SANZAR Survey on Super Rugby Expansion

[TahDan]

Hey guys,

SANZAR have a survey on whether you'd prefer Japan or Singapore to be the location of the Asian team in the expanded 18 team competition due to start in 2016.

You can find it here:
http://www.sanzarrugby.com/superrugby/news/survey-japan-or-singapore/

I'd go with Japan because they represent a massively bigger and more lucrative market and because you'd actually have a team with some local players.

Playing in Singapore will frankly be an embarrassment. The locals couldn't give a flying f### about rugby and most expats actually care more about soccer, so you'd almost definitely be watching games played in front of empty grounds. Add to that, the value of their market pales in comparison to Japan, so I can't see how it would help the TV deal.

But to be honest I think the expansion if a fucking stupid idea and honestly can't understand why it's being forced on us... I know about the Southern Kings blah blah blah, but they're not a good enough justification for fucking what has been the best incarnation of the competition to date by creating a ludicrous international conference system.

If they really have to expand, they ought to just screw Asia and put 2 or 3 teams in Argentina. At least that way they'd have a decent local professional footprint for the Pumas.

 

[Omar Comin']

They need to expand to have any chance of competing with the money on offer in Europe in the next decade or 2. The SANZAR markets are relatively small but Asia (and America - eventually) are massive. Also, much of Asia is in a good time zone from an Australian perspective. Not saying getting Super Rugby to take off in a place like Japan would be anything but monumentally tough, but surely that's the vision.

I said Japan for the same reasons and put in my feedback that I think they should reconsider the format. Japan in a South African conference is just silly.

 

[TahDan]

Also, much of Asia is in a good time zone from an Australian perspective. Not saying getting Super Rugby to take off in a place like Japan would be anything but monumentally tough, but surely that's the vision.

I said Japan for the same reasons and put in my feedback that I think they should reconsider the format. Japan in a South African conference is just silly.

Agreed, but playing it in Asia also means we could potentially be playing games in incredibly hot weather in both Singapore and Japan thanks to the seasonal differences.

From logistical perspective the whole thing is completely ridiculous either way though...

 

[Omar Comin']

Agreed, but playing it in Asia also means we could potentially be playing games in incredibly hot weather in both Singapore and Japan thanks to the seasonal differences

I looked this up a little while ago and the temperatures in Tokyo for pretty much the entire length of the competition are fine. It does get warm by July but no worse than Brisbane in late February/early March - and given any matches at that time would be played at night I can't see there being a problem.

 

[TahDan]

Humidity is generally more the problem in Japan from my experience. It may only be about 30 degrees, but it's a bloody barmy 30 degrees... so it'll be more like playing in Darwin than Brisbane.

Either way, the weather is just one issue. Logistically I think what they ought to be aiming for is an Asian conference all of it's own based primarily in Japan.

 

[wamberal]

Singapore's new stadium is climate-controlled. However, I agree that there would be next-to-no interest in any rugby played there, other than exceptional games that might draw expats from other ports in the region, similarly to the HK Sevens. But that would have to be the Darkness playing the Soap Dodgers, or something equally unlikely.

Japan is the obvious choice, shirley?

 

[TahDan]

Singapore's new stadium is climate-controlled. However, I agree that there would be next-to-no interest in any rugby played there, other than exceptional games that might draw expats from other ports in the region, similarly to the HK Sevens. But that would have to be the Darkness playing the Soap Dodgers, or something equally unlikely.

Japan is the obvious choice, shirley?

Agree, but I still think the whole expansion plan is just fucking retarded.

 

[kiap]

I looked this up a little while ago and the temperatures in Tokyo for pretty much the entire length of the competition are fine. It does get warm by July but no worse than Brisbane in late February/early March - and given any matches at that time would be played at night I can't see there being a problem.

Yeah, there was a thread on it. http://www.greenandgoldrugby.com/community/threads/super-what.14140/page-2


I posted the charts:

Yeah, but it could be manageable.

Most of the Super season span (approx. 20-odd weeks worth) falls in the Japanese Winter/Spring, with about 6 weeks or so in June/July where it is hot and humid - and a fair chunk of that will be taken out for the Test window, especially if it is moved to July.

So you are looking at a 3-4 week window of Japanese Summer conditions, with average evening temps around the mid 20s and humidity in the 73-76% range.

That is not too different to Brisbane in Feb-Mar with average evening temps also around the mid 20s and humidity in the 72-73% range . . .

. . . BUT, if was still desired to reduce matches played in Japan at that time, then just schedule one of the away tours for the Japanese team to be at the end of the comp.

The issue of possible NH club comps linking with SA teams is more the other way around, IMO. Why would an English/French Club want to play in the SA Spring/Summer, when they already have everything they need close to home?

 

[TahDan]

Yeah, there was a thread on it. http://www.greenandgoldrugby.com/community/threads/super-what.14140/page-2

I suppose the temperature was really only a minor problem - it's more the logistical and television timing challenges that make this just so stupid.

Part of Super Rugby's problem at the moment is that it really only offers two days a week of prime time viewing content.

How exactly is this going to address that, and what does it does it do to the integrity of a competition that is arguably currently in its best and more logical incarnation.

There's a really nice balance and symmetry to the current system for Super Rugby, and it's only real problem to my mind is limited number of prime time matches.

All this new setup will do is undermine that structure and symmetry whilst offering nothing to improve the level of prime time content.