Have a crack at fixing Super Rugby...



  • Feeling in the mood to re-hash old forums, so lets fix Super Rugby...
     
    http://www.superxv.com/moffett-super-rugby-absolute-nightmare/
    Washed up old David Moffett clearly needed a bit of attention and to make himself feel relevant again (although he was pandering to a Welsh audience initially it seems)
     
    Who wants a crack at fixing this bad boy?
     
    Moffett does talk some sense in that we should get back to 12 teams, so I moot we expand the comp to 20 teams, but with an A & B division, and to increase the quantity of games, run a knock-out comp as well.
     
    So, the top 10 teams from this years comp. form Division A.
    Hurricanes, Lion, Stormers, Brumbies, Highlanders, Chiefs, Crusaders, Sharks, Bulls, Waratahs - Pretty much every previous competition winner in there, seems like a strong comp, 4x NZ, 2x OZ, 4x SA.
     
    Division B.
    Blues, Rebels, Jaguares, Cheetahs, Reds, Force, Southern Kings, Sunwolves and to make up 10 teams...
    Fiji (Lets ride that 7's success) & Samoa.
     
    Top Six Finals in Division A.
    Bottom Four & Top 2 - to play a convoluted Promotion/Relegation series into Division A for the following year.
    The bottom eight, well they can stuff off.
     
    To keep up the quantity of games, and to keep things interesting, 4 pools of 5, where the top 2 in each pool, play knockout finals, to find a knockout winner. Possibly we could play these games on alternative weeks, as in a league game one week, knockout the next.
     
    Thoughts? 
    Lets solve the Super Rugby issue...



  • There just isn't a solution. South African broadcasters want more South African teams. Local broadcasters want more derbies. Players want everyone to play everyone (they don't like the derbies). NZRU wants the best broadcast deal they can get. ARU wants to maintain teams they currently lack the talent for. Local fans want a more even competition which is fairer to all teams yet also watch far more when it is an all-New Zealand clash.
     
    The best, practical solution I can think of is to have an extra week between the semi final and final. This will reduce the affect that travel has on the outcome. I also think that South Africa should only get one home quarter final.
     
    The reality is that any solution in this thread simply isn't going to be satisfactory to some group of people. I think you do have to be careful if you are Sanzar that you think about the long term. Sky may not be around in ten years, the NZRU has to be. In saying that, we need good TV deals to retain our players.



  • Its sort of pointless unless you define what needs fixing & what the goal of Super Rugby is.
     
    If its to produce great club rugby, yes its broken, if its to produce a product Sky will pay premium $ for.. dunno, we'd need to see the Sky figures.
     
    I lean towards the idea that the guys running Super Rugby don't actually care that much if the standard is shit if they can sell this package to Sky for 20% more than an alternative package.
     
    I actually dont care much as none of the clown car ideas they've done have fucked with NZ rugby, still same 5 teams, still producing good players, and (I assume) our cash has gone up, the NZ v NZ games continue to be good. So its all good as is really.



  • There just isn't a solution. South African broadcasters want more South African teams. Local broadcasters want more derbies. Players want everyone to play everyone (they don't like the derbies). NZRU wants the best broadcast deal they can get. ARU wants to maintain teams they currently lack the talent for. Local fans want a more even competition which is fairer to all teams yet also watch far more when it is an all-New Zealand clash.....

    South African perspective -
     
    I don't know whether SuperSport wants more South African teams.  What they would be interested in is having more games in convenient timeslots, but I don't think it needs to be part of Super Rugby to achieve that.  A high quality Currie Cup that isn't squeezed out by an overly long Super season can achieve the same result.
     
    I am not sure if derbies are really that valuable either.  A derby game might get (say) 100k viewers compared to 70k for inter-country games, but two games of 70k each gives you more product and more eyeballs in total than one derby game.  It would be interesting to see how the numbers play out, but I don't trust the people designing the current format.
     
    I don't know how the players feel about playing everyone, but I do know the annual four week roadtrips were not popular with the players.



  • South African perspective -
     
    I don't know whether SuperSport wants more South African teams.  What they would be interested in is having more games in convenient timeslots, but I don't think it needs to be part of Super Rugby to achieve that.  A high quality Currie Cup that isn't squeezed out by an overly long Super season can achieve the same result.
     
    I am not sure if derbies are really that valuable either.  A derby game might get (say) 100k viewers compared to 70k for inter-country games, but two games of 70k each gives you more product and more eyeballs in total than one derby game.  It would be interesting to see how the numbers play out, but I don't trust the people designing the current format.
     
    I don't know how the players feel about playing everyone, but I do know the annual four week roadtrips were not popular with the players.

    I probably could have said that internal South African politics demands six teams.
     
    Dane Coles I think it was suggested everyone plays everyone. Of course that sort of thing is less taxing on New Zealand teams who can make one 3 game trip to the Republic whereas South African teams would go on perhaps a 5 week tour of Australasia.
     
    I know NZ broadcasters like local derbies. If everyone plays everyone then NZ teams spend too much time playing 3am games in South Africa. This season the Hurricanes played all but two games either in NZ or in eastern Australia. Argentinian games are fine for Sky because they are at lunchtime Sunday.



