S18 on its way

[PaarlBok]

Well teams make their own luck don't they.

But it's true that in many sporting competitions the luck of the draw is a factor. The biggest rugby tournament in the world is one!

Thankfully not all sporting competitions are exactly the same. And many different models are very successful. For instance, the two biggest sporting leagues on the planet are most likely the NFL and the English Premier League. The NFL has a conference structure and a playoffs system. The English Premier League is the kind of competition you prefer - full home and away and the team with the most points at the end awarded the title. Both work.

if you look at a top team like the Saders, they start slow without most of their star players and only use them when the business end starts. This we they degrade the competition. Most teams do this nowadays. If the log position was in place , teams would played their strongest players week in , week out. Lucky draws happen in gambling.

 

[Omar Comin']

if you look at a top team like the Saders, they start slow without most of their star players and only use them when the business end starts. This we they degrade the competition. Most teams do this nowadays. If the log position was in place , teams would played their strongest players week in , week out. Lucky draws happen in gambling.

There's advantages and disadvantages to every format. Fact is that luck of the draw is a factor in almost every sporting competition including most of the biggest sporting events in the world.

Even a tournament like the 6 nations has an element of luck of the draw. It's a single round robin so the genuine contenders that get home games against their main rivals, and away games against the teams they should beat, are luckier than those with the opposite draw. This balances out over time.

Even the rugby championship has some luck of the draw! It's a genuine home and away, first past the post competition, but still people say one team has a better draw than another based on who they play when, travel schedule etc.

 

[Teh Other Dave]

Actually the NFL follows a formula with a rotating draw each year, it's not completely luck based.

Don't forget that even the Rugby World Cup has a pool and knockout system.

The only way to have a draw that's close to fair is for each team to play each other twice this year, and that didn't even happen in Super 12.

 

[Omar Comin']

Actually the NFL follows a formula with a rotating draw each year, it's not completely luck based.

Don't forget that even the Rugby World Cup has a pool and knockout system.

The only way to have a draw that's close to fair is for each team to play each other twice this year, and that didn't even happen in Super 12.

Yep agreed. I didn't mean luck in terms of it being drawn out of a hat, I just mean luck in terms of who has a harder or easier draw in the competition. And that changes naturally as some teams improve or go backwards. Sometimes what seems like a tough draw doesn't end up being that tough and vice versa. This tends to balance out over time, and usually the best team wins a competition regardless of the format.

 

[TOCC]

So what you're saying is that you are only willing to put up with South Africa as long as we're beneficial to you?

Yes absolutely, if there is no financial benefit and no playing experience benefit then what's the point?

Currently the financial and playing experience benefits outweighs the negatives, but those negatives are slowly mounting.. A convoluted draw, tyranny of distance, poor public awareness of South African teams, poor ratings against South African teams, poor crowds against South African teams etc.

If Japan can generate reasonably broadcast value in the future then I believe we will see a shift to a conference model with less traffic and more games in time friendly slots.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[LeinsterRebel]

Go to http://www.greenandgoldrugby.com/community/threads/the-nz-sa-rivalry-how-fierce-is-it.13399/

Mate there is no doubt of rivalry between these nations, it's totally unrelated

 

[boyo]

Shall we all converse in textspeak from now?

gr8/sarc

 

[WorkingClassRugger]

Just posted on G&GR facebook http://www.futureofsuperrugby.com/

He's close to how I'd like to see it with a few exceptions. I wouldn't go with a team in each Argentina or Japan. Not yet at least. What I would rather see is each conference go to 6 teams. That could be achieved in a number of ways. The Kings will naturally assume the 6th SA position. In the Australian conference you could either look at adding a 6th team in Western Sydney local heavy roster or PI and an PI team in the NZ conference based out of Auckland.

In terms of talent. Well, that's where you engage both Argentina and Japan. In each and every squad with the exception of the PI team, open three places for Argentine players and two for Japanese. That would provide a total of 51 places for Argentine players and 34 places for Japanese players. Beyond that another two places could be opened for further PI inclusion. Finally one more for a Tier Two player.

