Have a crack at fixing Super Rugby...
-
<p>The trouble with the American style systems is that all new players go through one draft, where the worse teams get the best picks, so any new player could end up anywhere. This keeps the conferences and divisions roughly even.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>That wouldn't be the case for new talent coming through in Super rugby, as it is a cross-nation thing.</p> -
<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="Unco" data-cid="608468" data-time="1471981009">
<div>
<p>We already had a thread on this not so long ago but my solution was basically:</p>
<p> </p>
<p>- Only two conferences (Aus/NZ and Africa). No more sub-conferences (like Africa 1, Africa 2, etc) or overall table.</p>
<p>- 3-4 cross-conference games.</p>
<p>- Proper American-style conference finals, where the Aus/NZ conference winner and the Africa winner eventually play each other, possibly in a neutral city</p>
<p> </p>
<p>It's FAR easier to understand, there's FAR less travel in the finals, SA would get a bunch of home finals (which I'm betting their broadcasters would be stoked with) and while it might mean that the Aus/NZ finals are all NZ teams, that's how things go, if the Aussie teams want to make it, they need to get good. I don't buy into the "Aus have to at least host a quarter final" bullshit SANZAAR introduced ages ago, we're in a close enough time zone that Aussies can still easily watch our finals if they want to.</p>
</div>
</blockquote>
<p> </p>
<p> </p>
<p>I agree with two conferences. Japan /NZ / Aust and an Island team = 12</p>
<p> </p>
<p>The other conference would include SA /Argentina and try to include US and Canada. Maybe 10 -12 teams. Semis and finals = 13 games</p>
<p> </p>
<p>I might also look at having a new knockout competition. Ideally this might include the NH team. Say 5 teams playing home and away = 7 games with semi and final.</p> -
<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="TeWaio" data-cid="608701" data-time="1472047973">
<div>
<p>The trouble with the American style systems is that all new players go through one draft, where the worse teams get the best picks, so any new player could end up anywhere. This keeps the conferences and divisions roughly even.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>That wouldn't be the case for new talent coming through in Super rugby, as it is a cross-nation thing.</p>
</div>
</blockquote>
<p>That's the idea of the draft but it often doesn't work out like that because there's so many other factors involved, like star players and coaches. Just look at how much of a joke the NBA's Eastern conference is compared to the Western conference. And while the NFL isn't as bad as that, it still has a handful of dominant teams.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>So I don't really see it as a big problem. If the SA teams have a bad year then it might lead to a super one sided final but those things happen, especially with the bullshit travel schedules most teams have to endure in the current setup.</p> -
<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="taniwharugby" data-cid="608484" data-time="1471984282">
<div>
<p>if you go down that route, you need to have a year where everyone plays everyone to determine a fairer log table to put in division.</p>
</div>
</blockquote>
<p> </p>
<p>There is truth to your statement Taniwha... but the best teams would sort themselves out eventually, its a bit like the NZ NPC - Wellington is down in the Championship where it belongs...</p>
<p> </p>
<p>If the right amount of resources are put into each league A & B, and the knock-out attracts a sponsor and worthwhile prize money, then those few teams in the B grade who may be capable of footing in in the A's will get tough games if they progress through the knock-out comp - maybe give the winner of the knock-out automatic entry into the A division.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>Also, which teams in the B division truly deserve promotion into the A's - most of those teams deserve to be where they are...</p> -
<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="Winger" data-cid="608711" data-time="1472060643">
<div>
<p>I agree with two conferences. Japan /NZ / Aust and an Island team = 12</p>
<p> </p>
