Watching the South African conference kick off Super Rugby over the weekend confirmed two things for me. First, I was right to suggest that Jake White’s Sharks will be the South African front-runners in my uninformed preview last week.
I had suggested the Stormers should be up there as well, but on viewing the Sharks’ 31-16 demolition of the Bulls, I’m already sure the Stormers won’t have the firepower to match.
(And on the Sharks run to the top, many congrats to Roar regular ‘Moaman’ for the puntastically superb ‘Great White-Shark Effect’ yesterday – well played, Sir!)
The other thing confirmed for me was that all this talk about expanding the South African conference – or conferences, but more on that soon – is massively ironic, given the common criticism out of the Republic remains that Australia doesn’t deserve five teams.
The Bulls already look to be in for a tough season, and found out the hard way in Durban that all the talent in the world doesn’t make up for an obvious lack of experience.
The Lions will discover this soon enough, despite their impressive last minute win over the Cheetahs, just as the Kings discovered it last year, too.
Yet two articles late last week spoke of further expansion of the South African conference, with as many as seven teams across two conferences being possible. True story.
The first article was a report on ESPNscrum (which I’ll disclose my continued involvement with, for 2014) on Valentine’s Day. A four conference, 18-team proposal “along the lines of America’s NFL” was said to be on the agenda for consideration by SANZAR as part of the expected growth of the tournament in time for the commencement of a new media deal from 2016.
According to the ESPNscrum report, the radical plan was “presented to the South African board’s executive committee and still has a long way to go before it becomes the new format of the competition. However, the proposal is currently being discussed by all three participating nations with a possible report back to SANZAR in the next few months.”
Loosely, the plan is this.
The current Australian and New Zealand five-team conferences will remain as is.
The current South African conference of five teams would be split into two conferences of four teams (the report dubbed them ‘Africa 1′ and ‘Africa 2′), comprising the five 2014 teams, the reintroduction of the Southern Kings, and a new Argentinean team.
Then the kicker. “The eighth franchise is still to be decided, but it could either be another South African team, an African franchise [as in, Kenya or Namibia or Zimbabwe, or a combined side], or even a European franchise team such as Italy,” the report said.
Yes, you read that right, Italy.
The NFL references come with the new and expended Super Rugby being split into East and West divisions, with the two African conferences in one, and Australia and New Zealand in the other.
You can see where this is heading, can’t you.
After a series of intra-division knockout finals, Super Rugby would be decided with a Superbowl style playoff between the East and West champions.
The plan is said to reduce travel requirements, which it will, with a full home-and-away round of local derbies, and then games against the neighbouring conference.
Essentially, no-one would cross the Indian Ocean except to play in the SuperRugbyBowl.
The flaws are obvious and immediate. Despite 12 of the last 18 Super Rugby Finals being all-New Zealand or trans-Tasman affairs, under this plan it would be impossible for the Chiefs or Crusaders or Brumbies or Reds (to name just last year’s finalists) to play each other in the decider.
An Australian or New Zealand team could only ever play an African team.
And this is without the obvious debate over the relative strengths and weaknesses of East and West.
The origin of this plan is unclear and was not cited in the ESPNscrum article.
But the fact that it was first presented to the SARU executive gives us a fair indication. And to be completely blunt, it smacks of ‘we want a guaranteed finalist every year’ all over again.
The other expansion article to do my head in came from Spiro’s old sparring partner, Wayne Smith, in The Australian on Saturday.
Smith’s report was based a chat with SANZAR boss, Greg Peters, and outlined a similar four conference plan that would also see the current South African conference split into two.
Eighteen teams was again a feature, with two extras being the Kings and an Argentinean side, which is fast becoming fait accompli.
What’s interesting in this plan, said to be in front of SANZAR currently, was that the 18th team is set to come from one of Japan, Hong Kong, or Singapore. Japan isn’t a surprise; indeed, the ARU has been singing the virtues of Japanese involvement for years now.
Even Hong Kong isn’t that much of a surprise, given that there is something of a rugby history in the former British outpost, and even its place as a world travel hub.
But Singapore? Really? It appears that despite being ranked outside the top 50 in world rugby, the city-state has apparently been expressing interest in joining the Super Rugby ranks.
The fact that the SANZAR CEO is even mentioning them as an option suggests it’s an option being seriously considered.
