Super Rugby

How would you fix Super Rugby?



Super rugby Aotearoa : Home | SR Aotearoa Fixtures | Super rugby AU : Home | SR AU Fixtures |


New Zealand and Australian talk shows have held discussions on how to fix our once great Super Rugby tournament.

Let us know below how you think Super Rugby should be fixed.

Recommended for you


  1. Corne Botha

    14th March 2017 at 9:28 pm

    I would like too have a qualification series between weak sides, Rebels , Cheetahs,Blues ,Warathas ,Kings and Sunwolves .

    The team that end up first and second in the table qualify for the Super Rugby season .

  2. Campbell Bolton-Hampton

    14th March 2017 at 9:37 pm

    I’d say drop the Sunwolves, Jaguares, Kings, and Rebels. Though the first 2 won’t be dropped due to the amount of money you make from them so that’s it’s own problem by itself. But currently, drop 2 South African Teams, definitely the Kings and possibly the Cheetahs, then drop one Australian team, I’d say the Rebels because they aren’t a very good team anyway, or maybe the force, but they have done better than the Rebels have. It also means that South Africa and Australia will have a better quality of rugby which makes the Rugby Championship a whole lot better in terms of quality.

  3. FlapjackJoe

    14th March 2017 at 11:23 pm

    Split the Super Rugby competition into 2 divisions of 9 teams each.

    Each division plays home and away, with the top two progressing to the final.

    2 teams promoted/relegated between the two divisions after the season.

  4. FlapjackJoe

    15th March 2017 at 12:07 am

    Actually, a three-division model might even work better.

    Have a top division with eight teams, to play each other home and away (14 games in total).

    Below that, have two divisions of five teams (this can be regionalised to save travel costs, i.e. a west and east split), to play each other home and away (8 games in total per team).

    The bottom two in the top tier gets relegated, the two lower tier group winners get promoted.

  5. Brian

    15th March 2017 at 2:12 am

    I believe that we need a 2 tier system. Bearing in mind that we want to expand Rugby Internationally.Why not have an A & B section.Four sides each from the three countries that started the competition in the A section,the balance in the B section.After ONE season Promotion,relegation involving top 2 in B section & bottom 2 in A section.This would provide far more competitive games for all & be a much better crowd pleasing spectacle.Every player wants a chance to WIN,NOT get beaten by 40 points or more nearly every game.A player learns far more from a close competitive game than he does losing by a huge margin.All Teams play Home & away to make it a genuinely fair competition.

    • Bob Lane

      15th March 2017 at 3:03 am

      I agree that a 2 tier system would work now, and that game attendances and TV ratings would not drop. Promotion and demotion of the 2 top and 2 bottom teams respectively would be essential. And each team in a tier plays every other team in that tier. This will allow for the further expansion of southern hemisphere rugby.

      • Francois

        17th March 2017 at 7:50 am

        @ Brian and @Bob Lane: Best suggestion I’ve come across thus far.

  6. Johann lourens

    15th March 2017 at 5:49 am

    Go back to Super 12. Then have a second division for the other 6 sides and maybe include a pacific side like Tonga or Samoa to make up 8 sides. After the year let the bottom team from the Super 12 drop to the second division and the winner of the second division gets promoted to the Super 12.

  7. Mark

    15th March 2017 at 6:37 am

    I have always been concerned that games in RSA are not viewable in Aust/NZ – unless you’re a night owl. – and vice versa. I understand that plans are underway for a structured world club system? That may take the problem away?
    Surely, RSA teams must be looking to play in Europe. The time zones for all games are supporter friendly and that is where the money is.
    That leaves Australasia, Asia, and the pacific islands. The Americas present similar time zone issues, but financial reasons may see them join with the rest of us.
    To be viable at the current quality, we need an Asian audience and Asian teams. That is where the financial future stands.

    • BRIGGO

      15th March 2017 at 3:05 pm

      Get back to SXV round robin. Asia inc. JPN like soccer/football. Get off that bandwagon. In JPN at mom & spent 2 days on route in Aoyama area — could not find any thing any interest or any TV that shows Rugby so Sun Wolves are a joke. Out go the broke Force & Kings & hopefully Wolves, possibly Rebels/Brumbies merger n S14 — like that as well. FYI the Force have been flying via Singapore to get to the republic n saw the Caines last year in Sydney Airport en-route to SA on the QF Syd-Jo’burg flight so who cares about Perth as a pit stop

  8. Albert

    15th March 2017 at 12:29 pm

    All teams play each other, no playoffs or final. Tinker with the bonus points. Finals is in anyway always unfarely favoring the teams that don’t have travel.

