2016 Super Rugby Expansion

[WorkingClassRugger]

There's certainly 15-20 Super Rugby standard players in Japan. I don't think they'd all necessarily be the kind of players who'd start in your best XV, but they'd be in the mix.

I'd almost be willing to sign an amnesty thing with Japanese based sides that they can sign Aussies that can still play for Aus. Imagine if all those Aussies playing for big bucks in France/Japan were still playing Super Rugby and available for Aus? It's not a perfect plan obviously, but it has it's merits.

I'd say that pretty much all of the starting line up for the Japanese national team could play Super Rugby these days. There has never been a question as to their speed or skills but physicality. What I have noted over the last two years and from the mandate of Eddie Jones has been the increased physical bulk of the Japanese players particularly in the forwards. Many wouldn't look out of place in Super Rugby and would offer something a little different.

I think it may be time for SANZAR to get ballsy in their expansion but forget the Americas purely because of time zone. The Asian Pacific is far more time zone friendly and a market Super Rugby should be looking to tap into. We have the best Rugby product going and should be the flagship entity to at least attempt to do so. However, with this their needs to be a re-think of how we fill our rosters. Make it that you still need to play Super Rugby to play for Australia but declare a free market on talent to the point of a certain percentage of your squad has to remain eligible for Test match for the nation in which the franchise is situated with the exception of any new Asia based squads. They can choose anyone but with emphasis on Argentine and PI players in particular.

 

[Omar Comin']

I think you could maybe have a Western Sydney team. I'd be a bad decision, but I don't think you'd see Aussie rugby implode because of it.

I actually think it would be a good decision. For those saying we don't have the depth - I agree, but that doesn't matter because rugby is a global game with a global player base. Let rugby league and AFL worry about whether they have the player depth for extra teams. The main question should be 'would it be in rugby's interest to have a team in Western Sydney?' ... and I think the answer is undeniably yes. It doesn't have to be a team with 80-90% Australian players. In fact having players from all sorts of nationalities (not just journeyman kiwis and brits like the rebels went for) might be a positive in Western Sydney as it's such a melting pot of different cultures. There are enough good players around the world to create a team that would be reasonably competitive from the start.

The Waratahs have never drawn on Western Sydney. It's a predominantly North and East Sydney team. A Western Sydney super rugby team would probably not be able to have the instant fan support the Wanderers have had in the A-League but if it was done well and focused on engaging the community it could have success over time. Maybe it could even go with red and black colours and align itself with the Wanderers in some way. I reckon a rivalry between two Sydney teams would only enhance the game. There would be a great cultural difference between a multi-national Western Sydney team and the GPS dominated Waratahs.

 

[WorkingClassRugger]

I actually think it would be a good decision. For those saying we don't have the depth - I agree, but that doesn't matter because rugby is a global game with a global player base. Let rugby league and AFL worry about whether they have the player depth for extra teams. The main question should be 'would it be in rugby's interest to have a team in Western Sydney?' . and I think the answer is undeniably yes. It doesn't have to be a team with 80-90% Australian players. In fact having players from all sorts of nationalities (not just journeyman kiwis and brits like the rebels went for) might be a positive in Western Sydney as it's such a melting pot of different cultures. There are enough good players around the world to create a team that would be reasonably competitive from the start.

The Waratahs have never drawn on Western Sydney. It's a predominantly North and East Sydney team. A Western Sydney super rugby team would probably not be able to have the instant fan support the Wanderers have had in the A-League but if it was done well and focused on engaging the community it could have success over time. Maybe it could even go with red and black colours and align itself with the Wanderers in some way. I reckon a rivalry between two Sydney teams would only enhance the game. There would be a great cultural difference between a multi-national Western Sydney team and the GPS dominated Waratahs.

In order for a Western Sydney team to work it would require an unprecedented degree of community game more than likely more so than the Wanderers engaged in before their inception. I actually like the idea of attaching itself to the Wanderers as it seems fitting the to truly international games should fall under one "sports club" set up. But I do agree on sourcing the players. We already have 5 teams on Australian eligible players so depth shouldn't be an issue when you look globally we have depth that the NRL and AFL could only ever dream of. If you look at the talent available in just the Argentine and Samoan national squads, you'd be able to field a very competitive Super Rugby squad rather easily. And that's not taking into account others.