In all you could bring in over 150 (including the PI squad) new players without placing any pressure on the existing player pools in either country. It would also provide more benefit via involving more players in a higher level of competition that just one team each.

So, three conferences of 6 teams. Each team plays their conference rivals twice and three rivals from both of the opposing conferences. Totaling a 16 round 144 game regular season. Ditch byes.

Top two teams from each conference progress to the finals. They are then seeded according to a cumulative table. The top two seeds have the week off. 3 plays 6, 4 plays 5. Winner of each plays the one of the top two seeds (winner of 3 v 6 plays 1 and winner of 4 v 5 plays two). Highest ranked winner either hosts the final or you play a two leg final series. Either way its's no more than 20 weeks. The longest tour would be three weeks.

Finally, planning for a forth conference should be set in place. Not in Asia or Argentina but North America. There is even a structure that with the right planning and development that could very easily be developed into a new NA conference. The Pacific Rugby Premiership. Its arguably the premier club comp in the US. Semi-professional already. Easily covers the hot spots of the game in the States.

The goal would be to engage the clubs to develop a city based league. Denver (Glendale and Barbarians), San Francisco (SFGG and Olympic Club), Seattle Saracens, San Diego/Southern California (OMBAC, Santa Monica and Long Beach). On top of that you can include the CRC teams in the BC Bears and Ontario Blues.

Part of this arrangement would be the provision of coaching and technical advice, development via playing standard, business and brand. This would involve the Super Rugby branding.The plan would be to draw investment while progressively elevating the playing standard and interest with intent to include the conference in time for the next rights negotiations.

If proven successful. Some methodolgy could be employed in establishing new conferences in the future.

 

[LeinsterRebel]

Actually the NFL follows a formula with a rotating draw each year, it's not completely luck based.

Don't forget that even the Rugby World Cup has a pool and knockout system.

The only way to have a draw that's close to fair is for each team to play each other twice this year, and that didn't even happen in Super 12.

Definitely a lot to learn from the NFL, but is it apples and oranges though? Different sports and different physical demands. Also with the draft system etc each club presents a different long term value proposition to its stakeholders.

Super Rugby can and in my view should play more games.

Talk of teams in Western Sydney etc may be a bit silly but the tournament needs to evolve to meet its potential as one of the world's greatest sporting tournaments.

 

[PaarlBok]

There's advantages and disadvantages to every format. Fact is that luck of the draw is a factor in almost every sporting competition including most of the biggest sporting events in the world.

Even a tournament like the 6 nations has an element of luck of the draw. It's a single round robin so the genuine contenders that get home games against their main rivals, and away games against the teams they should beat, are luckier than those with the opposite draw. This balances out over time.

Even the rugby championship has some luck of the draw! It's a genuine home and away, first past the post competition, but still people say one team has a better draw than another based on who they play when, travel schedule etc.

There are no disadvantage playing a double round (h&a) vs each opponent in the competition and top of the log is the winner. The further any competition move away from this format the more the luck factor come into it.

 

[PaarlBok]

Mate there is no doubt of rivalry between these nations, it's totally unrelated

Nope, I try to answer your "Australian and New Zealand rugby is the rugby that enthusiasts the world-over romanticise about."

Its all there in the thread. Tew try to explain this to you.

 

[PaarlBok]

A convoluted draw, tyranny of distance, poor public awareness of South African teams, poor ratings against South African teams, poor crowds against South African teams etc.

If Japan can generate reasonably broadcast value in the future then I believe we will see a shift to a conference model with less traffic and more games in time friendly slots.

The way I see this is that SA brings the finance to the comp.

Our crowds and money will decide the future of the competition, defnitely not Australia.

The sad part its declining in SA, not far from dead.