  9. GusTee

    15th March 2017 at 2:29 pm

    I know that its all about money but if commonsense could prevail then the existing super rugby structure should be abandoned in favour of a more region orientated approach.

    Oz, NZ and the Pacific island nations (including Japan) should establish a new super rugby like competition that carries forward the existing Oz and NZ teams and adds teams like Japan, Tonga, Fiji etc. At least our region would benefit and the game would grow amongst those with an affinity to the nations of our region/time zones.

    Currently the South Africans seem to be given the inside running to the competition to the detriment of Oz in particular.

    In the 70/80’s South Africa was boycotted because of political intervention in sport by the government of the day. Now we are told that the current SA government is doing the same and yet no action is taken. Coupled with that we are told that they use financial muscle to bludgeon the decision making in their favour.

    I say that its time to look after our own back yard and let our ANZAC sense fair play (and rugby) rule the day.

    • Francois

      17th March 2017 at 7:53 am

      @GusTee: I’m a South African and if I had to put myself in the shoes of a NZ/Aus supporter, I’d feel the same way.

  10. Richard lyons

    15th March 2017 at 9:49 pm

    Have 4 Sa sides, stormers, sharks bulls and lions, sorry it’s bye bye for cheetahs and the poorly funded kings. The Australians would lose one side either force or rebels. Make more sense to have rebels, as Melbourne is a bigger city, and as a sports city would beat perth, sorry perth been their on holiday and it was okay.the NZ sides would keep their 5, with the added Pacific islands playing either in north Auckland or one of the islands. Time for the sunwolves to say bye as well, a good idea. Keep the jaguares for now.which leaves a super 15 competition

  11. Agriff

    15th March 2017 at 9:59 pm

    It would be tragic if either the force or brumbies were to be lost. So why not merge them to become the western brumbies? A force to be reckoned with!

    • Shannon

      16th March 2017 at 9:26 pm

      That made me laugh a lot more it should have.

  12. Frosty

    15th March 2017 at 10:33 pm

    The issue with the Japanese team at the moment is that there isn’t sufficient backing by the Japan Rugby Union, nor good organisation. They could be competitive if their systems are improved. You can’t expect to win off two weeks training in this competition. You also can’t expect to win if you have a side that no one wants to coach. Eddie Jones wasn’t keen, and neither was Jamie Joseph. Two quality coaches bow out and a no-name coaching wise replaces them. Also they need to stop playing games in Singapore because no one goes. Would hopefully help reduce travel a little too, not having to travel for home games.

    South Africa and Australia are stretched too thin for their player base, and SA’s major issues concern the weak currency and mass player drain. Add to that the political issues and you have a lot of players that probably do still want to play for the Boks, but they don’t really want to play in Super Rugby, so their teams at that level become weak. Would have been really interesting to see how Eddie Jones would have influenced the Stormers, if at all.

    Australian players are chasing better money overseas but also sides that win more. Imagine how hard it would be to turn out for a side year-in, year-out that only scrapes into the playoffs then at national level fails to beat the AB’s, which is what they’re unfortunately always measured against because it geographically makes sense for us to play each other all the time. So NZ needs to help invest in the Aussie game, because a competitive Aussie game will help decrease the player drain. Doubt the Rebels will be lost because they have massive private backing. Brumbies should stay because they’ve actually been competitive and made the playoffs. Rebels also win a little more consistently than the Force, at least in recent seasons.

    Jaguares should stay because Argentina are proving to be more and more powerful the longer they’re in. Helping invest in growing their game could result in more teams in Argentina and that’s a really good thing. Their only issues are player composure during games and developing lower tier players, which takes time, and getting used to the travel. Remember they almost beat the Chiefs in their debut year, one of Super Rugby’s better sides over the last few years.

    What I would change:
    Option 1;
    Super 16 – minus Kings and Force
    Round robin where each team plays each other once, and with two weeks off where no one plays as well as the byes, to help ease travel load, and try and get it sorted so that the heaviest travel journeys follow this period
    Top 6 playoff format based on position on the table, no winning of conference
    Then to appease broadcasters who want finals in their home territory, I would suggest following the Euro model of rotating country base for hosting finals per year, which could work. So year 1 could be NZ, year 2 Aus, then year 3 SA. Per game of the playoffs (QFs, SFs) rotate it around the regions, then have the final at a big stadium. At least then the Blues fans will be able to go to a final. For that to work I think teams would need a week off before the QFs to do the travel, and you’d need to make each venue neutral.

