2016 Super Rugby Expansion

[p.Tah]

The exciting prospect of rugby sweeping all before it in both the SH and Pacific is very tantalising, but there are a few potholes to consider.

Lindommer, that is eminently sensible and every neuron in my business brain agrees with you. However from the recesses of my competitive rugby brain come a voice screaming "No, fuck that! Be bold". I don't want to play this like Barnes. I don't want to play the percentages. I want to play like Cooper. I want us to wow.

While our winter code competitors are fighting over Blacktown and eyeing off Gosford we're going to Asia and the Americas baby! I want us to swing our metaphorical dick and say look at that. It stretches across the Indian Ocean and the Pacific.

No one thought Everest could be climbed. It was logistically impossible, but with the love of rugby coursing through his veins, Hillary conquered the mountain. A bold visionary. Now every man and his highly paid tour guide climb the mountain, but a rugby man did it first. Let's plant our SANZAR flag in the New Super Rugby World and see what riches we uncover. Let's face the insurmountable challenges that expansion may pose and laugh. Let's be the first. Let us find a way to make it competitive and financially and logistically possible. Let's find a way to make Super Rugby even better. Let's do it for rugby.

....... oh yeah and let's find a way to include the Pacific Islands. It's their time too.

 

[Jets]

Great work p.Tah I love it.

 

[PaarlBok]

Random musings -

Super rugby is viewed fundamentally different in SA than it is in Australia. And it is not really clear what exactly is best for rugby in South Africa.

South Africa actually does quite well at keeping players playing in South Africa. I can only think of Pienaar, Francios Steyn and Francois Louw who has gone overseas recently despite their franchises being desperate to keep them.

Obviously it would be great to have more money, but given a choice it would be best if this money is generated locally, instead of getting hooked on cheap dollars and yen.

South Africa needs more opportunities for players to play in a professional competition, but that does not necessarily means having more super rugby teams. Most people would prefer to have a 8 team currie cup season where players, but that would require the super season to be cut back.

Expansion into Asia and the US offers nothing that South Africa wants and if anything leaves us with less rugby that we care about.

An alternative would be for Australian teams to get involved with Japanese teams while SA and NZ are playing their third tier comps.

The new format will solve our Kings inclusion problem. S18 from 2016, done and dusted. They wont get rid of the conferense system, it creates the most money. 6 x SA/Aus/NZ = S18 minimum +6 teams conferense from where ever = S24 at the most. SA need Marinos to grow balls and lay down the laws, we dominate the competition money and numbers wise.

 

[liquor box]

I for one hope Australia declines an extra team and offers it to Japan, let NZ and SA have an extra team but we need to keep our talent from being diluted too much and if we allowed Wallabies to be selected from any S15/16/17/18 team then our talent can be developed overseas if necessary.

 

[qwerty51]

Can't agree there. The #1 thing holding Australia back is the number of pro contracts.

 

[RoffsChoice]

Why not have an all America version of Super Rugby? The Argies and Canadians will be up for it, Uruguay will want in and the US of A loves any sport they can try and thump someone in.

This is made even more valid by having an annual competition for the Argies, Canadians and Statesmen. Give them a provincial competition under that and they will grow like crazy.

Having watched the final of the Japanese Top League yesterday, there is clearly enough club potential in Japan, maybe have a 3 team per country for Japan, Samoa, Fiji and Tonga? When I chat to my mates from across the ditch, they say the reason they want to play Rugby in New Zealand is so they can play people from around the world, not just in their country.

 

[nomis]

While AUS would be pushing it to try an organise a 6th Super Rugby team, would it actually be easier to add two (or even three!) extra teams?

I know that sounds like a silly question, but here's where I'm coming from: in the current format, teams within each conference play each other home and away, and 4 of the 5 teams from the other two conferences. For AUS to have a 6th team, our depth would be the big issue in playing against teams from SA and NZ, even if they had 6 each as well.

But what if there were a couple more teams per conference, plus maybe a fourth conference for teams from non-SANZAR nations (as has been suggested above), and the conferences were closed off until the finals?

