After reading many opinions on The Roar and in newspapers there are many views as to what the downsides of the proposed conferences format for Super Rugby in 2016 are.
The main arguments cite that it is too complicated, that there are not enough games between South African and Australasian teams, and that fans prefer domestic leagues rather than ‘fake franchises’.
However, all those who have commented have missed one crucial perspective.
And that is if you look at the new Super Rugby conferences, not from an overall view but from just one conference at a time, then it looks almost perfect.
The 2016 Super Rugby season will provide the following benefits for each group.
Australian and New Zealand Group
It will feature a 10-team trans-Tasman competition, with one game against a team from Argentina or Japan. There will be a comprehensive finals series against the strongest African team and the four best from the Australia and New Zealand. There is also room to grow in 2020, with new teams in Japan to be added if desired, or additional teams from either Australia or New Zealand.
South African Group
This will feature a strong domestic league comprising of six professional team, with four games held against Australian or New Zealand sides. Two games will be played against Argentinean or Japanese teams each year, and there will be a reduction in overseas travel.
There will be participation in a comprehensive three-week playoff against the best in Australia and New Zealand, with at least the top two teams from South Africa getting a place to play against the top six from those two regions.
Crucially, there will be room to grow in 2020, with a possibility of adding two more South African teams to make it an eight-side completely domestic league.
As you can see, when you look at it from within each group, the 2016 Super Rugby season has been arranged to satisfy what everybody has been asking for – domestic growth in South Africa and Australia.
When these markets are ready it seems likely more Super Rugby teams will be added, or if desired all nations can go towards a champions league format.
The main point is that Super Rugby is splitting down the middle, not in order to separate but to enable growth in the two hemispheres. That growth may well entail in reverting to a champions league format.
Owen McCaffrey
Roar Guru
From Allblacks.com: With the matches being played in Australia and New Zealand, both local broadcasters experienced record 2014 results with SKY (345,000) and Fox Sports (246,000) posting their highest average audiences for the year. In addition, each of these games reached over half a million people. Fox Sports' figures for the Waratahs' successful Semi-Final eclipsed any game played during the 2013 Super Rugby season and represented an astonishing 292 percent comparative uplift on last year's penultimate week. Additionally, the Crusaders v Sharks games was the sixth-highest rating game overall in Australia this year and the highest-rating game played overseas. - Australia and New Zealand experienced highest average audience for 2014 - Fox Sports experienced a 292 percent increase on 2013 Semi-Finals and Waratahs v Brumbies rated better than any game throughout the 2013 season - Crusaders v Sharks was the sixth-highest rating game in Australia this year - It was also Fox Sports' most-watched game played outside of Australia while Waratahs v Brumbies was the most-watched game on SKY played outside of New Zealand - SuperSport's audience for the Crusaders v Sharks match was 15 percent greater than last season's corresponding Semi-Final and it was SKY's best-rating match for the season with 345,000 viewers in New Zealand The Waratahs v Brumbies clash meanwhile produced the highest audience for SKY for a match played out of New Zealand this season, while the Crusaders v Sharks Semi-Final attracted a record viewership of 345,000 - easily the broadcaster's best result for a Super Rugby match in 2014. South African fans continued to watch and support the Sharks with SuperSport's average audience of 350,000 for the match being 15 percent higher than the corresponding New Zealand Semi-Final from 2013. Furthermore, the combined live average of the two Semi-Finals as shown by SANZAR's three core broadcast partners attracted the highest average audience for matches played in New Zealand (822,000) and Australia (665,000) this season. SANZAR CEO Greg Peters said, "Interest in the Semi-Finals was incredibly strong with our host broadcasters posting positive results compared to previous benchmarks, illustrating the immense interest among fans in our core territories. "Each match had an average audience of more than quarter of a million people and more Australians tuned in to watch the Semi-Finals than they did any match throughout all of last season. "We are optimistic that Saturday's Final between the Waratahs and Crusaders will produce similarly positive numbers and be a fitting showpiece to a memorable season, along with what may prove to be a record crowd for a Super Rugby match."
Rob9
Guest
“3 more sydney teams, one more team in Melbourne and one in Adelaide.” This comment perfectly demonstrates your complete lack of understanding of the Australian market and rugby. Not to mention your obsession with numbers and population without taking a single ounce of anything else into account.
Owen McCaffrey
Roar Guru
I can see Australia having secret long term intentions of expanding to 10 teams. 3 more sydney teams, one more team in Melbourne and one in Adelaide. New Zealand may want a couple more. These additions can all be handled within the confines of a Trans-tasman league that plays off in the finals against the Best from South Africa/Argentina. There is room for South Africa to add to its teams also to eventually reach 10 teams. We are talking over 10 years. This will not happen without the money coming in from Japanese corporates and broadcasters and opening up Argentina which is 4 times the GDP size of NZ. The larger number of teams will enable a relaxation of foreign player rules in relation to Pacific Islanders so that eventually these Nations can draw their players back to play in the South and then be included in an expanded Rugby Championship. A Samoan player playing for a Super Rugby team at the moment cannot earn diddley from his National team except in the June and November Windows whereas SANZAR International players can earn bucks from September through November. The three Island Nations and Japan are definately targets for inclusion in the Rugby Championship. It will be the carrot that will lure their top players back from Europe and enable them to live at home 6-7 months of the year and play for their country while earning big bucks. Japanese money will secure this. Having top Pacific players in the teams is crucial for fan interest as they are some of the best athletes in World Rugby.
