Super Rugby News
-
I disagree with the point that they got it wrong with the NPC. I think they actually got it right in that there was no way NZ could sustain involvement in two pro comps. What we have now is a much better comp in developing players for Super Rugby and creating depth in the Super squads.
Without truckloads of money the NPC was never going to survive an attempt to keep it highly relevant. Super Rugby killed the NPC not the format or number of teams. -
Will take the Sunday announcement with a grain of salt. The NZRU spent significant resources and time on a proposal to rationalize and improve the then ITM Cup - announced the contraction of two teams from the top tier and they lacked the spine to implement. Unfortunately that contraction never happened and the tournament still flounders.
The formula for these clubs is a little different in each country, but I won't believe a team is gone until kick off next year, especially in these cases none of these clubs is in financial peril to the extent Ta$man and Northland (and subsequently Southland and Otago) were and they were allowed to very easily ensure the decision was reversed.
Let's hope the SAANZAR has more of a spine this time around because the tournament needs a cull.
@rotated there were numerous flaws with thier criteria and a convenient way of rating some of it for dropping the 2 teams, and as such the plan got rightly shafted.
IIRC Southland should have been dead certs to drop based on the criteria, that should have had them dead last, but somehow they were safe ranked about 9th, think after that it was Northland, Ta$man, Counties and maybe one other on the cusp who had varying 'criteria' that was for/against them.
-
Will take the Sunday announcement with a grain of salt. The NZRU spent significant resources and time on a proposal to rationalize and improve the then ITM Cup - announced the contraction of two teams from the top tier and they lacked the spine to implement. Unfortunately that contraction never happened and the tournament still flounders.
The formula for these clubs is a little different in each country, but I won't believe a team is gone until kick off next year, especially in these cases none of these clubs is in financial peril to the extent Ta$man and Northland (and subsequently Southland and Otago) were and they were allowed to very easily ensure the decision was reversed.
Let's hope the SAANZAR has more of a spine this time around because the tournament needs a cull.
@rotated I agree somewhat that it will surprise me if they manage to get rid of any teams - there's certainly no-one I've seen with their hand up saying pick me.
In terms of Tew's proposed contraction - that got rejected by the NZR board - as far as the Mako$ are concerned the proof is in the pudding. Over the past three seasons we've been probably the second best provincial team - at worst third behind Taranaki. 15-20 players have Super rugby contracts and numerous All Blacks have strong links to Nelson-Marlborough.
Compare that to the contribution Nelson Bays made to national rugby in the 30 years prior to the Mako$ - you could pretty much count on one hand the number of Nelson Bays players - or even people had spurious links to Nelson - who made any impression whatsoever at national level. Trevor Morris, Terry Mitchell, Will Dempster, Allan Prince, Todd Blackadder .... Almost zero contribution in 30 years - somewhere there's a database where you can search born or went to school - there's still virtually zero contribution in 30 years. Whereas now there's heaps of AB linkages - the Franks bros, Squire, Crockett, Romano, Crotty, Hames...
Plus the Mako$ seem to have recovered from the early financial hiccup. I believe the NZR loan has been repaid and we've been model citizens in living within our means, attracting good crowds, hosting RWC games, providing a base for the Crusaders when the earthquake struck, etc, etc.
Edit: And providing Tony Johnson to do fantastic and righteous commentary!
-
@rotated I agree somewhat that it will surprise me if they manage to get rid of any teams - there's certainly no-one I've seen with their hand up saying pick me.
In terms of Tew's proposed contraction - that got rejected by the NZR board - as far as the Mako$ are concerned the proof is in the pudding. Over the past three seasons we've been probably the second best provincial team - at worst third behind Taranaki. 15-20 players have Super rugby contracts and numerous All Blacks have strong links to Nelson-Marlborough.
Compare that to the contribution Nelson Bays made to national rugby in the 30 years prior to the Mako$ - you could pretty much count on one hand the number of Nelson Bays players - or even people had spurious links to Nelson - who made any impression whatsoever at national level. Trevor Morris, Terry Mitchell, Will Dempster, Allan Prince, Todd Blackadder .... Almost zero contribution in 30 years - somewhere there's a database where you can search born or went to school - there's still virtually zero contribution in 30 years. Whereas now there's heaps of AB linkages - the Franks bros, Squire, Crockett, Romano, Crotty, Hames...
Plus the Mako$ seem to have recovered from the early financial hiccup. I believe the NZR loan has been repaid and we've been model citizens in living within our means, attracting good crowds, hosting RWC games, providing a base for the Crusaders when the earthquake struck, etc, etc.
Edit: And providing Tony Johnson to do fantastic and righteous commentary!
-
@jegga have to say the Kings, Cheetahs and Force are favorites...right or wrong
-
I'm hoping to hear them announce that Aus will lose 1 team and SA to lose 2.
I'm expecting to hear that no teams will be dropped and it will go to a 3 conference model with Jaguars joining our conference and the Sunwolves joining Aus. Which will be fucking horrendous.
