There’s been plenty of debate and speculation over the last few months regarding the proposed new structure for Super Rugby and now we that know the answer, the debate has intensified.
When the story broke that there would be four conferences from 2016 onwards my initial reaction was negative.
Many have argued, and will continue to do so, that expansion is not a positive and the competition should contract rather than expand further. It is crucial to maintain the quality of the games.
But the SANZAR partners all want more revenue from broadcasters, and they know that the only way to achieve this is to expand. Offering the broadcasters more content is imperative to this, so expansion was always going to happen. We also can’t discount even further expansion in the future.
Once the SANZAR partners decided expansion was the way to proceed, it simply came down to the question of how that could be achieved.
The proposals for a new structure were complicated by the differing priorities for each of the three countries involved.
Australia wanted to maintain as many local derbies as possible; New Zealand wanted to reduce the number of local derbies and continue to play teams from South Africa; South Africa insisted on the inclusion of a sixth team so the Kings could become a permanent fixture in the competition.
Many were of the view that if expansion was to occur it should not be driven by the non-negotiable inclusion of the Kings, and if that were to occur it would be better for Australia to walk away from Super Rugby and attempt to form a new competition with New Zealand.
There are two issues with this view – New Zealand made it very clear they wanted to include South Africa in their plans; and the involvement of South African teams generates more revenue for SANZAR than either Australia or New Zealand.
So much like the new NRC competition announced by the ARU, the new Super Rugby structure was never going to please everyone.
The negatives in the initial proposal revolved around a potential loss of revenue for the Australian franchises due to a lower number of derbies each season and one less home match every second year for Australian teams.
Like them or not, local derbies in Australia draw more crowds to the stadiums and attract more television viewers. They are the revenue drivers in Australia.
At a time when none of the Australian franchises are producing strong profits (even the Reds profit can’t be called strong although it’s substantially better than any other franchise) and the ARU is in a very weak financial position, anything that further reduces revenue has to be avoided.
The Australian franchises cannot keep collectively bleeding money like they have in the past, and there are only two ways to solve the financial issues – increase revenue or cut costs further.
Cutting costs further will probably lead to more players leaving our shores for the riches on offer in Europe. This means less money available to put into off-field resources like coaching staff. Neither of those outcomes will advance the quality of Australian rugby or the competitiveness of the Wallabies.
I was also concerned about the potential for a maximum of only one Australian team in the finals which would reduce opportunities for franchises to host a final. Finals are a nice little earner for any host.
I based my view on less chance of finals participation on an assumption that only the four conference winners would proceed to semi-finals.
Then news broke that the Australian franchises had agreed to the proposed new structure without any real objection. I had expected the franchises to want to take their time to agree, but the fact that they agreed so quickly and then started making positive statements should tell us something about the proposal – that it includes a substantial increase in revenue.
I keep saying ‘proposed’ new structure because it is still to be approved by whichever broadcasters win the tender for the rights and how much they will pay for the rights. I imagine that the approval of the franchises is conditional on the revenue increase being confirmed.
Then the tables showing the finals structure were released and my concerns about the plan eased considerably.
A finals series featuring eight teams – three from the African conferences and five from the Australasian conferences offers more opportunities for Australian teams to compete in the finals.
There is also no guaranteed grand final spot for any conference, so the two teams that play in the decider are much more likely to be the two best teams.
Yes, home ground advantage and the travel for the opposition may impact on which teams make the grand final, but that’s exactly what happens with the existing structure anyway.
While there will be two less derbies for Australian franchises to play each season, the inclusion of another match against a New Zealand franchise is a positive. Australian fans are much more interested in seeing contests between Australian and New Zealand teams, and they occur in a viewer-friendly time slot.
I can see positives in the new proposal, and if the new plan increases revenue I can overlook other shortcomings. It’s not perfect but let’s be realistic: there is no perfect solution.
Turn it up
Guest
Mate you are a vocal saffa on an aussie website - of course you'll spit your dummy and cry blue murder! Simple fact is the time zones of the SA region and the AUS/NZ don't sit well for the average punter to watch football live and thus the conferences will split. They do this style with the NBL and the NFL and the sky hasn't fallen down. Yeah you'll potentially get a stronger conference every now and then BUT to say SARU is selling out is a load of steaming dog doo - SARU have the purse strings and they know how to pull them. They've got what they wanted even if you don't like it. ARU & NZRU have gone along with the flow.
