RugbyRebels

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/rugby-union/40448854

Interesting, should raise the standard of games hopefully.

And where do the additional games feature in the annual fixture list? Unless we go for the 2 conference system? If a SA team wins the Pro12, do they get into the Euros? Im guessing not, but it could be interesting if their teams finished at the top of the table.

Next thought is that's a long haul to play some pretty crap fixtures (thinking Italian sides and underperforming Welsh regions).

Sandydragon wrote:And where do the additional games feature in the annual fixture list? Unless we go for the 2 conference system? If a SA team wins the Pro12, do they get into the Euros? Im guessing not, but it could be interesting if their teams finished at the top of the table.

Next thought is that's a long haul to play some pretty crap fixtures (thinking Italian sides and underperforming Welsh regions).

Not sure about the fixture list, it's yet to be decided, maybe they will get rid of the ridiculous play-offs.

Can they get rid of them back on the last day of the regular season, before we got humped by Scarlets?

I don't see how this can add to the progress of Italy's 2 sides, nor how it will add much to anyone else. I read that Allianz Park is being touted as one of the 'home' venues, so effectively we'll have a South African franchise playing in England (Nothing new there - though I have to admit that we have a bit of a Bokke hue about us these days).

SerjeantWildgoose wrote:Can they get rid of them back on the last day of the regular season, before we got humped by Scarlets?

I don't see how this can add to the progress of Italy's 2 sides, nor how it will add much to anyone else. I read that Allianz Park is being touted as one of the 'home' venues, so effectively we'll have a South African franchise playing in England (Nothing new there - though I have to admit that we have a bit of a Bokke hue about us these days).

Unfortunately we can't wind the clock back Serge

Get rid of the Italian sides and get some more SH teams in, that would improve things for everyone.

SerjeantWildgoose wrote:Can they get rid of them back on the last day of the regular season, before we got humped by Scarlets?

I don't see how this can add to the progress of Italy's 2 sides, nor how it will add much to anyone else. I read that Allianz Park is being touted as one of the 'home' venues, so effectively we'll have a South African franchise playing in England (Nothing new there - though I have to admit that we have a bit of a Bokke hue about us these days).

That did make me smile ...but it is the way of the game at present ..may change with the law change

But I think there are a few things to sort out regarding playoffs and European competition.

SerjeantWildgoose wrote:Can they get rid of them back on the last day of the regular season, before we got humped by Scarlets?

I don't see how this can add to the progress of Italy's 2 sides, nor how it will add much to anyone else. I read that Allianz Park is being touted as one of the 'home' venues, so effectively we'll have a South African franchise playing in England (Nothing new there - though I have to admit that we have a bit of a Bokke hue about us these days).

Who gives a fuck about the progress of the Eyeties, they should be slung out on their ear, they're nowt but cannon fodder, they add nothing but travel expenses to the league.
Its a great idea to bring the South Africans in, they are Super Rugby sides so should be pretty good teams , it will raise the standards of the league and should put more arses on seats.

The Italians have had 2 or 3 player generations of 6N and plenty of top flight European club competition and have done nothing with that opportunity. I don't think they are owed anything by the top tier anymore.

I wonder if hte Saffers will have to pay £1M a year just for the privelage of playing in the Pro12?

Lizard wrote:The Italians have had 2 or 3 player generations of 6N and plenty of top flight European club competition and have done nothing with that opportunity. I don't think they are owed anything by the top tier anymore.

Exactly, we have had them for long enough and it hasn't worked out, let them play in the French league, its closer so less travelling for them. Show them the door and welcome the Saffers I say.

Which Tyler wrote:I wonder if hte Saffers will have to pay £1M a year just for the privelage of playing in the Pro12?

They'd be doubling the pot apparently, so bringing a lot more to the table. From 11-22million, how true that is?

