Super 15: A step in the right direction?

The Gold Coast bid seems to be because it's the 'in' place to set up a sporting team. Western Sydney has been severely neglected by the NSWRU. So many Rugby supporters in the area would probably see this opportunity to take care of themselves. If for some reason the VRU don't get the 15th side then Western Sydney should definitely get it.

In all this talk about the options for the 15th team, one thing seems to have been forgotten. As a rugby fan living in Melbourne I can tell you that the idea of basing the Southern Kings here will be seen for what it is; a SA team playing away from home. The Melbourne public won't get behind them as they aren't "our team" and the whole idea will do absolutly nothing for development of the game in Victoria. Also, the arguments that I keep hearing for why West Sydney and the Gold Coast need to have the 15th franchise also makes me wonder what the NSWRU and QRU are actualy doing for promotion and development of the game in their own back yard?

Sam No I don't have inside knowledge. But I have been chasing down every little detail about the Expansion. SANZAR are looking to add 2 Japanese sides and a 6th SAF side in 2013. Further down the track the possibility of establishing the "Atlanta" conference involving sides from The US,Canada, Uruguay and Argentina.

*edit* and see News Ltd in a couple of weeks.

"Giving Australia a fifth team is one of the dumbest decisions EVER made by the men in charge and that in itself is saying something. The failure to get a single team into this year’s finals highlights the issue at hand." The performance of the Aus teams this year has been debated elsewhere - it's not too different from the SA teams and probably slightly inferior to the NZ teams. Another team could be expected to reduce quality across all teams (but may not - see uneven effect of Force - affected Reds > Brumbies > Tahs, IMO). However, this is actually irrelevant. 2/3 of the games for Aus sides in 2011 will be against other Aus sides, compared to 3/13 now. This should see them further up the table, all other things being equal. And anyway, this isn't about fairness or reward for the nation with best players, or seeing 'the best' teams in the finals. This is about money, improving the $$ potential when they go and see News Ltd in a couple of months. More local derbies, better timing of games for local markets = more $$ for TV rights. That's it.

The Australian RugbyHeaven site had a story posted yesterday about a possible Super 18 of three 6 team conferences. According to the story the 16 game schedule would be maintained with a double round robin format inside the conferences for 10 games per team and each team playing 3 games against teams from each of the other two conferences for the 16 game schedule per team. As to the issue of automatic qualification for conference winners and the fairness/unfairness, with a competition which is comprised of three nations accross multiple time zones this seems to be a compromise that has to be made in order to maintain the future of Super rugby. It seems the same analysis of the fairness issue could be raised regarding the Heineken Cup format. Even though the group stage draw is seeded to have a balance of strength is each group, there can be seasons when theoretically a team can qualify for the quarterfinals from a weak group while a team deemed to be better fails to make it into the quarterfinals from what is thought of as a stronger group. This sort of aberation in the format is accepted as a possiblity because it is the best system anyone has been able to come up with for a competition involving multiple nations and multiple domestic competions. It seems that one point of Super Rugby is to have a competion which combines the televison audience of the three nations which enables the players to be paid wages competitive with what is on offer from the European comps. Without a Super rugby comp with all of the potential weaknesses of the new Super 15 format, the best players would be off to Europe because going back to no Super Rugby and only NPC for NZ and Currie Cup for SA and whatever for Aus would result in salaries nowhere near what is availble in Europe.

Hemjay, Sorry for not responding any further on the final 6 format. To me it's a storm in a teacup, & not worth the emotion & space that thus far has been devoted to it. The only thing we need satisfy ourselves with, is this - The winner will be the deserving winner, as has been the case every year since 1986 (S6), 92 (S10), 96 (S12), 2006 (S14).

WCR is that speculation on your part or do you claim to have some inside knowledge? Three extra teams which will add exponential number of games between February and August so that it doesn't encroach on the same place, same time Tri Nations games and Bledisloe Cup games in September/October apart from a World Cup year which has a fixed window of September/October. Will this see the introduction of midweek games to fit it all in, or will the inbound June tours be scrapped? Again as OJ has stated, adding more teams to get more money from broadcasters to fund each country and cover costs isn't the greatest recipe for success. What next a Super 21 in 2018?