David Baker
Roar Pro
No issue with what you say here. I was just completing the picture I dont like the system... its just the best they could come up with. Remember all 3 countries have very different needs. If you start from the needs of your own country then obviously it will not fit because compromises have to be reached. If you blame the other country because your own country's needs are not met then that is naive. SA's need for a 6th side is not understood by many but then again Aus need for local derbies that duplicate other tourneys are not understood in SA. As for the 'higher up the combined log" Well apart from the nominal QF seedings that come out of it, it is now meaningless. On any one year half the SA sides dont play any NZ sides and the other half dont play Aus sides. Add to this our 2 conferences wont be even not will they be even with the Aus/NZ conferences. Also I agree that cross ocean QFs and SFs are not the best, The odd overseas side has won a playoff in SA and to my knowledge only the Sharks have won play offs in Aus (2x). Of course that returns to my original point. In a straight log why even involve the sides 5,6,7,8? A straight log causes the best sides to bubble to the top
Dally M
Roar Rookie
True, however the home finals are a big money spinner for whoever makes it. Not to mention that 2/3 SA teams will be playing that first QF at home while it's likely the WC teams from the Aus/NZ side will have to leg it over to SA to play & we've seen how successful that has been. It will look even worse now if you have multiple WC teams finishing ahead of conference winners. Try explaining that to the average punter.
fredstone
Guest
It's not all that simple. There are basically four countries with four different agendas that are trying to work together here. Everybody likes to crucify SARU about the inclusion of the Kings but unfortunately it was forced upon them. France has about 150 players from SA playing in it. Half the reason those guys are there can be linked directly to politics and the other half due to earnings potential which can be linked indirectly to a certain extent to politics. There are more SA born players plying their trade in France than the total amount of Aus players plying their trade outside of Aus, and there's more SA players playing in Europe and Japan than the total of all Islands, and NZ players playing in Europe and Japan. Argentina needs to be developed to the extent that they are in control of most of their test players, so SA has done a lot of developement and assistance work with them. Aus just needs to get their hands on as much revenue as possible in a mature saturated market. NZ basically needs less tough games. Sounds like everybody got what they wanted to a certain extent. Whether that's what the fans wanted I couldn't really say, but the fans have never really been that important if you look at the standard of reffing and other administrative issues around the game. The next round of negotiations are going to see further expansion and eventually in about fifteen to twenty years time we'll probably be looking at four franchises with six teams per franchises stretching over three time zones.
fredstone
Guest
Actually BB it sounds like SARU is getting much more in the split up, from the rumours I've heard it seems like the Aus contingent may be the losers in the revenue stakes and that they were basically told to take it or leave it.
Justin
Guest
Just to summarise the pros and cons: Pros: Fairness of the everyone plays everyone round robin structure Continued interest for longer (even for sides that have lost a number of early games) Final week of group stages likely results in some high stake games (due to point carry through) Low (zero?) amount of out of time zone travel in group stages (except Argentina) New sides entering the competition have something realistic to play for in the 2nd-tier, this should create great competition, and higher quality rugby for viewers. A good mix of derbies and international fixtures (see below) 1 week less games (6 group games, 10 tier games, 1 semi, 1 final = 18 weeks). Current system has 19 weeks of games. Both tiers having finals means 6 finals games which is good for revenue, and the two-tier system gives traditionally weaker unions the possibility of hosting a super rugby final. Cons: Requirement for many additional sides. I think NZ can easily field two additional sides, but do they want to? And can 4 sides be found from Pacific/Asia area? Long (4 week) tours for SA sides during round robin stages. But considering how little out of country travel these sides will have done in the groups stages I think this is okay, and is the same as the current system. Aus and NZ sides will play 2-3 games (out of 6) outside of their country during the first group stage, but this will be compensated by playing only 2 games away to the African sides in the round robin stage. Few Aussie derbies, the one country that really wants these games. Are these games really so great? In my opinion the Aus vs Pac games would be great money earners for the home teams. If the following two tiers are assumed after the group stages we can imagine the type of fixture list (see below): Tier 1: 4 SA 4 NZ 3 AUS 1 PAC Tier 2: 2 SA 3 NZ 2 AUS 3 Pac 1 Arg 1 Africa (This is obviously flexible, but it should be noted that 4 African (and Arg) sides will always be in both tiers. Here are the potential matches from the perspective of an average SA side and an average NZ side (the Aussie side will be very similar): Average SA (top 12) side will play: 2 SA sides (x2) 1 Arg side (x2) 2 SA sides 4 NZ sides 3 Aus sides 1 Pac side Average SA (bottom 12) side will play: 2 SA sides (x2) 1 Arg side (x2) 1 SA side 1 Africa side 3 NZ 2 Aus 3 Pac Average NZ (top 12) side will play: 1 NZ side (x2) 1 Aus side (x2) 1 Pac side (x2) 4 SA sides 3 NZ sides 2 Aus sides 1 Pac side Average NZ (bottom 12) side will play: 1 NZ side (x2) 1 Aus side (x2) 1 Pac side (x2) 2 SA side 1 Africa side 1 Arg side 2 NZ 2 Aus 2 Pac This means that the best NZ and Aus sides will always play the 4 best SA sides which is great for the viewers. Top NZ and Aus sides also play a number of cross-Tasmin games, maintaining this rivalry and local derbies. (Ave top NZ side plays 4 NZ sides and 3 Aus sides). Top SA sides play against 4 SA opposition, and 9 Aus/NZ/Pac sides. This seems like a great mix of local and international fixtures to me. Would love to know everyone's thoughts...
