By Adrian Warren
May 20th 2009 @ 6:49am
View The Roar's top rugby union writers.
Love new art, fashion, music? Check out Aussie site which unearths all things cool and creative.
Join Australia’s community for solo & micro business at FlyingSolo.com.au
Related coverage
New Super rugby details announced
Australian rugby will never again go without a Super rugby finalist as part of a revamped SANZAR schedule, which will include a three week competition break plus a new look Tri-Nations format.
For just the third time in Super history no Australian teams made the finals in 2009, but a proposed new format unveiled on Tuesday [...]
This article is over 2000 days old and has been trimmed.
Going to the Waratahs v Brumbies blockbuster at ANZ Stadium, Saturday 24 April? If you're keen to meet up with other Roarers, register you interest and we'll keep you informed on the place to meet. Register now.
Get Australia's best Rugby opinion emailed daily.
Like this content? Buzz it up!
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...
(274)
Keith said | May 20th 2009 @ 7:44am | Report comment
Pretty tough on the NZ conference
reds fan said | May 20th 2009 @ 8:04am | Report comment
How so?
mitzter said | May 20th 2009 @ 8:19am | Report comment
Still no argentina!?! COME on!!
Keith said | May 20th 2009 @ 8:49am | Report comment
Reds fan,
Because the NZ conference has more evenly matched teams which will take points off one another.
The SA conference has two weak sides which the likes of the Bulls and Sharks will be able to maul on a regular basis.
The Oz conference has one weak team, maybe two after the Force is finished imploding. Also, whoever the new team is will likely take a few years to get going.
The NZ conference only has only one genuine struggler.
This will mean the points will be shared out more evenly in the NZ conference. So NZ teams are at a disadvantage when they come to the “round robin” (which is not really a round robin).
If for instance the Bulls miss out on playing two strong sides, people would be able to put question marks over their place in the playoffs. That might or might not be justified in any given year, but it’s not good that people would have the opportunity.
This could be partially solved by making the points earned in the home conference games not transferable to the “round robin”. That’ could mean dead rubbers early in the season though, and that’s bad.
I know the conference system works fine in US sport, and people accept that certain conferences/ divisions are stronger than others. But it’s new to NZ sport (and I think to Oz and SA sport?) and there could be lots of people who question it.
Personally I like the fact that we’ve got more “local derbies” and a longer playoff and I’m happy to wait and see how this system pans out down here.
What’s important now is getting the 15th team right.
Bay35Pablo said | May 20th 2009 @ 9:09am | Report comment
Sounds like it was designed by a committee all right. Set out to design a race horse and got a camel.
This tender process for the 15th side is likely to get nasty. The ARU should want Melbourne, but watch as everyone bigs up their meeting the thresholds in a pack of padding.
I am a bit disappointed in not playing every NZ and SA side, but it does reduce the travel.
All in all, clearly a lot of horse trading and compromise took place. So no one will be completely happy. Cue whingers …
Sam Taulelei said | May 20th 2009 @ 9:09am | Report comment
Keith has raised some valid points with the new conference system. At the moment NZ has three performing teams, one underperformer and another still another season away from developing into a more consistent and competitive team. So the conference system will have a different impact for NZ than say Australia and SA where the spread of the teams is more extreme. Things may level out over time and I suspect that may have been another driver behind establishing a conference system as Super rugby has been dominated by Kiwi teams for so long.
The expanded finals series is overdue and with each conference guaranteed to provide one semifinalist and two knockout games to determine the final semifinalists it will add more to the intrigue and drama, much like the final weekend this year. The format is similar to the old five team finals series the NRL and will make it harder for there to be a final featuring two teams from the same conference which from a broadcasting perspective is more attractive when you have a competition between three countries.
I like the fact they’ve separated the Tri Nations tests in September from Bledisloe tests in October so they become almost a series in its own right like it used to be. That will be easier to sell to the wider public than having inordinate long breaks between them like last years series. What impact this will have on the Currie Cup and NPC competitions remains to be seen.
Hemjay said | May 20th 2009 @ 9:25am | Report comment
Keith,
Finally I agree with you on something.
The NZ teams will be the most hard done by in this format and maybe that is part of the reasoning for the set up of the conferences and finals format. Could crowds be wavering in Australia and NZ because Kiwi teams are more often than not featured in the finals and we all know we are more than likely to win it.
I am and have always been strongly opposed to pity finalists which I see the top placed team from each conference to be.
This always brings me to question. How will they pick the best place team?
Will it be solely from the performance in the home and away series? If so there is the danger that the conference winner will coast through the 8 foreign team phases as they are secured the finals berth already so won’t really care about winning just protecting their players for the finals series. this in itself would discredit the tournament and one would have to question the validity of fair finals.
Also if it was the confernce winner lets take this years Australian teams as an example. The Force went through undefeated against their Countrymen yet finished lower than the Tahs and Brumbies after the full tournament. Does that mean the Force as winners of the Country conference be awarded a finals spot although they slipped up in the so called round robin is it fair that the Brumbies would miss out in this scenario. I think it is unfair.
The NZ pool is clearly harder than any of the other conferences but this could in some way Keith work to our advantage as we should have the best prepared teams from the intensity that the home and away series will give us.
As for the defined dates for Tri-nations that has to be a good thing right. I am assumming that on alternative years NZ will only play one game in the republic and Australia play two. Vice versa for Africa in NZ and Aus.
keith the most compelling point you make to me is it will not be a fair round robin when you are actually not playing the entire field. What is to say that the Hurricanes again play everyone bar the Bulls and the Waratahs in the 8 team foreign round after all in this years table they are the two top foreign teams. Once again providing an oppurtunity for the finals to be distorted.
Darwin Stubby said | May 20th 2009 @ 9:27am | Report comment
Keith’s right by guaranteeing the leading conference team a spot there’s a massive potential to reward mediocrity …
if the 5th side is Australain it’ll definitely weaken the existing 4 teams and I’d say that conference will end up with 1 team of strength (most probably the Waratahs) and 4 weak teams … talks cheap but recuiting isn’t that easy otherwise it would have been done by now .. and realistically outside of Elsom the overseas Aussies are either past their sell by date or decidely second tier … at least Tahs fans won’t be able to moan any longer about being robbed of a finals spot ..
.. as for the final placing how do they work ? … do the conference winners get seeded 1, 2, 3 …. even if when things open up one may end up say 5th on the final table ?? … as Bay35 says designed by a committee ..
The other thing is what impact will this have on the Wallabies – by going down this route they’ve lost constant weekly exposure to the harder, better teams and players from NZ and SA … Aust rugby has punched above it’s weight for some time now on the back of improved competition from Super rugby … this scheme reverses that somewhat …
Yikes said | May 20th 2009 @ 9:34am | Report comment
Well, it’s pretty clear that Australia compromised in lots of areas, despite opinions here on the Roar over the last couple of weeks claiming that O’Neill would not.
- Early start to tournament
- 3 week bye window in June
- Playing only 8 of the 10 teams not in your conference instead of all 10
- Starting the 3N every year in SA, to allow them to get a good start (has been an issue in the past – SA have already lost the 3N by the time they go back to SA and win their remaining games).
- Finishing SA in the 3N quickly so their guys can go back to Currie Cup.
This structure should also make the travel for SA teams much, much, much, much easier if I read this correctly. They will only play 4 away games against NZ and Aus opposition. So their road trip will be maximum 4 games.
It seems to me that JON has got the lion’s share of what he wanted. Kudos.
Pippinu said | May 20th 2009 @ 9:38am | Report comment
This is an absolute winner – a terrific idea, congrats to SANZAR for coming up with the format.
