The Quirk

2 X Super 8’s = Super 16

Written by Ryan Quirk (The Quirk)

Posted in :Currie Cup, Original Content, Reader Submissions, Super 14, Super Rugby on 1 Feb 2012 at 15:13
Tagged with : , ,

Right, I’ve thought long and hard about just how those idiots SARU and SANZAR can crowbar the EP Kinglets into Superugby and I think I’ve cracked it.

Step one; scrap the current conference system.

Step two; introduce the new format, which will work as follows.

  1. There will be two conferences or leagues (Much like that sport they play in America with the helmets and shoulder pads… ) They should call them the Southern Conference and the Other Southern Conference.
  2. Teams for each of the conferences will be selected by a computer, into which an extremely complicated logarithm will be programmed to ensure that the conferences will have an equal number of side from each country.
  3. Once the conferences are decided, the teams in each will play each other in the round robin format used in the good old days before this new Superugby nonsense.
  4. The top 4 teams in each conference will contest the semi-semi finals and finals.
  5. The winners of each conference will then play each other in a SUPER SUPER final!
  6. Winner takes all, thanks for coming, goodbye, see you next year!

The advantages of this style of tournament are many, the biggest one being that the competition won’t have to run from February until August, which is just ridiculous.  It also means that the new Rugby Championship will actually feature some of the better players who would otherwise be exhausted, injured or dead, and that the Currie Cup can continue to be the premier domestic competition in South Africa.


  • 16 /2=8 teams per conference.

    8 teams divided by 3 countries = 2,66666 (One team is gonna be pissed at not being allowed a full squad.)

  • Comment 1, posted at 01.02.12 17:16:18 by KSA Shark © Reply
    KSA Shark ©
  • Firstly… 5 does not divide in half.

    Also, it’s a terrible idea to divide them into conferences. This is not the NFL… and if there weren’t 32 teams in the NFL (which came about partly because of a merger) they would be playing everybody once before the play-offs. The smartest and fairest way of doing it. A conference would not work in Super Rugby where rivalries are already in place… imagine the Crusaders not playing the Blues, or the Stormers not playing the Bullls, or the Waratahs not playing the Reds, ridiculous.

  • Comment 2, posted at 01.02.12 17:17:07 by hendrikp Reply
  • @KSA Shark © (Comment 1) :

    I think he was meaning 3 South African sides in each… and then forgot that Australia & New Zealand have 5 each, meaning one conference would need 3 Australian teams, the other 3 New Zealand teams.

    That’s another thing that would make it unfair.

  • Comment 3, posted at 01.02.12 17:19:09 by hendrikp Reply
  • Ideal format for us.

    Super 16 – goes back to old format where everybody plays each other ONCE during the round robin… rotating between home and away each year.

    New Zealand & Australia’s disadvantage in having to spend 3 weeks in SA (every year, as opposed to every 2nd year) is offset by them not having to travel far to face each other – short flight between NZ & OZ. SA sides have to spend almost double that in Australasia already.

    They then go straight to semi’s… none of this top 6 or top 8 nonsense which is a waste of time. The top sides compete for the trophy.

  • Comment 4, posted at 01.02.12 17:26:04 by hendrikp Reply
  • @hendrikp (Comment 4) : For me ever since the days that the Super 10 got replaced by the S12 and followed by the S14, there has been this issue of unbalanced home and away games. Love or hate the S15 format, at least it’s the first time since 1995 that each team has the same no. of home and away games which equals the playing fields a lot more.

    Ur S16 format is great in the sense that each team plays all others but sucks in that 8 teams have a 7:8 home game ratio.

  • Comment 5, posted at 01.02.12 17:52:17 by beet Reply
    Friend of Sharksworld
  • @hendrikp (Comment 4) : Nice thing about it tho. All Aus and NZ teams wud have to suffer thru a longish 3 games in SA tour again (was the case for some in S14) :mrgreen:

  • Comment 6, posted at 01.02.12 17:54:41 by beet Reply
    Friend of Sharksworld
  • @hendrikp (Comment 4) :

    I agree, having conferences and derbies are good but we potentially could see the Sharks vs Stormers (or any other SA team for that matter) face each other around 6 times in a year (if you factor in Currie Cup/Superrugby semis and finals). I would prefer it going to Super 16, with 15 rounds ensuring less rugby and more time for international coaches to prep.
    Then the Auzzies can play in a league with Argentinian, Samoan and Tongan teams (or whoever else) whilst the Currie Cup and NZ domesic competition is on, ensuring rugby in these shores is developed, and Australia gets a much needed domestic rugby competition.

  • Comment 7, posted at 01.02.12 17:57:47 by Pat Reply

  • At the moment in SR all teams are in for a min 16 games – 8 Conference + 8 overseas teams.

    So best expansion in my view is Super 17. Bring in the Kings and North Harbour or Japan. Go with Hendrik’s good idea of each team to play every other team = 8 homes, 8 road games = 16 games still just like current SR.

    Someone else can figure out the playoff scenario :mrgreen:

  • Comment 8, posted at 01.02.12 18:01:16 by beet Reply
    Friend of Sharksworld
  • @beet (Comment 8) :

    If there were to be another NZ team, it would be Hawkes Bay. Napier-Hastings being just marginally smaller then Dunedin.

    Or dare I say… Adelaide. Rugby wouldn’t ever take off there though.

