S18 on its way

[Lindommer]

A suggested alternative structure.

To my mind the proposed 18 team structure proposed for Super Rugby from 2016 onwards has two glaring weaknesses: the sixth Saffer side doesn't warrant inclusion, and the Argentinean team will be far too powerful. The original suggestion was for two Argie sides to be included in this expansion. So, simply substitute a second Argie side for the sixth Saffer one. And iRB/SANZAR or whomever, politely tell the Saffer government to get their noses out of sporting administration.

My qualifications for this suggested competition:

• The Argie sides be grouped with either SAf or Aus/NZ. Arg 1 would go SAf/Aus/SAf/NZ/SAf/Aus/SAf/NZ, etc. Arg 2 would go NZ/SAf/Aus/SAf/NZ/SAf/Aus/SAf, etc.
• The Sunwolves to be grouped with either Aus or NZ. It'd look like this: Aus/NZ/NZ/Aus/Aus/NZ/NZ/Aus, etc.
• Matches to be the same as 2015: eight matches against teams in same group and four each against teams in the other two. And two byes.
• All SAf/Sunwolves matches to be played in Singapore and/or Hong Kong. To be fair to the Saffers this Asian fixture should always be tacked on to an Australasian trip.
• Australian and New Zealand teams to play their SAf/Argentinean away fixtures in one trip.
• Byes to be scheduled after all long trips.

 

[TOCC]

Kings were largely a political inclusion weren't they, there are issues at play in South African rugby which forced their inclusion.

 

[Omar Comin']

The Argentinian Union didn't want a 2nd team. Primarily for financial reasons I believe. If the Jaguars are successful on and off the field then I'm sure we'll see a 2nd team sooner than later.

 

[Hugh Jarse]

Could the next South American entrant into Super Rugby be a combined Uruguay/Argentina franchise?

The bulk of the team could be the Uruguay National Squad, rounded out with some international journeymen (or up and coming development players) from Argentina and other countries.

Is Uruguay Rugby ready to go pro?

 

[kiap]

Yeah, the toothpaste is out of the tube. Probably the only way South Africa would ever have fewer than 6 teams from now on would be if there was some sort of financial implosion at the SARU.

They're basically running the Kings now after Cheeky Watson's mob stopped paying the bills.

It's likely that the Kings will be playing all the way through the new broadcast deal and well beyond 2020. Hoping they'll just up and rack off is not going to do anything. And who knows? They might be a credible enough side by 2020.

 

[WorkingClassRugger]

Could the next South American entrant into Super Rugby be a combined Uruguay/Argentina franchise?

The bulk of the team could be the Uruguay National Squad, rounded out with some international journeymen )or up and coming development players) from Argentina and other countries.

Is Uruguay Rugby ready to go pro?

At present. Don't know but they have recently signed 11 players to pro contracts and have stated that they do plan to present a case for inclusion in Super Rugby in the future.

It's something I think SANZAR should begin to look at. If a second Argentine franchise isn't workable a Sth American combined franchise may be an option. Hell, even if a second Argentine franchise is viable it should be seriously considered. With the Americas Rugby Championship being rebooted and developed as a serious international championship we need to look at providing opportunities to up and coming nations and there players with a pathway while opening up new markets.

 

[kiap]

I reckon a second Argentine franchise is workable.

They just didn't want to overreach in 2016.

 

[Omar Comin']

Agustin Pichot has previously mentioned the possibility of a Montevideo based franchise with strong Argentinian presence/support. It's a fairly short ferry trip away from Buenos Aires so there could be a nice rivalry between such a team and the Jaguares.

I'd imagine if this was to happen anytime soon that the squad could probably be at most about 50% Uruguayan to be competitive. There's plenty of excess Argentinian talent though.

 

[TOCC]

Perhaps in another 10 years we could have multiple conferences:

-Asia Pacific(Japan, New Zealand, Australia)
-America(Argentina, USA, Canada, Uruguay)
-Africa(South Africa, Namibia)-7 teams

Sure any draw would be a little convoluted, but i think aligning teams along timezones is far better then the current conference system. It would allow fans to better follow their teams.