Why I think it’s a winner:
1. more games between the teams from the same country – home and away – that’s a big increase in interest and attendance right there
2. guaranteed representation in finals series for each country maintains level of interest through the finals series
3. increase in home games, and even amount of home games for all teams, more equitable
It’s illogical to look at the strength of all teams now and immediatley conclude that some countries are disadvantaged – that will change over 10 years, 20 years, 30 years, 50 years.
It’s a conference system, 5 teams in each (which looks like just the right number), so it’s perfectly acceptable to have the top team qualify for the finals series, becuase a large percentage of the games are amongst the teams of each conference (50% to be exact).
The next best performed teams get to go through.
It would be an extremely rare case that, say, a 3rd placed team in a particular conference was a much better performing team than a top team from the other two conferences – very rare indeed.
I’m aware of other professional competitions that have qualifying systems that can mean that a lower placed team at the end of the year may qualify ahead of a higher placed team (as a theoretical possibility).
For instance, in the Eerstedivisie, the season is split into six equal segments of six games each, and the best performing team of each segment qualifies for the finals series – with the possibility that a team can blitz one segment and absolutely dive in the remainder of the season.
The point is that there are a myriad ways of looking at how you structure a competition and determine participation in finals, and we shouldn’t be put of by an idea that is a bit out of the ordinary.
Once again, full marks to SANZAR for a great concept.
Sam Taulelei said | May 20th 2009 @ 9:54am | Report comment
Hemjay
Agree, how will the conference winners be placed as semifinalists? Can only assume that the points system will still differentiate the conference winners and if they’re on equal points? Points for and against which will favour conferences with the weaker sides or those teams that play interconference games against those weaker sides.
Dare I say it but SANZAR may have done the right thing in breathing new life into a tired format and extending the super rugby season. It may not be perfect and there may be some teething problems but I applaud them for doing something about it.
Bay35Pablo said | May 20th 2009 @ 9:55am | Report comment
I agree the new format will breathe new life into the comp. there
will be some teething problems as always, but they will get sorted
out.
Ever the cynic, my pick is to watch for the following:
1. JON to push at the next TV deal renewal for the comp to expand
again, in that all teams play all the others, to add a few more
rounds. SAF to fight to defend Currie Cup, again. Slowly, slowly is
JON’s plan I suspect.
2. In the long term, adding another conference from Japan, Pac
Islands and USA/Canada &/or Argentina. the cross conference games will
reduce again, but bolting conference onto the comp from now on will be
an easier way of expanding the comp.
The revenue being shared equally between the countries is a huge
step, as previously SAF got the lion’s share. Big win for Australia
which has gottn the smallest pie piece to date. However, the deal
being split equally may be just the S14 and 3N, and not the NPC and
Currie Cups, which would explain that.
sheek said | May 20th 2009 @ 10:03am | Report comment
Keith/Sam/Hemjay,
You guys are drawing long bows here, claiming the NZ franchises will be disadvantaged.
Each franchise plays 8 matches against fellow countrymen, & 10 matches against teams from the other two countries. So for a start, there’s 10 non-Kiwi matches to pile up points against!
Now there is also a final 6 system, with the top team in each conference guaranteed their place, with the remaining 3 coming from any conference. NZ could still end up with 3 finalists out of 6.
Kiwis bemoaning the evenness of their teams; Saffies bemoaning the tyranny of distance: Aussies bemoaning God knows what. Nothing’s perfect in an imperfect world & there’s a lot worse things to contemplate.
Let’s just get on with it!
Hemjay said | May 20th 2009 @ 10:05am | Report comment
Pippnu,
I disagree that the third placed team from one country will not be better than the best placed team from another.
This years table in itself cancels out your argument three of the top four are from one country and those three are all above the best placed team from another country even though amid some controversy.
The conferences are weighted differently and it will be hardest to win the NZ conference first and foremost due to our teams being more evenly matched maybe with the exception of the Highlanders. I would say the Australian conference on this years standings alone would be the next hardest with SA taking up the rear. It seems to me that this has been designed to limit the influence of a certain country in the Super and Tri-Nations concept. The advantage that teams like Australia and NZ did have on some years of playing at home first is stripped in favour of the Boks letting them have home advantage while building their team is a slight flaw and unfairly tips the scales in SA favour. Actually as has been pointed out by Yikes it seems Australia and NZ have conceded on just about everything and played right into the yarpies hands. It looks to me as the NZRU and ARU were bluffed out of the game.
The only positive really of all this as a NZ supporter is that each country will take an even share from the tournament.
I stand by my stance on pity finals and I believe that this tournament has now created a very uneven competition that will favour the weaker unions getting a shot at the finals. But like everything in life nothing is perfect it will be intersting to see how it all comes about.
reds fan said | May 20th 2009 @ 10:07am | Report comment
From the way I read the press releases, rankings will all be calculated on total points earned against all teams from all countries.
So using this years final table standings, the conference winners would be SA – Bulls, NZ – Chiefs, OZ – Waratahs. The next three wildcards (as they are calling them) would be Hurricanes, Crusaders, Sharks. The Waratahs, as the bottom placed conference winner would be in the first weekends knock out phase.
Which is the top 6 anyway. I think it would be odd for one conference to not have a team make the top 6. I dont think that has happened in Super rugby history. And if it was only in sixth place they’d be the bottom ranked conference winner and be playing in the first weekends knock out round anyway.
Brett McKay said | May 20th 2009 @ 10:09am | Report comment
Hemjay, I’m struggling to get my head around the wildcard scenario for the finals too. I can also see the potential for well performing teams to miss, such as has been outlined above.
Will they run concurrent tables?? One for the inter-conference, and one for the round-robin?? Great the three countries have come together, but clearly a better understanding is required. And is there still potential for this to all go south if the broadcasters don’t like the idea?? What happens then??
One last thing: “..while there could be changes in the ARU’s rules regarding foreign players, those aspiring to play for the Wallabies would still have to participate in the Super tournament, though he didn’t rule out selecting Australians who played in the other two SANZAR countries.” Isn’t that saying the same thing twice??
sheek said | May 20th 2009 @ 10:14am | Report comment
The makeup & location of the 15th super franchise hasn’t been decided upon yet. I believe this decision process will be very nasty, & could even jeopardize the entire concept from getting off the ground.
Firstly, the Saffies will push for the so called Southern Kings to be included. Not only does the SARU want an unobstructed pathway for non-white Saffies, they also want to avoid a confrontation between choosing either the Kings or the Cheetahs.
With its history of racial conflict, the politics of SA rugby are far worse than Australia or NZ. They will fight mean indeed.
Secondly, the choice of an Australian-based team & location is not clear cut either. There are 3 excellent options – Melbourne, Gold Coast or Western Sydney. The ownership is expected to be new & ground-breaking. The team may not be predominately Aussie.
Will Aussie rugby fans accept a Saffie franchise in their conference? Will Aussie rugby fans accept any franchise in their conference that isn’t predominately Australian?
I expect this issue has the potential to be extremely nasty.
reds fan said | May 20th 2009 @ 10:16am | Report comment
Also this talk about which conference is the hardest is a bit much…. Some people have forgotten that only a couple of years ago the Chiefs weren’t too flash…. everything in sport ebbs and flows. As a Reds fan I know this all too well!!
The adoption of conferences is a very different mindset to the way its been run. We’ll just have to get used to it.
There was a comment in one release that they are hoping in future to find the extra two weeks to allow for the full round against teams from other countries. I say take away 2 of the 5 bye weeks they have scheduled!! 5?!?!?!?!
I would love to know if in any of the super12/14’s one country has provided four or more of the final top 6. I doubt it very much.
Justin said | May 20th 2009 @ 10:16am | Report comment
I think you will find JON only wanted one thing – the 15th team. The rest of his wants (mid week Tests, a later start) were of little consequence and gave him the opportunity to look like he was prepared to negotiate (compromise).
He got what he wanted and more…now we will have big game tests later in the year when the NRL and AFL have their finals and quality football from late Feb all the way through the year.
