Whether you like it or not, the conference system is the best model for a competition like Super Rugby, and it’s here to stay.
Reverting back to a round robin format would condemn teams and players to arduous travel schedules.
Some will argue that travel was the issue this season, however much of the issues were created by the split conferences in South Africa, calling for the Jaguares and Sunwolves to rack up the frequent flyer miles.
This is easily rectified. Prior to the most recent expansion, Super Rugby ran a three-conference system of five teams in each, which was more balanced and efficient.
While a reversion to the old system seems obvious, we have to take into account one of the primary reasons behind the introduction of the conference system: expansion.
With all the talk of scrapping one team from both South Africa and Australia, many have overlooked the very real and dare I say more likely prospect of expansion. Even Accenture, who were commissioned by SANZAAR, have suggested further growth, with their best proposal calling to expand Super Rugby to 24 teams.
Additionally, I have the most workable and in terms of final results, the most equitable format for the 24-team format.
The current four conferences would remain, but all four would be balanced with an even number of teams based along time zones as well as geography. Each conference would consist of six teams, with the competition run over two phases.
In the first phase, all teams play their conference rivals on a home-and-away schedule for a total of ten games. At the end of this phase, the teams within each conference would be rank one to six.
In the second phase, using the rankings from the first phase, the teams would be split into six pools of four teams, with one team from each conference in each pool. At this point, teams could either play each other once for a total of 13 regular season games (156 games) or home and away for six games (192), depending on the competitions preference.
At the end of the second phase, the top team in each pool would move forward onto a standard six-team finals series, once again ranked one-six depending on total points accrued during phase two.
In theory, the six best teams throughout the competition would qualify, regardless of their original conference.
The advantages of this format are twofold.
Firstly, it can be used to involve more teams without significantly expanding the season. Being largely based on time zones will also lessen the burden of travel.
Secondly, with discussions regarding rugby’s future schedule and the possibility of moving the June Test window back to July, it offers the flexibility to accommodate both that or a scenario where the June window remains.
The biggest question will be the where and why of expansion.
The why is so the competition can stave off the growing financial muscle of the Top 14 and Aviva Premiership.
As for where, the Sunwolves playing out of Singapore could be a test case as to the viability of a future franchise based out of the city-state. Apparently, the crowds for those games were growing, so there’s one option.
The other five should all be based in the Americas: a combined South American squad playing out of both Brazil and Uruguay, which would have a large number of Argentines on their roster, with the other four in North America. With a small (relatively to overall population) but growing playing and fan-base, this option isn’t as crazy as it might seem.
Super Rugby is still the best professional rugby competition in the world, and we are the better for our involvement. The key is finding the fairest and most equitable format.
Republican
Guest
Rubbish.
KD
Roar Rookie
Read a few posts up for my plan to split into two even number leagues with an expanded finals series featuring teams from both
Working Class Rugger
Guest
Too long of a season. None of the stakeholders want anything more than 16 game regular seasons tops.
What!
Guest
2025. Africa 7 teams. 6 SA, 1 Namibian, 1 Kenyan. NZL/Pacific 7 teams. 6 NZL, 1 Pacific Islands (Samoa/Tonga). Aus/Pacific 7 teams. 4 Aus, 2 Jap and 1 Fiji. Americas 7 teams. 3 Arg, 2 Canadian, 2 USA. Each team plays the others in its conference twice and 4 teams from each of the other conferences once. Thats 12 games at home and 12 away. Then semis and a final. No quaters, no byes and over 25 weeks (Feb-Aug). In Aug we have Rugby Championship with 2 tiers with 6 in each (NZ, Aus, SA, Can, USA, Arg, Jap, Sam, Ton, Nam, Ken, Fiji). Each team plays the others in its tier once and then plays 1 against a team from the other tier based on rank. Perfect but wont happen.
