The Future for the PRO12 - Part 3 - The Union Balldance

First topic message reminder :

First article I came across on the Web.

BigGee wrote:

Welshmushroom wrote:

I know a lot of people have mentioned removing the Italians from the league as they haven't brought anything to the league as of yet but people forget that both Wales and Scotland had to adapt to the league to begin with.  The Scots at one stage also didn't do great in the league but look at them now!  I think long term the Italians will come good as long as they start bringing home grown players through, as the imports they have tried to bring in haven't done much for them.  If they can get exposure to their U20 players in the long term they should be fine.

This is true as the Italian U20 team looked half way decent this year, quite a few players with potential.

The trick is to be able to introduce those players into the Pro sides without destroying them and totally demoralising them. That involves good coaching and management, something that the Italian sides have not shown that much of so far. Connor O'Shea may help in that regard, as he was a proven developer of talent in his LI and Quins days.

They will continue to need some overseas players to fill out their squads for a good while yet. They just need to get better at recruitment and bring in some players who want to be part of developing a team as much as just earning a quick buck. That of course is much easier said than done!

I get what you are saying but it only works if the experience you bring in is actually any good.  The players brought in by Zebre & Treviso are 3rd rate New Zealanders & South Africans at best.  If they had zero chance of representing the All Blacks or Saffers, are they really worth converting to the Italian national side.  I know project players sometimes work out but the Italians don't get to cheery pick the best overseas players with other Unions already way in front of them on that front in terms of pecking order.

Personally I have always had the mentality that if a side is well coached, prepares well enough and is conditioned well, then the rest will come.  The big issue there has been while Italy do always get a high profile national coach, its the standard of coaching the 2 regional sides get that needs improvement with better coaching, facilities & conditioning.  

The way the Italians should approach this is to take a long term approach to the league.  It usually takes players a good 2-3 seasons of gametime and development  from age grade to really develop into solid league players and they should start this process as soon as possible as the next generation may fair better.  I think we would all agree given both their budgets they wont outclass other sides in the league purely on bringing players in (they just don't have the finance to compete with Ospreys, Munster, Ulster, Glasgow & Leinster teams) so the best chance of success will come from development and not acquisitions of players.

I think that a lot mentioned about the Italians leaving is some people just not wanting them. Personally I think if they were to be kicked out it would show a failing of the League and make us less attractive to the US/CAN market.

I think more could have been done by the league as a whole to support them, and bring the standard of rugby up, helping them and in turn helping the national team, is what the US and CAN want as they want to move up world rankings as well.

Personally I think the league should hire someone to trouble shoot the issue, much the same way Leinster hired Graham Henry. I know O'Shea will be doing this now for the coaches in Zebre/Treviso, but a troubleshooting team would be nice, like a Graham Henry type figure and a Scrum/set piece coach, that are tasked with assisting the coaches that are already in place for the bottom 2/3 sides.
They spend time with each of the 3 teams, working to improve the coaching etc.
Of the top of my head an E'OS type figure.

Kingshu wrote:I think that a lot mentioned about the Italians leaving is some people just not wanting them. Personally I think if they were to be kicked out it would show a failing of the League and make us less attractive to the US/CAN market.

I think more could have been done by the league as a whole to support them, and bring the standard of rugby up, helping them and in turn helping the national team, is what the US and CAN want as they want to move up world rankings as well.

Personally I think the league should hire someone to trouble shoot the issue, much the same way Leinster hired Graham Henry. I know O'Shea will be doing this now for the coaches in Zebre/Treviso, but a troubleshooting team would be nice, like a Graham Henry type figure and a Scrum/set piece coach, that are tasked with assisting the coaches that are already in place for the bottom 2/3 sides.
They spend time with each of the 3 teams, working to improve the coaching etc.
Of the top of my head an E'OS type figure.

Jesus Christ

Stone Motif wrote:

Kingshu wrote:I think that a lot mentioned about the Italians leaving is some people just not wanting them. Personally I think if they were to be kicked out it would show a failing of the League and make us less attractive to the US/CAN market.

I think more could have been done by the league as a whole to support them, and bring the standard of rugby up, helping them and in turn helping the national team, is what the US and CAN want as they want to move up world rankings as well.

