The End of Super Rugby

[wamberal]

What sacrifice was made by Australia as part of the compromise?

I think we all understand that Australia is at a severe competitive disadvantage because of league, and also the AFL. Okay, SA has soccer, but at this point rugby seems to be pretty prosperous in the republic.

The game here is under challenge, both our main competitors recently inked TV rights deals of over a billion dollars. What should we sacrifice? We are already on our knees, mate.

 

[Braveheart81]

Personally I like the majority of aspects of Super Rugby and think the current system is pretty good in terms of providing a strong competition that benefits players, national unions and fans.

I think having the big three Southern Hemisphere countries involved is crucial and is a major aspect of the competition being so strong and well regarded around the world. I don't think the competition would have the same international flavour if it just involved Australia and New Zealand for example.

I like the fact that my team goes on tour each season for a couple of games in South Africa. I'm a bit of a rugby die-hard and I must admit I enjoy the experience of getting up in the middle of the night for the 3am game (or staying up late for the 1am game).

I don't think the current structure benefits Australia anymore than it does NZ or South Africa. Certainly Australia has the most to lose if Super Rugby is reduced in terms of team numbers, length of the tournament or involvement of South Africa because we don't have a third tier competition that is compromised because of Super Rugby.

Realistically, I can't see NZ wanting to do anything much different from what is going on now. They seem to have the right number of franchises, the ITM Cup is still excellent and they're the best side in the world.

South Africa have a couple of downsides from Super Rugby. Their teams have four away games as opposed to two that are in bad time zones for viewers. The other one is that they have one more team that they want involved in Super Rugby than there is currently space for. This has been cited as a reason that South African players are going to Europe because there aren't enough highly paid professional spots in South Africa. How true this is relative to Australia and New Zealand is debateable.

Whether or not South African Rugby would be more lucrative if they didn't play the Super 15 and instead relied on an expanded Currie Cup to generate revenue is unknown. I would guess this wouldn't be the case. I can't imagine South Africa being allowed to pull out of Super Rugby but still being involved in the Rugby Championship.

The other issue that has been raised is South Africa joining European competitions and aligning their calendar with Europe's and playing in the Heineken Cup. Clearly this would benefit South Africa based on time zones but I can't see this working at all based on the different seasons. I can't imagine European leagues accepting that games could be played in South Africa in the middle of Summer. This is the biggest reason why I can't see this idea ever gaining any real momentum.

As Gagger said above, it does seem like a case of the three unions jockeying for position in the lead up to the next deal being reached. I can see Super Rugby expanding eventually but I think it will be continuing down the same path of improving on what they've got rather than reinventing the wheel.

 

[Braveheart81]

What sacrifice was made by Australia as part of the compromise?

I guess the only sacrifice you could say Australia has made is introducing a fifth franchise before the player depth and finances were ready. Certainly the ARU were helped with Harold Mitchell's money being used to get the Rebels going, but the ARU have still spent considerable money that they can't afford in this area.

As has been said though, Australia don't have a lot after Super Rugby so there probably aren't many things Australia could sacrifice as part of any Super Rugby deal. I don't think Australia is getting a better deal out of Super Rugby than South Africa or New Zealand. We just have less downside to ANY Super Rugby deal becuase we have less to lose.

 

[southsider]

That factor is not specific to Australia and works all three ways. I believe Mank was referring to a compromise specific to Australia only, and as a result of the extending of Super Rugby to allow for the conference system - note SANZAR and Super Rugby was already in place long before the conference system was brought in.

The extending of the Super Rugby competition has resulted in a weakening or dillution to some extent of the existing domestic competitions in South Africa and NZ (i.e these competitions were sacrificed somewhat for Super Rugby as part of the compromise). What sacrifice was made by Australia as part of the compromise?

our domestic competitions have been weakened and diluted by the change too? We may not have the history or quality of competition of the SA or NZ domestic competitions but I would argue because of that, it would disadvantage us even more because we need our super rugby players to play Shute Shield/Brisbane Premier/John dent cup even more!

 

[Brisbok]

I think we all understand that Australia is at a severe competitive disadvantage because of league, and also the AFL. Okay, SA has soccer, but at this point rugby seems to be pretty prosperous in the republic.

The game here is under challenge, both our main competitors recently inked TV rights deals of over a billion dollars. What should we sacrifice? We are already on our knees, mate.

Well some would argue that these are not South Africa's problems so why should they have to worry about it? Much like many on here are arguing that the political problems in South Africa are not Australia's problem, so why should they help South Africa by allowing them to have an extra team?

