Tier 2 & 3 Rugby Forum

Super Rugby

User avatar
Posts: 2071
Joined: Thu, 26 Jun 2014, 05:56
Location: Zemo Vera, Tbilissi, GEORGIA

Super Rugby

Postby FLIDTA RISXVA » Sun, 27 Dec 2015, 16:56

.

With the New SUPER Era starting in exaclty two months time

let's have a look how the "table - standings - ladder - log" will operate

Image

This is the official source >>

http://www.sanzarrugby.com/sanzar/asset ... 0Rugby.pdf

There will be 17 regular + 3 playoff weeks = 20 in all

Each team plays 15 matches in those 17 weeks and has two byes

There are minimum 7 and maximum 9 games each weekend (FRI SAT SUN)

Schedule in GMT >>

Image

There are 5 BLACK, 5 GOLD, 4 GREEN, 4 BLUE teams

After 17 regular weeks "Top 8" qualifies for the Playoff

Since the purpose of the regular season is to determine these EIGHT,
the composite table has ALL 18 on it and is split into THREE blocks:

1) 4 Conference Leaders (CL) = all of different colour
2) 4 Wild Cards (WC) = THREE either BLACK or GOLD, and JUST ONE GREEN or BLUE
3) the rest = 10 other teams

For illustration purposes SOLELY, if
one classified teams with ZERO rounds completed in 2016
according to their finishing order in 2015 and
then proceeded with new entries by color,
the results would be of this kind

Image

In 2016

BLACK plays
6 games with BLACK (2*2 + 2*1) + 5 games with GOLD (5*1) + 4 games with BLUE (4*1) + 0 games with GREEN

GOLD plays
6 games with GOLD (2*2 + 2*1) + 5 games with BLACK (5*1) + 4 games with GREEN (4*1) + 0 games with BLUE

GREEN plays
6 games with GREEN (3*2) + 4 games with BLUE (4*1) + 5 games with GOLD (5*1) + 0 games with BLACK

BLUE plays
6 games with BLUE (3*2) + 4 games with GREEN (4*1) + 5 games with BLACK (5*1) + 0 games with GOLD

In 2017 "0 games with" will be swapped: BLACK will not play BLUE, and GOLD will not play GREEN

Taking into account H & A rotation,
the SCHEDULING CYCLE will be completed after 4 seasons (at the end of 2019)

In those 4 years (2016-2019)

BLACK will have played

every other BLACK 6 times (3H + 3A)
every GOLD 4 times (2H + 2A)
every BLUE 2 times (H + A)
every GREEN 2 times (H + A)

in ALL 4*6 + 5*4 + 4*2 + 4*2 = 60 games

and so on and on ...

User avatar
Posts: 541
Joined: Tue, 22 Apr 2014, 16:02
National Flag:
CanadaCanada

Re: SUPER RUGBY 2016

Postby jonny24 » Mon, 04 Jan 2016, 04:04

So weird... Convoluted?
Norfolk Harvesters RFC

Posts: 5719
Joined: Sat, 05 Jul 2014, 02:44
National Flag:
AustraliaAustralia

Re: SUPER RUGBY 2016

Postby thatrugbyguy » Mon, 04 Jan 2016, 06:01

I'll be 100% honest. I never really took much notice of how the expanded Super Rugby schedule would look. I really can't help but think they made this far more complicated than it needed to be.

User avatar
Posts: 2071
Joined: Thu, 26 Jun 2014, 05:56
Location: Zemo Vera, Tbilissi, GEORGIA

Re: SUPER RUGBY 2016

Postby FLIDTA RISXVA » Mon, 04 Jan 2016, 06:46

When time spell is limited (20 weeks) and more teams (18 in all) come in,
one has no other option ... but
to copy North American Pro Leagues' systems

SR did exactly this =
most ideas from NFL:
cause: obvious similarilty = one game per week,
and some from NHL: first tie-break = more WINS

Posts: 5719
Joined: Sat, 05 Jul 2014, 02:44
National Flag:
AustraliaAustralia

Re: SUPER RUGBY 2016

Postby thatrugbyguy » Mon, 04 Jan 2016, 07:19

I guess what this comes down to is the ARU's desire for home and away matches for the 5 Aussie teams. In the old Super 12 everyone would play each other once, alternating between 5 or 6 home matches a year, but the ARU wanted more derby matches to compensate for the South African teams who would always draw the lowest crowds and TV ratings. On paper the easiest solution is to simply go back to the old Super 12 format of everyone playing everyone once, this is a bastardised middle ground format.