Personally I think the league should hire someone to trouble shoot the issue, much the same way Leinster hired Graham Henry. I know O'Shea will be doing this now for the coaches in Zebre/Treviso, but a troubleshooting team would be nice, like a Graham Henry type figure and a Scrum/set piece coach, that are tasked with assisting the coaches that are already in place for the bottom 2/3 sides.
They spend time with each of the 3 teams, working to improve the coaching etc.
Of the top of my head an E'OS type figure.

Jesus Christ

Probably not a realistic target, and I'm not sure if his rugby knowledge is great. But they could do with some devine inspiration.

More realistic than the target of making the Italians work in this league.

If it is two conference I think its got to be all the Irish provinces in one conference with a South African, Scottish and Italian team and all the Welsh regions in one conference with a South African, Scottish and Italian team.  That would protect the Irish and Welsh derbies and everything that comes along with them and have the additional effect of adding real spice to the Irish Welsh rivalry come the knockouts.  The 1872 would be a loss, but somebody is gonna have to take a hit on the derby thing, the only other option being both Scottish teams in the same conference and both Italian teams in the same conference which would dilute the quality a bit.

Kick the SAteams out and leave it all as is

Artful_Dodger wrote:If it is two conference I think its got to be all the Irish provinces in one conference with a South African, Scottish and Italian team and all the Welsh regions in one conference with a South African, Scottish and Italian team.  That would protect the Irish and Welsh derbies and everything that comes along with them and have the additional effect of adding real spice to the Irish Welsh rivalry come the knockouts.  The 1872 would be a loss, but somebody is gonna have to take a hit on the derby thing, the only other option being both Scottish teams in the same conference and both Italian teams in the same conference which would dilute the quality a bit.

I'd say Irish and either both Scottish or Italians (their Irish chose), if they get the Scottish they have the lesser SA side, if they chose the Italians they get the harder SA side. Then no nation gets stiffer their derbies (except the SA lots, but to be fair they have joined up and kept games which they would e lost otherwise).

I reckon it will be a straight split down the middle. 2+2+1+1+1

The derbies are the biggest money spinners each season. No team will want to give them up.

I can't see Leinster and Munster being put in the same pool. And yet they're the biggest single derby attendances - home and away. Judgement Day could still happen.

The intent as I understand it is to have more derby matches so two teams would play each 3 times rather than twice. Thus the 1872 Cup might run to 3 matches with the third match in Murrayfield if it was spicy enough.

I was thinking the fairest way to spilt it is by league placing for each union, the Irish and Welsh are spit 1st and 3rd and 2nd and 4th.

then two conferences laid out

1.Irish/Welsh (1 and 3)  2 Irish/Welsh (2 and 4)
2 Irish/Welsh (2 and 4). 1 Irish/Welsh (1 and 3)
1. Scottish   2 Scottish
2. Italian   1 Italian
1. SA   2 SA



Ie of this year,

Munster topped the table , so Munster and Ulster are grouped together as a 1, Leinster and Connacht are a 2

Scarlets and Blues are a 1
Ospreys and Dragons are a 2

The team that gets position 1 in pool 1 is the Irish or Welsh team that finishes highest up the table. IE for this year Munster (which ties in Ulster) meaning Scarlets are in Pool 2 (which ties in Blues), and the other fall in place.

Glasgow are a 1 Edinburgh are a 2
Terviso are a 1 Zebra are a 2
Cheetahs will most likely be a 1 and SK a 2

That would leave make
Conference 1
Munster
Ulster
Ospreys
Dragons
Glasgow
Zebre
Cheetahs

and Conference 2
Leinster
Connacht
Scarlets
Blues
Edinburgh
Terviso
SK


Each year conferences are remade on same principle, depending on overall table.

The Western Fail said ( http://www.walesonline.co.uk/sport/rugby/rugby-news/welsh-derbies-slashed-new-guinness-13338684 )

Munster,
Scarlets,
Ulster,
Blues,
Edinburgh,
Zebre
and either the Cheethas or Kings

Leinster,
Ospreys,
Glasgow,
Connacht,
Treviso,
Dragons
and again, either the Cheetahs or the Kings.

They also said that there will be home and away in your conference, and home or away in teh other conference, with no extra derby games.  So i hope they are wrong (and going on track record they could be).

Edit: They say the table will be taken from last years standings from top down, capped at only half from a nation though.

ScarletSpiderman wrote:The Western Fail said ( http://www.walesonline.co.uk/sport/rugby/rugby-news/welsh-derbies-slashed-new-guinness-13338684 )

Munster,
Scarlets,
Ulster,
Blues,
Edinburgh,
Zebre
and either the Cheethas or Kings

Leinster,
Ospreys,
Glasgow,
Connacht,
Treviso,
Dragons
and again, either the Cheetahs or the Kings.