  • We already had a thread on this not so long ago but my solution was basically:

    • Only two conferences (Aus/NZ and Africa). No more sub-conferences (like Africa 1, Africa 2, etc) or overall table.
    • 3-4 cross-conference games.
    • Proper American-style conference finals, where the Aus/NZ conference winner and the Africa winner eventually play each other, possibly in a neutral city
       
      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.


  • South African perspective -
     
    I don't know whether SuperSport wants more South African teams.  What they would be interested in is having more games in convenient timeslots, but I don't think it needs to be part of Super Rugby to achieve that.  A high quality Currie Cup that isn't squeezed out by an overly long Super season can achieve the same result.
     
    I am not sure if derbies are really that valuable either.  A derby game might get (say) 100k viewers compared to 70k for inter-country games, but two games of 70k each gives you more product and more eyeballs in total than one derby game.  It would be interesting to see how the numbers play out, but I don't trust the people designing the current format.
     
    I don't know how the players feel about playing everyone, but I do know the annual four week roadtrips were not popular with the players.

    Would South African rugby consider splitting the teams it has or wants to create and play them in different competitions?
    The PRO12 is planning to expand and move to a conference structure to reduce league games, have test players feature in more games, and increase revenue to combat the nearly galloping out of sight English and French clubs. Part of their plans is to bring in two US teams to increase size of league to 14 teams and potentially invite in more. Could two SA teams participate in this league whilst also playing in Super Rugby? With the amount of Bok players moving overseas, would have two 'exile' clubs to accommodate future players be helpful?



  • Dane Coles I think it was suggested everyone plays everyone. Of course that sort of thing is less taxing on New Zealand teams who can make one 3 game trip to the Republic whereas South African teams would go on perhaps a 5 week tour of Australasia.

    If it is home and away (as moffett suggested), for a SUper 12 you are asking SA teams to go on an 8 game tour every season.  Fark that.
     
    I think reducing the travel around playoffs is  the key.  And why not treat it like differnet conferences to throw up a finalists - it works for the NBA and NFL after all.



  • So, the top 10 teams from this years comp. form Division A.
    Hurricanes, Lion, Stormers, Brumbies, Highlanders, Chiefs, Crusaders, Sharks, Bulls, Waratahs - Pretty much every previous competition winner in there, seems like a strong comp, 4x NZ, 2x OZ, 4x SA.
     
    Division B.
    Blues, Rebels, Jaguares, Cheetahs, Reds, Force, Southern Kings, Sunwolves and to make up 10 teams...
    Fiji (Lets ride that 7's success) & Samoa.

    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.



  • 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.
     
    That wouldn't be the case for new talent coming through in Super rugby, as it is a cross-nation thing.



  • We already had a thread on this not so long ago but my solution was basically:

    • Only two conferences (Aus/NZ and Africa). No more sub-conferences (like Africa 1, Africa 2, etc) or overall table.
    • 3-4 cross-conference games.
    • Proper American-style conference finals, where the Aus/NZ conference winner and the Africa winner eventually play each other, possibly in a neutral city
       
      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.

    I agree with two conferences. Japan /NZ / Aust and an Island team = 12
     
    The other conference would include SA /Argentina and try to include US and Canada. Maybe 10 -12 teams. Semis and finals = 13 games
     
    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.



  • 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.
     
    That wouldn't be the case for new talent coming through in Super rugby, as it is a cross-nation thing.

    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.
     
    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.



  • 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.

    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...
     
    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.
     
    Also, which teams in the B division truly deserve promotion into the A's - most of those teams deserve to be where they are...



  • I agree with two conferences. Japan /NZ / Aust and an Island team = 12
     
    The other conference would include SA /Argentina and try to include US and Canada. Maybe 10 -12 teams. Semis and finals = 13 games
     
    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.

    It probably has to go this way in the future doesn't it?
     
    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.





  • I got nervous after reading Accenture were doing the review.
     
    This is the issue - decisions are now business related, not rugby related.



  • I got nervous after reading Accenture were doing the review.
     
    This is the issue - decisions are now business related, not rugby related.

    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.
     
    Lions, Canes, Chiefs, Saders, Landers - good rugby.  Tahs / Brumbies / Stormers / Blues / Sharks / Bulls - not bad rugby.  The rest - shit rugby.
     
    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.



  • 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?
     
    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?
     
    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.
    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?
     
    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.

    Former NZ Rugby boss Moffett says NZ may have to sacrifice a Super Rugby team
     RICHARD KNOWLERLast updated 14:18, August 26 2016
     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.
     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.
     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.
     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.
     The review also proposed other models; expansion or taking two teams off South Africa.
     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.
     "It doesn't go far enough," Moffett, who labelled the current format as "absolutely pathetic", said.
     "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."
     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."
     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.
     "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."
     Culling one of the five teams in New Zealand would create one of the greatest storms in recent memory for the national sport.
     Moffett admits that would be difficult, but said it may necessary.
     "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 …"
     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.
     Moffett complimented NZ Rugby for not increasing the number of teams since Super Rugby began in 1996, unlike Australia and South Africa.
     That was to NZ Rugby's "absolute credit", he stated.
     "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.
     "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.
     "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."
      - Stuff
     



  • 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.
     
    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.
     
    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.



  • 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?