 

[PaarlBok]

I agree, but here's what NZ think:

Tew explained the rationale behind adding an Argentinian franchise and allowing South Africa to have a sixth team out of Port Elizabeth.
"You go to the cornerstones of this. New Zealand Rugby has decided on balance that South Africa is important to us because of two reasons. firstly [broadcaster] SuperSport's Money is a significant portion of Sanzar's broadcast income.
"If we took the cost of South Africa out and netted it against the income we would be seriously worse off so from a financial point they are important.
"But equally important anyone we talk to in coaching and high performance believe our young athletes need to play South African teams before they start playing test matches. So we think they are vitally important from a rugby perspective too."
http://www.stuff.co.nz/sport/rugby/super-rugby/9775977/Steve-Tew-hits-back-at-Super-Rugby-criticism
He's made these same points a number of times in the past couple of years. So, as long as NZ takes this view, we have to go along with it. It could be argued that we need super rugby more than either NZ or SAF, although the arrangement suits all three for different reasons.

Tew is a wise man. We can go pre G&G time for discussing the SupeRugby format.

The youngster Aussies on here complaining about it, first read what the G&G expert legend posters thought many moons ago before bitching and moaning about it.

Its all in the labs.
http://www.greenandgoldrugby.com/community/threads/sanzar-super-rugby-future-format.3602/

 

[Strewthcobber]

The games Australian teams play in European friendly time zones where we get a share of the revenue - ie South African super rugby and trination games - are our second best asset after Bledisloe cup games.

 

[Mank]

Yes absolutely, if there is no financial benefit and no playing experience benefit then what's the point?

Currently the financial and playing experience benefits outweighs the negatives, but those negatives are slowly mounting.. A convoluted draw, tyranny of distance, poor public awareness of South African teams, poor ratings against South African teams, poor crowds against South African teams etc.

Ok, let us keep to straight business talk then. You can read the link PaarlBok posted and (I have repeated this so many times the people who get it must be tired of me saying it) understand that Australia were the major beneficiaries of the last few format changes. You are now complaining about that but the record suggests that this is what you guys wanted (ever increasing length, more local derbies, etc etc). SA fans don't want more local derbies. We don't want an extended competition. We don't want it to break for the RC. We don't want a diluted Currie Cup. All of these are concessions we have to make to play in Super Rugby in order to hand over a higher percentage of the revenue than we ever used to. So tell me, what exactly is it that you guys conceded previously?

Your position is straight up, no sentiment, use SA for everything you can, but give as little reciprocation as possible if there is no benefit for Australia. And yes, that makes complete business sense. But if that's your position, just remember it can go both ways.

 

[Mank]

For what it's worth, this is my view on the format. I have not even been following what is proposed for the comp structure to be frank. But I would prefer we moved straight to S18 with 6 SA teams and 2 teams from other countries (hopefully Japan in the mix), my ideal would be:

Two pools of 9 with a single match against each other team within your comp, then top 4 teams from each pool go through to playoffs (quarters, semis and finals). I could possibly live with a home and away system in these pools but then it starts getting too long again.

The pros (for me):
- Fewer matches against local teams. We, in SA, play each other local team far too many times in the year. The interest for so many matches is not there.
- Fewer overall games in S<comp>
- No stop and resume format for the RC
- Shorter comp so SA can regain some of the year for the Currie Cup
- Relatively even distribution of teams per country in each pool
- For me, more interest in the pool because it will be more straight forward old style system against a larger mix of teams

The cons:
- Australia may not like that they have fewer matches against local teams
- Don't get to play every team every year
- More travel for SA again?
- No home / away format

I can more than live with those cons. So what if we only get to play teams every other year? It is arguably better that way as the interest is intense when you do get to play the team. But I admit, there are many SA fans who would have a problem with the format as it involves more travel. But we've seen the alternative and I don't like it.

Of course, with fewer games, this probably won't sell as an idea to the broadcasters. But at some point, something is going to give and I reckon the people in a position to do something will start to look at quality rather than quantity again.