They also said that there will be home and away in your conference, and home or away in teh other conference, with no extra derby games.  So i hope they are wrong (and going on track record they could be).

Edit: They say the table will be taken from last years standings from top down, capped at only half from a nation though.

I don't think they will go for that model, Working down alternately from top to bottom of the standings would mean all the 1's (therefore stronger teams) from each union would be in Pool A

Ie this one has the Top Welsh and Irish team, and 3rd Welsh and Irish team
its better to spilt these 1st and 3rd Welsh V 2nd and 4th Irish in one pool and 1st and 3rd Irish V 2nd and 4th Welsh in the other.

kingshu, personally i think it would be fairer if you had

Pool A

1st Welsh,
4th Welsh,
2nd Irish,
3rd Irish,
1st Scottish,
2nd Italian,
Either SA (weakest going to the winner of the last years comp conference)

Pool B

1st Irish,
4th Irish,
2nd Welsh,
3rd Welsh,
1st Italian,
2nd Scottish,
Either SA (weakest going to the winner of the last years comp conference)

It gives everyone a reason to be the best in their nation to get the easier of their nations rivals for the derbies.

Just to make sure I understand this correctly.

7 teams in a conference which mean 6 home and six away matches, plus 7 matches vs the opponents in the other conference.

Which comes down to 19 regular season matches, however there will be one log.

Top 4 to go to the play offs?

ScarletSpiderman wrote:kingshu, personally i think it would be fairer if you had

Pool A

1st Welsh,
4th Welsh,
2nd Irish,
3rd Irish,
1st Scottish,
2nd Italian,
Either SA (weakest going to the winner of the last years comp conference)

Pool B

1st Irish,
4th Irish,
2nd Welsh,
3rd Welsh,
1st Italian,
2nd Scottish,
Either SA (weakest going to the winner of the last years comp conference)

It gives everyone a reason to be the best in their nation to get the easier of their nations rivals for the derbies.

Thats similar, but I don't think you can do 1st and 4th of each, and 2nd and 3rd. You do need to tie two teams together, and 1st and 3rd and 2nd and 4th is the fairest way to do this. The 3rd and 4th teams do not get tiers as they are tied to the team above them (1st and 2nd) leagues position deciding the tier.

Tier one (Highest Union)
set one in pool one and set two in Pool Two
Tier two (2nd Highest Union)
set two in pool one and set one in Pool Two
Tier three (3rd Highest Union)
set one in pool one and set two in Pool Two
Tier four (4th Highest Union)
set two in pool one and set one in Pool Two
Tier five (5th Highest Union)
set one in pool one and set two in Pool Two

Tier One
In last years table Munster topped the table, so its Irish teams as the highest placed Union) 1st and 3rd (3rd is tied to 1st) in Pool one, meaning Irish 2nd and 4th in Pool two.

Tier Two
The next highest Union was the WRU, on tier 2 a set 2 team goes into Pool one, meaning Ospreys and Dragons. Scarlets and Blue as being a set one group (on account of Scarlets finishing position) go into Pool 2.

Tier 3
Next the union team that finished was Glasgow which makes them a set 1, meaning Edinburgh are set 2, on this tier set 1 goes into Pool one and set 2 on Pool 2 so Glasgow go into Pool One

Italy finished this year above the SA sides, and in tier 4, set 2 goes into pool one and set 1 into pool two, Terviso finished higher which makes them set 1 and therefore go into Pool two

SA union finished bottom this year, so are tier 6

This way the pools will change each year, depending on the highest placing team in each Union, while keeping them even. When US/CAN join same format but add Tier 6

Biltong wrote:Just to make sure I understand this correctly.

7 teams in a conference which mean 6 home and six away matches, plus 7 matches vs the opponents in the other conference.

Which comes down to 19 regular season matches, however there will be one log.

Top 4 to go to the play offs?

Home and away in own conference this year,

Against other conference play other Unions teams one (home or away) with extra games against the other 2 teams in your Union for WRU IRFU, and twice for SRU, ITA, SA. i.e. Glasgow play Edinburgh 3 times.

Meaning each team has 21 games, top in Each conference goes to semi final (guess its at home) 2nd in one and 3rd in the other each play off to face them.

