The next evolution of Super Rugby

Amen to that JF

What you say makes sense Jon. In your opinion, do you see a time when the conferences will be closed off and if so, how many teams per conference would make that happen?

You might be right intotouch. At the same time, I wonder if one of the reasons SA and NZ moved to franchises in the first place was to give all their main players the international exposure and competition.

There's a lot of the 'good old days' thinking by many people out there. I'll put this to you, were the 'good old days' really that great? I cannot recall the name of the author at present but there's a book just suggesting that the 'good old days' weren't as golden as many like to nostalgically reflect on.

It's only 18 weeks of regular competition plus 3 weeks of finals. When you put it up against most professional sporting leagues internationally Super Rugby is a sprint. Within our borders we have the AFL with a 22 games regular season plus 6 weeks finals, the NRL with 26 weeks plus 6 weeks of finals and even the A-League with 24 weeks and 4 weeks of finals. Only the NFL runs for a similar time period with only 16 regular season games but it also has an extensive post season schedule and there is a current dispute stemming from the fact the owner's of the teams and the league want to extend the regular season to 18 games. But that doesn't mean less is more as there are 32 teams in the NFL. Abfan As a youngster I was considered quite the prospect in terms of Rugby (and League). I was (stil am) quite a stocky unit (6'0, 120kg) who could motor and good ball skills. I played represesentative Rugby until I quit and was actually given first choice at a grade place in the Sydney competition (not Subbies but grade), on top of this I had seen interest from a few NRL clubs. My old man's advice was, take the offer that came with the most money. It would likely have been League but Rugby was where my heart is. Why? And this is where I'm getting to, a Rugby players career due to the intensely physical nature of the sport can be long, medium or very short. You never now when a career ending injury could occur, take the money and the best premium available to you while you can. I know the AB jersey is a big drawcard but if your a player in contention for the jersey playing in a post Super Rugby ITM Cup earning a relatively modest wage ($50,000 NZD) and a French/English/Pro12 (Formerly the Magners League) or NRL club offer 4 times as much, I'd bet good money the player takes the money 9 times out of ten. Rugby exists in a professional environment and has to compete for talent, reverting back to the 'good old days' will forfeit a competitive position. Also, where do you actually think a significant degree of the money available to provide the semi-professionalism in the ITM CUp originates from. Tew has been quite clear and honest about this in the past. Not sponsorship, that covers costs, much of the funding derives directly from the contractual payments the NZRU recieve from the SANZAR deal. If that disappeared the burden would fall on the ABs games as the primary income generator, maybe the semi-pro status of the ITM Cup may be able to be maintained but essentially it would become a feeder comp for other international leagues.

One day cricket tis another example of overkill and meaningless matches can kill a sport .

LES is more often if not most of the time works better as eachmatchis more tesne and teams gave to push there players ot the brink as a loss can hurt them more, alms tliek each game is a mini final. I liked th esuper 14 concept with only 13 match regular season was more teans eand only 4 teams in finals. i think now best concept would be to have 14 or 15 matches and the 6 finals, would be better. Leiss is more works for great example NFL(talk going to increase ematches but players don't want a sit is tough only16018 regular season matches) Pro sport comps with overkill are MLB(BASEBALL)(they play 162 regular season matches) NBA(82 matches plus up to 28 playoff games NHL(i think 82 matches plus 28 playoff games to) AND im going to say NRL TO, nil WOULD BE BETTER WITH 20 matches a year or at least 22 , 24 is now to long And NFL in USA is hightest rating sports comp as eachh match is tense. I loved who less is more in super 14 before it was more tense and i think they should reduce the comp by 1 round if it is to evolve or be more exciting.

I would dispute the idea that less matches would necessarily means less money from broadcasters. If the competition format changed in any way that made it more exciting and popular and tv audiences soared then it's perfectly possible that the alternative SR format could end up with more money for fewer matches. It's how many people want to watch the thing that determines how much tv companies are willing to pay for the rights! The Amlin Challenge cup competition in Europe includes teams from more countries than the H Cup so in theory should have a far bigger audience on tv but it is less popular and less lucrative. I know this is a second tier competition so may not be the best example but the formula for success does not come down to something as basic as more countries=more viewers. In the Amlin challenge case more countries = less viewers=less money. A competitions wealth and success does not always increase by having more countries involved or more matches. It needs to have large viewing figures. So it must capture peoples imagination and be exciting! Do that and people from everywhere can be drawn into it. The champions league in soccer has viewers from all over the planet who will never have a team involved in it. The quantity of matches is not huge. The quality of the sport and the excitement of the competition is what captures the public's imagination. The viewing figures are astronomical and if everyone in Europe stopped watching it there still would be a huge audience. The tri nations countries are not the ultimate audience that this competition should be aiming to capture. Think of what people around the world would like to see and i think you will find the best formula for expansion. Another thought that occurred to me while reading this is that just because the SR system could change to allow the top 5 NZ or SA sides each year to enter does not mean that Australian qualification would have to go down the same route. Until more Australian sides exist every Aus team could compete, the same as they do now. Italy and Scotland enjoy that privilege in the H cup.

