The End of Super Rugby

[southsider]

As many have said SA just have to bite the bullet man up and either rezone the whole country to fit under 5 teams or cut either the kings or lion forever, why should we have to change the whole competition cause the SARU cant get their shit together and rugby over there is run by politics.

Ive said this once on here before but ill say again, why do a lot of south Africans want another team so badly?? Theres a awful lot of years when the super rugby wooden spoon has gone to a south African franchise, they clearly don't have the depth for another team...

 

[Rassie]

How many time zones across SA Rassie?

Now think how many time zones across Oz. So for all the crossing time zones the SA teams do in the inter conference matches the Force have to do that plus every conference match as well. A few hours isn't much of a difference, but it adds up when you do it enough, from experience.

Crossing one or two have no effect on you like going to Africa. Then the coastal side of SA have to travel to altitude 2 or 3 times depends if Lions are in or not.

There is a reason why SA coastal sides have struggle to win it and will never win it. They do not have the advantage like the Bulls and Cheetahs as well as Lions got. Only problem is the Bulls are the only ones being able to use it to their advantage. They had a 100 years of fine tuning their game plan for their home base. Big pack with a kickbot 300 behind it.

The Stormers now are equipped to play in the highveldt which is so not WP rugby who always had a mobile pack as they could run the teams of their feet at Sea level. The Cheetahs the same mobile pack but that is why they struggle to take advantage of the altitude.

There is a reason why the Bulls fake so many injuries and they have water breaks in the middle of winter in a game. To give their pack a breather.

Then the extra 2 or 3 weeks away from home. That is when SA teams seasons end mostly. Aussies sides can train at home fly over to NZ play and go back. SA sides stay there and train on facilities looking over their back every 5 minutes for someone snapping pictures.

 

[Rassie]

As many have said SA just have to bite the bullet man up and either rezone the whole country to fit under 5 teams or cut either the kings or lion forever, why should we have to change the whole competition cause the SARU cant get their shit together and rugby over there is run by politics.

Ive said this once on here before but ill say again, why do a lot of south Africans want another team so badly?? Theres a awful lot of years when the super rugby wooden spoon has gone to a south African franchise, they clearly don't have the depth for another team.

That I am not going to argue with you. The problem there is because we are not fielding our top 150 players like NZ is doing or like Aus. We have one team with 4 or 5 back players who would be part of that 150 players. So they are sitting on a bench and if they want to get game time they get monster into a positional change. Which mean normally they run.

why do a lot of south Africans want another team so badly?

Let me ask you this. Why don't you want us to have another team so badly?

 

[Slim 293]

I don't have a big issue with letting SA have another team. Why not? NZ used to have to SA's 4 and Aussies 3..comp still worked fine.

By the way Slim 293, your team just made finals rugby for the first time in like 10 years or something..whoopdy-fucken-doo. Blues were there 2 years ago and stooped your team getting there last year so leave the Blues outta your shit.

Blues 4 life and proud...

Whoosh..........

 

[southsider]

That I am not going to argue with you. The problem there is because we are not fielding our top 150 players like NZ is doing or like Aus. We have one team with 4 or 5 back players who would be part of that 150 players. So they are sitting on a bench and if they want to get game time they get monster into a positional change. Which mean normally they run.


Let me ask you this. Why don't you want us to have another team so badly?

but again that's your fault you arnt fielding your best......not au or nz's

I don't "so badly" not want you to have a 6th team, I just see it as un-logical because 1) You screw up the conference system (2) The SARU are trying to force this on the aru and nzru for south africas own interest, any change will only benefit south African rugby (3) as I pointed out you regularly have the last placed team, I honestly do not believe you have the depth to bring in another team that isn't going to be anything more than cannon fodder

 

[TOCC]

So there is no 33 percent Australia receives from a network deal? The highest number Australia could muster was just over 500 000 and that was for the 2011 Final. A regular Bulls Stormers game hit 800 000 to 900000 for a simple round robin game.

Like I said, Australia's portion of the funding is proportionately equivalent to the other codes in Australia, if that works out to be 33% of the overall deal then so be it, but South Africa is not financially propping up Australian rugby...

As for ratings, well like I mentioned before, Australia's GDP is significantly larger and Australia's GDP PPP is bigger again, around 400% greater if my memory serves me correctly.

I'm pretty sure we have had this discussion before, but purely comparing ratings between countries doesn't give a straightforward indicator of what the financial break-up should be worth...

 

[gel]

Would be a real shame if it ended. I love super rugby but tbh would prefer it a bit shorter (maybe back to the 12 teams).

It has been pretty pivotal in making the three SH teams better in the professional era in my opinion.

 

[Bardon]

Although it's a possibility that Super Rugby could come to an end in 2016 I don't think it will. I think once the French teams commit to the new HEC deal the English will follow.

Even if SA were allowed into a revamped HEC it's hard to see them being allowed 6 teams when the English and French want less teams not more. Then there's their gripe about qualification and not having any teams automatically qualify as happens with some Pro12 nations.