Sent from my HTC 10 using Tapatalk

So it has been announced the Cheetahs and the Kings have agreed a settlement to leave Super Rugby with the impending challenge of alternative international competition

Kings and Cheetahs set for Pro12 after leaving Super Rugby - http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/rugby-union/40522124

If they are talking about them joining this season wouldn't it be a bit too soon, to get everything sorted, logistics, fixtures, etc. I hope they do join eventually, I enjoyed the semi and final, but the league is a bit dour for most of the season, needs livening up.

Sandydragon wrote:And where do the additional games feature in the annual fixture list? Unless we go for the 2 conference system? If a SA team wins the Pro12, do they get into the Euros? Im guessing not, but it could be interesting if their teams finished at the top of the table.

Next thought is that's a long haul to play some pretty crap fixtures (thinking Italian sides and underperforming Welsh regions).

conferences, with nationalities split....unclear of whether they change year on year I've seen the below suggested

Munster
Connacht
Ospreys
Cardiff
Glasgow
Zebre
Cheaters


Leinster
Ulster
Scarlets
Dragons
Edinburgh
Treviso
Kings

Tre wrote:

Sandydragon wrote:And where do the additional games feature in the annual fixture list? Unless we go for the 2 conference system? If a SA team wins the Pro12, do they get into the Euros? Im guessing not, but it could be interesting if their teams finished at the top of the table.

Next thought is that's a long haul to play some pretty crap fixtures (thinking Italian sides and underperforming Welsh regions).

conferences, with nationalities split....unclear of whether they change year on year I've seen the below suggested

Munster
Connacht
Ospreys
Cardiff
Glasgow
Zebre
Cheaters


Leinster
Ulster
Scarlets
Dragons
Edinburgh
Treviso
Kings

The best way to fit the fixtures in would be to abolish the play-offs imo.

I get why they would go for conferences, but that does mean that the annual derby matches wouldn't happen - bit of a risk considering the support they tend to get.

Not sure I have an answer to resolve that though.

Sandydragon wrote:I get why they would go for conferences, but that does mean that the annual derby matches wouldn't happen - bit of a risk considering the support they tend to get.

Not sure I have an answer to resolve that though.

There'd be 4 matches instead of 12, so enough for Judgement Day and another 2 at Christmas. Not good though, since that's 8 matches with the best attendance figures lost.

It would probably make more sense to get rid of the play-offs (even if I actually think they're a good thing).

If they played everyone in their own conference home and away then everyone in the other conference home or away on alternating years there'd be 19 games plus playoffs (I'd do top 4, QF-SF-F) then they'd play 4 derbys rather than 6. May have to can Judgment day.

Rugby seems to be going the wrong way, we should be playing less but higher quality games rather than more lower quality. The NFL manages with 16 games a year with every game being at max intensity. Would lower the need for squad rotation so you'd be able to see the superstars every week which should lead to bigger crowds, overcoming the loss of games.

Ross. S wrote:If they played everyone in their own conference home and away then everyone in the other conference home or away on alternating years there'd be 19 games plus playoffs (I'd do top 4, QF-SF-F) then they'd play 4 derbys rather than 6. May have to can Judgment day.

Rugby seems to be going the wrong way, we should be playing less but higher quality games rather than more lower quality. The NFL manages with 16 games a year with every game being at max intensity. Would lower the need for squad rotation so you'd be able to see the superstars every week which should lead to bigger crowds, overcoming the loss of games.

Yay, another convert!

So, literally just inheriting all the problems of the super touch league (credit to whoever said that originally) along with their discarded teams?

Ross. S wrote:If they played everyone in their own conference home and away then everyone in the other conference home or away on alternating years there'd be 19 games plus playoffs (I'd do top 4, QF-SF-F) then they'd play 4 derbys rather than 6. May have to can Judgment day.

Rugby seems to be going the wrong way, we should be playing less but higher quality games rather than more lower quality. The NFL manages with 16 games a year with every game being at max intensity. Would lower the need for squad rotation so you'd be able to see the superstars every week which should lead to bigger crowds, overcoming the loss of games.

Which is it Ross?

