How to solve the Super Rugby conundrum

Since the expansion of the Super Rugby competition in 2015 to meet the demands of an increasingly globalised sporting landscape, it is fair to say the much maligned organizational body we know as SANZAAR has not done itself any favours with its current model.

The move was met with varying degrees of enthusiasm from those involved, with concerns expressed over the enormous toll it would take upon those players who – not burdened enough with being forced to play within three different time zones – were required to add two more to a passport which must by now boast more stamps than Australia post.

Add to this the inclusion of some teams who would not look out of place in an Under 15s tournament, a finals system more broken than the American democratic system, and a draw that indicates little more than lip service has been payed to the past successes of the old format, and you have what can only be described as one of the most poorly designed competitions this side of the equator.

Heading it all is a body that maintains it has the interests of the home unions at its heart, but in reality is concerned with little more than chasing the alluring financial carrot that is market expansion.

We are only one season into the new model and already it threatens to tear apart at the seams following multiple complaints from the South African, Australian and New Zealand rugby organisations about the its flawed design, specifically regarding the reasons outlined above.

In what credible competition does the sixth-seeded team demolish the third seed by 39 points in an away fixture? Does the fifth seed collect nine less points than the fourth seed and be forced to play on the road? Does a team face more than 100 hours in the air and have jetlag as their greatest adversary in a competition boasting the best provincial teams in world rugby? And most alarmingly of all, have the body responsible for rectifying these issues go on record as stating further expansion is likely to occur, perhaps at the expense of one of the few storied unions. The format is beyond a joke, and reform is sorely needed.

That brings me to the reason I am writing, and the balance I believe needs to be struck between maintaining a fair and functional model for all and those particular features which despite their unpopularity, are founded on arguments which there seems little point challenging. Let it be known now that I am in favour of seeing a reduced competition that excludes those teams that merely fill the numbers, however the arguments against this are twofold:

1 – At least at this stage, eliminating teams carries with it considerable risks. The Kings in particular are backed by the ANC, and failing to heed their demands may create a divide between SANZAAR and the unstable political climate in South Africa on a topic which rugby has no place adjudicating on. The Jaguares too – despite disappointing this season – are still in their infancy, and should be given time to become competitive. Virtually all teams go through growing pains.

2 – SANZAAR is not going to relinquish the idea of further expansion, least of all the opposite, and there is a valid premise underlining this. Rugby is a rapidly growing game, and should rightly be promoted to niche markets in an effort to raise its global profile. I am well aware of this. However, a line should be drawn between logical expansion and that of a nature which undoes the structural underpinnings of established competitions. I am not arguing against the idea of expansion so much as how it is done.

These are both solid lines of reasoning, and should not be dismissed. But with that said, I do not believe the problem to be beyond a solution.

Let it be noted that Super Rugby presents quite a unique dilemma, one I am not sure any other major sporting league in the world faces. Attempting to resolve or soften one issue can often exacerbate many others.

For example, a round robin format would create a relatively even travel burden for all participants, but is far too long for a contact sport, and would invade an international window that already struggles to free players from begrudging northern hemisphere clubs.

Reducing this however would lead to a lopsided level of competition – like the one now – that makes it easier for certain teams to reach the finals, after which they are inevitably exposed.

Following the quarter-final between the Chiefs and the Stormers, Schalk Burger bemoaned the fact his team had failed to play one New Zealand franchise all year, and were simply unable to adjust to their style of play in such a crucial state of the competition.

This is an issue that seems to have carried over to the national side, at least to a degree. In short, it is extremely difficult, if not impossible, to iron out all the kinks involved, and this in itself warrants recognition.

The model

The format I propose is a 14-round (12 game, two bye) competition featuring a unique finals format intended to reward the eight best performing teams over the course of the season regardless of conference – I will discuss this further on.

In my opinion, the only variable which should count towards the final standings is a team’s record, similar to what is run in American sports.

Due to the advent of a high octane style of rugby that seems to have revolutionized offensive gameplans in particular, this is now possible to support for the first time ever. Standings would subsequently look something like this:

NZ Conference – Record
Hurricanes – 11-1 (No.1 Seed)
Highlanders – 10-2 (No.3 Seed)
Chiefs – 8-4
Crusaders – 7-5
Blues – 3-9

Aus Conference – Record
Brumbies – 11-1 (No.2 Seed)
Waratahs – 9-3 (No.5 Seed)
Force – 9-3 (N. 6 Seed)
Rebels – 5-7
Reds – 2-10

RSA Conference 1 – Record
Bulls – 10-2 (No.4 Seed)
Cheetahs – 8-4 ( No.8 Seed)
Stormers – 4-8
Sunwolves – 1-11

RSA Conference 2 – Record
Jaguares – 9-3 (No.7 Seed)
Kings – 7-5
Lions – 4-8
Sharks – 2-10

With this in mind, a few points merit raising:

1 – Winning is everything
Whilst this is not markedly different from the system that is currently being implemented, the new format would see the elimination of bonus points in deciding final standings. As stated, the brand of rugby being peddled by the world’s top sides sees end-to-end, free flowing and offload based offensive tactics as the key to victory. Teams that continue to play an outdated game – as we have unfortunately seen with the Springboks – will not win on a consistent basis. There is no reason to believe that removal of bonus points would change this. Additionally, I do not believe it fair for teams who have a better overall record to finish beneath those have earned more of these.