As an Aussie I am very happy.
Pippinu said | May 20th 2009 @ 10:16am | Report comment
Hemjay
That’s this year – it won’t be the case every year – they will be rarities in the long run.
Must people over-complicate things??
The 5 conferences are conceptual only – there will be one table – but we will know at a glance who are the three automatic qualifiers (surely??!!) – the next top three are in!
C’mon people – it’s not that hard!!
Pippinu said | May 20th 2009 @ 10:18am | Report comment
Sheek
the 5th Australian franchise is already decided – the decision is an obvious one.
Rusty said | May 20th 2009 @ 10:18am | Report comment
pretty valid points but there is mention of playing out of conference as well
“Apart from playing each of the other four teams in their conference home and away, sides will also play across conferences
They play eight of the 10 sides in the other two conferences on a home OR away basis
Australian teams, for instance, will play four of the five sides in the NZ conference (two at home, two away), and four of the five sides in the South African conference (two at home, two away) ”
So not entirely clear until an actual schedule is produced
Sam Taulelei said | May 20th 2009 @ 10:22am | Report comment
Sheek
It’s not a long bow at all. Applying this seasons results to the new conference structure. Bulls would represent SA, Chiefs NZ and Waratahs Australia. The next best three teams to qualify via sudden death playoffs would be the Hurricanes, Crusaders and Sharks. So round 1 would see the Crusaders host the Sharks and the winner would then go on to play the Hurricanes and then finishing as fourth placed semifinalist. The most teams from one conference that can ever qualify is two. So we’ll never see a top four finish as we’ve seen in some years with NZ providing three teams. How is that not a disadvantage? How is that not an advantage to Australia or SA? However I am excited about the new format and believe it’s the best thing for Super rugby.
mtngry said | May 20th 2009 @ 10:24am | Report comment
I am hoping for the P.I.R.A, Japanese or Melbourne team as our number 5.
I think if this goes ahead we have to remember it is a compromise, so
we all win something and we all loose something.
and my personal dream would be two Super 12 conferences ( South Africa, namibia, Argentina in one, Australia, Nz, PIRA and East and West japan in the other) with cup plate bowl play offs, but its just a dream.
Justin said | May 20th 2009 @ 10:30am | Report comment
Sam – the top 2 teams (ie this year Bulls and Chiefs) have a by in week one of the finals. Hurricanes would play the Sharks and the Crusaders would play the Tahs then on to semis as usual with Canes playing Chiefs and Bulls playing Crusaders (going on table positions as chance of victory).
Hemjay said | May 20th 2009 @ 10:31am | Report comment
Sheek,
Yes nothing is perfect.
However in 14 years of Super rugby
Semi Finalists from the various countrys are as follows
Clearly showing which country has the hardest competition and where these pity finals could technically affect the finals makeup
NZL – 28 S/F(incl 09), 15finalists 10 titles not including this years finalist obviously
RSA – 15 S/F (inc 09), 4 finalists 1 title and again not including this years final or title
AUS – 13 S/F (inc 09), 7 finalists 2 titles also see above
I can see merits in the new system however I believe that NZ stands to lose the most out all of this.
As it stands NZ has supplied 50% of the semi finalist and over 50% of the Finalists.
Yes it is still possible that 3 NZ teams could still feature at the business end but the finals system is questionable at best. I believe if anything this is to help get the SA teams into the final as it is them who have struggled the most since the inception of Super rugby.
I guess though we will not now how it all works until 2011 but you could guarantee their is going to be even bigger dummy spits should teams finish on the same pts how could we validate teams going through on pts differential when they could arguably have played much superior or inferior opposition?
Like I said as with anything it isn’t perfect I do however see that this system could make things very complicated and it has the potential to get very messy if we have teams on the same pts end of season.
reds fan said | May 20th 2009 @ 10:32am | Report comment
Sam.
If NZ have 4 of the top 6. And the one that is the conference winner is place first or second, we’d then see a first weekend of games being – NZ v NZ, NZ v lowest ranked conference winner. From that there could be two NZ winners. The next weekend would then be NZ v NZ, NZ v other conference winner. There you go, 3 NZ teams in the finals.
You can still have your “domination”. Geez!
Ed said | May 20th 2009 @ 10:37am | Report comment
So is that it for Argentina?
Why not scrap the third game against each nation and bring in ARG in a home-and-away style 4 nations?
3nations – 3 games against each nation – 6 games played by each country – 9 games total for tv
4nations – 2 games against each nation – 6 games played by each country – 12 games total for tv
I would think that a 4nations would have more commercial appeal to JON due to the new market audience in Argentina (40 million) + an extra 3 games to sell to tv. I can’t see them being worried about splitting the money with another country.
reds fan said | May 20th 2009 @ 10:38am | Report comment
I would suggest that with a 6 team finals series, NZ will only improve its finalist percentage. i would envisage that most years there will be three kiwi team in the top 6. SA and OZ certainly wont be winning anymore titles than they have in the past.
reds fan said | May 20th 2009 @ 10:40am | Report comment
i tried finding the end of season table for years past but cant seem to find it on the super14 site…. any idea if they are available?
Sam Taulelei said | May 20th 2009 @ 10:53am | Report comment
Reds fan try this site http://sportsaustralia.com/rugby/2006/super14/ladder.html
To see the results for 2007, 08 and 09 just edit the date in the URL.
Darwin Stubby said | May 20th 2009 @ 10:55am | Report comment
The is one massive advantage to the conference stages – given the time zones the telecast of the quality rugby will be finished in Aust by about 6.30pm … plenty of time to go out after …
reds fan said | May 20th 2009 @ 10:56am | Report comment
Right here is some history. Each years top 6 in order on the table. CW denotes conference winner. W for wildcard. There is only one year where someone in the top 6 is ditched in favour of a CW outside the top 6.
09 – Bulls CW, Chiefs CW, Hurr F, Crus F, Wara CW, Sharks F
08 – Crus CW, Wara CW, Shark CW, Hurr F, Storm F, Blues F
07 – Shark CW, Bulls F, Crus CW, Blues F, Brum CW, Chiefs F
06 – Crus CW, Hurr F, Wara CW, Bulls CW, Shark F, Brum F
05 – Crus CW, Wara CW, Bulls CW, Hurr F, Brum F, Chiefs F
04 – Brum CW, Crus CW, Stormers CW, Chiefs F, Blues F, Bulls F
03 – Blues CW, Crus F, Hurr F, Brum CW, Wara F, Bulls CW
02 – Crus CW, Wara CW, Brum F, High F, REDS F, Blues missout, seventh placed Stormers CW
01- Brum CW, Sharks CW, Lions F, REDS F, High CW, Chiefs F
sheek said | May 20th 2009 @ 11:00am | Report comment
Sam/Hemjay,
The format for the final 6 hasn’t been decided upon yet, as far as I’m aware. At present, we’re speculating on likely scenarios.
Obviously, any finals system, be it F4, F5, F6, or whatever, is going to disadvantage those couple of teams either side of the cut-off bar. They have to work so much harder to make the playoffs, & then the final itself.
I’m sure we would all agree that is precisely as it should be. I still believe NZ has an excellent opportunity to provide 50% of playoff teams more often than not, into the future.
However, I’m equally sure the best team will win the comp, irrespective of which country it comes from. As as happened every year since 1996. Or 1986, if we want to go back to S6 days.
Hemjay said | May 20th 2009 @ 11:00am | Report comment
In fourteen years of super rugby there has only been three season 96,01,06 where NZ has not had three teams inside the top six and only once where we have not had a team feature in the finals altogether. In 2007 on the ill fated world cup campaign 3 NZ franchises still managed to sneak into the top 6 when the ABs players were rested for the first half of the tournament
I just personaly think that it is NZ who stands to lose the most when it comes to finals make ups.