<p>The other conference would include SA /Argentina and try to include US and Canada. Maybe 10 -12 teams. Semis and finals = 13 games</p>
<p> </p>
<p>I might also look at having a new knockout competition. Ideally this might include the NH team. Say 5 teams playing home and away = 7 games with semi and final.</p>
</div>
</blockquote>
<p>It probably has to go this way in the future doesn't it?</p>
<p> </p>
<p>Playing cross-conference finals, Jap-NZ-Aust #1 vs SA-Arg #4, 2 v 3, 3 v 2, 4 v 1... Shifting the Grand Final around NZ, Aust, SA respectively...with cities within those countries bidding to host the final, and a proviso that a particular city can't host the final again until another city has. </p> -
<p><a data-ipb='nomediaparse' href='http://www.stuff.co.nz/sport/rugby/super-rugby/83584000/australia-south-africa-could-lose-one-super-rugby-team-each-under-new-proposal'>http://www.stuff.co.nz/sport/rugby/super-rugby/83584000/australia-south-africa-could-lose-one-super-rugby-team-each-under-new-proposal</a></p>
-
<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="pakman" data-cid="609062" data-time="1472163843">
<div>
<p><a data-ipb='nomediaparse' href='http://www.stuff.co.nz/sport/rugby/super-rugby/83584000/australia-south-africa-could-lose-one-super-rugby-team-each-under-new-proposal'>http://www.stuff.co.nz/sport/rugby/super-rugby/83584000/australia-south-africa-could-lose-one-super-rugby-team-each-under-new-proposal</a></p>
</div>
</blockquote>
<p> </p>
<p>I got nervous after reading Accenture were doing the review.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>This is the issue - decisions are now business related, not rugby related. </p> -
<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="nzzp" data-cid="609063" data-time="1472164063">
<div>
<p>I got nervous after reading Accenture were doing the review.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>This is the issue - decisions are now business related, not rugby related. </p>
</div>
</blockquote>
<p> </p>
<p>Yes and no. A business is only as good as it's core product. It's key for the rugby to be good for the business to be good. This is where things fell down this year.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>Lions, Canes, Chiefs, Saders, Landers - good rugby. Tahs / Brumbies / Stormers / Blues / Sharks / Bulls - not bad rugby. The rest - shit rugby.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>You can't expect all teams to play good rugby, but you can expected better than 5/18 to play good & much better than 7/18 to play shit. This was the problem with this years comp. It was the equivalent of the 6 Nations splitting England into North / East and then introducing Georgia & Romania all in the one season. Created too many meaningless games.</p> -
<p>Moffett wants to throw out more than the shit teams. Reducing the number of NZ teams, which he thinks may be necessary because he wants to go back to a Super 12, is IMO throwing out the baby with the bath water. For sure, you'd want to keep all the teams that offer good rugby or have the prospect of playing good rugby?<br>
<br>
If you'd remove a team from the NZ conference, how would you decide to pick which one? Or would you reorganise all provinces in 4 new franchises?</p>
<p> </p>
<p>If it's based on on-field performance during the last few seasons, then the Blues would have to go. Can you imagine not having a Super Rugby franchise is the most populous region of NZ? I can't.<br>
Not sure what the financial performance of the NZ franchises has been, but I vaguely remember that the Highlanders had some problems a few years ago? If they still are the weakest financially, then the 2015 competition winners would have to be removed?</p>
<p> </p>
<p>I just can't see why and how the NZ conference would have to give up a franchise. I can see much better arguments for Australia giving up 2.<br>
</p>
<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote">
<p><strong><span style="font-size:14px;"><span style="font-family:arial, helvetica, sans-serif;">Former NZ Rugby boss Moffett says NZ may have to sacrifice a Super Rugby team</span></span></strong><br>
<br><span style="font-size:12px;"><span style="font-family:arial, helvetica, sans-serif;">RICHARD KNOWLER</span></span><br><span style="font-size:12px;"><span style="font-family:arial, helvetica, sans-serif;">Last updated 14:18, August 26 2016</span></span><br>