On a personal level I think that a split league is nonsense when it could just be resolved by scrapping the play-offs.

Numbers wrote:

Ross. S wrote:If they played everyone in their own conference home and away then everyone in the other conference home or away on alternating years there'd be 19 games plus playoffs (I'd do top 4, QF-SF-F) then they'd play 4 derbys rather than 6. May have to can Judgment day.

Rugby seems to be going the wrong way, we should be playing less but higher quality games rather than more lower quality. The NFL manages with 16 games a year with every game being at max intensity. Would lower the need for squad rotation so you'd be able to see the superstars every week which should lead to bigger crowds, overcoming the loss of games.

Which is it Ross?

On a personal level I think that a split league is nonsense when it could just be resolved by scrapping the play-offs.

??? Surely if the club season were to be reduced from 30 or so club games (22 league, 6 euro plus playoffs with both etc) to 16-20 the superstars would be able to play in most if not all games. Is that difficult to understand?

Personally I'd like to scrap all current competitions and replace with 1 europe wide, 40 team strong (take the NFL model, 2 conferences split into 4 pools of 5) competition playing 18-20 high quality max intensity games with a SF-F-superbowl-esq cross conference finale. But it'd never happen.

Ross. S wrote:

Numbers wrote:

Ross. S wrote:If they played everyone in their own conference home and away then everyone in the other conference home or away on alternating years there'd be 19 games plus playoffs (I'd do top 4, QF-SF-F) then they'd play 4 derbys rather than 6. May have to can Judgment day.

Rugby seems to be going the wrong way, we should be playing less but higher quality games rather than more lower quality. The NFL manages with 16 games a year with every game being at max intensity. Would lower the need for squad rotation so you'd be able to see the superstars every week which should lead to bigger crowds, overcoming the loss of games.

Which is it Ross?

On a personal level I think that a split league is nonsense when it could just be resolved by scrapping the play-offs.

??? Surely if the club season were to be reduced from 30 or so club games (22 league, 6 euro plus playoffs with both etc) to 16-20 the superstars would be able to play in most if not all games. Is that difficult to understand?

Personally I'd like to scrap all current competitions and replace with 1 europe wide, 40 team strong (take the NFL model, 2 conferences split into 4 pools of 5) competition playing 18-20 high quality max intensity games with a SF-F-superbowl-esq cross conference finale. But it'd never happen.

You said that you would like to see fewer games of a higher standard and then in the next sentence you said that you would like to see superstars week in week out, so if there are fewer games how would this be acheivable is my point.

I think a Eruopean league is just farcical tbh and I wouldn't be in support of a two tier system either.

Mikey Brown wrote:So, literally just inheriting all the problems of the super touch league (credit to whoever said that originally) along with their discarded teams?

Not really, that would leave us with 2 more teams so 14, same as the French, quite acheivable.

Numbers wrote:

Ross. S wrote:

Numbers wrote:

Which is it Ross?

On a personal level I think that a split league is nonsense when it could just be resolved by scrapping the play-offs.

??? Surely if the club season were to be reduced from 30 or so club games (22 league, 6 euro plus playoffs with both etc) to 16-20 the superstars would be able to play in most if not all games. Is that difficult to understand?

Personally I'd like to scrap all current competitions and replace with 1 europe wide, 40 team strong (take the NFL model, 2 conferences split into 4 pools of 5) competition playing 18-20 high quality max intensity games with a SF-F-superbowl-esq cross conference finale. But it'd never happen.

You said that you would like to see fewer games of a higher standard and then in the next sentence you said that you would like to see superstars week in week out, so if there are fewer games how would this be acheivable is my point.

I think a Eruopean league is just farcical tbh and I wouldn't be in support of a two tier system either.

Top players play what, 15-20 games a season? so in a 30 game season they're missing quite often. Reduce the season to <20 games and the top players can play every week without risking burn-out. Top players, playing every game would increase the quality, no? Increased quality and star power would (shoud?) increase fan turn out which should cover loss of revenue from less games.