 

[LeinsterRebel]

Nope, I try to answer your "Australian and New Zealand rugby is the rugby that enthusiasts the world-over romanticise about."

Its all there in the thread. Tew try to explain this to you.

No need to be so patronising.

Australia and New Zealand rugby is the rugby that fans over the world love. South African rugby is not loved. People admire it, people know the teams are strong, but it is not admired. I am sure the people of South Africa adore it, but that isn't the point. Referencing irrelevant articles about a rivalry between South Africa and other countries has no impact on this.

 

[LeinsterRebel]

Tew is a wise man. We can go pre G&G time for discussing the SupeRugby format.

The youngster Aussies on here complaining about it, first read what the G&G expert legend posters thought many moons ago before bitching and moaning about it.

Its all in the labs.
http://www.greenandgoldrugby.com/community/threads/sanzar-super-rugby-future-format.3602/

"The youngster Aussies".

It is not a very mature approach to discussions if you just try and ridicule people you don't agreement rather than discuss things rationally.

 

[PaarlBok]

Australia and New Zealand rugby is the rugby that fans over the world love. South African rugby is not loved. People admire it, people know the teams are strong, but it is not admired. I am sure the people of South Africa adore it, but that isn't the point. Referencing irrelevant articles about a rivalry between South Africa and other countries has no impact on this.

No I totally disagree with this. Maybe thats what you want, not what the fans love.

Fans want to see their team measuring against the top team in the world. Sorry to tell you thats its neither Australia or South Africa.

 

[PaarlBok]

"The youngster Aussies".

It is not a very mature approach to discussions if you just try and ridicule people you don't agreement rather than discuss things rationally.

I am trying to give you the guidelines from long discussions we had here about the topic.
Here is another one.
http://www.greenandgoldrugby.com/community/threads/s14-re-format.3327/

The Legenary Oom Lee Grant post Oct 8, 2008

There's no way we could be competitive with 5 teams in Super rugby but does that matter?

We have lost a number of players overseas. One player would have gone overseas for a reason different to another player, or he may have had several reasons for going, but common to many players, somewhere in their decision making, would be the fact that they could not hold down a starting spot in their Super12 or Super14 team.

The likely names on such a list would be too many to mention.

If a new Super team was started up in Oz in, let's say, Melbourne, we could get a few guys back, with enough lead time, but the more important thing would be that it would stop guys going in the first place. The positive effect of this would not be felt for a few years but it would eventually happen.

There would be a tough transition for the Melbourne outfit but if they were to start up in 2011 then the 4 existing teams should be funded to increase their professional squad base in 2010. Every Super outfit has professional Academy players but the funding would enable them to increase the number of them.

The 4 S14 teams would use all their expanded number of pros, except those needed to play in a Super14 match, to form a totally professional A side to play in an APC type tournament with home and away matches against the other 3 A sides. It will be a stretch when S14 teams are touring but the existing A sides have amateur reserves now and they are happy to get the chance.

With a final it would run for 13 weeks and run concurrently with the S14 competition. Whenever possible it would be a curtain raiser to a S14 game. The ground is already rented.

During this tournament the gurus of the Melbourne team could make up a wish list of the best players they have spotted. The same procedure as when the Force had to man their squad would proceed but the ARU could give each Oz player a modest top up sweetener to go to Melbourne for 2 years.

Also, Melbourne should be enabled to get private funding to hire more overseas players than the other teams can have.


The above is complete drivel, and its only merit is to indicate that there are lots of ideas about how to get a 5th franchise up and running without selling the family jewels.

Having a 5th team would inevitably dilute the potency of the 4 present teams whatever happens, but having it would make the failure of the ARC less harmful.

About 28 Australian extra professional players would get on the park every year and there would be more jobs for Aussie coaches.

PS - I think that Melbourne is the best bet. There are several international companies who have their HQs in Melbourne who would be interested in sponsoring an international game - or so said the proposal put forward by the Victorians when they were tendering for the 4th franchise.