Menu
Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
New posts
Latest activity
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles and first posts only
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Help Support The Rugby Forum :
Forums
Rugby Union
Super Rugby
Radical Super Rugby proposal
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="TRF_stormer2010" data-source="post: 793954" data-attributes="member: 39190"><p>The problem with a Heineken cup type format is Argentina don't have a viable domestic comp yet. I wonder whether Aussie's one could make up for the loss of games/revenue a change in format would effect. I am sure the ITM and Currie Cups would be sufficient for NZ and SA but even then probably only just would be my assumption. </p><p></p><p>I think we've gone too far to back out now. The only way forward I see is going even bigger and splitting into a two tier competition. I'd add more teams to make the bottom tier viable and have a 12 team top tier. Top 6 from the top tier and top 2 from the lower tier go through to play-offs played in QFs, SFs and a grand final. Each tier should IMO be a regular round robin with a draw determining which teams you play at home and which away.</p><p></p><p>As is I'd have:</p><p></p><p>Highlanders, Hurricanes, Chiefs, Crusaders, Stormers, Bulls, Lions, Sharks, Reds, Brumbies, Waratahs and Rebels in the top tier with</p><p></p><p>Jaguares, Blues, Force, Kings, Cheetahs, Sunwolves and 4 others in the bottom tier. Maybe PI teams, 2nd teams from Argentina or Japan or even the USA or Canada while we've broken our NH cherry with Japan's inclusion. </p><p></p><p>Sure, top 2 from the bottom tier going on to finals might seem very generous but I feel there needs to be a link between the two tiers for the sake of tournament coherency so that fans of a team in the bottom tier would still have a reason to watch the top tier games or visa versa and its difficult to say who might step up or not in any year. The Jaguares for instance might be hurting this year but they might just as easily go from strength to strength next year (or even this year still). We'll also see more strength vs strength matches at least more regularly.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="TRF_stormer2010, post: 793954, member: 39190"] The problem with a Heineken cup type format is Argentina don't have a viable domestic comp yet. I wonder whether Aussie's one could make up for the loss of games/revenue a change in format would effect. I am sure the ITM and Currie Cups would be sufficient for NZ and SA but even then probably only just would be my assumption. I think we've gone too far to back out now. The only way forward I see is going even bigger and splitting into a two tier competition. I'd add more teams to make the bottom tier viable and have a 12 team top tier. Top 6 from the top tier and top 2 from the lower tier go through to play-offs played in QFs, SFs and a grand final. Each tier should IMO be a regular round robin with a draw determining which teams you play at home and which away. As is I'd have: Highlanders, Hurricanes, Chiefs, Crusaders, Stormers, Bulls, Lions, Sharks, Reds, Brumbies, Waratahs and Rebels in the top tier with Jaguares, Blues, Force, Kings, Cheetahs, Sunwolves and 4 others in the bottom tier. Maybe PI teams, 2nd teams from Argentina or Japan or even the USA or Canada while we've broken our NH cherry with Japan's inclusion. Sure, top 2 from the bottom tier going on to finals might seem very generous but I feel there needs to be a link between the two tiers for the sake of tournament coherency so that fans of a team in the bottom tier would still have a reason to watch the top tier games or visa versa and its difficult to say who might step up or not in any year. The Jaguares for instance might be hurting this year but they might just as easily go from strength to strength next year (or even this year still). We'll also see more strength vs strength matches at least more regularly. [/QUOTE]
Verification
Post reply
Forums
Rugby Union
Super Rugby
Radical Super Rugby proposal
Top