The new Super Rugby draw is a crock

Rugby is on the rebound in NZ, so I have no idea why you keep trying to lump us in the same basket as Australia. And where did you get the silly idea that SH rugby was broke. If you wanna go broke, try starting up an Australian domestic comp.

Mate at least we dont have to put up with what they do in college football in USA! They have an Associated Press Vote, Coaches Vote and a Computer Vote to decide who gets to play a national championship after 12 games! Btw there are about 110 teams in the top tier of football!

NPC/CC is not a tier below Super Rugby - if it was there would be no problem starting super rugby at the start of the rugby season and finishing at the end of rugby season. Clearly this is not the case, we currently have a rediculous set up of a season - 'sort-of second slash third tier hybrid' Is there any other footballers on the planet that are contracted to 2 separate organisations below their national team? No wonder SH rugby is broke.

jf your argument doesn,t make sense it rates in sa because the fans relate to it it will rate in nz as long as a link is maintained to provincial ties, what does aus heve to replace it with nothing. there is 2 alternatives you either scrap super rugby and go with domestic competitions problem being australia does not have a provincal comp(how do you set that up) or maintain the super comp and add an arc comp similar to sa and nz, fans will go to the games and watch on tv if the product is worth it

The Super Rugby / regional franchise model will never generate the support required to sustain the competition in such a competitive market. The matches rate in SA because their is little competition and the franchises have such strong links to their provincial teams. NRL, A-League and the AFL will further eat into the Aus/NZ rugby market because of their superior competition structures and subsequent broadcast revenues. As we add more super teams in an attempt to make up for lack of domestic rugby in Australia, the competition will become more expensive to run. Returns from broadcast deals and gate taking will be unable to keep up with the rising costs as Australian fans remain subject to a half season of rugby on pay tv and little to no mainstream media coverage, the kiwis will still be unable to consolidate their Super / Provincial fan bases resulting in the further dwindling of already small crowds/viewership.

Roughly two thirds of the broadcasting money is for the test matches, the other third is for the Super 14. The broadcasters don't give SANZAR that extra money to play with; SANZAR have to get their proposal accepted first. Considering that SANZAR has never been able to cut a successful broadcasting deal, I doubt very much that the broadcasters would start dishing out money for domestic rugby. Each union would have to approach the broadcasters individually (as they did in the last contract negotiations) hoping they get more money for less rugby and since when did that happen? Who are the NZRU going to go to if Sky don't front up? TVNZ? Give me a break. The broadcasters have all the power in the SANZAR broadcasting arrangement and that's why SANZAR never gets a good deal. The fact of the matter is that dissolving Super rugby would only favour Australia (once again.) And nobody has explained how Australia would get a domestic league off the ground. Private equity? Super rugby was designed by Australians because it circumvented their lack of domestic rugby and modified in New Zealand so that it would support the provinces and spread the wealth. And in actual fact, the NZRU is in the process of selling the franchises to the respective unions. Said unions would be crazy not to operate with two tiers. Personally I think a HC style model would be more exciting than the current Super rugby model but you can't just whip it up out of thin air.

I dont see a problem with the new format. It creates more local derbies, which in Australia are not the best games to watch, but they get the larger crowds and ratings. the issue that can arise is when a conference has some particuarly weak teams (im thinking South Africa). If the other teams get the play these weak teams twice, whilst teams from other countries only play them once or not at all, it could distort the table. Basically theres the possbilty of some teams having easier points then others. This is somewhat offset by having 1 team from each country guaranteed. Not all comps are structured as neatly as we would like. The Heinken Cup for example qualifies the winner of each of the 6 pools, and then the 2 next best runner-up of pools. Once again the issue can arise of easy bonus points etc. However, at the end of the day the best team in Europe has always won the comp. I suspect the same will happen with the S15.

OJ mate, I know you want to defend Super rugby but I think you need to rethink your financial argument. It's a bit shakey. The broadcasters are interested in test matches. SANZAR use the balance of the money to underwrite a contrived franchise tournament. There is every reason to believe that broadcasters would pay the same amount for a package that included tests plus extended and meaningful CC/NPC and ARC. ARC with constant local derbies and it's own domestic finals series would surely out rate the super tournament in Australia - where the majority of matches are between foreign teams and carry little interest in Australia except to ex-pat kiwis and Saffers. The same could be said for the other countries too.

Eliminating Super rugby wouldn't automatically increase the value of the ITM Cup and Currie Cup. The immediate impact would be the loss of a third tier for those players not skilled enough to play at the present Super rugby level and a dramatic weakening of domestic infrastructures. There's no guarantee that broadcasters would pay the same amount of money as they currently do for Super rugby plus Currie Cup/ITM Cup. Super Sport for example, would not have the same interest in picking up ITM Cup that they do in Super rugby and God knows why anyone would think the ITM Cup is suddenly going to rate on Fox Sports. Besides, the start up costs for the Australian side of this would be astronomical. There's no way that the ARU can afford it even with TV revenue. That revenue is not meant to be spent on huge start up costs.