  • Comment 9, posted at 01.02.12 18:13:45 by hendrikp Reply

  • @hendrikp (Comment 9) : what happened to the annual give the Highlanders franchise to North Harbour movement? :mrgreen:

    I just thought of 1 major weakness in my all teams play each other S17 plan. Some SA teams wud have 6 games in Australasia. Not good? 🙁

  • Comment 10, posted at 01.02.12 18:45:49 by beet Reply
    Friend of Sharksworld
  • @KSA Shark © (Comment 1) : 😆

  • Comment 11, posted at 01.02.12 19:51:35 by Franshark Reply
  • Just put the competition in divisions.
    Elite Division

    Championship Division
    Western Force

    Problem solved, then the top 2 play bottom to in promotion/relegation matches

  • Comment 12, posted at 01.02.12 20:19:12 by Mutley Reply
  • @Mutley (Comment 12) : Yes, I like that idea.

  • Comment 13, posted at 01.02.12 20:45:33 by MysticShark Reply
    Competition Winner
  • And while we are busy with changes, can we please bring back the missing ‘r’ in Superugby.

  • Comment 14, posted at 01.02.12 20:46:23 by MysticShark Reply
    Competition Winner
  • @MysticShark (Comment 14) :

    In south africa we will call it E-Supa Rugby !!!!!

  • Comment 15, posted at 01.02.12 21:35:53 by Zibbie Reply
    Friend of SharksworldCompetition Winner
  • @Mutley (Comment 12) :

    Problem is say the Brumbies and Force win the Championship division and the Sharks/Bulls get relegated you could potentially (of course this is hypotethical) have
    Rebels, Lions, Sharks, Bulls, Kings, Cheetahs all in one group and making it very unfair for Rebels who would have to spend the whole time basically on tour in SA, with the SA teams spending one week in Australia.
    If it is going to conference type format, there needs to be seedings based on location (as in Heineken Cup where it is very difficult for a team from the same league to meet one another). Having promotion/relegation is not feasible in this regard. If one takes the example of Ruan Pienaar for instance, a big factor in his extension of his Ulster contract is because his wife is expecting a baby and did not want him going back to play in the Superrugby tournament (as he would be away for long periods).

  • Comment 16, posted at 01.02.12 21:55:16 by Pat Reply

  • @Mutley (Comment 12) : SANZAR countries and the teams they represent may not be equal in strength but they are all equally greedy :mrgreen:

    Unless this proposal is accompanied by a financial arrangement that somehow suits all parties concerned, I can’t see anyone buy into the idea of possibly having to play in a 2nd tier compo where it will be that much harder to generate revenue via sponsors, gate takings and maybe even TV broadcast earnings, when it’s discovered that everyone loves the elite league but barely has time for the rejects league. To top it off it looks like the elite league will have more games = even more opport to earn more money than the rejects. :mrgreen:

  • Comment 17, posted at 01.02.12 22:04:26 by beet Reply
    Friend of Sharksworld
  • @Pat (Comment 16) : :mrgreen: :mrgreen: :mrgreen: I love it! The potential logistical nightmare

  • Comment 18, posted at 01.02.12 22:08:16 by beet Reply
    Friend of Sharksworld
  • @beet (Comment 18) :

    I know, some of the players might need to buy 2nd homes in Aus/NZ.

  • Comment 19, posted at 01.02.12 22:12:41 by Pat Reply

  • Firstly, point 2 is obviously made with tongue very firmly in cheek.

    Secondly, I like the idea a lot. Two sets of local derbies make CC great. It makes Superugby super long en pretty boring by the end of the season.

  • Comment 20, posted at 01.02.12 23:54:54 by vanmartin Reply
    Friend of Sharksworld Author
  • @hendrikp (Comment 3) : That is indeed what i meant. And you’re right, it isn’t ideal, but then neither is having 16 teams smashing each other to bits for 6 months of the year. I love rugby, as does everyone on this site, but it’s just getting too much. At this rate we’ll have a super 28 in 2018, they’ll play from February to November and there won’t be any time for test matches…

  • Comment 21, posted at 02.02.12 07:22:37 by The Quirk Reply
    The Quirk
  • @The Quirk (Comment 21) : I disagree 🙂 . If SR stays within the SANZAR countries, the number of financially viable teams that can participate has just about reached its ceiling – it seems like SA and NZ only have one regional team each to add to the mix. I think 16 games in a 6-month season is manageable. Smashing each other is what rugby is all about.

    What’s really coming to the fore here above with the proposals is that the conference system is best way to overcome a SA teams having to spend ridiculous periods of time in Australasia.

    All the years prior to SR with S12 and S14, SA teams met 3 times a year incl the CC. I agree that a 4th meeting is a bit much.

    Anyway this is all pointless, SANZAR have rejected the inclusion of a 6th SA team. :mrgreen:

  • Comment 22, posted at 02.02.12 08:11:24 by beet Reply
    Friend of Sharksworld
  • Let North Harbour join NZ, Kings join SA, and anyone join AUS (Japan maybe?), 6 teams per country. They then play an internal round robin, 5 games per team in total. Top 3 of each go through to a 9 team round robin, another 8 games per team, 13 total so far. Then the classic 4plays1 3plays2, and the final. Max 15 games per team

  • Comment 23, posted at 02.02.12 08:39:36 by Die Kriek Reply

  • I like what you have here. For a start, Step 1 is ablsalutelt briliant. Why have no one thought of thise before?

    But the equal conference thing where you do not have a premier and a first devision thingy is good. It gives both conferences equal show and exclusivity. Otherwise people just whatch the best conference and the other one becomes the vodacom cup or the currie cup first devision which no one cares about.

  • Comment 24, posted at 02.02.12 09:50:49 by Viking Reply

Add Comment

You must be logged in to post a comment.