Justin
Guest
If the comp is going to expand they should do it properly now. How about increase the comp to 24 teams. In 6 groups. 4 teams in a group. Play H and A games against all the teams in your group and then the competition splits into a 2-tier Super 12. Top 2 teams in each group go to the round Top 12 round robin and the bottom 2 teams go to the lower level round robin. That's six initial group games, followed by 10 round robin games. It can be 10 because there is no need to play the team from your group again. Instead take 5 bonus points through to the next round. This would create a 16 game season. Which is a bit long, but the same as the current system, but I think there will be interest for longer. The relevance of the group stage fixtures will not fade because of the points been taken to the next stage (3rd place could also take 5 BP to the 2nd-tier Super12). Then the two Super 12 round robin stages should result in more equality amongst opposition. I imagine winning the 2nd-tier competition to still be quite prestigious. Obviously there will need to be a significant increase in amount of sides. Maybe: 7 NZ teams; 6 SA teams; 5 Aus teams; 4 Pacific teams; 1 Arg team; 1 Africa team. Here is a potential break down of Groups: 3 SA + 1 Arg 3 SA + 1 Africa 2 NZ + 1 AUS + 1 Pac 2 NZ + 1 AUS + 1 Pac 2 NZ + 1 AUS + 1 Pac 1 NZ + 2 AUS + 1 Pac This means 2 additional NZ sides; 4 Pacific teams; 1 Arg team; 1 Africa team.
Digby
Roar Guru
Thanks Redbull. I do find that a better option to what has been proposed personally.
Katipo
Guest
@nickoldschool. Spot on. The focus should be on improving the product in the core markets instead of diluting it. I can't fathom why the Samoan's can't get a team in the The Rugby championship or Super Rugby. Tew says it's money. But almost all Super Rugby teams lose money. At least the Samoan's are competitive and fans are interested and want them to join (we've been asking since '96). I'm sick of the excuses. Samoa are consistently ranked ahead of Argentina. They beat the Wallabies a few years back - something Los Pumas have failed to do. Surely there has to be a rugby consideration: if not, why I am I watching? IRB WORLD RANKINGS 8 Samoa 9 Argentina 13 Japan 21 Spain 55 Singapore It's a travesty that there isn't an island team involved in Sanzar tournaments and they are considering Singapore or Spain. Meanwhile in Penrith the Samoan League team qualified for League's Four Nations. Sanzar is strangling rugby to extract broadcast dollars. It's road to ruin. Lose the fans. Lose the broadcasters. Be warned.
Kevin higginson
Guest
Just though of different arrangement. Split teams into two conferences of 9 teams, with one Atlantic division and one Pacific division in each conference. This option reduces derbies slightly. This system would be more like NFL, and have a similar schedule, such as playing teams from opposite conference on a rolling programme, and playing on strength. This system would mean strong teams one year would have a more difficult schedule the following year and vice versa, making for a more equal competition. The basic concept has to be to look at American sports leagues and see how they set up seasons to make the most out of revenues from the event.
Midfielder
Guest
Scott Sheek & Nick have raised two fundamental questions ... first where are the players coming from... second how much attention is being paid to what the other codes are doing especially at park level & junior development ...
Midfielder
Guest
Scott Are you saying Super Rugby is headed for a 20 to 24 team format with two separate conferences akin the US model with the winner of each conferences playing off in a final... so Australia / NZ 10 teams are one conference..
