With the start of the rugby season just days away, here is an alternate format of Super rugby which will hopefully end most of the debate surrounding the future of the tournament.
My proposal is to break the league into two tiers.
This proposed league would begin in 2018, which would give teams the time to get their squads organised in time to finish as high as they can in 2017.
But using the 2014 season as a starting point, the 2015 tables would look like this:
Tier 1 – Waratahs, Crusaders, Sharks, Brumbies, Chiefs, Highlanders, Hurricanes, Force
Tier 2 – Bulls, Blues, Stomers, Lions, Reds, Cheetahs, Rebels
Format changes
A team plays only against another team in their own tier on a home-and-away basis.
The top four teams advance into a finals series where they will play semi-finals and a grand final.
The bottom two teams from tier 1 will be relegated to tier 2.
The grand finalists from tier 2 will be promoted to tier 1.
Advantages
Players play fewer games. A tier 1 grand finalist will play 16 games as opposed to a grand finalist now, who plays 19.
A shorter season is not only good for players but also advantageous for domestic competitions.
Introducing new teams is simple. Stick them in at the bottom of tier 2 and offer an extra promotion place to even the tiers out (if appropriate).
There would be less travel for some teams. The Australia/New Zealand teams in tier 1 will only have to spend one week in South Africa during league play. South African teams in tier 2 would spend three weeks across the Indian Ocean, as opposed to the four they spend now.
It also creates a bit more love for your own team. Nothing unites a fan-base more than the feeling of ‘us versus them’. Right now for example, South African fans are united in their hate towards all the travel they have to do. Sharks fans will have a bit more to complain about than a Bulls fan in 2015.
Promotion and relegation creates tension which adds to atmosphere.
Disadvantages
Broadcasters get fewer games – 104 in 2015 versus the 125 in 2014. This could lead to a reduction in TV money.
More travel for some teams. The Sharks would be in Australia and New Zealand for a whopping seven weeks as opposed to four right now. They would however, have a vested interest in other South Africa teams achieving promotion, which can be good for cooperation, and can only lead to a better standard of play.
There would be a loss of some marquee games, such as Crusaders versus Blues, Sharks versus Bulls, Waratahs versus Reds. This could be a good thing in one sense as one set of supporters will have bragging rights over the other set. When the other team eventually does get promoted, you can bet more than a few people will be circling that game in their calendar.
The end of the debates surrounding the conference style of play. No more controversy regarding not playing every team home and away or having the winner of one conference ahead of the second placed team of another conference even though they are behind on points.
There are obviously more pros and cons which I have not listed, but I am keen on hearing your thoughts on this proposed format. Let ‘er rip!
AndyS
Guest
This weekend has already provided two examples of my main objection to the proposed format. Most interesting games so far, and the ones that may well have implications come seasons end, were the wins by the Rebels and Cheetahs. That sort of unpredictability is the lifeblood of any comp and seeding the teams is much more likely to just become a self-fulfilling way for the Unions to play favourites amongst the teams.
Ozee316
Guest
The NRC Currie Cup and ITM Cup are the breeding groud for new Super Teams. In New Zealand if you were searching for a new Super Franchise in 2020 you would look at the strong unions of Hawkes Bay and Taranaki or even the Makos or Steelers or Stags and give them time to contract players and coaches. They already have good systems and would essentially cross leagues and enter Super Rugby and exit the other League.
Eddard
Roar Guru
Sure, but this is the aim for Super Rugby. Certain Super Rugby teams do have some brand recognition. The Crusaders, Brumbies etc. I've met Super Rugby fans in the United States for example that have never been to Australia, New Zealand or South Africa.
nickoldschool
Roar Guru
no worries at all mate, please.
Bruticus
Roar Pro
My apologies nick, I did not mean to disparage any of the french or english clubs in the lower tiers. I just picked out the the competition leaders as they stand to day without much thought. The point that I was (crudely) trying to make is that the disparity between the clubs in Tier 1 and Tier 2 on the points that Eddard was making could possibly be not as great as the disparity between the upper and lower divisions in english and french rugby.Therefore, a team in Tier 2 would not be stuck there whilst the gap between itself and a top Tier 1 side grows ever greater. Thank you for correcting me and providing a bit of the history of these great clubs.
No, I have been defending the reasons why SARU wanted more teams, my personal preference is not more teams.
nickoldschool
Roar Guru
With all due respect bruticus Pau have also been french champs in the past and although many pro d2 clubs do not have huge stadiums they do fill them ok. These days you have big clubs in pro d2, perpignan, beziers, narbonne, pau, biarritz to name a few have all been french champions and are very well known not only in france but also in the wider european rugby community. I would probably not compare them to auckland or pretoria as those 2 cities are much bigger but imo they are the equivalent to hamilton or canberra, same for their teams, hardly 2 small or insignificant clubs I would say. Thats whats great with rugby, a small town in a massive rugby community can do well. Its not only about sydney, jo burg and auckland.
