What would be your ideal World Series Rugby format?

Been thinking about this and moving forward I think I would like the format to have a finals series.

So originally it was announced that next year there would be 6 teams with an expansion to 8 teams in the following years. So the format would go like this:

6 teams round robin- play each other twice once at home and once away each season.

10 games per team= 5 home and 5 away. Home and away games to be grouped in clusters of 3 or 2 games at a time eg. 3 home games and 2 away games then maybe 2 home games and 3 away games or something rotating each year whether you start the season at home or start it away.

The top 3 teams on the table go through to the finals, whether this be in a 6 team format or the 8 team format a maximum of only 3 teams qualify for the finals.

So the team that tops the table in 1st position automatically qualifys for the FINAL.

The 2nd and 3rd place team play a semi final. With the 2nd place team on the table having a home game.

The final features the 1st placed team verses whoever qualifys from the semi final.

Winner wins World Series Rugby

A couple of other things...

All Force round robin games at NIB stadium.

Final held at Optus stadium (if Force qualify to host the final)- the Final always held on a saturday afternoon around 4pm.

You could have the last placed team on the WSR table play off in an exhibition game against an Indigenous team that plays a curtain raiser in the Final too ( or have it played the night before at NIB)

Thoughts?

ok, apart from the final at optus atadium.
final at nib with 20k loyal supporters and great atmosphere, as opposed to optus with 40k JCL's and shoite atmosphere

We need to know who and how many teams are in the comp first. I think originally Twiggy is looking at six teams so you can't have semis if you want quality playing off for the title.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bakkies

We need to know who and how many teams are in the comp first. I think originally Twiggy is looking at six teams so you can't have semis if you want quality playing off for the title.

---

I think you definitely could with 8 teams, especially with only 3 qualifiers. I admit it would be pushing it with 6, but if its only for the first year with the following years having 8 teams then I would be fine with it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by cedric rainwater

ok, apart from the final at optus atadium.
final at nib with 20k loyal supporters and great atmosphere, as opposed to optus with 40k JCL's and shoite atmosphere

---

Isnt Optus meant to have a great atmosphere? I havent been there myself but all the reports seem to praise the noise and atmosphere.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SPaRTAN

Isnt Optus meant to have a great atmosphere? I havent been there myself but all the reports seem to praise the noise and atmosphere.

---

Lack of bums in seats would be an issue. And the unsuitability for Rugby.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SPaRTAN

Isnt Optus meant to have a great atmosphere? I havent been there myself but all the reports seem to praise the noise and atmosphere.

---

I've not really enjoyed any game of rectangular sport that has been played on a cricket/AFL ground.
too far away from the pitch, even with the so-called moveable seats.
i suppose if we get the 40k JCL's singing, and TBF they would only have to learn one 'song', the atmosphere could improve.
it certainly would be a dial-emma if we held the final here.
a bulging squirming sweating shouting legion of true fans in nib or a showpiece in a 2/3 full pretty quiet craypot.
i think i know which it will be unfortunately.
maybe if it all goes well, they can upgrade nib to the 35k stadium that was planned over 10 years ago.
was that a pig i just saw flying past?
i forgot, i'm in WA

No teams from New Zealand or South Africa. No teams from cities of Australia with a currently-existing Super franchise. (Well, maybe be Newcastle if it was an independent, fully local entity)

I wrote this on G&GR:
What needs to be done is proper integration of the areas involved in the league with one another, to truly give it the feeling of an "our competition" despite the its international nature. True brand recognition of the rest of the the teams in the competition, as though they are "local" rivals; with promotion of who these teams are, and the culture around them, is vital. A free-to-air presence, including some sort of highlights show featuring a cast from all countries, would go some way to achieving this; as would all away games being shown live on FTA in the franchise area


Super Rugby let this aspect flounder, with the competition devolving into one where it split into it's three constituent nations so badly, that no-one was interested in taking on the teams from the other countries as they had lost any sense of historic identity, geographic heritage and brand recognition. This was a killer, as the beauty of the Super Rugby concept, which is long-forgotten now, is that it originally gave the greatest historical rugby provinces in the world a chance to play each other regularly, in the great test & provincial venues of the three strongest nations in the world. Super Rugby was truly a magnificent thing. SANZAAR should have worked harder at maintaining that aspect, especially in Australia, the potential financial powerhouse of the competition.

The only rugby that should be played at the Craypot is Bledisloe.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by chibi

No teams from New Zealand or South Africa. No teams from cities of Australia with a currently-existing Super franchise. (Well, maybe be Newcastle if it was an independent, fully local entity)

I wrote this on G&GR:
What needs to be done is proper integration of the areas involved in the league with one another, to truly give it the feeling of an "our competition" despite the its international nature. True brand recognition of the rest of the the teams in the competition, as though they are "local" rivals; with promotion of who these teams are, and the culture around them, is vital. A free-to-air presence, including some sort of highlights show featuring a cast from all countries, would go some way to achieving this; as would all away games being shown live on FTA in the franchise area


Super Rugby let this aspect flounder, with the competition devolving into one where it split into it's three constituent nations so badly, that no-one was interested in taking on the teams from the other countries as they had lost any sense of historic identity, geographic heritage and brand recognition. This was a killer, as the beauty of the Super Rugby concept, which is long-forgotten now, is that it originally gave the greatest historical rugby provinces in the world a chance to play each other regularly, in the great test & provincial venues of the three strongest nations in the world. Super Rugby was truly a magnificent thing. SANZAAR should have worked harder at maintaining that aspect, especially in Australia, the potential financial powerhouse of the competition.

