Super Rugby's top six 2014 discussion points

Thanks BB. It would be interesting to see 3 Oz teams make the top 6. This year its also great to see Highlanders turn things around. In general, its good to see NZ conference become more than a two horse race. Im hoping next year the SA conference will bounce back, including a strengthened Lions.

El Gamba I like the idea of the young Kerevi talking with Foley but how about Oz U20's this year, I was super impressed with Lacey on the wing. He is a good size already and showed a ton of courage and good skills, really like the cut of his suit what do you think? did you get to watch all games ( I was lucky to catch all games on Fox) I think he is a SOAKS boy but could be wrong

Anger aside, it's a poor case to rest BBK.

PeterK - The proposed competition setup for 2016 (not next year) is a dog's turd. It is way too complicated and doesn't give any of the fans what they want in term of week to week game or finals standing, but... SANZAR is a three way partnership. Each of the partners are guilty of coming up with the structure. SA fans are not crazy about the current structure and would love to blame JON for it, but sadly our union is equally to blame for agreeing to it. The proposed structure is simply a continuation of the mistakes made in 2010.

Jake White can only blame himself for not putting out his best team.

Travel hurts, the sharks played the stormers in durban lost in the dieing stages of the game, but yep travel hurt in that game as they flew back and played 1 week later. But vs cheetahs, theyd been back in SA for 4 weeks, and had 3 weeks of with the June mid-break. They played the cheetahs in Blomfentian at altitude on the high veldt never easy away playing the cheetahs. Stormers next week in cape town gonna be tough.

It is disingenuous to suggest SA gets a leg up based on one season, you are using it to base your argument. In 2011 SA has two teams qualify plus the Bulls finishing 7th In 2012 SA had 3 teams qualify. In 2013 SA had two teams qualify plus Stormers and Sharks finshing 7th and 8th respectively. So we have had had 3 teams in the top 8 consistently. Nothing to me suggests we get a leg up.

To illustrate the leg up imagine we actually only had 3 conferences of 6 with a new team added to each one and they finish last which would be reasonable. Kings to SA, Singapore to OZ, and Argentina to NZ. Also imagine the top of each gets in and then the next best 5 and the points are like they are now. Tahs Crusaders Sharks Highlanders Hurricanes Brumbies Force Chiefs So 4 NZ teams get in, 3 oz teams and 1 SA team. This is a fairer , it is more merit based. But instead SA gets 2 conferences AND all the new weak teams. Wow thats really fair.

I also think Pulver might have broken the news prematurely and come out with those comments to get on the front foot and negate the perception that he and the ARU (and NZRU) had been screwed by SARU which would have been a bad look for him. at the end of the day the new format isn't as good as the old one but it will be a lot better than competition that excludes SA which is the only alternative. So lets get behind it.

BB - So SA get 3/8 spots and NZ and Aus get 5/8 and they will be lower ranked in most likelihood since their conferences are much harder. So yes it is a large leg up. I would love to be able to play Kings, Argentina, Singapore

BBK - OK fair enough on how much NZRFU and ARU had a say. The point remains the new conference systems gives 2 of the 4 home finals spots to SA teams THAT in itself is a leg up. Guaranteed 2 home finals. Furthermore the great liklihood is getting to play Kings + Argentina + Singapore + Lions + Cheetas is easier and will finish the top 2 out of the 4 and so get seeding for home finals for EVERY game they play. That is far far too generous , and the ARU and NZRFU should not have agreed to it, obviously care more about the pay tv dollars and ignore the gate takings their franchises miss out on.

Further to that. * Eight contenders, three weeks. * Playoff format features an eight-team knock-out Finals Series playing in a quarters, semis and final format. * Five teams qualify from the Australasia Group, three teams from the South Africa Group. * All four conference winners automatically advance to Finals Series. * The next three highest ranked teams in the Australasia Group and the next highest team in the South Africa Group, will make up the wildcard contenders, and also advance to the Finals Series. Rugby 365 Tew, alongside Australian counterpart Bill Pulver, the CEO of the Australian Rugby Union, believes the re-shaping will be a positive for the All Blacks and Wallabies respectively. Pulver, who was the one to spill the beans earlier than expected, echoed the NZRU boss' words: “It’s crucial for the long-term success of the Wallabies that we’re playing the best opposition in the world on a regular basis. "This has been reinforced by the new model offering the Australasian Conference a guaranteed five of eight places in the Super Rugby Finals Series." I rest my case, leg up, my .....

Like Tooths from the 80s. After writing it I realised the implications....duh

Dru, what I find absolutely incomprehensible is that Aussies with only one fact known (SA wants six teams) making baseless assumptions about .how the actual outcome of the negotiations came about without having any evidence for it. All assuming it was SARU who made all the demands and the ARU are mere passengers in it.

Highlanders games have been pretty entertaining too, whether they win or lose.

BBK, how on earth can you look at 4 conferences, 2 in RSA, with 2 guaranteed home finals... As anything but "a leg up"!?! And while people here might be down on this situation, even looking to a bit of schadenfreude, can't you see the irritation is with SARU, not African fans? Essentially coming to the same conclusion as yourself, that SARU is stuffing things up? And this chip on your shoulder, mate. The one that says anyone who suggests that RSA should skip out on super rugby, well they are obvious misanthropes or Xenaphobes at best. Unless of course it's you saying it. Which is fine apparantly fine and not to be taken as disrespectful by Aussie fans on an Aussie site. As much as you want to blame former chair of ARU for previous sins against the world of Saffer rugby, the Aus fans did not do you out of games against NZ. The Aus fans did not build this odd conference (s) in RSA. And strangely enough, on the whole, Aus fans deeply respect RSA rugby and want to see Saffer rugby continue in close ties with us. This won't however stop me personally admiring some schadenfreude when the obvious results of SARU on super rugby are seen next year. More internal games. Less against NZ. Irrelevant apparantly but less against Aus. Weaker teams in the comp reducing the average level of competition across the RSA conference(s). Aussie fans who react to exactly the same thing that you also do - they are not at fault. (To borrow a football term) IT WAS A HOME GOAL, mate!

If there are 2 teams from each of the four mini conferences that qualify, and the top seed from each conference gets a home match, how is that a "leg up"? As for your theory of weak teams benefitting the supposed "top teams" in the SA conference, have you noticed that in this current poor season, even the Sharks have been dealt devastating blows by their "weak" opposition at home? You are making assumptions, based on prejudice, do yourself a favour and look at the results of the "derby" matches in SA

I don't love the Waratahs because of Poltergeist, I love the Waratahs because they play a beautiful style of Rugby & they do it with accuracy. BTW I'm a parochial Kiwi & I hate giving credit to Australian teams.