 

[TOCC]

Surprised this hasn't been mentioned anywhere:

SANZAR is set to make a radical change to its bonus point system for the 2016 Super Rugby season, mirroring a move made in France’s Top 14 competition.
Super Rugby teams will now need to score three more tries than the opposition to secure a bonus point, with the four try bonus point being scrapped.
The idea is to encourage teams to continue to play attacking rugby, even if the contest is lopsided.
Previously, a team winning by a large margin could take the foot off the pedal and empty their bench once they had secured the four try bonus point.

http://www.foxsports.com.au/rugby/s...m/news-story/fa38a0d08f5147ac91c68a359fafa9d1

 

[Highlander35]

Same as the NRC, and originally the Frenchies then.

It's probably a good thing to keep the winners foot on the pedal, but it's going to deprive some losing teams of bonus points throughout the season.

 

[Lindommer]

And what's wrong with that, H35?

 

[kiap]

aligning teams along timezones is far better then the current conference system. It would allow fans to better follow their teams.

Timezone alignment is correct.

The main problem with the present setup is really Japan playing in an African conference. But there's not a lot of point bemoaning that now because the deal has been done. It will have to get fixed in the next deal.

The thing about any future conferences (or groups or whatever you call them) is that they can't be too lopsided in terms of the number of teams

-Asia Pacific(Japan, New Zealand, Australia)
-America(Argentina, USA, Canada, Uruguay)
-Africa(South Africa, Namibia)-7 teams

There may not be enough numbers to have an Americas conference (even if they put a couple of sides in USA/CAN). In which case they could be grouped with South Africa.

The time difference between Joburg and Buenos Aries, I think is about 5 hours.

Time difference between Auckland and Perth is also 4 (sometimes 5) hours.

 

[TOCC]

So based on a quick glance, had this rule been in place in 2015 the Brumbies and Crusaders would have finished equal on 43 points, and Crusaders would have gone through to the finals instead of the Brumbies due to a higher points for and against.

 

[Highlander35]

I don't think the new one is bad. There's nothing wrong with it. I just prefer the system that rewards both sides for attacking play. A 3 tries to 0 game now awards one team a bonus point when previously there'd be no bonus points, while a 5 tries to 4 game now rewards neither.

 

[Brumby Runner]

And what's wrong with that, H35?

Exactly. In what world should the loser of a contest be rewarded with points towards the competition outcome?

 

[Slim 293]

I mentioned it in the refereeing thread, but this one had more traffic -

The TMO has gone back to 2013 protocols for Super Rugby and Currie Cup, meaning they're only allowed to rule on the scoring of a try (the grounding or whether the player is out of the field of play), and foul play.........

They can no longer officiate the phases leading up to a try.........

 

[Slim 293]

So based on a quick glance, had this rule been in place in 2015 the Brumbies and Crusaders would have finished equal on 43 points, and Crusaders would have gone through to the finals instead of the Brumbies due to a higher points for and against.

Nope, the Brumbies still would've finished one point ahead on 44 points (41 points + 2 x Reds + 1 x Force)..........

 

[Hawko]

I don't think the new one is bad. There's nothing wrong with it. I just prefer the system that rewards both sides for attacking play. A 3 tries to 0 game now awards one team a bonus point when previously there'd be no bonus points, while a 5 tries to 4 game now rewards neither.

Getting three more tries is much harder than getting four. The outcome will be less bonus points for attacking play. Teams like the Stormers will love it; one thing that distinguished the Super comp was the way most teams would try to score tries rather than force penalties. But now a team which wins 9-8 on penalties gets the same four points that a team that wins 28-14 gets.

By not rewarding attacking play you reward instead those teams that play negatively. If you went back over the last five years and re-issued the points I reckon the Stormers would have made many more finals under this bonus point system. In addition to the skewing of advantage to SA teams that the new draw provides, they now get more advantage because even though they don't know how to score tries they still can get enough points to get a good table position.

 

[TOCC]

Exactly. In what world should the loser of a contest be rewarded with points towards the competition outcome?

The one which has the Brumbies qualify for the finals ahead of the Crusaders....

In 2015 both teams had won 9 games and lost 7.

2015 Brumbies: TB(6), LB(5) Total: 47
2015 Crusader: TB(8), LB(2) Total: 46

*TB= Try Bonus
*LB= Losing Bonus


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk