Japanese team to join Super Rugby from 2016

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/rugby-union/29756459

So they'll be there a couple of years before their World Cup. Hopefully it'll work out well for them. Not sure who the other 2 extra teams will be, South Africans? They'll be playing in one of the South African conferences apparantly.

It makes no sense whatsoever.

This is how ludicrous this is going to be.

Two conferences with 5 teams, two conferences with 4 teams.

Imagine the South African conferences.

Bulls, Cheetahs, Lions, Pumas

and

Stormers, Sharks, Kings, Japan.

Stormers will play Sharks, KIngs and Japan twice.
Stormers will play Bulls, Lions, CHeetahs and Pumas once
Stormers will play Waratahs, Force, Rebels, Reds, Brumbies once.

Next year they will alternate the Australian teams for the New Zealand teams.

So most teams will not face the same opponents, which makes the qualification a farce.

the finals is even more of a farce, the SA conferences get 3 places in the finals and the Antipodean teams get 5 places.

What an utter Fu..up

I refuse to watch this rubbish.

SA rugby has had chances to join Euro rugby in the past havent they?

No.

There's a lot to work out here. Japan is in the Northern hemisphere, so joining a Southern competition poses immediate problems.

It's not clear what the franchise is going to be. Will Japan field a shadow Test side? In which case, surely the national team coach needs to be in charge of the franchise too. Maybe Chieka has set a trend.

If the franchise isn't a selection of Japan's best players, then who will it be? Do these players also turn out for their clubs too?

It's been suggested that home games will be in Singapore. The NZ Maori just cancelled a match there because the pitch was poor quality. Who will be responsible for ensuring the turf is up to standard in the future?

Who organises these comp, because they seem like they don't have a clue at the moment!

Bring back Super12

One the plus, this is good for Japanese rugby and I do hope they field a semi test side to help them progress and be in with a chance of making it out of the groups in their home RWC.

On the negative side this looks very poorly set up and it seems confusing. Is this a result of the SA Union wanting another team in Super Rugby? If so, why don't they just drop out of Super Rugby and play Currie Cup as the pinacle of their rugby season?

Isn't Japan much closer to Australia? Why will they be in a South African conference, that makes no sense!

Exactly.

Biltong wrote:Imagine the South African conferences.

Bulls, Cheetahs, Lions, Pumas

and

Stormers, Sharks, Kings, Japan.

That seems like it would be very close to the point at which it would make more sense to put all the money being spent on that in to the Currie Cup instead.

FecklessRogue wrote:Isn't Japan much closer to Australia? Why will they be in a South African conference, that makes no sense!

What a waste of air miles

Lowlandbrit wrote:

Biltong wrote:Imagine the South African conferences.

Bulls, Cheetahs, Lions, Pumas

and

Stormers, Sharks, Kings, Japan.

That seems like it would be very close to the point at which it would make more sense to put all the money being spent on that in to the Currie Cup instead.

That has been my point the whole time.

FecklessRogue wrote:Isn't Japan much closer to Australia? Why will they be in a South African conference, that makes no sense!

Might I suggest Conference Call rugby to cut down the air miles?

We could turn it into a stats and dice game. Ashton has a tackler ability of 1, therefore he needs to roll a double 6 on 2 d6 to complete it, on a 7 or lower he ducks and cowers instead.

Or is that my inner and outer geek breaking through?

GunsGerms wrote:SA rugby has had chances to join Euro rugby in the past havent they?

Yes there were discussions about them putting some teams into the Celtic league a few years ago to form a "Rainbow Cup" but the idea was abandoned due to costs.
There have often been rumors about them joining the Heinaken Cup when Australia and NewZealand have ganged up on them with regards to something that's happened in the Super 15.

I think Japan joining the Super 15 is a great move, though I'd of prefered Buenos Airies to of joined the Super 15 from Argentina.

I've been thinking about the new conference system , and firstly I agree with most that it is a mess. Secondly, why not abandon the traditional Super Rugby format of a straight league/conference system and copy the Northern Hemisphere and make Super Rugby into European Cup format?

Why not go back to the traditional domestic leagues, Currie Cup for example, and have teams qualify for the 'Super Rugby' tournament based on league position. From my understanding, or ignorance, the South African Super Rugby sides are more or less the same as the Currie Cup sides, and the new Australian Rugby Championship mirrors the Oz Super Rugby sides, so SA could go back to the Currie Cup and the Ozs could play in a new expanded ARC, a mixture of the Oz franchises and ARC teams - obviously with the talent spread.

Not sure about New Zealand, abandon their Super Rugby teams? Maybe just join the Australian SR teams in creating a new league, not sure. This format, in my mind, would offer a lot more room for expansion, could add top Japanese teams (I'm sure the companies that own these teams would jump at this based on the international exposure they would have) Argentina teams, and even add Namibian and Kenyan teams that could attempt to qualify through the Currie Cup if they were allowed to join the Currie Cup. Could even get American and Pacific Island teams as well.