There is a plan to go to a Super 18 format in 2013. With the introduction of 2 Japanese sides playing in the Aus and NZ conference's and the 6th South African side. I think that may have been O'Neil's compromise.

Well here an interesting thought about the relegation/promotion system. There is every chance that the next evolution of the Super Series from S15 is to a S18 competition most likely involving six teams from each country. Now this is a long way down the track. But maybe a even greater expansion might become an option. A Super Series Division 2. Involving teams from two other conference's. Say Asia and The Americas. The top 2 placed sides from this division will be promoted and the bottom two from the S18 will be relegated.

Tony, the ARU and the NZRU were unlikely to ever agree to a 6th SAF side (at this stage, the suggestion is a S18 might). They might have agreed to the SAF sides changing each year (like the NZ and SAF sides did in the first few years of the S12), but they may have also been reluctant to do so given the changes in teams and scheduling this may have resulted in (although this might have been overcome). The probably with relegation and promotion appears (to a non-SAF) to be building and keeping squads togther when tehy go up and down. The S14 squads aren't the same as the Currie Cup sides, of which there are more. So if a side got relegated, they squad would not play the next year, sitting 30 blokes out of S14. it would never happen, so that squad wuld likely become the basis of the promoted side's squad, so its just the team changing bases. Which makes little sense. Clearly the SARU only has 5 spots, and the existing sides will hang on for dear life and not go quietly. Wasn't this meant to have been worked out a couple of years ago, with the bottom finishing side being replaced with the Kings/Spears? What happened to that deal?

I don't quite know how to put this, but SA Rugby has just received a monster shove in the derriere by Australia with regards to the Super 15 plans announced on Tuesday. Of course, this is the release trotted out by SA Rugby with the details of the Super 15 Tournament starting in 2011 and there are a number of gaping holes in this structure, that leaves it entirely incomplete and incoherent. Most of all it shows scant regard for the Southern Kings future role for the next 7 years and is conspicuous in its absence from drawing attention to the fine print. Some of the questions that remain unanswered are: 1. Where is provision made for the 6th South African franchise the Southern Kings? 2. Where is the relegation and promotion structure to determine which 5 teams play on an annual basis? 3. Who would possibly bid for a 5th Australian based franchise, other than an Australian franchise? Cut through the smoke and mirrors press release and focus on but 14 words of this 350 word release, that puts everything into sharp laser beam focus: "A 15th team playing in the Australian conference will be added to Super Rugby". Now you do not have to be a genius, to recognise that this is not lost in translation or anything, but absolutely and unequivocally signals that no South African team, least of all the Southern Kings, is going to base themselves in the Australian Conference of 5 teams. This quite simply effectively nukes any notion of a Sixth South African franchise playing in the Super 15, as where is reference made to relegation & promotion? There is none. There is no door open and is a flat out check mate to the Southern Kings and Super Rugby franchise aspirations the Eastern Cape had of ever playing in Super Rugby and stops it in its tracks the moment the final whistle is blown on the 16th June. However, SA Rugby, when the new Presidents Council meets post March 2010, could still address the situation and still determine in the franchise participation agreement which all 6 South African franchises must be signatories to, that there be a relegation and promotion series, to determine which 5, of the 6th South African franchises should play in 2011. This was the case in June 2005 and applies in June 2009 and will apply through till 2015. The race for the 15th Super rugby franchise is actually expected to be between Gold Coast, Melbourne and western Sydney, although SA Rugby says the Southern Kings, based in Eastern Cape province, will also make a bid. This is sheer lunacy, waste of time and money and a makes a mockery of the bidding process. * If the new team is an Australian franchise - is the fine print at the base of the SANZAR release, but we know what this really means. i.e. THE NEW TEAM WILL BE AN AUSTRALIAN FRANCHISE Another six years of rugby drought in the Eastern Cape. The prospect of a run down multi-billion Rand Nelson Mandela Bay stadium and lights flickering in the 3 Eastern Cape Rugby unions offices. In short, this is absolutely shocking and appalling and reveals that SA Rugby's representatives at SANZAR have been unable to articulate themselves and acquit themselves in crafting a Win-Win-Win Super Rugby solution for the 3 SANZAR partners and its respective regional rugby unions and will haunt them the duration of this competition for the next 7 seven years. This is a dereliction of duty by SA Rugby Pty Ltd to the 3 Eastern Cape rugby unions and the Southern Kings.

