The importance of credibility in Super Rugby

A good solution is to move to a Super 10 competition with a Second division where there is promotion/relegation at the end of the season. Super Rugby - 10 team Premier division - 10 team second division Some obvious advantages to this system are that: - With a simple one game round robin in each division, the competition will finish before June. - Five more teams can be added to the second division from Tokyo, Argentina, Americas, and 2 other places. - Players will play only 11 high performance games which will give fans more quality and players more rest The inequality of not playing all teams both home and away can never be solved even in a conference competition because it would just take too long - more than 28 weeks if you wanted to play every team home and away. A promotion/relegation system will mean that a team in division two can also not play a team in division one but the advantage is that they play games against more equal rivals AND have a chance to be promoted. This is better for all teams and creates better games. Ensuring that teams do not languish at the bottom of division two is simply a case of maintaining salary caps and distributing broadcasting income equally.

I think the conference system will work with a few changes. 1) Begin the privatisation of the teams into franchises 2) expand the competition by 3 franchise (1 in each conference, Bring back Lions, Add a team in either West Sydney or Newcastle, and one in Napier) 3) allow PI and Arg players to play in any team as 'Home' players and any SANZAR player to play for any team. 4) rename the conferences according to their domestic comps (SA becomes the Currie Cup Conference) 5) the inter conference matches should be strength v strength like the NFL and reduced to 6 per team from 8 6) Extend the play-offs to inlcude a domestic final in each (In SA play the Currie Cup Final between top 2 in conference) 7) Domestic winners and best 'loser' (regular season results) play in semi finals of Super rugby, week after domestic finals, one week off and then final. 8) move incoming international matches to after this and before RC, and follow with outgoing (so all international rugby in played in one block) season would run like this 1-4 SR warm-up matches 5-18 SR regular season 19 Domestic finals 20 SR Rugby semifinals 21 week off 22 SR Final 23-25 Incoming tour 26-33 RC 34-36 Outgoing tour still leaves 16 weeks off season for top players and potentially max of 31 matches.

Don't forget this was agreed to when the GFC was really biting. Travel costs had to be reduced as teams are travelling domestically and can arrive later in the week to cut down on accommodation bills.

The following comes from the 2011 Super Rugby media guide: The Super Rugby competition will not only expand to 15 teams in 2011, it will also undergo a significant format revamp. A new three- Conference system will be in place where the five teams within each country will make up nationally based Conferences and play their four ‘local’ rivals on a home and away basis (eight games in total). They will also play four of the other five teams in each of the other two conferences on a home or away basis (another eight games). This leads to an overall program of 16 games per team in the regular season, as opposed to the previous 13 - and separate Australian Conference, South African Conference and New Zealand Conference tables will chart the fortunes of teams in each country. A three-week finals series involving six teams - as opposed to the previous two-week playoffs for four teams - will further increase the length of the season. At the end of the regular season matches, the top team in each Conference will qualify for the finals. The other three teams to qualify will be the sides with the most number of competition points - irrespective of the Conference in which they are based. The Conference winners are also ensured of a home finals match. Therefore, at least one finals match will be played in each country each year. SNAPSHOT • An increase in overall matches from 94 to 125 (an increase of 33 percent) • A 50 percent increase in the length of the season in non-World Cup years, from 16 weeks to 24 weeks • A 31 percent increase in the length of the season in World Cup years, from 16 weeks to 21 weeks • 40 Super Rugby regular season matches played in each country each season as opposed to 26 in Australia under the Super 14 structure and 32 or 33 in South Africa and New Zealand • There will be 20 regular season local derbies in each country as opposed to six in Australia, 10 in South Africa and 10 in New Zealand under the Super 14 format • Half of all regular season matches will be local derbies • Each team will play 12 of its 16 regular-season games within its own country – with only four matches overseas It is quite obvious from the emphasis on the points made in the "snapshot" section that their main desire is to a) increase the amount of local derbies b) increase the amount of finals c) ensure those finals are played in every country d) reduce the amount of cross-conference matches

Bakkies, Australia now has 5 teams, if you look at Super 14, Australia had 4 teams with one round robin match vs each other ,it was 6 derby matches, plus 20 cross conference matches in Australia, totalling 26 matches. Currently it is no 5 teams with 20 round robin matches, and 20 cross conference matches, so the number of game sincreased from 26 - 40 matches hosted in OZ If they simply kept the single round robin, Australia would have had 10 round derby robin matches and 25 cross conference matches. So it would still have increased the number of matches hosted in OZ from 26 - 35

Exactly, you get a conference system for more money, etc, but lose a bit of credibility to also retain the local comps, and not play in 30+ degree heat for the first 3-4 rounds.

There were several weekends in Super 12 and Super 14 seasons where there were no games in Australia which also meant little exposure for the game.

I say the reason why there are two teams skipped is that SA and NPC didn't want Super Rugby to further encroach on their domestic competition. It was the only solution as they couldn't agree on starting the comp earlier.

Yes, purely for local derbies. They bring more eyeballs and more crowds and more money than cross conference games, in most cases.

Yikes, this is not the NFL. This is Super rugby, my concerns aren't for codes I am not following, my concern is for Super Rugby.