If the Pro12 moves to conferences, despite there being some top quality matches - the format will suffer in comparison to the simplicity of traditional leagues - T14 & AP.

The S18 had no top tier competition but the conference format turned off fans in their thousands, both through the turnstiles and tv subscriptions - it looked and was too contrived.

The Pro12 Exec have to be seen to do some structural development - not easy for a top down model. Let's hope the risks taken pay off.

Recwatcher16 wrote:If the Pro12 moves to conferences, despite there being some top quality matches - the format will suffer in comparison to the simplicity of traditional leagues - T14 & AP.

The S18 had no top tier competition but the conference format turned off fans in their thousands, both through the turnstiles and tv subscriptions - it looked and was too contrived.

The Pro12 Exec have to be seen to do some structural development - not easy for a top down model. Let's hope the risks taken pay off.

It wasn't conferences that hurt Super Rugby, it was the convoluted approach to it especially in the last few years whereby you needed a Masters in Advanced Mathematics to figure the tables out

marty2086 wrote:

Recwatcher16 wrote:If the Pro12 moves to conferences, despite there being some top quality matches - the format will suffer in comparison to the simplicity of traditional leagues - T14 & AP.

The S18 had no top tier competition but the conference format turned off fans in their thousands, both through the turnstiles and tv subscriptions - it looked and was too contrived.

The Pro12 Exec have to be seen to do some structural development - not easy for a top down model. Let's hope the risks taken pay off.

It wasn't conferences that hurt Super Rugby, it was the convoluted approach to it especially in the last few years whereby you needed a Masters in Advanced Mathematics to figure the tables out

Exactly, and some of the proposals in this thread are also guilty of that. There is no such thing as a perfectly "fair" conference so I would err on striving for the conferences to be as simple as possible even if one conference is "tougher" than the other. The "weaker" conference is arguably disadvantaged in the playoffs anyways (fewer hard matches=undercooked) so you can argue that either way it will work out pretty fair.

They could go all out, and do something really left wing and out of the box, and leave it as a league.

Take away the derbies, and the already struggling interest in Wales will dwindle.

LordDowlais wrote:They could go all out, and do something really left wing and out of the box, and leave it as a league.

Take away the derbies, and the already struggling interest in Wales will dwindle.

How would that work with 14 teams and the international schedule?

wolfball wrote:

LordDowlais wrote:They could go all out, and do something really left wing and out of the box, and leave it as a league.

Take away the derbies, and the already struggling interest in Wales will dwindle.

How would that work with 14 teams and the international schedule?

It wouldn't.

marty2086 wrote:

Recwatcher16 wrote:If the Pro12 moves to conferences, despite there being some top quality matches - the format will suffer in comparison to the simplicity of traditional leagues - T14 & AP.

The S18 had no top tier competition but the conference format turned off fans in their thousands, both through the turnstiles and tv subscriptions - it looked and was too contrived.

The Pro12 Exec have to be seen to do some structural development - not easy for a top down model. Let's hope the risks taken pay off.

It wasn't conferences that hurt Super Rugby, it was the convoluted approach to it especially in the last few years whereby you needed a Masters in Advanced Mathematics to figure the tables out

Perhaps one should consider why the S18 approach got so convoluted ? It seems pretty obvious the reason was to attempt to even out the obvious disparities between teams when trying to concoct viable conferences.

wolfball wrote:

LordDowlais wrote:They could go all out, and do something really left wing and out of the box, and leave it as a league.

Take away the derbies, and the already struggling interest in Wales will dwindle.

How would that work with 14 teams and the international schedule?

It would be an extra 4 weekends of rugby. Ditch the play-offs and that's down to two weeks. Make the regions play A-sides in the Anglo-Welsh, and there would be plenty of time

Recwatcher16 wrote:

marty2086 wrote:

Recwatcher16 wrote:If the Pro12 moves to conferences, despite there being some top quality matches - the format will suffer in comparison to the simplicity of traditional leagues - T14 & AP.

The S18 had no top tier competition but the conference format turned off fans in their thousands, both through the turnstiles and tv subscriptions - it looked and was too contrived.

The Pro12 Exec have to be seen to do some structural development - not easy for a top down model. Let's hope the risks taken pay off.

It wasn't conferences that hurt Super Rugby, it was the convoluted approach to it especially in the last few years whereby you needed a Masters in Advanced Mathematics to figure the tables out

Perhaps one should consider why the S18 approach got so convoluted ? It seems pretty obvious the reason was to attempt to even out the obvious disparities between teams when trying to concoct viable conferences.