With the conferences I can see many possible flaws but like I have said earlier we will have to wait and see how it all pans out in 2011.
I think people are just voiceing concerns rather than the saying it won’t work
Nick (KIA) said | May 20th 2009 @ 11:00am | Report comment
It’s not actually valid to look at this years table and say that’s where the teams would have finished under the new format – eg The Force this year had 6 wins (Cheetahs, Brumbies, Reds, Tahs, Lions, Highlanders), 6 losses (Blues, Cheifs, Sharks, Hurricanes, Bulls, Stormers) and a draw (Crusaders), for 8th spot.
They would have got twice as many games against teams they beat (all the Aussie ones), and may have not had to play one team from each of the other conferences. Say they missed out on the Hurricanes and the Bulls, and they scored the same results over all the teams they did play – they’d have
9 wins (Cheetahs, Brumbiesx2, Redsx2, Tahsx2, Lions, Highlanders)
4 Losses (Blues, Cheifs, Sharks, Stormers)
1 draw (Crusaders)
If you give the same treatment to the Tahs, their 9 wins (Hurricanes, Cheifs, Highlanders, Reds, Blues, Stormers, Cheetahs, Sharks, Lions) and 4 losses (Brumbies, Crusaders, Bulls, Force), allowing them to miss two losses from overseas teams (Chiefs and Sharks):
10 wins (Hurricanes, Cheifs, Highlanders, Redsx2, Blues, Stormers, Cheetahs, Sharks, Lions)
4 losses (Brumbiesx2, Forcex2)
With bonus points/for and against they’d have probably pipped the Tahs.
It will be interesting to see what happens with the way each union runs it’s teams. Currently, NZ system promotes more even spread of talent relative to Aus and esp SA. This is good for development of players for ABs, but it would make it easier to get a second or third team into the finals if teams were uneven.
I’d say overall a cautious thumbs up though to the changes – more home games, more within country games will create more interest.
reds fan said | May 20th 2009 @ 11:01am | Report comment
the biggest disadvantage is if you come second on the table behind a team from your own country. no reward! you still have to play the first week of knockout. in 2003 the 4th placed brumbies got a free ride to the semi weekend.
Nick (KIA) said | May 20th 2009 @ 11:03am | Report comment
Also, it’s not clear if they’ll keep the same points structure (4 for a win, 2 for a draw and the bonus points)…
sheek said | May 20th 2009 @ 11:05am | Report comment
PIp,
What’s your info? And your source? And its reliability?
The obvious choice is Melbourne, Victoria. But Gold Coast are making a massive push. They claim to be the number 3 ranked rugby union city in Australia, & the private ownership model appeals to the ARU as a test case for future franchises.
Don’t discount Gold Coast. And besides, South Africa want to spoil our party also, by insisting the Southern Kings play in the Aussie conference.
reds fan said | May 20th 2009 @ 11:08am | Report comment
Nick. I get what you are saying… but that is one years results. I would suggest that if the Force played the Oz teams again they wouldn’t clean sweep them. The Hurricanes this year beat 3 of the 4 NZ teams, so you could double their tally. And I’m sure you’ll find that domination in each conference.
Hemjay said | May 20th 2009 @ 11:08am | Report comment
reds fan
what i think some of us are trying to say is that with certain conferences abviously going to be harder than others. It could impact on the final make up come the finals.
Lets take Australia for example the Waratahs could trounce everyone home and away and would desevedly have a huge leap on the bunch. However the force and brumbies may share the spoils say both winning 4 losing 4 so hypothetically they would be on the same points heading into Crossconference where the come up against say the stormers for example who have miraculously won 6 of their 8 home conference games yet are still third. Both the Force and Act hammer the Stormers yet due to the stormers draw where they could possibly meet say Highlanders, Reds and Avoid top teams such as the Tahs and Crusaders Their own Conference while it gives them a head start does it and will it give them a an unfair boost to the finals.
The positives are that we will see more super rugby but a downside is we may not necessarily get the best teams contesting the finals
Pippinu said | May 20th 2009 @ 11:09am | Report comment
Sheek
You know I don’t have a source – I’m jsut expressing what’s obvious to everyone. You’ll know better than me:
1. Melbourne is streaks ahead of both GC and WS for a host of reasons; and
2. O’Neil’s history (with the A-League) makes it pretty clear cut what his preference would be (the one city one team model)
The clincher would be a boardroom conversation going along the following lines: bugger it, let the others have a scrap over GC and WS, why should we get involved.
Sam Taulelei said | May 20th 2009 @ 11:12am | Report comment
Sheek, I agree. I was merely speculating and as such my comments were incorrect (thanks Reds fan for clarifying). Given the amount of criticism that has been levelled at SANZAR, this is one achievement that deserves many plaudits as it wasn’t easy to reach an agreement and negotiate the differing requirements and objectives of each country’s interests.
Nick (KIA) said | May 20th 2009 @ 11:14am | Report comment
I should also say – I’m a NZer, from Christchurch, I think that more games where NZ teams play each other is probably good for our S15 teams and the ABs – better competition than playing cr@ppy Aussie teams and the Saffers other than Bulls and Sharks…
So better competition, more home games, more local derbies, who cares if it’s harder for our boys to make the finals (which it is) – we’re up for it.
Bring on 2011!
Sam Taulelei said | May 20th 2009 @ 11:15am | Report comment
Pip
Interested to hear how Melbourne are “streaks ahead” of Gold Coast and WS? (who are they?)
Justin said | May 20th 2009 @ 11:16am | Report comment
Its difficult to see another SA team under any circumstance. Including them in the AUS conference will see so much unnecessary travel which this conference system is designed to minimise. They would be weak also from reports in SA and cost a bomb to sustain.
Re GC – hard to see QLD being keen on it, crowds are pretty poor in Brisbane so why would they be of a level to sustain a team on the GC? With AFL, NRL and Soccer there shortly there will be little corporate money let alone supporter money to round. It may be an expanding population but its still tiny, less than 600,000 people.
reds fan said | May 20th 2009 @ 11:19am | Report comment
I dont buy this whole “some conferences are harder than others”.
Have a look at the previous finishing positions of teams here http://www.lassen.co.nz/s14tab.php#hrh
if you scroll down you can change the year and it will show you the table.
There is so much movement of teams being great one year and bad the next. It will be hard for everyone every year. You wont know if you who had an easy draw until after the fact. Look at 2001. Crusaders 10th, 2002 Crusaders 1st!
I think declaring the NZ conference the hardest is just revealing a superiority complex if you ask me.
Mark said | May 20th 2009 @ 11:19am | Report comment
Id like to know how many NRL players are looking to switch codes and how many Ex Super players overseas might be thinking of returning home? If it goes to Melb, it will do very well. Great idea.
Redb said | May 20th 2009 @ 11:19am | Report comment
Pip,
I’m not so sure Melbourne is streaks ahead. I read an article in ‘The Australian’ that the Gold Coast Super rugby backers are proposing the new model for ownership where the ARU and private investors will own the team instead of individual state unions. It also linked the GC licence mover and shaker to JON.
If the ARU are serious about taking on the AFL and NRL at finals time they won’t do it with a Gold Coast team. To be quite blunt it won’t have any impact on the AFL finals series whatsoever.
By all means go to the Gold Coast instead of Melbourne but to think they will shake up for sporting landscape in OZ by doing this they are mistaken. If anything they’ll just come up against the NRL in finals mode and probably get smashed.
The conference idea has great merit in terms of more games on OZ soil, the gifted finals spot to each conference on the other hand is a terrible idea.
Redb
reds fan said | May 20th 2009 @ 11:24am | Report comment
I will put on record that I also think the gifted finals spot to each conference is a bad idea. it should be the top 6 pure and simple.
sheek said | May 20th 2009 @ 11:26am | Report comment
Pip,
A former ARU board member & mate of O’Neill’s is behind the Gold Coast push. Does this tell you anything?
