Super Rugby: The Conference System

With the Final of the Super Rugby season now behind us - after a rain-soaked win for the Hurricanes from Wellington, New Zealand - there is a growing resentment among spectators towards the perceived complications of qualification and teams' routes to the finals.

In fact, Stormers captain Schalk Burger recently had his say after his side were dumped out of the competition. It was the first time all season that the Stormers had faced a New Zealand team; something coach Robbie Fleck asserted would be a key part of the game. Without the test of competing with the best sides all year round, how can spectators be enticed to attend, and more importantly, how can players continue their development?

This is especially true of the new franchises entering the competition. They need to be tested against the challenges of as many teams as possible over the course of a season if they are to develop. Playing against the same sides twice in a limited number of fixtures will not provide the experiences necessary for these franchises to develop their players to compete at the highest level – this is where the round-robin tournament is surely more advantageous?

For those unaware of the changes to Super Rugby, the conference system was introduced for this season with the addition of three news teams: South African side the Kings, Argentina’s Jaguars and Japan’s Sunwolves. The format, which had previously been a round-robin tournament with each team playing each other once during the season, was changed to resemble something closer to that of the NFL in America – home and away fixtures against all the teams in your conference, and then a series of playoff games with a seeding format.

It is this seeding format that has drawn the most criticism. Ultimately, the conference system needs to ensure that all teams have the same, fair chance to reach the finals, and face the same tests throughout the season. A team may win its conference and be granted the home field advantage despite having a worse points total when compared to a side that came second or even third in another conference. This does mean that each conference is represented in the finals, which was the intended goal commercially.

There is also an argument that certain teams have a far easier route to the finals series due to the weaker teams in their conferences (as has been perceived with the Stormers this year). The Waratahs had already had their two byes by week six of the season; hardly ideal for the later rounds.

In the round-robin system of previous years, everyone plays each other once, ensuring fair competition throughout the season and having the top teams earning the right to enter the playoffs. The conference system worked last season due to their being three conferences with an equal number of teams – there were wildcard playoff games involving the lowest seeded conference winner, before the higher seeded teams entered at the semi-final stages.

One suggestion has been to alter the format to that of the NRL and NFL playoffs. This would see the ‘wildcard’ qualifiers play each other in the first round, with the conference winners only entering the playoffs a week later. This might mean having more teams in the playoffs, but there is certainly a financial motivation for this.

It is this financial motivation that played a part in the competition format changing in the first place. The perception is that the conference system will allow continued expansion into new regions with the growth of the game globally – especially after the sevens competition will reach a greater audience at the Olympics in Rio de Janiero later this year. This obviously means that commercial revenues can continue to grow whilst the game also expands into new regions – will this become a detriment to the competition in its current format though; with lopsided games and easier conferences? Let us hope that rugby doesn’t go the way of other popular sports and become a cash cow for people with little knowledge or particular care for the game.

Growth of the game is important, especially now it that it can truly be called a global sport. Japan and Argentina were obvious choices – natural growth in Argentina and the upcoming World Cup in Japan – but perhaps other developing rugby nations such as Uruguay or Namibia (perennial world cup attendees both) deserved a franchise rather than adding a sixth South African team, for example.

The fear that the Super Rugby competition will be watered down and become less of a spectacle is certainly real. Ultimately the conference system is a good compromise in terms of player movement, revenue growth and reaching new markets. It also provides stability for new teams entering the tournament. However, the round-robin system is most rugby fans’ preferred choice, with strong competition all year round and teams from across the southern hemisphere competing and developing. The key is to keep it simple to follow.

Filed under: Super Rugby
Written by: Michael Kerr
Follow: @michaelj_kerr · @therugbymag