2 – The Tiebreaker system
Another feature that immediately stands out is the selection of the Cheetahs as the 8th seed over the Chiefs, who in this hypothetical scenario, have finished with the same record. This is also true of the Brumbies and Hurricanes, Force, Waratahs and Force, and the Highlanders and Bulls. Any time this occurs, the standings will be decided via a tiebreaker. That is, the winner of the game between the two teams in the regular season will claim the higher position, and in the event that the two teams fail to play, the team with the better for and against total will win out. This system adds extra emphasis to key matchups, ramping up the intensity as the finals format became clearer late in the season. It also would eliminate the potential of a draw by adopting an overtime system which would be thrilling to watch.

3 – Winning one’s conference means nothing
It is purely sentimental. The 2015 Crusaders failed to make the finals because of this structure, and in the case of the South African conferences which can justifiably be labelled as “weaker”, it will mean very little. Conferences exist merely to gauge part of the draw, which I will now run through.

The draw

Say goodbye to two round derbies.

Right now there is enormous build-up over the match between England and New Zealand to occur in November next year. This is fantastic for the game. It builds suspense and ensures the match itself garners far greater interest than it would if they were to play on a consistent basis, as well as diversity of schedule. In what industry does oversaturation of a product ever increase its appeal? The same logic should apply here. I propose a draw similar to what follows:

NZ Conference Teams Play:
• Everyone (4) in their conference
• Four (4) from the Australian conference
• Two (2) from each South African conference

Australian Conference Teams Play:
• Everyone (4) in their conference
• Four (4) from the NZ conference
• Two (2) teams from each South African conference

RSA Conference 1 Teams Play:
• Everyone (3) in their conference
• Everyone (4) in RSA conference 2
• Three (3) teams from the NZ conference
• Two (2) teams from the Australian conference

RSA Conference 2 Teams Play:
• Everyone (3) in their conference
• Everyone (4) in RSA conference 1
• Three (3) teams from the Australian conference
• Two (2) teams from the NZ conference

Note that the number of NZ and Australian teams each South African conference plays will rotate on a yearly basis to ensure fairness.

When you manage to crunch the numbers, this does in fact work out. Following this format provides a number of benefits, and unlike the SANZAAR model, attempts to work around the problems that have – and to a degree, always will – permeate a competition played across such a large geographical area.

1 – Fairness
Despite the majority of matches being either inter-conference or with its closest neighbour, the draw still provides balance between all four groups. While it can still be argued the South African teams will receive easier fixtures, they will not totally avoid one particular conference. This is also the main justification of the finals system.

2 – Travel
Reduction of the draw to a twelve game series will mean a lesser degree of travel for each team. Although players will still earn plenty of frequent flyer points, it is far less burdensome than what is currently required. Unfortunately we are dealing with a broken model, and there really is no solution that will completely eliminate this issue without further reducing the amount of games played overseas.

3 – Derby Games
As I have stated, these really are the best Super Rugby has to offer outside the finals. There is an enormous amount of pride riding on these for players and fans alike, and combined with the tiebreaker rule, keeping these to one per year is the best option for all involved. Many teams – New Zealand especially (think Cory Jane) – have noted they are extremely taxing. Player welfare is already at an all-time low, and this needs to be addressed if players are to rebuff the increasingly enticing deals from Northern hemisphere clubs.

The Finals format
This represents perhaps the greatest change from the current model, ranging from how the finalists are selected to the construction of the draw. A team’s win-loss record is ultimately the deciding factor in their seeding, with tiebreakers playing a part should the situation arise. From there, the quarter-finals, semi-finals and grand final would proceed as normal, with the top qualifier playing the lowest qualifier, the second qualifier playing the second lowest qualifier and so on. There is one specific feature which again merits consideration however.

Travel
I feel I should raise this due to my earlier claim that travel has become too big a burden, which may now seem somewhat hypocritical. There is indeed the possibility that a team is forced to move between time zones over the course of the finals, however unlike the current model, they are at least afforded the chance to avoid this over the regular season. As stated, winning one’s conference means little, and the top teams will be rewarded the top seeds regardless of their conference. Gone is the unfair protection of conference winners, meaning travel is only endowed upon those with poorer records.

Truth be told, attempting to solve the Super Rugby conundrum may be an exercise in futility. The past six years has seen an enormous evolution of the rugby landscape, and there is no reason to believe the next six will not yield something similar.

However, this model attempts to balance the needs of both SANZAAR and the home unions, while still keeping the basic structure of what has made Super Rugby such a success.

Ignoring some of the major criticisms, which have a concerning element of truth to them, is detrimental to the competition’s long-term health.

However, it is worth bearing in mind that responses are not so easily implemented without disrupting some other functional component of the competition.

I have stated numerous times that satisfying all parties is near impossible, and I fear for the future of our sport if it continues in its hopeless pursuit of finances over all else.

Expansion is not the answer, but neither is regression – at least at this point. It is a curious dilemma in which there seems no simple solution.