SA to leave Super Rugby? SANZAR are considering changing the format of Super Rugby

[TRF_stormer2010]

This is a team which has only made the top nine teams three times in seventeen seasons. Regardless of the player base, you can't justify a team on those results.

The thing about the Lions and the Cheetahs is that they havn't actually been in SR all that long, at least not as separate entities. The Cheetahs have only now started to hold onto a few players and who knows maybe if the Lions managed that they could come to realize their potential. The Lions have also not been able to hold onto their best players like the Cheetahs up till recently with the losses of some key players only a year or two after they've made some steps up; Jaque Fourie, Jano Vermaak, Bryan Habana, Heinke van der Merwe, Jaco Taute, Willem Alberts, Pat Cilliers, Louis Ludik, Ernst Joubert, Bandise Maku, Gerhard Mostert, Grant Hattingh, Rory Kockott, the list can go on and on over the tme of their involvement as the GL in SR.

 

[TRF Mr Fish]

The thing about the Lions and the Cheetahs is that they havn't actually been in SR all that long, at least not as separate entities. The Cheetahs have only now started to hold onto a few players and who knows maybe if the Lions managed that they could come to realize their potential. The Lions have also not been able to hold onto their best players like the Cheetahs up till recently with the losses of some key players only a year or two after they've made some steps up; Jaque Fourie, Jano Vermaak, Bryan Habana, Heinke van der Merwe, Jaco Taute, Willem Alberts, Pat Cilliers, Louis Ludik, Ernst Joubert, Bandise Maku, Gerhard Mostert, Grant Hattingh, Rory Kockott, the list can go on and on over the tme of their involvement as the GL in SR.

And what makes you think this will change now? Why is the Lions a more desirable team to be at in 2014 than pre 2013? I also don't really see how the Cats would be worse than the Lions...

 

[TRF_stormer2010]

And what makes you think this will change now? Why is the Lions a more desirable team to be at in 2014 than pre 2013? I also don't really see how the Cats would be worse than the Lions...

I'm not saying they will be anything more in 2014 than in 2012, quite the opposite probably but that their relegation has put them back probably 5 years ITO development and that if the Cheetahs can reach a play-off off of being able to retain their best players then there is no reason why other franchises can't also. As it stands I would actually prefer the Kings staying and the whole promo/relegation thing to be called off as it means neither team can go forward with any surety. I was jsut saying there were reasons the Lions were doing so poorly and they actually have a lot of promise if (and this would require something resembling a miracle its true) those could be sorted out; surety of place in a competition, income, admin/support staff changes are required, location (Ellis Park's surroundings are a big put-off) and player retention/contracting.

 

[Da Grappla]

Can't see SA leaving SR. Can't see an expanded to Asia, USA&Canada competition either or a team from Pacific Islands (Samoa, Fiji or Tonga are as talented for rugby as poor countries and is just business we are talking about), unless something like NBA/NFL model would be implemented.

It is not because I wouldn't like to see a world competition with european teams involved, but just because of geography and subsonic planes...

 

[Jayatron]

http://www.espn.co.uk/super-rugby-2013/rugby/story/193559.html

Is this the same news report, just with a different interpretation? ESPN Scrum reported this in a much more positive light, that got me really excited about full professional rugby moving into Argentina, USA and Canada and the possible expansion of Super Rugby into Japan.

I would love to see what ESPN are talking actually happening, be great for world rugby.

 

[nickdnz]

Personally I get sick of playing NZ sides twice anyway, so further into a conference system could be a bit annoying under a 10 team conference. I wouldn't mind if we still only played eachother once so much and then played a QF, SF and Final with the other conference.

 

[TRF_Ezequiel]

Well, the issue is Australia not having a national competition. Both SA and NZ feel the conference system makes it redundant for us because of the Currie Cup and ITM Cup.

The only difference is that we see the top players compete in Super Rugby, but still, home and away is too much. We hardly have any time left for other matches. This year, we had the play-off with the Lions and Kings, but it caused possible issues with players on loan from the Lions because the matches were played on the same day as the Super Rugby play-offs.

