FIXTURESNo upcoming fixtures — check back soon.
FORUM / RUGBY /  Should Super Rugby adapt a two tier tournament similar to the recent ICC 20 20 cricket tournament?

Should Super Rugby adapt a two tier tournament similar to the recent ICC 20 20 cricket tournament?

Started by kingcorn9 REPLIES2,771 VIEWS· 08 Apr 2014, 18:17
SHAREXFACEBOOKWHATSAPPTELEGRAMREDDITLINKEDIN
KI
kingcorn
Pro3,695 posts
KI
kingcornPro3,695 posts
08 Apr 2014, 18:17
#1
08 Apr 2014, 18:17#1

I think that 20/20 showed the way that there is room for weaker teams to compete at the highest level at the same tournament without the need for a lengthy qualify process. Super rugby as it stands is flawed where as there are way too many games with hardly any attendance at the games. As a result the local game has suffered as well as the international games. More players are opting to play abroad because of burn out and better wages.

What I propose is that we have a two tier tournament.

First Tier is a qualifying tier where low ranked teams play each other in a round robin to qualify for the Super 12 proper.


The second tier is for the league title.

Each country from SA, NZ and Aus gets their top 3 teams automatically entered into the second tier of the competition. The remaining teams will have to make their way through the first tier.

The season can start with the first tier, followed by the second tier.


My thinking is that we have 9 teams in the second tier with only 3 teams that can qualify from the first, leading to super 12. Teams that qualify carry the points over with the teams that had qualified


First tier starts in Feb, the second kicks off at the end of March with the aim to wrap it up before the June / July test.

Fewer games for the players, which means that they get a proper rest window, but still enough rounds to satisfy the TV audience. Games should also be more competitive and always have the best teams competing for the title.  

MD
Monkey D Luffy
Pro6,277 posts
MD
Monkey D LuffyPro6,277 posts
08 Apr 2014, 19:47
#2
08 Apr 2014, 19:47#2
@kingkorn,

absolutely they should, especially if the proposed idea of getting an arentina and japanese/PI team are included.
a two teir system will stop players from being overplayed which would be a major problem for SA, and still keep the country vs country flavour which IMO the bulk of fans everywhere love more then the local darbies.

its hard to come up with a suitable format, as we have no idea how many new teams will be coming in.
SAs 6th team is a guarantee, and while i think its a mistake argentina looks like theyt will get a team too.

IM O these afre the only two teams who will be added and heres the format i have in mind which ultimately will lead to nothing but is good to get of my chest, LMAO,

this is the 2013 ladder,,,
Overall Standings Pos Team Pts 1 Chiefs 66 2 Bulls 63 3 Brumbies 60 4 Crusaders 60 5 Reds 58 6 Cheetahs 54 7 Stormers 50 8 Sharks 48 9 Waratahs 45 10 Blues 44 11 Hurricanes 41 12 Rebels 37 13 Force 31 14 Highlanders 29 15 Kings 24
in my split tier format, i would have a premiership tier which is the top tier, and a championship tier which is the 2nd tier comp.
the two tiers would be made up of the current spXV teams, the kings and the argentina club.

in my premiership league i would have the 2013 top three teams from SA and the argentina club (who for easy peasy sake i will name club pumaa) representing the african/sth amrerican side of things.
and i would have NZ and australias top two teams who represent the ANZAC side.

NZ/OZ - chiefs, crusaders, brumbies and reds
Sth Afr/Amr - bulls, cheetahs, stormers and club puma

each team would play each other twice in an even home and away match, this will balance out the traveling issues which have also been a long and boring source of many excuses the locals always blame their lack of silverware on.

also it would give 14 games per team which is three less then what the current teams are facing at the moment.

this solves two major issues, the traveling and players current heavy roster.

relegation wise
IMO if club puma are introduced with the kings in 2016, then its important that we afford them every opportunity to compete at a high level without fear of any relegation reprisals.
the last thing we need is to copy the pathetic debacle handling by SARUs of the southern kings in 2013, where they did everything within their power to ensure the kings failed.

