What could South Africa look like post-Super Rugby?

Matt, your idea is great. I think that 6 teams per conference will be the next step. The inter conference fixtures could be similar to the NFL, in that strong teams play strong teams. So the top 3 SA teams would play the top 3 teams from Aus and NZ, and the bottom 3 teams play the bottom 3 teams. This still would give a 16 game season. It would also mean that the season would be fairer for weaker teams, hence creating more movement between top teams, just look at NFL for the number of different teams that win. The only other change should be more private investors and also allow any player from SANZAR including Arg players to play for any team, and restrict teams to a salary cap.

Matt, I like the idea of the Super frnachises to dissappear and the Provinces compete in the super Rugby competition, but with NZ having central contracts with their players (which I beleive is a grat benefit) how will you incorporate private provincial entities if they don't have control of their players? I have promoted the idea of having the Conferences play a double round robin and find the qualifiers from there to compete in a super 9's tournamnet after the conclusion of the Conference rounds. You idea of having the Provinces qualify on promotion and relegation is great, because then all provinces in SA and NZ stand a chance to compete in the Super Rugby tournament. If I look at SA as an example, our Currie Cup has a premier and 1st division, the top six plays in the Conference and the bottom team has to play the top team in the 1st division to remain for the next year. Then I also agree the revenue streams must be fair to all participating provinces.

As a Kiwi I also lament the way Super Rugby is crowding out the NPC (ITM Cup these days). The provincial sides have much more passionate support and the rugby is generally more entertaining with a lot more attacking endeavour and new young names bursting on to the scene. Having too much of the same sides week in week out definitely does dilute the enjoyment for NZ fans also. I don't think it is a step to far to replace the Super Rugby conferences with Provincial Currie Cup and NPC sides. At present the Super Rugby teams are virtually the old major provinces anyway. And the current provinces are no longer representative sides of the local areas best players, they're virtual clubs where you buy in whatever talent you need along side the locals who have come through the academy. I'd personally like to see a sustainable format tabled and ratified, similar to the one I outlined (including the Japanese) and the calendar fixed to provide a stable seasonal format. Then I'd like to see the SANZAR countries enforce more revenue equalisation and create contracts for the creation of private provincial entities. These could be in the form of licenses, but they'd basically stipulate things like release of players for X number of Test matches each season and the percentage of revenue paid to the professional domestic teams from Test revenue. If you ironed out a robust contracting system then you could sell off the provincial pro sides to private individuals/consortiums and alleviate a lot of the cost on the national unions. That money can then be directed more towards the amateur game and the private guys can go about creating the interest and promotion for the domestic pro game. This basically means creating a platform of about 6-8 pro teams per SANZAR country, who will play in the domestic league and also take part in the cross border Super Rugby competition. You might look to include promotion/relegation to a lower domestic tier, but you'd have to firm in linking spending to revenue to ensure teams don't push themselves to bankruptcy. While the Rugby Championships are on you could instead play club rugby (which will be a 100% amateur Tier 3 below the Pro domestic level). I think there is a healthy balance there to be found. At present I don't think there are quite enough pro teams in each country at Tier 2 level (the level directly below test matches). I also think there are too many teams at Tier 3 level (Currie Cup, ITM) who are spending money that doesn't really exist sustainably. But you can't just make the 3rd tier amateur overnight without creating more Tier 2 pro teams, as you will cut off the number of places for talented players to make a Rugby career at home and they'll head overseas young (as they do in football). So it has to be a total strategy implement in unison. To me it is such a postive topic though, we really are lucky to have three strong and ambitious rugby nations, with Argentina also coming on board, so I'm sure it just needs time to pan out.

I like that there are steps being taken to revive club game. The next step would be to revive some of the proud clubs such as the army and the police teams. Elsewhere I argue that a 6 team currie cup does not offer enough opportunities for players, but I also think that 14 is too many. Economically South Africa can only realistically support about eight competitive teams*. I doný have much problem with diluting the talent , but teams playing out of Welkom, George, East London and Wellington are never going to generate enough money to challenge the big centres consistently. * It may have been possible have more teams if the big centres (JHB, CT, PTA and DBN) were subdivided, but with the exception of the Lions, the existing brands in these centres would crush any new upstart.

As a South African I love Super Rugby. The games are typically great quality and I can support other South African teams as long as they are playing the Antipodean hordes. That being said, the season is too long and there are too many derby matches. At its best, Superrugby has always been about the best teams from three countries going hammer and tong where only the best of the best survived. We have already seen this season how injuries and bench strength can define a campaign. To me that seems wrong. I want to see the best teams going at it, not who can survive the grind of a long season. Derby games are fine, but I get no more excited about my team the Stormers playing the Sharks for the second time in the season than I would be if they were facing the Canes or the Waratahs. I hate how super rugby is crowding out the Currie Cup. We are already down to only 6 teams in the premier division, that is simply too few slots for pro players and will lead to too much talent falling through the cracks or rotting on the vine at the big unions.

Matt I am sick and tired of your realistic logic do you want to be banned from this sight

Jean Polet The USA is not years away there is a serious push by the NZRFU to have them in Super Rugby in 2016.

True.