As for me personally, I'm not sure where I stand. From a quality of rugby perspective and a personal perspective (given that I live in Australia), I hope that South Africa stays in Super Rugby. However, I am not convinced by the current conference arrangement, and in particular the things that annoy me are:

- The increased length of the season resulting in the need for a month's break in the competition to allow for the June Internationals. This break does not do anyone any favours IMO. Super Rugby teams lose momentum and/or players to injury as a result of these tests. Some teams have many players involved whilst other teams have very few.

Test teams have less preparation time leading into these tests and as a result we are possibly not seeing them at their best.

From a fan's perspective, I think once we get a taste for test rugby in June, we lose interest to some degree in the remaining Super Rugby fixtures as can be seen by the relatively poor attendance at ALL games so far in the current final's series.

- The guaranteed home ground advantage for each conference winner all the way through the finals series - I think the idea that a team who finishes 6th overall could potentially host a Super Rugby final (assuming they are a conference winner and face a Wild Card entrant who finished above them on the table) is a joke. I don't really care which union proposed this idea, I don't agree with it. A home qualifying final for each conference winner is fair enough, but after that game it should come down to position on the overall ladder.

As for SARU pushing for the addition of a 6th team, I can fully understand why this is not supported by the other unions. The fact that a South African team has finished at the bottom of the table on so many occassions in recent times makes it hard to justify them adding another team into the mix and I'm not convinced that we have the player depth in South Africa to support 6 teams, without dilluting one or more of the existing 5 teams.

So overall, I don't really have a solution, but I hope that Super Rugby continues in some form.

 

[Rassie]

but you clearly don't have the player depth, on that chart you provided a South African team has come last 12 times in the past 17 seasons, a south African team has also come second last 9 times in 17 seasons. In this same time period you have only come 1st 3 times and all 3 times were by the bulls in the late 2000's with the core playing group being pretty much the same.

on top of this the kings also came last this season...

Yet those same teams have at least made a play off spot. Did the Lions and Cheetahs had any consistency? No or did your forget they were the Cats until 2006.

The Kings in their first year beat the Force, Rebels away and drew at home with the Brumbies.
Ending second or thrid from the bottom thanks to BP you get from your Harlem Globetrotter derbies compared to more tight SA derby affairs does not make you a better team. Highlanders have lost more games than the Kings who had a player pool 10 times better.

If the Lions and Kings really do not give anyone competition why haven't the SA side stacked up BP against them? Every year there is a Kiwi team and Aus team doing just as bad a SA team. We want to add another and give them a bit of consistency. All the other teams had it for 17 years. Lions nor 6 years and were kicked out. Why when you had a team more it wasn't a problem considering the first two wooden spoons belonged to NZ who had 1 team more?

 

[Dam0]

Yet those same teams have at least made a play off spot. Did the Lions and Cheetahs had any consistency? No or did your forget they were the Cats until 2006.

The Kings in their first year beat the Force, Rebels away and drew at home with the Brumbies.
Ending second or thrid from the bottom thanks to BP you get from your Harlem Globetrotter derbies compared to more tight SA derby affairs does not make you a better team. Highlanders have lost more games than the Kings who had a player pool 10 times better.

If the Lions and Kings really do not give anyone competition why haven't the SA side stacked up BP against them? Every year there is a Kiwi team and Aus team doing just as bad a SA team. We want to add another and give them a bit of consistency. All the other teams had it for 17 years. Lions nor 6 years and were kicked out. Why when you had a team more it wasn't a problem considering the first two wooden spoons belonged to NZ who had 1 team more?

Pretty weak sophistry. At the end of the day, on any objective scale there is no way anyone could claim that SA deserves another team because of their better player depth than NZ and AUS. The player depth argument is a busted flush.

There hasn't been an NZ winner of the Wooden Spoonsince 1997. 16 years ago. We have produced winners 11 out of the 17 years, and out of the 72 semi-finalists, 35 have been NZ teams. Surely if any country ought to be going on and on about player depth meaning we deserve another team it should be us. I tend to think a central North Island team made up of Taranaki, Manuwatu and Hakes Bay would be well supported and would not disgrace the competition.

 

[Braveheart81]

The argument SARU should run about having six teams in the competition is that is what makes up their top tier domestic competition and that they'd really like Super Rugby to find a spot for six teams.

I don't see why South Africa have to provide a great justification as to why they deserve a sixth team. Clearly they make sacrifices in other areas to be part of the competition.

Would NZ want a sixth team? Possibly but I'd guess the desire is less.

A future expansion could see a change in the way conferences work (or disbanding the conferences altogether), allowing a sixth South African team to enter the competition and expansion into the Pacific Islands, Japan or the USA.

