SANZAAR Fan Survey

[Ruts426]

Just pipe dream but I'm interested to hear peoples thoughts. I understand that because of money, travel and the scheduling of international matches this is next to impossible so no need to shoot down my idea as stupid. I just want to hear how this could be improved...

Proposed altered conferencing model:

The Americas Conference:
· Angels*
· Cardinals*
· Grizzlies*
· Jaguares
· Mastiffs*

Australian Conference:
· Brumbies
· Force
· Rebels
· Reds
· Waratahs

New Zealand Conference:
· Blues
· Chiefs
· Crusaders
· Highlanders
· Hurricanes

Pacific Conference:
· Cherry Blossoms*
· Dragons*
· Sunwolves
· Warriors*

South African Conference:
· Bulls
· Cheetahs
· Kings
· Lions
· Sharks
· Stormers

*Not Current Super Rugby teams.

Proposed additional teams:
· Angels – Based in Los Angeles, California of the USA this could be one of the teams that proves crucial for the implementation of an expansion of our intercontinental rugby competition. If the ‘LA Angels’ could be competitive in Super Rugby then the potential attention drawn t rugby in the United States could only be positive. The infiltration of the goldmine that is sport in the US could at some point in the future become an attractive alternative to players chasing money in the European leagues.

· Cardinals – Based in Chicago, Illinois of the USA or elsewhere on the East Coast would also play a large roll in securing a fan based in the US. Because of the size of the country a second US based team would ensure that some “home games” are played somewhere in the East, giving Super Rugby even greater exposure to the American public.

· Cherry Blossoms – Based on the Northern most island of Japan, Honshu, Super Rugby would be further allowed to infiltrate an already radical fan base. Rugby in Japan appears to have a somewhat colt following that, as the Sunwolves have already proven, Super Rugby can tap into.

· Dragons – Based in Singapore the Asia Pacific Dragons, owned by French Businessman Eric Series, has already expressed an interest in joining the Super Rugby competition having been out bid for a spot in 2016 by Japan Rugby Union who formed the Sunwolves. This tea could again expand Super Rugby’s fan base, but also provide a good competitive side to play for a top spot in the ‘Pacific Conference’.

· Grizzlies – Following a notable performance at the World Cup, here it is proposed that the first Vancouver, British Columbia based team join Super Rugby. With the right financial support this club could provide an attractive alternative to players leaving Super Rugby and going to European leagues. Also providing a wider fan base and ultimately having the potential to discover hidden local talent.

· Mastiffs – Based in Cordoba, Argentina, one of the strongest rugby places in Argentina, and the home of many international players. Another Argentinian club can only improve the game by providing strong competition for a first place spot in the ‘Americas Conference’.

· Warriors – a rebuild of the previous Pacific Islands Rugby Alliance between Fiji, Samoa, and Tonga would provide an extremely competitive side to play in the ‘Pacific Conference’. Having beaten teams like the NSW Waratahs 68 – 21 in the past, the Warriors could become a real powerhouse in the Super Rugby competition. The team’s development would also help to grow the already loved yet underfunded sport in these nations.

All teams, except for the PIRA Warriors and the Asia Pacific Dragons, are completely fictional and for that reason their location (within the same country) and names are completely open to alteration.


The Season:
With the current structure SANZAAR have decided that, in order to provide more ‘local derby’ type situations and to minimise road time, not every team in the competition play each other. Instead teams play a total of 15 games, 17 rounds with 2 bye weeks, in which they play each of the teams in their conference at least once (sometimes more than once). This results in the season being split into about 5-6 games “within a conference”, leaving 9-10 games free for the other 11-12 teams that are in the competition but not in the same conference.
In order to abolish the current system of teams not encountering everyone in the competition at least once and account for the 7 new teams, the season will need to be extended from 17 rounds to 27. This allows for each team to have 24 playing weeks and 3 bye weeks throughout the season.

