The End of Super Rugby

[gel]

The situation is simple.

South African rugby is forced by political pressures to have a team in the eastern cape to participate in super rugby as that is traditionally where the biggest history of non white rugby is.

The problem with that is The Lions rugby union is older than most trees and possibly some mountains (Ok, I exaggerate slightly) but the point is it has been on of our power houses for many many years.

Why would SARU want to lose such a tradition in rugby's history?

So either a compromise is found, the structure is altered to accommodate SA or they split.

But, we do not want to join Europe, and we do not want to join Argentina on some convoluted second choice option.

If we leave we go it alone. Simple as that.

Yes, we might earn less money, but we will also have less expenses and nobody to subsidise.

So even if we have less money, at least then SARU can start focusing on growing our Currie Cup, perhaps back to 8 professional teams, we may pay players less, and those who wants more money can go overseas.

I for one would be happy if we just get back to a point where the Currie Cup (if we leave Super Rugby) is our top domestic event, and we play test match rugby only against every one else.

It will be good enough for me.

You think that super rugby has had no benefit whatsoever for South African rugby? Playing the best from Australia and New Zealand consistently throughout season after season has had no effect at all and that leaving that system would have no detrimental effects other than monetary?

Is the Currie Cup dying, or has it stayed the same as where it was prior to the advent of super rugby? Rassie listed a whole heap of Lions results from this year which would indicate that they are still playing matches, and they are still in the Currie Cup now, so is this going to change? How are the Lions disappearing?

I seem to recall PaarlBok last year showing a lot of viewer numbers for the Currie Cup that were really impressive, indicating that the Currie Cup was strong - is this not the case?

*edit* - I for one do NOT want to see South Africa go because I realise what it is you do for us, and I really like watching all three nations teams play (some SA teams more than Aus ones actually - go Sharks!!!))

 

[Sidbarret]

I really think the best option (all things considered) is to close off the conferences until the finals, increase the amount of teams in each conference by 3, to 8 each, and promote the conferences within each country as their country's own NPC (i.e. CC, ITM Cup, ARC), all the while maintaining the perception of a single Super Rugby comp. The winner and runner up from each NPC move thru to an international finals system.

There are some good arguments against this of course. There would be no international games during the regular season, and NZ and SA would need to shift the ITM Cup and CC respectively, to earlier in the year.

But in it's favour, the NPC in both SA and NZ would be back on centre stage and act as the premier competition within each country, instead of fans having a conflict of loyalty between Super Rugby and the CC/ITM Cup. And AUS would have a NPC to call it's very own.

Local derbies would be at a maximum interest because they would double as NPC games and as qualifiers for the finals of Super Rugby.

Cross-conference matches would be at maximum interest, no matter what time they're on TV, because they're during the finals, and are more 'mysterious'. People would literally be salivating to see how the best two teams from their country go against the best from the other two countries.

Travel costs and player burnout would decrease without international travel during the regular season.

SA and AUS could better capture their markets, and NZ could potentially reduce costs by supporting only 8 fully professional teams, rather than the 5 professional Super Rugby franchises plus the 14 professional/semi-proffessional provincial teams, it does now.

Player-depth issues for particular countries would be masked with teams only competing within their own conference, and only the best teams playing inter-conferences games during the finals.

If depth is spread evenly with each conference, all teams would find their own conference equally hard to reach the Super Rugby finals.

The length of the Super Rugby season would remain mostly unchanged. The June internationals would then provide a natural break between the Super Rugby conference/NPC games (played before) and the Super Rugby finals (played after).

Every game your team plays during the regular season would be on at an optimal viewing time.

The closed conference idea is a popular one at the moment and it does solve some of the problems, but it creates new ones.

Firstly you are trying to con the public, especially in Australia, into believing that they are watching super rugby when in fact they are watching the ARC in a different guise. Admittedly there might be a market for an ARC type tournament, but I don't think it is prudent to cannibalize super rugby to try and create it.

Secondly I can't see how it will be possible to have an even spread of talent within conferences. Players would want to be playing for a team in the elite cross conference competition, just think of Gareth Bale situation in the EPL at the moment, but playing out all over SANZAR.

Related to the second is the question of financial viability of the lower teams. The only way for a taranaki, Griquas or West Sydney Sewer Rats enticing top talent to play for them is by paying over the market value for such talent. The Melbourne Rebels have tried this tactic, but it hasn't been successful. More worryingly would be a Leeds United sort of situation where the entire club/franchise goes bust trying to buy their way into the elite competition. None of the central unions have the funds to bail-out failing franchises.

 

[nomis]

I see these two paragraphs as being the primary reason why this sort of idea would never fly.