In the development of a global rugby calendar, I can see the southern hemisphere nations pushing for the June test window to be moved earlier so it doesn't fall so late in the Super Rugby season. Given the expanded competition I can't see a return to a competition that finishes at the end of May. Even making the mid year tours 2 weeks earlier would make a good number of rounds after the test window that would diminish the amount of viewer interest lost at the end of the season.

 

[nomis]

Pretty interesting proposal from a NZ bloke:

https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B5vh08BV2viweFdjbkN0UlBNREU/edit

(may take a tad to download)

 

[RoffsChoice]

I tend to think a central North Island team made up of Taranaki, Manuwatu and Hakes Bay would be well supported and would not disgrace the competition.

I'll give you Manuwatu, but Taranaki and Hawkes Bay are well represented in the Hurricanes, while about 50% of the Chiefs squad IS Taranaki, Manuwatu and Hawkes Bay.

 

[Dam0]

I'll give you Manuwatu, but Taranaki and Hawkes Bay are well represented in the Hurricanes, while about 50% of the Chiefs squad IS Taranaki, Manuwatu and Hawkes Bay.

I get the impression that they don't feel loved within the larger franchises. Those three provinces are pretty strong rugby provinces and they suffer because the fans don't really identify with their franchise.

In any case, I'm not really arguing for a 6th NZ team, just pointing out that firstly on playing depth arguments we have a much stronger case and secondly, SA is not the only country that has had to face upheaval within its domestic competitions to accommodate Super Rugby. 5 teams each is a necessary compromise.

 

[gel]

The Bulls even 4 years in a row. Lions never had something like that.

According to your own table: 2003, 2004, 2005 and 2006 is 4 years that the Lions came last.

Unless you are using some significantly large values of 4 (in a mathematical system that I am unaware of), then that is EXACTLY the same as the Bulls.

In fact in 17 years, a South African side has held onto the wooden spoon on 12 occasions.

This would strongly indicate that the depth in SA is NOT there for 6 teams.

 

[Braveheart81]

Pretty interesting proposal from a NZ bloke:

https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B5vh08BV2viweFdjbkN0UlBNREU/edit

(may take a tad to download)

This guy has some reasonable ideas but I think the biggest downside is that the majority of the competition becomes focused on domestic games.

I think Super Rugby's biggest selling point and the reason why it is such a strong competition is that it features international provincial games every week.

Under the proposal presented, you'd basically be having a Currie Cup, an ITM Cup and a new Australian 3rd Tier competition and then have playoffs between the winners/runners up.

He also mentions how many more games that his competition would have and how that will increase broadcasting revenue yet neglects to mention the cost of increasing the number of professional teams/players nor any mention that the standard would drop because you are spreading your best players more thinly.

 

[Sidbarret]

Yet those same teams have at least made a play off spot. Did the Lions and Cheetahs had any consistency? No or did your forget they were the Cats until 2006.

Hmm, yes, they have been super consistent.

The data you posted is their ranking* over the history of super rugby (taking the Cats to be the same thing as the lions, which I agree with).

In 17 years they have been ranked last 5 times, been ranked in the bottom 3 on 14 occasions and only ranked in the top half on one occasion.

The only team that even competes with them for consistency is the Crusaders. Ranked top 6 times, top 3 on 10 occasions and with two years in the bottom half.


*Rankings are calculated according to the same formula as the IRB rankings. The data produced on the log is as things stood at the end of the season, which is a rather arbitrary point, further confused by awarding double points for knock-out games which skew the the table in favour of the eventual winner of the competition. Despite these problems it is not the worst method of comparing teams.

 

[Rassie]

According to your own table: 2003, 2004, 2005 and 2006 is 4 years that the Lions came last.

Unless you are using some significantly large values of 4 (in a mathematical system that I am unaware of), then that is EXACTLY the same as the Bulls.

In fact in 17 years, a South African side has held onto the wooden spoon on 12 occasions.

This would strongly indicate that the depth in SA is NOT there for 6 teams.

First of all that is a ranking system which is based on the IRB model taking to all the games into account. Not the positions of each team on the log.

2ndly why do you think SA suggested more derby games? Because NZ and AUstralia were scratching their heads. How can SA teams have such a huge merchandising market and yet the teams did not do so well in Super Rugby. How come the period when the Crusaders dominated Super Rugby NZ failed to win the World Cup. Yet SA and Australian teams manage to nip one. Why did SA went and paid most of the Kiwi squad to come to SA and not Australia, a World Team or some Frenchman. How did went into isolation and came out of it playing with almost the same group of players in 95 in 3 time catch up and win a World cup? How come the Stormers playing boring tackle tackle tackle scoring the least amount of tries in the comp yet still attract the most fans and the largest tv audience?