<br><span style="font-size:14px;"><span style="font-family:arial, helvetica, sans-serif;">Former NZ Rugby boss David Moffett says the Super Rugby competition would be "dead in five years" unless Sanzaar reduced the number of teams - and that could mean taking one off New Zealand.</span></span><br>
<br><span style="font-size:14px;"><span style="font-family:arial, helvetica, sans-serif;">Moffett, a long-time critic of Sanzaar's determination to keep expanding Super Rugby, was responding to a report that a Sanzaar review suggests Australia and South Africa could drop a team each to allow the competition to be reduced to 16.</span></span><br>
<br><span style="font-size:14px;"><span style="font-family:arial, helvetica, sans-serif;">The inclusion of extra sides from South Africa (the Kings), Japan (the Sunwolves) and Argentina (Jaguares) this year resulted in Super Rugby blowing out to 18 teams, requiring a complex format to accommodate all games within the allocated window.</span></span><br>
<br><span style="font-size:14px;"><span style="font-family:arial, helvetica, sans-serif;">No-one seems satisfied with the current structure, but finding a satisfactory outcome for all 28 stakeholders, which includes the clubs, national unions and host broadcasters from each country, is complex.</span></span><br>
<br><span style="font-size:14px;"><span style="font-family:arial, helvetica, sans-serif;">The review also proposed other models; expansion or taking two teams off South Africa.</span></span><br>
<br><span style="font-size:14px;"><span style="font-family:arial, helvetica, sans-serif;">Moffett, also a former NRL chief executive between 1999-2001, couldn't manage an enthusiastic response when told a new 16-team model was presented to the Australian Rugby Union board last week.</span></span><br>
<br><span style="font-size:14px;"><span style="font-family:arial, helvetica, sans-serif;">"It doesn't go far enough," Moffett, who labelled the current format as "absolutely pathetic", said.</span></span><br>
<br><span style="font-size:14px;"><span style="font-family:arial, helvetica, sans-serif;">"I know that my views on the future of Super Rugby will not hit a very good chord in New Zealand. I understand that, but what I am talking about is the future of rugby in the southern hemisphere."</span></span><br>
<br><span style="font-size:14px;"><span style="font-family:arial, helvetica, sans-serif;">If Sanzaar don't reduce the number of teams, he says: "It will be dead in five years. They don't have a choice, in my view. They have tried this expansion model and it is already not working."</span></span><br>
<br><span style="font-size:14px;"><span style="font-family:arial, helvetica, sans-serif;">Moffett said it would be better for Sanzaar to strip the competition back to 12 teams, meaning New Zealand, Australia and South Africa contribute just four each and play each other twice.</span></span><br>
<br><span style="font-size:14px;"><span style="font-family:arial, helvetica, sans-serif;">"That's a competition that would make sense. A 16 team competition won't make sense, it's still not fair. The problem is Sanzaar thinks it should be developing rugby outside of Europe, which is so patently wrong. It's not their job - their job is to look after their own backyards."</span></span><br>
<br><span style="font-size:14px;"><span style="font-family:arial, helvetica, sans-serif;">Culling one of the five teams in New Zealand would create one of the greatest storms in recent memory for the national sport.</span></span><br>
<br><span style="font-size:14px;"><span style="font-family:arial, helvetica, sans-serif;">Moffett admits that would be difficult, but said it may necessary.</span></span><br>
<br><span style="font-size:14px;"><span style="font-family:arial, helvetica, sans-serif;">"It would be dynamite, but you have to evolve. Yes, it would be painful, but until you get a competition that people understand and is fair …"</span></span><br>
<br><span style="font-size:14px;"><span style="font-family:arial, helvetica, sans-serif;">Reducing the competition to 12 teams would give the broadcasters quality and quantity. As it stands many discerning fans are electing to watch local derby games, and have little interest in fixtures involving the teams from Australia, South Africa, Argentina and Japan.</span></span><br>