    Option 2;
    Super 16 with the same teams cut, but split into four pools of four. Each season there’s a draw done at the start, with each country split so you at most only have two from the same place. Then you can play home and away, but with only six games all up from pool play, you can help stretch out things such as travel. Then you can at least have a four week playoff system with the top two teams from each pool.

    Option 3:
    Go back to Super 15, and the conference system.
    Remove: Kings, Cheetahs and the Force. Sunwolves become a part of the Aussie conference, based on logistics.
    Follow the same format as before, with Argentina being the fifth “SA” team.

    Sorry for such a long post but they’re just my thoughts!

  13. Tull

    16th March 2017 at 4:57 am

    There is a bigger issue then super rugby going on. Rugby is dying at grass roots level. I play rugby on the sunshine coast and in the space of less then 15 years the competition has gone from a thriving 8 team comp down to this year it’s a struggling 4 team comp. We don’t have enough referee’s to go around even though there are less games. It looks like the same thing is filtering all the way up to super rugby level.

    The brand of rugby in Australia needs to change. We don’t compete with league, soccer or AFL and while we are not competing the gap is getting wider. The other 3 codes are all in your face all over TV. Kids can watch all the other codes free to air all weekend. They can easily follow their favourite players and teams and keep in tune with what’s going on. I can even watch 2 live games of netball back to back on saturday nights. What’s my options for rugby? One super rugby game replayed on a sunday morning.

    Rugby is the hardest sport to follow in Australia and i don’t see any plans in the future for it to get any better. At the moment SANZAR tell us what to do. Australian rugby has no say because we rely on the revenue they supply us to keep australian rugby going. If they tell us we can only have 3 teams what are we going to do? we are not going to say piss off we’ll go start our own comp. We’ll say thank you very much for letting us have 3 teams.

    I would love it if we got rid of the South African teams and just play a Super rugby comp with only New Zealand and Austrailian teams. I’m Australian. I enjoy watching the Australian teams and New Zealand teams and I’m not too interested in the South African teams. I’m sure South African supporters feel the same way about Astralian games. I think that should be the long term 10 – 15 year plan.

    In the mean time there needs to be games on free to air so kids cn watch and support their teams and follow. At the moment I think grass roots rugby is more important than super rugby or international rugby. If the kids stop playing rugby then in 10 years time we are going to be in a much worse position then we are now.

  14. Andre de Waal

    16th March 2017 at 10:17 am

    I would suggest splitting the competition into three Tiers (Premiership, Championship and Development) with 8 teams in each division. This would require six new teams to join the Development Division (North America, Pacific Islands, Asia, Europe, South America, NEwhere)

    Essentially each team would play the others in the same division (home and away) and the end of the season, the top 4 of the Premiership would contest the Semi’s and then Grand Final. The same weekend as the Semi Finals The bottom three would play promotion/relegation matches between the top three of the Championship.

    In fact I would say that 8th place in the Premiership is relegated and replaced by 1st place in the Championship. 7th place in the Premiership should play a promotion/relegation match at the home of the 2nd place in the Championship. 6th place in the Premiership should play a promotion/relegation match at their Home against 3rd place in the Championship. The bottom three of the Championship, would do the same with the top three of the Development division. The bottom of the Development division can play any new teams that wanted to join the tournament after going through a tender process (?)

    This way the need to tap into new markets is built into the format, while still maintaining the Quality vs Quality aspect that fans are crying out for. Giving teams that are lower on the log something to play for would also add to the excitement/viewership numbers.

  15. Jean-Pierre Jordaan

    16th March 2017 at 11:00 am

    Have the original 12 teams and keep Jaguares and Sunwolves. Hence Lions/Cheetahs merge to become the Cats and Brumbies/Rebels merge together.

    Then you’ll have 14 teams who play each other in round robin like in the past Super 14 comps.

    Top 6 teams go through to playoffs. Best two teams automatically qualify for semis whilst teams 3-6 play wildcard round.

    Optional: The remaining 8 teams who don’t qualify for playoffs can play knockout for a lesser trophy… e.g. The Super Shield like they do in Rugby Sevens. Givng the lower ranked teams something to play for.