Well its simple. Teams can not play by themselves. And teams need to sell the product called Rugby to the opposition. In doing so you need to create a competitive balance. SA derby games are always or most times close games. The Stormers the fans do not know for a fact the they are going to slaughter the opposition. The results are always unknown to us as the Stormers did one thing that is having close games.


Look at 98 what did the NZ teams blowing away the opposition do the AB? Worst Tri nations ever for them.

The Lions might be last but they won the CC in 2011. The results were unknown in the games where they managed to beat the Sharks ran the Stormers close twice and beat the Cheetahs once. THey were competitive despite having injuries.

Look at NZ and how well are the AB doing? Why. Thanks to more derbies and closer games. THe Crusaders are not sweeping all before them. The Cheetahs came over to beat the Highlanders. THe Reds beat the Chiefs at home, The Bulls beat the Blues at their home and the Stormers went through Aus and NZ with single point victories or 5 points defeats. Going to SA teams had a tougher time. It created a more competitive balance which is what NZ wants to achieve. Take away SA and then see how that balance will be with competition? Teams dominating competitions are not good for the national side when they do it by big margins.

Just go look at the Currie Cup results of the years and relation to SA national side before 96 and you can look further on as well. When the Bulls dominated the domestic scene our national side suffered. When our Currie Cup competitions were competitive right up too the final our national side were competitive.

That is why the Crusaders fans booing at Cooper and at a Spencer is not a bad thing but can be good. When the Saders go to visit the Reds at home their home bush will be packed for some payback.

We can not adapt the NZ system with contracting players its illegal and against the labour laws in our country. So we can not contract players not playing for SA. NZRFU have control over the players teams and can move them around as they see fit.

In SA the unions have to make offers and pay for them. So teams like the Stormers who are partly owned by the MAC group will have better players as a Lions team who was under the control of SARU and live of scraps. The Sharks and Cheetahs are partly owned by SuperSport. The MAC group have a steak in the Kings as well.

Oh the Lions 2013 results so far

Lions Fixtures & Results 2013
The fixture list in place of Super Rugby for 2013 announced on 27 November 2012.
19-Jan-13 vs Russia @ Ellis Park – Lions 51 – Russia 13
26-Jan-13 vs Cheetahs @ Ellis Park – Lions 33 – Cheetahs 17
2-Feb-13 vs Bulls @ Orlando Stadium – Lions 32 - Bulls 38
9-Feb-13 vs Kings @ Ellis Park – Lions 41 : Kings 31
16-Mar-13 vs Mont de Marsan @ Ellis Park – Lions 56 – Mont de Marsan 24
1-Jun-13 vs Samoa @ Ellis Park – Lions 74 – Samoa 14
8-Jun-13 vs French Barbarians @ Ellis Park – Cancelled to be replaced with SA Barbarians
15-Jun-13 vs Stormers @ Ellis Park – Lions 42 – WP 12
21-Jun-13 vs Sharks @ Ellis Park – Lions 33 – Sharks 29
6-Jul-13 vs Blue Bulls @ Loftus – Blue Bulls 12 – Lions 50
13-Jul-13 vs Montpellier @ Ellis Park – vs Griquas @ Ellis Park – Lions 26 – Griquas 12
20-Jul-13 vs Grenoble @ Ellis Park – Cancelled
26-Jul-13 vs Southern Kings @ Nelson Mandela Bay Stadium, PE – Kings 19 – Lions 26

 

[Pfitzy]

our domestic competitions have been weakened and diluted by the change too? We may not have the history or quality of competition of the SA or NZ domestic competitions but I would argue because of that, it would disadvantage us even more because we need our super rugby players to play Shute Shield/Brisbane Premier/John dent cup even more!

I think you'll find that money and favouritism has fucked the club scene more than anything. The NSWRU in particular protects its eastern fortresses who have the money to own the competitions. Meanwhile, western Sydney is a wasteland.

Before Bruce Ross gets his blood pressure up: that's not to say that Sydney University didn't have their share of blood, sweat, and tears after they got relegated a few decades ago. But they had a fair few old boys with a pile of cash to turn that around, and clubs like Penrith and Parramatta don't.

What western Sydney does have is masses of bodies to throw at the problem, if they can shift the focus away from Loigue and Aussie Rules for just a moment.

 

[Sidbarret]

Pretty weak sophistry. At the end of the day, on any objective scale there is no way anyone could claim that SA deserves another team because of their better player depth than NZ and AUS. The player depth argument is a busted flush.