The dates for the 2016 Super Rugby season;
Round 1: 26th– 28th February
Through to…
Round 14: 27th – 29th May
Break for the June internationals.
Round 15: 1st – 3rd July
Through to…
Round 17: 15th – 17th July
Finals: 22nd July – 6th August

Still using 2016 dates, to enable the proposed structure the season would have to look more like;
Round 1: 12th – 14th February
Through to…
Round 16: 27th – 29th May
Break for June internationals.
Round 17: 1st – 3rd July
Through to…
Round 27: 9th – 11th September

Finals: 16th – 30th September

The Winner:

The process for the finals would be very similar with the top team from each conference making it through as well as three wildcards from any conference. The wildcards will simply be the three teams that have the most competition points but are not leading their conference.
Then in the traditional fashion quarter finals, semi finals and the final are all played out to determine a winner.

 

[The torpedo]

I reckon that there should be 4 PI teams - one from Apia (Samoa), Nuku'alofa (Tonga), Suva and Nadi (Fiji). Put 2 the Nuku'alofa and the Nadi team in the Australian conference and the Apia and Suva teams in the NZ conferences. Rename both conferences Oceanic 1 and Oceanic 2. The season also goes for way too long (it should finish around early August for non-RWC years and mid-July for RWC years).

 

[Braveheart81]

If you're posting directly after someone who has made a massive post either just quote the section of the post that is relevant or not at all.

As for the season being too long, it is currently 15 games plus finals. That is pretty short as far as competitions go.

 

[WorkingClassRugger]

I'm going to resoond to Ruts426 comment:

I actually think we'll see a day when Super Rugby has at least 24 teams spread over two divisions of 12 with two donference 6 team conferences in each division. To achieve this I would like to see the current conference realigned to fit better with timezone contraints and where necessary new teams included.

I would look to move the Sunwolves into the NZ conference and either look to bring either another Japan based franchise or open the door for either the AP Dragons based out of Singapore or a Hong Kong squad to enter the Australian conference. From there the biggest movement would be to create an entirely new Americas conference centred around the Jaguares. Look to add another Argentine squad as well as two teams each from Canada (Vancouver and Toronto) and the US (New York and somewhere of a number possible opportunities in the West).

The struct if e would be pretty simple. Each team plays their in conference rivals twice. Home and away for 10 games. Then they play each team from their rival conference in their division once for a total of 16 games. From there a 6 team finals series is determined using one single divisional table in each division meaning that the best teams are in fact represented.

The top 2 get a week off. Three plays 6 and 4 plays 5. Winner of each game then plays the top two for a spot in the Divisional Final to crown a Divisional Champion and determine who will represent the division in the overall Championship. The final would be rotated between each division on a year by year basis. All up the final two teams will play 20 games. While the pthers will play between 16-19 games.All up the season would be 203 games over a 5 month period.

 

[Lindommer]

Let's try and sort out the dog's breakfast we have with Super Rugby in 2016 before embarking on any more expansions. The major problem on the horizon for SANZAAR is our Saffer cousins' participation. The poor bastards are copping it from all angles, government interference at home leading to declining playing standards and a huge drain of talent to Europe and Japan. On top of these troubles the rand's going through the floor resulting in uncompetitive Saffer sides.

 

[TOCC]

Personally i think one of the biggest issues in the current setup is the gap in quality of the teams, i can't remember a season when there has been such a noticeable difference between the top half and the bottom half, its beginning to make for a predictable and subsequently boring tournament.

Perhaps Super Rugby needs to examine a format along the lines of the 'Championship-Premiership Cup' in the ITM Cup, or the European Champions/Challenge Cup's.

From 2013 onwards, the Mitre 10 Cup has two Divisions, the Premiership and the Championship, each with seven teams. All teams play all other teams in their own Division and four teams from the other Division. This keeps up some of the traditional provincial rivalries.

How could this work in Super Rugby..
2 Divisions of 9 teams established, teams play every team in their own division and a few games against teams in the other division, each 'division' has its own finals series. Some form of promotion/relegation at the end of the season, keep an even ratio of Australia/NZ/South African teams in each division.

It doesn't fix the issue of quality in the teams, but it ensures the 7 top teams all get the chance to play against each other, and all the bottom teams play against each other. Plus a final series for the lower ranked teams.

 

[WorkingClassRugger]

Personally i think one of the biggest issues in the current setup is the gap in quality of the teams, i can't remember a season when there has been such a noticeable difference between the top half and the bottom half, its beginning to make for a predictable and subsequently boring tournament.

