Thoughts on a promotion/relegation split league?

[Makos]

Split the league in two. There isn't the quality to do it this way we currently have. Watching the Canes vs Sunwolves game was just embarrassing and a waste of time.

Top half of the league would look something like this

Hurricanes
Lions
Highlanders
Chiefs
Crusaders
Blues
Brumbies
Warratahs
Stormers

Bottom half;

Bulls
Cheetahs
Jaguars
Reds
Kings
Sunwolves
Force
Sharks
Rebels

Each team plays each other home and away.

Bottom team of the top league goes straight down and top team of the bottom league goes straight up.
you can make a play-off between 2nd bottom of top league vs 2nd top of bottom league in a promotion/relegation play-off.

Top 4 of the top league can still have 1vs4 and 2vs3 play-offs to find a champion.

Another option to get more crowds/games would be to create a play-off for 2-5 in the bottom league to find out who play-offs vs 2nd bottom of the top league.

I think this would generate more interest for the teams that get thrashed week in week out and get more people going if there's a chance of them getting a win and getting promotion..

Thoughts?

 

[The Jones Boy]

The Sunwolves are a joke, they shouldn't be there at all.

 

[galumay]

Its certainly an option, I personally favour going back to 4 teams from NZ, Aus & SA but anything has to be better than the current ludicrous conference system which I actually think its a disincentive to Aus & SA teams trying to close the gap - because we are guaranteed a side in the finals.

 

[Makos]

Something needs to be done, because this competition sucks now. I know a lot of casual fans who don't even bother with it anymore and how is it meant to attract new supporters with such an overly complicated stupid lay out?

 

[CocoPampas]

Although I can agree with your split taking only performance into consideration. I think you are missing the comercial side of this business. And yes the SANZAAR is running a business.

You are selecting the 5 NZ's franchises, and grouping them with 2 SAs + 2 AUs. With all the other franchises in a second division. Who will buy the TV rights?
If I'm not wrong SAs aren't going to pay to much for whatching NZ teams playing each other, or for their teams playing for being the best of a meaning less championship. And something similar may hapen in Australia.
Yes, NZ may increase their TV rights income (how much?), at the expense of the income from South Sfrica and Australia decreasing a lot

 

[die_mole]

New Zealand/ Australia League
10 teams, can be 8/2 split or 7/3 split
80% of players come from those two countries while 20% come from other countries, preferably those without their own pro structure
trade player spots for international broadcast rights
the bigger the deal the more player spots they get
us network pays 5 million give the us 15 spots
canada pays 3 million give them 9 spots... the guys don't even need to be in match day squads but just the chance to train and the appearance every odd match would be great

would cut down on travel costs sicne you won't be flying all around the globe and your international television viewing would increase

thisisamerican rugby news every week publishes which american players are playing overseas and as well as the tv listings for games, if you want large international viewership just take a couple players from larger nations

 

[Car]

What @themole25 wrote sounds like an interesting idea. If it's all about the money and not performances, make sure you get the most money out of it and really help others to develop.

 

[Bruce_ma gooshvili]

In terms of Super Rugby having two divisions, the only sides that really let themselves down in the opening weekend were the Rebels and Sunwolves. The Rebels weren't far off an even win/loss record last season and the Sunwolves problems are well documented. Teams that struggled last year, like the Reds, Cheetahs, Bulls, Force and Jaguares all have reasons for optimism that they'll be more competitive this season. While the Highlanders and Crusaders looked off colour in their opening home fixtures and unlikely to be as dominant against non-NZ sides as they were last year.

All in all, I think there are grounds for this season to be a lot more competitive than last year, both in terms of individual matches and in terms of the final standings at the end of the regular season. Look at any league, in any sport and you will find whipping boys each year (even the NFL where they forcibly pursue competitiveness and parity). The Lions had an awful record a few years back and the Reds were horrifc last year (but are previous champions). Of course, we are only one week in and this can all change very quickly and it may be my optimism is misplaced.

What @themole25 wrote sounds like an interesting idea. If it's all about the money and not performances, make sure you get the most money out of it and really help others to develop.

Yes, an interesting suggestion. Pay for play. Hadn't even thought of that. The problem is the US and Canadian unions have no money and their issues around a domestic professional league is hugely holding back the marketability of the sport in those countries (so TV money is unlikely to be forthcoming at the moment I'd imagine).

