Recently we have been bombarded with speculation of expansion options for Super Rugby into Asia and the Americas.
Teams for Japan and the US seem to be the preference of many or the bane of others.
In times gone by I would have agreed with the optimists. Add new teams to the fold and expand Super Rugby to four conferences; would have been my preference. However, things change and so has my thinking.
I still want to engage as many nations as possible, or more importantly players from these nations.
While I think an expansion to six teams per conference is inevitable as the SARU will want to resolve the Kings/Lions promotion/relegation mess with a simple expansion of conference sizes, I am now of the opinion that for Super Rugby to expand into the Americas in particular would be too ambitious in terms of time zones and distances required to be traversed in what is already the world’s toughest competition in those regards.
Additionally, with two organisation already working on bringing professional 15-man rugby to North America with a third in the wings seriously contemplating it, and the Argentine Union including the likes of Chile, Uruguay, Paraguay and Brazil in their domestic representative structures, having Super Rugby interfere would likely to more harm than good.
So, how to grow Super Rugby without adding more weeks to the schedule or more travel to already weary heads?
How about a Super Rugby 2.0? Or, more importantly, a second independent league structure that can compliment Super Rugby ambitions to move into new markets yet keeps the product within its current time zones and at a level that would not see new squads blown out of the water? A development league, if you will.
Looking primarily to the Pacific Islands, current SANZAR partners and Asia could be an option. Super Rugby could create a new league that provides more opportunity for players to play professional rugby while providing fans and networks with extra content to enjoy and market.
Assuming the current conference system does move to six teams each and the team comes from within the current SANZAR alliance, then a 12-team development league could be established just below to allow more opportunity for players from across many nations to develop their craft and earn a living.
Of the 12 teams, a team from Samoa and Fiji would be obvious alongside two from each current SANZAR partner (or in Africa’s case, Kenya etc), making eight. Add in two teams from Japan, Hong Kong and the 12th would be up to who could present the best proposal.
This would develop new and old markets and offer fans with more rugby across more regions than ever before.
Rik
Guest
How about have conference based on the rankings they finish the previous season. or like have 3 conferences and have like 2 teams in each or something like that or a mixture. if you get my drift Rik
nickoldschool
Roar Guru
Problem is, when a sport becomes successful over there, they want things to go their way. They wanted to change football into a sport with four quarters rather than 2 halves. What happened with basket? Good old Europe was playing with two 20min halves until finally they adopted the American format. Plus tbh I have no particulAr desire to watch SR games played out of LA or Boston. Not saying I will never change but at this stage am happy with our format. I am just not into 'franchise' sports and teams popping out of nowhere. I often criticise SR for that but at least rugby is one of the major sports in the cities chosen to host a team. To be fair tc, I think you make good valid points in your earlier post, am just not ready for it tbh.
tc
Guest
But nickoldschool who said Super Rugby would end up like NFL ,the Americans would have to contend with SANZAR and the men who belong in the cretacious period ,the IRB. The NFL is American full stop.
nickoldschool
Roar Guru
Agree. I recorded and watched the NFL final yesterday and was amazed at the number of ad breaks, their length etc. do we want SR to be like this? I don't.
tc
Guest
Yea Johnno I totally agree ,like Auckland VS Perth.
CJ
Roar Rookie
Well I for one think this is a good idea. Asian expansion needs to come from somewhere. Giving Asia more opportunity can only help the game, as Asia is a huge market that rugby can compete in. You could even have exhibition games between the super xv teams and some in this development league. More game time for Asian teams can only help exposure and make these teams better. I know many people working exceedingly hard to get rugby of the ground in South Asia especially this would be a huge help.
Johnno
Guest
Such a pipe dream. Super rugby is trying to be the global comp. An orphanage for lost countries, who need a home as there not based in Europe. Some of the match ups if super rugby expands are so stupid, it defies belief. Auckland VS Chicago Cape Town VS Chicago Miami VS Perth All just too name a few. Ridiculous concept if this expands.
