My dream 18-team Super Rugby format

Smug Kiwi! But sadly a little close to the truth. That said, I feel that the Lions, Stormers and Sharks would all beat last year's springboks.

u missed the most important point - ONLY 8 TEAMS in IPL!!! |India has the spectator market ( 1.2 Bn eyeballs ) and the money to have 20 teams - hell Mukesh Ambani can fund 5 teams by himself ( net worth US$ 30 Billion !!! ) but they have not done that even after i think around 10 years. WHY ?? becoz less is more !!!

Best Super 18 format Have these teams Springboks Wallabies Pumas Japan Northland North Harbour Auckland Counties Bay of Plenty Waikato Hawkes Bay Manawatu Taranaki Wellington Tasman Canterbury Otago Southland Most teams will be evenly matched

Timbo, I am speaking conceptually, not specifically. We have lived now for 20 years with a false assumption- that SR could help us develop the code in OZ. It hasn't. It won't. It's okay. We cannot control others' choices. But we can control our own. We can develop a passionate National Comp. We may find a way to sell it to FTA. If we can do those two things we are on the way. With that in place it will matter less if we have 5,4,3 or 2 Super teams.

cuw, "why would u want the top 3 domestic clubs to play super rugger? that is not the logic behind the tournament." In case you hadn't noticed cuw, the logic behind the tournament, from an OZ development POV, is kaput. We have an opportunity to abandon now our dependence on SR as a faux 3rd tier. SR is not designed to serve OZ rugby interests. So... it is time to develop our own players, coaches and teams in contexts that do not require the cooperation of other national unions. A vibrant NRC (or national comp similar to Sheek's design) could simply feed into a 3team super scenario. We could call the domestic league. SAR. Super OZ Rugby. We need a competition that airs on FTA. A pay TV comp was never going to cut it in this country. If we lose a Super team it is time to use the compo money as seed funding for our new domestic league, and as a way to compensate the dropped team and its fans. I've mentioned before, if a team has to go, let it be on the proviso that by winning the domestic comp it may return to Super status, with the wooden spoon franchise going back to the domestic comp in the following year. This current situation may not be the outright disaster that many are portraying it as. It may be a unique historical opportunity.

Totally agree that SR should be a shop window for the best talent in the SH if not the World. Taking the IPL, 1) private investors paid a fee to the league 2) there is a salary cap 3) international players are welcomed, but there are restrictions on how many. Taking this idea into SR then 1) the unions would lose some influence over players in exchange for a fee, although if the league was run by the unions together, (SANZAAR), then it would be much easier 2) a USD salary cap for all teams would create more equity and hence better match ups 3) opening up teams for PI and other tier 2 player would improve quality, and allowing SANZAAR players to play for any team would also help, but by having restrictions would still mean a local feel.

I would be happy to concede that if required. I understand the reasoning too.

@ Wag " What is so very wrong with the following? " maybe u need to understand the meaning of super rugger. it is not just another domestic tournament. it is supposed to be above domestic level , just below test level. that means only the best shud be playing. the closest example of such a tournament is IPL cricket. 8 franchises loaded with some of the best in international cricket. nothing comes close to it. the current problem for mainly saffers and auzzys is , there is not enuf top class talent to feed 5 or 6 teams. if u take auzzy - just do a simple head count among the 5 team squads ; u will be easily able to count 25 - 30 foreigners who are not eligible for auzzy. basically thatis one team . in africa though not many foreigners, the available players are of not from top drawer , one reason being the attraction of Europe. what people shud argue for is 4 teams in africa and 3 in auzzy with a bigger squad per team - say 40 rather than the current 32. that way the best can train in best facilities, methods and tactics. and then play against the best which will help to hone their skills. what fun is for a team to play their 2nd string against say Kings and put up a cricket score ??? does nothing for their development or having the skills tested.

@ Ken Catchpole's Other Leg why would u want the top 3 domestic clubs to play super rugger? that is not the logic behind the tournament. there are 14 teams in NZ , noone plays in super rugger. Crusaders team is not Canterbury - guys like Jordie Barret , Reed Prinsep , plays elsewhere (same with other teams). the idea is to create new teams with all best players from the domestic competition - sort of like in IPL cricket. the only thing is it has to be super 14 becoz of the Japs and Argies - but they are exactly what is needed , a team of test players. maybe japan needs to get all their test guys into wolves , like Amanaki Mafi or Hendrik Tui for eg. 5 4 3 1 1 teams , then everyone playing everyone once. the ideal situation for me is if the Argies are based in south Africa and the Japs in Auzzy or NZ. that will reduce the amount of travel , but of course defeat the lofty idea of spreading the gospel i a foreign land ....

Home and Away Domestic Derbies are big earners.

I like your sales Pitch. There are a couple of wrinkles to iron out and I am keen to see an answer. 1. Less Games means less income. There is a fine line between income and expenses. The bean counters will know where that is I suspect it is maximized at 15. 2. To maintain provincial interest and development, the 3rd team would need to be nomadic, playing in Canberra Melbourne and Perth. The Reds and Tah's could play several of their home games interstate, All domestic Nomad and NZ games in Canberra or Melbourne, SA Games in Perth. I am thinking 6-8 per stadium would be plausible. 3. As per Point 2, add a Pacific (Tonga, Fiji, Samoa) team. 4. Many of the NRC players are already paid under their SR contracts, so they are free. I am not sure how the rest works, I assume they are semi-pro weekend warriors with day jobs. Since there would be a lot more of these games, There would be an increased burden on the ARU Purse. Another revenue stream needs to be found to fund them. I am keen to hear your thoughts / solutions.