Perhaps Super Rugby needs to examine a format along the lines of the 'Championship-Premiership Cup' in the ITM Cup, or the European Champions/Challenge Cup's.




How could this work in Super Rugby..
2 Divisions of 9 teams established, teams play every team in their own division and a few games against teams in the other division, each 'division' has its own finals series. Some form of promotion/relegation at the end of the season, keep an even ratio of Australia/NZ/South African teams in each division.

It doesn't fix the issue of quality in the teams, but it ensures the 7 top teams all get the chance to play against each other, and all the bottom teams play against each other. Plus a final series for the lower ranked teams.

The only issue with is the need to artificially maintain an even ratio. While in principle it means a fairer split it could be argued that it still leaves huge disparities in quality. Which in itself would case issues. If you were to go down this particular path it would have to be so on merit. But again, issues would quickly arise.

I personally echo Pulver's thoughts on the need for greatercooperation and coordination at the elite level other game. Assess what works and what doesn't. Then get everyone working toward not just reaching aset goal but collectively exceeding it. We all have opinions on how best to do it. I for one favour a centralization of all professional operations as a means to reduce duplication, create greater cohesion and co-ordination.

 

[yourmatesam]

Let's try and sort out the dog's breakfast we have with Super Rugby in 2016 before embarking on any more expansions. The major problem on the horizon for SANZAAR is our Saffer cousins' participation. The poor bastards are copping it from all angles, government interference at home leading to declining playing standards and a huge drain of talent to Europe and Japan. On top of these troubles the rand's going through the floor resulting in uncompetitive Saffer sides.

Should there be an additional team in NZ?

 

[Upthenuts]

the finals are shaping up really well, if its 4 kiwi teams then its brilliant. its just a unfair comp on the Blues, but if a kiwi team wins this injustice can be overlooked

 

[Lindommer]

No.

 

[yourmatesam]

No.

Care to elaborate there china? They are the only country that hasnt had any expansion since the inception of Super Rugby, might be time to look at it?

 

[Joe King]

I'm going to resoond to Ruts426 comment:

I actually think we'll see a day when Super Rugby has at least 24 teams spread over two divisions of 12 with two donference 6 team conferences in each division. To achieve this I would like to see the current conference realigned to fit better with timezone contraints and where necessary new teams included.

I would look to move the Sunwolves into the NZ conference and either look to bring either another Japan based franchise or open the door for either the AP Dragons based out of Singapore or a Hong Kong squad to enter the Australian conference. From there the biggest movement would be to create an entirely new Americas conference centred around the Jaguares. Look to add another Argentine squad as well as two teams each from Canada (Vancouver and Toronto) and the US (New York and somewhere of a number possible opportunities in the West).

The struct if e would be pretty simple. Each team plays their in conference rivals twice. Home and away for 10 games. Then they play each team from their rival conference in their division once for a total of 16 games. From there a 6 team finals series is determined using one single divisional table in each division meaning that the best teams are in fact represented.

The top 2 get a week off. Three plays 6 and 4 plays 5. Winner of each game then plays the top two for a spot in the Divisional Final to crown a Divisional Champion and determine who will represent the division in the overall Championship. The final would be rotated between each division on a year by year basis. All up the final two teams will play 20 games. While the pthers will play between 16-19 games.All up the season would be 203 games over a 5 month period.

I would't mind something along these lines. My question is, is the demand for Super Rugby in Europe dependent upon NZ and Oz teams playing in SA? I'm just thinking about what might hold SANZAAR back from a suggestion like this.

I also remember something about the NZRU wanting to play games against SA teams. But I've never understood how that fits with the Tew's comments about expanding Super Rugby and making use of the conference system to have less travel.

 

[Highlander35]

Unless you get up early on your saturday (6.30-8.30am for Kiwi games and 8.30-10.30am for your East Coast Australian Games, depending on who's got daylight savings) you're not going to catch many of those games. Consider the impact of early morning commutes, particularly in London and the regions encircling it, Children's activities and local sporting commitments. Plus nobody is going down to the local or even to a sports bar every weekend morning to watch a league game.

