Super expansion: send rugby back to its roots

You're aware that several teams from here play rugby league?

This is the way it is B-Rock? …“Money talks. Australia is the wealthiest nation and provides all the upside for NZ and SA in terms of their own profitability Its a false economy to shut up shop and go back to the “good old days” where everyone only had to get behind the local club and national team – this was a different era”… You are very persistent with this mantra, and lots of assumptions behind it. Broadcasting rights is what you are saying that AU can only provide. No, that is not the case and the present deal with the present Broadcaster can be changed to favor SANZ. True NZ is hugely handicapped by its media being almost entirely owned by AU, it’s a massive problem which most NZers are not even aware of. A different era? How true. But not the mantra professional and assumed private magic you suggest. Good to see on here now, recognition of Peak Oil and the difficulties of travel. This is the era of ‘the local’ and your 80’s mantra will not change that.

You are correct FU but also unrealistic. Its pretty simple - money talks. In an ideal world, the ARU would invest and promote a domestic comp. But compared to the current SR set-up this will never compete in terms of profitability. In SANZAR, Australia is the wealthiest nation and provides all the upside for NZ and SA in terms of their own profitability. Yes, Australia needs to grow the game at home by itself, but Aus rugby fans have become used to the strong international competition in SR which is its "point of difference" (to use a deansism) vs. AFL and League. Rugby is a niche sport in the largest SH market and is dominant in the smaller markets. Clearly, the smaller markets (SA and NZ) need to focus beyond their own borders and help Australia grow the game domestically, which is through SR, not the CC and NPC. If SANZAR can achieve this, the overall profit pool will be much larger, benefiting all three countries (four if you include the Argies). Its a false economy to shut up shop and go back to the "good old days" where everyone only had to get behind the local club and national team - this was a different era - SR is the best overall option in the professional era. The NH can get away with the HC due to the large supporter bases across all countries, its just not the best option for the SH.

Looks good to me DS well done :-) I'll vote for it :-)

Its not a bad idea. But there are a few realities that intrude: 1. It will always be cheaper to send a few Super Rugby teams over a given distance, than a larger number of club teams. 2. Super Rugby works for Australia, whereas a national competition would be very difficult to achieve: Look at the distance between any of the eastern capitals and Perth - greater than the distance to New Zealand. Or the distance between Melbourne and Brisbane - almost as far as New Zealand. Its much more cost effective to send only a few SR teams over this distance, instead of many club teams. By comparison, the SA and NZ club competitions are played over an area smaller than New South Wales. 2. However, SA and NZ have their own reasons for supporting Super Rugby. It makes money - significantly more money than the domestic club competitions in SA or NZ have ever managed. As long as these factors continue, SA, NZ and Australia will continue to support Super Rugby, for differing reasons.

I believe we witnessed the introduction to the future of Super Rugby with the introduction of the conference system. In time the existing three conferences will move to 6 then 7 and eventually 8 including all the Currie Cup major provinces and the Port Elizabeth based Kings (as this is a highly important area in terms of reaching out into the indigenous population), the top 8 NZ province will also join in the fold providing the nation with extensive coverage in terms of teams in the country and in Aus we will over time go from the current 5 to 8 possibly including a team based out of South East Asia (Hong Kong for mine). Additionally, in the near future we will see Argentina come online with Super Rugby and will eventually form the core of initially and Americas conference including at least one American and Canadian team. In time that will split into two both North and South. That would over time provide a competition with 40 teams over 5 conferences all playing an internal 14 H/A season internally and only a few inter conference games (Aus/NZ/SA continue as is and the South and North Americas conferences play one another) of each conference the top 2 go through to a finals series. If South Africa withdraw from SANZAR then it would just remain a 4 conference system. The TV deal for such a competition would be substantial to say the least.

Merge with league and have 5 conferences and 30 teams: 6 New Zealand Teams - Super 15 plus Warriors 6 Queensland Teams - Reds, current 3 NRL teams plus 2 expansion teams in Western Brisbane & Sunshine Coast 6 teams from WA, SA, VIC & ACT - Force, Rebels, Brumbies plus Storm, Raiders & Adelaide expansion 12 teams from NSW - Waratahs plus the 10 existing NRL teams plus Gosford - split into 2 conferences, South & North Teams play own conference twice - 10 games Teams play half the remaining teams - 12 games Top 3 teams from each conference + 1 wildcard qualify for finals - 16 team knockout finals format - 4 games Then post season you could have the national champions of the non-European teams play a knockout tournament - the best 8 teams/winners from South Africa, Australia, New Zealand, Argentina, PNG, Japan, USA and Pacific Islands - over 3 weeks Because the regular season is reduced you could therefore still incorporate regional trial i.e. State of Origin - NSW v QLD, South Island vs North Island etc as proper international trials Then you could schedule the internationals into two rounds, half mid season (when there are club rests) and half end of season. Have a proper southern hemisphere 6 Nations - South Africa, Australia, New Zealand, Argentina and the top 2 pacific cup teams (PNG, Japan, USA, Fiji, Samoa, Tonga etc). 3 games mid season and 2 games + final end of season. Then after that you'd have the Northern tour.