If the ARU can finally get their crap together and start a profitable national championship, the whole conference system can we replaced by a simple round-robin competition.

 

[OneBlackEye]

South Africa denying its players game time against the best players from NZ and Oz is beyond retarded. It will never happen, its total suicide. RC or not.

Im enjoying all this banter about alternative competitions though.

I like the idea of a 2 tier competition, but using this year as an example, if the Highlanders were relegated then some All Blacks or potential All Blacks would be playing in tier 2 next year (hypothetically), which brings up my initial point about exposure to players from other countries.

It would make player contracts a very very tricky business. I dont want Ben Smith or Nonu playing a Super season against 2nd rate opposition before a WC year. Then again the Chiefs won with few Abs so who knows?

The current format gives Oz an unfair advantage though which is pretty clear to everyone so some change would be nice.

 

[nickdnz]

Personally I'd love to say ***** the franchises - ITM Cup, Currie Cup and w/e Australian domestic comp (which doesn't exist) - and introduce a H-Cup and Amlin Cup tournament within the Domestic season. It would be the easiest way to expand with Argentinian and Japan teams - as you'd only have to change the ratio of teams entering the finals (so hypothetically 7 New Zealand teams, 7 South African teams, 5 Australian teams, 3 Japanese teams and 2 Argentinian teams - in both the H-Cup and Amlin Cup style tournament. I made a model of this a few years ago.

South Africa denying its players game time against the best players from NZ and Oz is beyond retarded. It will never happen, its total suicide. RC or not.

Im enjoying all this banter about alternative competitions though.

I like the idea of a 2 tier competition, but using this year as an example, if the Highlanders were relegated then some All Blacks or potential All Blacks would be playing in tier 2 next year (hypothetically), which brings up my initial point about exposure to players from other countries.

It would make player contracts a very very tricky business. I dont want Ben Smith or Nonu playing a Super season against 2nd rate opposition before a WC year. Then again the Chiefs won with few Abs so who knows?

The current format gives Oz an unfair advantage though which is pretty clear to everyone so some change would be nice.

Because I would make it the ITM Cup teams rather than the SR teams, it would mean less players get relegated. Also it would increase the standard of the ITM Cup teams when having all the AB's avalible, so it would be back as a premier competition, while still having access to other conference top teams.

 

[munstermuffin]

If HEC is scrapped they may revisit the "Rainbow Cup" concept from all them years ago

 

[TRF Mr Fish]

Personally I'd love to say ***** the franchises - ITM Cup, Currie Cup and w/e Australian domestic comp (which doesn't exist) - and introduce a H-Cup and Amlin Cup tournament within the Domestic season. It would be the easiest way to expand with Argentinian and Japan teams - as you'd only have to change the ratio of teams entering the finals (so hypothetically 7 New Zealand teams, 7 South African teams, 5 Australian teams, 3 Japanese teams and 2 Argentinian teams - in both the H-Cup and Amlin Cup style tournament. I made a model of this a few years ago.



Because I would make it the ITM Cup teams rather than the SR teams, it would mean less players get relegated. Also it would increase the standard of the ITM Cup teams when having all the AB's avalible, so it would be back as a premier competition, while still having access to other conference top teams.

You don't still have the model somewhere do you? I'm struggling to imagine how it would work.

 

[nickdnz]

You don't still have the model somewhere do you? I'm struggling to imagine how it would work.

Nah - and I'm too lazy to troll through my posts.

To put it shortly -

You'd have the ITM Cup (remove the championship/Premiership), Currie Cup, Australian league, Japan league and Argentinian league.