---

I agree about the conferences. Its ruined super rugby but they just wont let it go. The whole idea of never playing everyone atleast once is an abject failure but they all cant see it because each union is so focused on ensuring they atleast get one qualifier in the finals, a home one too, its basically a handicapped tournament lacking legitimacy right now.

How many teams qualify for the finals out of the 15? If its 8 then thats also total crap given its over half the teams..

That's right; and even then, I wasn't necessarily referring to the conferences in particular, but they certainly exacerbated the devolving problem. I think the lack of traditional and geographic names of the teams; plus the country-specific nature of the broadcasts- all missing from FTA- were the start of the problems.

All those matches should have had uniform on-screen graphics and a pan-national commentary teams. Instead, we ended up with something which had no unified identity in its coverage, there were even different brandings of the competition in each country. In Australia, there really should have been more WSR-style advertising of the fixtures around town, to combat the fact that it isn't the number one football code, with proper references in the ads to reflect the nature of just who the the hell we were playing. It's not surprising to think of how big a name the ACT Brumbies were back in Super Rugby's hey-day, their branding was everywhere in Canberra.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by chibi

That's right; and even then, I wasn't necessarily referring to the conferences in particular, but they certainly exacerbated the devolving problem. I think the lack of traditional and geographic names of the teams; plus the country-specific nature of the broadcasts- all missing from FTA- were the start of the problems.

All those matches should have had uniform on-screen graphics and a pan-national commentary teams. Instead, we ended up with something which had no unified identity in its coverage, there were even different brandings of the competition in each country. In Australia, there really should have been more WSR-style advertising of the fixtures around town, to combat the fact that it isn't the number one football code, with proper references in the ads to reflect the nature of just who the the hell we were playing. It's not surprising to think of how big a name the ACT Brumbies were back in Super Rugby's hey-day, their branding was everywhere in Canberra.

---

Yep, its great to see the direction World Series Rugby is taking.. it seems by doing the opposite of what SANZAAR do you have instant success. Andrew Forrest has the vision and braintrusts around him, people who are visionarys and working collaboratively together to build a product, also the complete opposite of SANZAAR and the toxic greed that overwhealms all the negotiations. You can really see the end of Super Rugby as becoming a real thing these days.

Whilst in its infancy World Series Rugby will be supported and funded by Andrew Forrest. I am sure that the hope is that it doesnt have to be in the long term future.

So - It will have to grow in to something that is self sustaining.

in the first 2-4 years. 6-8 teams

Force
Japan
China
Hong Kong
Singapore
Fiji
Samoa
Tonga

After the death of Super Rugby within the next 3-5 years The Australian and New Zealand teams will come to Andrew Forrest and beg for inclusion. From a business and TV Rights point of view - I dont believe that Forrest will say no to their coming in to WSR - but I am sure that he will charge an admission fee.

If the East Coast and NZ Teams come in - I would like to see a Championship Grade/Premier Grade competition with promotion/Relegation of the bottom 2/top 2 teams.

I think in 6-10 years Teams from Hawaii and perhaps West Coast USA and or India and Sri Lanka could be a part of SR.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by chibi

That's right; and even then, I wasn't necessarily referring to the conferences in particular, but they certainly exacerbated the devolving problem. I think the lack of traditional and geographic names of the teams; plus the country-specific nature of the broadcasts- all missing from FTA- were the start of the problems.

All those matches should have had uniform on-screen graphics and a pan-national commentary teams. Instead, we ended up with something which had no unified identity in its coverage, there were even different brandings of the competition in each country. In Australia, there really should have been more WSR-style advertising of the fixtures around town, to combat the fact that it isn't the number one football code, with proper references in the ads to reflect the nature of just who the the hell we were playing. It's not surprising to think of how big a name the ACT Brumbies were back in Super Rugby's hey-day, their branding was everywhere in Canberra.

---

I posted on the Roar a few times an interview done with David Moffett who has had a long running feud with John O'Neill. Moffett said O'Neill was the man who vetoed the suggestion that Super 12 should have competition sponsors like the Heineken Cup which started in the same year as it didn't suit the RA's bottom line.

As for team names the regionalisation of SA and NZ teams has been a mess. Counties have hopped between the Chiefs and the Blues than you have Taranaki moving from the Canes to the Chiefs. No surprise to see the Canes removed a lot of the Taranaki yellow from their jerseys to the Wellington black.

SA is even more of a mess. The Sharks, Stormers and Cheetahs are now stand alone teams which defeats the purpose of their rationalisation. Than you have provinces changing their allegiances. Boland which was aligned to the Stormers and Border the Kings are now part of the Bulls despite being nowhere near Pretoria geographically. Sceptics suggest it is to conform with transformation quotas as Border and Boland have more black and coloured players in their unions. Griquas have moved from the Cheetahs to the Bulls. The relegation of the Lions almost put them out of business as they didn't have a Twiggy to underwrite their fixtures for a year.

For next year:

Force, Japan, Hong Kong (with some games in mainland China), Fiji, Samoa, Tonga.

Home and away games against everyone, Minor Premiers get week off while 2 v 3, with the winner to play the minor premiers.

12 week comp.

I'm not normally a fan of half the teams making it through to finals, but with only 6 teams think its ok.

Expand to 8 teams in 2020.