Where to for Super Rugby?

[mudskipper]

Very true, No statement about from the ARU intend to do prior to the London meeting... Just slipped onto the plane...

 

[Quick Hands]

Very true, No statement about from the ARU intend to do prior to the London meeting. Just slipped onto the plane.

Onto the front end of the plane you mean.

 

[Rugbynutter39]

I really hope they go to the 3 x 6 conference system others have alluded to here. It keeps everyone in for the next few years to prove their worth, is a lot simpler, and aligns the franchises with their supporter bases.

Yes I think this would be the best option whilst they work out a better long term game plan. For my mind that would include a Trans Tasman-Asian competition and South African-Americas competition (latter guessing and don't care as more care about Trans Tasman Competition) with a Champions League type format like we have with European Rugby i.e. a secondary competition. In another words Super Rugby morphs into something else.

 

[dru]

Couldn't agree more.
Instead of looking forward to this season and rallying the supporter base we have been badly let down by the ARU's lack of clarity or stance on what they are going to do. Add in the obituaries being written daily in the media about Australian Rugbys supposed impending death, its no wonder fans, hardcore and casual, are walking away.
If any Australian franchise is culled then the entire ARU board need to be culled too. They have shown no respect to its supporters, you know the people who buy tickets to games and tv subscriptions, and continue to let them down by being silent on their preferred position. The ARU leadership has been pathetically weak in recent years in terms of sorting out the structures needed to develop talent for the future, with state parochialism still allowed a place in decisions that are in the interest of the future of the game nationally. The ARUs 5 year plan is increasingly looking like a smoke screen as the ARU struggles to sort out its own governance structures and finances. The ARUs only stance seems to be to take whats given, not fight for anything and become a token organization that is losing control of and relevance to its own product and its supporters.
The ARU is increasingly looking weak to Australian rugby fans, would it be any real surprise if they folded in the face of the pressures of a SANZAAR meeting? I mean they can't even get partisanship in its own backyard, theres no way they could do it at a higher level.

Agree with you mostly, certainly the sense of outrage where the ARU have failed any leadership in public through the saga.

But be careful what you wish for. It isnt hard to see the ARU guys folding for a new group. And the most vocal right now are Begg, Papworth and their cardigan brigade. If you want Sydney centered solutions, its the way to go.

 

[Brumby Jack]

The ARU phone hookup at 3:30 this arvo will be interesting

 

[mudskipper]

The ARU phone hookup at 3:30 this arvo will be interesting

Is that hook up with all the teams BJ...

 

[wamberal]

Gee there's a lot of ill-informed and spiteful commentary here.


When I flew long-haul for business, I flew business class.


Are people really suggesting that the CEO of the ARU should fly cattle class, for 22 hours, and then waltz into a crucial meeting?


Have any of you ever occupied a senior role that involved a lot of travel?

And as for JON pissing the RWC windfall up against a wall, could we please have some facts?


One fact that is a real fact is that some investment decisions that were taken about the money turned out poorly. That does happen, in the best regulated organisations.


Get a grip, chaps.

 

[KOB1987]

Gee there's a lot of ill-informed and spiteful commentary here.


When I flew long-haul for business, I flew business class.


Are people really suggesting that the CEO of the ARU should fly cattle class, for 22 hours, and then waltz into a crucial meeting?


Have any of you ever occupied a senior role that involved a lot of travel?

And as for JON pissing the RWC windfall up against a wall, could we please have some facts?


One fact that is a real fact is that some investment decisions that were taken about the money turned out poorly. That does happen, in the best regulated organisations.


Get a grip, chaps.

Whilst I'm not particularly a JON fan, and I'm not privvy to the specific investment decisions that you are referring to, I'm mindful that the GFC started in 2007, so about 3 1/2 years after the 2003 RWC. That specific event buried a lot of businesses financially.

I agree with the flights situation, the same spite gets directed at politicians only a lot more publicly.

 

[Rebels3]

My mind is constantly changing around with Super Rugby. My latest crazy idea is to have the 18 teams split into 2 divisions (9 teams each). Play an 8 week tournament against the other 8 teams in your division (4 home 4 away). Top 4 make finals. Top 2 from division 2 are promoted, bottom 2 from top division relegated. Super season end.

Then 5 Australian teams roll into their own 8 week tournament (each team home and away). Top two play off in a final.

So March to May - Super Rugby Season
June - Internationals
July to August - Domestic Franchise Season

 

[Braveheart81]

My mind is constantly changing around with Super Rugby. My latest crazy idea is to have the 18 teams split into 2 divisions (9 teams each). Play an 8 week tournament against the other 8 teams in your division (4 home 4 away). Top 4 make finals. Top 2 from division 2 are promoted, bottom 2 from top division relegated. Super season end.

Then 5 Australian teams roll into their own 8 week tournament (each team home and away). Top two play off in a final.