Either mid way through - or directly after you'd have a H-Cup and Amlin style competiton style competition. So the top half of the ITM Cup plays in the main tournament and the bottom half plays in the promotional tournament. There would be 6 pool of four with each team playing home and away (the pravel isn't such an issue considering there are only 4 away matches in total). The winner of each pool - as well as the two best performing runner ups play in a play offs. It's literally the H-Cup format, but placing more importance on our domestic leagues rather than the franchises. So for example:

Premier Tournament

Pool A: Blue Bulls, Wellington Lions, Western Force, Japan Team
Pool B: Western Province, Canterbury, Argenina team A, Queensland Reds
Pool C: Auckland, Brumbies, Free State Cheetahs, Japan Team
Pool D: Waikato, Golden Lions, Argentina team, Melbourne Rebels
Pool E: Waratahs, Japan Team, Natal Sharks, Otago
Pool F: Eastern Province Kings, Hawkes Bay, Griquas, Bay of Plenty

Then do a similar structure with a championship.

 

[smartcooky]

Nah - and I'm too lazy to troll through my posts.

To put it shortly -

You'd have the ITM Cup (remove the championship/Premiership), Currie Cup, Australian league, Japan league and Argentinian league.

Either mid way through - or directly after you'd have a H-Cup and Amlin style competiton style competition. So the top half of the ITM Cup plays in the main tournament and the bottom half plays in the promotional tournament. There would be 6 pool of four with each team playing home and away (the pravel isn't such an issue considering there are only 4 away matches in total). The winner of each pool - as well as the two best performing runner ups play in a play offs. It's literally the H-Cup format, but placing more importance on our domestic leagues rather than the franchises. So for example:

Premier Tournament

Pool A: Blue Bulls, Wellington Lions, Western Force, Japan Team
Pool B: Western Province, Canterbury, Argenina team A, Queensland Reds
Pool C: Auckland, Brumbies, Free State Cheetahs, Japan Team
Pool D: Waikato, Golden Lions, Argentina team, Melbourne Rebels
Pool E: Waratahs, Japan Team, Natal Sharks, Otago
Pool F: Eastern Province Kings, Hawkes Bay, Griquas, Bay of Plenty

Then do a similar structure with a championship.

Its a nice idea nick, but small unions like Manawatu, Tasman and Counties simply could not afford away trips to places like Argentina, South Africa and Japan.

Also, one of the nice things about the franchise system is that it involves ALL of the top 150 players in New Zealand in the highest possible level of domestic rugby. Your system would mean that players like Tom Marshall (Tasman), Aaron Smith & Aaron Cruden (Manawatu), Ben Smith (Otago), Ben Afeaki & Francis Saili (North Harbour), Ben Franks, Israel Dagg, Zac Guildford & Gillies Kaka (Hawkes Bay) will all be playing lower levels of competition. Do we really want that?

Well, the issue is Australia not having a national competition. Both SA and NZ feel the conference system makes it redundant for us because of the Currie Cup and ITM Cup.

The only difference is that we see the top players compete in Super Rugby, but still, home and away is too much. We hardly have any time left for other matches. This year, we had the play-off with the Lions and Kings, but it caused possible issues with players on loan from the Lions because the matches were played on the same day as the Super Rugby play-offs.

If the ARU can finally get their crap together and start a profitable national championship, the whole conference system can we replaced by a simple round-robin competition.

There is no reason why it has to be profitable, if the ARU simply understood the philosophy of having it.

The ITM Cup is not profitable. It loses money, but from the NZRU standpoint, carrying on with it is a no-brainer, they rightly consider it vital to the development of players. The NZRU considers the ITM cup as a "cost of doing business"

If you want to see what the shape of New Zealand Super-Rugby rugby in 2015, watch the ITM Cup THIS year.

 

[nickdnz]

Its a nice idea nick, but small unions like Manawatu, Tasman and Counties simply could not afford away trips to places like Argentina, South Africa and Japan.

At the moment they can't, I agree. But if you got rid of Super Rugby teams the NZRU would have more money to put into ITM Cup teams. I'd also guess that the turnouts for a meaningful domestic league in terms of people in the stands would be considerably higher than the current turnout - as for example Hurricanes get 10,000 to a home game, while Hawkes Bay, Manawatu and Taranaki rarely ever see the Canes', while also being turned off by the ITM Cup teams as its second tier with none of the star players. The cash from the gates would certainly make more. The big issue is whether we'd get the same sponsorship deals in a domestic league without the RSA audience.

