It has had more facelifts than Zsa Zsa Gabor. The Super rugby competition is about to undergo another change in a couple of years as it morphs into the Super 17. Details are sketchy about how it will operate, but rugby writer Steve Hepburn looks at what could make the best possible competition.
Running the Super rugby competition must be like working in a spaghetti finishing plant.
Whatever way you turn, it is a can of worms.
With any idea to fiddle with the competition, there is a not inconsiderable downside.
Increase the games. It is too taxing on the players.
Decrease the games and the cheques from the broadcasters, which fund the sport, will inevitably get smaller.
Play more derbies. Sorry, coaches do not like it.
Play fewer derbies. Ah, no-one will turn up to watch and the franchises will struggle to pay players.
Leave South Africa out of it. Good idea that, they provide nearly two-thirds of the money.
Cut down the travel. Easy, just make the Indian Ocean a bit smaller. And the Pacific while you are at it as the Argentinians enter the competition.
So there is no simple way to make this thing a 100% winner for everyone.
Solving the Palestinian land issue would seem a walk in the park compared to keeping everyone happy in this competition.
Perhaps it should go back to the simple idea of everyone playing everyone.
That would give 16 rounds, the same as now, and then end up with a top six, which would then play out as they currently do. The top six would be exactly that, no guarantees for teams from any one country to qualify.
Sounds simple enough but the downside of this is the fewer derbies which fans like, and the long travel.
Like who in the right mind is going to book in a three-week block at Forsyth Barr Stadium when the Force, Lions and the new Argentinian mob visit. The Highlanders marketing team will be working overtime to sell that.
Imagine going to Africa for three weeks and then having to stop in Perth on the way back ? Hardly builds excitment back home when teams are offshore for a month.
There has been much talk about compromise around this new proposal and with compromise you usually create a whole lot of nothing. Shades of the camel said to be a horse designed by a committee.
It is going to be confusing but perhaps a bit of the old and a bit of the new can be combined to get something relevant for both fans and players.
Play six games against teams from their own countries. A sort of one and a-half rounds of local derbies, or three home games each against local teams.
Then play four teams each from the other countries and all but one team will play the Argentinian side, whatever it is called.
Sure it is confusing, and may not work. But one more derby game will help fill the coffers. It may be unfair on some teams but when were draws ever fair?And in the end does it really matter?New Zealand Rugby Union boss Steve Tew was already talking last week about the evolution of the competition.
Before we know it the Super 20 will be in action, there will be conference play and the Highlanders will be the curtain-raiser for a Yankees-Red Sox match at Yankees Stadium.
Super rugby
The future
History
1996: 12 teams - 5 from NZ, 4 from SA, 3 from Aus
2006: 14 teams - 5 from NZ, 4 from SA, 4 from Aus
2011: 15 teams- 5 from NZ, 5 from SA, 5 from Aus
2016: (?) 17 teams - 5 from NZ, 6 from SA, 5 from Aus, 1 team from Argentina
How it could work
• A round of 15 games
• New Zealand, Australia and South African teams: play six local derbies, eight games (four each) against teams from other countries, and against Argentinian side.
• Argentinian team plays 15 games against all of the teams but one. Extra South African team plays extra derby match.
• Top-six format as is now but no guarantee to any country of getting team into finals.
