SuperRugby mulling expansion again

[dudeabides]

Canada and the United States are a step closer to inclusion in an expanded Super Rugby competition in 2016.

Both sides have been included in the Pacific Nations Cup this year, a move praised by SANZAR boss Greg Peters.

"We are considering whether or not we will include new territories in Super Rugby and one of the factors we'll be weighing up is their competitiveness," Peters told The Australian yesterday.

"Super Rugby in its present form is a pretty successful model ... and we are not going to water it down. But we'd be derelict in our duty if we didn't consider expanding into areas. The United States is a very big market and so is Japan and Asia generally. Ultimately it all comes down to what is in the best interests of the three SANZAR parties."

South Africa, Australia and New Zealand will decide later this year whether or not to expand the competition in 2016 when the next broadcast deal starts.

Peters said the travel factor would be a major part of the decision as the competition already involves the most travel of any sports league in the world.

"Player welfare is a big consideration. That said, the conference system does provide us with a degree of flexibility, either in terms of adding new conferences or adding new teams to existing conferences."

The Pacific Nations Cup will provide Canada and the US with their first taste of regular international competition against sides from Japan, Fiji and Tonga.

http://www.stuff.co.nz/sport/rugby/super-rugby/8218105/Super-Rugby-mulls-global-expansion-options

 

[nickdnz]

I've seen similar interviews before. With a domestic league in USA/Canada potentially starting up - I hope this doesn't derail that, especially considering how unlikely the expansion is. An expansion for 2016 is looking likely - seeing what a f-up South Africa has made with the Lions/Southern Kings. That said I still don't know how in the world they intend to have a conference with six teams and the rest with five - I suppose mathmatically it's possible if you water down the points possibly gained in the SA darbies - but that would end for a very messy table with decimal points etc, not to mention the other unions would have to play an extra game.

Expansion into USA/Canda/Japan/Argentina I can't see happening - at least for another 10 years.

 

[TRF_stormer2010]

With 16 teams if every team played every other team once it'd be 15 games per team which is less than the current 16 (8 in-franchise and 8 inter-franchise) but the same in total (15 teams* 16 matches = 16 teams * 15 matches ITO total matches) so the competition doesn't really lose anything.

Wins all round the table or at least for the majority of parties.

I still say drop the conference model and have Aus develop that missing tier of domestic competition instead of high jacking SR and only consider USA, Canada or any other country's team if those countries have a pro domestic league going.

 

[TRF_heineken]

With 16 teams if every team played every other team once it'd be 15 games per team which is less than the current 16 (8 in-franchise and 8 inter-franchise) but the same in total (15 teams* 16 matches = 16 teams * 15 matches ITO total matches) so the competition doesn't really lose anything.

Wins all round the table or at least for the majority of parties.

I still say drop the conference model and have Aus develop that missing tier of domestic competition instead of high jacking SR and only consider USA, Canada or any other country's team if those countries have a pro domestic league going.

They'll play less matches yes, but the travelling will be a lot more, which could influence the player's performance during match day.

 

[TRF_stormer2010]

They'll play less matches yes, but the travelling will be a lot more, which could influence the player's performance during match day.

A player from SA currently plays 2 games in both of NZ and Aus. That's 4 games overseas and 2 countries visited. If you play all of the NZ and Aus teams, half at home and half away then that's just 1 extra game overseas (5) and 1 less in total (15 instead of 16). Still just the two countries and the internal travel over there is minimal in the context of the total with Perth being the only destination to have a marked effect but that is going to be the case for anyone traveling there in any case. NZ and Aus are so close together that the extra game they'd have in SA only seems fair (3 games in SA as opposed to 2 and then the rest down under). So all in all I don't agree that it'd be markedly harder on a player.