NZ and SA destroying the history of their domestic competition by merging or disbanding teams is never going to align with the idea of making their domestic competitions take centre stage again.

You could be right. I actually thought it would be the only way to preserve the rich history of their domestic competitions.

 

[nomis]

Each conference will have 40 test players. The balance of the conference's players will only be exposed regularly to 40 players. That is worse than the 135 we have now.

For Australia this will be devastatingly worse than for the others.

Australia's depth is not as good as NZ and SA for sure. But depth would still continue to grow within AUS. And the AUS conference would be a fairly even playing field with the salary cap the ARU wants.

 

[Mank]

Biltong, it's an idealistic idea. A nice narrative, but ultimately doomed. Unfortunately SA will not be able to keep up with the rest competing only against ourselves. That can be debated, but I'm pretty firmly set on that idea and I think most reasonable people would be.

However, ultimately, we might not have a choice. It seems as though SA might eventually be dropped out of SANZAR regardless of what we want. We have to admit, it makes a lot of sense for Australia and NZ to have a more localised competition, especially if they can involve the money from Japan. And from the noises coming from across the ocean, we should start preparing for this. I just hope SARU has enough sense (yeah right!) to have started some planning on this already.

Again, I want to remain in SANZAR, but the more I think about it, the more I could see a relationship with Europe, particularly France, not being a complete train smash. In fact, living in the UK I would love it if I could pop over to France for some games involving the SA teams. Major hurdles to making something like that work though.

 

[nomis]

The closed conference idea is a popular one at the moment and it does solve some of the problems, but it creates new ones.

Firstly you are trying to con the public, especially in Australia, into believing that they are watching super rugby when in fact they are watching the ARC in a different guise. Admittedly there might be a market for an ARC type tournament, but I don't think it is prudent to cannibalize super rugby to try and create it.

Secondly I can't see how it will be possible to have an even spread of talent within conferences. Players would want to be playing for a team in the elite cross conference competition, just think of Gareth Bale situation in the EPL at the moment, but playing out all over SANZAR.

Related to the second is the question of financial viability of the lower teams. The only way for a taranaki, Griquas or West Sydney Sewer Rats enticing top talent to play for them is by paying over the market value for such talent. The Melbourne Rebels have tried this tactic, but it hasn't been successful. More worryingly would be a Leeds United sort of situation where the entire club/franchise goes bust trying to buy their way into the elite competition. None of the central unions have the funds to bail-out failing franchises.

Hmmm. I don't seem it as a con. I hope it is clear that it is a domestic competition within Super Rugby. A bit like the Bledisloe and TRC are one and the same.

The even spread within a conference would work the way they are trying to create an even spread right now, and as they do in other codes.

I don't really see the issue with your 3rd para tbh. Every team would have a shot at the title every year. There are ways and means of evening out an individual conference.

 

[Rassie]

Just for those Kiwi's who says who do not need SA they can go away.....

I wonder who is sponsoring the NZ leg of Super Rugby. Investec? Owned by who and from where?

 

[wamberal]

Just for those Kiwi's who says who do not need SA they can go away...

I wonder who is sponsoring the NZ leg of Super Rugby. Investec? Owned by who and from where?

Rassie,

Investec is operating in Australia and New Zealand. They actually sponsored the Super Rugby competition in Oz a few years ago, as part of their efforts to get into the market here. Phil Kearns worked for them.


Investec's commercial interests have got absolutely nothing to do with South Africa's rugby interests. They are here because they want to get business here.

 

[biltong]

You think that super rugby has had no benefit whatsoever for South African rugby? Playing the best from Australia and New Zealand consistently throughout season after season has had no effect at all and that leaving that system would have no detrimental effects other than monetary?

Is the Currie Cup dying, or has it stayed the same as where it was prior to the advent of super rugby? Rassie listed a whole heap of Lions results from this year which would indicate that they are still playing matches, and they are still in the Currie Cup now, so is this going to change? How are the Lions disappearing?

I seem to recall PaarlBok last year showing a lot of viewer numbers for the Currie Cup that were really impressive, indicating that the Currie Cup was strong - is this not the case?

*edit* - I for one do NOT want to see South Africa go because I realise what it is you do for us, and I really like watching all three nations teams play (some SA teams more than Aus ones actually - go Sharks!!!))

I didn't say there is no benefit for us in super Rugby, but you need to realise that currently due to the super Xv, Currie cup is a sideshow being held inbetween a little window of opportunity where the springboks only get to play in the semi finals and final.

Yes the viewership is good.

The point I am making is, I would rather have less money, keep the players prepared to play in SA for perhaps less money and have the focus on growing our professional base of teams to at least 8, than having the scenario we have now.

