The 2016 Super Rugby format has already begun to take shape over the last few months. Here is what we know so far.
– South Africa has gotten their sixth super rugby side meaning that both the Southern Kings and the Lions will play in 2016.
– New Zealand has also asked for an extra side in 2016 but it remains unknown where this side will come from.
– Two Argentinian sides are looking likely to be added to the competition.
– The competition will run no longer than 19 weeks so that the June Internationals are after the Super Rugby season. This eliminates the idea of going back to the old system of each team playing every team.
If every country gets what they desire we will end up with the Super 19 which is an unbalanced number to work with the current system. A sixth Australian side is highly unlikely because of lack of player depth.
You could argue that the NSW Waratahs could be split into a Sydney and a Western Sydney side but this would dilute the level of rugby.
The most likely format for 2016 is one where there are two conferences, one with South Africa and Argentina and one with Australia and New Zealand.
This format would be successful because it would allow for more derbies within a smaller range of teams.
It would benefit Australian and New Zealand teams because it allows for less travel as well as the fans of these teams because the time zones are during the evening instead of the middle of the night.
There is nothing worse for fans when a team goes on tour for 3-4 weeks. South Africa would also benefit from the lack of travel but would end up playing weaker opposition. This would hurt them at international level in the long run.
My proposed idea is two add an extra conference with three Argentinian sides, the winning club side from Canada and the winning club side from the United States. That way you end up with four conferences.
Australia – Waratahs, Brumbies, Force, Reds, Rebels
New Zealand – Highlanders, Chiefs, Crusaders, Hurricanes, Blues, (Hawkes Bay?)
South Africa – Kings, Lions, Sharks, Bulls, Stormers, Cheetahs
America – Buenos Aires, Mendoza, Rosario, Blues (Ontario), NYAC
It shouldn’t matter how many teams are in each conference as long as the amount of conference winners is the same. For example, the top two teams from each conference will reach the top eight finals series.
Each team would play ever team, home and away in their respective conference. Then for the next three weeks each team will play one team from each conference. By doing this, the finals rankings become more accurate.
If we base it off the 2013 Super Rugby table we would end up with a final series like this:
1. Chiefs
2. Bulls
3. Brumbies
4. Crusaders
5. Reds
6. Cheetahs
7. Mendoza
8. Rosario
The McIntyre system previously used in the NRL would be used on these final eight teams (one thing that I currently like about league). A four-week finals system would work out to be nineteen weeks.
This is just a proposed idea that I think that could work but there is a lack of teams playing teams from other conferences.
HardcorePrawn
Roar Guru
Has anyone thought to check if he's OK...?
Johnno
Guest
Where has KPM gone.
peeeko
Roar Guru
i think it was kingplaymaker, thankfully we dont see his posts anymore
peeeko
Roar Guru
i thought it was closer to 4 in 10?
Glefty
Guest
Naive question maybe but what about the PI nations? Not a club as there likely isn't one strong enough but a kind of baa baas from Fiji, Tonga & Samoa would at least give the players constant top level exposure & experience & would surely be a positive for their respective national teams to have quality players getting quality game time. I thonk we owe them this rather than bringing in east coast US & Canuck teams. Crazy??
HardcorePrawn
Roar Guru
A good read, it'll certainly be interesting to see what shape and form Super Rugby will be in a few years time. Incidentally, who's the Roarer that used to post articles about how Australia could and should support more Super Rugby teams, on the basis of population size alone? I recall that he/she proposed that the Gold Coast, Western Sydney & Adelaide could all support teams as all 3 are larger metropolitan areas than the towns where many of France's Top 14 clubs hail from. I'm just surprised to see that that argument hasn't got a renewed airing on this thread...
Working Class Rugger
Guest
Okay, let's look at the teams you have proposed. The Argentine teams are fairly accurate in terms of which ones are the most competitive though, Cordoba would probably be a bit more competitive then a Mendoza squad. But neither are all that outlandish. The Canadian squad in Ontario is interesting. You may not be aware but the British Columbia league is actually the strongest in the country with the vast majority of the Canadian national team either originate from that league before going professional or still play there. So a BC based squad would be more likely. Though I do see your point of view with Ontario considering that's where the crowds for the national team have been over the past could of years. It's the US team in NYAC that is the real issue. The strongest Rugby regions in the US are West of the Rocky Mountains. So any team would need be sourced from there. More than likely out of the Bay Area of SF. Forget about using any existing clubs. For any team from the US to be competitive, it will need to be based all city/regional lines.