so for the first two years, the pumas would be exempt from the relegation issue, meaning a saffa side will be replaced by another saffa side.
come 2018 though, the fl oaties will be coming off and club puma will either sink or swim, but its completely up to them.
MD
Monkey D Luffy
Pro6,277 posts
MD
Monkey D LuffyPro6,277 posts
08 Apr 2014, 19:48
#3
08 Apr 2014, 19:48#3
as for the championship,,,
in the championship division i would have the remaining teams which are,,,
blues, hurricanes, highlanders, sharks, lions, kings, force, rebels and waratahs.

unlike the premiership division, the traveling issue which for the sake of the locals must be addressed as well, but handled differently cos NZ and OZ have more teams combined then SA.

instead of the everyone play each other once like in the premiership league, i wouild introduce a touring system of sorts.

in 2016,,
the three NZ teams would play the three SA teams twice in SA.
the three SA teams would play the three OZ teams twice each in OZ.
the three OZ teams would play the three NZ teams twice in OZ.

all clubs will play teams from their country once though, and this will effectively round up the matches to 14 as well which is the same number of games as the premiership division.

in 2017 the tour style system would switch, so instead of NZ going to SA and play both matches in SA, they would travel to OZ and play both games over there.
RO
Rooinek
Captain18,117 posts
RO
RooinekCaptain18,117 posts
08 Apr 2014, 20:07
#4
08 Apr 2014, 20:07#4
My initial thought was at least the Hapless Stompies might win a game . . . but on further consideration I have to wonder if these hopelessly overrated mincers would manage to beat one of the qualifier teams.
OI
oimatey
Pro1,870 posts
OI
oimateyPro1,870 posts
08 Apr 2014, 20:43
#5
08 Apr 2014, 20:43#5
West to East travel is more difficult. Historically, in the NFL across all divisions the home records are almost identical at 56%, but when a team from the West conference has to play an away game in the East or Central time zones the winning percentage is 7 percentage points below the records of all other away games

Messes with your Circadian Rhythm bro.


KI
kingcorn
Pro3,695 posts
KI
kingcornPro3,695 posts
09 Apr 2014, 14:00
#6
09 Apr 2014, 14:00#6
I was thinking that they should keep the original super 12 format but just have a pre-qualifying round. 
Instead of having 3 guarentee teams from each country in the semi's that should have 3 teams from each country competing.
That means the smaller teams or those in transition would get a chance to qualify. So if SA want to field 6 teams then the 3 bottom teams, ie based on the last years log would have been the Sharks, Kings and Lions. Throw in one or two teams from Argentina which makes it 5 and then 4 from NZ and Aus. 
That would push to 8 / 9 teams competing. Which means these teams would get at least 4 home games which should give them some home attendance. We saw how well the kings did to draw in a crowd and had the second highest attendance at 31 000. 
In the case of the sharks, the would have to play 8 games at the start, with another 9, bare in mind that they wont have to play the teams they competed against in the qualifying stages. so it would mean they only get 9 games in the super 12. So their total amount of games for the season would be 16 / 17 games. If they made the semi and final it would go up to 18/19. No different from the amount of games they play at present, but they would have played all of the super rugby teams. 
It would mean that teams don't have room to muck about and that they have to get it right. 
I would also put a player cap on each team so that the top players get spread out and there are not hoarding of players or players deciding to change teams. For this I would introduce two transfer windows. Beginning of the season and after the qualifying round. Those teams that did not qualify could loan out their players to the teams that did, giving their player some valuable game time but also get some revenue back for their talent. 
I would cap each teams player to 25 professional and the rest will have to come from their youth academy, ie under 21 and univeresity teams. 
CL
clevermike
Coach57,555 posts
CL
clevermikeCoach57,555 posts
09 Apr 2014, 16:15
#7
09 Apr 2014, 16:15#7
 Sounds reasonable to me - the top three teams from each conference gx es through automatically to the next year Super 15
That means 5 teams will play for 3 spots on the Conference set up = also on the following basis:-
Group A  = to go through to the SA conferenceGroup B  = to go through to the New Zealand ConferenceGroup C  = to go through to the Australia Conference 
That could mean that the SA Conference - would have three SA teams in Round 1the Australia Conference their own two teams and the Argentinians and the New Zealand Conference will get their own two teams and Japan in their Conference.
The twelve remaining teams will then have to play home and away games against each other = while the other six teams can play home and away games against each other for a Shield Championship.  
As a next phase they could add 1 further team to each Conference - like a Candian/Usa Team and Samoa, Tonga. Fiji and one joint team from South America.
The two competitions can start simultaneously.   They know in advance who will actually be the fixed members of the three Conferences and they can play their internal matches - while the qualifying matches proceeds over two rounds.   By the third round of Super Series it will be known who will qualify for going into the main draw and the rest of the process can than proceed either in the Cup or the Shield set up. 
Once the Cup and Shield outcomes are completed - the bottom two teams of each Conference in the main draw will have to pay two additional rounds against the top two teams in the Shield draw to determine who will qualify automatically for the nest year's third automatic spot.   The fourth spot will then be occupied by the team coming out on top in the Group matches.
Rather complicated - but it could mean a stronger and expanded competition in the interest of world rugby - with the additional advantage that it should also ensure that strength plays strength in the competition.                
GE
generaltit
Pro3,164 posts
GE
generaltitPro3,164 posts
09 Apr 2014, 21:33
#8
09 Apr 2014, 21:33#8