And an Asian team does make some commercial sense; I don’t have too much trouble with that. But why base them in an African conference, as Smith’s article suggested would be the case?
If this expanded competition is supposed to be growing the TV audience while also reducing the travel component, then surely it makes more sense on both fronts to basing an Asian team in either Australia or New Zealand.
In fact, given the All Blacks’ popularity the world over, and especially in Japan, basing them in a conference where some degree of New Zealand participation is involved is surely the most logical move.
One thing is clear, reading both these articles, we are heading for 18 teams one way or the other. But it might yet be a long and winding – and wacky – road to get there.
Katipo
Guest
@old bugger. Yes lack of success does contribute to lack on interest. I mean how tough must it be to support the Rebels or Force who have never made a Super play-off match in cities were there are multiple AFL teams who make play-offs every year! The ARU, especially, needs a national championship so there are domestic finals and a national champion team every year. Super Rugby can not deliver this. And there in lies another big problem. I'm very pleased there will be an NRC in Australia this year. Lets hope it works and that Super Rugby becomes a champion-of-champions tournament - soon - before everything is lost.
Katipo
Guest
Hi Old Bugger, Thanks for giving my suggestion some thought. My rational for going domestic first and then international was based on how things used to be in the amatuer "old bugger" days. Back then, we started the season with sevens (for fitness), then played club rugby. After watching the club form selectors chose rep teams and then the interprovincial matches were played. The season had a logical build up in intensity. If ITM is indeed a stepping stone to SR then why not start the season with All Blacks playing ITM and allow the best to get selected for SR and the AB's later in the season? Anyway, I'm not wedded to the order. It was just a suggestion. Far more important in my mind is Super Rugby evolving in to a champion of champions tournament.
crazycrusader
Guest
thats why i watch my rugby free live stream
Sharminator
Roar Rookie
The attraction of super rugby used to be that each team had a couple of test stars, that every week you had Aust/NZ/Saffer teams playing each other, and that games were on the way to test level. With more and more focus on domestic derbies, talents spread across more and more teams, and with the new 17 team plan, it seems there will be even more "local" games of less quality. The super rugby product is unfortunately just getting dilluted ... more teams dosnt always mean better.
Sharminator
Roar Rookie
Argentina having a team seems fair enough, if they are also playing in the Rugby Championship, as a way for them to become more comepetative. There is however the travel issue. It is a 17 hour flight from Sydney to Buenos Aires ... and about 10 hours from New Zealand. Travelling that far for one game can take a toll. There is similar travel to South Africa, but it is offset by the fact that these days the South African leg of Super Rugby (or the Australasian leg for the Saffers) is normally a road trip 3 or 4 weeks long. A 6th South African team sounds like madness. Do South Africa really deserve another team? South African teams have won Super Rugby, but they have also tended to dominate the cellar dwellars in the comp. I dont see any reason why they should have another side, apart from their political problems. As for the finals format with this idea that South African teams are guaranteed finals spots, it is crazy, and will turn off viewers, some of the best teams in the comp may not make the finals. I dont think SANZAR are stupid enough to implement the idea cited above of making an Australasian final impossible. The other point is that part of the beauty of Super Rugby is seeing Aussie, NZ and Saffer provinces play each other. Making stand alone Saffer conferences that dont play Australasian teams until the finals would take a lot of the attraction of Super rugby away. The announcement today indicates 17 teams .. but unfortunately not how that format will work ... and that is what we really need to know to be able to pass judgement.
Old Bugger
Guest
Katipo IMO, you have the order of tournaments all back to front. It should continue as current with Internationals, SR and lastly, domestic tournaments in that order. You continued calls for domestic competitions leading into a champion of champions tournament is simply a call for an NPC comp in Australia that becomes the first SR income sourced payment comp, if your order of precedence prevails. Well guess what - NZRU wont be interested in that idea now that they've finally managed to get their domestic competition beating down the pathway of sustainability and profitability. As I said, NZRU already has a profitable domestic competition televised and viewed on an global scale so there's nothing left to sort out except pursue a wider global viewing coverage. I'd suggest that all ITM players now realise that the stepping stone to an SR contract is based upon their individual performance during the preceding ITM competition. And, in the absence of some very exceptional and talented bolter, their SR form is the only indicator for them to achieve national selection. That's how NZRU has established their rugby format to allow all players an opportunity to achieve their highest goals and go from ITM-SR-AB selection.
