Super Rugby Vote

I have a suggested format for Super Rugby. I'd like a yes or no vote for my idea.
Make it Super 14 again. 4 sides each from Aus, NZ and SA, and one side each from Japan and Arg. Every team plays every other team once. Top four meet in Semi and top two play final. 
A shorter, more competitive tournament that still exposes Argentina and Japan to the best club rugby in the world.   

 I'll be all for that, but it will be too unfair to one NZ side that's going to get booted.

 I would structure it as follows: Keep the 3 conferences and let each C decide on how many teams they want. Let those teams play eachother once. The top 3 in each conference go through to the S9, keeping only the log points the earned against the other qualifiers. Then the top 9 play all the other qualifiers once. The non qualifiers can play a plate competition of some sort. This will devide the field into stronger and weaker divisions and prevent nonsensical one-sided matches to a large extent.

 I think that if they just suck up the travel issues and everyone plays each other home and away [ turn about alternate years ] and leave it at that .No conferences just a shootout to the top 8 .Tho BB and Draads are still better than what we have ,I hate local derbies and much prefer our chaps playing Aussies boks and the newcomers.

Nice idea in principle bluebok but I don't think a 4-4-4 split between NZ, SA and Aus is fair or reflects the relative strengths.

Super Rugby actually worked best when it was a Super 12 with 5 teams for NZ, 4 for SA and 3 for Aus. I know none of us liked the Cats idea but that's when Super Rugby was at it's most entertaining and competitive.

 I believe that the format of the Rugby Champions and the Rugby Challenge Cup is the way to go. The format has been used for ages, granted with a few tweaks over time, and it works. In addition all the clubs, or almost all of them, take part in an international competition. The only issue that needs to be overcome - and it is not major, IMO - is the travel distance. The qualifying criteria is also very simple.

The field is made up of the top 6 Premiership sides, the top 6 Top 14 sides and the top 7 Pro12 sides. The 20th spot is decided by a two round, home and  away, play-off between the seventh placed Premiership side and the seventh placed Top14 side.

The Challenge Cup is basically made up of the remaining domestic sides (18 in total). The nineteenth and 20th spots are taken up by two teams from other European sides through playing in a European Qualifying competition, running alongside the Champions Cup and the Challenge Cup.

Both the completions are played in five pools with four teams each.

While there probably are a few cons, there are a lot of pros.

Pros.

1. All the players from all the clubs in Europe stand a chance of playing in an international competition.
2. Promotion and relegation between the Champions Cup and the Challenge Cup do not have such far reaching effects as in Super Rugby. There are no franchises who have standing contracts with either the Champions Cup or the Challenge Cup. If you do not make it into the Champions Cup, you simply move down to the Challenge Cup and then give it your best shot in the next domestic competition.
3. The main  pro, IMO, is that you do not have a watered down domestic competition like the CC has become. All the players from each club is always available to play in both the European competitions and the domestic competitions. The only exception is during the Six Nations competition when the national players are withdrawn.