Also, one of the nice things about the franchise system is that it involves ALL of the top 150 players in New Zealand in the highest possible level of domestic rugby. Your system would mean that players like Tom Marshall (Tasman), Aaron Smith & Aaron Cruden (Manawatu), Ben Smith (Otago), Ben Afeaki & Francis Saili (North Harbour), Ben Franks, Israel Dagg, Zac Guildford & Gillies Kaka (Hawkes Bay) will all be playing lower levels of competition. Do we really want that?

Well - for a start they will always be playing on the same level as other NZ teams within the domestic league. I don't think for example teams such as Gloucester have disadvantaged their players by missing out on the H-Cup this season - in fact their players seem to have improved with playing for promotion.

There is no reason why it has to be profitable, if the ARU simply understood the philosophy of having it.

The ITM Cup is not profitable. It loses money, but from the NZRU standpoint, carrying on with it is a no-brainer, they rightly consider it vital to the development of players. The NZRU considers the ITM cup as a "cost of doing business"

If you want to see what the shape of New Zealand Super-Rugby rugby in 2015, watch the ITM Cup THIS year.


Agreed

Obviously I know it is much more problematic than this. I just really don't want to see a conference system pushed further in Super Rugby, I much preferred the old system of everyone plays each other once. It was initially introduced as "These darbies are what people really want to see, so they are lucky enough to get it twice!". Well I never bought that. It has always come accross to me as "We'll save money by lowering transport costs - however we'll advantage the conference with the worst teams, make fixtures which devalues the rivalries and makes them repetitive". I just find the current system boring and it limits large parts of the NZ community from fully supporting a team because they don't identify with what in effect is still the Auckland Blues, Waikato Chiefs, Wellington Hurricanes, Canterbury Crusaders and Otago Highlanders. With no promotion and relegation and two of the same fixtures a year - I can't help but feel it's just becoming stagnant.

 

[Jayatron]

I agree with smartcooky. NZ and SA need to keep the Franchises and keep the ITM and Currie Cups as the production line for top rated talent. I really think us in the Northern Hemisphere need to copy the South as much as possible. Not sure what format Super Rugby format should take but I would love to see the inclusion of Argentina teams, not just for the league but also for South American rugby.

As I said we in the North need to copy the South, as should Argentina. It would be great to see a semi/professional domestic Argentina Provincial championship that could run under newly established Super rugby teams just like the ITM or Currie cup. And within that league they include a team or two from both Chile and Uruguay to help all of South American rugby.

 

[Canadian_Rugger]

I am going to chime in here, being the neutral Canadian. From my perspective, you guys need to stop re-inventing the wheel every year and work with the product you already have. Super Rugby is a great product but this continuous infighting between the unions is what is de-valuing the product. I personally view the whole relegation/promotion crap that is going on in South Africa right now as a complete farce. If South Africa wants another Super Rugby team, let them have another one, just re-negotiate your TV contracts, etc... and allow them to have a sixth team in their conference. Will this screw up scheduling? Not if you change the way you schedule games, maybe it will mean a couple of teams don't get played against that season.

The biggest mistake rugby is making right now is it is letting national unions dictate the growth of the professional game. Super Rugby is an awesome product but for the long-term stability of professional rugby in the Southern-Hemisphere it needs to be placed at the top and right now it is not because the unions are more concerned about preserving the status of their national teams and not developing the game further. I am personally in favour of a total removal of all import restrictions on players, privatize all teams and let them sign whoever they choose. National unions are like government, they are great at managing bloated bureaucracies but when it comes to making money, they don't have a clue.

Super Rugby needs to look outside SANZAR and expand. The aim should be to have at least two teams in Argentina in the next three years. South America is a massive untapped market as you also have Uruguay and Chile who both love rugby as well. Potentially a few of their players might find their way onto an Argentinian side. Everyone talks about expanding into Japan but I personally see that as a waste as they already have the Top League and I doubt the Japanese would want outsiders controlling their rugby, given their culture.