Owen McCaffrey
Roar Guru
Or growing your domestic competition? Because that's what is happening with 6 teams that will play eachother more often at home. Under a Champions League format which you support there would not necessarily be any more games against foreign teams. You have said multiple times that your preference is to develop South African rugby domestically. Well adding a 6th team and having those teams play eachother more achieves that and adds the spice of playing foreign teams in a trans-national league. You are hung up on guaranteed finals spots but the fact is that when the competition is split into two hemispheres one side must be granted guaranteed entry into finals. That's how these things work. South African teams will get stronger and earn their place, I'm not sure what your problem is.
Harry Jones
Expert
The first peer-reviewed study I found states this, in abstract, and appears to be a mixed bag, but nowhere does it say westward travel is de minimus or can be ignored): Abstract In healthy male top athletes several functions were measured after either a westbound flight over six time-zones (WEST: Frankfurt-Atlanta; n = 13) or an eastbound flight over eight time-zones (EAST: Munich-Osaka; n = 6). Under either condition the athletes performed two standardized exercise training units in the morning and in the afternoon within 24 h, investigations were done as controls in Germany and on day 1, 4, 6, and 11, after arrival. The primary aim of the study was to evaluate the effect of time-zone transitions on the 24h profiles of blood pressure (BP) and heart rate (HR) using an ambulatory BP device (SpaceLabs 90207), for up to 11 d after arrival at the destination. As additional parameters, we studied jet-lag symptoms, training performance, and training coordination by using visual analog scales. Finally, oral temperature and grip strength were measured, and saliva samples were analyzed for cortisol and melatonin. The study showed that all functions were disturbed on the first day after arrival at the destination, jet-lag symptoms remained until day 5-6 after WEST and day 7 after EAST, training performance was worst within the first 4 d after WEST. In accordance with earlier reports, cortisol, melatonin, body temperature, and grip strength were affected in their 24h profiles and additionally modified by the training units. Surprisingly, BP and HR were not only affected on the first day but also the time-zone transition led to an increase in BP after WEST and a decrease in BP after EAST. However, the training units seemed to influence the BP profile more than the time-zone transitions. HR rhythm was affected by both time-zone transitions and exercise. It is concluded that not only jet-lag symptoms but also alterations in physiological functions should be considered to occur in highly competitive athletes due to time-zone transition and, therefore, an appropriate time of reentrainment is recommended.
Owen McCaffrey
Roar Guru
Really? The current SANZAR broadcasting contract is 4 years.
Owen McCaffrey
Roar Guru
Yes but it is the travel just before the match that impacts the game more than traveling home which you get more days to recover from. There are in total less games abroad for SA teams over a 2 year cycle according to you AND less in an Eastward direction. So travel is easier for SA teams.
Owen McCaffrey
Roar Guru
Harry Jones look up jet lag effects and EAST and WEST. You will find traveling eastwards is much harder and takes longer to recover from. That's the science.
Harry Jones
Expert
"The travel to Argentina can be ignored." Amazing scientific breakthrough, Mr. Charrington. I will tell Duane Vermeulen to ignore it, because it it westward, scientifically. Traveling in an aeroplane for 14 hours is just as good for your body as a run-swim-stretch-ice-bed. If you just ignore that you are in a small chair next to a snoring Flip van der Merwe getting dehydrated.
We lie east of Argentina, it still has an effect, problem now is we travel east to play the Australasian teams and again when we come back from Argentina, it all filters towards players fatigue. And it is not less travel than now, it is more. It isn't really debatable, it is fact.
Owen McCaffrey
Roar Guru
You mean travel back from Argentina? Travelling HOME from games happens before traveling TO games. So there is less effect on performances.
You still travel back.
hog
Guest
Its a bit up in the air now, Timbuktoo have just put a bid in.
Owen McCaffrey
Roar Guru
Travelwise that's not very much. Remember the travel to Argentina can be ignored because it's (scientifically) easier on players. It's only the travel East that is counted. This is 3 weeks East one year and just two the next.
hog
Guest
I have to agree with you Rob9, I just wonder at what stage a jet lagged Japanese team playing the majority of its games in South Africa & whose primary purpose is apparently to fund grassroots rugby in Australia, tires of the whole process.
Don't know mate, don't really care.
Michael
Guest
Is Japan the accepted 18th team or is it still a battle between them and Signapore?
I just don't see how the Super 18 is perfect. Let's look at a typical travel schedule for SA teams ( Remember SARU is trying to reduce travel) Conference - BUlls, SHarks, Kings, Argentina Let's use the Bulls. Bulls have to travel to Argentina and then to Australia for their tour. Then of to Japan. They used to travel to Australasia for four matches and back home. How is that less travel? Let's use the other side the following year, Bulls now play Japan at home, they still travel the following year to Argentina and Australasia, they just don't stop over in Japan. Makes no sense if this is supposed to reduce travel.
Dru
Guest
Now that makes for better understanding. Something was missing that's for sure.
Rob9
Roar Guru
So because a foreign body is involved, Australian domestic rugby grows? From 2016 Australia gets 2-less derby games per team and 15 games as opposed to 16. We still have the same number of teams that leave a minor impression on our local landscape while the AFL, NRL and now the A-League continue to dominate and surge ahead. This ain’t growth Owen. The NRC (not the ARC that flopped after one year) is a competition operating over a 2 month period from a third tier platform and it won’t include the stars of the game. This is not the vehicle to capture and engage new fans and encourage growth in Australia. The average crowds of its predecessor were under 3000. The only thing that could potentially make this concept worthwhile is that Pulver has said it doesn’t depend on crowds and interest and thus it will be self sufficient. See, the boss himself doesn’t anticipate this model will capturing new hearts and minds. You’re again blindly assuming there’s money in Asia. That’s not a fore drawn conclusion and you continue to ignore a significant amount of evidence that suggests it’s not the case at all.