So March to May - Super Rugby Season
June - Internationals
July to August - Domestic Franchise Season

The first portion of that would take 11 weeks to play and 10 of the 18 the teams only get 8 games in that time.

The Australian portion would again take 11 weeks to play and 3 of the 5 teams only get 8 games. It would extend into where we now have the Rugby Championship. by close to a month.

 

[Rebels3]

The first portion of that would take 11 weeks to play and 10 of the 18 the teams only get 8 games in that time.

The Australian portion would again take 11 weeks to play and 3 of the 5 teams only get 8 games. It would extend into where we now have the Rugby Championship. by close to a month.

True, always flaws in a plan

 

[Nova986]

After 2 weeks of the 2017 super rugby season, is it time for a major revamp?

It seems clear that for Foxtel and similar pay TV operators, the super rugby provides multiple hours of content each weekend. (Yesterday's marathon went for something like 17 hours of rugby).

Rugby authorities also benefit for the money obtained from broadcast rights.

Can rugby and the SANZAAR partners do better and still maintain the attraction for TV?

A quick analysis reveals that NZ teams are going from strength to strength. It could be argued that rugby in NZ would go from strength to strength regardless of the model implemented by SANZAAR.

I think that it is widely agreed that the current Super 18 model is flawed on so many levels; the draw is confusing, the conferences unbalanced, the finals system is incomprehensible. Crowds in South Africa are down (Ellis Park looked almost empty yesterday on a fine sunny afternoon in what was a pretty good game). Crowds in Australia are down. Playing standard in both Australia and South Africa is well below that of the NZ teams - surely not a healthy situation for any of the SANZAAR partners, including NZ?

One of the things that we often hear from NZ officials that they want more games against SA teams, yet the current structure has reduced this to an almost negligible level. No NZ and SA teams play each other in the first 5 weeks, in weeks 6-9 there is one match per week NZ v SA, in weeks 10-13 there are two NZ v SA matches and in weeks 14-17 no NZ v SA matches. In fact we know for example that the Sharks don't play an NZ team at all in the competition.

South Africa say that they don't want too many local derbies as it would just be the same as the Currie Cup, yet the current structure of two Africa conferences gives them more games against each other.

Australia want more local derbies, but this system gives us less.

And on it goes.

From an Australian perspective, our super rugby teams need to be at home or on TV in the same time zone as often as possible. How can this be achieved?

Some options:

2 x conferences of 10 playing home and away - one conference Aust/NZ the other Africa/Asia/Americas, finals top four in each conference

3 x conferences of 6 - home and away within your conference and a set number of out of conference games - one conference Africa (they want 6 teams), one Aust/Japan and one NZ/Arg, finals top two from each conference

No doubt other options are just as valid, but if we want to really spread the game in Australia we need to have a competition which is accessible on a weekly basis to the fans and has an easily understood structure..

 

[Twoilms]

Gee there's a lot of ill-informed and spiteful commentary here.


When I flew long-haul for business, I flew business class.


Are people really suggesting that the CEO of the ARU should fly cattle class, for 22 hours, and then waltz into a crucial meeting?


Have any of you ever occupied a senior role that involved a lot of travel?

And as for JON pissing the RWC windfall up against a wall, could we please have some facts?


One fact that is a real fact is that some investment decisions that were taken about the money turned out poorly. That does happen, in the best regulated organisations.


Get a grip, chaps.

They were intimating that, like our Rugby teams, Rugby Management in Australia is soft as fuck. Softer than a eunichs members.

 

[Brainstrust]

My mind is constantly changing around with Super Rugby. My latest crazy idea is to have the 18 teams split into 2 divisions (9 teams each). Play an 8 week tournament against the other 8 teams in your division (4 home 4 away). Top 4 make finals. Top 2 from division 2 are promoted, bottom 2 from top division relegated. Super season end.

Then 5 Australian teams roll into their own 8 week tournament (each team home and away). Top two play off in a final.

So March to May - Super Rugby Season
June - Internationals
July to August - Domestic Franchise Season

I think Rebels 3 is pretty close. To begin with I think reducing team numbers is a backward step for the game. The governing bodies need to find a format that works and then support their franchises to success. The NFL have an excellent competition with a conference system being the key. A division 1 & 2 format with relegation and promotion will never work with so few teams, but a conference system that can be expanded and adjusted is a very good frame work to operate in. The ability to add on and adjust conferences is the key to the competition being flexible nimble going forward to meet the challenges of a highly competitive sporting market.