Unanimous
Guest
If Super Rugby reorganised its current 18 teams into an east league (11 teams) and a west league (7 teams), and 9 team Champions and Challenge leagues, they would end up with a very similar schedule as now, except the Sunwolves would be a lot better off from a travel point of view, the Japanese TV market would have more games in better time slots, you'd have more even matchups, each league would have a single table with teams in order, and a number of other significant advantages. Currently SA teams only play ANZ teams 4 times a season, and this is about what they'd do in a Champions or Challenge league. They play almost the schedule anyway, but without all the advantages. There is no need to make any changes to domestic seasons or teams, or to the length of the Super Rugby season, or to the number of SR teams. They could just arrange themselves along the lines of every successful international annual team comp very simply.
Working Class Rugger
Guest
PRO Rugby already exists and is looking to add at least one Canadian for its second season starting March next year.
canadiankiwi
Guest
1. You don't get it- Americans do NOT care about global sports teams, they only care about AMERICAN teams. Super Rugby will never make it in USA. An American Rugby League, possibly with one or two Canadian teams, may make it in a decade or two. There is no pot of gold in USA for Super Rugby. 2. There are not 35 Super Rugby caliber players in USA or Canada (there are not 35 NPC calibre players). Out of the entire Canadian RWC 2015 squad, there are less than 10 who play professional rugby in a premier club competition (Pro 12, Top 14, English Premiership). Same as USA.
KD
Roar Rookie
The NPC having 14 teams retaining their own talent and having ABs in all corners is the key to our (NZ's) success. We will not be destroying that for nobody, Unions such as Sa need to follow suit and split their Sa sides from their CC counterparts and revert to a tradional name for their CC sides (as Stormers have with Western Province) and allow players to play for whichever CC they want and the strength in that comp aswell as SR and possibly test level come back due to stronger competition at a lower level creating better talent for the top levels. Oz's NRC still needs time to catch up but provided the ARU spends $$ wisely and on development and growth. It should eventually expand to areas such as Adelaide, Tasman, Wollongong, NQ and bring back the Stars to give SR sides the Force, Rebels and Brumbies a 2nd NRC side to develop their players, coaches, management and take the game to new areas and fans and create more depth for Reds and Waratahs and future SR expansion within Oz. This would be a long way away due to the current state but it should be ARU's goal and strong management and smarter use of funds aswell as all State Unions and Professional Arms working together for the good of the game and the future of rugby in Oz. An NRC with all those sides aswell as the current if done right should rival the Mitre 10 Cup (Im a Kiwi BTW) aswell as make the WBs (and SR sides) stronger then they've ever been in the Pro era and make the game more National then the NRL, AFL and A-League.
KD
Roar Rookie
Good read and very knowlegeable. However at the current stage of SH rugby, conferences is a must. -For the simple fact players just don't want to be spending long periods of time away from home which would happen if SR reverted back to full round robin seasons. Though this mostly affects SA players and NZ and OZ are alot closer together then they are to Sa. -SARU and govt. wanted this 6th side for the good of the game in their nation and the Kings would have been alot better this year had management used the $$ given by SARU 2-3 years ago wisely on player & coach development an retention and ensured they would be viable going into their re-entry instead of blowing it on whatever and making the Union bankrapt, lossing players coaches and practically all hope for the first season or two with. Now the SARU must continue to prop it up and keep it viable for the future of the game in that region depends on it. -Regional/Champions League style comps just will not work in any of the Sanzaar nations except possibly Oz. Nz's NPC with 14 teams with quality players and coaches just do not fit into the 4-6 or so spots that would be on offer. The rest of the teams with players, management and fans etc would be doing next to nothing during this time (which would be the premier comp). Eventually losing sponsors, fans, players, coaches the lot as this would lead to most all leaving their "home" or current union to go to others with more of a chance of making the top grade. Long term it would lead back to the old days of a 10 maybe less teams 1st division and the rest going back to amateur status with no hope back!! The same would apply to the Currie Cup but not as much as most of the top talent already play for the local tean associated with and having the same nickname as their SR side. Even if their were a lower level CL style comp such as Europe's Challenge Cup, it just wouldn"t hold the same status or even get half the sponsorship or tv $$ available to the top comp. Leaving those in the 2nd comp or who don't make any out of pocket, out of sight and eventually out of mind. This is the reason why SR was and is based on "greater regional" sides and the same reason the ARU made the NRC on the same format instead of a national club comp as the richer would only get richer and the poorer get more poorer The only reason such a comp is talked is because of Ozzy comps such as NRL and AFL but as you can see many of old clubs are now extent or have merged to stay relevant. The better model woyld have been for the NRL to instead force teams to merge or die to draw up regional lines and give the clubs in that area equal ownership. This would of allow the comp to develop ozzie wide instead of being Sydney centric with hotspots such as QLD only having 3 teams, Perth and Adelaide having none and Nz (who provide alot of the talent) a single side with minimal future growth available out of NSW due to the comp already having a high number of teams. That format may have created a stir true fans would of checked out the new teams and future fans wouldn't of known the past and the suburbian sides would still play it would just be at the lever under (NSWRL which is what it always was not a NRL).