Working Class Rugger
Guest
It's doesn't help when the top level competition is restricted to a platform that only reaches 1 in 10 households.
silent1
Guest
Also i can confirm nz pushing for another team steve tew ceo of nzru said it himself, surely it will be central north island based in hawkes bay or at the very leadt taranaki but their about to confirm buying shares in the chiefs cant see them pulling out now
silent1
Guest
Look this is a good idea but surely each conference would have to have an even amount of teams? Japan team in aus and another american team? Each team could play each team in their conf home and away plus 2 teams from each conference? Also im from hawkes bay and weve been pushing for a super team longer then the 'naki, we put in a submission to bid last time around but our union said it was completely impossible to put in a successful bid in the timeframe given by the nzru, and this is any incompetent board either our union (hbru) havent posted a financial lost in 16 years surely the only provincial union within this country to do so. Taranakis bid was more about getting exposure as they knew they wernt going to get it. Hbru is the 5 oldest union in the country older then otagos, we also offered sbw a big deal in 2010 when he decided to sign with canterbury because of there onfield dominance and success. Our province (150,000) also has a bigger population then taranaki (120,000) and manawatu (100,000) while it wil no doubt be a central north island team but it should be hawkes bay based taranakis about to buy shares in the chiefs how are they going to be allowed to bid for a team after that? Hey we could even do it without them manawatu had alot of talent and if we neef to we could get the bay of plenty on board as they dont own any shares in any other team and make it a east coast team either way i cant see it not being hawkes bay based
Rhys Maiden
Roar Pro
It was a bit of gamble on my part on which Argentinian teams I would include..
hog
Guest
I might as well, everyone else is.
tc
Guest
Then go and watch AFL, and let us take Rugby Union global
RedsNut
Guest
"You could argue that the NSW Waratahs could be split into a Sydney and a Western Sydney side but this would dilute the level of rugby. " Not necessarily so. The ARC threw up a descent number of players who are now WBs. And many who could have made the SR grade at the very least, were it not for the limitation on how many the current SR teams could take on board.
hog
Guest
I'm not blaming it for a lack of player development, I'm blaming it for a total lack of interest 99% of the population just can't be bothered. the sport is going backwards so fast in this country it's a joke. You think their is a lack of interest in a domestic competition, ever seen the AFL.and ask yourself how they got to sign a Billion $ TV deal. But don't worry apparently a team from Japan or is it Bolivia (can't remember) are joining and everything will be great!!!!
NicolasPA
Guest
Argentina has 5 big provinces. Buenos Aires, Cordoba, Tucuman, Rosario and Mendoza; in that order.
Tane Mahuta
Guest
How is Super rugby killing rugby in Aus? It is nothing but a positive. Everyone seems to blame it for the lack of player development which imo makes no sense at all. At least with Super Rugby you have a few teams with bigish money to keep some players in Aus and also give the top players somewhere to aspire to get to. I imagine you thonk Aus should have its own national comp instead. Cant see it working yet. Not enough money or interest.
Don't really know, it was only mentioned in that line and the fact tha an Argentinian team is being discussed.
Darwin Stubbie
Guest
Interesting - but from the limited online press I read there hasn't been any mention ... I'm wondering if its a reference back to that Taranaki bid and they appear to be moving franchise partnerships to the chiefs ... But if it is true then can only really be a central north island franchise - which would make taranaki a little annoyed
Darwin, here is an exerpt from an article that appeared on SuperSports website when they announced the addition of the sixth South African team. "Peters said there has also been a move from within New Zealand for a sixth team from that country to be added, while there has been a long-standing desire to bring an Asian team into the mix. Those issues though will be sorted out later, once it comes time to settle on what model is going to be adopted."