-
“SANZAAR has announced that the Super Rugby tournament has been restructured and will kick-off in 2018 with a three conference, 15-team format: five teams from New Zealand, four from Australia, four from South Africa, one from Japan; and one from Argentina.
This restructuring by SANZAAR represents a crucial step in its strategic planning process that has included a comprehensive assessment of the economic and sporting environment under which its tournaments (Super Rugby and The Rugby Championship) are currently operating.
This assessment highlighted a need to adjust and strengthen Super Rugby in the short-term to ensure a robust and sustainable tournament meets the requirements of all stakeholders in terms of high performance pathways, game development, commercial revenue and fan engagement.
The change sees an overall reduction of three teams from the current 18-team format, two from South Africa and one from Australia. The Sunwolves will move into the Australian Conference. The teams from Australia and South Africa that will compete in Super Rugby will be confirmed in due course by the respective National Unions.
New Zealand Conference
Blues, Chiefs, Crusaders, Highlanders, HurricanesAustralian Conference
Four Australian teams (TBC), SunwolvesSouth Africa Conference
Four South Africa teams (TBC), JaguaresSANZAAR Chairman, Brent Impey stated, “The decision to revert to a 15-team format reflects a consensus view of the mandated SANZAAR Executive Committee that met in London recently. It was not the determination of any one Union or stakeholder and follows a thorough assessment and review of the tournament over the last nine months.”
“SANZAAR is delighted that its major broadcast partners have after due consideration agreed to the restructured format within the existing broadcast agreements. Our broadcast partners are an important stakeholder and their vision for Super Rugby moving forward is the same as ours.”
“This decision has not been an easy one and we recognise the difficulty associated with reducing the number of teams in Australia and South Africa. Naturally we understand that there will be some very disappointed franchises but the tournament’s long-term future and the economic reality of the business at present is something that had to be addressed.”
“The decision to retain the Sunwolves is linked directly to SANZAAR’s strategic plan for the future. The potential for growth of the sport in Asia off the back of the establishment of the Sunwolves and the impending RWC in 2019 is significant. It remains an obvious focus for the organisation and a Japanese Super Rugby franchise is key to that strategy.”
SANZAAR CEO Andy Marinos stated, “This has been a long and complex piece of work and we make no apology for that. Super Rugby is unique in world rugby in that it is played in six countries across 15 time zones and has numerous stakeholders.”
“SANZAAR cannot continue to ignore the extensive feedback that it has received from fans, stakeholders and commercial partners around the integrity of the competition format and performances of the teams. We want to see an engaging, vibrant and competitive competition that delivers a strong high performance pathway in all markets that will have a positive flow into the international game.”
“It became clear during our strategic assessment that there are two facets to the future of our tournaments. The first is a requirement to react to existing market forces within the sporting business environment and to implement short-term change to Super Rugby. This is what we have done.”
“The second is the longer term vision, through a strategic plan, to build the brand that in the future can maximize further development of the game, commercial revenues and the ongoing sustainability of the tournaments. This work is presently ongoing and details will be released in the coming months.”
Tournament Details
120 match regular season plus seven match finals series
15 teams
Three conferences (Australia, New Zealand, South Africa)
18 rounds [16 matches per team, two bye weeks]
Each team will play eight matches within its conference (four home and four away)
Each team will play eight cross-conference matches – against four of the five teams from each of the other two conferences (four at home and four away)
Each team will play 12 of the other teams within the season (85% of opposition teams which is up from 70% in 2016).
Eight team Finals Series: Three Conference winners and; five wild card places – the next best performing teams based on competition points after the Conference winners regardless of Conference. Conference winners and fourth-placed team on competition points will host quarter-finals.“
The ARU have decided to cut a team and now the the process drags on as an evaluation phase begins to determine who will be cut. Super Rugby foundation teams – the Reds, Brumbies and Waratahs – are apparently safe with the decision to come down to the two newest teams, the Force or the Rebels. -
It's now even harder for a NZ team to win it. The number of high intensity local derbies stays the same, but we won't get as many easy games against the foreign teams as we do now. I don't see how this has benefited NZ one bit. Should have gone back to the s12 format of each team playing each other once.
-
The lesson out all of this is that a competition needs integrity. The 18-team blowout was a complete disaster, with the poster boy being the Kings.
In the long-run, there is definitely room to expand outside of the traditional big 3, with a 2nd team from Argentina an obvious starting place (add to SA conf), a 2nd team from Asia (add to Aust), and maybe a Pacific team (add to NZ).
But not before the Jaguares and Sunwolves are regularly competitive (ie at least mid-table contenders, winning most home games).
I dunno why the Aussies and Saffas are complaining - same money with fewer players = more competitive salaries to keep players out of Europe. Extremely bad news for NPC journeymen though...