With Argentina now in the Rugby Championship the question arises in regards to how to best engage them. While it would be nice for them to have their own teams out the creation of a Sth American conference having one team makes the travel just ridiculous and even then such a conference would be a strain on players. I've always advocated the allowance of 5 squad places for them in each Super Rugby squad across the competition which would give them 75 professionals playing Super Rugby. If you look to involve say a further 2 spots for PI players then you could fill a Western Sydney team reasonably easily.

 

[Oliphant]

You do realise that the rough average capacity across all Super Rugby venues equates to around 40,000, right? Outside of some of the larger Soccer leagues and the NFL there isn't a competition in the world that has teams playing out of such large venues. In fact, in terms of Rugby, you would find that Super Rugby is the best attended. This is across all venues.

I don't understand how you think that by reducing the number of teams would boost either attendance or viewership. In fact in terms of viewership, expansion has appeared to boost it particularly in Australia. The value of Super Rugby sits in content plus viewer numbers not how many bums in seats. It's about the ability to sell advertising and reach of that advertising. If you take Aus for example where a few weeks back it was reported that Aus derbies had witnessed a 42% spike in interest. That's how you boost the value. We don't need to worry too much about the overall standard of the competition as this season has already demonstrated that it's of high quality (.i.e. the 10th placed Tahs defeated the 3rd placed Chiefs).

Don't know were you get your information from mate, but with the SA Conference showing the highest attendance figures, the average is well below your suggested figure at 31 641after Round 8. Therefore, by deduction, with the other conferences attendance percentages a lot lower, the total is dragged further down!! Simple maths really! Clearly you haven't done any research in the European leagues either.

If Aussie media reported that spike - imagine how poor it was before!! Forty Two percent increase in interest on 10% in not very much mate!!!!

When last did you actually attend a Super Rugby match in the flesh, and if so what game was it? I'll give you some stats on that game........

Sad to think that you believe the standard of Rugby is of a high quality! Your argument that 10th place beats 3rd place can also be seen as an overall decrease in the quality as the previous top sides are playing poorly and the previously lower ranked sides are playing the same terrible rugby!

 

[PaarlBok]

Great to saw a full house in PE on saturday.

 

[TOCC]

Don't know were you get your information from mate, but with the SA Conference showing the highest attendance figures, the average is well below your suggested figure at 31 641after Round 8. Therefore, by deduction, with the other conferences attendance percentages a lot lower, the total is dragged further down!! Simple maths really! Clearly you haven't done any research in the European leagues either.

If Aussie media reported that spike - imagine how poor it was before!! Forty Two percent increase in interest on 10% in not very much mate!!!!

When last did you actually attend a Super Rugby match in the flesh, and if so what game was it? I'll give you some stats on that game....

Sad to think that you believe the standard of Rugby is of a high quality! Your argument that 10th place beats 3rd place can also be seen as an overall decrease in the quality as the previous top sides are playing poorly and the previously lower ranked sides are playing the same terrible rugby!

Could you be anymore condescending?

 

[nomis]

I wonder if we'll see a move to closing off the conferences until the finals. This may not be ideal, but it's a possibility. I'm pretty sure we won't see a reduction in the amount of teams.

Apparently, the main areas they've been looking into for expansion have been Japan, Argentina, and the US:

http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/sp...gby-going-global/story-fn8ti7yn-1226268126917

I think SA will push to reinstate the Lions as a 6th team, and if they try to include a team from ARG, it would play among the SA conference I expect.

I think Taranaki will make another push to be a franchise base in NZ after they impressed the NZRU the last time. I'm not sure the market can sustain 6 teams in NZ, but they may have a crack at it. If there was a team from the West Coast of the US, I expect they would be included in the NZ conference.
And if Japan pushed for two teams in preparation for the World Cup in 2019, I can imagine they would fit the time-zone of the AUS conference.

This is all speculation of course, but even if they increase the amount of teams, I don't think they will increase the length of the season by more than a couple of weeks, if that.

There are logistical issues with all of this, but if the conferences expand, and cross-confernec games during the regular season become less, wouldn't international travel be way less than it is now?

I don't think AUS has the depth for a 6th team ATM, but if they did come close to closing of the conferences and the ARU looked to even out the teams thru the salary cap and some sort of draft, then it would be a different story. The lack of depth with 6 teams in AUS would be largely masked. Only the best teams would play against teams from the other conferences in the finals.