O’Neill’s a very astute administrator, & won’t be influenced by mates. He’s also human!
(Contrary to what some Aussies & many Kiwis, Saffies & Britons might think!).
Pippinu said | May 20th 2009 @ 11:26am | Report comment
Hemjay
I should point out that another part of my reasoning is that the current bonus points system (which I’m a fan of) throws up a fair bit of unpredictiability into the mix, so that even today, a better performing team may miss the finals to another team on the strength of bonus points (as happened to the Brumbies back in the first season).
In other words, deciding the better performing teams already carry an element of wildcard about them (which I am absolutely comfortable with, I might add).
Why am I comfortable? Becuase the perfect, equitable draw is a bit of an illusion – so we should never get hung up about these little quirks (and my maxim is always that the best team will inevitably triumph regardless)
As an example, the EPL has a pefect home and away draw, all 20 teams play each other twice over 38 rounds.
But the equity of the draw is an illusion. All sorts of circumstances arise throughout such a long season that mean that teams will be invariably advantaged and disadvantaged – it might balance out, it might not.
It’s likely that Hull will stave off relegation in its last round game agaisnt Man Utd because they’ve won the championship and they will rest players in preparation for the CL final against Barca – that’s but one example of a multitude of similar things happening throughout a season.
Hull gets an advantage that perhaps none of its relegation rivals had during the season.
Pefection and absolute equity are impossible – good teams overcome all obstacles (most of the time) – I honestly believe it’s not worth worrying about – especially when the overall concept carries so many advantages for the good of the comp itself.
Sam Taulelei said | May 20th 2009 @ 11:27am | Report comment
Reds fan I’m not being condescending or argumentative when asking this – out of five Aussie teams who would realistically be a title contender in any given year?
Justin said | May 20th 2009 @ 11:27am | Report comment
Redb – I agree about gifting finals spots but I think you will find 9 times out of 10 each country has a team in the top 6 anyway so its a mute point.
PS – I got the press release from ARU and the finals system is –
1 and 2 progress straight to the semi finals while 3 v 6 and 4 v 5 will play eliminator finals matches in the first week of the playoffs. The following week 1 and 2 play the winners of the elimination finals. The winners of those two semi finals advance to the final.
Hemjay said | May 20th 2009 @ 11:28am | Report comment
Reds Fan
Also on that sight you will also notice that 3 NZ teams feature in the top 6 more often than not only three years where NZ hasn’t had three teams.
This in itself proves who will have the hardest competition. Its really a no brainer that the NZ conference will be of a slightly better quality. It will be intersting to see which conferences adapt best to the other conferences style of play in the latter half of the competition. because one thing for certain is that the three conferences will develop a certain style of play.
I would be interested on how refereeing appointments will be made, will the various refs stay within their countries conferences or will they be spread around so to get a feel for all the styles of play. we all know from experience what its like having a NH ref come down and blow the whistle in a competition he has no idea about or vice versa a SH ref heading north
Justin said | May 20th 2009 @ 11:28am | Report comment
Should that “mute” be moot????
ohtani's jacket said | May 20th 2009 @ 11:29am | Report comment
The format for the final 6 is this:
“The three wildcard finalists and the conference winner with the fewest points will play an elimination round to meet the two best-performed conference winners in the semifinals.”
Personally, I think the whole thing is set up for a Super 18, where you have an 8 team playoff and no first round byes.
Nick (KIA) said | May 20th 2009 @ 11:30am | Report comment
Redsfan
“I dont buy this whole “some conferences are harder than others”.”
Er, clearly a competition where you have to play the Crusaders, Hurricanes, Cheifs twice compared to Waratahs, Brumbies and Force twice (if we take the top three performers from each conference this year) is harder. And if we assume the points awarded for wins within conferences and between conferences are the same, then it’s harder to qualify in the 4th to 6th spots if you are from NZ.
I’d suspect that if you this years comp was played under the s15 conference system with the Aus and SA teams having to play the better teams less often than the NZ teams (we have three in the top four), you’d have Tahs, Cheifs, Bulls and then Canes, Force, Sharks.
You might argue that this list of finalists is preferable to seeing Crusaders there with the quality of their play this year being low, but my point is it will be harder for NZ teams to qualify than it has been, assuming relative strengths of teams stays the same.
Pippinu said | May 20th 2009 @ 11:31am | Report comment
redb
re the conference winner idea – most of us see this from an ANZ perspective, but from the SA perspective, with the additional travel they have to go through, there is a very good argument that their top performer go through to the finals (recalling that 50% of all games will be from within each conference anyway).
Hemjay said | May 20th 2009 @ 11:34am | Report comment
Reds Fan,
I also agree with you on the finals spots I don’t believe anyone should be given a pity final it should be the top 6 end of story.
What would happen in the unlikely scenario that Australian and SA teams finish 1 through 6 is it fair that one of these teams should make way for the NZ team to be accomodated. I certainly think not.
Also what happens if the winners of the Aus and SA finish 5th and 6th respectively is it fair that one of the highest place NZ teams are forced to play sudden death footy to give the Highest place Australian team a leg up into the semis?
Only the best should go through I agree.
Spare us the Pity finalists
Justin said | May 20th 2009 @ 11:35am | Report comment
What you need to remember Nick is that the AUS teams are just as even as the NZ teams. They may not be as good on the whole but that doesnt matter as in relation to each other they are just as close and therefore difficult to beat.
Either way, its here to stay so you had better get used to it. Come finals time you can still beat the “easy” AUS and SA sides, so whats your whinge over really???
Justin said | May 20th 2009 @ 11:38am | Report comment
Hemjay – I think you have misunderstood the finals system. If AUS and SA finish 5 & 6 then they would play the NZ teams in NZ. How is that a legup to the semis. I dont think coming third should guarantee a side a 2nd chance, it certainly doesnt now
Nick (KIA) said | May 20th 2009 @ 11:39am | Report comment
Well, I don’t disagree with this system, as I said above, Justin.
LIke I said, I think this is a good outcome for NZ, for a range of reasons.
But like you I disagree with Redsfan that the conferences are likely to be of similar standard, esp when you consider Aus one will be diluted further by another team.
Redb said | May 20th 2009 @ 11:40am | Report comment
Justin,
Perhaps, but the best teams must make the finals based on merit not automatic inclusion. This I beleive is an over-reaction to the fear that NZ or SAF team may dominate the top 6 leaving the Aust teams out in the cold, which incidentially is the situation right now. Seasons change, teams improve, others drop away. I think it’s a knee jerk reaction and should be based on the best 6 only.
Assuming the first 5 teams are NZ or SAF in one season, imagine as a fan if the Crusaders finished 6th and the Brumbies finished 7th, yet the Brumbies play in the finals, how would it feel. This would be extentuated if the 6th placed team was substantially above the 7th team on points.
Redb
Hemjay said | May 20th 2009 @ 11:40am | Report comment
Justin
from everything that I have seen, It has stated the top two conference teams will go through to the finals and the lowest placed winner of the conference will play fsudden death footy.
I think its you who may be confused
Hemjay said | May 20th 2009 @ 11:42am | Report comment
maybe Im wrong and misinterpretted it but thats the feeling I got from the Article in the NZ herald
reds fan said | May 20th 2009 @ 11:42am | Report comment
Sam i think it depends on which year you are talking about. My point is that looking this years results is very short sighted.
I remember when even my team was making finals! and winning two Super 10 titles! And I hope they once again are up there. We seem to think that good is always good, and bad is always bad. But that just isnt the case.
But I know I cannot argue against the collective reinforcement of over 100 years of All Black domination…. yawn……..
sheek said | May 20th 2009 @ 11:47am | Report comment
There’s something else most of us seem to have missed in the detail.
