Removing teams won't fix Super Rugby

Based in current standings no matter what happens a far more deserving team is going to be knocked out of the finals. Due to toss ridiculous format. The NZ teams currently sit in front of the Brumbies by 4, 13, 16, 20 and 30 points respectively. and 7, 16, 19, 23 and 33 points in front of the Stormers. How is that fair?

That may or may not be true. However the conference system allows for stronger teams to be disadvantaged through travel and it allows weaker teams to make the 8 and stronger teams to drop 8. The top 8 are on current pts not the top 8 teams. It's unlikely to happen but there is the real possibilty the Brumbies could take out the title yet don't even sit in the form top 8 teams. No matter who the Brumbies opposition will be they will be disadvantaged by having to travel to Canberra when rightfully they should have the home advantage being higher on the points table brings

Wouldn't it be sad if all the finals are played on cold windy wet and heavy fields in New Zealand....sorry Kiwis you have a beautiful country but your weather sucks.

Went to the final last year. It was a rainy cold windy Wellington day. The Lions struggled to get the ball wide and the Canes rush defense was very effective, partially aided with an offside line was officiated as if it is in the middle of the ruck. The conditions demanded a good kicking game, Jantjies and Fav could not deliver, Barett could. The early chances the Lions had to convert pressure into points failed, while the Canes took their changes. It was horrible conditions, a horrible game to watch and a poor advertisement for Superugby. It reminded me of the all New Zealand final played in Christchurch where the fog were so thick that you could not even see the game on TV. I really hope the final will be played outside New Zealand as the weather in New Zealand really sucks. The Sunday after the final was a nice sunny winters day but you do not get many of these in Wellington.

In the 80s we used to laugh at how ponderous & slow the ABs backs were, mainly mentally, compared to our flat-footed geniuses - Ella, O'Connor, Moon, Gould, Campese. Who's laughing now? Byt he 90s the Kiwis had caught up to us in backline play but we still produced players of rare quality - Horan, Little, Herbert, Burke, Roff. Sadly, in the last decade & a half our intellectual rugby capacity has collapsed, off the field as well as on. And with it the skill base that made the Wallabies so successful in the 80s, 90s & early 2000s. The Kiwis have evolved but the Aussies have gone backwards.

......exactly, those of yours and my persuasion are obsolete culturally speaking. This is why I don't support any elite tier of sport (a term that needs to be replaced with something that represents it more accurately) today because to do so would be the height of hypocrisy.

New Zealand is going through a good patch at the moment and the Kiwi supporters are adamant that their players are on a different planet than anyone else. They won 23-0 games! The margins in elite sports are hwoever much smaller than this statistics suggest. I watched the games the Force played against several top sides including the Crusader, Lions, Chiefs and Canes. The Force is seen as a poor side, the team is in danger of being "axed", the team is young and inexperienced and they played against the current Superugby champions with several experienced All Blacks that are currently the best in their position in the world. It should have been a massacre, however the Force dominated territory and possession. The reason they did not win was that they could not convert their dominance into points. Yesm the star stuck referee that refuse to ditch out a yellow cards for repetitive offensives, played a role. However the reason the Force did not win was that they still lack the cohesion, variety, patience and combinations to break down defences that will come with playing together for longer. When they start to win games, they will find like the Lions that the will benefit from better referees appointed to more important games and will get the rub of the green more often. The wheel will turn and the gap is not as big.

Super Rugby is a business, The business's objective is to make (or lose less) money. Do you think we would have been glued to our screens watching the Tahs, Force, Reds and Brumbies games this weekend if the result was long decided and the Blues were a 5th NZ team in the finals? I am certain that SANZAAR and Fox don't think so. As fans we also love the Local Derbies, I don't hear a lot of complaints about a home and away grudge matches. What if each year the Reds only Played the Tah's once per season. I would expect to hear gripes about home advantage. The world cup has the same problem. England were probably good enough to get a quarter finals berth, but probability and statistics got in the way. At the end of the day, we really only remember NZ triumphant over Australia in the final and Japan beating the Boks because we love the underdog. As fans I think the collective WE need to "get over" this issue. In Ty's conclusion, the Stormers and Brumbies should be washed away in the quarters, cleansing the comp of the dirt. Golden Lions, Zoolanders, Canes and Sadists will duke it out in the semi's, with the results determined by injuries sustained in what I predict to be a brutal series of contests against the old BIL over the next 3 weeks. And, no, I don't think the Cheifs will make it through the quarters but don't rule out the possibility.

This is to put it quite simply, absolutely abhorrent It's not abhorrent, it's a known and understood possibility, nay, probability of the conference system. It is in fact the very REASON for a conference system. The point of it was to ensure a team from each conference made the finals - and that's what it does.

'We have a T20 cricket comp here in Australia called the Big Bash League (BBL). It’s absolute nonsense, but somehow it sells.' and according to reports is losing as much money as the ARU has to do date on the Rebels

I haven't conveniently left anything out. This is the income statement from the NZRU annual report. As submitted to the NZ tax dept. and audited by Deloitte's. I think you are mistaking the total deal over 5 years (AIG $80mill / 5 years) I do like that NZ is the most marketable brand on the planet and as I replied above just because the others also need us. It also doesn't mean we don't also need them. Just for different reasons

........same, same. Kiwis have not embraced League - have they? NZ is however far more competitive in League than we are in Union........

You have conveniently omitted their Addidas, Swiss Watch Maker (sorry name alludes me) not to mention numerous other sponsorship deals which now equate to approximately $200 million per year before you even take the broadcasting revenue into account. There's no denying that SA is important however they do not hold as many keys as they used to. Also it pays to note that South Africa or Australia would not be able to demand as much money or even generate as much money without NZs involvement. Like it or not NZ is the most marketable rugby brand on the planet and every nation in the world knows this.

How is it any different to Rugby League which is dominated by Australians and only truly relevant in three countries?

BB I don't know that poor player development lands at the feet of Super Rugby. I think the blame for that lies elsewhere. NZ have fewer teams, (same as Aus) and yet have had no issues with player development in the last 10 years. And was even more starkly shown in the recent Babas match, where players who don't have full-time contracts showed no lack of development or determination, just less talent. In fact, I would argue SR has given NZ rugby a massive lift. The acknowledgement and willingness to learn from the brutality and directness of SA rugby and the open back play of Aus Rugby, Has meant NZ has developed a hybrid with which regular SR games has been honed and developed. Both Aus and SA have been more stubborn in their "traditional" styles and as such have stagnated.

I did, 2016 Annual Report (published April 2017) Income 2016 - 2015 Broadcast rights 73,126 - 37,527 Sponsorship and Licensing 55,015 - 53,883 Matchday 17,576 - 4,190 These numbers are both post-AIG and new broadcast deal Now you can see why they were keen to expand the competition and how detrimental the RWC is to gate takings.

One doesn't have to be mutually exclusive to the other to be true. There is no doubt the NZ SR teams playing regularly against SA teams also generate significant income for SA in both Gate and Broadcast rights

'For this season it clearly points to lesser teams making finals than better ones.' Nothing unusual in a conference system and they have played a different set of opponents

The Lions were just outplayed in the Final. In the Quarters and Semis they played outstanding Rugby to beat the Highlanders and Crusaders who kept coming at them. The Brumbies won a semi at Loftus so winning a final in SA is doable.

The Lions beat the Chiefs in Hamilton. There was a loss in the regular season against the Canes