It would still be the one comp, home and away within your own conference from end of Feb-May, and then the finals with the the top two from each conference after the June tests.

The two big concerns for expansion are travel and diluting the comp. But wouldn't the above proposal mean less travel over all (with no international flights until the finals for most teams), and wouldn't the above proposal actually 'hide' any lack of depth since a particular conference could level the playing talent within their own conference - with only the two best teams playing in an international finals system?

I'm just thinking off the cuff here and wouldn't mind another perspective. I know NZ and SA would have their own issues with a proposal like this, but still, it see,s like it ticks a few boxes and would certainly keep the finals highly anticipated thru out the season.

I'd appreciate any feedback.

 

[PaarlBok]

While AUS would be pushing it to try an organise a 6th Super Rugby team, would it actually be easier to add two (or even three!) extra teams?

I know that sounds like a silly question, but here's where I'm coming from: in the current format, teams within each conference play each other home and away, and 4 of the 5 teams from the other two conferences. For AUS to have a 6th team, our depth would be the big issue in playing against teams from SA and NZ, even if they had 6 each as well.

But what if there were a couple more teams per conference, plus maybe a fourth conference for teams from non-SANZAR nations (as has been suggested above), and the conferences were closed off until the finals?

It would still be the one comp, home and away within your own conference from end of Feb-May, and then the finals with the the top two from each conference after the June tests.

The two big concerns for expansion are travel and diluting the comp. But wouldn't the above proposal mean less travel over all (with no international flights until the finals for most teams), and wouldn't the above proposal actually 'hide' any lack of depth since a particular conference could level the playing talent within their own conference - with only the two best teams playing in an international finals system?

I'm just thinking off the cuff here and wouldn't mind another perspective. I know NZ and SA would have their own issues with a proposal like this, but still, it see,s like it ticks a few boxes and would certainly keep the finals highly anticipated thru out the season.

I'd appreciate any feedback.

The ideal will be if Aus/SA/NZ can have their own provincial competitions (CC/NPC) and the winners play in a SANZAR final. We only need Australia to get their house in order.

 

[James Buchanan]

The ideal will be if Aus/SA/NZ can have their own provincial competitions (CC/NPC) and the winners play in a SANZAR final. We only need Australia to get their house in order.

Really doubt it will happen. There has been substantial investment in the Super 15 franchises and would be some very pissed off people if that was all flushed away. Despite the clamouring of many people to change the structures in place, they are what they are and there will be small modifications and not wholesale changes.

 

[PaarlBok]

Really doubt it will happen. There has been substantial investment in the Super 15 franchises and would be some very pissed off people if that was all flushed away. Despite the clamouring of many people to change the structures in place, they are what they are and there will be small modifications and not wholesale changes.

Dont think its that far fetch. The conferense matches is the money spinners, Add more teams per conferense (SA have 8 provinces in their Premier league CC, NZ also have more then enough provinces in ITM) and we are 2 thirds from the final product of trdisional provincial rugby within the conferenses, add the business end between the three countries and you killed two flies in one.

 

[Blake]

Well it seems it's either add 3 teams or keep it the way it is.....or a complete re work with no conference systems.

If you go with three extra teams, drop a game against both other conferences and obviously play the new team in your conference home and away.

let the saffa's have a 6th team, they will travel less as they will be playing two less non conference games. They might be happy for once.
NZ take some sort of Pacific Islands solution. - will be good for crowds in NZ
Australia take Japan. - similar time zones, good times for watching on Aust TV

Though I would be happy if nothing changed.

 

[liquor box]

Well it seems it's either add 3 teams or keep it the way it is...or a complete re work with no conference systems.

If you go with three extra teams, drop a game against both other conferences and obviously play the new team in your conference home and away.

let the saffa's have a 6th team, they will travel less as they will be playing two less non conference games. They might be happy for once.
NZ take some sort of Pacific Islands solution. - will be good for crowds in NZ
Australia take Japan. - similar time zones, good times for watching on Aust TV

Though I would be happy if nothing changed.