WCR, of course there isn't enough money in NZ to keep the top players. No-one would dispute that, least of all me. That's where the AB jersey comes in. The problem here is that NZ is running a fully professional competition (Super rugby) with a semi-professional one (ITM Cup) and NZ is too small for that. If you ask the NZ population which competition they'd prefer to see disappear, do you really think most Kiwis would vote the NPC out? Then you need to ask why that is. (By the way, have you seen the SA crowds for the Currie Cup games? Just as impressive. Using this year's format is a little misleading as well given the large number of local derbies.) Last year I was in despair. Then I watched Southland's Ranfurly campaign (just about every game too) and that restored my faith. The passion the people of Southland showed when the team returned home with the Log was a hearty reaffirmation of NZ rugby (they had a lunchtime street parade in Invercargill!!) Super rugby may be able to reinvent itself but it can't do that by adding two new teams every 3-4 years.

Elvis Toiane is who I think you're talking about. He's actualy not a bad player. This season's SR tournament wil prompt a rethink of squad sizes I'd imagine. You're looking at this as a half empty situation but here's the half ful. This season alot more emerging player's have had the opportunity to be exposed to SR which wil assist them into the future. What we need in Aus is either the concerted effort to either re-introduce the ARc (my preferred option) or concentrate on the Shute Shield, getting the best player's available to play in it and raise the overal standard ( this would raise several damaging issues).

No i am not simon it is true read the daily telegraph , or sydney morning herald and they have acalled up a hooker his name is elvis he looks pacific islander and there is a picture of him being interviewed im his security uniform and he freely admits he is part time, and has even played reserve grade this year at manly, sore hardly encouraging stuff. But that is what the super 15 is doing with the injury to;l, forcing teams to call on semi pro players to ply with full time pros,a nd often already these people are infioroior rugby players it is a mismatch. And i think the travel factor has to do with it to influencing things , and injury tolls

abfan Next season from my understanding NZ sides wil play al bar one Aus and SA team. We all have to accept that we are al interdependent in terms of financial stability and sustainability in terms of Rugby. You may not like it but do you seriously think there enough money in or potentialy in the NPC to keep al your top player's in the country. If your answer is yes, then mate, sit down and have a good hard think about it. As for crowds, wel, in Australia they are up and SA's were very strong particularly in terms of the Buls, Sharks and Stormers. Hell, I even think the Lions and Cheetahs saw rises this season. Looks to me that many SAF value Super Rugby as well.

ABF, I think you're overstating things when you say SR has devolved from a NZ/SA point of view. I have no doubt that is the opinion of some, but to lump everyone in that basket is a massive generalisation and simply isn't true. The old NPC has been streamlined. It will now only be played over a mere 12 weeks in non-world cup years. For most of these weeks, the AB's will be absent. Why has the NZRU done this? Is it because they don't care? Is it because the ARU has tricked them? No, the NZRU can see there is no other way. Of course, they would go for a revamped NPC if were at all possible. But they know it's not. If the NZ market could sustain it, they would quickly increase the number of teams to make the teams as close to traditional as possible. But the NZ market can't sustain it. Of course, JON is going to be saying that AUS and NZ will be alright without SA (if they threaten to leave) and besides, that was only with 5 Super teams in each country. All adjustments take time. The NPC is still here. But we have to embrace change for rugby to survive in NZ. And besides, the change ain't so bad.

Now you're just picking Johnno

Jon is right, all three countries need each other. A change to SR won't happen, not in the foreseeable future anyway. And besides, it's going really well this year overall.

p.Tah If the Waratahs start to actively engage Western Sydney and the country regions in thenear future then I would actively support a Central Adelaide based franchise that played games out of Darwin.

I have said this many times previously but the move toward the conference system in my opinion is a direct indicator of where the future of the competition lies. That future appears to be multiple conferences spanning a very large (near global) geographical spread. I truly believe SANZAR as they stand plan to transform Super Rugby into a truly global championship via the use of the conference system. If I am correct, and by that the speculative article from Rugby World magazine I read 2 or 3 years ago is (and it has been thus far) we can expect to see another 3 conference (Americas 1, Americas 2 and Asia) all introduced over time to create a powerful global sporting competition. Each conference will consist of 8 teams ( in Aus according to the article Western Sydney, Gold/Sunshine Coast or even North Queensland and Adelaide would form the remainder of the Aus conference) , (in NZ a sixth franchise would be accompanied by two islander squads, not too sure as to its SA conference make up) totalling 48 teams across a dozen nations.