 

[biltong]

Biltong, it's an idealistic idea. A nice narrative, but ultimately doomed. Unfortunately SA will not be able to keep up with the rest competing only against ourselves. That can be debated, but I'm pretty firmly set on that idea and I think most reasonable people would be.

However, ultimately, we might not have a choice. It seems as though SA might eventually be dropped out of SANZAR regardless of what we want. We have to admit, it makes a lot of sense for Australia and NZ to have a more localised competition, especially if they can involve the money from Japan. And from the noises coming from across the ocean, we should start preparing for this. I just hope SARU has enough sense (yeah right!) to have started some planning on this already.

Again, I want to remain in SANZAR, but the more I think about it, the more I could see a relationship with Europe, particularly France, not being a complete train smash. In fact, living in the UK I would love it if I could pop over to France for some games involving the SA teams. Major hurdles to making something like that work though.

Mank, at this point in time I am actually prepared to risk it.

There is a common perception that our rugby is going to lag behind the rest of the world and in all honesty that is to be proven.

There is another way to look at over exposure to other provincial or regional clubs and that is the fact that familiarity breeds contempt.

The more you play against someone the better you manage to deal with them.

Australia has learnt how to outsmart us as they don't have the same physicality as us. All because they play us on a regular basis.

The other issue is, if we do go on our own, then perhaps the conservative approach can be addressed from the bottom up.

Don't get me wrong, I enjoy cross conferences matches, but the more I think about it, and the more I see the attitude of some of the Aussies in regards to this, the more I am inclined to say, let's get out of here.

 

[gel]

Australia's depth is not as good as NZ and SA for sure. But depth would still continue to grow within AUS. And the AUS conference would be a fairly even playing field with the salary cap the ARU wants.

Thanks for the reply. Whilst we may well stay even with each other here in Australia, due to us no longer playing the best from NZ and SA we would start to lag behind (and become worse and worse).

NZ and SA will also suffer since test revenue will start to drop once Australia become less competitive and everyone loses interest in watching the Wobblies getting flogged.

 

[Sidbarret]

Hmmm. I don't seem it as a con. I hope it is clear that it is a domestic competition within Super Rugby. A bit like the Bledisloe and TRC are one and the same.

The even spread within a conference would work the way they are trying to create an even spread right now, and as they do in other codes.

I don't really see the issue with your 3rd para tbh. Every team would have a shot at the title every year. There are ways and means of evening out an individual conference.

If the levelers (salary cap in this instance) worked, why are the original three franchises in Australia so much stronger than the other two. The force currently have a shot at winning the super 15, but they don't.

In your proposal the likes of Kyle Godwin and Luke Jones won't even get a shot at playing against South African and New Zealand teams unless they move to the Tahs, Reds or Brumbies which under your proposal I think they will do.



At what level would the salary cap be set anyway? Would it be at the level that waratahs can afford or will it be at the level that a new start up without the blockbuster final series can afford?

 

[gel]

The point I am making is, I would rather have less money, keep the players prepared to play in SA for perhaps less money and have the focus on growing our professional base of teams to at least 8, than having the scenario we have now.

This paragraph seems to sum up the very nub of the matter from what I am gathering: it is essentially a desire to have what once was, when the reality has hit that it is probably now gone and all the other reasons given are just trying to justify that premise.

I just think this is a natural progression of the code with global exposure and demand, lower travel costs and increasing professionalism requiring higher salaries.

You still have the Currie Cup (and NPC and NZ) and they are not really under threat - they are just not (and were never going to be) competitive with the newer, shinier, more heavily sponsored international tournament.

Super League will probably be faced with exactly the same issue in 20 years (who knows how long) when there is a unified season and someone tv exec wants the best 6 teams from super league to be playing the 6 best from europe every season in a round robin tournament called the superDUPER league.

And I will be on some forum somewhere lamenting the loss of the superleague, when in fact, the super league had just had its time in the sun.

 

[biltong]

You

This paragraph seems to sum up the very nub of the matter from what I am gathering: it is essentially a desire to have what once was, when the reality has hit that it is probably now gone and all the other reasons given are just trying to justify that premise.

I just think this is a natural progression of the code with global exposure and demand, lower travel costs and increasing professionalism requiring higher salaries.

You still have the Currie Cup (and NPC and NZ) and they are not really under threat - they are just not (and were never going to be) competitive with the newer, shinier, more heavily sponsored international tournament.

Super League will probably be faced with exactly the same issue in 20 years (who knows how long) when there is a unified season and someone tv exec wants the best 6 teams from super league to be playing the 6 best from europe every season in a round robin tournament called the superDUPER league.