<br><span style="font-size:14px;"><span style="font-family:arial, helvetica, sans-serif;">Moffett complimented NZ Rugby for not increasing the number of teams since Super Rugby began in 1996, unlike Australia and South Africa.</span></span><br>
<br><span style="font-size:14px;"><span style="font-family:arial, helvetica, sans-serif;">That was to NZ Rugby's "absolute credit", he stated.</span></span><br>
<br><span style="font-size:14px;"><span style="font-family:arial, helvetica, sans-serif;">"You need to look no further than that for the dominance of New Zealand rugby. Because their total focus is on five teams, their focus on what is right for their rugby has got them head and shoulders above South Africa and Australia.</span></span><br>
<br><span style="font-size:14px;"><span style="font-family:arial, helvetica, sans-serif;">"You have to give credit to Tew (chief executive Steve Tew) and his board. They know what to do, so far they have kept it to five teams.</span></span><br>
<br><span style="font-size:14px;"><span style="font-family:arial, helvetica, sans-serif;">"You can either take the soft option or take the right option. And the soft one is to just continue to grow the number of teams. There are not enough quality players to people that number of teams."</span></span><br>
<br><span style="font-size:14px;"><span style="font-family:arial, helvetica, sans-serif;"> - Stuff</span></span><br>
<br>
<a data-ipb='nomediaparse' href='http://www.stuff.co.nz/sport/rugby/super-rugby/83599312/former-nz-rugby-boss-moffett-says-nz-may-have-to-sacrifice-a-super-rugby-team'>http://www.stuff.co.nz/sport/rugby/super-rugby/83599312/former-nz-rugby-boss-moffett-says-nz-may-have-to-sacrifice-a-super-rugby-team</a></p>
</blockquote> -
<p>I said this the last time Moffett gave his opinion but he is delusional if he thinks we put Super Rugby teams in Japan and Argentina to develop the game. South Africa got a 6th team because they have a lot of money and their internal politics meant they needed a team in Port Elizabeth. The Japanese team introduces rugby to the massive Asian market as does Argentina with South America.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>He also gives Tew credit for not expanding NZ Super Rugby. Expand to what? 5 franchises perfectly encompass New Zealand. Even if we did want a 6th franchise the other countries wouldn't want it and it wouldn't improve the bottom line. Australia needed teams in Perth and Melbourne because they are massive population centres.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>A 12 team competition just isn't going to bring in the revenue because large parts of South Africa and Australia won't have a team. In New Zealand we would have to get rid of the Highlanders probably. His competition also takes 22 weeks + 2 weeks finals which is already 4 weeks longer than Super Rugby right now and that is with no byes. So I guess we would be starting in January?? Moffett just doesn't sound like someone who actually understands the complexities. That is somewhat disconcerting for someone with that much experience. You can't just wave a wand and create your ideal set up. You have to go into a room with 3 broadcasters, 3 rugby unions, 3 player groups and 3 different groups of fans and try to balance all that out.</p> -
<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="Unco" data-cid="609153" data-time="1472194333">
<div>
<p>Wasn't Moffett one of the fuckwits who were thrown out the door after the 2003 RWC debacle and scurried off to Wales? Or am I mixing that era up?</p>
</div>
</blockquote>
<p>He was pre that era.</p> -
<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="Unco" data-cid="609153" data-time="1472194333">
<div>
<p>Wasn't Moffett one of the fuckwits who were thrown out the door after the 2003 RWC debacle and scurried off to Wales? Or am I mixing that era up?</p>
</div>
</blockquote>
<p> </p>
<p>Moffett is just a rent-a-quote angling for a job.</p>
<p>IN danger of becoming as irrelevant as Rat-poo.</p> -
<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="Nepia" data-cid="609252" data-time="1472203565">
<div>
<p>He was pre that era.</p>
</div>
</blockquote>
<p> </p>
<p>He signed the hosting agreement that was later said to be unworkable didn't he? If I recall correctly from the judge who reviewed the whole debacle a lot of the blame ended up at that door.</p>