Super what?

[Hugh Jarse]

Conference strength and depth are cyclical in nature. ATM the Saffer's are relatively weaker than previously. There will come a time when that may change.

Notwithstanding, if the Saffer heavy weight team gets a dream run to the finals by playing against relatively weaker/"soft" competitors in their conference, then come finals time they may be underdone when they come up against more battle hardened Kiwi and Oz conference teams.

Provided that we can get two and possibly a third team in the finals series, then we stand a good chance of a podium finish. If our best is unable to beat the Saffer best in the finals series, regardless of how they got to be the best, then we don't deserve the title.

 

[Blue]

Playing weaker sides more often is NOT in the interest of South African rugby. Not even remotely.

I don't see how this is a big win for SA. It's bad. It was the only way to add the bloody Kings and Argentina had to get a side.

The more I look at it the more it seems like "Super 18 Eyed Monster (TM)" ticks a lot of boxes:

• SA gets the sixth team they so richly do not deserve

• Australia presumably gets the money they need (we can only assume and judged by Pulver's beaming smile he will). This is right now a lot more important than extra derbies just because some fans want that. Bonus ball: Less travel to SA for Aussie team yeah! Second Bonus ball: Fans can stop whinging about how they hate meaningless SA derbies because until the finals it really is neither here nor there what happens. Double Yeah!

• New Zealand - well they sat back and seemingly accepted whatever popped out as long as it did not impact them financially.

Those are the items at the top of the agenda and have been for some. Like the Monster (TM) or not, they have to some extent been addressed. Everything else is just fluff.

 

[BDA]

Just a few thoughts.

• Provided the new format results in the ARU getting a significantly bigger pay day from the broadcasters then it could be good. I like the fact that the Aussie teams will play more games against the kiwis.
• The format really caters for SA, in that not only do they get an extra team but they will most likely have 3 teams in the finals every year. I hope this means the ARU and NZ will see more money coming their way as a result.
• I agree that the Australasian conference will be much tougher, at least for the first few years, which will play into the hands of SA for home finals. However in relation to that point I think its worth noting that SA fans made similar complaints about the oz conference a few years ago, and whilst it did assist the Reds in winning a home final, a few years on and the oz conference is no longer the weaker conference. Personally I like the fact that we will be in the more difficult conference and the quality of games will potentially be higher. The fact that we'll have 2 teams in the finals each year (possibly 3) is a major plus for our local franchises as finals football is what sells memberships and brings in fans.

 

[TOCC]

There's no way to make sense of it from a competition integrity viewpoint.

The pools being advertised are:

Bulls
Stormers
Kings
Argentina team

Sharks
Cheetahs
Lions
Tender team

Aussie Teams

NZ Teams

We know from Super Rugby history that new teams come last every time pretty much without exception. And the Lions have never finished outside the bottom 4. All of those teams have been placed in the 2 smallest pools. In addition these pools only play one of the Aus/NZ conferences each year.

So in a 2 year-cycle, the top 4 South African sides will play:

A new minnow/Lions - 12 times
Other South African side - 8 times
An Aus/NZ team - 10 times

Australian and New Zealand sides will play:

A new minnow/Lions - 4 times
Other South African side - 4 times
An Aus/NZ team - 22 times

So we have a situation where the smallest pools have drastically easier draws, ensuring the winners of those pools occupy the top 2 places in the finals by design. This further ensures that the only way the title can go outside of South Africa is if both of the best South African teams lose finals at home.

I don't think anyone could possibly dispute the inherent biases towards the top South African sides in this plan. That's the trade off Australia and New Zealand have accepted here with the hopeful return of more money.

Is it a bias though?

You are possibly correct in saying that a South African team will likely accrue easier points and thus feature higher up on the table earning a home quarter final..

But at the end of the day, there will still be a minimum of 2 quarter finals in the Australasian time zone regardless..and there will be 5 Australian/New Zealand teams featuring in the finals compared to only 3 from the South African province.

I think it's a fair trade off..

 

[Hawko]

Playing weaker sides more often is NOT in the interest of South African rugby. Not even remotely.

I don't see how this is a big win for SA. It's bad. It was the only way to add the bloody Kings and Argentina had to get a side.

The more I look at it the more it seems like "Super 18 Eyed Monster (TM)" ticks a lot of boxes:

• SA gets the sixth team they so richly do not deserve

• Australia presumably gets the money they need (we can only assume and judged by Pulver's beaming smile he will). This is right now a lot more important than extra derbies just because some fans want that. Bonus ball: Less travel to SA for Aussie team yeah! Second Bonus ball: Fans can stop whinging about how they hate meaningless SA derbies because until the finals it really is neither here nor there what happens. Double Yeah!

• New Zealand - well they sat back and seemingly accepted whatever popped out as long as it did not impact them financially.

Those are the items at the top of the agenda and have been for some. Like the Monster (TM) or not, they have to some extent been addressed. Everything else is just fluff.

I absolutely agree.

The finals series will have three South African teams guaranteed. In almost every year that will be the Sharks, the Bulls, and either the Stormers (mostly) or the Cheetahs.

Either NZ or Australia will have only two teams in the final eight. But it is very likely that one of those SA teams in the final will lose all their Australia and NZ games. So, either NZ or Australia will be penalised for finals places to teams they will have regularly beaten.

Then when you get to the finals games, how will home ground advantage be allocated? Apart from the quarter finals, where home games will go to the four group leaders (two of which are SA teams) it is to be allocated on seedings, ie on points gained throughout the season. Which team is more likely to get high points through the season? The one playing cut -throat games against quality teams or the one playing the Kings and the Argies?

