No changes to Super Rugby conference format

because Japan is in the same time zone (almost anyway) as Australia

Wise of SANZAAR to not listen to foolish media criticism of the tournament and consider financial realities. The rugby media don't care about players going overseas, the need to pay the players, the need to expand the game, the increasing encroachment of the NRL an AFL and need to defend rugby's territory. They live in a dreamworld where having three Super rugby teams in Austalia would be lovely, although it would mean the extinction of the game but never mind that kind of detail. SANZAAR just has to ignore the fantasies written in the press and think about the actual health and survival of the game, and act accordingly.

Agree PeterK. I would day though that Argentina could handle several teams, 3 or 4. The hopelessness of the Jaguares has nothing to do with the quality of the team and is simply the result of probably the worst Super rugby coach I've ever seen. A possibility would also be to put Japan in the same conference as the Americas. It's vrtually the same filght time to the U.S. Canada as it is to Sydney, so it's not clear why Japan has to be in the same conference as Australia. Then it would be relatively easy to match the conferences.

crusaders with a new coach? hmmmmmmmmmmmm

No Brain~ Hurricanes and Crusaders in the Final at the Cake Tin! ~ you heard it here first.

I never said you have a sense of entitlement. I said, you're basing your argument solely off where Australian teams are compared to our NZ counterparts over a small period of time. Furthermore, my argument isn't based on where Australian teams are compared to the Jaguars and Sunwolves. You're mincing words and not putting forward a 'grownup' argument that you supposedly desire. Suggesting NZ should drop a team says a lot about where you're starting from and it's a pretty grim point for SH rugby. 'Quality Rugby' doesn't necessarily mean funneling talent into a small number of teams in an attempt to replicate the rigors of test rugby. I'm well aware of who's left NZ rugby in recent times but if you can't see that the 2017 Lions tour isn't acting as a 'carrot' for some players (as it did for us post the 2011 RWC) then I can't help you. I'm sorry, but for all markets involved, one of the key cornerstones supporting the purpose of Super Rugby is for the ongoing promotion and development of the game in those countries. Your model of cutting teams sends this into reverse. Especially so in Australia. You 'can't believe I think Aus deserves 5 teams'. Why is that so hard for you to wrap your head around? It's really not such a foreign concept. I'd assume you'd engage with quite a number of Australian rugby fans here on the roar and it's an opinion that I would suggest is held by the overwhelming majority of us.

rob9 - i dont have a sense pof entitlement. i reckon Nz has too many teams and should be reduced by 1. your stretching a long bow if your defence is your teams were better than wolves and jaguares. "have been strengthened due to the fact that you have an upcoming Lions tour that means you’ve probably managed to hang on to a fare few players " do u not realise that we lost 900+ caps with the retirement of worldClass players last year? "why don’t we just kill-off all teams from outside the land of the long white" no need to facetious, i'm looking for a grownup argument. dropping 2 aus teams is the only step towards improvement for aus. i cant believe you think aus deserves 5 teams! aus never dseserved them in the first place and if rebels are going to develop like force then thats 10 years of trying to get off the bottom. all aus teams do is shuffle players between their franchises at the detriment of whichever franchise they were poached from.

This sense of ‘entitlement’ is no greater than you demonstrating a desire to make judgements based on the standards set by NZ rugby. No doubt, the state of Australian Super Rugby this year was poor and historically NZ has a stronger pedigree at Super Rugby level. But it’s ridiculous to a. look at 2016 alone b. compare ourselves to NZ and c. Forget about the other Super Rugby stakeholders. In 2016, the Sunwolves and Kings occupied the bottom 2 spots on the overall ladder. The Reds and Force finished above them then the Cheetahs and Jaguars rounded out the bottom third of the table. That’s 4 (of a possible 8) teams from the South African conference finishing in the bottom 6. No doubt, NZ had a great year all-round for Super Rugby (one of their best) but this may have been strengthened due to the fact that you have an upcoming Lions tour that means you’ve probably managed to hang on to a fare few players that may of otherwise headed oversees following the RWC. In 2014 and 2015, the Brumbies and Waratahs made the final 4. In 2015, the Force and Reds finished in the bottom third of the table with the Blues, Cheetahs and Sharks (2 South African teams also). In 2014, the Reds and Rebels finished in the bottom third along with the Stormers, Lions and Cheetahs (3 SA teams). If we’re only comparing ourselves to NZ and only looking at a reasonably small window of time, why don’t we just kill-off all teams from outside the land of the long white and Super Rugby can become the new Mitre10 Cup?? Dropping 2 Australian teams will do absolutely nothing to reverse the concerning trends we’re experiencing in Australia and would only serve to accelerate them. Our landscape is vastly different to that of our other SANZAAR partners and we cannot afford to reduce our elite footprint with the competition that exists in our market.