Paul Taffy Longman
Roar Rookie
top 8 Super Rugby has been a success to date not just because of Kiwi Power. Oz Teams SA Teams and now the new 2 new teams Japan and Pumas expand a great Comp If you want NZ die Hards have no one else take your ball and go play in your own backyard And then your NZ franchises implode with no TV coverage except local stations Don't forget it's Super southern Rugby lol The truth is Southern Hemisphere has been the envy of North with a good quality Super rugby Comp to date Yes it's not perfect however fine tune the end year play off maybe knock out season only for the teams forget confrence style format Teams that play at end of year only the top 8 positioned teams based on highest tries count not points Play on nuteral grounds NZ OZ SA Argentina Japan share the love on venues Sudden death for the final 8 then top 4 winners are the teams in finals 1 play 2 winners to GF then usual end year 3 play 4 winners play losers of 1/2 for GF spot GF winners Super Rugby Champs look know it's not how it's done however what a difference for a super running game Just a solution realise not everyone will agree however just love the game enjoy Guys Taffy downunder Sent from my iPhone
Taffy Longman
Guest
Agree with Johnathan top 8 Super Rugby has been a success to date not just because of Kiwi Power. Oz Teams SA Teams and now the new 2 new teams Japan and Pumas expand a great Comp If you want NZ die Hards have no one else take your ball and go play in your own backyard And then your NZ franchises implode with no TV coverage except local stations Don't forget it's planet Rugby lol The truth is Southern Hemisphere has been the envy of North with a good quality Super rugby Comp to date Yes it's not perfect however fine tune the end year play off maybe knock out season only for the teams forget confrence style format Teams that play at end of year only the top 8 positioned teams based on highest tries count not points Play on nuteral grounds NZ OZ SA Argentina Japan share the love on venues Sudden death for the final 8 then top 4 winners are the teams in finals 1 play 2 winners to GF then usual end year 3 play 4 winners play losers of 1/2 for GF spot GF winners Super Rugby Champs look know it's not how it's done however what a difference for a super running game Just a solution realise not everyone will agree however just love the game enjoy Guys Taffy downunder
Taffy Longman
Guest
Top 8 is solution Super Rugby has been a success to date not just because of Kiwi Power. Oz Teams SA Teams and now the new 2 new teams Japan and Pumas expand a great Comp If you want NZ die Hards have no one else take your ball and go play in your own backyard And then your NZ franchises implode with no TV coverage except local stations Don't forget it's World Rugby lol The truth is Southern Hemisphere has been the envy of North with a good quality Super rugby Comp to date Yes it's not perfect however fine tune the end year play off maybe knock out season only for the teams forget confrence style format Teams that play at end of year only the top 8 positioned teams based on highest tries count not points Play on nuteral grounds NZ OZ SA Argentina Japan share the love on venues Sudden death for the final 8 then top 4 winners are the teams in finals 1 play 2 winners to GF then usual end year 3 play 4 winners play losers of 1/2 for GF spot GF winners Super Rugby Champs look know it's not how it's done however what a difference for a super running game Just a solution realise not everyone will agree however just love the game enjoy Guys Taffy downunder
Working Class Rugger
Guest
Your welcome to your opinion. I should note that I'm actually a fan of the PRO Rugby concept and believe it (and others) should be given the opportunity to develop their market. But, I chose to write this from the perspective of a Super Rugby fan and looking out at potential options.
