Super Rugby News

Kruse

What I'm expecting is that they choose a prime number of teams, you know to make it interesting. So 17 teams, 13 teams, or maybe even 11 teams.

Easy - add a Pacific Island team, make it 19.
Ticks all the boxes... expanding the "market", extra travel, prime number to make the format 'interesting'

Frye

So 16 teams and scrap pools? Everyone plays everyone would certainly make it fairer.

Means more travel but the sunwolves/jaguares already have to travel a shit ton anyway so again it's just making it fairer.

Might mean more NZ home semi-finals of course. Which SA and Aus won't like....

Crucial

@Frye said in Super Rugby News:

So 16 teams and scrap pools? Everyone plays everyone would certainly make it fairer.

Means more travel but the sunwolves/jaguares already have to travel a shit ton anyway so again it's just making it fairer.

Might mean more NZ home semi-finals of course. Which SA and Aus won't like....

Currently we have 17 rounds followed by 3 weeks of finals.
If 16 teams and a straight RR then you could have two bye weeks, a quarter, semi and final. Straightforward and easy to follow.
The reason they muck around with the format so much is the obsession with guaranteeing a post RR game in each country.
I'm guessing a full RR but still 3 'pools' (NZ, Aus, SA& Arg). The winner of each pool gets a home game (as long as they are in the top eight) plus the next 5 highest placed teams. Match ups still 1 v lowest non automatic etc.
So lets say after the RR the table is

1 Canes
2 Saders
3 Lions
4 Chiefs
5 Stormers
6 Highlanders
7 Blues
8 Brumbies

Canes v Blues (1 v 7)
Lions v Highlanders (3 v 6)
Brumbies v Saders (8 v 2)
Chiefs v Stormers (4 v 5)

Highest v lowest
middle 1 v middle 2

eg if all the home teams won it would be

Canes v Brumbies
Lions v Chiefs

Highest team from RR gets home final

Would be nice if there was a way to stop a team having to travel right around the world during the finals though while the 1 ranked team gets such a massive advantage.

Stargazer

@Crucial said in Super Rugby News:

@Frye said in Super Rugby News:

So 16 teams and scrap pools? Everyone plays everyone would certainly make it fairer.

Means more travel but the sunwolves/jaguares already have to travel a shit ton anyway so again it's just making it fairer.

Might mean more NZ home semi-finals of course. Which SA and Aus won't like....

Currently we have 17 rounds followed by 3 weeks of finals.
If 16 teams and a straight RR then you could have two bye weeks, a quarter, semi and final. Straightforward and easy to follow.
The reason they muck around with the format so much is the obsession with guaranteeing a post RR game in each country.
I'm guessing a full RR but still 3 'pools' (NZ, Aus, SA& Arg). The winner of each pool gets a home game (as long as they are in the top eight) plus the next 5 highest placed teams. Match ups still 1 v lowest non automatic etc.
So lets say after the RR the table is

1 Canes
2 Saders
3 Lions
4 Chiefs
5 Stormers
6 Highlanders
7 Blues
8 Brumbies

If that is the table based on points only, you'd get this table with the pool winners ranked first (as it's done now):

1 Canes (NZ conf winner)
2 Lions (Afr conf winner)
3 Brumbies (Aus conf winner)
4 Saders (wild card)
5 Chiefs (wild card)
6 Stormers (wild card)
7 Landers (wild card)
8 Blues (wild card)

and these Quarter Finals (pool winners and highest placed wild card playing at home):

1st v 8th: Canes v Blues
2nd v 7th: Lions v Landers
3rd v 6th: Brumbies v Stormers
4th v 5th: Saders v Chiefs

If the home teams won, you'd get these semis:

winner of QF1 v winner of QF 4: Canes v Saders
winner of QF2 v winner of QF 3: Lions v Brumbies

Again, if the home teams won, the final would be:
Canes v Lions

Duluth

@Crucial said in Super Rugby News:

Currently we have 17 rounds followed by 3 weeks of finals.
If 16 teams and a straight RR then you could have two bye weeks, a quarter, semi and final. Straightforward and easy to follow.

There's been a lot of talk about the positives of the geographic groups - more derby games, more ratings etc
However I think South Africa has suffered under this model by having much less contact with NZ teams.