And I will be on some forum somewhere lamenting the loss of the superleague, when in fact, the super league had just had its time in the sun.

can see it is missing what once was, but it is also about what is important to me.

I don't like the fact that the Currie Cup does not have their Springboks playing.

I don't like the fact that the Currie Cup is reduced to a second rate competition since the conference system came into being.

And no, justifying a sixth franchise it is not. These are real issues. There is pressure to have the Eastern Cape involved and there is also the real issue of losing a 100 year old tradition.

If SANZAR doesn't want it, fine, then the options are rather obvious, don't you think?

Just one last thing, obviously we don't have the real numbers, so the costing of expenses , salaries, travel and in turn the revenue is mostly just figures and doesn't give us enough of a picture to really know what is financially viable and sustainable. But I sure hope SARU is at least investigating the viability of going it alone.

If they are not, I will be severely disappointed.

 

[southsider]

I'm not one of the ones advocating that we have significant depth and therefore deserve another team, but in answer to your question, the Kings competed in Super Rugby this year with a squad of players with zero 'loan' players fromt the Lions. At the same time, the Lions maintained their own squad with the exception of a few players who were loaned out to the other Super Rugby teams for this season.

The Lions and the Kings are mutually exclusive and therefore there are effectively two squads of 30 each between the two teams (as for the quality of the players, that is a separate issue).

haha fair call

 

[southsider]

So I guess you have been under a rock?
From top of you head who won the titles on those years.
Also look how 5th team struggle then go up as it gets continuity
Last thing watch the black slip down the table.

sorry rassie im just not going to bother, its waaaay too much effort trying to follow you and your reasoning in a argument

 

[masai]

I don't like the fact that the Currie Cup does not have their Springboks playing.

I don't like the fact that the Currie Cup is reduced to a second rate competition since the conference system came into being.

And no, justifying a sixth franchise it is not. These are real issues. There is pressure to have the Eastern Cape involved and there is also the real issue of losing a 100 year old tradition.

This borderline Luddite sentimentality is the enemy of reason. The fact is that if you want to develop quality test rugby players, the current system is hard to beat. Having 5 teams in your country's top tier provincial competition is a perfect number. It's high enough that you're creating sufficient depth in your playing stocks, and it's low enough that the players are able to test themselves week after week against the best the country has to offer.

Having the Currie Cup as a second tier domestic competition is an invaluable developmental tool where the country's young talents can experience a professional sporting atmosphere and play against fringe Springboks and seasoned Super Rugby campaigners.

If South Africa do back out of Super Rugby, it won't be the lack of consistent competition with Australian and New Zealand players that hurts them the most. It will be the decreased quality of competition between South African players due to the dilution of talent across 8 teams (I assume the Currie Cup would go back to an 8 team Premier Division to increase the length of the season).

Why anyone would want to give up the current system to return to a Stone Age domestic format beggars belief. But if you're still convinced that tradition has to be preserved above all else, consider this: if the tradition is as strong as you say it is, a lack of Springboks isn't going to kill the Currie Cup.

The SARU just have to wake up and recognise what the appeal of the Currie Cup is. The Currie Cup is a competition where the basest human emotions involving parochialism can run wild. So re-brand your Super Rugby teams as meaningless franchises and leave the Currie Cup to do what it does best. As a bonus, this also relieves all provincial union political pressures in one fell swoop.

 

[Bairdy]

I have a better answer for you

NZ starting Super 12 with 5 teams

2005

SA getting a 5th Team

Super Ends 2010

Super Rugby Australia getting a 5th team

2013

This post needs more gifs to explain which players could make up a sixth SA rugby team

 

[nomis]

Thanks for the reply. Whilst we may well stay even with each other here in Australia, due to us no longer playing the best from NZ and SA we would start to lag behind (and become worse and worse).

NZ and SA will also suffer since test revenue will start to drop once Australia become less competitive and everyone loses interest in watching the Wobblies getting flogged.

I understand the point you are making, and it's a fair point to make. I just don't think it will have an impact as significant as you say. I think the depth and competitiveness within AUS will continue to grow - particularly as rugby gets better exposure within AUS.

 

[gel]

There is pressure to have the Eastern Cape involved and there is also the real issue of losing a 100 year old tradition.

If SANZAR doesn't want it, fine, then the options are rather obvious, don't you think?

Each SA super rugby franchise plays each other in a home and away as well as two byes. Why not fill the byes with matches against the Lions (one home and one away)?

Matches between two SA super rugby teams gain points also toward the Currie Cup at the same time as going towards the Super Rugby table.

The Currie Cup happens at the same time as the Super Rugby competition.

Finals are organised around the super rugby finals in a feat of scheduling wonderment. Byes would need to be scheduled with Super Rugby to ensure an even spread.