If we have say 2 x 9 team conferences as Rebels 3 suggests, then:
· Each conference plays 4 home and away games within itself = 8 rounds.
· At the end of that the top 5 in each conference go into a Cup draw ( 10 teams) and they play the other top 5 from the other conference once.
· The bottom 4 teams go into a Plate draw ( 8 teams) and play the other conferences bottom 4 teams once.
· From that point there are any number of finals models you can use to extend the season or reduce it.
· Key point is that the stronger teams end up playing for the big prize, and the weaker teams the get a chance to play off against the weaker performing teams, also for a trophy.
· That model can create interest right through to a finals set up where there is a cup and plate outcome.
· That will keep the fans engaged in their team as they are always playing for some sort of trophy right through to the end of the season.


Teams go in and out of success pretty easily. Lets not forget that the Reds and Tahs have both won a super title in the last 6-7 years, and the Brumbies have also been runners up in 2013. So recent history hasn’t been too bad for the Aussie teams with 5 Super Rugby teams in existence, so it should be supported further.

 

[wamberal]

Just by the way, it is now 14 years since the 2003 RWC.



We need to stop living in the past, today's problems are not caused by what did or did not happen in prehistoric times.



And, also by the way, JON should get some credit for hijacking the bloody event anyway.

 

[dru]

http://www.sarugbymag.co.za/blog/details/cheetahs-facing-super-rugby-axe

Hey Matt. My attempt at a conversation seems to have failed (again, sheesh). But we managed to get through the Afrikaaner source document for this as you pondered. NOTE: not a professional translation, using a mate of a mate, you know. And clearing up the idioms is entertaining. So you can be sure we stuffed up something somewhere.

Other than pretty much being in line with the English article, there are a couple of extra interesting bits.

From Netwerk 24 - Cheetahs se Super-plek in weegskaal:
Cheetahs Super Place is in the Balance

The Cheetahs could be shot dead when the country’s rugby bosses pull the trigger next week on thinning the SA teams for 2018.

Even though the Cheetahs are the reigning Currie Cup champions, they are firmly in the sights of SARU when the governing body must decide which two teams will be cut, reducing the participation of SA teams from six to four.

A revised series, with 15 teams will participate instead of the current 18. This is the most favoured proposal on the table when the rugby bosses from the Southern Hemisphere met in London last week. Their goal is to give Super Rugby more “oomph”.

The consensus amongst the rugby bosses is that the current Super series is too bearish, confusing and lengthy. It’s also the primary reason for dwindling crowd numbers.

New Zealand according to www.stuff.co.nz is an advocate that SANZAR, the governing body of Southern Hemisphere rugby, reduce the number of South African teams by two.

SARU representatives at the meeting had expected only one of the South African teams would be cut in this proposal. This would mean that only the Southern Kings would be cut for a 16 team competition.

It seems that the majority of the member states of SANZAR are more in favour of a greater intervention and that 15 teams would ensure a more streamlined series. For this reason two SA teams are to be offered up.

The Cheetahs position is weakened because the central region doesn’t have the economic power of the other regions and less potential to pull in the crowds when compared to the Bulls, Lions, Sharks and Stormers.

As an example, if only 10% of potential spectators in and around Pretoria went and watched the Bulls on a Saturday at Loftus Versveld, they would be able to fill Loftus six times over. If Bloemfontein had the same 10% attend a Cheetahs home game there would be approximately 15,000 spectators.

SANZAR and SARU have said that if there is a reduction of the total number of Super-teams, there will be a requirement for teams to be cut from the series.

An Australian team can also be cut from the tournament, however it will be a decision that rests on economic reasons not rugby logic, because struggling Super teams such as the Sunwolves and the Rebels can financially survive.

“After two days of robust discussions there was a number of considerations which required further discussion and consultation,” said Andy Marinos the executive Head of SANZAR.


Final discussions are to follow in the national unions such as SARU and with key players over the request made to accept the suggested amendments to the Super Rugby series.

 

[dru]

I would add that , IMO, while SA English news possibly addresses a broad readership and thinking (no more than ours though), the Afrikaaner press is pretty much specific to the Afrikaaner culture in SA.

OK there are holes all over that statement, but what I am trying to say, IMVHO, is that they wont shed a tear for the Kings. And possibly not be too disturbed if the Sharks were threatened. In my really very very humble opinion.

The Afrikaaner press does however, care about the Cheetahs.

As I said - plenty of hairs over those generalisations, but sometimes you need a generalistion to get a point across.

 

[Slim 293]

But in another article the Cheetahs boss has stated that they're safe, and he's receiving information that another SA team and an Aus team will be cut......

I'll wait until something is confirmed.

 

[dru]

But in another article the Cheetahs boss has stated that they're safe, and he's receiving information that another SA team and an Aus team will be cut..

I'll wait until something is confirmed.

Slim, I dont think the Saffers have any better handle on it than we do. Doesn't mean it is not interesting background.

 

[KOB1987]

HTF would a 16 team comp work when you have 4 x AUS, 5 X NZ, 5 X SAF, JPN, ARG? The only feasible way for it not to be a complete clusterfuck would be for everyone just to play each other once and that would still be a complete clusterfuck.