Old Bugger
Guest
art Your financial reasons are still not justification for having 6 teams. Be honest and admit it is more to do with national politics than financial sponsorships. I don't have a problem with SA having 6 teams especially if they make member nation payments based upon yearly performances and where the team finished on the comp table - but, we all know that won't happen either. I just wish it was performance based compensation.....ah well, dream on bro.
Old Bugger
Guest
Katipo You said: "Again, sanzar should just say to each Union “your allocation is whatever number of teams”. Then the Unions should decide what shape their representative teams take. South Africa might decide to put forward their Currie Cup teams; Australia might decide to put forward states and NZ might choose to enter its franchises instead of ITM teams. Leave it up to them." Umm, excuse me but that's exactly what we have at present with a couple of extras - SA has chosen 5 provinicial sides, NZ has chosen 5 franchises and AU have chosen 5 state-based sides. IMO, there's nothing wrong with the current 15 teams. What's wrong is that SANZAR is tinkering with the mechanics of how the comp should play out because of various reasons like flagging game attendance, flagging TV ratings, insufficient FTA coverage, etc, etc...yes, these statistics have been occuring throughout all member nations in one form or another. Inevitably, as interest starts to wane, then the tinkering starts except the new format is also starting to falter and wane. Whatever has happened, no-one has dared to suggest or consider that perhaps it really has to do with a lack of success on the field - where it should really matter. Has anyone ever challenged why NZ sides have been so successful in this competition compared to the other member teams?? Is it not possible their success is due to the program NZ have established by selecting 5 franchise based sides who can choose SR players from those provinces within their regional boundaries. They can also choose players from outside their boundary but only if the host franchise doesn't choose the player - the player goes into a draft system from which, by discussions and negotiations, the other 4 franchises can offer an SR contract and the player chooses where they want to go. If Australia was to place a simple rule that says "State of Origin" selection first and foremost, then players who become excess to that rule, are available through a national draft system for the other state-based sides. The only other opportunity a player gets to transfer is if he is not wanted by their home state team. I wonder how many post responses that selection criteria generates?? And, once ARU gets its own domestic comp up and running, then players can revert back to their respective province/club sides for these ARC/NPC games....just like in NZ.
artvanderlay
Guest
South Africa can easily get six competitive teams on the field. The problem is that is that the franchises (Lions and Kings) don't have the benefit of having secure places in the competition so no sponsor wants to invest long term with them. Ask yourself why the Joburg Super Rugby franchise doesn't have a primary jersey sponsor when Joburg has a higher GDP than the rest of the country combined? Both Port Elizabeth and Joburg have the fan base and payer base to have teams, but their prospective sponsors need to know that they are in it for the long haul in order to support them.. Also, SARU needs a bigger say in terms of the franchise coaches. Right now there are a lot of SA coaches (Stobehouse, Dobson, Venter, etc.) who should be at the helm of a Super Rugby team.
Old Bugger
Guest
redbull What it seems to me is that you dont understand what the original concept of SR rugby was all about when it was mooted and established back in 95-96. It wasn't about choosing the top provinces within NZ, SA and Oz to join up and play a global tournament. WHY?? Because back then, NZ already had a 3-tier provincial competion being played every year with promotion-relegation matches between each tier. Where this new SR tournament was going to succeed was IMO, to give each member nation an opporunity to collect its top players ( 25 players per team) and place them into 5, 4 and 3 teams from NZ, SA and OZ respectively and play a round-robin, global 3N rugby tournament. It was suppose to be the next level from provincial rugby to step into international representation for your home team....and generally speaking, over the past 18years, that's exactly how and why this tournament has eventuated with the occasional bolter selection. For me personally, I liked the idea because it gave NZ rugby players from all 3-tiers, opportunities to show their skills and worth and strive to obtain an SR contract....and not just the top tier provinces winning all the accolades and probably players, by poaching them. So please, let's get out of this country vs country inter-provinicial tournament because IMO, I really can't see the NZRU being able to agree - especially when there's approximately 32 rugby provinces who all have a say in its national rugby decisions. What the ARU needs to do is get their own domestic comp up and running to get more players interested, thus expanding its player depth for SR selection and eventual national selection.....but dont expect this to happen at the expense of the SR comp as it was originally intended.