Eliminating Super Rugby immediately increases the value of the NPC and CC, the SH championship would be of greater value per match to broadcasters because you eliminate the low drawing teams. This increase in value per game, will contribute to compensating for the reduction in games played. It also allows for an australian provincial competition to develop. The end reult will be a boost to the status and value of the NPC div1 and CC div1, the creation of an APC, and a slimmed down, high quality, high value international provincial championship. The SH champioship would be worth less than the current value of S15, but the suite of SH Championship, NPC, CC, APC only has to be of equal value to the current SR, NPC, CC broadcast revenue to make it worth while.

any arc comp must be based on the currie cup or itm comp, simply due to super rugby you can,t have a comp that will compete against it, the 3 countries need to work together to streamline the seasons, what needs to happen now is the aru should be doing the ground work for an arc comp, how many teams/where from/funding also the relationship between clubs and super franchise,s ie:act and melb rebels what involvement do they have with their respective arc clubs

it's never going to happen. The NZRU receive a rumoured US $20m for the broadcasting rights to the ITM Cup. That's four million dollars a year for five years. If you take the third tier competition and transform it into the second tier competition you've lost $20m (provided the broadcaster pays as much for the new comp as they did for Super 14.) Why would NZ and SA want to take away the third tier? The reality is that Australia have to create their own third tier if possible.

But Doc, you're letting yourself be thrown off by expansion of the other codes there. When the S15 starts next year, there will be more rugby played within Australia against the SAME number of A-L, NRL and AFL games as there currently is, Yes the A-L and AFL will have one extra team each, but with the bye in each comp, there's no additional games. What the new S15 draw should guarantee is that there will be at least two games in Aust every weekend, where currently there might only have be one, and even none sometimes. And after the RWC next year, in the 2012 edition, the S15 comp will go until early August too, so more local games for longer. I'd love to see a local comp to rival the CC and NPC too, but let's at least give the conference system a go beofre we write it off completely...

If the MLB, NBA and NFL or College Footbal are anything to go by it will increase the amount of interest in the home derbies but in turn it will make the visits of the international teams more of a 'treat' for lack of a better word. It really could turn out to be addition by subtraction. It will feel like you dont just see another lower tier SA team coming but it will be a battle hardened team on a short assasination trip to Australia. And we will want to measure up each time. Thats what appears to happen in the USA or European Champs league each year at least.

"Then 8 more against other teams within their conference and only 2 against team from outside their conference" Not quite - they play: 4 games against another division within the conference on a rotational basis (2 home and 2 away) such that they will play each team within that division at a minimum of once every 3 years. Furthermore, they are gauranteed to play that team at home at least once every 6 years. 4 games against another division in the other conference on a rotational basis (2 home and 2 away) such that they will play each team within that division once every 4 years. Furthermore, they are gauranteed to play that team at home at least once every 8 years. 2 games against teams in the same conference with the same previous season finish and who are not already on the schedule by the above rules (1 home and 1 away).

You can start to develop the new format now, have it ready for the next broadcast deal - that is 5 years away. Super Rugby has reduced the level of interest in NZ Rugby and continues to block any chance of establishing a genuine Rugby season in Australia.

It wont be hard to work out the table. You just look and see if youre winning your division. If you arent winning your division you see if you are beating the second place teams in the other conferences. If you arent beating them - you are pretty much stuffed. As for Aussie teams in the final. I think thats a good thing. But the real benefit is the ability to create a competition that gives more than just incidental meaning to the derbies. It will add some intensity down the line. If you want to know whether this type of competition can be successful check out the NFL. Each NFL team plays only 16 games a year out of a 30team comp. They have their own division games too. Those games take up 6 of the 16. Then 8 more against other teams within their conference and only 2 against team from outside their conference. But that comp goes alright. Im not saying we should get to that extreme standard. But starting where we are is good. We might be able to convince the SA admin guys that expanding the season is worth it in conjunction with giving them entrance to the 6th team in the next round of expansion. Itll all end up ok - as long as John O'Neill is not still running the show by then.

How many times does it have to be drilled into people's heads that you can't just scrap Super rugby and bring in a different format?

5 teams competing again 12 soccer teams, 16 league teams and 18 AFL teams is the wrong way to make an impact. Have a 5 team conference table won't stack up against those other codes. There's no tribalism/rivalry with any of the South African teams. I'd rather see the Super format scrapped and a domestic league brought in with a soccer style champions league.

Doc, it's still vastly improved from the current S14 draws though, where the Australian teams had 6 or 7 homes games in total (alternating each year), and in some cases, homes games against stronger teams one year, and then the weaker ones the following year. And four local derbies every year is going to be much easier to sell than alternating years of 1 then 2. Sure, it's not perfect, but the draw is at least reasonably fair. No-one has to go to South Africa for any more than two games now, and likewise, the SA teams won't be facing 5-6 week tours of Aust and NZ either. Locally, in lieu of a national comp, which is still much-needed, the ARU needs to make a big deal about the Aust conference table, and really make it a comp-within-a-comp. Invent a trophy (and it can be the QANTAS/Bundy/Lexus Cup for all I care) and put some meaning into finishing as the Australian champ. Heck, if two teams finish on equal points, make 'em play one more game!!