There hasn't been an NZ winner of the Wooden Spoonsince 1997. 16 years ago. We have produced winners 11 out of the 17 years, and out of the 72 semi-finalists, 35 have been NZ teams. Surely if any country ought to be going on and on about player depth meaning we deserve another team it should be us. I tend to think a central North Island team made up of Taranaki, Manuwatu and Hakes Bay would be well supported and would not disgrace the competition.

Interesting set of stats about the results of the three countries since 1996, but it doesn't say much about the effect expansion has on the competition. Since 2006, when the super 12 became the super 14 and then finally the Super 15 there have been marked changed though.

I am too lazy to check semi finalists, but in the seven years since 2006, New Zealand has had 3 winners, SA 3 and Australia one. Of the 14 finalists, New Zealand has had 6, SA 6 and Australia 2.

I did some digging on the effect of the previous expansions and the results are surprising. If one assumes, as you do, that rugby talent in each country is finite, then one would expect results against foreign opposition to have an inverse correlation with the number of teams each country has.

Prior to 2006, New Zealand (5) teams won 58.1% (365 games) against foreign opposition, Australia (3) 56.2% (283 games) and South Africa (4) a pathetic 33.3%.

Since 2006, New Zealand's winning percentage is 56% (361 games), Australia 43.8% (331 games) and South Africa 46.4% (360 games).

These stats suggest that expansion (within each country at least) has an effect on results, but that the effect is different for different countries. Expansion in Australia has had the expected result, a forty percent (2/5) increase of teams has resulted in 22% drop in results (pre 2006 / post 2006), while a 25% increase in teams have improved results by 39%.

 

[Mank]

The argument SARU should run about having six teams in the competition is that is what makes up their top tier domestic competition and that they'd really like Super Rugby to find a spot for six teams.

I don't see why South Africa have to provide a great justification as to why they deserve a sixth team. Clearly they make sacrifices in other areas to be part of the competition.

I think you've put the point better than some of us. For various complicated reasons, we need the 6th team.

It's just frustrating feeling like SA lost out badly on the last round of negotiations, while Australia gained massively, and now that SA need some help we're basically getting told to go screw ourselves. From our so called business partners. If something I said in there is incorrect I would like to know what SA gained from the last change that was proposed by SARU.

If we did away with the conference system, but included the Kings & Lions I think we could end up with a slightly shorter comp overall while helping SA. Australia lose some local derbies which they seem to enjoy and it might be a hard sell to newscorp, so maybe I'm dreaming.

Wait, if I was dreaming we would be going back to the S12 and always have three test tours in the June period.

 

[Rassie]

Hmm, yes, they have been super consistent.

The data you posted is their ranking* over the history of super rugby (taking the Cats to be the same thing as the lions, which I agree with).

In 17 years they have been ranked last 5 times, been ranked in the bottom 3 on 14 occasions and only ranked in the top half on one occasion.

The only team that even competes with them for consistency is the Crusaders. Ranked top 6 times, top 3 on 10 occasions and with two years in the bottom half.


*Rankings are calculated according to the same formula as the IRB rankings. The data produced on the log is as things stood at the end of the season, which is a rather arbitrary point, further confused by awarding double points for knock-out games which skew the the table in favour of the eventual winner of the competition. Despite these problems it is not the worst method of comparing teams.

In constancy I mean were they allowed to build a team? They had to rebuild when they became the Lions. Cause two big unions had to share profits thus could not afford to keep top players.

According to their court documents, the financial woes of Ellis Park Stadium have spiralled since 2007. Its total liabilities exceeded its assets in 2007 by R48.6 million, in 2008 by R49.6 million, in 2009 by R63.7 million and in 2010 by R73,9 million.

http://www.m24i.co.za/2012/02/17/how-golden-lions-lost-the-plot/

Tell me what team are going to do well with a situation like that? Yet they turned themselves around. A young group of players foundation led by Spencer and Mitchell and they were competitive. You can not expect them with that amount of injuries to be more competitive as they were? When the Reds went through a injury crisis last year. How did they do?

 

[gel]

First of all that is a ranking system which is based on the IRB model taking to all the games into account. Not the positions of each team on the log

I apologise, I misinterpreted what your table indicated.

It is still the same though. Your table that you used indicates that the lions have been consistently poor and this suggests that SA does NOT have depth for a 6th team. I think the other reasons are decent points of discussion (by Sidbarret et al)

Less teams means a condensation of the better players into the fewer teams. This makes the competition stronger as the games are played at a higher level.