  16. Clinton

    16th March 2017 at 2:11 pm

    12. Teams play Following a QF,SF, Final. NZ – chiefs, Highlanders,Crusaders, Blues…. AUS- brumbies, warratahs,reds, (rebel/force combo) ..SA – sharks,stormers, Bulls, lions/cheetahs combo. A draw happen whereby teams from either country plays two of Eg. NZ1 and NZ 2 play two SA teams, and 2 AUS teams. ( prelims) Then the NZ1 nz2 nz3 nz4 play each other, and the same for Sa and aus. Now they have played 8games each, and a quarter, semi and final occurs with a week delay before the finals. Teams will alternate the year after to face the other non played teams so that it balances out and the top teams don’t always play and minimize each other chances of gaining more points. This way, travel is minimized, and the top 4 ceded teams have earned to travel less.

  17. Jay du Plessis

    16th March 2017 at 5:25 pm

    Get rid of the Kings, Sunwolves and Rebels/or/Force and bring back the round robin format.

  18. Shannon

    16th March 2017 at 9:32 pm

    Some great ideas above. I posted this elsewhere but I think the best option for all parties as well as expansion would be for Australia, New Zealand, South Africa and Argentina to run their own domestic competitions.

    Then run a 4 or possibly 8 team Finals series with the winner or top 2 in each competition.

    It would put a lot more emphasis on developing our own teams, players and fan bases for the teams and would make all the games a lot more accessible to new supporters.

  19. werner

    17th March 2017 at 7:56 am

    Group A Group B Group C

    A1 Stormers N1 Crusaders As1 Brumbies
    N2 Chiefs As2 Warratahs A2 Lions
    As3 Reds A3 Bulls N3 Hurricanes
    A4 Cheetahs N4 Blues As4 Force
    N5 Highlanders As5 Rebels A5 Jaguars
    A6 Sunwolves A7 Sharks A8 Kings

    In Groups Teams play home & Away
    in group Teams ( 10 Games each )
    5 Home & 5 Away

    Top 2 Teams in Each Group Go A1 vs 2nd -3rd placed Q1 Thru to Quater finals B1 vs C2 Q2 then 2 best placed 3rd placed teams C1 vs A2 Q3 go thru to Quarter finals B2 vs 1st -3rd plced Q4

    Semi finals winner of Q finals Q1 vs Q4 SF1 Q2 vs Q3 SF2

    Finals Neutral Event

    this is just a sample

  20. Ho Thai Kin

    17th March 2017 at 8:44 am

    Get rid of one SA team and Sunwolves, back to 16 teams with 15 round robin matches, that would be the fairness system. Top 8 qualify for quarter-finals. It should be purely southern hemisphere rugby competition only.

  21. Tony

    17th March 2017 at 8:55 am

    Go back to the old days like super 10. just play each team once!
    means no team gets an easy draw. fair chance for all sides to make the finals. means only the best teams make the finals.

  22. zodi

    17th March 2017 at 11:25 am

    I think go back to regardless of what country or conference your in. Who ever had most points should be top of table. Not fair on teams who have more points yet on the full table they could be below a weaker team. Unlucky for lots of teams like last year the crusaders would have had home advantage in the playoffs if the rules where how they were before 2016&17. Please change it. Zanzar make dum rules. And get rid of a few teams and also our pasific brothers deserve a team in superrugby . Pasific united or something.and good luck too my crusader team. Loyalist fan forever.

  23. Emile

    17th March 2017 at 11:35 am

    Look into the future, not the past. The way to go forward and help popularize rugby around the world is to expand SuperRugby by integrating it with the European Champions Cup to form a worldwide professional club championship. SuperRugby already covers half the globe and at least one SuperRugby game has been played in London, so that would not be such a big leap at all. Also, sooner rather than later, lose the franchise format and replace it with qualification from the local professional competitions, as South Africa did in the early professional era, and as is the practice in Europe. It is quite boring to watch the same teams every year and generally expect the same performance from them. Also, personally I would be excited to watch Auckland Rugby play against the Blue Bulls, but I have ZERO interest in watching the Auckland-based All-Black training squad (i.e. the Blues) play against the Dunedin-based All-Black training squad (i.e. the Highlanders). And please keep the local derbies only in the local competitions (Currie Cup, Mitre 10 Cup, NRC); an international competition like SuperRugby should feature only international clashes. I am saying this as someone who had absolutely no background in rugby before discovering it 6 years ago, so I hope my comment would help understand how best to present rugby to the non-rugby world.