SA could use the CC as a qualifier but then that wouldn't ring fence the current franchises. Then some of them would have to play in the Challenge Cup. It's all very messy at the moment.

I think the most likely outcome is that one side or other will use the uncertainty in both competitions to get their own way. Meanwhile the other will be left with little choice but to stick with their own competition as other options are closed by club/unions signing TV deals.

My money is still on the French getting their own way. A collection of clubs run by guys who aren't used to hearing the word no versus any rugby union is next to no contest. Greed will win in the end and the Unions aren't a patch on private owners when it comes to that.

Maybe in 10 years or so when there's a lot more private ownership in the SH. But for now with the Unions calling the shots I think they'll just try to get the best deal they can in their own interests but can't see anyone backing out in 2016.

 

[the sabanator]

From a consumer's perspective, I'd have absolutely no qualms with South Africa leaving the competition altogether. Every game would be convenient to catch live, player recognition on both sides of the ditch would increase and I think that a move to 12 sides would be strongly considered - whether in the form of two National Academy sides or two Pacific Island sides/a PI side and a Japanese based team.

South Africa is an outlier in the competition, and their position makes expansion into the Pacific Islands, at this stage, largely unfeasible. An RSA-Arg competition and an Oceania competition would probably be most beneficial for all the Unions.

Moving back to a smaller comp would be far better for the international game too. Rugby's great strength over League and AFL is internationalism, and the current setup of Super Rugby - Internationals - Super Rugby - TRC is ridiculous. As much as I love watching the Reds and Super Rugby in general, rugby's main money-spinner in Australia is Test Matches.

But I think it'll end up being that South Africa is allowed the 6th team. The main driver in modern sports is money. College sports in the US is the ultimate example - teams play in conferences that make no geographical sense just to get a slice of a larger pie, which is why teams like West Virginia play in a Texas-based conference, despite having to transport an 120-man football contingent 1600 km's every other week. A conference that originally started in the Carolina's now stretches all the way up to the Canadian border, as far south as Florida and as far East as Indiana. South Africa has the population and rugby popularity to provide a large chunk of the money in the TV contract, which makes the whole situation viable for the rest.

While the ARU is currently rolling in cash courtesy of the Lions Tour, that won't last. Whatever decision is made will be made because of money, which is why Australia and New Zealand will cave into South African pressure. It's not geographical sense that will prevail, but monetary desire.

 

[Pfitzy]

I'll say as a general comment: The Bulls were fucking dire for years in S12.

The facts are, the Kiwis and Saffers don't really like Super Rugby being elevated above Currie Cup and NPC (or whatever the fuck they call it) and as a result some of the sting has gone out of their competition. Australia's problem is: club rugby is shit.

So the solution - in order of priority

1) Get a proper fucking international season, with games played in our winter because northern summers (except southern France) don't count.

2) Shorten the Super Season

3) Let the Saffers do what they please - it is probably better if they join the Euro comp due to scheduling. I don't bother watching live games from Safferland - when the Sharks Girls were out doing their thing I did, but they've toned that right down.

From there, get the Japs to sink a pile of money into the game here by letting them have a couple of teams, chuck in one each from the Pac Islands of the guys who don't have contracts in Europe, and your sorted.

"Oh but Pfitzy - its awfully hot in Japan in their summer! What do you say about that?"

Dry your eyes princess - they've got these fucking spectacular indoor stadiums that I'm sure they can air condition with the tears of virgin schoolgirls. Or underwear vending machines can be converted to sell towels (or leave them as underwear - Japanese businessmen are bent like old nails).

 

[masai]

While the ARU is currently rolling in cash courtesy of the Lions Tour, that won't last. Whatever decision is made will be made because of money, which is why Australia and New Zealand will cave into South African pressure. It's not geographical sense that will prevail, but monetary desire.

I'd find this a lot easier to accept if a 6th team wasn't a horrifically inefficient way of increasing revenues. The solution is so simple it boggles the mind that it hasn't happened.

Johannesburg and Pretoria are the same city. The same damn city! Pretoria doesn't even have its own airport. The two stadia are 45 minutes apart. Why does this city need two rugby teams in an international tournament? It's like if Australia started campaigning for a Penrith Super franchise. Scrap the Bulls, scrap the Lions. Call the new team the Gauteng Wildlife for all I care. Sure, it'll be hard to swallow for a while, but if Southlanders and Otagoans can put aside their differences to support the Highlanders, anything is possible. Eventually, they will come around and Loftus Versfeld will sell out for 8 games a season as opposed to their current 50% capacity average attendances this year.

But wait, the best part! After the Super season ends, fans get to dust off their Blue Bulls and Golden Lions jerseys to celebrate an even more intensely fought rivalry between players who stood next to each other as brothers just weeks before.

Like I said, mind boggling.

 

[USARugger]

Scrap the Bulls

Yeah, good luck with that one.