 

[Jayatron]

I am going to chime in here, being the neutral Canadian. From my perspective, you guys need to stop re-inventing the wheel every year and work with the product you already have. Super Rugby is a great product but this continuous infighting between the unions is what is de-valuing the product. I personally view the whole relegation/promotion crap that is going on in South Africa right now as a complete farce. If South Africa wants another Super Rugby team, let them have another one, just re-negotiate your TV contracts, etc... and allow them to have a sixth team in their conference. Will this screw up scheduling? Not if you change the way you schedule games, maybe it will mean a couple of teams don't get played against that season.

The biggest mistake rugby is making right now is it is letting national unions dictate the growth of the professional game. Super Rugby is an awesome product but for the long-term stability of professional rugby in the Southern-Hemisphere it needs to be placed at the top and right now it is not because the unions are more concerned about preserving the status of their national teams and not developing the game further. I am personally in favour of a total removal of all import restrictions on players, privatize all teams and let them sign whoever they choose. National unions are like government, they are great at managing bloated bureaucracies but when it comes to making money, they don't have a clue.

Super Rugby needs to look outside SANZAR and expand. The aim should be to have at least two teams in Argentina in the next three years. South America is a massive untapped market as you also have Uruguay and Chile who both love rugby as well. Potentially a few of their players might find their way onto an Argentinian side. Everyone talks about expanding into Japan but I personally see that as a waste as they already have the Top League and I doubt the Japanese would want outsiders controlling their rugby, given their culture.

Your first and third points I would most certainly agree with, you summed it up perfectly. The product is excellent, and when I lived in NZ I got to see a few matches, which were excellent. But it was before the conference system, so I never got the chance to see Highlanders Vs Crusaders due to the Highlanders only playing them away, certainly home and away matches of the conference system is a strong point.

The expansion of Super Rugby into South America could be huge pull for rugby within the region, and within Japan if they did go there. Teams like the Bulls, Brumbies and Chiefs would just not raise the standards but it would be a massive draw. Also if there was a strong semi/professional domestic game in Argentina, which included team/s from Chile and Uruguay, that acted like a ITM cup that would help rugby even further. Argentina have the largest pre-teen playing population in the world, 500,000 I think. If there was cup which involved Super Rugby players not involved in the Pumas and the best young club players Argentina would soon have a country full of talented players, while also helping Chile, Uruguay and the region in general.

However, I don't agree that privatising teams and removing player restrictions would be a good idea. Though most of the top 10 unions would rather protect their position, the IRFU do a great job of running the game, as do NZ and even SA. Also, look at the fallouts between private leagues and teams, i.e. WRU and the regions, RFU and PRL and SRU and Edinburgh. Also, removing player restrictions would have a knock on effect to the national game and we would have leagues that are like the English football league. Like Cardiff FC, only thing Welsh about them is that they are based in Wales. Unions may be self serving but so are private enterprises, I think the iRB need to step up and invest in a pro league and treat it as a investment into the future rugby growth and a potential revenue stream.

 

[Canadian_Rugger]

Your first and third points I would most certainly agree with, you summed it up perfectly. The product is excellent, and when I lived in NZ I got to see a few matches, which were excellent. But it was before the conference system, so I never got the chance to see Highlanders Vs Crusaders due to the Highlanders only playing them away, certainly home and away matches of the conference system is a strong point.

The expansion of Super Rugby into South America could be huge pull for rugby within the region, and within Japan if they did go there. Teams like the Bulls, Brumbies and Chiefs would just not raise the standards but it would be a massive draw. Also if there was a strong semi/professional domestic game in Argentina, which included team/s from Chile and Uruguay, that acted like a ITM cup that would help rugby even further. Argentina have the largest pre-teen playing population in the world, 500,000 I think. If there was cup which involved Super Rugby players not involved in the Pumas and the best young club players Argentina would soon have a country full of talented players, while also helping Chile, Uruguay and the region in general.