The Murdoch papers – Daily Telegraph & The Australian – state that each franchise will play 16 matches. This includes 8 home & away games against the other 4 franchises in their conference.
Which leaves another 8 matches to be played against 10 franchises from the other two conferences.
Everything being equal, this suggests every franchise will play the other 4 franchises in their conference twice, but will only play 4 out of 5 franchises from each of the other two conferences.
Example A – Waratahs. Play 8 matches against 4 Aussie franchises. Also play 4/5 Kiwi franchises & 4/5 Saffie franchises.
Example B – Crusaders. Play 8 matches against 4 Kiwi franchises. Also play 4/5 Aussie franchises & 4/5 Saffie franchises.
Example C – Bulls. Play 8 matches against 4 Saffie franchises. Also play 4/5 Aussie franchises & 4/5 Kiwi franchises.
Perhaps someone else might be able to enlighten us on this???
Nick (KIA) said | May 20th 2009 @ 11:54am | Report comment
I hadn’t missed this Sheek. I did put it in my confusing assessment of the Force and Waratahs relative likely performances above (you’re excused if you skipped reading it…)
They don’t actually say so but like you I presume you play 4/5 from each of the other two conferences (could be 5/5 and 3/5)
But I don’t know how it’s going to work. Presumably the options might be you can either skip a random team, each team on a five year rotation, or perhaps you get matched somehow (like the top team in each conference is excused the top team in each other conference etc)?
Hemjay said | May 20th 2009 @ 11:59am | Report comment
Sheek,
While your right every team will play the same amount of games against the foreign conference francises, Some teams will get an easier ride. Just going of this years standings alone. I could be licking my lips should the Canes just happen to draw the Reds, Brumbies Cheetahs and Lions. and maybe missing the Waratahs and the Bulls.
As would any other franchise, i’m sure not to many teams will not be too disppointed in not having to play the Crusaders in a season.
There are some very gaping holes in the net we have been cast. While they have come up with a plan to make super rugby better they could also be bringing about its downfall. There is much potential for a lot of arguments as can already be seen here from the likes of ourselves debating the pros and cons.
reds fan said | May 20th 2009 @ 12:01pm | Report comment
Sheek. That is my understanding of it. It is 2 games short of the “round and half” model John wanted. The half being the return fixtures of the local derbies.
As I wrote above there was a comment in one press release saying that in future they would seek to claw back those two lost games. Then it mentioned about the IRB reviewing the June test window… perhaps shortening it to two weeks. that would mean only one other week would need to be found. (Reminds me of that Lloyd Cole song… A lost weekend, and then someting about amsterdam… anyway i digress).
Did you know there a 5 weeks of byes for each team? Three of them during the June test window, and then two other weeks. Seems liek alot of time off!
Nick (KIA) said | May 20th 2009 @ 12:01pm | Report comment
I think they’ve largely done a reasonable job, esp when you consider the diverse interests of the three parties.
The goal is entertainment and $$. They’ve increased games that generate most interest locally. Fairness for participants isn’t really one of the aims.
sheek said | May 20th 2009 @ 12:02pm | Report comment
Nick,
Confirmed exactly on the ARU website. No doubt the NZRU & SARU websites would have exactly the same thing.
Can’t say I agree with each franchise NOT playing every other franchise at least once. But I guess it was just too difficult to find room for those two extras rounds.
Still not a fan of the 3N playing each other 3 times. Especially EVERY year. Personally I would have gone back to each playing the others twice. This would have then freed up the extra 2 weeks for an 18 round S15.
Would also like to see Argentina in an expanded 4N. Don’t know if this was seriously explored.
Ed said | May 20th 2009 @ 12:05pm | Report comment
I’m pretty sure from what I read on a couple of sites its 4/5 from each conference. So u won’t be able to play 5 NZ teams.
reds fan said | May 20th 2009 @ 12:06pm | Report comment
Sheek. I read somewhere that Argentina have been spoken to, but that they are still not in a position to join. I think it has more to do with the Argies getting their best players back from Europe outside of an IRB sanctioned test window.
Justin said | May 20th 2009 @ 12:07pm | Report comment
Hemjay – you may well be right in that the top 2 must be from different zones. After reading that on the NZ herald site it looks that way which I am not a fan of. It will be interesting to see how SANZAR decide to produce the table/s each week. Anyone on here follow some US sports where they have conferences able to enlighten us as to how the view or print the tables?
Yikes said | May 20th 2009 @ 12:08pm | Report comment
Sheek – agree with you completely, but this would have impacted upon the Currie Cup to an even greater degree. To be honest, I think the 3N is a waste of time playing 3 games each. Much better at 2.
Frankly, the bit that had to give in the calendar was the extra 2 weeks. I hope they find some way to play these games in future.
I might reinforce my point earlier – as it stands now, the SA teams will do much less travelling. They only play 4 games in Australasia each. This is a big difference from the 6 week tours they sometimes need to undergo now. SA’s travel is now much less of an excuse that it always has been.
Sam Taulelei said | May 20th 2009 @ 12:11pm | Report comment
Reds fan
It was a genuine question and has nothing to do with the All Blacks. If we look at super rugby since it expanded in 2006 (and you kindly posted the results) there hasn’t been many years when more than one Aussie side has finished within the top six. The establishment of the Force has had an affect on diluting the talent spread amongst the Aussie sides and there are many fears expressed by some of us on the Roar, as well as Chris Hickey and Phil Mooney that a fifth Australian side will perpetuate that problem even further.
It’s not good for Australian rugby that the Force has lost talented players to other teams and it’s speculative to know what that will do for their chances in next years competition. However the results since 2006 doesn’t suggest that a fifth team is going to improve Australian super rugby teams chances any better.
Judging this seasons performances, I would rate the Brumbies as a strong contender for next season and the Waratahs somewhere around where they finished this year. The Reds are forever rebuilding and the attacking edge of the Force will be blunted without Giteau, Mitchell and possible O’Connor.
Personally I don’t think it’s good for Super rugby that it’s dominated too long by one team or country and the longevity of Super rugby as a strong competition requires SA and Australian teams to win more championships. Having one team guaranteed a spot in the top three will help.
Bay35Pablo said | May 20th 2009 @ 12:13pm | Report comment
See this article about the Argies getting involved.
http://www.theroar.com.au/2009/05/15/something-interesting-is-happening-in-argentina/
Until they can provide professional teams in the S15 or 3N, there’s no point. They have only just now made the decision to have professionalism below the international level. They are 15 years behind SANZAR provincial level wise.
Would be great to see them in, but will take until the next TV deal. See my comments above about bolting another conference on in due course. Super 20 from 2016 anyone?
reds fan said | May 20th 2009 @ 12:13pm | Report comment
Justin. The way I read it was that the top two are the conference winners with the most overall points in the general table. There is no separate tables.
So this year the Bulls and Chiefs are the two top ranked conference winners. The anomoly would be a year such as 2007. Sharks came first, Bulls second, Crusaders third. The way I read it, the Sharks and Crusaders would go through to the second week of finals. The Bulls would be the highest placed “wildcard”.
Hemjay said | May 20th 2009 @ 12:17pm | Report comment
Yikes,
The excuse by the Saffa was over the top anyway they knew right from the very start that they would have to travel. Is it our fault that the Australasian cities are relatively close.
Back to point I could guarantee you that they will still moan about the trave and use they excuse they are away for the entire four weeks whereas the NZ and Australian teams maybe excusiong the force can just jump the ditch a day or two prior to our cross comference games.
Also has anyone taken notice that the Tri-nations is somewhat stacked in the Yarpies favour now?
every year its to be staged there first. This in itself gives them outright advantage everyyear as we all know its much easier to build a team at the begining of a season in front of your home crowd. By the time the teams click SA will be down in Australasia so any Home advantage held by the ANZAC teams is somewhat nullified every year and the scales hugely tipped in SA favour.