If the the purpose of cutting teams is to raise the standards, then they should look at ditching the geographic pools for the same reason (are ratings down for the non derby games because a gap is growing?)

A round robin would work. Maybe even two mixed pools of 8

EDIT - another negative about the geographic groups is the attrition rate. The nz pool is extremely tough on the players

Crucial

@Stargazer said in Super Rugby News:

@Crucial said in Super Rugby News:

@Frye said in Super Rugby News:

So 16 teams and scrap pools? Everyone plays everyone would certainly make it fairer.

Means more travel but the sunwolves/jaguares already have to travel a shit ton anyway so again it's just making it fairer.

Might mean more NZ home semi-finals of course. Which SA and Aus won't like....

Currently we have 17 rounds followed by 3 weeks of finals.
If 16 teams and a straight RR then you could have two bye weeks, a quarter, semi and final. Straightforward and easy to follow.
The reason they muck around with the format so much is the obsession with guaranteeing a post RR game in each country.
I'm guessing a full RR but still 3 'pools' (NZ, Aus, SA& Arg). The winner of each pool gets a home game (as long as they are in the top eight) plus the next 5 highest placed teams. Match ups still 1 v lowest non automatic etc.
So lets say after the RR the table is

1 Canes
2 Saders
3 Lions
4 Chiefs
5 Stormers
6 Highlanders
7 Blues
8 Brumbies

If that is the table based on points only, you'd get this table with the pool winners ranked first (as it's done now):

1 Canes (NZ conf winner)
2 Lions (Afr conf winner)
3 Brumbies (Aus conf winner)
4 Saders (wild card)
5 Chiefs (wild card)
6 Stormers (wild card)
7 Landers (wild card)
8 Blues (wild card)

and these Quarter Finals (pool winners and highest placed wild card playing at home):

1st v 8th: Canes v Blues
2nd v 7th: Lions v Landers
3rd v 6th: Brumbies v Stormers
4th v 5th: Saders v Chiefs

If the home teams won, you'd get these semis:

winner of QF1 v winner of QF 4: Canes v Saders
winner of QF2 v winner of QF 3: Lions v Brumbies

Again, if the home teams won, the final would be:
Canes v Lions

The thing I don't like about that model (i.e. like the current one) is that it artificially raises a team up the rankings for finals. e.g. Brumbies become the number three ranked team which could, after only one game, end up with them having a home semi.
I'd prefer they stay in their 1-8 RR positions but the top team from each country/group gets a home game.
Of course the Saffies would be terrified of the Jaguares winning and taking their game to Argentina.

Stargazer

@Crucial I agree, but just don't expect that to change because the S Africans & Aussies are already going to lose teams, so they'll never let go of that home QF advantage as well.

Crucial

@Stargazer said in Super Rugby News:

@Crucial I agree, but just don't expect that to change because the S Africans & Aussies are already going to lose teams, so they'll never let go of that home QF advantage as well.

i'm probably not explaining my concept well or it is so obtuse that it wouldn't fly anyway.

Basically the teams are ranked 1-8 based on the RR but there are still guaranteed home quarters for each 'group'.

So, even if the top Oz team is number 5 they still get a home quarter but the semis are drawn on the RR rankings only.

so your order is the way the quarters are worked out but it reverts to RR rankings for semis.

Stargazer

@Crucial said in Super Rugby News:

@Stargazer said in Super Rugby News:

@Crucial I agree, but just don't expect that to change because the S Africans & Aussies are already going to lose teams, so they'll never let go of that home QF advantage as well.

i'm probably not explaining my concept well or it is so obtuse that it wouldn't fly anyway.

Basically the teams are ranked 1-8 based on the RR but there are still guaranteed home quarters for each 'group'.

So, even if the top Oz team is number 5 they still get a home quarter but the semis are drawn on the RR rankings only.

so your order is the way the quarters are worked out but it reverts to RR rankings for semis.

If Quarter finals would be based on total competition points earned in RR, but conference winners play at home, then you have a problem, because - using your list - the number 1 v number 8 game would be the NZ conference winner v the Aussie conference winner, and then the higher placed Canes would play at home and the lower ranked Brumbies wouldn't get their "guaranteed" home quarter final.

Unless you'd step away from the 1st v 8th, 2nd v 7th, 3rd v 6th and 4th v 5th rule, but then it would become completely arbitrary who plays who ...