However, I don't agree that privatising teams and removing player restrictions would be a good idea. Though most of the top 10 unions would rather protect their position, the IRFU do a great job of running the game, as do NZ and even SA. Also, look at the fallouts between private leagues and teams, i.e. WRU and the regions, RFU and PRL and SRU and Edinburgh. Also, removing player restrictions would have a knock on effect to the national game and we would have leagues that are like the English football league. Like Cardiff FC, only thing Welsh about them is that they are based in Wales. Unions may be self serving but so are private enterprises, I think the iRB need to step up and invest in a pro league and treat it as a investment into the future rugby growth and a potential revenue stream.

Dude the IRFU just recorded a financial shortfall of 26 million euros and are going to have to cut costs and beg, borrow and steal to stay afloat. If anything, having the unions with their teeth sunk into these teams is holding the game back. Look at Connacht, they are basically a developmental side and are treated as such, if you privatised them and let them bring in their own guys maybe they would be able to actually compete. The national game needs to exist in harmony with the club game and right now that itis horribly skewed in favour of the unions on many country. Australia is also recording a shortfall and NZ was having financial troubles up until they hosted the WC. If you privatised and took away quotas in the PRO12 and Super 15 you would still have the best NZ players and best Welsh, Irish, Scottish players in each league its just other countries would rise as well because now their might be an influx of foreigner (Argentinians, Romanians, Georgians, Canadians, Americans, Uruguayans, Portuguese, etc) It would make the international game stronger. Right now rugby is run like some sort of communist planned economy and it is holding the game back IMO.

 

[Jayatron]

Dude the IRFU just recorded a financial shortfall of 26 million euros and are going to have to cut costs and beg, borrow and steal to stay afloat. If anything, having the unions with their teeth sunk into these teams is holding the game back. Look at Connacht, they are basically a developmental side and are treated as such, if you privatised them and let them bring in their own guys maybe they would be able to actually compete. The national game needs to exist in harmony with the club game and right now that itis horribly skewed in favour of the unions on many country. Australia is also recording a shortfall and NZ was having financial troubles up until they hosted the WC. If you privatised and took away quotas in the PRO12 and Super 15 you would still have the best NZ players and best Welsh, Irish, Scottish players in each league its just other countries would rise as well because now their might be an influx of foreigner (Argentinians, Romanians, Georgians, Canadians, Americans, Uruguayans, Portuguese, etc) It would make the international game stronger. Right now rugby is run like some sort of communist planned economy and it is holding the game back IMO.

The IRFU have reported a 26 million shortfall in their projected earnings for the coming years. A stupid idea really, selling ten year tickets in a country, the Republic of Ireland, that is broke and a lot of people are finding it hard to survive at the moment, just so the IRFU can have money in the bank. Now taking loans out against national tickets sales. I haven't heard that there will be cost cutting though. The IRFU in terms of the overall game are good in my experience and I promise you that without the IRFU Connacht could not survive and the IRFU have done well driving the game forward, examples being Thormond Park and the RDS. Union supporting the teams is really common because the teams couldn't afford to be open without them. Look at the RFU championship teams, Scottish regions and dozens more. International rugby is the bread winner.


But I take your point about import players, would help other nations but would probably restrict younger players in the host nations.

 

[snoopy snoopy dog dog]

Right now rugby is run like some sort of communist planned economy and it is holding the game back IMO.

Agree 100%. Foreign player spots are severely restricted in Scotland, Wales, Ireland, Italy, New Zealand, South Africa and Australia. France's proposed new rule will further limit opportunities for players from developing nations. The IRB must do something to combat this. Last season for example Leinster played 33 games. If the NIQ quota was increased to a max of 7 (stipulated to be 3 from tier 1 and 4 from tier 2 nations with no more than 4 starters in each team), there'd still be at least 11 starters and 16 Irish players in each match day squad. That doesn't restrict Irish player development, improves tier 2 players development and increases the competitiveness of each squad. The club gets stronger, tier 2 countries become stronger and increased competitiveness at international level boosts commercial revenue for all. Win win.