 

[RoffsChoice]

Solution: Let RSA have the Lions, the Kings and the Griquas. Also give them the Force to make Foley happy. That is conference one.
Set up some sort of promotion/relegation system for the remaining nine teams. Top 8 are conference two.

Conference teams play each other twice, 14 games in total. Then the top four from each form the finals. with the whole 1v8, 2v7, ect. system. 17 games a year.

Bottom four from each conference play each other two, sort of like the bowl or plate in 7s.

Promotion/relegation occurs, restart.

Optional addition: Grant each Australian team an ITM cup spot to help unify the conference. Don't let an Australian team win the shield.

 

[Rassie]

Like I said, Australia's portion of the funding is proportionately equivalent to the other codes in Australia, if that works out to be 33% of the overall deal then so be it, but South Africa is not financially propping up Australian rugby.

As for ratings, well like I mentioned before, Australia's GDP is significantly larger and Australia's GDP PPP is bigger again, around 400% greater if my memory serves me correctly.

I'm pretty sure we have had this discussion before, but purely comparing ratings between countries doesn't give a straightforward indicator of what the financial break-up should be worth.

GDP do not meet the social standard of a country. It was designed to track the US War spending in WWII.

 

[Rassie]

but again that's your fault you arnt fielding your best..not au or nz's

I don't "so badly" not want you to have a 6th team, I just see it as un-logical because 1) You screw up the conference system (2) The SARU are trying to force this on the aru and nzru for south africas own interest, any change will only benefit south African rugby (3) as I pointed out you regularly have the last placed team, I honestly do not believe you have the depth to bring in another team that isn't going to be anything more than cannon fodder

Firstly that is just part of the problem. The other problems I am not touching with a 20 foot pole on here as it involves "P".

But I can tell you this in short. The Brumbies will experience this.

The natural circadian rhythms of man are synchronised to the environmental and social cues of the environment. This synchronisation is maintained by cues, ‘timegivers’ or zeigebers.. In general adaptation after
eastbound travel is much slower than after westbound flights.

It is well known that westward flights (characterised by a phase delay) are followed by faster recovery and resynchronisation than eastward flights (phase advance), and sleep quality decreases particularly after eastward flights.6 Klein and Wegmann7 calculated that three days were needed to resynchronise psychomotor performance rhythms after a westward flight from Germany to the United States, whereas eight days were required for the reverse direction.

 

[Dan54]

World,s round, fly the other way?????

 

[Rassie]

World,s round, fly the other way?????

Bahaha and get there crossing even more time zones? Hopefully global warming will sort this issue out and get your guys closer to us

 

[Mank]

The impression I am getting here is that most Australians don't really see a reason to assist South Africa with issues that Australians consider domestic SA. That's fair enough, professional rugby is a business. South Africa just need to find more leverage in this case.

However, it's not an attitude I find reassuring from a business partner. It seems like the relationship is going sour. It's a pity because I think that Australia has benefited more from Super Rugby than SA has, in the sense of no domestic comp of your own. Not saying SA hasn't benefited, we have massively.

I think if Aus and NZ do form a new structure without SA, it will be to the detriment of SA rugby for the short term. Particularly playing against the NZ teams is a massive gain for SA rugby. Practice against the best if you want to be the best. In the longer term, if, and it's a massive if, SA could make something work in Europe, it might not end up being a train smash. You have to admit, for NZ and Oz, a local competition does make a lot of sense.

Oh and PS. I'm utterly sick of hearing about time zone and travel complaints from SA fans. Even if they are valid, it just sounds like whingeing and excuses and does not help our needs in any way.

 

[Rassie]

The impression I am getting here is that most Australians don't really see a reason to assist South Africa with issues that Australians consider domestic SA. That's fair enough, professional rugby is a business. South Africa just need to find more leverage in this case.

However, it's not an attitude I find reassuring from a business partner. It seems like the relationship is going sour. It's a pity because I think that Australia has benefited more from Super Rugby than SA has, in the sense of no domestic comp of your own. Not saying SA hasn't benefited, we have massively.

I think if Aus and NZ do form a new structure without SA, it will be to the detriment of SA rugby for the short term. Particularly playing against the NZ teams is a massive gain for SA rugby. Practice against the best if you want to be the best. In the longer term, if, and it's a massive if, SA could make something work in Europe, it might not end up being a train smash. You have to admit, for NZ and Oz, a local competition does make a lot of sense.

Oh and PS. I'm utterly sick of hearing about time zone and travel complaints from SA fans. Even if they are valid, it just sounds like whingeing and excuses and does not help our needs in any way.

Its easy from the cheap seats. You go travel to NZ wrestle with 15 other monsters week after week then go back home and see if you would call it whining or complaining. If you still could walk by that time.

 

[RoffsChoice]

I don't think anyone wants South Africa gone, if nothing else then the history between some of the sides is too impressive to sacrifice.

But more importantly, the breaking of Super Rugby would be to the detriment of every single team in it. It's just bad in general and I don't think anyone really wants RSA out, I think they'd prefer the teams on the east coast of Australia got an ITM cup team and it was televised.