No, that is incorrect. The Super 18 format was purely to find a way to lessen travel, reduce costs whilst increasing revenue and ensuring each country got a home play off match.

What SANZAAR didn't bargain on is that crowds vote with their feet.

The system is more unfair, more convoluted and the time zones went from 3 to 5, just a ridiculous idea at the time that was doomed to failure.

ScarletSpiderman wrote:

wolfball wrote:

LordDowlais wrote:They could go all out, and do something really left wing and out of the box, and leave it as a league.

Take away the derbies, and the already struggling interest in Wales will dwindle.

How would that work with 14 teams and the international schedule?

It would be an extra 4 weekends of rugby.  Ditch the play-offs and that's down to two weeks.  Make the regions play A-sides in the Anglo-Welsh, and there would be plenty of time

Playoffs generate a ton more cash then a generic league game. I don't see them going anywhere.

wolfball wrote:Playoffs generate a ton more cash then a generic league game. I don't see them going anywhere.

So do the derby games. So what to keep, what to get rid of ?

Biltong wrote:

Recwatcher16 wrote:

marty2086 wrote:

Recwatcher16 wrote:If the Pro12 moves to conferences, despite there being some top quality matches - the format will suffer in comparison to the simplicity of traditional leagues - T14 & AP.

The S18 had no top tier competition but the conference format turned off fans in their thousands, both through the turnstiles and tv subscriptions - it looked and was too contrived.

The Pro12 Exec have to be seen to do some structural development - not easy for a top down model. Let's hope the risks taken pay off.

It wasn't conferences that hurt Super Rugby, it was the convoluted approach to it especially in the last few years whereby you needed a Masters in Advanced Mathematics to figure the tables out

Perhaps one should consider why the S18 approach got so convoluted ? It seems pretty obvious the reason was to attempt to even out the obvious disparities between teams when trying to concoct viable conferences.

No, that is incorrect. The Super 18 format was purely to find a way to lessen travel, reduce costs whilst increasing revenue and ensuring each country got a home play off match.

What SANZAAR didn't bargain on is that crowds vote with their feet.

The system is more unfair, more convoluted and the time zones went from 3 to 5, just a ridiculous idea at the time that was doomed to failure.

So the conference approach introduced more teams but reduced the number of meaningful matches into contrived groupings. An inevitable consequence of the Unions owning / controling the competing teams and whose ultimate priority is the Test side. Fans saw through it and switched off. Question is will the Pro12 go down the same route.

Recwatcher16 wrote:

Biltong wrote:

Recwatcher16 wrote:

marty2086 wrote:

Recwatcher16 wrote:If the Pro12 moves to conferences, despite there being some top quality matches - the format will suffer in comparison to the simplicity of traditional leagues - T14 & AP.

The S18 had no top tier competition but the conference format turned off fans in their thousands, both through the turnstiles and tv subscriptions - it looked and was too contrived.

The Pro12 Exec have to be seen to do some structural development - not easy for a top down model. Let's hope the risks taken pay off.

It wasn't conferences that hurt Super Rugby, it was the convoluted approach to it especially in the last few years whereby you needed a Masters in Advanced Mathematics to figure the tables out

Perhaps one should consider why the S18 approach got so convoluted ? It seems pretty obvious the reason was to attempt to even out the obvious disparities between teams when trying to concoct viable conferences.

No, that is incorrect. The Super 18 format was purely to find a way to lessen travel, reduce costs whilst increasing revenue and ensuring each country got a home play off match.

What SANZAAR didn't bargain on is that crowds vote with their feet.

The system is more unfair, more convoluted and the time zones went from 3 to 5, just a ridiculous idea at the time that was doomed to failure.

So the conference approach introduced more teams but reduced the number of meaningful matches into contrived groupings. An inevitable consequence of the Unions owning / controling the competing teams and whose ultimate priority is the Test side. Fans saw through it and switched off. Question is will the Pro12 go down the same route.

Nothing to with union ownership, all to do with attempting to generate more for less as is good business sense. Only problem is they choose the wrong model which hurt the product

marty2086 wrote:

Recwatcher16 wrote:

Biltong wrote:

Recwatcher16 wrote:

marty2086 wrote:

Recwatcher16 wrote:If the Pro12 moves to conferences, despite there being some top quality matches - the format will suffer in comparison to the simplicity of traditional leagues - T14 & AP.