Friday night games would be even worse, with everybody working or travelling to work.

I'm fairly sure that the quallity of play, and the conducive timezone is essential.

 

[WorkingClassRugger]

Unless you get up early on your saturday (6.30-8.30am for Kiwi games and 8.30-10.30am for your East Coast Australian Games, depending on who's got daylight savings) you're not going to catch many of those games. Consider the impact of early morning commutes, particularly in London and the regions encircling it, Children's activities and local sporting commitments. Plus nobody is going down to the local or even to a sports bar every weekend morning to watch a league game.

Friday night games would be even worse, with everybody working or travelling to work.

I'm fairly sure that the quallity of play, and the conducive timezone is essential.

Probably wouldn't catch many of them now. There's also the option of screening them on delay. At present a 7:30pm kick off in Australia (East Coast) would translate to 10:30am in London. Games could be set back and extra 30 minutes. Then with playing on delay the NZ games would kick off at 11am and the East Coast Aus would be around 1pm.

I'm not too sure but tpit's not an insurmountable issue to overcome.

 

[Joe King]

I'm going to resoond to Ruts426 comment:

I actually think we'll see a day when Super Rugby has at least 24 teams spread over two divisions of 12 with two donference 6 team conferences in each division. To achieve this I would like to see the current conference realigned to fit better with timezone contraints and where necessary new teams included.

I would look to move the Sunwolves into the NZ conference and either look to bring either another Japan based franchise or open the door for either the AP Dragons based out of Singapore or a Hong Kong squad to enter the Australian conference. From there the biggest movement would be to create an entirely new Americas conference centred around the Jaguares. Look to add another Argentine squad as well as two teams each from Canada (Vancouver and Toronto) and the US (New York and somewhere of a number possible opportunities in the West).

The struct if e would be pretty simple. Each team plays their in conference rivals twice. Home and away for 10 games. Then they play each team from their rival conference in their division once for a total of 16 games. From there a 6 team finals series is determined using one single divisional table in each division meaning that the best teams are in fact represented.

The top 2 get a week off. Three plays 6 and 4 plays 5. Winner of each game then plays the top two for a spot in the Divisional Final to crown a Divisional Champion and determine who will represent the division in the overall Championship. The final would be rotated between each division on a year by year basis. All up the final two teams will play 20 games. While the pthers will play between 16-19 games.All up the season would be 203 games over a 5 month period.

What about this idea, going with your 24 teams: rather than 4 conferences, just have 2: Oz with NZ, and SA with the Americas. Play everyone in your own conference once (11 games), with the top 4 teams from each conference (8 teams) qualifying for the finals. The finals could be played over 3 or 4 weeks. 12-13 week comp.

No interruption by the June Internationals, which can then flow into TRC like was talked about on another thread.

All countries can then play their national domestic tournaments with their test players available, and Australia doesn't need to rely on Super Rugby as a pseudo national domestic tournament.

Its mostly time zone friendly before the finals. SA won't have to worry that it's no different to the Currie Cup. NZ won't have to worry that their teams are being disadvantaged.

Expansion into the Americas should bring in extra revenue, without adding extra travel.

Not a perfect solution, though I'm not sure their is one.

 

[WorkingClassRugger]

What about this idea, going with your 24 teams: rather than 4 conferences, just have 2: Oz with NZ, and SA with the Americas. Play everyone in your own conference once (11 games), with the top 4 teams from each conference (8 teams) qualifying for the finals. The finals could be played over 3 or 4 weeks. 12-13 week comp.

No interruption by the June Internationals, which can then flow into TRC like was talked about on another thread.

All countries can then play their national domestic tournaments with their test players available, and Australia doesn't need to rely on Super Rugby as a pseudo national domestic tournament.

Its mostly time zone friendly before the finals. SA won't have to worry that it's no different to the Currie Cup. NZ won't have to worry that their teams are being disadvantaged.

Expansion into the Americas should bring in extra revenue, without adding extra travel.

Not a perfect solution, though I'm not sure their is one.

If they went down that path I'd prefer each conference to have it's own finals series. If its 24 teams then everyone plays each other once and then a 6 team finals series. Winner of each conference play each other with the final being rotated year on year. All up 16 weeks.