Anyhow, I seem to remember The Australian reporting that they would decide on what sort of expansion they will go for this year. We need some fresh info coming out of SANZAR

 

[Rassie]

Its not about pushing, SA will get their 6 teams. Been there , done this to death, said it at the start S14 will change to S100 in years to come and mocker our CC.

Our Currie Cup is already mockered up. The Bulls are making a mockery of the Varsity cup and have you seen Limpopo in the Vodacom Cup?

Limpopo Blue Bulls 5 - 124 GWK Griquas
Leopards XV 113 - 3 Limpopo Blue Bulls
Pumas 154 - 0 Limpopo Blue Bulls
Limpopo Blue Bulls 0 - 110 Blue Bulls

Played 6 Points for 29 Points against 620 Points difference -591

 

[Rassie]

Yeah, rugby should definitely retreat slowly back into inner Sydney and Brisbane and never be played elsewhere.

Until we can achieve this goal, I suppose we could have one team in Perth/Melbourne (only if it can't be avoided). They could spent 1 day on 1 day off in each city.

Great idea. Inspired.

lol. It wasn't my idea actually. Just thought it sounded like a good one. I forgot you have huge chunk of desert with everyone squatting in the cities

 

[WorkingClassRugger]

Don't know were you get your information from mate, but with the SA Conference showing the highest attendance figures, the average is well below your suggested figure at 31 641after Round 8. Therefore, by deduction, with the other conferences attendance percentages a lot lower, the total is dragged further down!! Simple maths really! Clearly you haven't done any research in the European leagues either.

If Aussie media reported that spike - imagine how poor it was before!! Forty Two percent increase in interest on 10% in not very much mate!!!!

When last did you actually attend a Super Rugby match in the flesh, and if so what game was it? I'll give you some stats on that game....

Sad to think that you believe the standard of Rugby is of a high quality! Your argument that 10th place beats 3rd place can also be seen as an overall decrease in the quality as the previous top sides are playing poorly and the previously lower ranked sides are playing the same terrible rugby!

Are you actually a Rugby fan and do you possess the most basic skills of comprehension?

If you read my post I note that the average size of the stadiums used in Super Rugby are around 40,000 not that the crowd average is 40,000. My point was fairly clear but I believe you knew that but just decided to continue with your diatribe.

That spike followed and 11% drop off in 2012. You'd also be interested to learn that the 11% drop came off a 20+% raise in 2011. What do you make of those figures?

Having only just recently moved back into the Sydney metro area after spending 6 years living in both the North West of Western Australia and down the South Coast of NSW, it has been almost precisely 6 years since I attended a live game. However, I have watched practically every Waratahs game (and a great deal of Super Rugby) in that time, so I'm fairly familiar with the standards of the competition and the size of the crowds. You don't have to attend matches in person to be able to gauge those elements of the game.

Again, I question whether or not you are a Rugby fan or have actually been watching Super Rugby this season. If you had the quality of the competition this season, which has been excellent, is of the highest standard but again if you acknowledge this your argument would become even more inutile.

 

[WorkingClassRugger]

I wonder if we'll see a move to closing off the conferences until the finals. This may not be ideal, but it's a possibility. I'm pretty sure we won't see a reduction in the amount of teams.

Apparently, the main areas they've been looking into for expansion have been Japan, Argentina, and the US:

http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/sp...gby-going-global/story-fn8ti7yn-1226268126917

I think SA will push to reinstate the Lions as a 6th team, and if they try to include a team from ARG, it would play among the SA conference I expect.

I think Taranaki will make another push to be a franchise base in NZ after they impressed the NZRU the last time. I'm not sure the market can sustain 6 teams in NZ, but they may have a crack at it. If there was a team from the West Coast of the US, I expect they would be included in the NZ conference.
And if Japan pushed for two teams in preparation for the World Cup in 2019, I can imagine they would fit the time-zone of the AUS conference.

This is all speculation of course, but even if they increase the amount of teams, I don't think they will increase the length of the season by more than a couple of weeks, if that.

There are logistical issues with all of this, but if the conferences expand, and cross-confernec games during the regular season become less, wouldn't international travel be way less than it is now?

I don't think AUS has the depth for a 6th team ATM, but if they did come close to closing of the conferences and the ARU looked to even out the teams thru the salary cap and some sort of draft, then it would be a different story. The lack of depth with 6 teams in AUS would be largely masked. Only the best teams would play against teams from the other conferences in the finals.