Kevin higginson
Guest
Good idea. What is really needed is for the system to be set up like the NFL, with set conferences, PACIFIC & Currie. Using current proposed set up, Currie CONFERENCE, Play H and A in division, 6 matches Play H or A v other division, 4 matches Play H or A v division in other conference, 5 matches Play same ranked team for other division in reverse fixture E.g. south division Sharks, Cheetahs, Stormers, Kings, North division Bulls, Lions, Pampas, Simba (African select XV) Aus and NZ as stated Sharks regular season fixtures (Aus division as inter conference fixtures for Yr 1) Cheetahs H and A Stormers H and A Kings H and A Bulls H and A Lions 1 match Pampas 1 match Simba 1 match Brumbies 1 match Reds 1 match Waratahs 1 match Force 1 match Rebels 1 match Play offs would be kept separate until grand final, like in NFL Division winners plus next best team (3 teams from Currie Conference as proposed) Division winners with best record into Conference final Other division winner play wild card team, winner progresses Conference final ( Currie Cup final) Winner goes to play Super grand final at pre determined neutral venue, v winner of Pacific conference
Adam
Guest
Why not have home and away local derbies in each conference with some sort of cup/trophy attached to the winner with the added bonus that the top 2 teams from each conference then go into a division 1 super 6 tournament with home and away games. The remaining teams can then play a home and away "division 2" comp. surely this gives everyone plenty of local content, gives broadcasters plenty of high quality rugby and would add some serious spice to local rugby. Too simple?
Bakkies
Guest
The kiwis are in the fortunate position of having 5 teams that covered the length of their country from year 1. Australia was always going to push to move up from 3 teams. The competition is a dogs breakfast and I think the UAr are being deluded with their expectations on their players. Nothing has been said about governance and how they fit in there. If they were competent they would push for a say at board level.
Bakkies
Guest
Talk of quotas and duplication of fixtures will encourage players to go abroad. Looks like Ruan Pienaar will finish his career at Ulster. A few seasons ago he mentioned going back to the Sharks to finish up was an option. He is too ingrained in to Ulster and there is little incentive to go back. He turned down a move to France. This is a player who left SA in his prime and SARU need to realise that more players will do this if they find a European home.
Kashmir Pete
Roar Guru
Just a thought, though permutations exhausted me....including for ensuring Perth gets to play other Aussie teams enough... Following assumes circa "Tokyo Islanders" are team 18, then swaps "Tokyo" and "Perth" positions in the 4 conferences (and largely ditches the 'notional national nature' of the 4 conferences) Eastern Conferences "A" and "B" totalling 10 teams (as in proposal): Comprised of the 5 NZ teams PLUS the 4 Australian east coast teams PLUS Tokyo = 10 teams Western Conferences "C" and "D" totalling 8 teams (as in proposal): Comprised of 6 South African teams PLUS Perth PLUS Buenos Aires = 8 teams EASTERN CONFERENCES (split below of "A" and "B" teams remixed on annual basis) Conference "A" = Tokyo Islanders + 2 NZ teams + 2 Australian east coast teams = 5 teams Conference "B" = 3 other NZ teams + 2 other Australian east coast teams = 5 teams Wild Card 1: Option for "Tokyo Islanders" to play 1 game in Pacific Islands (ie Samoa) plus 1 game in HK (or Singapore) annually. WESTERN CONFERENCES: (split below of "C" and "D" teams remixed on annual basis, but keep Perth & Buenos Aires separate) Conference "C" = 3 South African teams PLUS Perth = 4 teams Conference "D" = 3 other South African teams PLUS Buenos Aires = 4 teams Wild Card 2: Option for African teams to volunteer home game with Buenos Aires to be staged in Barcelona, Paris etc, not in SA). Can imagine crowds at Hong Kong to watch the "Polyensianed-up Tokyo Islanders" belt a major ANZAC team, or in Amsterdam/Madrid to watch Buenos Aires v Afrikaneer team. Am sure reasons why above is wrong, but I think touches on the scope for future twaeking to possibly get the Super back into Super Rugby (I hope, only sport comp that has interested by, since Bears dropped out of League). Cheers Cheers
Robo
Guest
It certainly does establish fact Biltongbek ..for that season. I agree this has been a very ordinary year for the Saffa derby which is why it's also ironic that the change has been announced now..... And I think you'll find it's financial pressure, and has nothing to do with Polo. :-)
dru
Guest
BBK we get it. Can't see how this has helped the Saffer supporter much at all. Hang around though. One of z"the good guys" here.
Squirrel
Guest
Club rugby and wallabies for me , the rest is a farce