Australia should really push for a japanese side, it would make us look like we are trying to expand the game and if they were as weak as some think they would be then they would also allow for an "easy" win in our conference to boost our points on the ladder come finals time.

If Japan come in it could also increase revenue for the local franchises if we can get some Japanese companies to sponsor our teams.

 

[p.Tah]

Another interview with Greg Peters from SANZAR on potential Super Rugby expansion into North America.

In one quote he says:

you must remember that sanzar is not the IRB. Our imperatives are not to grow the game globally, our imperatives are to grow for the benefit of the existing SANZAR stakeholders

I guess that's a clear indication that the Pacific Island are unlikely to be included in the near future.

http://bleacherreport.com/articles/1548690-exclusive-sanzar-ceo-greg-peters-talks-super-expansion

 

[qwerty51]

That's fair enough, they're a business.

 

[JSRF10]

Is it a hint at an Argentinian franchise will be coming given the Argies are now a SANZAR "stakeholder"?

 

[Jets]

I don't think Argentina are part of SANZAR, they are just invited to participate in a Sanzar tournament. Any decision will be made on commercial grounds.

 

[Oliphant]

The travel would certainly be tough but an interesting proposition nevertheless.

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/spo...p-to-super-rugby/story-e6frg7o6-1226560407257

EXPANSION? Attendance Stats and Visual Stats show that attendance at grounds is on the decline - directly translated that the game is losing it appeal. Increasing the number of teams will, in my opinion, dilute the appeal of the game even more! There is nothing worse than attending ANY rugby match, no matter whom is playing, in any empty stadium. With this happening, and you cannot deny this, just take a look at the stands in all recordings of the 2013 games, there is something seriously wrong with the game! Expansion is not going to make it appealing. No major sponsor in a new territory will come on board if they are shown footage of empty stadiums, or attend a game with empty seats.

My opinion:-
1. Go back to Super12

2. Re-look at a few rules that diluting the physicality of the game (feed into the scrum, tackler gain ascendancy)

3. How referees are apply the rules of the game

This will result in stronger teams, which = more physical rugby = more attractive rugby = packed stadiums = more revenue = more sponsorship = more bang for the buck!

 

[Quick Hands]

EXPANSION? Attendance Stats and Visual Stats show that attendance at grounds is on the decline - directly translated that the game is losing it appeal. Increasing the number of teams will, in my opinion, dilute the appeal of the game even more! There is nothing worse than attending ANY rugby match, no matter whom is playing, in any empty stadium. With this happening, and you cannot deny this, just take a look at the stands in all recordings of the 2013 games, there is something seriously wrong with the game! Expansion is not going to make it appealing. No major sponsor in a new territory will come on board if they are shown footage of empty stadiums, or attend a game with empty seats.

My opinion:-
1. Go back to Super12

2. Re-look at a few rules that diluting the physicality of the game (feed into the scrum, tackler gain ascendancy)

3. How referees are apply the rules of the game

This will result in stronger teams, which = more physical rugby = more attractive rugby = packed stadiums = more revenue = more sponsorship = more bang for the buck!

You raise some good points, but remember that professional sports receive most of their revenue from TV rights, not at ground attendances. 15 teams gives more matches to the braodcasters.

NRL has the same problem with attendances - games are played at crowd unfriendly times to suit TV.

 

[p.Tah]

^ play in smaller stadiums!

 

[Bowside]

I don't think having teams from US and Japan is feasible. I want to see the best players play regularly, not be rested.

I think if it goes to 18 teams, Australia's 6th team would have to be Western Sydney. But I dont think we have the players or money for a 6th team at the moment.

Another option is so have a combined pacific Island team in the Australian conference - based out of either apia or western sydney. In order to play for such a team you'd simply have to be eligible (not capped) to play for either Samoa, Fiji, Tonga or PNG. It would allow young pacific islander players to get a start and still remain eligible for Aus or the All Blacks if they so choose in the future.

The IRB would of course have to fund it, but they have shown willingness to do this in the past so I don't see why they would stop now.