Well 5 teams per conference will actually require 10 weeks for a double round robin (as one team has to have a bye each week). So adding a sixth team to each conference doesn't actually require any more length to the season.

Matt, I admit the solution is challenging, but for me the credibility of the competition is key. Some may say you can't get a fair competition, well then in my opinion they haven't tried hard enough. We know SANZAR wanted more derbies, that I have no issue with. So if there are 5 teams per conference it will take 8 weeks, if there are 6 teams then it will take 10 weeks to complete the derbies. So if that is fixed, find a solution for a fair cross conference stage. There aren't really that many options available. 1. Have a single round robin for the top three teams per conference, play the other nations teams once that qualified, 6 matches. From your own conference you take 4 log points if you beat your opponent both times, if you won one each you take 2 points, if you lost both, you carry 0 points to the super 9 section. This will take 7 weeks considering you need a bye week for travel. In tital with 6 teams per conference we are now up to 17 weeks, then semi and final, totalling 19 weeks.

WHY do Australians persist in thinking in terms of club sides? Especially in regards to South African & New Zealand rugby. In both countries CLUB sides are the small fry, the local, community-based teams that draw there players & fans from their own community. Teams like Auckland, Taranaki & Southland are REPRESENTATIVE sides that select their players from a defined geographical region, with a few exceptions. They are NOT club sides. Nor are they S15 teams club sides, they too are Regional, representative sides. The top provincial sides from SA, combined provincial teams from NZ. In Australia, the S15 teams are also, in theory, rep. sides. So , again, why do so many posters on this site keep refering to them as CLUBS? On the topic of private backers/owners, not going to happen as representative teams are not attractive to private ownership because they are rep. sides. Too many interested parties with a say in what happens. Would the Queensland RU sell off it's own team and say good by to any control and all revenue? I don't think so.

Financially you'd want to limit the amount of rounds with limited participants. Like it or not you require a certain quantity to go with the quality. If you suddenly half the amount of teams playing you aren't guaranteed to suddenly double the viewers per match. If you only have 6-8 teams per nation then you can't afford to have some playing a 'Super' series while the others miss out. All that would do over time is see some teams earn more money and the talent then migrate to those sides. SARU, for example wouldn't appreciate the Bulls missing out on the Super series and having all those Springboks missing out on weeks of play. In a way you can see this affect in dramatic fashion with the Lions. No Super Rugby and all the stars are bailing ship. Part of the premise of Super Rugby was also that it ensured that all the nations best players were on the paddock week in week out, gaining experience for test match rugby. I don't think we will see a qualification type Super Rugby tournament until the national unions who make up SANZAR relinquish ownership of the game to private individuals. Just look at the way that Taranaki, with it's cashed up private backers, have been turned away by the NZRU when trying to push for more control over how to run their potential Super Rugby side. I believe the most balanced approach for SANZAR is the one outlined above. It ticks most of the boxes and requires the least upheaval. There is also still the possiblity of moving to private equity in the future.

We've already been down the path of everyone playing everyone and the simple fact was that the fans didn't really care about watching teams from other countries and having their teams play so many games in foreign time zones. It meant less people watching, less money and more travel costs. A 17 week round robin means some teams will spent 9 weeks overseas, that's half the season. And even within a full round robin some teams will still get easier rounds, depending on injuries, form and when they get the bye. You have to accept you'll never get an even draw for everyone, especially when there is no salary cap across the competition. When will SARU allow the Cheetahs, for example to compete on an even playing field to the Stormers or Bulls and ensure they have the same playing budget? There could be a few options for who plays who in a smaller cross-over competition. Either a random draw at the start of the season, simply the teams you didn't play last season or even a head to head depending on last seasons rankings. Either way, with less cross-over games you diminish the impact of this aspect and put more emphasis on the conference/derby games. Surely another positive?

only if they STAY in the S15, pull out and their skills & fitness will drop off.

it would provide the illusion that the depth problems had been solved at super rugby level. At test level the Wallabies would just get worse. Look at English football, strong premier league, weak national side.

That's the Heineken Cup...6 matches against only three of 23 teams, then knock-out rounds.

" We need to bring back tours" - your not wrong , God,I miss the old tours; this is the worst side - effect of professionalism. I hanker for the days when a touring team would play Auckland at Eden Park or Wellington at Athletic Park; I'm sure you feel the same way about it e.g the blue bulls at Loftus.... those were the days!

No not necessarily, if they have 2 or 3 teams from within each conference qualify for a super6 of super 9 adter the conferences is done and dusted and then have a round robin wirh fewer teams the weaker or stronger conferences won't make a difference.

Well then that makes SANZAR innovators doesnt it because they realised that closed conferences would just end up boring because we would essentially just be watching our local domestic comps and even with those conference examples you speak of the problem then comes from the fact that there are only three countries meaning three conferences which means if they did go for the closed conference rout you still wouldnt be happy because it would be easier for aussy teams to accumulate points meaning they would have more teams in the finals so i think SANZAR did well with what they did how would you in their shoes realistically come up with a product that doesnt reduce teams, keeps all the partners happy and appeases the tv broadcasters and viewers?

True, however when you look at the format of conferences elsewhere, the conference competes to find the qualifiers and onlly then do the cross conference matches proceed with the qualifiers only.