-
It's now even harder for a NZ team to win it. The number of high intensity local derbies stays the same, but we won't get as many easy games against the foreign teams as we do now. I don't see how this has benefited NZ one bit. Should have gone back to the s12 format of each team playing each other once.
@akan004 said in Super Rugby News:
It's now even harder for an NZ team to win it. The number high intensity local derbies stays the same, but we won't get as many easy games against the foreign teams as we do now. I don't see how this has benefited NZ one bit. Should have gone back to the s12 format of each team playing each other once.
12 teams is a financial no-brainer. Wish people would stop going on about it. It is the best competitive option, but not financially attractive enough. It will never happen.
-
@akan004 said in Super Rugby News:
It's now even harder for an NZ team to win it. The number high intensity local derbies stays the same, but we won't get as many easy games against the foreign teams as we do now. I don't see how this has benefited NZ one bit. Should have gone back to the s12 format of each team playing each other once.
12 teams is a financial no-brainer. Wish people would stop going on about it. It is the best competitive option, but not financially attractive enough. It will never happen.
@Billy-Tell said in Super Rugby News:
@akan004 said in Super Rugby News:
It's now even harder for an NZ team to win it. The number high intensity local derbies stays the same, but we won't get as many easy games against the foreign teams as we do now. I don't see how this has benefited NZ one bit. Should have gone back to the s12 format of each team playing each other once.
12 teams is a financial no-brainer. Wish people would stop going on about it. It is the best competitive option, but not financially attractive enough. It will never happen.
I meant 15 teams with the old s12 format of every team playing each other.
-
@Billy-Tell said in Super Rugby News:
@akan004 said in Super Rugby News:
It's now even harder for an NZ team to win it. The number high intensity local derbies stays the same, but we won't get as many easy games against the foreign teams as we do now. I don't see how this has benefited NZ one bit. Should have gone back to the s12 format of each team playing each other once.
12 teams is a financial no-brainer. Wish people would stop going on about it. It is the best competitive option, but not financially attractive enough. It will never happen.
I meant 15 teams with the old s12 format of every team playing each other.
@akan004 said in Super Rugby News:
@Billy-Tell said in Super Rugby News:
@akan004 said in Super Rugby News:
It's now even harder for an NZ team to win it. The number high intensity local derbies stays the same, but we won't get as many easy games against the foreign teams as we do now. I don't see how this has benefited NZ one bit. Should have gone back to the s12 format of each team playing each other once.
12 teams is a financial no-brainer. Wish people would stop going on about it. It is the best competitive option, but not financially attractive enough. It will never happen.
I meant 15 teams with the old s12 format of every team playing each other.
Ah sorry, my bad.
-
It's now even harder for a NZ team to win it. The number of high intensity local derbies stays the same, but we won't get as many easy games against the foreign teams as we do now. I don't see how this has benefited NZ one bit. Should have gone back to the s12 format of each team playing each other once.
@akan004 said in Super Rugby News:
It's now even harder for a NZ team to win it. The number of high intensity local derbies stays the same, but we won't get as many easy games against the foreign teams as we do now. I don't see how this has benefited NZ one bit. Should have gone back to the s12 format of each team playing each other once.
With SA dropping 2 teams I would expect the quality of their teams to go up markedly. I also expect the Jaguares to be very good most years, once they get used to the travel and rigour of the competition.
Australia dropping a team should result in a slight improvement in their teams. Unfortunately I don't hold out too much hope for the Sunwolves, but perhaps they'll get better.
The NZ conference might not necessarily be the toughest one each year now. Good.
-
As an aside, they haven't actually named which sides will be dropped.
Kings will no doubt be the first side retained. Sigh.
-
It's now even harder for a NZ team to win it. The number of high intensity local derbies stays the same, but we won't get as many easy games against the foreign teams as we do now. I don't see how this has benefited NZ one bit. Should have gone back to the s12 format of each team playing each other once.
-
@akan004 said in Super Rugby News:
It's now even harder for a NZ team to win it. The number of high intensity local derbies stays the same, but we won't get as many easy games against the foreign teams as we do now. I don't see how this has benefited NZ one bit. Should have gone back to the s12 format of each team playing each other once.
With SA dropping 2 teams I would expect the quality of their teams to go up markedly. I also expect the Jaguares to be very good most years, once they get used to the travel and rigour of the competition.
Australia dropping a team should result in a slight improvement in their teams. Unfortunately I don't hold out too much hope for the Sunwolves, but perhaps they'll get better.
The NZ conference might not necessarily be the toughest one each year now. Good.
@Damo although our conference being the toughest is better for our rugby long term though
-
@akan004 Actually the nz derbies are increasing. Currently each nz team plays 6 derbies, from next year it will be 8.
@KiwiMurph said in Super Rugby News:
@akan004 Actually the nz derbies are increasing. Currently each nz team plays 6 derbies, from next year it will be 8.
Didn't realise that. Makes it even worse. I thought the main gripe of the NZ players was that there were too many high intensity local derbies as it is. So the NZRU decides to bend over and add another couple.