 

[die_mole]

the premier league gets better ratings here than the MLS... i think that interest in rugby needs to come before we try to build a professional league

NBC has spent a good amount of money to broadcast the Aviva for the next couple years and that league only has 4 or 5 american players

a league that has 20 or so americans would probably have better ratings here, would just need to figure out the timeline

 

[Makos]

I'd like to shift the focus from just making money to restoring integrity to the competition and making it a quality product and league that will sell itself through its own quality.

That's what needs to be done.

 

[ReddFelon]

I'd rather the development of an East vs West conference like you see in the NFL, NBA, NHL, etc.

Super Rugby West:
Lions
Cheetahs
Bulls
Kings
Stormers
Sharks
Force
Jaguares
Rebels

Super Rugby East:
Blues
Chiefs
Crusaders
Hurricanes
Highlanders
Reds
Brumbies
Waratahs
Sunwolves

Inter-conference matches allow for derbies to be scheduled, but splitting the teams via East and West means more appropriate fixtures for timezones, improving the TV audience in all major markets. In addition, the East/West split cuts down on travel time for the majority of the season. Winner of each conference is guaranteed a place in the finals, three wildcards per conference. This way greater fan interest carries over into the finals, more participation from all countries, easier system to follow in terms of rankings.

Opinion on Promotion and Relegation; I think it's a terrible system that only continues to exist today because of the population density in major European countries. Just about ever P&R sports league has a tendency for 4-6 teams to always be at the top of the pile e.g. Chelsea, Liverpool, Man U in the EPL. Wigan, Leeds, St Helens in Super League. Toulon, Racing, etc. in Top 14. I can also guarantee that Australian fans will switch off if their teams are relegated or more likely they will push for an abandonment of Super Rugby in favour of the NRC becoming a domestic competition much like the rival NRL.

 

[Makos]

Opinion on Promotion and Relegation; I think it's a terrible system that only continues to exist today because of the population density in major European countries. Just about ever P&R sports league has a tendency for 4-6 teams to always be at the top of the pile e.g. Chelsea, Liverpool, Man U in the EPL. Wigan, Leeds, St Helens in Super League. Toulon, Racing, etc. in Top 14. I can also guarantee that Australian fans will switch off if their teams are relegated or more likely they will push for an abandonment of Super Rugby in favour of the NRC becoming a domestic competition much like the rival NRL.

Have a look at the NZ domestic competition, the Mitre 10 Mega Cup. The promotion/relegation works really well there.

 

[ReddFelon]

Have a look at the NZ domestic competition, the Mitre 10 Mega Cup. The promotion/relegation works really well there.

That's the thing though; it's a domestic competition. Promotion and relegation in Super Rugby means the very real possibility of entire countries being relegated out of the top level. Also add to that the Mitre 10 Cup teams are representative of regions, so even if you're relegated your team still plays on a regular basis, comparatively a B division Super Rugby competition would have an irregular playing schedule due to the multi-national presence. The only way it could work without cutting entire markets out of the competition would be a quota dictating a certain number of teams per country, which causes even more problems because the NZ teams would be limited despite likely being the better teams out of everyone playing. It causes just as many hassles as the current system but comes with the added downside of destroying entire markets.

 

[Makos]

That's the thing though; it's a domestic competition. Promotion and relegation in Super Rugby means the very real possibility of entire countries being relegated out of the top level. Also add to that the Mitre 10 Cup teams are representative of regions, so even if you're relegated your team still plays on a regular basis, comparatively a B division Super Rugby competition would have an irregular playing schedule due to the multi-national presence. The only way it could work without cutting entire markets out of the competition would be a quota dictating a certain number of teams per country, which causes even more problems because the NZ teams would be limited despite likely being the better teams out of everyone playing. It causes just as many hassles as the current system but comes with the added downside of destroying entire markets.

Not quiet, the system in place in the NZ comp is the teams from League 2 still play some top tier League 1 games, just not as frequently. They just play more against League 2 teams.

It's a really good system and protects the bad teams from getting thrashed week in and week out and also gives them an incentive towards the end of the season to perform in the plays-offs to gain promotion, these games will no doubt attract attention and support.

The coverage will remain the the same, just split the league and make it the same competition. You really should check out how the NZ comp is run, it's the best thing to do for the Super 15 as well.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mitre_10_Cup

- - - Updated - - -

A big problem in the current set up is; You've got A LOT of teams already out off the competition 4-5 games into the season. You need to give them something to play for towards the end of the season and ease their draw up a little...