User avatar
Posts: 2071
Joined: Thu, 26 Jun 2014, 05:56
Location: Zemo Vera, Tbilissi, GEORGIA

Re: SUPER RUGBY 2016

Postby FLIDTA RISXVA » Mon, 04 Jan 2016, 07:44

ARU have, for this coming cycle (2016-19)
slashed aussie derbies from 8 to 6, per team, and
increased trans-tasman clashes from 4 to 5, per team

If they had gone to a "old, sweet", single round-robin,
they would have killed the players =
17 rounds without BYES + much more travel abroad

Posts: 1338
Joined: Wed, 25 Feb 2015, 17:54
National Flag:
CanadaCanada

Re: SUPER RUGBY 2016

Postby ruckovercdn » Mon, 04 Jan 2016, 09:06

I think it's a bit confusing, but they had to change it from last years tour one nation host the other format to accommodate Japan and Argentina. While I look forward to seeing the Sunwolves and Jaguares in action, I do wish the Sharks had drawn the Sunwolves :P

Posts: 4294
Joined: Mon, 26 May 2014, 05:50
National Flag:
TurkeyTurkey

Re: SUPER RUGBY 2016

Postby Rowan » Mon, 04 Jan 2016, 09:31

thatrugbyguy wrote:I'll be 100% honest. I never really took much notice of how the expanded Super Rugby schedule would look. I really can't help but think they made this far more complicated than it needed to be.


Japanese inclusion to me is the rugby equivalent of Qatar being awarded the 2022 FIFA World Cup. Totally bizarre.

I've waited 20 years for an Argentine team to be added, but now I see what a circus the competition is becoming I struggle to get excited by it.
If they're good enough to play at World Cups, then why not in between?

Posts: 1338
Joined: Wed, 25 Feb 2015, 17:54
National Flag:
CanadaCanada

Re: SUPER RUGBY 2016

Postby ruckovercdn » Mon, 04 Jan 2016, 18:32

It's rife with coruption, has zero market for sport, and the conditions will make it virtually unplayable? Or are the Sunwolves being built with the most lethal construction project since the pyramids? :roll: Comparison doesn't hold up.

Japan being included doesn't make sense in practical terms for super rugby, but does in larger terms for Rugby. With the world cup going to Japan in 2019, they needed to get a marquee competition going that would some how include Japan, since Japan doesn't seem terribly interested in the PNC or Asian competition, Super Rugby is a logical choice. I actually think the old "North and South" mentality needs to be re examined when we look at the pacific, where you have to cross a great deal of distance to find competition regardless.

Posts: 4294
Joined: Mon, 26 May 2014, 05:50
National Flag:
TurkeyTurkey

Re: SUPER RUGBY 2016

Postby Rowan » Mon, 04 Jan 2016, 22:28

ruckovercdn wrote:It's rife with coruption, has zero market for sport, and the conditions will make it virtually unplayable? Or are the Sunwolves being built with the most lethal construction project since the pyramids? :roll: Comparison doesn't hold up.

Japan being included doesn't make sense in practical terms for super rugby, but does in larger terms for Rugby. With the world cup going to Japan in 2019, they needed to get a marquee competition going that would some how include Japan, since Japan doesn't seem terribly interested in the PNC or Asian competition, Super Rugby is a logical choice. I actually think the old "North and South" mentality needs to be re examined when we look at the pacific, where you have to cross a great deal of distance to find competition regardless.


Sure, I was only comparing them in terms of bizarreness. I don't see anything 'logical' about it personally. You either have a Southern Hemisphere tournament or a Pacific championship, not an L-shaped free-for-all spanning half the globe. Japan in a South African conference is the most bizarre aspect of all. That's pretty much the antipodes! Whoever heard of such a thing? I don't agree that Super Rugby needed Japan or Japan needed Super Rugby. Quite the reverse, in fact. But that's just my personal opinion.
If they're good enough to play at World Cups, then why not in between?

Posts: 3278
Joined: Wed, 14 Oct 2015, 13:30
National Flag:
GermanyGermany

Re: SUPER RUGBY 2016

Postby RugbyLiebe » Tue, 05 Jan 2016, 03:07

Rowan, see it from this perspective (you are a kiwi, right?):

If out of any reason whatsoever, Adidas should decide that the All Blacks are not worth the 50 million (?) Euros per year. You will have a problem in the long run to keep your great structures up. This expansion secures money will flow on even if this "if" would come true (the Adidas CFO not being a kiwi anymore i.e.).

Changing Super Rugby from a Southern Hemisphere competition to a global one, sounds like a smart move.
How to grow rugby worldwide?
Look at the world ranking in July. Teams ranked 1-10 have to play one team from 11-20 (they don't play in a regular competition) away the next year. 11-20 play 21-30 away and so on. Yes, it really is that simple.

