2011 - thinking ahead

[James]

8 home games. 4 against Australian sides. 4 against non-Australian sides.

[AndyS]

From a website called Super15 (http://www.superxv.com/format/):

It may look something like that, but I would not be entirely confident that it is anything better than a best guess. The math doesn't seem to work - a late Feb start and nineteen weeks of play takes you to the end of June, not the start. There must be 19 weeks, because there would be a bye round in each phase as described - 5 teams can't all play each other on a given weekend in Phases 1 and 3, and there must be another in Phase 2 as 15 teams similarly can't all play at once. My guess is that either the Test window would fall between Phases 2 and 3, or the match line-up would be correct but played out over the whole season (i.e we'd play both "derbies" and "internationals" on a given tour, much as now).

the focus is on local derbies, the broadcasters and SANZAR realise the main interest is in the local derbies and not the international matches.

A perception I have always found curious. Super Rugby was basically set up because NZ and Aus couldn't sustain professional rugby on the strength of their domestic audiences alone. If that is no longer the case and it is domestic matches that produce the best viewing numbers, then surely SA and NZ should be considering cancelling S15 and instead relying on their relevant domestic competitions alone? While derbies might pull the best audiences within the relevant country, I wonder whether they might find the overall viewing numbers taking a dive...

It's a tad confusing and I'd hate to be the ones who miss out on playing both the Lions and Highlanders!

Indeed, so how much worse for the teams fighting it out for that second conference position - say, the Reds could miss out on both the Lions and Highlanders while the Stormers got to play the Lions twice and the Highlanders once?

[beige]

A perception I have always found curious.

It's nice to think that we know more than the people in power but I'm gonna go out on a limb and say they have some actual numbers to look at as opposed to perceptions.

say, the Reds could miss out on both the Lions and Highlanders while the Stormers got to play the Lions twice and the Highlanders once?

I'd say that's gonna be a problem for some team at some point...

[AndyS]

I'm gonna go out on a limb and say they have some actual numbers to look at as opposed to perceptions.

Well, as I say, if Newscorp, NZRU and SARU are in fact getting better results from derbies than from matches against us the ARU better start making plans. It implies that the entire rationale for Super Rugby has run its course.

My suspicion is that, while it might be better for domestic viewing numbers, it is perhaps not overall. It may be ill-informed, but it is noticeable that it is usually the Australian press and sometimes (but less so) the NZ press that claim it as a benefit. I don't really recall the SA press saying much about it - their focus tends to be more on the significant reduction in travel as the big advantage.

[PerthGirl]

So how will it be decided which NZ and Saffa teams we play against? will it mean an end to TWF tours?

[beige]

So how will it be decided which NZ and Saffa teams we play against?

Don't think they've said yet.

[Timbo]

Not sure - but JON has been seen practicing Rock-Paper-Scissors.

[beige]

Not sure - but JON has been seen practicing Rock-Paper-Scissors.

Actually his idea was for everyone to play everyone - this was one of those "compromise solutions".

[AndyS]

Yeah, the epitome of the saying that a compromise is when no-one gets what they actually want. It will put a slant on the competition, and it will be interesting to see what gives when they start pushing for the next expansion...

[todd4]

With the Aussie teams playing 4 out of 5 saffa & kiwi teams you would think that after they have drawn straws to start with it would then be on some kind of rotation basis for the following years so that over time it would work out to be fair all round..

[BDAVEY]

keep it the same... but maybe have a top 6 system for the finals??

---------- Post added at 17:01 ---------- Previous post was at 16:53 ----------

GIGS/PB Out of left field............ how many overseas players can the rebels recruit ??

[TOCC]

keep it the same... but maybe have a top 6 system for the finals??

the Super15 will be a top 6 finals system

A perception I have always found curious. Super Rugby was basically set up because NZ and Aus couldn't sustain professional rugby on the strength of their domestic audiences alone. If that is no longer the case and it is domestic matches that produce the best viewing numbers, then surely SA and NZ should be considering cancelling S15 and instead relying on their relevant domestic competitions alone? While derbies might pull the best audiences within the relevant country, I wonder whether they might find the overall viewing numbers taking a dive...

I might have been a little over zealous in making that comment, whilst there is a stronger emphasis on the local product it is still not enough to sell individually, the international aspect of the game still contributes a increidble amount to the overall value of the comp. Like someone already mentioned, it also boosts credibility and the value of the product by having players from the 3 best test teams in the world play.

Advertising and sponsorship are also heavily based on the 'international' side of the game, which obviously plays a massive part in the overall picture.


In the future i think we will see the game evolve to the point that SANZAR or the Super15 will become a replicate of the Heinekin Cup. So each country will run there own domestic comps and then the Super Series will basically be a comptetition for the top franchises from each country. Those who dont qualify can go into another competition similar to the European Championship.

This then allows each country to expand there competitions as they like, but at the end of the day, only a select number of teams will be able to qualify from each country for the super series.

I hope that makes sense, if it doesnt then just go have a read on the heinekin cup, it also makes the inclusion of a team from argentina, japan, usa and the pacific islands a lot easier.

[beige]

GIGS/PB Out of left field............ how many overseas players can the rebels recruit ??

Ten.

I don't see Super Rugby going down the Heineken Cup route for a long time if ever. However talk in the media (and from one JON) was that if another expansion does happen down the line they're looking at a Super 18, with an extra team in each conference. This would potentially mean we'd only play half the teams from the other two conferences to keep the season the same length.

[TOCC]

Ten.

I don't see Super Rugby going down the Heineken Cup route for a long time if ever. However talk in the media (and from one JON) was that if another expansion does happen down the line they're looking at a Super 18, with an extra team in each conference. This would potentially mean we'd only play half the teams from the other two conferences to keep the season the same length.

which is in effect going down the heinekin cup path anyway, teams qualify for the international component(finals) based on there performances in there own province. Sounds very similar to the Heinekin Cup

[AndyS]

Which in turn is essentially where SA already is, with five of their eight CC teams translating directly into the Super 14. Unsurprisingly, pretty much all their international players play for those five teams and, whilst Griquas put up a struggle some years, the three non-Super teams are basically just there as feeder clubs to the others. Translate that to some future Super competition and I guess one would just want to hope theirs was one of the favoured teams. Anyone else suspect that it would be largely dictated by access to third party money for player payments?