Lano
Roar Guru
Insert Full stop after "useless"
RobC
Roar Guru
Prayer, in my limited experience, is totally useless without righteous behaviour :)
Bruticus
Roar Pro
We would have to pray the new teams be competitive then. Anything less is going to be a disaster.
Bruticus
Roar Pro
Under advantages I do mention that introducing new teams like the Kings and whoever else would be fairly simple - just stick them in at the bottom of Tier 2. The teams and their tier placements in the article are used for illustrative purposes only and is based on the 2014 table standings. The proposed format could start in 2018 for example so as to give all teams time to organise themselves. The 2018 tier placements would then depend on the 2017 final table standings.
Lano
Roar Guru
Many EPL teams are "brands" as a opposed to "teams" and where they come from is largely irrelevant. If you were to actually go to Liverpool you would cease supporting the team. It's a sh@thole. We are a long way off brand-recognition, and S15 supporters are largely home-grown town or province/ State.
Bay35Pablo
Roar Guru
Um, what is the point of this hypothetical. So you tell the Kings, Gauchos and Samurai they can't come in, despite being approved for S18? Unless the Super comp gives the Bokke an extra team they'll take their ball and go play with the Northern kids. Now while some of us would be happy with that, SANZAR has balls the size of peas, so they won't stand up to them. Plus your format has 4/5 Bokke teams in Tier 2. It renders Tier 1 an ANZAC plus 1 Bokke chum format which kind of defeats the idea of SANZAR. Plus the Bokke would never take the hit to the pride of 1/5 teams. By far better would be splitting it into Atlantic and Pacific conferences, an extra Argie side to make it 8 SAF/ARG sides, PI or 2nd Japan side to make it 12 Pac sides, limited cross over (maybe 2 away games for other conferences), and then top 3 Atlantic sides and top 5 PAC sides into final. But also won't happen as SANZAR seems wedded to as many crossover games as possible despite them now making the comp so big it is becoming impractical, and also delivering SAF games that will not rate in ANZ because they are on in the middle of the night.
Nobrain
Guest
18 teams, 17 games, extra point for away win, winner = the one with more points. Following year reverse local/away games. Simple and clear. I know most of you like the 12 team format, but lets face it, rugby has to expand world wide. Besides I am argentinian and I want to see at least a team from my country in SR.
RobC
Roar Guru
cheers mate. Look likes at-all cost-part of 'expand-at-all-costs' will eventually realise itself. Yes, this year is last of 15 teams.
Bruticus
Roar Pro
Thanks Rob, always enjoyed your perspective on things! Travels are done (at least for now!) and super excited for this year of rugby ahead of us. Completely agree. I just cannot get on board with this expand-at-all-costs attitude that SANZAR has.
Bruticus
Roar Pro
To counter that, I'd point out that the Worcester Warriors and Section Paloise are not the Blue Bulls and the Blues, both three time champions of Super rugby. The Super teams are known throughout the rugby community and the smallest stadium amongst the mentioned Tier 2 teams is bigger than the largest stadium in either the Pro D2 and English Championship. Negotiating the TV deals will require someone creative and persuasive because as you highlight selling the concept will be difficult. Sponsorship will be difficult too but it is upto each team to work out the best deals for themselves. I would also argue that teams will be far more competitive in the tiered Super rugby than anywhere else. You are right in saying that most teams are relegated soon promotion and that is because they cannot compete financially. The vast bulk of a sporting teams finances are spent on player salaries and transfer fees. In Super rugby, player salaries are somewhat subsidised by the union and there are no transfer fees.
niwdEyaJ
Roar Guru
yeah, the format I've suggested means SA teams have zero international travel for the 1st 10 weeks then only 4 international games over 8 weeks and (at most) 2 away finals... so that's between 4-6 international flights/year.. no different to the current situation.. Aus & NZ teams would only have 1 international game (against Japan/Arg) during the 10 week "domestic" rounds and then another 4 during the 8 weeks international component and again (at most) 2 away finals depending on where the finish.. so between 5-7 international flights/year. It'd be Argentina & Japan that get the raw deal in this format with x5 games overseas during the 1st 10 weeks, then another x4 games during the 2nd half of the regular season followed by up to 2 away finals... total of 9-11 international flights/year.... I guess that's the price of joining the comp!
Bruticus
Roar Pro
There is every chance of that being true but I'd rather look on the positive side Lord Eddard :)
Bruticus
Roar Pro
I too think the ideal situation would of course be everyone plays everyone else home and away and top of the league wins the pie. The problem of course is the travel between the continents. The SA teams and the Western Force will be heavily disadvantaged. Even a single round would mean four perhaps five weeks away which is the situation we face now and is not the ideal situation clearly. I completely agree with you regarding SANZAR's obsession with growth and the chase for the dollar. With a combined population of around 90 million people in the three Super nations, they will never convince me that the viewing market is tapped out. The English Premier League's brand new $8 billion deal was not because the EPL added French teams but due to its popularity in Asia. The inclusion of only the Sharks in the 2015 top tier was not meant as a slight on SA teams but rather as an example. All teams would be given a minimum of 3 years to organise their squads and be in a position to finish as high as they can the preceding season so that they can play in Tier 1.