 

[Gena_ZA]

Money money money rules and the Pacific Islanders will suffer because of this
Why on earth Aus benefits most is beyond logic

 

[TRF_stormer2010]

Money money money rules and the Pacific Islanders will suffer because of this
Why on earth Aus benefits most is beyond logic

As you say money rules and while Aus is the strongest economy of the SANZAR partners ITO rugby economy we hold sway but that doesn't translate to the boardroom unfortunately because of our incompetent crony administrators.

 

[TRF_heineken]

A player from SA currently plays 2 games in both of NZ and Aus. That's 4 games overseas and 2 countries visited. If you play all of the NZ and Aus teams, half at home and half away then that's just 1 extra game overseas (5) and 1 less in total (15 instead of 16). Still just the two countries and the internal travel over there is minimal in the context of the total with Perth being the only destination to have a marked effect but that is going to be the case for anyone traveling there in any case. NZ and Aus are so close together that the extra game they'd have in SA only seems fair (3 games in SA as opposed to 2 and then the rest down under). So all in all I don't agree that it'd be markedly harder on a player.

I meant if USA and Canada are added. then they basically travel around the world...

 

[TRF_stormer2010]

I meant if USA and Canada are added. then they basically travel around the world...

K but you responded to my post about adding a sixth side from SA. Adding the others would be madness unless it's SANZAR in one 'pool' and USA, Canada and Arg in another and then the top 4 from each plays play-offs. It could even be SA, Arg, Can and USA vs NZ, Aus, Jap and maybe the PIs.

 

[snoopy snoopy dog dog]

I can see Sanzar showing more interest in Japan than in Canada/USA. The reason for this is the 2019 World Cup will increase exposure to the sport and sponsorship appeal in that country. Canada and the USA aren't developed enough as rugby markets yet.

 

[Dougydeluxe]

Ya Canada and USA is a pipe dream. The money and Logistics of it, is something that neither country is willing to deal with.

Japan is the only real choice.

 

[Scan]

Ya Canada and USA is a pipe dream. The money and Logistics of it, is something that neither country is willing to deal with.

Japan is the only real choice.

Why not Argentina, isn't the logical choice now that they're playing in the RC? Or the Pacific Islands' full teams?

You would feel that the PIs might feel a bit patronised by being thrown into a club tournament though. Especially after the strides they've been making in the Test arena. PI clubs/franchises would probably be too small to be competitive or financially viable too.

 

[nickdnz]

Why not Argentina, isn't the logical choice now that they're playing in the RC? Or the Pacific Islands' full teams?

You would feel that the PIs might feel a bit patronised by being thrown into a club tournament though. Especially after the strides they've been making in the Test arena. PI clubs/franchises would probably be too small to be competitive or financially viable too.

Yep - where is the money for PI teams to have professional teams coming from?

Same with Argentina in a way - they don't yet have a professional domestic competition - so as much as it'd be nice for them to join, they haven't invested in the domestic league enough yet. I'd personally like to see an Argentinian team in there sooner rather than later - seeing as they have the world class players. Japan would be interesting - I'd like to see it because of the economic advantages more than anything, but I don't see it happening too soon.

I still like the idea of nicking from the H-Cup platform - and just have domestic competition with an interconference tournament in between - so to be able to include more regions.

 

[Shaggy]

I guess it will come down to whether there will be a huge TV deal into the Canadian and US markets ... from a Canadian and US perspective, it should improve the standard of rugby through incresaed quality competion, and would allow the players to play as full time professionals, without the need to play overseas

 

[Scan]

Although I LOVE Super Rugby and would hate to see it go, I'd love to see the ARU take another crack at an Australian Rugby Championship and then have the ITM Cup, ARC, Currie Cup and Argentine Nacional des Clubes feed into a sort of Heineken Cup tournament - probably branded 'Super Rugby' but without the old franchises. Japanese teams could enter too. There'd be a lot of travelling though. And I'm sure there's a pretty good reason why they didn't just do that in the first place. Not least the fact that getting the ARC off the ground again would be a miracle!

 

[Draggs]

This would be a terrible idea, further diluting the premier world rugby tournament.
S15 was a stretch too far IMO, this would be simply a shambles.