Posts: 111
Joined: Fri, 07 Nov 2014, 22:19
National Flag:
Vatican StateVatican State

Re: SUPER RUGBY 2016

Postby josh » Tue, 05 Jan 2016, 03:35

Rowan wrote:Japanese inclusion to me is the rugby equivalent of Qatar being awarded the 2022 FIFA World Cup. Totally bizarre.


This is a team from a T2 country being included in a T1 competition. I would have thought you'd see this as a very positive step.

And I definitely think the bizarre schedule and structure is a temporary compromise. If SR keeps expanding, there might be Asian and South American conferences at some point, with more sensible schedules and less overall travel.

Posts: 1338
Joined: Wed, 25 Feb 2015, 17:54
National Flag:
CanadaCanada

Re: SUPER RUGBY 2016

Postby ruckovercdn » Tue, 05 Jan 2016, 04:30

Rowan wrote:
ruckovercdn wrote:It's rife with coruption, has zero market for sport, and the conditions will make it virtually unplayable? Or are the Sunwolves being built with the most lethal construction project since the pyramids? :roll: Comparison doesn't hold up.

Japan being included doesn't make sense in practical terms for super rugby, but does in larger terms for Rugby. With the world cup going to Japan in 2019, they needed to get a marquee competition going that would some how include Japan, since Japan doesn't seem terribly interested in the PNC or Asian competition, Super Rugby is a logical choice. I actually think the old "North and South" mentality needs to be re examined when we look at the pacific, where you have to cross a great deal of distance to find competition regardless.


Sure, I was only comparing them in terms of bizarreness. I don't see anything 'logical' about it personally. You either have a Southern Hemisphere tournament or a Pacific championship, not an L-shaped free-for-all spanning half the globe. Japan in a South African conference is the most bizarre aspect of all. That's pretty much the antipodes! Whoever heard of such a thing? I don't agree that Super Rugby needed Japan or Japan needed Super Rugby. Quite the reverse, in fact. But that's just my personal opinion.


I think they wanted to see a Japanese team in a top level competition, Super Rugby was the only available option.

I would rather see the top league revamped, with teams tied to local as opposed to corporate identity.

Posts: 4294
Joined: Mon, 26 May 2014, 05:50
National Flag:
TurkeyTurkey

Re: SUPER RUGBY 2016

Postby Rowan » Tue, 05 Jan 2016, 10:15

RugbyLiebe wrote:Rowan, see it from this perspective (you are a kiwi, right?):



Not exactly, but served a major chunk of my life there (last century).

If out of any reason whatsoever, Adidas should decide that the All Blacks are not worth the 50 million (?) Euros per year. You will have a problem in the long run to keep your great structures up. This expansion secures money will flow on even if this "if" would come true (the Adidas CFO not being a kiwi anymore i.e.).



No danger of that right now, I'd say. & the All Blacks would find another sponsor tomorrow if it happened anyway.

Changing Super Rugby from a Southern Hemisphere competition to a global one, sounds like a smart move


Don't agree. How about the Champions League, NBA or NRL becoming global competitions and including teams from the other side of the world? Do you think they'd maintain credibility and retain their primary fan base? I personally doubt it.


This is a team from a T2 country being included in a T1 competition. I would have thought you'd see this as a very positive step.


No, it's a franchise based in a T2 country being added to a regional competition currently involving T1 countries with a corresponding geographical feature which it does not share. The T2 countries which should be added to the T1 competitions in this part of the world are the ones with the same geographical analogue - ie the Pacific Islands. That's what I support.

Anyway, since they've decided to turn Super Rugby into 'Whole World Apart from Europe Championship,' I wonder if the US (& Canada) might be included in the next round of expansion, given Pro Rugby is about to kick off there :roll:
If they're good enough to play at World Cups, then why not in between?

Posts: 2672
Joined: Thu, 17 Apr 2014, 09:18
Location: Bucharest
National Flag:
RomaniaRomania

Re: SUPER RUGBY 2016

Postby amz » Tue, 05 Jan 2016, 11:47

Probably will be a 4th Conference with Sunwolves, Jaguares and Canadian and US based teams, maybe a Pacific Islanders franchise too?