Giving Australia a fifth team is one of the dumbest decisions EVER made by the men in charge and that in itself is saying something. The failure to get a single team into this year's finals highlights the issue at hand. We do not have enough 'good' players to put four competitive teams on the paddock let alone five. Queensland was and has ever since been devastated by the emergence of the Western Force. Touted as Australia's most expansive side this year after playing one good game against the Sharks, the Reds meekly surrendered (outside of their win in Auckland) to finish a comfortable 13th on the ladder. I'll admit that stretching our talent among more teams has seen several stars emerge, particularly David Pocock and Richard Brown, who may have otherwise sat in the wings waiting for a chance that never came however it has failed to do much more. I fear that the dilutionary impact on the current Australian sides will see a greater proportion of our franchises milling around the wrong end of the leaderboard in years to come.

It's tough to have this argument in two threads!

Why wouldn't there be discussion about the finals? Not all of us have a stake in where the fifteenth franchise goes. The format of the Super 15 and Tri-Nations directly affect New Zealand teams, just as the scheduling affects our Air New Zealand Cup. The winner of each conference will always receive a finals berth, whether they're the top ranked team or the seventh ranked team. The conjecture is how they should be seeded, because seeding gives the top two teams a bye into the semis and the 3rd and 4th seeds home ground advantage in the first week of the finals. That's not only a playing advantage, but a near guaranteed sell-out. Loftus is a sell-out this weekend. That's 50,000 people. If the Bulls are screwed out of a home semi-final, I don't think the Blue Bull Union won't be happy with that. Considering Melbourne, Gold Goast, West Sydney or whoever it is won't be in the finals for years to come, I think this is a relevant issue. The NBA didn't foresee it as a problem when they re-aligned into six divisions, yet the system was exposed in the second year of playoff competition. The NBA rectified this the following year. The Super 15 can avoid it altogether. Clearly this will only mean something when the Waratahs finish 4th despite having the second best record overall!

Sheek while your at your luncheon maybe you want to have a think about what i said to you. If you are so adamant that teams from the conferences will always be in the top six then you will agree right that there is no need to guarantee fianlists? After all if what you say is true noone should be worried as there will 99% of the time be a team represented from each country. If you had read my post you would see that I actually said while highly unlikely it is possible that a conference winner may not make the top 6. So maybe you need to get a grip becasuse it seems you get all wound up and reply before you actually read what others have said. I normally like reading your posts but you have really gone of the boil here and made some silly remarks that were just not needed. I have highlighted a few points that were a little off the mark as I see it Sheek nothing more. Also I highlighted some of the reasons why people could be and are focusing so much on the finals after all you are amazed why there is so much attention being payed to them. So I offer up some reasons and you tell me to get a grip. How ridiculous Sheek if you don't want to know don't ask. While I can see merits in guaranteed finalists, I think it will distort the make up and the best teams will not necessarily be their when it counts due to pity placements. Also why should a team who finishes 1st in their conference get an Automatic Semi finals berth even if they finish up overall in 3rd of 4th place. Should the team who finished second be made to make way to accomodate a team who just weren't quite up to the mark. because this is how I am interpreting that you see it. You don't necessarily agree that the best teams go through as long as one team from each conference /country is there am I right in saying this? That your more than willing for the finals to be fingered to promote a lesser team above a more deserving franchise. Guaranteed finals are nothing but pity placements and seedings. While it is probable every conference will have a team in the top 6 it is still yet to be defined how the conference winners will be determined. This in itself could lead to various scenarios come the make up of the finals. If say the Conference winners were picked solely on home and away. It could lead to said team coasting once the conference final was in the bag. Also it could lead to otherteams from within the same conference finishing above the winner on the overall table. Another scenario is if the conference winner is not determined until after the complete competition taking into account both the Home series and the foreign series it could lead to SA teams finishing 1 and 2 NZ 3 and 4 Aus 5 SA 6 so your telling me that the NZ team placed third should be shunted up to the Guaranteed semi and the 2nd placed Safa team be dropped to a sudden death match to accomodate this? It all comes down to winning the competition Sheek and it has to be in the fairest way possible and I personally and as it seems many others do not believe guaranteed placements is the fair way to go. Once again like you said theres not much chance that one team wont make the top 6 from each country. And with this I say to you there is no need to have the pity finalists simply because of that fact/statement you have made