No one wants to watch their team continuously thrashed and without a hope of making the play-offs. Time to give them something to play for. Splitting the league for me is it.

 

[ReddFelon]

Not quiet, the system in place in the NZ comp is the teams from League 2 still play some top tier League 1 games, just not as frequently. They just play more against League 2 teams.

It's a really good system and protects the bad teams from getting thrashed week in and week out and also gives them an incentive towards the end of the season to perform in the plays-offs to gain promotion, these games will no doubt attract attention and support.

The coverage will remain the the same, just split the league and make it the same competition. You really should check out how the NZ comp is run, it's the best thing to do for the Super 15 as well.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mitre_10_Cup

I'm aware of how the Mitre 10 Cup works, I used to live in the Bay of Plenty. My point is more this; Australians quite literally will not watch their teams compete in a lower grade competition. They barely support their teams now because they have a massive chip on their shoulder regarding NZ Rugby, literally every conversation in Australian sports media at the moment is about how they should leave Super Rugby and make a domestic comp their main Rugby venture because they prefer sports leagues where they can only lose to themselves. As for SARU, the whole reason they were so adamant that the Kings be readmitted as the sixth team was so they could have the major provincial markets accessible for TV rights (it backfired for a number of reasons), but as it stands I can't picture the ARU and the SARU ever agreeing to a competition where the very format will acknowledge NZ being the better Rugby nation. Having worked at the club level in WA Rugby, I can pretty much guarantee that the moment the Force are either relegated or eliminated entirely the 30,000 player club comps will disappear because there's no chance of moving into the professional level, same for the Rebels and the Kings. They'll just go back to playing aerial ping pong and league, which would be a real shame as it would see AUS rugby become little more than a minor level sport played in NSW and QLD, South Africa also has the very real risk of Rugby being pushed out by Soccer. Neither of these are things I want to see happen.

 

[nik]

I'd rather the development of an East vs West conference like you see in the NFL, NBA, NHL, etc.

Super Rugby West:
Lions
Cheetahs
Bulls
Kings
Stormers
Sharks
Force
Jaguares
Rebels

Super Rugby East:
Blues
Chiefs
Crusaders
Hurricanes
Highlanders
Reds
Brumbies
Waratahs
Sunwolves

Inter-conference matches allow for derbies to be scheduled, but splitting the teams via East and West means more appropriate fixtures for timezones, improving the TV audience in all major markets. In addition, the East/West split cuts down on travel time for the majority of the season. Winner of each conference is guaranteed a place in the finals, three wildcards per conference. This way greater fan interest carries over into the finals, more participation from all countries, easier system to follow in terms of rankings.

Opinion on Promotion and Relegation; I think it's a terrible system that only continues to exist today because of the population density in major European countries. Just about ever P&R sports league has a tendency for 4-6 teams to always be at the top of the pile e.g. Chelsea, Liverpool, Man U in the EPL. Wigan, Leeds, St Helens in Super League. Toulon, Racing, etc. in Top 14. I can also guarantee that Australian fans will switch off if their teams are relegated or more likely they will push for an abandonment of Super Rugby in favour of the NRC becoming a domestic competition much like the rival NRL.

I prefer this system than the current system. However I think it should a straight round robin – every team plays each other once in the regular season. The following season the home/away matches are inversed just as it was in the Super 14 days. It means one long as tour of away matches to East/West. Also means that less derby matches – but derby matches undermines the conference. This is the fairest way. Every team gets a similar travel schedule and all play each other. The finals is played within the conference – then a grand finale is played between East vs West conference champs depending whoever finished highest in the regular season ladder. Only one major travel before the final instead – its not ideal however it is expected hence can be planned better by coaches and officials. Instead of the current system where a team can fly all over shop during the finals not knowing exactly which continent they are going to play in next week until subsequent matches are completed in the weekend.

 

[galumay]

Its a difficult issue, it seems most of us agree the current system is broken, then there are a number of differing views about what might be better. I am not convinced that the arguments against a two tier competition are correct, I think it might work and I am not convinced that spectators wouldnt turn up just because their team was in the second tier. The biggest problem with the two tier sustem appears to be that you would just end up with all the NZ teams in the top tier and maybe 1 SA & 1 Aus team.