The S18 had no top tier competition but the conference format turned off fans in their thousands, both through the turnstiles and tv subscriptions - it looked and was too contrived.

The Pro12 Exec have to be seen to do some structural development - not easy for a top down model. Let's hope the risks taken pay off.

It wasn't conferences that hurt Super Rugby, it was the convoluted approach to it especially in the last few years whereby you needed a Masters in Advanced Mathematics to figure the tables out

Perhaps one should consider why the S18 approach got so convoluted ? It seems pretty obvious the reason was to attempt to even out the obvious disparities between teams when trying to concoct viable conferences.

No, that is incorrect. The Super 18 format was purely to find a way to lessen travel, reduce costs whilst increasing revenue and ensuring each country got a home play off match.

What SANZAAR didn't bargain on is that crowds vote with their feet.

The system is more unfair, more convoluted and the time zones went from 3 to 5, just a ridiculous idea at the time that was doomed to failure.

So the conference approach introduced more teams but reduced the number of meaningful matches into contrived groupings. An inevitable consequence of the Unions owning / controling the competing teams and whose ultimate priority is the Test side. Fans saw through it and switched off. Question is will the Pro12 go down the same route.

Nothing to with union ownership, all to do with attempting to generate more for less as is good business sense. Only problem is they choose the wrong model which hurt the product

While the structure hasn't helped the real damage is due to the collapse of the Aussie teams. In the early days of Super 12 some genuine trans-Tasman rivalries developed which got the crowds out (Blues vs Brumbies or Crusaders vs Waratahs for instance). Unfortunately weakening the Brumbies and Waratahs to populate the Force & Rebels rather killed those rivalries off. This season it got to the point where Kiwi derby games were rating better on TV than Aussie ones, in Australia! In Super 12 you generally had 1 weak Aussie side and 1 week SA one, plus a weakish Kiwi side, and a lot of ding dong battles amongst the rest. Expansion meant dropping to 2 good (Stormers/Lions) & 2 adequate SA (Bulls/Sharks) side, 4 strong NZ ones (plus the Blues were handy), a pile of dross in Aus, an Argentine side with a crippling travel schedule, and a weak Japanese team. That cuts down the number of potential "good" match ups each week.


Broadly it costs about £150k in flights & accommodation to get a team from SA to Australasia (or vice versa) for a match - that's a lot to make up off the gate sales, so the attempt to cut back on long tours made sense - plus the comp was unfair on the SA teams in terms of having to do 4-match Australasian tours (a long time away from home for club players) whereas the NZ & Aus teams only had 2 weeks on the far side of the world, & could separately do flying visits to each other. Expanding into Japan was a financial and global rugby development decision which will hopefully pay dividends down the line - especially with RWC19 to hopefully build a fan base (remember the biggest ever single-country TV audience for a match happened in Japan during the last RWC), while inviting in the Argentines was purely about developing the game globally - it's probably the right thing to do by Argentina (like providing for the Italians up North), but it does come at the cost of increased competition complexity and extra travel.

That's a good point Pete, it's also diluted the resources needed to retain talent in Australia which impacts on the franchises and the Wallabies. When you lack the stars and their quality it'll impact on the field and you won't be as successful which hurts in the stands and with sponsors etc, it's a vicious cycle

marty2086 wrote:

Recwatcher16 wrote:

Biltong wrote:

Recwatcher16 wrote:

marty2086 wrote:

Recwatcher16 wrote:If the Pro12 moves to conferences, despite there being some top quality matches - the format will suffer in comparison to the simplicity of traditional leagues - T14 & AP.

The S18 had no top tier competition but the conference format turned off fans in their thousands, both through the turnstiles and tv subscriptions - it looked and was too contrived.

The Pro12 Exec have to be seen to do some structural development - not easy for a top down model. Let's hope the risks taken pay off.

It wasn't conferences that hurt Super Rugby, it was the convoluted approach to it especially in the last few years whereby you needed a Masters in Advanced Mathematics to figure the tables out

Perhaps one should consider why the S18 approach got so convoluted ? It seems pretty obvious the reason was to attempt to even out the obvious disparities between teams when trying to concoct viable conferences.

No, that is incorrect. The Super 18 format was purely to find a way to lessen travel, reduce costs whilst increasing revenue and ensuring each country got a home play off match.

