I would have loved to have seen the Stormers v Highlanders nailbiter in the early hours of Sunday morning (NZ time) in Cape Town but I'm not one to go to bed early only to get up to the sound of an alarm clock and sleepwalk my way through work that day.
You see, to the majority of rugby lovers - who nowadays seem to be flocking to the flat-screen TV screens rather then going through the turnstiles of myriad stadiums - it hardly matters who is raking in more moolah in the dysfunctional Sanzar arrangement.
Never mind how ardent the supporters, nothing turns them off a game more than an opposition who look like they want to be somewhere else.
The fact is none of the South African franchises has won on New Zealand soil this season.
The South African Rugby Union (Saru) hold the purse strings in the triumvirate.
The Brumbies and the Force have claimed a victory each here against the Hurricanes and Highlanders, respectively, but the Australian Rugby Union are the weakest political and economic link in a trinity that is increasingly likely to become entities in their own right.
No doubt, certain players' groups and media advocated cutting loose South Africa when suggestions of an 18-team competition from 2016 surfaced.
The Springboks certainly didn't lose their impetus during the isolation of Apartheid era so playing fewer games against New Zealand and Australia shouldn't be an issue.
The penny has dropped with a resounding assurance that the countries can evolve in their own conferences, almost in the mould of the National Basketball Association (NBA) where teams in major regions have a rumble to see who will go to the playoffs.
The NBA's Eastern and Western Conferences have 15 teams competing in three divisions of five teams each. While more complex, 16 playoff qualifiers are whittled down to four to play in semifinals before the grand final.
It sounds like Super Rugby will be a less complex beast although the more astute fans will latch on to why some teams will be in the matrix.
For instance, Saru is under political pressure to include a franchise, the Kings, to fulfil the quota of black and coloured players in its two conferences of four teams.
South Africa will have six franchises. A franchise from Argentina and an Asian one, most likely from Japan, will make up the eight.
In New Zealand, for argument's sake, disenchanted regions from the Hurricanes franchise can simply walk across to another franchise.
Taranaki did this season to the Chiefs' catchment and will host the Blues at Yarrow Stadium, New Plymouth, in a 7.35pm kick-off on Friday.
One can argue a team such as the Hawke's Bay Rugby Union, if they fail to find traction with the Canes, may be capable of creating their own Super Rugby franchise.
Heineken Cup contenders Saracens, a professional union who reportedly have South African economic interests, may throw their hat into the ring.
The administrators will, of course, talk about expanding the viewership and await the stamp of approval from broadcasters.
Japan, for example, will be a lucrative inclusion.
However, how good will teams from South America or Asia be?
If quality oppositions are imperative to make Super Rugby eye candy than how come New Zealand and Australia have overlooked a Pacific Island franchise?
The prudent would have helped create a template for a Pacific Island/Japan/Hong Kong franchise to be based in either New Zealand and/or Australia to minimise travelling costs.
How exciting would it be to have open, running footy jolt Super Rugby out of its slumber?
More importantly, the Asian component can bring its business acumen to the table to help balance the Islanders' books.
That should quell NZRU CEO Steve Tew's fears on viability of Pacific Island rugby.
Besides, history shows Japan has bolstered its national team over the years with predominantly Island imports.
For the Asian nation to continue doing that in Super Rugby will be tantamount to the tail wagging the dog.
It's a slap in the face for the Islands, which are teeming with talent who have increasingly forged a rapport with European nations through academies or are flirting with rugby league.
Super Rugby was always going to metamorphose into an ogre.
It was Super 12 in its embryonic stage in 1996 before gestating to 14 in 2006 and 15 five years later.
To call it Super Rugby was clever but many fans, and even the media, still call it 15.
Will it remain Super Rugby in 2016?
It may be advisable because nothing will turn off the faithful more than the figure "18" that the ogre has three more offsprings, especially if they lack effervescence.
With careers on the line, players and coaches will always be conservative but fans will forever yearn for entertainment.