I don't like Automatic places either, but I understand the reasoning. It guarantees 1 more Australian audience, and in a cash starved environment, every dollar counts. Fan's aren't going to switch off in protest, we will watch anything! The modifier I would make is that the home finals should not be automatic, they should be based on merit.

Close to word for word what I would have said, although it's hard to squeeze at least 7 candidates (Japan, Fiji, Tonga, Samoa, Canada, USA, Argentina - and then Uruguay? Singapore based team? S Korea? HK based team? Second Argentine (or US) team?) into the "Pacific" conference. Commercial viability is the issue as with everything. That isn't likely to be the end of it. How quickly does 20 turn into 4 x 6 team conferences (6 from SA if that's what they want and one of the Pacific Islands teams added to each of Aust & NZ, the remaining Pacific Islands team and Japan, Canada, US, Argentina plus maybe a 2nd Argentine team)? That's a 19 game regular season (home and away intra-conference, 3 from each of the other conferences) which is getting to the outer limits of what is possible I suspect. Picking which of Fiji, Tonga and Samoa goes to Australia and which to NZ (and which remains in the Pacific) would be very difficult - so much so that 25 teams almost works better in 5 x 5 team conferences - 5 SA; 5 Aust; 5 NZ; Fiji, Samoa, Tonga, Japan and another (Singapore? S Korea? HK?) and 5 from the Americas. You could get that easily to an 18 game regular season (8 intra, 2 or 3 from each of the other conferences, alternating year to year so everyone plays everyone else once in 2 years). I acknowledge the finals would be messy. Money, money, money would be the issue of course. Availability of talent, and one country possibly dominating the early years would be others.

Josh, it costs nothing to dream, regardless of what kind of schedule we discuss or table formats that please. The bottom line is; the ARU are not financially in the position to support 5 OZ Super franchises period. The ARU need to shoulder much of the inapt governance but all 5 clubs have sorry tales to convey. Short sighted committees, to inappropriate players, coaches and not identifying that rugby has moved on, hence the supporter is becoming frustrated. The ARU are now only interested in financial returns to keep the sport buoyant, this is a double edged sword, you may collect today but someone will pay tomorrow.

What is so very wrong with the following?: A. 6 S.A. Teams B. 5 Kiwi Teams + Jag C. 5 Aus teams + Sunwolves. Each team plays EVERY other team -- i.e. 17 games. But time may not allow that, so reduce the number of games, that will still allow bye(s). Although not as fair as playing every other team, it certainly would be a lot fairer than the current system. Alternatively the Kiwi & Aus Conference teams play each other once ( 11 games) + 3 SA teams (rotated every year) + 2 All-Kiwis and 2 Aus home and away (2 local-derby games). (Jag & Sunwolves play each other twice). TOTAL = 16 games, SA would play 3 Kiwi & 3 Aus teams (6 games as above) + 5 local derbies twice (10 games). TOTAL 16 games. FINALS: 5 Teams -- Top team from each Conference (Top overall team a bye in first week of finals) , + the next 2 from any conference. (Based on this years results, that would probably give the Kiwis a deserved 3 teams in the Finals I know that there are still some faults with the above plan, but surely it is a better option than culling 3 teams, and fairer and easier to understand than the current model? Few in Aus & NZ watch games in SA on Fox, while SA supporters really prefer local derbies

I would simply make it 20, four groups of five - NZ, AU, SA and others (2 Arg, 1 JP, 1 Pacific, 1 North America). Eight games in the group, nine outside (three from each other group). 1st and 2nd in each group go to finals (top overall vs lowest, etc). Local derbies and finals bring highest revenue, there would be plenty for all groups.

The distances involved require conferences. I like both systems. The first one brings in the idea of playing teams across counties and brings in a system of playing for each position, so everyone has something to play for. The reply is a system that is the simplest to understand but has the drawback of being too similar to CC in SA. Maybe when a 2nd American team is added, another Asian team and a Mid East team, there could be 3 groups of 7.

Actuslly Rebellion, a Super 12 could actually work, in conjunction with a vibrant NRC. Only 3 OZ teams engage in Super Rugby, but any one of 8 NRC teams potentially can make the 3. The ARU to support with stadia and resources any team that makes the top 3. The top 3 also allowed to 'stock up' with 2 select players from other NRC clubs. In this way the 3 teams would still have an even share of Wallabies. I doubt S12 will happen now with the suits in expansion mode. In any event, if SAANZAR has the imagination to create a local comp covering 2/3 of the plsnet, it is certainly time fir us to imagine a comp from Brisbane to Darwin and from Sydney to Perth.

I would hate to have to endure that comp. Super Xll please and NO FARKING CONFERENCE SYSTEM !!!!

I would keep things even simpler. Three conferences of six as described. SA, Aus + SunWolves and Kiwi + Argies. I would opt for more games by having a Home and Away against all your conference teams and the Home or Away against all out of conference teams. This would make a 22 game season and give each side 11 home games and 10 derbies (8 in Aus and Kiwi technically). If 22 games is too many (I don't think it is) then the out of conference games could be limited to three out of each conference year about so you will always have every nation playing every other. You would still miss some teams but het them the following year. Not perfect which is why I prefer the 22 game season. For finals, the top 6 on the log by points. No automatic places, merit only. I think this would work better than any option SANZAAR have proffered so far. The quality issue is not an expansion problem, it is a national set-up problem which I believe is an entirely different conversation.