 Could be an option...might sort out a lot of disparities with foolish present system. Any thing for a change...changes need to be explored in rugby not only for selfish and insular and national reasons but also for the bigger picture and benefit for rugby union as a whole in the worldwide scenario...unions and franchises only see rugby for selfish and monetrary gain only (and so does the world body IRB)  from my point of view rugby is such a precious game...more points and more attractive than association football...despite the appeal. Football is there...rugby has to grow and it can only come from the base of strength but altruistic sacrifice must come...when you give first you get...sowing and reaping principle...Sasuke said that he has reservations about Argentina and Japan (I would also include Georgia and Canada on a sliding and progressive scale) entering the super series scramble...ok I know they are NH countries but Europe has already a myriad of competitions..but I beg to differ...things initially might seem fruitless but eventually it will grow. We must have the vision and daring to change. Bureaucrats and business managers have got to see a wider vision...if the love of the game precedes the lust for bigger money and selfish motives. Some will see this as absurd but it is not...when you do things right for the right reasons then the by product has financial gain as a reward. 


Unfortunately, I'm getting too old but I would love to see the disadvantaged nations come on board...give them incentive and exposure to grow...that's the bigger picture and the more variety and participants the better...I see the bigger picture for the benefit of this game as a whole. 


I know this seems too idealistic and perhaps most will scorn this but venture and change is needed in rugby...how they do the mathematics is indeed another question but I leave that to figure fundi's to work out.


MD
Monkey D Luffy
Pro6,277 posts
MD
Monkey D LuffyPro6,277 posts
10 Apr 2014, 16:20
#9
10 Apr 2014, 16:20#9
@oimatey,

"West to East travel is more difficult. Historically, in the NFL across all divisions the home records are almost identical at 56%, but when a team from the West conference has to play an away game in the East or Central time zones the winning percentage is 7 percentage points below the records of all other away games

Messes with your Circadian Rhythm bro."

circadian rhythm??? is that the whole body clock thingymajig, if not what is that in laymans term.
KI
kingcorn
Pro3,695 posts
KI
kingcornPro3,695 posts
10 Apr 2014, 19:47
#10
10 Apr 2014, 19:47#10
 I think if they want to make it fair for SA teams then they should give them at least two weeks before the first game abroad. 
For example, if the bulls had a bye a week before they flew out then they would have had at least 2 weeks to get use to the time zone.

— END OF THREAD —

More from Rugby

More news