I stand by that this whole format both super and Tri-Nations has been modeled to benefit the South Africans first and foremost. the succession it seems will be the 15th team going to Australia
reds fan said | May 20th 2009 @ 12:20pm | Report comment
Sam. the unfortunate side of all this is that it’s not really about rugby.
Its about new markets, demographics, tv deals, braodcast rights, advertising reveune, and stopping our players from chasing the big deals from much larger markets that are paid in stronger currencies such as the pound, euro and yen…. its about maxamising $$’s so we get to see our boys playing at home in our comp. that applies to SA, NZ and OZ.
so from that perspective I really dont care if only one oz teams makes the finals each year. in 5 of the last 9 years we would have contributed 2 finalists. in 2002 we had three in the top 6. I think we can regularly contribut two legit finalists.
Justin said | May 20th 2009 @ 12:22pm | Report comment
Reds fan – thats exactly as I thought. As per the last scenario you would be dirty being the Bulls having to play sudden death and probably just as important having to play an away match (I presume?) the following week to the Crusaders.
It has not been stated that team 2 would get a home game in the above scenario in week 2 but they probably will…
reds fan said | May 20th 2009 @ 12:23pm | Report comment
Bret Harris’ article in the Oz says that the South Africans have the pot of gold, and they won all the compromises. The ARU and NZRU were talking loudly but carrying a very small stick.
Hemjay said | May 20th 2009 @ 12:24pm | Report comment
Reds Fan,
you’ve hit the nail on the head and that is one of the fundamental flaws of the proposed finals format.
The top 6 only should go through irrespective if you win your conference or not.
Justin said | May 20th 2009 @ 12:28pm | Report comment
Hemjay – spot on re top 6. 2002 was the only year where one country didnt have a team in the top 6.
ohtani's jacket said | May 20th 2009 @ 12:29pm | Report comment
They won’t reduce the number of Tri-Nations games because the Tri-Nations bankrolls Super rugby. If they hadn’t increased the number of Tri-Nations games in the last negotiations, they wouldn’t have got the increase they were looking for.
Which begs the question, since this is just a proposal, how much are News willing to put up? Last time, SANZAR ended up receiving less per game. Now they’ve upped the derbies, how are ARU going to run the Force and an extra franchise?
Hemjay said | May 20th 2009 @ 12:30pm | Report comment
Justin yes it does seem a little off doesn’t it and I see reds Fan has re iterated the point I made earlier.
Plus he has also Highlighted how highly stacked in Sdouth Africa everything has turned out to be.
The only bonus I see is that we now all get the same amount of money.
I think the NZRU and ARU have seriously put the credibility of our rugby on the line and hugely bolstered the ego of the Africans.
We are giving them the power that the Indians have in cricket, its a matter of time not if we will rue the day we ever bent over and took one for the team.
Justin said | May 20th 2009 @ 12:41pm | Report comment
OJ – According to the ARU “Revenue and cost sharing for the new competition will also be split evenly between the three countries”.
The Force are changing grounds next year which will save them plenty of money, I think the Force is run independently, not by the ARU but I may be wrong.
But you are right – what will News pay?
Keith said | May 20th 2009 @ 12:45pm | Report comment
Enjoying this thread.
In a perfect world the home conference series would be played AFTER the games against the foreign teams because it would prevent conference winners from coasting. Teams would enter the home conference series knowing what they had to do. Teams that had underperformed in the foreign series would get another shot.
But the 16 week regular season, 6 week playoff window doesn’t seem to allow for this.
There are five teams in each conference, so if the home conference series were to be played separatly then one team from each conference would have to sit out each round. That would mean the series would yield two byes for each team and take 10 weeks.
That’s too much time to also fit in the eight other games against foreign opposition.
I reckon they’ll schedule a home conference series that runs partially at the same time as the foreign series. So during the home conference series, two of the three teams that don’t play local opposition will play each other.
That would still make it difficult to distribute the byes evenly, but hell, there’s a three week break for inbounds so not much to complain about there.
sheek said | May 20th 2009 @ 12:49pm | Report comment
Reds fan,
Does Bret Harris inferring SA winning all the comprises extend to having the Southern Kings play in the Australian conference?
reds fan said | May 20th 2009 @ 12:57pm | Report comment
a couple of things that need to be clarified.
declaring a conference winner. I assumed it was the team in a conference who amassed the most points against any teams – local and foreign. That way there wouldn’t be any coasting. You could beat most the locals and lose to the foreign teams and not be declared the winner of the conference.
composition of the draw. I also assumed that local derbies and games between teams from different countries would be scheduled amongst each other as they are now. I didnt think there would be a clear separation between local conference games followed by the “international” games… This would also lessen the chance that any one team would know their position relative to others in their conference.
just my thoughts.
ohtani's jacket said | May 20th 2009 @ 12:58pm | Report comment
The ARU and NZRU don’t really want the 16 week option. From the sounds of things, they’ll run with it in 2011 and 2012 and then push for a fully expanded competition from 2013.
Whic begs another question — How much Super rugby do I actually want to watch?? The competition only gets interesting in the last month or so. Why are they trying to torment us with more Super rugby?
reds fan said | May 20th 2009 @ 12:59pm | Report comment
No. he didnt suggest that. I think might have been to bargaining chip. I dont think they realistically think an SA team could be in the OZ conference. Logic would have to take an enormous battering…..
sheek said | May 20th 2009 @ 1:00pm | Report comment
Assuming Australia gets the 15th franchise, I’m not sure whether I’m going to be happy about Gold Coast getting the gig (if indeed it does).
It’s not that I don’t think Gold Coast deserves a gig. Western Sydney deserve a gig too. But 3 into one won’t go. Two have to miss out.
It’s all about which choice will best expand the game for Australian rugby. For me, that means only Melbourne, Victoria.
Gold Coast is already a rugby union friendly region, & only an hour’s drive from Brisbane & Lang Park, where the Reds play. Putting a team on the Gold Coast will be preaching to the already converted, & not significantly add value to the development of the game nationally.
A similar argument can be made for Western Sydney, wedged between Waratahs, who play at the SFS & Brumbies, who play a couple of hours away at Canberra Stadium.
To expand the game nationally, the choice can only be Melbourne, Victoria. It has Australia’s second highest population & commercial hub after Sydney. It also regards itself as the sporting capital of Australia.
Gold Coast might be the safer choice, but Melbourne provides the greater future benefits. Much greater benefits. It has to be Melbourne. Otherwise, I might seriously consider following another code!
reds fan said | May 20th 2009 @ 1:01pm | Report comment
Ohtani’s jacket. that is where you are wrong. For me, as a reds supporter, it is the first three games that are the most interesting. I see if we have improved, have my hopes crushed, and then ignore the rest of the tournament.
ohtani's jacket said | May 20th 2009 @ 1:03pm | Report comment
redsfan,
According to reports, “Sides will play each other home and away in their own conference, before they play four of the five sides in the other two sections.”
reds fan said | May 20th 2009 @ 1:04pm | Report comment
sheek. agreed. as a GC old boy, I still dont think it warrants its own team. The Reds shold play a game or two out of the Titans home ground. The same goes for the Tahs. With a guaranteed 8 home games, they should test western sydney more. Maybe two games at Homebush. They got a good crowd this year against teh Crusaders (who up until that stage appeared to be the most unlikely of finalists).
Melb is the place to be.
sheek said | May 20th 2009 @ 1:06pm | Report comment
OJ,
“Why are they trying to torment us with more super rugby?”
This is where your mate O’Neill comes into the picture. When you don’t have your own national comp to put up against AFL, NRL & A-League, you get your mates in NZ & SA to help you out with their resources.
Clever chappie, our O’Neill is, very clever chappie!
“Uz don’t know how iz doezzit, but iz doezzit”!
