The Pro 14 conference system is better than the Super Rugby model, so should SANZAAR adopt promotion and relegation?
I would adopt a Super Rugby competition of 20 teams, split into ten premier teams and ten first-division teams.
In the premier league you could guarantee at least two teams from South Africa, New Zealand and Australia, as well as one from Argentina. The other 13 can come from anywhere.
Each team in the premiership would plays each other twice, making 18 games in total – two more than currently played. We’d skip the quarters and just have a semi-final and a final, with cities bidding to host the biggest game of the year.
This has a team playing a maximum of 20 games, which is only one more than at present.
A slightly different scoring system would also be adopted, forcing home teams to earn their points a little harder, while also rewarding away teams that come really close.
With regards to relegation and promotion, since my idea involves guaranteeing at least two from the big nations and one from Argentina, if any of these teams find themselves in the relegation zone, they would have to playoff against their own country’s top first division team.
The bottom team would be relegated, with no playoff, while the top team in the first division would be promoted – this is guaranteed.
Eighth and ninth place in the premiership would go into the playoffs, joined by the second and third teams in the first division. Games would be held over a 15-day period around the same weekends as the finals, with each of the four teams playing at the same stadium – not the same as the final, but another hosted city. Each team would play each other once.
Each Saturday at the same venue you would get a double header, with the top two teams then proceeding to the premiership and the bottom two going to the first division.
[latest_videos_strip category=”rugby” name=”Rugby”]
To accommodate 20 teams, they would need to play Thursday through Sunday, with a game on each day, leaving the premier league games to Saturday – have one Thursday game, two on Friday, five on Saturday, and two on Sunday.
To the issue of depth, there is no reason why New Zealand, Australia or South Africa cannot have seven teams. The Pacific Islands could have two, the Argentinians could also have two.
Playing-wise, anyone could play for anyone, so a draft pick system and a transfer window would be excellent.
The AFL draft is great way to start. The new five teams could pick two players each to start with, however first teams would be allowed to pick their own countrymen – so the Lions, Stormers, Sharks and Bulls would have first crack at a South African player, then if no team wants them, they then get offered to other nations’ teams. The order of pick would be based on the table at the end of the last season.
With regards to money, the only way that first division sides would last is if they had their share of the revenue from, meaning every one of the ten games per week must be shown on TV.
Ultimately, this would see more games, with games being spread over four days of the week instead of just two, teams could manage their players better – ending the need for any to be rested – and if teams have to travel, they could play a Thursday game prior to travel and play their first game the following Saturday or Sunday, giving them more time to prepare.
Feel free to criticise and or compliment, as I am interested in additional ideas to reinvigorate the current, boring system.
Unanimous
Guest
None of what I said was negative towards soccer. Why is it good for a sport to be so taxing that you can't play more than 30 times per year? Sure 60 games per year is better, and enables teams to play in several competitions per year. It's quite easy to prove statistically that results of individual soccer games are more random than other sports. That's not a negative statement either. It's why soccer is so successful. The "equalisation" so sought by other sports is built into the rules of the game.
Chris
Guest
Back in 1994 I loved how both Amateur Rugby Union had an International calendar alongside a world cup, Hong Kong 7's ( always seemed to be packed) and the club scene seemed to be less complicated with Shute Shield, NPC, Currie Cup, France club system was the same as today but without the sugar daddies, England had a good but more confusing issue with the league set up and the likes of Bath, Leicester etc getting good crowds but also the County Championship brought in big crowds like Cornwall etc. Rugby League and the ARL was straight forward and with 4 teams to enter the Winfield Cup in 1995 things were looking good and back in blighty the Challenge Cup was pulling over 70000 at Wembley alongside club team jerseys for both codes were nice, smart and simple and watching a game wasn't expensive. Now both codes are all over the place with competitions, rules, timezones, ugly tight jerseys and even too many types of non contact Footy going about as well alongside you need a full wallet to support your team. I just wish those in charge could see this and make the games and culture and structure more simple ala the NFL.
Colvin Brown
Guest
It will be interesting to see what form of competition is finally chosen. There's no doubt the conference system was created because of a long term dream of mirroring American Football where Super Bowl Sunday is one of the biggest sporting events in the world. And that's based on conferences, Play-Offs and Super Bowl Sunday with its entertainment and huge tradition. So the concept of one league might improve the current situation but doesn't really look to a long term solution. I'm sure there's some pretty smart minds working out the best way to go. I'm of a mind that the conference system is best but the travel situation has to be better addressed, playing some teams twice and other teams not at all is a problem and the Play-Off system has to be fixed. And I like the US system where cities apply to be Super-Bowl host cities based on meeting host city criteria and parties and entertainment abound. Over there it's a big deal and we don't really need to re-invent the wheel. But we need to be careful or we will blow-up what we've got.
sheek
Guest
Every couple of months someone will try the promotion-relegation angle. Why? How deeply have you thought this through? Back in the late 70s/early 80s they tried promotion-relegation in Sydney Shute Shield district rugby & it was an abject failure. As soon as a club was demoted the key players left & signed up with a another first division club. Sponsors, as few as there were, were always more willing to invest in first division clubs. This made it increasingly difficult for the demoted club to seek re-promotion. And we're talking amateur era, when players were supposedly uninfluenced by chasing money. But they were drawn to stronger clubs that improved their chances of rep selection. What makes you think promotion-relegation will work in super rugby? What happens if the Argentine team is the one relegated? Or an Aussie team? And the two teams promoted are both from NZ? Good for NZ, suck eggs for everyone else. And how will a NZ-centric super rugby comp appeal to Australian, Argentine & South African fans? My plan is to have four enclosed domestic comps, with the top two from each domestic comp going into the Champion's Cup, or super rugby component. Yeah, the Kiwis might win the CC most often, but at least we get to watch our own teams play each other in our own national domestic comp with mostly our own players on home grounds in front of home crowds & time friendly start times. However, it's all pie in the sky stuff anyway. We're rooted being unable to match the huge money from Europe, & we simply don't have enough local quality players to put-up a domestic comp to attract sufficient interest away from AFL or NRL. Plus no-one at WR, RA, SANZAAR or whoever else, have the balls to set in place protections for southern hemisphere rugby. Or more to the point, any rugby outside of Europe. Super rugby is stuffed. And so is Australian rugby. And soon so will NZ rugby. The lure of the ABs jersey won't be enough to keep players in NZ forever. Very soon that will change. The southern hemisphere will simply become a production farm for cashed up northern hemisphere clubs.