Darwin when we had 14 teams everyone played each other, there were 13 rounds and semi and final, in total there were 16 weeks of rugby. Why the conference format , purely for local derbies? they could have just added one more week, have the usual round robin where everyone plays everyone else, and then have semi final and final, it would have cut 2 weeks of the schedule.

The issue of not playing everyone in the comp is fairly easily fixed, as each team only misses 1 from the other 2 conferences. For scheduling that might mean 2, 3 or possibly 4 extra weeks. The SA teams will either have to do 2 tours to Aus/NZ or tour for 5-6 weeks. I'm pretty sure they'd hate that. The issue of travelling for the final also has a fairly easy fix. Just add a week before the final to allow the teams to recover and acclimatise. However this leaves us with a weekend with no rugby for people to lose interest, for the teams to lose their momentum. Fans of the teams that aren't playing have another week to give up on the season. Alternatively you could play home and away. I'm not sure whether you'd want to play at home first, or last, or whether winning on aggregate is a fair way to decide a 1-1. Maybe you could be 3 games, #1 at home, then away, then home? Travel would surely ruin both teams then (unless neither is an SA team). In the end, I doubt there is an equitable answer to this. Too many things have to be compromised to reach a "perfect" solution. I think that what we have is pretty good, with barely anything "broken".

I agree with premise of this ... Unfortunately we can't revert back to 12 or 14 and have everyone play each other ... So the conferences are here to stay so the finals certainly need re-jigging ... At present it warped far too far - you can win a conference, but if you end up third you're stuffed as you'll never win it from there - the last 2 seasons have proven that the travel kills the contest The final is meant be be the showcase but unfortunate it won't ever throw up a half decent contest until there's a weeks break - so the travelling side gets the chance to acclimatise - home advantage should be enough, it shouldn't get coupled with playing a side that have had to cross several oceans over the previous fortnight ... That week off could easily be filled with a playoff round of the non qualifiers to ascertain cross conference games for the following season ... (Also - think you'll find the crusaders have won away finals beating the blues and brumbies away)

To win, you're going to have to beat the best at some stage, and generally be the best throughout the comp. Which I think for the last two years has been the case. A whole bunch of other factors come into play in this tournament, not just whether you draw the Kings as opposed to tbe Bulls, but which teams you draw home or away, as well as the sequence of games you draw etc etc, which are all challenges of an extremely challenging comp, which for me, what makes it unique and interesting. The reality is, to win the tournament, you have to be one of the two best teams and perform wel at home and,away, which is extermely challeniging given teh international flavour of the tornament. I am interested to know which South African team you feel should have one the last two years and why as opposed to the Reds and Chiefs.

Agree with you in essence biltong. Unfortunately, we have to accept that SR is a tournament, not a championship as such. Hence the importance of the draw. I have been told many times that SR wasn't meant to be fair or even.

The NFL has a similar scenario. It doesn't really concern me. If the Waratahs have to play the Bulls, Sharks one year and miss out on the kings that doesn't bother me. You just have to be prepared to meet every challenge. Life's not fair why does Super Rugby have to be.

I agree Biltong, but this whoe issue could be dealt wth oh so easily if the competition saw each team play each team once. If we reverted back to that sort of system, there would still be some inherent inequities, in that one year you might play some easy team away and difficult teams at home, giving you somewhat of an advantage if you are given a better chance of winning against the difficuolt teams. So, the system will never be perfect, unless it's changed to a home and away format where each team plays each team both home and away. You could keep the conference system and then the wildcard finalists would have earned their points outside of the conference as well as within, making the comparative strength of the conferences immaterial to the final standings. I do like the fact that travel is such a big part, as it gives those teams who can win the minor premiership a big, well deserved advantage, and makes the wildcard qualifiers work that much harder to reach the final. The current system could be amendeed very easily to wensure equity, however that is not in the financial interest of the Unions involved or SANZAR as a whole or Mr Murdoch, so it won't happen.

So, the NFL lacks credibility? Not all their teams play everyone else and it is the luck of the draw who you get to play across conferences. Frankly, this is a very silly argument. The pool winners go through because each pool is slightly different and you reward teams who top their pool. Then you let in the next 3 best teams. It's simple, it's fair, it's effective. At the end of the day, travel is a big part of super rugby, and always has been. The fact that the ladder leader has won the title 80 percent of the past decade just shows that we are no worse off under the conference system. The cream rises to the top and the best teams usually win regardless of the structure of the competitions.

Fairandcredible, you are missing the point completely. The problem is not the fact that the log leader gets to win the trophy, it is how they get to the top of the log. It is the fact that you get seasons where you don't play top trams in the competition. And you get season where you don't get to play bottom of the log teams. Ultimately you can have as much as an 8 point swing on the log, depending the teams you draw for the season.

So, the reality is, the team that does the best throughout the tournament has the best chance of winning the final, as they not only top their conference but also top the overall ladder. The last two years(since the conference system) the winners were the Reds and the Chiefs who were the best performed and consistently most entertaining teams in the competition in the respective years. Sounds fair and credible enough to me. Their is not enough time to have a complete home and away series as well as fit in all the internationals, unless of course you drop a couple of teams from EACH conference. That's not going to happen. So let's move on.