I confidently predict that the semi finals will both be in SA because they will have higher points (no revenue to Australasian teams) and that the final will also be in SA (no revenue to Australasian teams).

Why would Fox want to sign up to a competition where half the quarter finals, all the semi-finals and the grand final are at 1:00am in the morning? It will be a ratings disaster. If Fox do sign up it will only be for a REDUCED, not increased sum of money.

 

[Blue]

Fair points.

I still maintain that it is not in SA's interest. They have settled for any old comp as long as they could get the Kings and shut up the ANC.

From what was said on Rugby Club last night the broadcasters have been consulted. I cannot imagine that SANZAR, and in particular Pulver, would go public with a model that has not been tested. Surely they cannot be that stupid?

 

[kiap]

this was what was shown on Rugby HQ last night

Ta.

Was just wondering whether they used it as an example or if it was something more solid.

 

[boyo]

Why would Fox want to sign up to a competition where half the quarter finals, all the semi-finals and the grand final are at 1:00am in the morning? It will be a ratings disaster. If Fox do sign up it will only be for a REDUCED, not increased sum of money.

Maybe the idea of $$$$ in the future.

 

[wamberal]

As Margaret Thatcher so famously said, "TINA".


There is no alternative.


As others have pointed out, Seth Efrica provides the bulk of the funding, so it is reasonable that the competition has a skew towards them.


Maybe if our teams can start producing attractive, winning, rugby consistently, get some crowds and ratings figures up, next time around we will have a bit more leverage. Now we are very definitely a price taker, not a price maker.

 

[Jimmy_Crouch]

Ditch SA and include two teams from Japan, one each from Tonga, Samoa and Fiji. Additional cash to come via Japanese market and the IRB for expanding the game. Play the conference model (but actually play everyone not 4/5).
Keep the TRC for internationals.

 

[TOCC]

There is also the assumption that the Japanese(fingers crossed) and Argentinan team will perform poorly, which will likely happen in the first season, but who knows what could happen in the longer term.

A Japanese team would also mean more games in the Australasian time zone, which is also a big boost for broadcasters in Aus & NZ, there could be another final hosted there as well.

 

[Ash]

I would have though that there are seasonal issues with Japanese teams playing in the Super XV comp.

Anyone who has been to Japan in the summer will know what I am talking about. It's worse than Brisbane.

Hence why talk of SA joining the NH club comps has always been a stretch, and likewise Japan and greater Asia into SH club comps.

Thishasbeenacommunityannouncementfortheseasonallychallenged.

 

[boyo]

I've a suspicion that FoxSports were monstered by SuperSport.

 

[Quick Hands]

Ditch SA and include two teams from Japan, one each from Tonga, Samoa and Fiji. Additional cash to come via Japanese market and the IRB for expanding the game. Play the conference model (but actually play everyone not 4/5).
Keep the TRC for internationals.

Won't happen because NZ want South Africa in.

 

[Blue]

Ditch SA and include two teams from Japan, one each from Tonga, Samoa and Fiji. Additional cash to come via Japanese market and the IRB for expanding the game. Play the conference model (but actually play everyone not 4/5).
Keep the TRC for internationals.

QUICK! CALL BILL! NOBODY EVER THOUGH OF THAT!

 

[kiap]

I would have though that there are seasonal issues with Japanese teams playing in the Super XV comp.

Anyone who has been to Japan in the summer will know what I am talking about. It's worse than Brisbane.

Hence why talk of SA joining the NH club comps has always been a stretch, and likewise Japan and greater Asia into SH club comps.

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?

 

[Bardon]

The super comp will also span the Japanese rainy season which should provide some extra fun watching players try to play in that.

 

[Quick Hands]

50% of super rugby's income is from South Africa. It's really not that hard to work out what's going on and why?

The real surprise is; why are people surprised?

 

[kiap]

The super comp will also span the Japanese rainy season which should provide some extra fun watching players try to play in that.

The peak rain season is around the similar time of year as the peak temperature.

I think there are different reasons for wanting a Japanese team in or out, but the climate is not really a 1st order one.

In the unlikely event that Japan hosted a final, they might even look at playing in a covered stadium with 70,000 seats.

 

[Bardon]

The peak rain season is around the similar time of year as the peak temperature.

I think there are different reasons for wanting a Japanese team in or out, but the climate is not really a 1st order one.

In the unlikely event that Japan hosted a final, they might even look at playing in a covered stadium with 70,000 seats.

Believe me the weather in Japan in the rainy season June/July and the peak heat August are in no way comparable.

IF Super Rugby is played in Tokyo then it's most likely to be played in Chichibunomiya. Tokyo Dome is primarily used for Baseball, concerts etc. and has an official capacity of 55k but the actual capacity is some way below that.

In all likelihood if Super Rugby is played in Tokyo it will be at Chichibunomiya. The heat won't be unbearable if games are played at a reasonable time. Although I'd advise doing as the locals do and bring an umbrella for the dual purpose of sun and rain protection.

It certainly won't stop games going ahead but as I said it will be funny watching players trying to play if a game just happens to take place during one of the infrequent torrential downpours that occur in Tokyo during the rainy season.

They always seem to happen when ever I want to go somewhere at the weekend and as I'm a rugby nut I'll probably be going to the Super Rugby so it's almost guaranteed that a Super Rugby game will take place during one of these downpours.

Of course the comedy handling won't be as funny as it appears to be now because I'll be sat up in the uncovered section.