Rob9
Guest
There’s a lot of accuracy in the second half of this comment. No doubt there’s some exciting potential for rugby in the United States (and Canada). But it seems people tend to get carried away with what that means. In excess of 300 million people, largest economy in the world and a history of supporting contact sport doesn’t exactly equal a passage to riches for rugby. If rugby can achieve half of what soccer has in the North American market it would be an enormous achievement. Your final point regarding their fans’ interest extending only to teams on their continent really rings true and needs to serve as a warning to SANZAAR regarding how they approach engaging the US and Canada. That’s why in my proposal above I suggest encouraging the ongoing development of PRO Rugby and allow that to grow organically (without being twisted and tugged by external stakeholders which US fans won’t respond to) while bringing in a few teams for that Champions League-style tournament held over an 8-week window.
Train Without A Station
Roar Guru
1 team in the strongest Canadian and American locations is all they need. That keeps one full time professional squad there. The costs are much lower than their competitors so they don't need to get nearly as much market share. None of your proposed best solutions provide what the nations need to support their code. That's surely a factor in the best configuration.
canadiankiwi
Guest
The most naive article on rugby published in a long time. At most, Super Rugby should be 16 teams (the original Super 14 + Jaguares + Sunwolves). At best, Super Rugby should be 14 teams (Super 12 + 2)! Rugby in USA and Canada (I live in Toronto) is SO far behind the SANZAAR unions it is a joke. And rugby is dreaming if you think it will break into the US market on a scale of the big four (NHL, MLB, NBA, NHL). Soccer/Football has been trying since the early 1970s and is no further ahead than when it started. Further note: Americans do not watch nor care about sports teams based outside of the USA (the tolerate hockey teams in NHL because Canada provides two-thirds of the NHL players).
AndyS
Guest
Singapore is obviously on their list, as it was in the running last time. Seriously doubt it would be "relocate" though, as that implies the monies would accrue to Australia. They wouldn't - Sanzar would set them up as a new team instead of the Force, and the money would flow to them instead of the ARU. Wouldn't work if they tried anyway...the ARU has contributed strongly to the complete pigs ear made of it in WA, so God only knows what sort of mess they'd make of something in another country and culture on top!
Alex
Guest
hope you're not a force fan but i can see them potentially being relocated to singapore. It could be a bit of a gamble but considering the highest you're taxed is 15% its a way of luring players from around the globe and attracting more talent. See point below
Alex
Guest
Great article, well written and appreciate your input to all the roarers. There are benefits and risks involved in the growth strategy that has been recommended. Benefit growing the game globally particularly into Asian and North American time zones means more rugby content, advertising revenue, brand awareness and increased participation rates of the game. America is the worlds biggest consumer economy and Rugby certainly has a lot of potential to grow in this region. The risks involved are that you do in the short term compromise the standard of games and fixtures would end up in lopsided results. Its also a big challenge to have the money filter down into local competitions and cross subsidise the game domestically. With that said the benefits certainly do outweigh the risks and offers a lot more for a kid growing up in western sydney to go make a name of themselves around the world. I have long argued amongst my friends that there should be a 24 team competition in round robin format, where each side does 2 tours in the season (African/Asian first cycle – Pacific/Americas 2nd; vice versa) and then gets 6 weeks at home/domestic fixtures. You could incorporate a second team in Japan, Hong Kong/Singapore plus a 2 American teams, Canadian and an additional Argentinian. The challenges we face now will not be the challenges we face in 20 years and for super rugby to reach its true potential a global footprint is required.
Working Class Rugger
Guest
I'm actually just finishing something on the growth of professional Rugby in the US. But, yeah. Expansion is necessary. Also, regarding Asia. Hong Kong recently established a full time 15s program alongside their 7s program. I've always thought that they would likely benefit more being part of a regular competition such as Super Rugby. Same for Singapore. I can actually see Japan eventually moving to two squads alongside Hong Kong and Singapore entering.