Anyhow, I seem to remember The Australian reporting that they would decide on what sort of expansion they will go for this year. We need some fresh info coming out of SANZAR

I think there may be a day that we see closed off conferences with the top 2 or 3 teams from each facing off in a play off against the other conferences. It's just that it won't be for a long while yet. It's actually an interesting topic. A few years back I picked up an issue of Rugby World Magazine while travelling through Heathrow and at the back of it had an article claiming to have received information about the future of Super Rugby.

According to this article, the future of Super Rugby would involve no less then 6 conference with 8 teams each. The conferences would be the three original plus one from the Nth America, Sth America and an Asian conference. This was a couple of years before the recent TV deal and conference set up was even put on the table and it actually mentioned that it would be installed with this intention in mind.

 

[nomis]

I think there may be a day that we see closed off conferences with the top 2 or 3 teams from each facing off in a play off against the other conferences. It's just that it won't be for a long while yet. It's actually an interesting topic. A few years back I picked up an issue of Rugby World Magazine while travelling through Heathrow and at the back of it had an article claiming to have received information about the future of Super Rugby.

According to this article, the future of Super Rugby would involve no less then 6 conference with 8 teams each. The conferences would be the three original plus one from the Nth America, Sth America and an Asian conference. This was a couple of years before the recent TV deal and conference set up was even put on the table and it actually mentioned that it would be installed with this intention in mind.​

Yeah, I think I remember you mentioning that once before on some forum. Fascinating! Did you keep the Mag somewhere?

I thought this was an interesting proposition put out there by abnutta (a NZ bloke) from another forum:

https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B5vh08BV2viweFdjbkN0UlBNREU/edit?pli=1

You've probably seen it already.

I didn't go for all the details (I don't think they would go for those AUS teams in place of the existing ones), and it could be tweaked a bit, but it ticked a few other boxes as a concept.

I also wondered if there was a need to go back to traditional teams in NZ. Maybe for those who are over 20 they still mean more than the Super Rugby franchises, but for any kid born in the last 20 years in NZ, wouldn't the Super Rugby franchises be their main team over the ITM CUP teams? In any case, it's not a major point.

I enjoyed reading it. A good effort.

 

[Omar Comin']

I think there may be a day that we see closed off conferences with the top 2 or 3 teams from each facing off in a play off against the other conferences. It's just that it won't be for a long while yet. It's actually an interesting topic. A few years back I picked up an issue of Rugby World Magazine while travelling through Heathrow and at the back of it had an article claiming to have received information about the future of Super Rugby.

According to this article, the future of Super Rugby would involve no less then 6 conference with 8 teams each. The conferences would be the three original plus one from the Nth America, Sth America and an Asian conference. This was a couple of years before the recent TV deal and conference set up was even put on the table and it actually mentioned that it would be installed with this intention in mind.

That's pretty interesting. Hard to see commercially successful and competitive 8 team conferences in each of Asia, North America and South America any time soon though. A more practical shorter term option would be to have 2 large closed conferences with the top 4 in each making a finals series. Say 12 teams in a NZ/Aus/Japan conference and a similar amount in a South Africa/Argentina conference (I don't really see where teams from the US/Canada could fit). Of course in these larger conferences the countries with a small number of teams (i.e. Japan and Argentina) would be at a distinct disadvantage travel wise.

 

[liquor box]

A western Sydney team should include an Islander influence, I think I read the RL Test at penrith got over 10,000 to a game on the weekend. Why not try to steal these fans back to their game?

 

[WorkingClassRugger]

A western Sydney team should include an Islander influence, I think I read the RL Test at penrith got over 10,000 to a game on the weekend. Why not try to steal these fans back to their game?

If a Western Sydney team did eventuate I think that would be a no-brainer. Though, that doesn't mean it will.

 

[JSRF10]

Yeah, I think I remember you mentioning that once before on some forum. Fascinating! Did you keep the Mag somewhere?

I thought this was an interesting proposition put out there by abnutta (a NZ bloke) from another forum:

https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B5vh08BV2viweFdjbkN0UlBNREU/edit?pli=1

You've probably seen it already.

I didn't go for all the details (I don't think they would go for those AUS teams in place of the existing ones), and it could be tweaked a bit, but it ticked a few other boxes as a concept.