DeSvarta, Your heading is spot on - "Super Expansion: send rugby back to its roots". But then you spoil it by coming up with a cumbersome, unwieldy format. Your intention to include as many teams from as many countries as possible is very noble of you, but ultimately totally impractical. I certainly agree Australia needs to find a national comp, & I would keep any Heieneken Cup style format to the SANZAAR nations - South Africa, New Zealand, Australia & Argentina. I know more should be done for lower tier nations, but it would take someone with the wisdom of Solomon to provide the answers. In any case, the world works on money so I've discovered, not necessarily the best aesthetic outcomes, but the most financially productive. The world is changing. Will SA want to remain in southern hemisphere beyond 2015? The big money is up north. Will we move to a global season? I'm no longer sure I know myself anymore what the sporting future holds.....

Super Rugby is perfectly set up right now. It has evenly sized conferences from three nations which all play at a similar standard. Mixing in punching bags for the sake of expansion would just kill the intensity.

No i'm saying as long as Australia refuses to get it's own competition, professional rugby will be worse off in the other countries, especially New Zealand and RSA. Fans there are not happy with having their competitions compromised while Australia free loads into their rugby markets. New Zealand fans in particular are not happy with the late kick off times solely for Australia's benefit and the lack of rivalries or representation present in the current competition. Super rugby is a band aid solution until Australia is able to support enough teams for itself. Europe (and France in particular) has shown that it's model is far superior in terms of revenue and crowds as well as the ability to incorporate new regions into their continental competition regardless of skill level (Spain, Romania and next year Russia are entering the amlin challenge cup to take on traditional power houses like toulon), rather close up the shop like sanzaar desires with their competitions and would be extremely well suited in Southern Hemisphere .

No i'm saying as long as Australia refuses to get it's own competition, professional rugby will be worse off in the other countries, especially New Zealand and RSA. Fans there are not happy with having their competitions compromised while Australia free loads into their rugby markets. New Zealand fans in particular are not happy with the late kick off times solely for Australia's benefit and the lack of rivalries or representation present in the current competition. Super rugby is a band aid solution until Australia is able to support enough teams for itself. Europe (and France in particular) has shown that it's model is far superior in terms of revenue and crowds as well as the ability to incorporate new regions into their continental competition regardless of skill level (Spain, Romania and next year Russia are entering the amlin challenge cup to take on traditional power houses like toulon), rather close up the shop like sanzaar desires with their competitions and would be extremely well suited in Southern Hemisphere .

-Actually the Blues do average about 20k a game so I don't know what your on about. -And of course T.V ratings against S.A teams would be the lowest the games get played in the middle of the night. -Where did S.A say they want inclusion in the Heineken cup? - I really doubt the oil prices will affect them that much, most teams are sponsored by an airline anyway. -As a fan of Super Rugby I can easily identify with Super rugby, its got 5 teams from 3 countries - not to hard is it? -South Africa does have a full time pro comp, its called the Currie cup you should look it up. ''So Samvandamn I hope i have given you some more facts on the matter onn the state of rugby union in the southern Hemphisphere.'' FACTS!? More like rubbish from a drunken poster!

As a Kiwi I much prefer watching the Blues then Auckland play, the ITM cup has been a dud for the last 8 or so years. Seriously don't like Super Rugby, the Blues have lately developed rivalries with the Sharks and Reds because both of them have beaten them in critical parts in the season the last few years, and I imagine the Crusaders and the Western Force have a bit of a rivalry as well with the Force always giving them a run for there money each time they play.

Mate what are you talking about? USA and Argentina? I was in favour of keeping the current format. You happened to go off in a great tangent there.

So basically what you are saying is screw Australia?

this is the best way to accommodate the huge distances between these rugby countries as well as promoting the local rivalries. I much prefer this idea of making super rugby the knockout competition rather than just keeping conferences internal as it allows each competition to develop it's own identity and structure. As well as this, include a 2nd tier tournament similar to the amin challenge cup in europe so more teams get exposure to international rugby.

TC, you contradicted yourself . You the US team will never happen cost hundreds of million of dollars to run and set up which you right, then at the end you say the Americas and Asia will have conference teams in the super comp. I simply can not see it being financially viable having US, Canada, Argentina teams in super rugby. Maybe a Japan team or focus on teams in Asia, but not North or South America in the super comp, only for a champions league style comp running in conjunction with a local comp.

Samvandamn I totally agree mate Super Rugby works ,it makes money ,it puts bums on seats (unless the particular team is crap) , it pulls the advertisers ,and pay tv figures are growing year on year . So the next question is ,where will the money come from for this amazing new competition ,you don't have to think to hard to realise that it would never eventuate . Sorry mate but these US teams that you want to make into fully pro teams ,you will need hundreds of millions of dollars over five years just to keep them going let alone all these other teams . But yet the cash cow you want is steering you right in the face , yes thats right ,it Super Rugby ,we can grow the game in countries that have no pro rugby ,the systems are all in place to make this a reality at the next pay tv contract .The conference system is the key to taking rugby to new markets without the large financial out lay needed to start up a domestic pro comp . Whatever people think on this particular subject ,doesn't really matter because SANZAR have already made up there minds ,expansion is coming to Super Rugby ,high ranking figures like Greg Peters and Mike Eagles (president of NZRFU) and Mark Alexander (dep president of SARU) ,as well as your own J,ON have all said that expansion of Super Rugby into Asia and the Americas is inevitable ,that's why the conference system was brought in in the first place . So expect a five or six team conference from both the Americas and Asia over the next couple of decades.

and yet why should australia hold back the other countries domestic comps. super rugby only exists because australia is too lazy to make its own competition. ITM and currie cup got way better crowds before super rugby started and fans are still more passionate about those teams than the bland franchises of super rugby. I'm sorry mate but you are talking crap.