User avatar
Posts: 2071
Joined: Thu, 26 Jun 2014, 05:56
Location: Zemo Vera, Tbilissi, GEORGIA

Re: SUPER RUGBY 2016

Postby FLIDTA RISXVA » Tue, 05 Jan 2016, 12:41

+ Lupii and Qara'chokhelni

Posts: 2672
Joined: Thu, 17 Apr 2014, 09:18
Location: Bucharest
National Flag:
RomaniaRomania

Re: SUPER RUGBY 2016

Postby amz » Tue, 05 Jan 2016, 12:43

FLIDTA RISXVA wrote:+ Lupii and Qara'chokhelni


better make a Super Liga (or Black Sea League) with Romanian, Georgian and Moldavian clubs. Why not an Ukrainian side from Odessa? Would be a nice destination to travel ;)

User avatar
Posts: 2071
Joined: Thu, 26 Jun 2014, 05:56
Location: Zemo Vera, Tbilissi, GEORGIA

Re: SUPER RUGBY 2016

Postby FLIDTA RISXVA » Tue, 05 Jan 2016, 12:59

Zaza Kasashvili, founder of Euro 7s circuit, proposed
Black Sea Super 12 back in 2000 to involve those countries
+ Southern Russia (Rostov, Krasnodar)
++ Turkey and Bulgaria in forseeable future

Posts: 2672
Joined: Thu, 17 Apr 2014, 09:18
Location: Bucharest
National Flag:
RomaniaRomania

Re: SUPER RUGBY 2016

Postby amz » Tue, 05 Jan 2016, 13:08

I don't see why and how Rostov/Krasnodar may be involved. Best Russian rugby teams are in Siberia and I think that is making impossible their involvement. Also the actual political situation and concerns regarding safety of traveling fans don't make Russia a suitable candidate.
Turkey and Bulgaria are too far behind to have teams capable of playing in such competition in forseeable future.

A setup with Romanian, Georgian and Moldavian teams (and maybe an Ukrainian one since they're trying something in Odessa with that local league) would keep it geographically pretty tight and at a similar level.

And Black Sea sounds provincial, we should find another name.

User avatar
Posts: 2071
Joined: Thu, 26 Jun 2014, 05:56
Location: Zemo Vera, Tbilissi, GEORGIA

Re: SUPER RUGBY 2016

Postby FLIDTA RISXVA » Tue, 05 Jan 2016, 13:24

He was proposing 15 years ago, not now
How on *Orthodox East* ?

Posts: 2672
Joined: Thu, 17 Apr 2014, 09:18
Location: Bucharest
National Flag:
RomaniaRomania

Re: SUPER RUGBY 2016

Postby amz » Tue, 05 Jan 2016, 13:49

FLIDTA RISXVA wrote:He was proposing 15 years ago, not now
How on *Orthodox East* ?

Well, Krasnodar played first time in first Russian league in 2013 I think. I am not aware of rugby played there at a higher level before that date and I've no idea about rugby in Rostov.
Orthodox League sounds awful when you think is a rugby event, besides a big part of Ukraine and a sizeable portion of Romanians are Catholics or Moslem. Better Black Sea Super League to avoid misunderstandings :D

User avatar
Posts: 2071
Joined: Thu, 26 Jun 2014, 05:56
Location: Zemo Vera, Tbilissi, GEORGIA

Re: SUPER RUGBY 2016

Postby FLIDTA RISXVA » Tue, 05 Jan 2016, 14:07

that's fine ... but i started this thread to discuss S18 2016

Posts: 2672
Joined: Thu, 17 Apr 2014, 09:18
Location: Bucharest
National Flag:
RomaniaRomania

Re: SUPER RUGBY 2016

Postby amz » Tue, 05 Jan 2016, 14:22

FLIDTA RISXVA wrote:+ Lupii and Qara'chokhelni


You also started this discussion :thumbup:
Besides, SR is one month away, plenty of time to discuss.

Posts: 1209
Joined: Fri, 25 Apr 2014, 14:11
National Flag:
ZimbabweZimbabwe

Re: SUPER RUGBY 2016

Postby Sables4EVA » Tue, 05 Jan 2016, 18:04

amz wrote:Probably will be a 4th Conference with Sunwolves, Jaguares and Canadian and US based teams, maybe a Pacific Islanders franchise too?


I would say the Argentinians would stay with the South African conference as the distances are much less. but I like the idea of a 2nd tier Super rugby franchise system involving N America and Asia, with the teams you mention and maybe Singapore, South Korea and a far East Russian team.

Posts: 4294
Joined: Mon, 26 May 2014, 05:50
National Flag:
TurkeyTurkey

Re: SUPER RUGBY 2016

Postby Rowan » Tue, 05 Jan 2016, 21:54

A couple of teams each from Japan, Canada, the US & SE Asia and they could just go off and have their own T2 North Pacific Super Rugby championship on their own.

Super Rugby's conference system does allow for unlimited expansion, but long term it is only going to stifle professional rugby's international growth if they don't look at setting up parallel competitions elsewhere.

Also, I'm not sure the original SANZAR trio would be too receptive of an influx of T2-based teams, as this would inevitably dilute the championship and thereby potentially undermine the strength of their respective national teams.
If they're good enough to play at World Cups, then why not in between?

Next

Return to Rugby Forum

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot] and 18 guests