 8:36am
Darwin Stubbie said | February 17th 2012 @ 8:36am | Report comment
‘They have wanted South Africa to move back the Currie Cup for years and years’
That’s just another made up ‘fact’ ….
February 17th 2012 @ 9:38am
simon said | February 17th 2012 @ 9:38am | Report comment
February 17th 2012 @ 9:40am
simon said | February 17th 2012 @ 9:40am | Report comment
I don’t think the issue for the ARU was with the timing of the Currie Cup as such (it is already effectively the third tier), but wanting the test season moved fwd a bit so that it finished further into October. This would allow them to move the start of SR to March and have a seamless year of rugby: SR – Tri-Nations (at the time) – end of year tour. However, the SARU wanted to finish the Tri-Nations at the beginning of Oct to get their test players back for the end of the Currie Cup. My understanding is that this was part of the deal with their broadcasters to cell the Currie Cup.
In any case, I’m not sure the ARU or NZRU want to use this situation as a bargaining chip, simply because if the SARU DO agree to a deal, I really don’t think SANZAR want to bring the Kings in anyway, for the sake of the integrity of the tournament, and for legal reasons.
I’ve got a feeling it’s going to be really messy, but my prediction is that (in the end) the Kings will actually be forced to wait until 2015/2016. There will be some deal cut (after a lengthy political dust storm) to include more black players from that area within the other teams to help with development, or something of that nature. Of course, I could be wrong. This is SA we’re talking about!
February 19th 2012 @ 10:03pm
Kevin Higginson said | February 19th 2012 @ 10:03pm | Report comment
I agree with the non compliance of SA over the timing of The Rugby Championship.
I have produced a calendar that has the event moved closer to the end of year tours.
My idea would be to add a Pacific Islands team to the NZ conference, (playing in Sth Auckland??) and to move the Pampas XV to the Aus conference (playing in Gold Coast or Adelaide??)
I would extend the regular season to 18 matches, the inter-conference matches would stay at only 4 of the 6 teams.
The matches would be based on prior records so that the top teams play the top teams, like the NFL, so making the season more variable as to the group winners.
The Currie Cup, as it is going to be only 6 teams, could be the trophy given to the winners of the SA conference.
February 17th 2012 @ 8:30am
The Battered Slav said | February 17th 2012 @ 8:30am | Report comment
The ANC agenda of affirmative action by any means should not be foisted on Aus and NZ.
It’s fairly simple really, mess around with the Currie Cup all you want and have whatever internal policies in place that you this will help the reconciliation process, but keep your political meddling out of a tournament that involves two other nations.
Besides the principles of the issue, the fact is that the Kings would struggle even more than the Lions and Cheetahs. Judging by the odds on the Super Rugby this year, RSA can’t seem to support their current five teams (yes, much like Australia).
However, at least most Australian administrators and fans openly admit there being problems in depth with the Aus conference. while SARU seem completely deluded about the calibre of players on the books of the weaker teams and are pushing to get another 30 even weaker players running around.
SARU and ANC, these issues are your own to deal with and should not have a negative impact on the two other SANZAR nations.
Here’s an idea for SARU: Go ruin the Currie Cup instead you political puppets.
February 17th 2012 @ 8:46am
Bay35Pablo said | February 17th 2012 @ 8:46am | Report comment
You can have everything your own way if you are South Africa apparently ….
February 17th 2012 @ 9:09am
Sharminator said | February 17th 2012 @ 9:09am | Report comment
The latest 5 year broadcast agreement for SANZAR was signed last year.
South Africa can provide whatever 5 teams they want for the Super 15 ….
But legally, there is no possilbe way that they can add an extra team.
If the Kings are to come in, another team will need to be cut. Its a South African domestic problem,
South African teams have always been amongst the cellar dwellers in super rugby and they have absolutely
no case for another team.
February 17th 2012 @ 9:18am
Rugbug said | February 17th 2012 @ 9:18am | Report comment
Interesting article here that some people may be interested in regards to a SA perspective
http://www.keo.co.za/2012/02/12/why-sanzar-must-call-the-bluff-of-sas-threat-to-boycott/#more-93016
February 17th 2012 @ 12:48pm
p.Tah said | February 17th 2012 @ 12:48pm | Report comment
I’m guessing Keo is not a fan of Hoskins…