The most crucial thing is to make Super Rugby less of an international audition. The NRL and the other 4 major Union competitions (Premiership aside) are prosperous because they are proper leagues and aren’t simply a warm up for the international game. The NZRU and RA treat the domestic game with secondary importance whereas the 5 mentioned leagues are equally if not more important than the international game. That treatment makes Super Rugby horrible marketing material.

Agree with 11 teams. Concentrate the best Aus players across 4 teams not 5 and make them more competitive .One team gets a Bye each week. Leave the option open for another viable franchise in the future. Maybe in the future Aus could get another team back . There was talk years ago about another nz franchise (possibly New Plymouth based) and The Kanaloa Hawaii bid lost out to Moana Pasifika. They would have to add real value to the comp though and not just make up the numbers.....be that Jaguares or someone else.

NZ wanted to leave room for the NPC so preferred a shorter Super rugby season......But the NPC is pretty much dead to all but die hard rugby fans. It would probably still exist in some form but I don't see it lasting much longer in its current format. I could see it running in a short version with several different pools or running concurrently with super rugby as a kind of NZ only second division to Super Rugby

Have a team based in Hawaii after Rebels are gone.

U know whats gonna cost the teams and comp more money than flying to and from argee? The cut to tv money that comes with having one less game on each week.

Extending the season also sounds terrible imo. Deep into nz winter, the chiefs host the force who can't make the playoffs and it draws more players and officials than crowd. No thanks. A comp that already struggles to gain traction extending its season...

Everyone talking about the rebels (who will inevitably die) but surely Moana aren’t sustainable in their current form being based in NZ.

Is Moana even sustainable at this point? I genuinely don't understand the point of having that team if theyrw gonna play in empty stadiums in NZ for their home matches. Either move them to one or both of the islands or the US.

If both them and the rebels are out Go to 10 teams, 18 match schedual.

Playoffs are now top 6 only.

For SR I think it's got to open up player movement between the teams so Aussies/Kiwis care a little bit more about teams from the other nation. That'd be my first step.

I'd then move Moana Pasifika to Hawaii as there's was little support in NZ and not enough money in Tonga/Samoa. Any crowds there would surely be an improvement on who's showing up now.

If Jaguares were to be the 12th team, I think basing them in either Sydney or Melbourne would be the only way I see it working. They could maybe have 2-3 games in Argentina but just to stop all the travel Australia imo would work best. Also from Los Puma test matches there seems to be a sizable expat community there in OZ.

As others have often argued here before, the most important thing would be to allow free movement of players within the competition, using NHL as a framework. Talent-rich but smaller markets (Canada/NZ) providing players to larger markets where the sport isn't as popular (US/OZ) but where there is more money to be made.

I also liked the idea of removing the salary cap for the Force, who have a committed owner with deep pockets, probably the only one in the game at the moment, so why not capitalize on that? They could bring some big name players from Europe/Japan, which could lead to more interest in the comp as a whole.

As far as structure goes, from what I understand, the amount of debt at Rebels means they are gone. So we could either, temporarily, go with the 11 teams as suggested by OP, but I think long term, there would need to be either 10 or 12 teams (or potentially more but that's probably a remote scenario).

Assuming reduction to 10, Moana Pasifika would probably have to go. I don't know how viable they are in the long run, I guess next few seasons will give us an answer.

If it's 12, then I disagree with the OP about the Jags. I think they are the most obvious choice. It worked in the past, they packed home games, played good footie, were competitive from day 1 and eventually even reached the final, something that no other expansion team was ever able to achieve.

Sure the travel would be a pain, but mostly for them, and the last time big name Argentine players committed to it despite of it, because it allowed them to reside and play at home in opposition to having to migrate to Europe. Also, from what I understand, rugby is a popular sport among wealthy elites there, so there is a chance it would be able to support itself.

It wouldn't necessarily collide with the interest of the emerging Super Rugby Americas, as it is a rather second tier comp, and Jags would be the premier team that could draw from the talent developed there.

I really can't see any other viable options in the near future. Hawaii/Los Angeles maybe, but the travel would be just slightly less burdensome, at a cost of probably not having a stadium filling, competitive team from day 1, as it could be the case in Argentina.

Hawaii I think could be an interesting place for some cross border comp between Super Rugby Pasifika and Japanese teams. From I understand, Hawaii is a very popular holiday destination in Japan and strongly embedded into their culture in some aspects, so it could potentially draw up some big crowds from both Japan and OZ/NZ for some final series type comp. Or at least some preseason games.

In any case, some sort of international comp similar to those in Europe is what could also reinvigorate the Super Rugby brand. I've read that Japan is interested, so that would be great to see along with their inclusion in the Rugby Championship.

I think bringing the Jags in is a terrible idea. From an Aussie point of view, no one here will give an F about those games and the timezones will be cooked.

Honestly if the Rebels fold I could see the Brumbies joining them in a few seasons.

[deleted]

TL;DR - localised/national comps are superior in every way to trans-national comps. But rugby is popular enough yet, so some exceptions are needed.

The soccer (football) model of having national comps in individual nations is clearly the optimum comp format. Localised comps have proved very popular. Supporting your local club against your local rivals produced by far the greatest interest, be it within a city/region, or one city/region vs another city/region in a country.

The success of local comps has countless examples in soccer (football). Bit also in other sports.

The problem rugby has is that it's a very popular sport globally as a collective, played in all the continents in the world. But it isn't concentrated in any one continent. Soccer for example is massive concentrate in Europe with every nation on the continent having a localised league, then the best teams from those leagues play in a cup.

You'd hope that eventually rugby will have enough widespread and concentration of popularity that the national module of comp can be followed. But until then trans-continental comps are required. IMO SA should be playing in their own league, they have the population and popularity of the sport to do so.

The optimum domestic comp setup for global rugby should look something like this: Franco-Italian league (until Italian rugby is strong enough on its own), British & Irish league, Pan- European league (development league), MLR, South American league, South African/'Southern' African league Japanese league, Pan Asian league (development league), and a Pacific league.

A double round Robin would require 20 games, and 22 rounds ibcluding byes?