totally agree. It is obvious due to travel, player welfare and other logistical constraints that a round robin is not possible. Currently 15 games, 2 byes, + finals. With roundrobin that makes it 17 games + finals, no byes. That is not sustainable. What is also obvious is that the current 4 conferences is very lop sided and poorly constructed. You could easily retain the 15 games , 2 byes, + finals by 5 games within each conference and no team has to play both sunwolves and jaguers away. So you play every team in your conference and only miss 1 team in the others. Or you play every team in your conference home and away and 3 teams in the other conferences which is 16 games but a lot less time out of the country. Future expansion would mean 4 conferences say of 6 teams each. An american one of 2 USA, 2 Canadian, 2 argentinian teams. Australian one with sunwolves added. SA one of just 6 sa teams. NZ one with say a combined PI team or another Asian team. Then you play every team in your conference and 3 teams (half) in the other conferences so 14 games. Then you can have 3 byes to help with the travel.

the best thing about the Super Comp, was the awesome rugby in the NZ derbies ".The first year of the conference format drew plenty of criticism, especially around the draw with some sides not playing New Zealand teams and some teams hosting finals against sides which accumulated more points.."....... really???......., especially those little things?.....No, really???? What about the reigning champions being asphyxiated out of the pointy end of the comp by diabolical travel requirements? Are we going to see the same disadvantages being foisted on the Lions next year? I hope not! It's conventional to give the team which puts in the effort, as the Highlanders did in 2015, at least an even break, if not something better. Noble of you to say the best teams made the final, Mania, but i don't think so. Then there's the other issue, of the RSA teams getting minnows, to amass points on. Not specifically mentioned. Sanitised? Personally, i don't want to hear the stuff about "the product", "the brand" "the market".......let them talk like that in the boardroom. Commodification is killing this world, and that kind of talk makes me gag. Let me enjoy my rugby in blissful ignorance of these heartless, soul-less, "grown-up" concepts please

how is NZ and SA supposed to help aus rugby? sweet sanzaar should take over aru (and saru for that matter.) and the first thing it will do is remove 2 aus teams and the savings could be rerouted to grassroots and domestic rugby. no point paying all that extra money to aus teams when the return of quality is so low. honestly if aus don't sort its sht out then it will get booted out of super rugby and the partners will move on. theres such a sense of entitlement like aus deserve to be in super rugby purely on its past glory. this gravy train that is super rugby isn't going to keep its fans just because aussies in it. aus have to pull their weight

The United States is the big necessary step. If the European unions set up teams in the US before SANZAAR, it is game, set and match and the Southern Hemisphere will be a rugby backwater as it is for soccer, a feeder system.

"its not supers place to develop Australian rugby" If one of the key purposes of Super Rugby's existence isn't to further develop the game in the markets that host teams (SA, NZ, ARG and JAP included), there's not a lot going for this muddled concept of a competition.

It is going to be very difficult to get a team from each nation in the finals.

that cant be helped hog. aus teams started out with the same chances as every other team. aus had guaranteed quarter finals and were (justifiably) eliminated. if aus are gonna switch off everytime their teams don't make the cutoffs then you have got to wonder whether aus can continue being in super rugby? its not supers place to develop Australian rugby. that's ARU's job, who are failing miserably. this isn't "our" product. it belongs to aus sa nz and argentina.

Yes, but unfortunately in Aus no one watched. Which does not add much value to your product here.

as confusing and screwed up as the conference was , ultimately in the end the best teams made the semi's and finals.