sheek
Guest
Regrettably I think this comment is ignorant of soccer. Try telling a left back fullback that soccer's an easier game. He plays his sideline (left or right) forward & back all day, alternating between defence & attack. As for the scoring, it's about converting opportunities. But first, you have to create opportunities. 12 shots on goal might only get you one or two goals. But that's better than the other team, who might create 8 shots on goal for one goal. Think of scoring goals in soccer as being similar to hits in baseball. A successful hit in baseball gets you to 1st base. The best-ever hitter in MLB history had a success rate of just .366. That means he successfully got to 1st base only 37 times out of every 100 at bat. And he was the best! I believe that generally speaking, there are few lucky wins in soccer. Usually, although not always, the team that creates more opportunities will finish in front on the scoreboard.
Unanimous
Guest
Agree about funding of second division. It's common to have teams excluded from going past a certain level and also for non-performance factors such as geography, stadium size, and financial viability to be factors in promotion. Both English and French rugby systems have such considerations, and almost all soccer leagues too. It's actually rare for promotion and relegation to be purely performance based. In many ways it makes more sense to promote the team with the best crowd figures rather than the top finisher. There's often a close correspondence anyway, and really where there isn't a close correspondence it doesn't work anyway.
Cadfael
Roar Guru
Firstly, who pays for the second division teams and their expenses. Sponsors want to be associated with the top league. Gun players in the top end will be out looking for contract changes if their side is relegated. Costs will be a big consideration. In Pro 14, distance isn't an issue. Here it is. Secondly, with promotion and relegation, it has to be all or nothing. You can't have some teams being exempt. Again with Pro 14 and the premiership, promotion and relegation works because there is that next level in all their football codes. Different points for away wins does look a winner.
taylorman
Roar Guru
...we’re now ‘even the Blues...’... a burden on society, a relic...sad but true...?
Unanimous
Guest
It's more to do with the fact that soccer is the major sport. In soccer, talent doesn't translate to results in the same way it does in most other sports. There is an average of 2-3 scoring events per match. Lucky wins are prevalent, and this has as much equalisation effect as a draft and salary cap put together. This enables divisions to work well for soccer in a wide range of markets, and at all levels. Soccer is also a relatively un-taxing sport, and this enables a lot of matches per year and a number of knock out competitions to be open to teams in all divisions. Because soccer is popular in Europe, some other sports in Europe have copied the division system at the top level, but it rarely works as well. It works badly in English rugby for example. At lower levels it can work because there is not much difference between teams.
OracleRugby
Roar Rookie
Thank you Cpt crow eater, I have to say I have thought about it for a while and judging by the comments you do not stand alone, it is quite novel!!
AndyS
Guest
Which might work if it were two divisions in one country, but not over multiple countries. Just can't see Japan (as the supposed great financial hope) seeing their contribution paying for players in other countries in a division they don't even play in or have a reason to watch. If they were in that position, better for them to just have a separate comp and at least keep the money in house.
Nobrain
Roar Guru
Who will pay for such a team and what the players of that team will be doing or playing against when is jot in SR?
Cpt crow eater
Guest
Loving the idea of more points for winning away. Never thought of that, but really like the idea of rewarding an away win
Train Without A Station
Roar Guru
Yeah. It's basically a different market. In the UK for example for the majority of England you have a rugby team, or a football team that represent towns. In Northampton for example you have 2nd div football team and 1st div rugby team in a town of 750k people. We just don't have the large regional population bases that will maintain enough interest. We only have 17 cities/towns with 100k people or more. Of those 17 Brisbane is one of them, and is within 2 hours drive to another 3 of them (Gold Coast, Sunshine Coast and Toowoomba). Likewise Melbourne and Sydney. When you get regions like this, if one team is in div 1 and another in div 2, fan interest migrates to the better standard.
P2R2
Roar Rookie
that means on merit x4 NZ teams....x1 AUS and maybe x2 SA...on merit as you say
P2R2
Roar Rookie
SA dollars or SA Rands....at .11c NZ it is rubbish
piru
Roar Rookie
The fact the teams represent a town or area means they have rusted on fans as well, their parents and grandparents and great grandparents all supported the same team. We just don't have that
Train Without A Station
Roar Guru
I don't see promotion and relegation working for top level sport in Australia. Teams that find themselves in the lower division would just slowly die. It works in Europe because of private ownership where owners can basically invest a lot more into lower div teams than their opponents and climb up. The appetite for private ownership isn't the same in Australia.
Working Class Rugger
Guest
The French system has four divisions of pro/semi-pro Rugby.
Celtic334
Guest
Not a bad effort. I like the two division idea, but you over complicated a simple process with the different points for home and away etc.or just having the 10 best teams (Chances are you'd have at least 1 team from SAF, NZ and AUS in the top div anyway) It could be sustainable as you could have two levels of salary caps with the different divisions, top division could be higher than the current cap and the lower division could be lower than the current cap. Meaning you could retain higher level talent in the highest division and the second division could become an excellent breeding ground for younger talent.