I also wondered if there was a need to go back to traditional teams in NZ. Maybe for those who are over 20 they still mean more than the Super Rugby franchises, but for any kid born in the last 20 years in NZ, wouldn't the Super Rugby franchises be their main team over the ITM CUP teams? In any case, it's not a major point.

I enjoyed reading it. A good effort.

That document is an awesome read! Not sure that there would be that much appetite for change within SANZAR, but then again if the price is right you never know!

 

[WorkingClassRugger]

That document is an awesome read! Not sure that there would be that much appetite for change within SANZAR, but then again if the price is right you never know!

It makes an interesting argument. Comes from a poster from The Roar called Abnutta if I'm not mistaken.

 

[en_force_er]

lol. It wasn't my idea actually. Just thought it sounded like a good one. I forgot you have huge chunk of desert with everyone squatting in the cities

Anybody that floated that as an idea is an idiot. It's 4 hours one way and 5 the other (wind current). Perhaps I was too harsh, you're a Saffa and foreigners are often not aware that Perth is very isolated.

Anyway, it doesn't make good sense to get rid of either. The Force will only become more solid with Saffa expats and the mining industry dollar. Whereas Melbourne is a city of 4 millionish surrounded by another 1 or 2 mil within reasonable driving distance. Not having a team here would make as much sense as not having a team in Joburg (oh... wait).

But Argentina do have a team called the Pampas. With money they can actually get some of their players back in Argentina and not sit on some French clubs bench as a medical joker.

For sure Argentina could have 1 team at the drop of the hat as they'd easily concert their Pampas XV to Super rugby standard with just 4 or 5 signings. Maybe they could push it out to 2 teams if they attracted corporate attention (but I don't think it exists for rugby in that country). Alternatively they could convince whatever soccer club is based out of Tuccaman or Santa Fe (specifically Rosario) that investing in a Super Rugby license is a good idea.

But that's 2 teams and it's pushing it. Add in a maximum of 2 for USA (they don't have a fan base but they have folks willing to invest in sport) and 1 for Canada and you have JUST 5 (and I stress, that's pushing it in all 3 countries). Could that be a conference? Probably, but any team except the one owned by the Argie RU would be at constant risk of collapse. It would make no sense to build a conference, a league, and it's main commodity (TV rights) off the back of such a huge risk.

Plus, presuming SA eventually pushes out to 6 teams (and rightfully so) and you've got a pickle because you won't find a team 6 in the Americas (but you could easily add a PI or Asian team to either the Aus or NZ conference if they're in strife).

It's a pickle and I can't see a work around unless they start treating conferences like separate league but regardless of how many people tell me it's a possibility it's BS and will never ever happen. Seriously, regardless of how many uncited articles you read.

I could list the best pipe dream every right now.. an Aussie league with 6 of our teams (add in Western Sydney only) plus a Singapore, HK, and 2 Japanese teams based in Tokyo and Osaka; a NZ league featuring the top 7 ITM regions plus a team from Apia with promotion and relegation; the Currie Cup in SA as is (potentially plus Zimbabwe if it becomes a safer place); an Americas league with 3 Argentinian sides (Buenos Aires, Tuccaman, and Sante Fe the region), 3 USA sides (a Californian side, a Denver side which is the home of US rugby, and a New York/New England side), and 1 Canadian side (playing out of British Columbia). The teams would play their own league, a Heineken Cup style tourney, and a Anglo-Welsh Cup style tourney during international duty for development. Would this work? Fuck no. Never. It's unrealistic.

Also, not all of this rant is addressed at your Rassie, it's more generally addressed than that and more to general people who roam the web rather than G&Gers. I'm just saying just because an idea sounds like it'd be amazing doesn't mean it's viable in any sense of the word.

 

[jay-c]

ive been bangin on it for a while>
but id love to see one of the force or rebels adopt argentina or japan or the pacific islands and have a big chunk of their playing roster from there>
better the argies than filling their roster with kiwis and saffas like now>
plus they'd gain a HUGE (basically untapped) supporter base

 

[Hell West & Crooked]

It won't happen... In all likelihood, 2 Argentinian sides may eventually join, in order for the Super Rugby Competition to align with The Championship. Already, I feel the Argentinian Inclusion has made for a much more interesting competition. They WILL beat someone this year... I just hope it isn't us! There is no case for a 6th SA side - their lowest 2 teams are often weaker than our own!