Just for an idea, one group could look like, seeded obviously to make play-offs better:
The Sharks (SA)
Western Force (Oz)
Highlanders (NZ)
Panasonic Wild Knights (JP)
Tucuman (AG)

Obviously, group stages with finals after that. Could do last 16 for more games.

So is this an idea? Could it work, and would people want to watch it?

Could also help with the possible financial problems of the future for the NZRU and SARU and the so called lack of interest in their domestic leagues, even though both finals were sold out.

Link for discussion.

https://www.606v2.com/t56058-can-south-africa-and-new-zealand-afford-their-third-tiers

Currie Cup has no lack of interest. It has higher tv viewership than Super Rugby and still averages 15000 spectators per game, the increase of 8 teams means teams like Griquas, Pumas and Kings had an average of 5000 spectators per match for the first season.

The final was today at a packed Newlands.

Biltong wrote:Currie Cup has no lack of interest. It has higher tv viewership than Super Rugby and still averages 15000 spectators per game, the increase of 8 teams means teams like Griquas, Pumas and Kings had an average of 5000 spectators per match for the first season.

The final was today at a packed Newlands.

Yeah, I watched the Currie Cup final today and there was not an empty seat to be seen.

The shortest flight I can find from Tokyo to JNB is over 19 hours. That flight will simply be joyous for all the players who have to make that slog. I understand the desire of the Japanese to join Super Rugby, but this is bad for players: Increased injuries, muscle fatigue, dvt, etc.. Simply a lot of extra stress on the body. Let's consider the players as lab rats and see how they come out the other end.

JayMaster3000 wrote:Could also help with the possible financial problems of the future for the NZRU and SARU and the so called lack of interest in their domestic leagues, even though both finals were sold out.

Link for discussion.

https://www.606v2.com/t56058-can-south-africa-and-new-zealand-afford-their-third-tiers

I agree. Currie Cup is popular, but the opening rounds are always empty. And this reporter seems to think that it isn't popular.
http://www.bdlive.co.za/sport/rugby/2014/10/16/currie-cup-deserves-more-than-paltry-applause-in-empty-stadiums

But what I was trying to say is, I think a group knockout cup is the best solution for Super Rugby, it would return the NPC and the Currie Cup as the pinnacle of domestic rugby with the added spice then of a cross boarder comp for the SH teams that qualify.

What are the comparative audiences in Aviva, Top 14 and Pro 12?

Oh please!!! No, Bilt! Please don't go down that route.
I hope no AP, Top14 or Pro12 supporter bites or you're going to regret you asked!

Biltong wrote:What are the comparative audiences in Aviva, Top 14 and Pro 12?

SecretFly wrote:Oh please!!!  No, Bilt!  Please don't go down that route.  
I hope no AP, Top14 or Pro12 supporter bites or you're going to regret you asked!

Well.................
OK I have no idea whatsoever.
(only posted this because Fly is cringing over the impending response)

Thanks Doc... merciful man that you are

For anyone who thinks that at least all will go smoothly at the Japanese end of this deal, it's worth pointing out that Japan is on the verge of being banned from international basketball.

http://www.philstar.com/sports/2014/10/24/1383971/japan-faces-fiba-ban

It's a long story, but in essence, Japan has been unable to resolve years of infighting which split the sport into several factions.

For this Super Rugby deal to work, all the interested parties in Japanese rugby need to be on board - the union, the corporate owners and the universities in particular. That isn't a given, as the example of professional basketball shows.

Biltong wrote:What are the comparative audiences in Aviva, Top 14 and Pro 12?

For the Aviva, Leicester get around 20000
Saints and Gloucester get about 13000
Quins get 12000
A fair few of the others get 5000-10000

Irish teams get something like 14000 on average

Welsh teams get between 5000-10000 generally I think

Scots, not sure. I think they're going up but still around 5000.

That's all by gut. I'm not looking them up if you can't be bothered to

Thanks Hammer, all it tells me is the Currie Cup is no worse off tan any other.

Biltong wrote:Thanks Hammer, all it tells me is the Currie Cup is no worse off tan any other.

The real deal is how much is generated by sponsorship and TV rights.  That's the ugly truth reality.  The crowd at the gig don't count.  They're just there for narrative effect:  "Oh my!!!  Ain't that side well supported, I'll watch more of them on TV and watch the adverts and things."  OR  "Oh crap... look at those empty stands.  Makes me feel cold - must be a hopeless side.  Is there anything else on like a reality show or something?"
The media need people at games simply to tell the story that the sport is interesting enough to watch on TV.

SecretFly wrote:

Biltong wrote:Thanks Hammer, all it tells me is the Currie Cup is no worse off tan any other.

The real deal is how much is generated by sponsorship and TV rights.  That's the ugly truth reality.  The crowd at the gig don't count.  They're just there for narrative effect:  "Oh my!!!  Ain't that side well supported, I'll watch more of them on TV and watch the adverts and things."  OR  "Oh crap... look at those empty stands.  Makes me feel cold - must be a hopeless side.  Is there anything else on like a reality show or something?"
The media need people at games simply to tell the story that the sport is interesting enough to watch on TV.

I really like this summary, Mr SecretFly. One for the wall.