By Donnie Buchanan
May 31st 2008 @ 2:31am
Loading ...Why only four semi-finalists in Super 14?
An NRL club has a 50% chance of making the finals — eight finalists from 16 teams. That’s a decent incentive to want to stay in the hunt.
However, a Super 14 team has only a 29% chance: four finalists from 14 teams. This does not compute to the objective of expansion and keeping the players from joining the overseas exodus.
I realise the powers-that-be are concerned about player burnout but look at the revenues raised through hosting semi-finals. You may find that this windfall is what will keep the coffers adequate and the receivers at bay. (So we don’t end up with the current financial crisis hitting NRL).
The NRL has the McIntyre system for finals. Week 1 is four games, week 2 and 3 have 2 major games and then there is the final. That is four weekends of 9 matches that could go near capacity for crowd attendance.
And what do we have in Super 14? Two weeks of three matches. We have seen the crowds at South Africa, 40,000 plus, Australia, 25,000 plus and New Zealand 25,000 plus. Surely, we need more.
This is a serious amount of money that can go a long way toward player retention, grass roots administration and hiring the best employees for the strategic positioning of the game amongst the rivalry of Australia’s sporting landscape.
Here is an option worth considering
Week 1 - Number 1 with a week off. Deserve a rest.
Week 1 - 2 plays 7 (Game 1) 3 plays 6 (Game 2) and 4 plays 5 (Game 3).
Week 2 – winner Game 1 V minor premiers (Game 4)
Winner Game 2 V winner Game 3 (Game 5)
Week 3 – Grand Final (Winner Games 4 versus Game 5) Game 6
This leads to six games, not three. All things being equal, it has the possibility of doubling finals revenue and increasing the fan base for our code. We need to compete with our AFL and NRL counterparts, we need more money.
We need more market share to retain all our talent.
Like this article? Please spread the word about the Roar to your mates.
Free Email updates:
Our daily emails are only sent if there is content for the sport or that author. You can subscribe to multiple daily emails; or get the daily Roar email with all our content in it. We value privacy. More...
(8)
mudskipper said | May 31st 2008 @ 11:12am | Report comment
Donnie Buchanan… agreed…the Super 14 needs transformation. It just comes to a sudden end. I would like to see a longer Super 14 season and let the national representatives go do their duties throughout the season. Even have a couple of comp bye weeks would be a possibility…
A Super 14 comp finishing at the end of May is just not enough for this rugby fanatic… Donnie Buchanan… agreed…the Super 14 needs transformation. It just comes to a sudden end. I would like to see a longer Super 14 season and let the national representatives go do their duties throughout the season. Even have a couple of comp bye weeks. A Super 14 comp finishing at the end of May is just not enough for this rugby fanatic…
A Super 14 revolution is required….
Paul said | May 31st 2008 @ 12:19pm | Report comment
I agree that it should be expanded, but by one or maybe two teams. The NRL type of finals? In Super 14 it is a HUGE effort to make it into the finals, the idea that you can lose more games than win and still make the finals series in the NRL to me is an absolute joke.
I mean, and this may have happened i dont know, but how many times has a team that has come 8th on the ladder ended up wining the premiership? (happy if someone has an answer to that)
Maybe its a little too hard to make the semis in Super 14 at the moment but its barely a finals series when half the bloody comp is involved
Donnie Buchanan said | May 31st 2008 @ 1:23pm | Report comment
Paul
I agreee with the fact that 8th placed and above having an opportunity to win the GF can be a bit of a joke.
Its just that we are running out of $$ to retain our talent and its getting to be just as farcical.
It may be the way we NEED to head, with no obvious choice but a wider revenue raising finals series.
If the ALL Blacks do an ‘inventory analysis’ on turnover rates for players between say 1989- 1998 and another from 1999- 2008 and compare the two, it would probably shock us all.
Spiro Zavos said | May 31st 2008 @ 9:46pm | Report comment
As the final whistle blew on a terrific Super 14 final, son number 2 said to me, ‘what a pity it’s all over, so soon.’ I had the same thought at the same time. Something like the system put forward by Donnie is needed. Next season, please. Is SANZAR listening. Forget about the pleasure it’ll give spectators across the three nations. It will provide SANZAR players with more experience in one-off matches where if you lose you’re out, something that was lacking with the Wallabies and All Blacks in France in the 2007 RWC. Or was it that Robbie Deans wasn’t coaching NZ?
sheek said | June 1st 2008 @ 6:32am | Report comment
Donnie Buchanan,
I don’t agree 50% of teams should qualify for the play-offs. However, the 8 team finals system is convenient for both AFL & NRL. Even the RWC has only 8 quarter-finalists out of 20. The FIFAWC has 8 quarter-finalists out of 32.
Nor do I agree that only 4 out of 14 Super teams should contest the play-offs. 6 would be better, rather than your suggestion of 7. Realistically, if you finish 7th or even 6th in a season, you’re just making up the finals numbers.
My suggestion (6 team play-offs), home ground advantage always to highest placed team:
Week 1:
Game A - 3 plays 6
Game B - 4 plays 5
Week 2:
Game C - 1 plays winner Game B
Game D - 2 plays winner Game A
Week 3:
Game E - winner C plays winner Game D
The weakness is whether the teams finishing 1 & 2 would consider having a bye in the first week of olay-offs, an advantage or not. generally, teams prefer to keep playing week in, week out.
Alternately, with the huge travel of Super teams between South Africa & New Zealand via Australia, perhaps they might appreciate the break.
The final 5 system is also good, but requires 6 games over 4 weekends. A team finishing 4 or 5, or the loser of the 2 v 3 game, would require 4 games to win the title. Perhaps that’s one game (& one weekend) too many.
Donnie Buchanan said | June 1st 2008 @ 10:39am | Report comment
Sheek
I like that finals format you suggested.
I believe 3 games is not near enough and a 50% chance of making the cut could lower the standard (could).
It will be interesting to see what format SANZAR applies for the following years, hopefully some of them are reading this.
Ryan said | June 1st 2008 @ 3:40pm | Report comment
What is wrong with a classic top 5 system?
The top two ranked teams play the Major Semi-Final, with the winner progressing straight to and hosting the Grand Final. On the same weekend, the third and fourth ranked teams contest the Minor Semi-Final, which sees the losing side eliminated whilst the winner plays off against the loser of the Major Semi-Final in the Preliminary Final the following weekend. The winner of this match also progresses to the Grand Final.
mtngry said | June 1st 2008 @ 9:18pm | Report comment
Personally I like the relegation/promotion system. So maybe two divisions of 10 teams each ( get Japan, Pacific or Argentina involved). top four go to finals, bottom four get relegated. Top four of second division get promoted… Who knows.. we may even get some games on free to air.