What SANZAAR didn't bargain on is that crowds vote with their feet.

The system is more unfair, more convoluted and the time zones went from 3 to 5, just a ridiculous idea at the time that was doomed to failure.

So the conference approach introduced more teams but reduced the number of meaningful matches into contrived groupings. An inevitable consequence of the Unions owning / controling the competing teams and whose ultimate priority is the Test side. Fans saw through it and switched off. Question is will the Pro12 go down the same route.

Nothing to with union ownership, all to do with attempting to generate more for less as is good business sense. Only problem is they choose the wrong model which hurt the product

Well, the Pro12 has got to this point for a number reasons, demographics is certainly one but a lack of being able to increase interest and awareness amongst fans has to also be a major cause. The league is a centrally controlled closed shop which is not easy to develop once you max out on earning opportunities. It is quite simply the wrong model - name any other sport where the central sporting body owns the top tier of the game - professional or amateur and you can't because there isn't one. That is for good reason.

As for generating more for less, well that is certainly a practice for business but only if your customer still perceives good value and as the S18 showed - fans saw through it and switched off. That the Australian top tier are currently struggling performance wise is only the tip of a far greater malaise.

Recwatcher16 wrote:As for generating more for less, well that is certainly a practice for business but only if your customer still perceives good value and as the S18 showed - fans saw through it and switched off. That the Australian top tier are currently struggling performance wise is only the tip of a far greater malaise.

This will happen in Wales. The Pro12 is fighting for it's life in Wales as it is. Split the 4 regions up and it could be the death knell for it in this country.

Recwatcher16 wrote:
Well, the Pro12 has got to this point for a number reasons, demographics is certainly one but a lack of being able to increase interest and awareness amongst fans has to also be a major cause. The league is a centrally controlled closed shop which is not easy to develop once you max out on earning opportunities. It is quite simply the wrong model - name any other sport where the central sporting body owns the top tier of the game - professional or amateur and you can't because there isn't one. That is for good reason.

As for generating more for less, well that is certainly a practice for business but only if your customer still perceives good value and as the S18 showed - fans saw through it and switched off. That the Australian top tier are currently struggling performance wise is only the tip of a far greater malaise.

There isn't a centrally controlled shop? Maybe you should look into the GAA, the ECB, MLB, NBA, MLS or the NFL, I hear those guys do quite well

Recwatcher16 wrote:

marty2086 wrote:

Recwatcher16 wrote:

Biltong wrote:

Recwatcher16 wrote:

marty2086 wrote:

Recwatcher16 wrote:If the Pro12 moves to conferences, despite there being some top quality matches - the format will suffer in comparison to the simplicity of traditional leagues - T14 & AP.

The S18 had no top tier competition but the conference format turned off fans in their thousands, both through the turnstiles and tv subscriptions - it looked and was too contrived.

The Pro12 Exec have to be seen to do some structural development - not easy for a top down model. Let's hope the risks taken pay off.

It wasn't conferences that hurt Super Rugby, it was the convoluted approach to it especially in the last few years whereby you needed a Masters in Advanced Mathematics to figure the tables out

Perhaps one should consider why the S18 approach got so convoluted ? It seems pretty obvious the reason was to attempt to even out the obvious disparities between teams when trying to concoct viable conferences.

No, that is incorrect. The Super 18 format was purely to find a way to lessen travel, reduce costs whilst increasing revenue and ensuring each country got a home play off match.

What SANZAAR didn't bargain on is that crowds vote with their feet.

The system is more unfair, more convoluted and the time zones went from 3 to 5, just a ridiculous idea at the time that was doomed to failure.

So the conference approach introduced more teams but reduced the number of meaningful matches into contrived groupings. An inevitable consequence of the Unions owning / controling the competing teams and whose ultimate priority is the Test side. Fans saw through it and switched off. Question is will the Pro12 go down the same route.

Nothing to with union ownership, all to do with attempting to generate more for less as is good business sense. Only problem is they choose the wrong model which hurt the product

Well, the Pro12 has got to this point for a number reasons, demographics is certainly one but a lack of being able to increase interest and awareness amongst fans has to also be a major cause. The league is a centrally controlled closed shop which is not easy to develop once you max out on earning opportunities. It is quite simply the wrong model - name any other sport where the central sporting body owns the top tier of the game - professional or amateur and you can't because there isn't one. That is for good reason.