  24. Badjack

    17th March 2017 at 8:43 pm

    If left at 18 teams I would have two divisions (based on current form, not on geography). 10/8 preferable or 9/9. Teams play each other twice on home and away basis.
    Bottom 3 sides from Div 1 relegated each year with top 3 sides from Div 2 promoted.
    No play offs between divisions but final 4 for each Div with winner of Div1 and a winner of Div 2.

  25. zorbasch

    18th March 2017 at 6:10 am

    18 teams
    Two non-regional pools of 9 (A,B)
    Round robin, home and away
    Top 4 each pool for quarters ((1A-4B,2B-3A),(1B-4A,2A-3B) etc
    End of season, each home union luckydip for placement in separate pools for following season
    No mid-season lay off for internationals

  26. Pauln2

    18th March 2017 at 6:33 am

    Stop trying to expand. It has been diluted too much already. It’s no longer Super. The crowds at most venues tell you that.

    Cut the dead wood out. Sorry to tell you this, some fans, but that means Kings, Cheetahs, Sunwolves, Force and Rebels all go. They add nothing to anything except airline profits and the Sunwolves don’t actually bring much money into the broadcasting agreement.

    Reduce, not increase the travel component. There’s far too much as it is. The Jaguares are a problem because South America is not near any other rugby playing country. Hard one to fix.

    North America should never, never, never be considered as a venue for yet another weak expansion franchise.

    I agree the travel factor is a huge and probably too influential factor in the playoffs. Have a Super Bowl-style final, at a pre-nominated venue advised at least 12 months out. Then have a clear week before the final.

    Actually, I think Super rugby in its original concept is dead in the water. It’s been weakened too much to recover. Maybe it’s time to tear it down and start over.

  27. Graville Abrahams

    18th March 2017 at 12:57 pm

    Well, before changing the structure of how teams play, or how many get added or removed… Why dont we change the points system first?

    We all know that a win in 4, with four or more tries is 5…

    BUT… Lets say your favourite team is Hurricanes, Stormers, or Brumbies, needs 6, or even 10, points to advance to the knock-out stages, and they face a team like Sunwolves, Force or Kings. You would obviously be looking forward to alot of tries, entertaining rugby, BUT it wont help them advance anyway.
    So, why not keep that gate open by restructuring the points system?

    My idea has long been to have 1 extra point for four tries, and after achieving four tries, 1 point again for the next two tries, and again for the next two after that and so on… Dont you think that would give all teams a better chance, more commited rugby, leading to entertaining SUPERXV, even more than it is now.

    I mentioned this to Breakdown, the rugby show in NZ, before.

    Lets try this WORLD RUGBY.

    Graville Abrahams

  28. Martin

    18th March 2017 at 6:33 pm

    Aa it was before the conferences. Each team play each other once. For the finals I would do it as follows:-

    3 plays 4 at home winner plays 2 at 2’s ground and winner of that match plays 1 at 1’s ground. No guaranteed play off places for each country.

    If you need to reduce teams then get rid of the Sunwolves, Rebels, Force, Kings, Jaguars in that order.

  29. Morice Glick

    20th March 2017 at 7:08 pm

    Today rugby is played at a faster pace than say 5-10 years ago. Playing fields have become “smaller.” Scrap #’s 6 and 7,the scrums will bind better and repetitive collapsing and wheeling will be reduced. More exciting running rugby will return to the game due to more space (4 men less on the field of play ) in which to maneuver. The powers that be should try this exercise with a few trial runs or friendly games and observe the outcome. The loss of the #’s 6 and 7 will fill the # 8 positions. What have you got to lose. maybe if it turns out a success the stands will fill and revenue will increase

  30. nig

    24th March 2017 at 2:30 am

    go back to super 12…everybody plays each other twice (22 weeks)then semi’s
    …1st plays 3rd…2nd plays 4th…..done.
    for the teams that miss out the first year at this format
    bottom two teams play two wanna-be teams…(they play current teams once each)…after these two games, teams with the best points standing are in the super 12 next year.
    this way if your team 11/12 at the bottom of the table getting towards the end of the season you still have to play your arse off to stay.
    the wanna-be teams would be hungry to get in so these games should be worth watching….maybe

  31. Thiago

    25th March 2017 at 1:06 am

    Guys, I’m not from aus/nz/rsa so I can’t understand why you all have national provincial tournaments and the teams in super rugby aren’t the same as them..
    Why can’t the best placed currie cup, nrc and mitre cup teams play a super rugby tournament instead of these franchises, it would add much depth and emotion to the game, the thrill of classification to super rugby would be awesome.