Atawhai Drive
Guest
Super Rugby, the monster that ate rugby. Please, don't let it grow any more. Anything but that.
kingplaymaker
Roar Guru
Freudian slip ;-)
tc
Guest
Steve tew said the other day that there will not be any expansion to the Super Rugby calender ,and Greg Peters said yesterday in a South African news website "if anything there maybe room to shorten the season" .Now if these statements are correct then that means no more travel then what is already experienced by the teams, because it will mean the same or less cross conference matches because there will be more teams ,who knows in the near future your team may play every other team outside your conference once every two years . Even though I would want one Steve Tew said there is little chance the Pacific Islands will come into an expanded Super Rugby comp in 2016 unless some rich dude comes on board and pays for them ,this statement is a telling sign of the intention of SANZAR ,it's not about Rugby it is about money. This is why I believe it will go ahead and that it is the best way to take pro Rugby into new markets without the headache of setting up a full pro comp and trying to make it grow from scratch. With Super Rugby the name is alredy considered the best provincial/state Rugby comp in the world ,and we are only investing in one US team in this round of expansion yet it will give legitimacy to all US Rugby just like the Warriors gives legitimacy to rugby league in New Zealand without the NZRL investing huge money trying to build up a pro domestic comp that could at least try and compete with the NRL . WCR ,your fears about Super Teams in say North America destroying any fledgling domestic pro comps that maybe coming onto the scene is unfounded ,isn't Australia fighting tooth and nail trying to introduce some kind of third tier ,the ARU have realised that Super Rugby is simply to far above club Rugby ,then why do you not think the USA,Canada and South America (Argentina,Uruguay,Chile ) wont do the same ,and even Japanese Super Rugby wont destroy the Top League but will enhance it as there third tier . People have to realise that the NPC/Currie Cup is not what they once were and that we have to move on and understand that the world sporting market is changing , it is becoming more cross border ,and I believe it will become harder for regional sports to survive going into the future ,I don't care what kind of tv rights money they bring in currently ,they will simply get swamped . Just as a side note there is one option for bolstering the new teams that aren't up to scratch ,maybe set up a draft system of fringe Super Rugby players from the NPC/Currie Cup ,Argentina and Pacific Islanders that could be used to bolster those teams until they build up enough local players to fill all the positions needed.
Darwin Stubbie
Guest
*shouldn't be an option in 2016
mania
Guest
its a start. i like the fact that u can do anything within your confernce to decide whose the best and who gets to advance.
It seems that unfortunately only makes two of us mate.
Darwin Stubbie
Guest
Expansion should be an option in 2016 .... Ideally it should contract back to 12 .... But that won't happen - so 2016 should be around improving the 15 team structure ... Especially the finals system it is too warped in its current form
Darwin Stubbie
Guest
Close the conferences ? .... I'd be careful with that call if I was the ARU as that will certainly impact the wallabies ... continued exposure to NZ and SA has benefited Aust and kept them ahead of most of the pack ... It's starting to slip now - I'd be looking into whether that slip is a result of more exposure to the Aust SR teams and the emphasis placed on winning your conference .... Close them completely and the top down approach could be in real trouble
mania
Guest
awesome sheek, i couldnt agree more. biltongbek - we've discussed your model before and i'm still a fan
sheek
Roar Guru
Rugger, Some people see super rugby as some kind of El Dorado that will not only solve all of rugby's woes, but bring everlasting wealth to all & everyone. It's a nice fairy tale. I see super rugby as a flawed model pushed to exploit as much revenue as possible, but negatively impacting on other areas of the game at its expense. Look at BBL as an example. In attempting to maximise T20 profits, the BBL has impacted negatively on tests & by extension Sheffield Shied, by not allowing players sufficient opportunity to find the form in the longer game. While the super rugby appears successful, the game is bleeding at levels below. There is a better way, that still makes revenue, but caters better for other levels of the game.
If you are so intent on expanding SuperRugby and peoplestill want to see cross conference matches then here is the answer. Make a two tier system. Have each country enter the 8 teams everyone is swooning about. Have the 12 top teams at the end of the current system go into a premier division and the bottom three teams join the 9 new teams. Each tier plays a singke round robin whereby the pool rounds are over in 11 weeks plus two flr travel, which means the entire pool round takes pnly 13 weeks, then have semi and final, so you reduce the completion of both comps to 15 weeks. Have a promotion relegation home and away system for the bottom team of the Premier Super Rugby comp against the log leader of the 1st division. That allows each country 8 teams and enough time for SA to have their 8 teams compete in a Currie cup and NZ the ITM.
mania
Guest
not a fan of closed conf's but i understand the need if super is going to get bigger. i find it interesting that “local derby” viewer ratings (much higher) and non derby ratings (lower)". i thought with the aus derby's that ppl wouldve been switching off in droves. also i prefer to see my NZ teams smashing other sides than each other.
ScrumJunkie
Guest
If you close the conferences, less people watch games. You think people in SA wanna watch the rebels v force? Not to mention how woeful a game most of Aussie derby's are. I like seeing the Reds play the chiefs, or Brumbies take on the crusaders, now that's rivalry. Most Brubies Reds games over the years have been dire. Both teams afraid to lose.