Why don’t we restructure Super Rugby into three conferences of six teams each.
Teams would play every other side in their own conference twice, for ten games.
The top three from each conference then move into a first-division group to play for the champion’s cup (for want of a better name). The bottom three teams from each conference move into a second-division group to play for the shield.
Within each of these divisions, a team plays only those teams not from their original conferences, for six games and a bye.
At the completion of all the games, the top four teams from the first division play semis and a final, while the top four teams from the second division play semis and a final.
All up, each team plays a guaranteed ten games against teams from their own conference and six games against teams from the other two conferences (i.e. against three teams from each of the other two conferences).
All teams get eight home and eight away games.
The advantage of this is that it’s easy to follow, while the two-division structure provides games that are more evenly matched, resulting in fewer lop-sided results.
One criticism from a New Zealand or South African point of view might be that it’s too similar to their traditional domestic competitions, and that they already get enough local derbies through that format.
Okay, but during the old Super Rugby, all Kiwi teams already played each other twice, and in 2016 every team still played two others twice and the other two once.
So this suggestion is not such a big difference to what already occurs, but it is a much better way to structure the competition so that fans can enjoy local derbies, while the inter-conference games keep their mystery and excitement, as fans see how the top teams from one conference go against the top teams from another.
Imagine following a team, hoping it does well enough to make the first division, and then eagerly waiting to see how it goes against the best from the other conferences.
Of course, if you don’t make the first division, there is still some silverware to play for, and the desire to prove you are worthy to make it the following year.
Unanimous
Guest
Not a bad suggestion - one of many that's better than the current format. Thanks for posting it. However, the real trouble is that the talent in the competition is concentrated in one country, and that country has the smallest population and financial resources. Most leagues have free movement of players, salary caps, drafts, and/or promotion/relegation to enable the competition to match themselves to the market. Super Rugby has restricted player movement, varying salary restrictions, no player draft, and no way to balance each country's playing ability to the number of teams. Unfortunately, unless they address those issues, it's going to continue to be problematic no matter what format is used for teams to play each other. Ultimately, it would be best for the whole of professional rugby throughout the world to be coordinated, but it seems beyond all the parties involved.
Joe King
Guest
A couple of people have mentioned above that the travel is just too much now. And the SA teams have always complained this unfairly disadvantages them.
Mark
Guest
or you could have a simple 1 team league where each team plays each other team once
Joe King
Guest
I guess anything's a possibility. I think I'm just looking at what could be realistically agreed upon in the near future to give us a simpler and more engaging structure than now. But thanks for your comment
Joe King
Guest
During super 15 teams played the other teams in their conference twice. It was reduced due to an increase in teams.
Ozee316
Guest
Why three conferences of 6 teams? It should be three 12-team conferences mixed evenly based on strength. An 11-match round robin + two wild card matches against a team from each other conference gives a 13 match regular season. Taking 8 top qualifiers to quarters, semi and final can have Super Rugby done and dusted with 36 teams over just 16 weeks.
Ozee316
Guest
Was there a time when teams played all of their same country teams twice. That was roundly rejected by players, teams and the original Super Rugby format was a single round robin. Double home and aways were tried and discontinued for very specific reasons and will not be tried again sorry. If you want double home and away games in the same country just have a Champions league like Europe.
NaBUru38
Guest
30 years ago, rugby tournamentscwere frowned upon. Now people complain that Super Rugby teams play each other randomly like North American leagues.
Joe King
Guest
Yeah, I thought so :-) Cheers
Kevin Higginson
Guest
Thank you, of course I meant to say the 6 interconference matches not 8.
Joe King
Guest
Thanks Kevin. It's something worth thinking about.
Joe King
Guest
Thanks for your comments Hello. My suggested structure is not perfect, but I'm still convinced it's a lot better than what they have now.
Nobrain
Roar Guru
Jaguares last year had to play all NZ teams.
Kevin Higginson
Guest
I have looked at last year and to give a flavour of the sort of fixture list, here is the 'canes and Jaguares fixture lists. Canes h & a in division (NZ & Jaguares - 8 matches), plus Brumbies, Rebels and Stormers (h), and Waratahs, Lions and Sharks (a). Whereas the Jaguares, extra 8 interconference matches would be against Red, Sunwolves and Cheetahs (h), and Force, Bulls and Kings (a) As can be seen the Jaguares have an easier set of fixtures than the Canes. This has a two fold benefit, 1) teams get the chance to play in matches that they are competitive in, and so can start to get better, and 2) they could potentially get more points and push for a playoff place, just like in the NFL.
Hello Everybody.
Guest
If Japan like the idea to develop themselves they didnt show it last year. The team that put forward was a bit of a joke tbh. Args team was much better on paper but how long will players chose to spend so much time away from their families? Their travel is far too much to be sustainable imo. Not long imo and the Arg will either be forced to select from overseas or be easybeats in the RC. If they do start selecting from outside of the Super comp then their club will be undermined and eventually fail. NZ teams are the only clubs staying strong. SA clubs are spreading an ever shrinking talent pool thinner and thinner. Aus playing talent is also spread too thin. European club rugby is improving whilst Super Rugby is dropping in quality. I think there will come a tipping point soon, if it hasnt already happened.
Joe King
Guest
Like
Joe King
Guest
Maybe Arg and Japan can swap conferences each year. It seems to be a small hurdle to get a simpler and more engaging structure than the one we have now. Under one tweak of my suggestion in the article, every team would play every other team over two years. In year A, play every one in your own conference, plus 3 of the 6 teams in the other two conferences. In year B, play everyone in your own conference, plus the other 3 of the 6 teams in the other two conferences.
Joe King
Guest
I think mainly the SA teams don't think its fair from a travel perspective. And they probably have a point. It's probably a bit hard geographically to undo the conference system now.
Joe King
Guest
You maybe right about Europe becoming the centre, but Arg and Japan may like the idea to develop themselves
Bruce White
Guest
This makes far more sense than the current structure, and gives those who struggle the incentive to continue even if it is to the lower tier.And the games will be far more competitive at 2 levels in the second half of the comp. Bring it on I say.