    • Joe King

      30th March 2017 at 6:09 am


  32. Augustus

    11th June 2017 at 4:58 pm

    I believe fixing super rugby is rather straightforward and can be down in a few major/minor changes, these changes are for the current 18 team format and I hope in future this format will result in 18 teams in super rugby once again.
    1. First off the conferences need to be sorted out, instead of having 4 conferences with unequal number of teams we instead have 3 conferences, the South African conference, the Australian conference plus the Sunwolves and the New Zealand conference plus the Jaguares. With this conference system there are 6 teams across all conferences plus the Sunwolves will be playing there away games in Australia meaning they will not have to travel as much as they did before while in the Africa 1 conference.
    2. With this new conference system now in place comes the fixture format. Instead of having teams play other teams from opposing conferences on a regular basis instead teams should play only teams inside there own conference. This will result in less travel time as a whole, for example this year the South African super rugby team the Stormers travelled all the way to New Zealand to play a number of there games, this is highly inefficient as it costs a great deal of money to pay for one team with all there players, coaches and various other members of staff to travel over 7,000 miles. However under this new conference system I am proposing the Stormers will only have to travel 813 miles at most, less then quadruple the distance they have to travel to play New Zealand opposition, a huge difference in terms of travelling to play games and obviously saves huge sums of money for the travelling teams. Another factor that strengthens this proposal is that playing against teams from the same country as yours, it creates a sense of a ‘derby’ between teams, some obvious examples would be the Bulls and Lions derby in Gauteng, South Africa and the Reds and Waratahs derby in New South Wales, Australia. With these derbies there comes a sense of drama in the form of rivalries between teams, this unexpectedly will create a heightened amount of interest within fans and people who don’t really support or watch rugby often hence there will be higher attendances for games and more viewership figures on television and other streaming devices hence more revenue will be generated and more potential sponsors will be interested in investing into super rugby.
    3. The playoffs. For the regular season each team will play other teams from there conference once amounting to 5 games each per team, the top two teams from each conference will be promoted into the 1st tier premier conference, the middle two teams from each conference will be drafted into the 2nd tier championship conference and the bottom two teams from each conference will be relegated to the 3rd tier bowl conference. Once this is done, each team will play every other team in the new conferences once again but this time one of the games each team plays will be at a neutral venue, the neutral venue will serve to promote the super rugby brand across other parts of the world, an example of this would be two premier teams playing in Soldier Field in Chicago, USA, or two championship teams playing at the Allianz Arena in Munich, Germany. Moving on the top 2 teams from the championship and bowl conferences will play the bottom 2 teams of the premier and championship conferences, these playoffs will provide and opportunity to ‘even out’ each conference with teams of equal quality. For example a team like the Highlanders which may finish 3rd in the New Zealand Conference may be of higher quality then a the top two teams of the Australian or South African conferences yet they will be in the premier conference while they are in the championship conference, this playoff system counters this problem and gets teams of equal quality in the same conference. Finally with the promotion playoffs done the teams from each conference will play each other again with the same neutral venue system in place again, once this is down the top four teams from each conference will play each other in playoffs, two semi finals and a final for each conference, the winner of the premier conference will win the trophy and be crowned champions of Super rugby, the winner of the championship conference will win the plate and the winner of the bowl conference will win the bowl. In total a team can only expect to play a maximum of 18 games a season, the same amount of games currently a team can possibly play with the current system meaning that this new proposed system will not increase the timespan of the super rugby season but it will generate more revenue and interest and reduce the costs as well.
    This format is highly effective as it does not leave out the lower quality teams from the system and keeps sustained interest in all teams in super rugby as no matter how badly a team does in the first 5 games, they still have a chance of winning silverware in the premier, championship or playoff conferences. In the past on the other hand, if a team was near the bottom of there conference, there would be little motivation for them to keep trying to play high quality rugby due to the little chance of winning silverware and the lack of relegation, this system that I have proposed changes this however thus the quality of rugby we should expect to be higher.
    So in conclusion I hope that I have persuaded you to accept this new format style for the super rugby system or elements of it at least and I hope that you have enjoyed reading this proposal.

  33. Hayden

    25th June 2017 at 7:30 am

    There needs to be a Super Bowl like game between the European champ & the Super League Champ

Leave a Reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.