Oh Hemjay, Get a grip. Re-read what I said - highly unlikely any of the conference winners won't be in the top 6. Is that so difficult to digest. And if it were to happen once in 20 years, does that make the system totally wrong??? Surely you have more important fish to chase. I'm off to a luncheon.

Sheek, By agreeing with Conference winners getting direct finals placement you are also saying you support a competition that doesn't necessarily have the best teams in the finals. While highly unlikely it is possible that one conference will fail to make the top 6. Also another point you make is that there is alot of attention is focused on the finals. Well 15 teams every year from 2011 will be contesting to win wait for it .... the final. And on the way to get to that final wait for it.... they will need to make the semi finals. The whole super rugby has been designed to increase teams to make the finals and compete with other codes. the finals series is the integral part of the whole deal and what gives super rugby any credibility. While we may see increased interest at the local derbies you could just about guarantee noone is really gonna give a rats until its finals time and a few weeks before when teams are jockeying for the final three places. As yet we don't know exacvtly how the top team from each conference will be decided. Will it be soley from games against those in their conference or an overall tally including cross conferences? There will be without a doubt stronger conferences which in itself can and will distort the final standings. If anything only the best deserve to go through to the final not pity placements. So Sheek in summation if you are so confident that a team from each conference will make the top 6 every year then there is no need for guaranteed placements right? Your statement in this regard cancels out the need for the poor me I'm not that good but I did beat my countrymen so can I play with the big boys scenario. Also another flaw is that not everyteam will get to play each other once again a big negative as like I have pointed out before some teams will avoid the stronger teams from each conference while others may get the top teams from every conference. So there is no way that you can fairly judge the merits of each team. the finals sheek what everyteam aspires for and every fan hopes their team to make. So in my opinion the amount of attention awarded to the top six is imperative to the success of this competition

I'm amazed how much attention has been given to the final 6 arrangements. As if this is somehow the most critical part of all the announcements. Personally, I have no problem with the conference winners being quarantined. And as I said elsewhere, it's almost inconceivable that one of the conference winners wouldn't be among the top 6 best performed teams across all the conferences. And finally, with the teams placed in their respective conferences, casual fans will finally begin to understand where the Bulls, Sharks, Brumbies, Force, Chiefs & Highlanders, etc all come from! And yes - S15 is a massive step in the right direction. As Big Kev used to say - "I'm excited"!

Armchair, While in some ways I agree with much of what you have said I do strongly disagree that the so called stonger conference(s) would get more of a showing in the finals makeup. In the stronger conference common sense would tell me that the available competition points will be more evenly spread as oppossed to the weaker conferences where one or two teams will be 90% certain to be streaks ahead re South Africa with the Bulls and Sharks. Also Australia with the Tahs and Brumbies I'm just basing this on the general success of the various countries teams making finals previously. This in itself will distort the competition greatly in favour of the better teams from the weakend provinces as the road to the finals will be that much easier. The NZ teams this is hypothetical I must add, after having played a much more competitive home and away series could be 10 pts behind the best of Aus and SA due to it being simply that more competitive and the points being shared more evenly, it would be a huge up hill battle to get those points in the Cross conference. while it is a great step forward it cannot be seen as very fair unless every team gets the chance to play everyone in the cross conference either. Every year some teams will avoid the tougher teams and again distorting the table and throwing up teams who don't necessarily deserve to be there come finals time. I am not a fan of automatic qualifiers but its something we will have to live with I guess. Surely this will be tinkered with over the coming years to try and make the competition as fair as possible