Old Bugger
Guest
Sheek Sorry mate but I have to disagree with your concept of S10 being a better model. Firstly, the reason NZRU didn't want to continue with S10 was because the new model (S12) offered an opportunity for NZ to choose its top 125 players; SARU to choose its top 100players and ARU to choose its top 75 players and spread these players into 5, 4 and 3 teams to become more representative of their national bodies. S10 did not offer this opportunity - it simply relied upon provincial sides being invited to participate which meant from an NZ perspective, if you didn't play for any of the invited or successful provinces, then your playing opportunities were hampered if you had intentions of national representation. SR rugby gave every player worth his salt an opportunity to prove that they were worthy of SR selection, play for that franchise team over a certain period of the calendar and then, return to their provincial origins to play the ITM and Ranfurly challenge programs. If NZRU's intent was to politicize the new SR comp that allows its top 125 players to prove their worth irrespective of which province was their origin, then I for one am glad, that is what this tournament has become.....I doubt if any players from my BOP province would ever have made it into the top 4 S10 provincial sides unless they got poached. Yes and I concur, there is a degree of poaching persisting amongst NZRU's provinces but the majority of SR players today, do return to their provincial origins whereas I don't want to think about an S10 format and what may have happened??
Tane Mahuta
Guest
Why not? If I was god of the universe I would just have Australia and NZ in Super Rugby. I see no need to travel to the other side of the earth to play SA teams. We dont play English or French clubs, so why the need to force something like that, it clearly doesnt work. I would be quite happy watching Bath play the Blue Bulls in the H Cup.
Wozza
Guest
People are interested but with Super Rugby only available on pay TV and the pay TV rates prohibitive, a lot of fans, and more importantly, would be fans, have no access to the product. Pay TV operators seem hell bent on strangling rugby in this country for what end I haven't got a clue.
Katipo
Guest
Yeah. Keep going Sheek! And Brett... There seems to be a lot of fan support for properly investing in domestic tournaments - whatever they might be - and Super Rugby becoming a champion-of-champions tournament: be it a round robin conferences format or a knock out format. Something that hasn't been stated out loud is using the next broadcast agreement to fix the order of the tournaments. Now that Australia has a domestic tournament - an obstacle is removed - the next broadcast agreement should build the rugby season logically:- First - domestic tournaments and inbound tours Second - Super Rugby Third - The Rugby Championship. Getting agreement on independent Union decision making; rather than compromise decision making (sanzar) removes a lot of the obstacles... I'm fully supportive of the idea that each country sorts out its own domestic tournament; and that each country decides what format their Super teams take or what naming conventions they use. Agree the tournament structures then leave each union to decide what is best for them.
Wozza
Guest
If South Africa could put 5 strongly competitive teams on the field you'd have a point, but with a Saffie team pretty much having a mortgage on the wooden spoon, you lose a bit of traction. At the moment the only thing adding extra Saffie teams would do is increase the competition for the wooden spoon.
Wozza
Guest
Cantab, I think your confusing the ARU with Oz fans when you say, "Whilst Australians … interstate rivalries." While I do like the completive derbies, I love the international flavour and would much rather watch Oz teams play kiwi and bok teams than some of the derbies.
Joe King
Guest
Keep going Sheek. I think the principle you are fighting for is right. But I think the "powers that be" need to hear it as an expansion of SR to the point of having closed conferences leading into an international finals format. Then even if NZ wanted to keep their regional provinces, an increase in the amount of regional provinces would take them a lot closer to their traditional geographic areas, and might even make it more acceptable to see the closed conference as a replacement for the ITM Cup. The ITM Cup now, could still be a development comp. https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B5vh08BV2viweFdjbkN0UlBNREU/edit
Joe King
Guest
Hey Brett, Would be great to see you spell this model out in a stand alone article (if you haven't done so already), along with the idea that it's the prerogative of the different countries to model their conference however they want? Just seems to me that it would carry a lot of interest, and might even strengthen the backing for this kind of model, especially if it clarifies what people don't need to be arguing about at this stage.
redbull
Guest
Darwin, no, I meant that the Super franchises carry the "name", Blues, Hurricanes, Bulls, Cheetahs...of the major club within the franchise.
Joe King
Guest
Hey Chivas, another guy from NZ on The Roar thought it could work something like this: https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B5vh08BV2viweFdjbkN0UlBNREU/edit