As for generating more for less, well that is certainly a practice for business but only if your customer still perceives good value and as the S18 showed - fans saw through it and switched off. That the Australian top tier are currently struggling performance wise is only the tip of a far greater malaise.

American football - At the corporate level, the National Football League considers itself a trade association made up of and financed by its 32 member teams. Think all 32 team were in the worlds 100 richest clubs.

Also a closed shop with no promotion or relagation and a conference system, seams to do ok for itself.

Can the SA sides qualify for the European cup tournaments?

How will qualification for those tournaments work with a conference system?

Apols if these questions have been answered above.

The NFL are not anything like a rugby Union sporting body unless you consider the IRFU, in your words, a trade association. The scale and demographics are totally different too. None of those other sporting bodies listed own those clubs either.

Recwatcher16 wrote:The NFL are not anything like a rugby Union sporting body unless you consider the IRFU, in your words, a trade association. The scale and demographics are totally different too. None of those other sporting bodies listed own those clubs either.

The NFL aren't a union despite being the body that runs the professional game, writes the rule book and administers everything around the game

The IRFU don't own the branches either, the branches make up the union so its exactly like that. Its the same with the likes of the GAA, they all cede power to the central body too.

By all means change the point if you want to - mine was that there is no other sporting body that singularly owns the top tier. Who by the way are also responsible for all other tiers of the game.

Well that's not the case with the Pro 12 but you can make it out that way if you so wish

Changing it after being proved wrong.

Perhaps I should have been clearer referring to Unions who provide the teams for the Pro12 - with the exception of the three welsh clubs. Will do better next time.

Nothing decided if SA sides will get in ECC, I guess with the potential money they could bring and with the sponsors wishing thier products to be viewed by a wider market the pressure from the sponsors will be to include them. ie Guinness are happy the have them in the Pro 14 as it gives Guinness more advertisment in Africa.

I guess at the end of the season the top seven in an overall table would go through, the one from each Union has been removed, (think the play offs have been removed with a French and English team)

Could also have the top 3 in each conference qualify and go into the playoffs, while 4th and 5th in each conference play off for the final spot?

Recwatcher16 wrote:Perhaps I should have been clearer referring to Unions who provide the teams for the Pro12 - with the exception of the three welsh clubs. Will do better next time.

I don't think you are clear on what you are talking about considering Treviso are privately owned as were Zebre until about 6 weeks ago

FROM THE BBC

----------

A deal to expand the Pro12 to 14 teams from next season has been agreed, BBC Scotland understands.

The South African sides Cheetahs and Southern Kings will join the league after losing their Super Rugby status.

The six-year deal is likely to benefit the league to the tune of an extra £6m per season from the South African Rugby Union and additional television income.

All elements of the deal have been agreed and, once legally ratified, should be formally announced next week.

The new Pro14 league will kick-off in the first week of September and will comprise two conferences of seven teams. Each conference will have one Scottish side, one South African side, one Italian side and two each from Wales and Ireland.

According to the BBC it has all been signed off.

Just awaiting the official details now and the nuts and bolts details.

The main questions left are:

1. Derby games?
2. Make up of conferences?
3. The league schedule

wolfball wrote:The main questions left are:

1. Derby games?
2. Make up of conferences?
3. The league schedule

1) Wolfball, the Fail (Western Mail) also mention that there will be no Derby games lost, so a bit more meat on the bone. If it's true?

wayne wrote:

wolfball wrote:The main questions left are:

1. Derby games?
2. Make up of conferences?
3. The league schedule

1) Wolfball, the Fail (Western Mail) also mention that there will be no Derby games lost, so a bit more meat on the bone. If it's true?

I am hearing something that is a cut the baby down the middle solution that will annoy everyone - derbys retained, but half the "other conference" derbys are basically friendlies that don't count towards the league. Really hope that is not true...

wolfball wrote:

wayne wrote:

wolfball wrote:The main questions left are:

1. Derby games?
2. Make up of conferences?
3. The league schedule

1) Wolfball, the Fail (Western Mail) also mention that there will be no Derby games lost, so a bit more meat on the bone. If it's true?

I am hearing something that is a cut the baby down the middle solution that will annoy everyone - derbys retained, but half the "other conference" derbys are basically friendlies that don't count towards the league. Really hope that is not true...

You can see the future bickering now, "we lost 12-3 away in He league, and destroyed then 49-7 at home in the other game, but cos that didn't count they got 4pts in the conference and we got none" etc