The future of Super Rugby: Is SANZAR's model the best?

To be honest, I think that this ship has already sailed and there is not much that can be done about the inclusion of Japan/Kings now or the new format for that matter. Although I think an argument could still be made for whichever team comes 18th at the end of the 2016 season to play promotion/relegation matches for the right to play again in 2017. Then a team from the Pacific Islands could bid for the chance to play Super Rugby in 2017, by challenging the 18th placed team. Maintaining this moving forwards would also help the integrity of the competition as you could only stay in the competition if you were good enough. Personally if I had my way there would be 20 teams in Super Rugby across two divisions (Premiership and Championship) and the bottom two teams in the premiership play the top two teams of the championship at the end of the season for promotion/relegation spots.

Unless the boffins (and I use that word advisedly) at SANZAR have access to secret economic data, and have performed extensive research on economic viability, marketability and accurate revenue projections from TV in Asia, I would be extremely surprised if the potential or money is there. I doubt the Yen are awaiting. The proposed plan looks like a big fail, especially the Asia proposal. I am wondering if this professionally put together video has some connection with the group behind the losing Singapore bid? What is becoming very very clear to me is that Rugby administration in Australia and probably NZRU and SARU too desperately need good professional sports business management. Insufficiently qualified ex players and politicised decisions are selling the game short.

Agree chibamatty, That should have been the first move for the current teams, but NZ insist on keeping their teams as development teams for AB. Adding a sixth SA team would be next and then adding Asian teams.

Revenue to grow the game out there?

I reckon Argentina is probably going to stretch the competition's travel factors too much. If we need overseas investment and a large market, then fair enough, a Japan/Hong Kong venture might work. As a matter of fact why not comprise this team of Japanese and Pacific players? To accommodate the Argentinians, we should open up recruitment for all Super Rugby franchises so that, as a part of SANZA(A)R, there are no restrictions on Argentinian players throughout the competition. This won't flood the competition, as most of their top players are already under big money contracts in Europe anyway.

Not at all 44B as I find it hard to watch the Japanese play rugby knowing fully well the only unknown is the score they will lose by. It's great if they win but they don't consistently do so. They should stick to Sevens Rugby and I wish them all the best in that regard. As to the Rebels and the Lions, I certainly enjoy watching both Australia's and South Africa's new stars that will eventually play for their respective countries. In addition, the Lions play a running rugby and is a joy to watch.

I have been long arguing for this - http://www.theroar.com.au/2013/09/03/pacific-islands-the-west-indies-of-the-rugby-championship/

I have never got this time zone argument. Sure I'm not going to stay up at night to watch the game live, but I do record all overnight games and watch them at my convenience the next day. If they were all on in the same TZ I would have to be record certain games that clash anyway so what's the difference?

Hate to say it, but the current setup is not helping rugby in Australia. In my view the reality is we need a domestic league as a tier 1 competition, with the super rugby concept existing as a champions league type event for the top teams in each domestic league in the southern hemisphere. Super rugby as it currently stands is a top down approach that has other countries' interests at heart over Australia's and ultimately it will drive the game even further downhill in its current state.

Forget SA and the rest. Put all the NZRU and ARU players into a pool and then set up a 14 team club competition to take on the AFL and NRL seasons. Play the Tri Nations mid season on Wednesday nights like Oriign.

NZ might go backwards a little, but so would SA. Not playing against NZ would see a drop for them. If anything, it might help to narrow the gap between north and south, which I see as a good thing.

Good move having a Jap team, but it should be in the Australian conference that is my only complaint. The best Pacific players play for the All Blacks anyhow, so I do not get the point of this argument. The population sizes and economic size of Fiji, Samoa and Tonga is minuscule, what will having a team for them achieve?

Yup, we need the exposure to your big bruiser forwards abd different style of rugby. That being said I think we need the Aussies too, with their more backs orientated game. The more experience we have with different styles of rugby, abd cultures, and players the better. It will allow is to adapt to playing the National teams much easier.

And look at the current situation in Windies cricket, no plan, players striking and no money. I do not see the problem with the Japanese franchise using players from Pacific Islands, maybe the idea of Pacific Dragons team is good idea. The changes suggested are good in the main apart from the PI team. 1) keep the Japanese team 2) begin to bring in private financing 3) have a hard salary cap and shared revenue structure, like the NFL 4) allow players from SANZAR, ARG, PI or Japanese to play for any franchise as a 'local' player. 5) begin an expansion plan now looking for 2nd ARG team, another AUS franchise, (remember that any player could play as local so no real issue with playing numbers). This would then be 4 groups of 5, split into 2 conferences like NFL. The changes I would make with the match structure would be to have Home and away in group (10 matches), then play 3 from each other conference, (based on rankings like in NFL so strong play strong etc.) this would ensure weaker teams have opportunity to win points, hence having greater chance of reaching play offs, as strong teams will take points off each other. We have got to remember that pro sport is no longer a sport, it is part of the entertainment industry and is all about making money using sport as the product

Thanks. Well produced video! The a Pac Nations idea is a good one. Like the Windies for cricket. Too late for SR 2016. But a good backup for a failed SR team in the antipodean / Asia Pac. Not so sure about putting Argentina in Oz conference

Sounds familiar

I don't know why people are so obsessed with the line of the equator! Why care about it being just in the Southern Hemisphere? The weather in Tokyo is fine for rugby during the super rugby season. Later in the season it will get a bit warm but no worse than places like Perth or Brisbane in Feb/March. Time zones are much more of a factor, and that relates to longitude not latitude!!

Please get them to walk away BB, for all our sakes.

Even if it is in the early hours of the morning?

I'm with Sheek. I'm an old timer and probably approaching dementia, but while I still have my marbles, I agree that the proposed Super 18 is a dud. As I've said so many times before, why do they have to make it so f*****g complicated? It's a Southern Hemisphere competition stupid, so stick to that format. As much as I would like to see Rugby flourish in Japan, it's in the wrong Hemisphere and played in a different season. I just question whether the proponents of the new format actually have any idea of how a properly structured competition should work. I like the idea of closed conferences with a Champions League at the conclusion of the season, but Southern Hemisphere only.