Reading all the ideas I still think the best solution is 4 teams from NZ, SA & Aus and drop the expansion experiment of Japan and Argentina - but its also the least likely to actually happen because the outcome is decided by TV executives who have no interest in the long term well being of the sport.

The really sad thing is that I suspect NO ONE will be happy with the actual outcome of any changes to the comp!

 

[Car]

A big problem in the current set up is; You've got A LOT of teams already out off the competition 4-5 games into the season. You need to give them something to play for towards the end of the season and ease their draw up a little...

No one wants to watch their team continuously thrashed and without a hope of making the play-offs. Time to give them something to play for. Splitting the league for me is it.

It's made worse by the break for the June Internationals. Why care about the remainder of the regular season when you've been out of the play-off race well before it?

European fans love the promotion/relegation as it adds an awful lot of suspense. Having to fight off relegation is so much tougher on you than just fighting for the championship.

 

[die_mole]

I'd like to shift the focus from just making money to restoring integrity to the competition and making it a quality product and league that will sell itself through its own quality.

That's what needs to be done.

I think my idea would be a far superior competion.

Australia clearly can't support 5 franchises which I think everyone agrees so having two or three teams makes sense.

Travel is very taxing on the body so the shorter travel distances would increase the quality of play.

Only having 10 teams would allow an 18 week double round robin.

 

[ReddFelon]

I think my idea would be a far superior competion.

Australia clearly can't support 5 franchises which I think everyone agrees so having two or three teams makes sense.

Travel is very taxing on the body so the shorter travel distances would increase the quality of play.

Only having 10 teams would allow an 18 week double round robin.

This is one of the biggest myths that always crops up in discussions about Australian Rugby. The truth is that both the Force and Rebels have club competitions that could support them, but due to the ARU administration being controlled by the NSWRU and QRU the club players in Victoria and WA are rarely selected. WA has 30,000 registered Rugby players from the junior to senior level and interestingly players like the Haylett-Petty brothers, Richard Hardwick, Curtis Rona and Chance Peni are only just getting noticed despite easily being the most talented players on the Force squad. The biggest cause of the supposed lack of depth in AUS rugby is due to the bloated admin refusing to accept that players outside of Queensland and New South Wales are just as good as everyone else, this isn't a new phenomenon by the way it's an unfortunate symptom of Australian sport in general e.g. in the state of Victoria they play Australian football and throughout the 1960's and 70's the Victorian admin insisted that players from other states would never be competitive due to Victoria being the "heartland". This came to a head when the Victorian competition admitted a Western Australian team who proceeded to dominate the competition.

The same thing has affected Rugby in Australia; despite Dane Haylett-Petty and Adam Coleman being arguably the best performers in the Wallabies team last year, the consensus among the parochial NSWRU and QRU is that these players are exceptions to the rule, despite all evidence in the club level competitions suggesting otherwise. In particular the Force and Rebels have suffered from this because players from their respective state Rugby Unions are never selected, this in turn causes fewer young players to take up the game. It's particularly sad that Western Australia has a club competition that has a 6 tier senior premier grade comp, with 19 established clubs vying for a spot in the top 10 to compete at the highest level, yet the Western Force has a total of 7 local players on their side. Of course the argument by the parrots in the East is that "if the players were good enough they'd be selected" which falls apart when people point out that most of these players are snatched up by Rugby League and then years later Union reclaims these League converts and pretends they were unknowns. This is in full display with the Rebels signing Mareka Koroibete from the NRL despite Koroibete having played Union at the junior level and switching to League after being told he'd never have a chance at Union due to living in Melbourne. The same is true for the new Force recruits in Rona and Peni, both of whom played in the WA union circuit before being picked up by professional league teams and then returning to the West after the new coach pushed for an increase in local players.

Australia absolutely can field five teams, the problem is how do you convince people who have an open bias to selecting Shute Shield and Queensland Premiership players to give Dewar Shield, Pindan Premiership, Tasmanian Premiership and South Australian Premiership players a chance? It's an organisational issue more than anything and sadly with so much of the ARU's money tied up in the East, it makes it next to impossible for the Southern and Western competitions to supply players. Best example I can give; Adam Coleman was the third ever Wallaby to come from the Tasmanian club level, the first two were born in 1906. Do people really believe that a club comp with 9 established high level sides failed to produce any worthwhile players for close to a hundred years? Or is it more likely that favourtism played a factor?