Crucial

Ha, I'm not doing a good job of selling this concept which probably means it is likely to be what the fish heads come up with as well.

I'll try one more time.

For the purposes of deterring quarter finals you effectively bump the group winner up. From the semis on though, the draw is decided on true RR rankings

Stargazer

@Crucial Okay, so you'd still get these Quarter Finals (conference winners and highest placed wild card playing at home):

Ranking after RR:
1 Canes (NZ conf winner)
2 Lions (Afr conf winner, bumped up)
3 Brumbies (Aus conf winner, bumped up)
4 Saders (wild card)
5 Chiefs (wild card)
6 Stormers (wild card)
7 Landers (wild card)
8 Blues (wild card)

Quarter Finals
1st v 8th: Canes v Blues
2nd v 7th: Lions v Landers
3rd v 6th: Brumbies v Stormers
4th v 5th: Saders v Chiefs

and, assuming the home teams win, their RR ranking is (without conference winners being bumped up):
1 Canes
2 Saders
3 Lions
4 Brumbies

Then the semis are:
SF1: Canes v Brumbies
SF2: Saders v Lions

If home teams win again, you'd get this final:
Canes v Saders

Crucial

Yep. You still get 1 v 2 and each group gets a home finals game.

In my original post though I didn't have athe anomaly of the Saders v Chiefs quarter which was RR ranked 2 v 3

I've confused myself now.

Rancid Schnitzel

@KiwiMurph said in Super Rugby News:

Sounds like Milner Skudder is out at least 6 weeks with a fractured foot.

Stuff

Christ that bugger is made of glass. Well at least it gives JB a chance to start.

NMS is a brilliant player but his chances of surviving 3 Lions tests are probably zero.

KiwiMurph

A further update.

Report: Super 15 with 3 teams axed.

TVNZ's Andrew Saville is reporting that two South African franchises and an Australian side will be axed as Super Rugby will be reduced to 15 teams.

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/sport/news/article.cfm?c_id=4&objectid=11818693

taniwharugby

@KiwiMurph doesn't the current TV deal run through to end of 2019, so I wonder if they are driving this otherwise a complete renegotiation there would be required as well.

mariner4life

@taniwharugby the TV money question is the big one IMO. Will the SARU and ARU now get less of the cut now that they have less teams? Can they afford it? What trade-offs will be required for them to accept that? If NZ has the most teams, can we now negotiate a bigger cut?

KiwiMurph

@taniwharugby Yeah I understand there was the flexibility in the current deal to look at potential changes so they weren't locked into the 18 team comp til 2019/2020.

I do think Super 15 would be much smoother of the options. You could have 3 even conferences and then a 6 or 8 team finals system.

Chucking the Sunwolves in the Aussie conference could work timezone wise and would mean that they could play all their home games in Japan.

canefan

@mariner4life said in Super Rugby News:

@taniwharugby the TV money question is the big one IMO. Will the SARU and ARU now get less of the cut now that they have less teams? Can they afford it? What trade-offs will be required for them to accept that? If NZ has the most teams, can we now negotiate a bigger cut?

I have no way to back this up but IIRC SARFU negotiate the TV rights for SR and TRC as a package, and that the value of the test comp is relatively greater. It might not matter too much if they have less teams as they are still a big draw in the tests

Stargazer

TNW out for six weeks according to his instagram post. Not sure whether this is something new. Chiefs earlier said 4-6 weeks.

Stargazer

It looks like the Blues will get an easy game this week, with Crotty the only experienced Crusaders back still playing..

Crusaders injury update: Israel Dagg, Seta Tamanivalu, Digby Ioane

Israel Dagg has had an MRI scan which has confirmed a PCL and lateral meniscal injury. He has been seen by a specialist who has recommended a small operation to assist his recovery. He is expected to be ready to return to play in approximately 6 weeks.

Seta Tamanivalu is progressing well after sustaining a right upper hamstring injury last weekend against the Reds. His return to play is expected to be in the vicinity of 4 weeks.

Digby Ioane has also been ruled out with injury this week, after sustaining a minor hand injury. The injury will be assessed early next week before a decision will be made about his availability for the following weekend's game against the Force.

50,000 businesses set to benefit from eInvoicing - VOXY

The Silver Fern

Super Rugby News