Keith said | May 20th 2009 @ 1:06pm | Report comment
Oh yeah, you’re right Reds fan. If it’s all about total points against all opposition there wouldn’t make any need to separate the phases.
reds fan said | May 20th 2009 @ 1:07pm | Report comment
Ohtani. Thanks for that. I dont think I read that as a separation but now you’ve highlighted it, it does appear that’s the intention. Perhpas its done to increase the interest of fans earlier. NZ have complained their fans are slow to engage in the comp.
Bay35Pablo said | May 20th 2009 @ 1:07pm | Report comment
since half the people posting seem not to have even read the news and understand what is proposed, read these first:
http://www.rugbyheaven.com.au/news/news/how-super-15-will-work/2009/05/19/1242498753002.html
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,25509793-5015651,00.html
Justin said | May 20th 2009 @ 1:08pm | Report comment
Without having looked closely at the logistics of it I would have thought that starting the season off with the local derbies, then the international matches and finishing with the return derbies as the way to go. Big bang to get things going and big bang to finish (even if your team has no chance of making the finals).
Bay35Pablo said | May 20th 2009 @ 1:10pm | Report comment
For a comment on the sports saturation occurring on the Gold Coast, see:
http://www.theroar.com.au/2009/04/01/gold-coast-expansion-may-be-too-much-too-soon/
Why go to Western Sydney when the tahs crowds are down? better to farm the extra game out to Parra Stadium (most people hate Homebush).
It has to be Melbourne. Which is why I have this sudden fear of the ARU having yet another brain explosion …
Justin said | May 20th 2009 @ 1:13pm | Report comment
Sheek – it depends if the players will get a decent pay rise. There will be more product (which many are against) but if players can be paid more then there will be fewer people heading OS wont there? Simple I know but the more we keep here the better the standard…and it all rests on “if”
Keith said | May 20th 2009 @ 1:13pm | Report comment
Yeah, like that idea Justin
reds fan said | May 20th 2009 @ 1:13pm | Report comment
Justin. That looks like a great way to go.
Ohtani i think it depends on which article you read. This one from the Super14 site doesnt mention the order of teh fixtures.
http://www.super14.com/news/viewarticle.asp?id=20375
Hemjay said | May 20th 2009 @ 1:18pm | Report comment
Reds fan,
I have highlighted the point you have just made about the Aus teams taking the rugby to the rest of the state.
We all know theres more to NSW and QLD than Sydney and Brisbane. The NZ teams already take games to their partners some more than others. the Highlanders took a game to Palmerston North which isn’t even part of their own franchise let alone on the same Island and it was hugely successful for them. I guess too in NZ with rugby being so deeply embedded most kiwis will back any NZ team when they are playing a foreign franchise.
Correct me if I am wrong but are the Franchises not ultimately picked from the entire states before drafting in the big names from the other teams?
In short if I was playing rugby up in Townsvile and were an absolute talent would I therefore have to move to Brisbane to be eligible for what is effectively a state team? Could I not return to townsvile to play my club rugby outside of Super 14 and International level?
Ohtani -
I too have wondered as have a few of my friends for the last few years the NZ rugby public has been saying there is too much rugby as it is and now he has agreed to extend the season. Also is this anbother nail in the ANZC coffin, while South Africa is doing its best to protect the integrity of its Currie Cup it seems we are doing the utmost to ruin our own national competition. As a New Zealander I expect to see the All Blacks turn out for their provinces, since the NZRU started taking them out for longer periods we have seen the crowds and interest diminish. In my opinion they are robbing Peter to pay Paul
Greg Russell said | May 20th 2009 @ 1:24pm | Report comment
105 postings already and it will probably be more by the time I finish writing this. This is too much to keep on top of while the other eye must be trained on work …
… however I just wanted to say that on RadioSport New Zealand this morning there was a brilliant interview with Rob Nicol, the exceptionally articulate (and clever) executive director of the (NZ) Professional Rugby Players’ Association, about the expansion of Super Rugby.
I will try to track down audio of this interview and write it up as an article.
For now, let me just say that the gist of the interview was that the changes were backed to the hilt by NZPRPA, including the creation of a fifth team in Australia. I for one found it exceptionally interesting that the NZPRPA regards development of Super Rugby in Australia as the best way of keeping the All Black jersey strong.
An easy prediction is that Rob Nicol will in time assume JON’s mantle as the best administrator in world rugby.
ohtani's jacket said | May 20th 2009 @ 1:25pm | Report comment
I wonder what the players’ associations make of all this.
With the increase from 91 to 120 games, that means that top level players will have to be available for as many as 6 extra Super 15 games. Theoretically, a player could front up for 19 Super 15 games and 9 Test matches. At present, it’s 15 Super 14 games and 9 Test matches.
It’s unlikely that a guy would play every game/Test in a season, but there’s going to be so heavy duty resting going on and I imagine a fair bit of tanking. The more games you have, the less important each fixture becomes. If a team feels they have no chance to win this week’s game but could win the game the week after, they’re just going to field a B team.
Keith said | May 20th 2009 @ 1:25pm | Report comment
Reds fan:
“Sides will play each other home and away in their own conference, before they play four of the five sides in the other two sections.”
Comes from Wynne Grey at the NZ Herald – he’s usually pretty reliable on points of fact.
reds fan said | May 20th 2009 @ 1:29pm | Report comment
hemjay.
The eligibility rules for Australian franchises aren’t like rules NZ has with multiple provinces feeding one franchise.
The Reds can sign you from anywhere! And because you are based in Bris the players join a team in the Bris comp. This includes a Gold Coast team and a Sunshine Coast team. I’m not sure if this is just convenient or if it is a requirement. But you dont need to be playing for a Bris comp team before being recruited. Upon recruitment you are found a team… I think it comes to personal lifestyle preference. Of course some of the local boys have affliations to local clubs. Braid chose the Sunshine Coast team! ha! lovely up that way.
ohtani's jacket said | May 20th 2009 @ 1:32pm | Report comment
Hemjay,
It doesn’t seem likely that All Blacks will ever play in the ANZC again. I guess the NZRU are banking on there being a host of Super 15 “stars” who don’t make the All Blacks but are fully available to the provinces.
reds fan said | May 20th 2009 @ 1:39pm | Report comment
Greg, very good point. The other one to note is O’Neill saying that teh ARU may relax wallaby elegibility by selecting oz players as long as they are in Super rugby, but not necessarily in an Oz team.
Ideally I would love to see free movement of SANZAR players amongst super teams. I think NZ players would love the same chance to earn more bucks in Oz rather than going north.
Justin said | May 20th 2009 @ 1:42pm | Report comment
I find it absurd that, if and I stress if, the local derbies are played back to back, home and away. People would be saying “didnt we play these guys a couple of weeks ago”? That seems crazy to me, I hope Wyn Gray has it wrong or is just presuming.
Darwin Stubby said | May 20th 2009 @ 1:44pm | Report comment
Sounds if though the drums are already beating loudly for the GC … if that happens will the Reds need a name change or just drop the Qld bit
and given the ownership model is going to be owned by the ARU in partnership with private equity …. and the four existing Aust franchises are owned by their respective state / territory unions … this could well end up in one hell of an ongoing bun fight between QRU and ARU ….
I still think that the conference format will have impact on the Wallabies – they’ll lose constant weekly exposure to the harder, better teams and players from NZ and SA … playing amongst themselves won’t improve the players as much as the full rounds of S12 / S14 has …
Justin said | May 20th 2009 @ 1:49pm | Report comment
DS – The AUS teams will only play 2 less matches against NZ/SA opposition. Considering local derbies are generally tough matches I dont think it will have much of an impact.
sheek said | May 20th 2009 @ 1:53pm | Report comment
Greg,
Not surprised at all by NZRU support for 5th Aussie franchise.
Back in the 1920s it was the ABs who helped keep rugby union alive in NSW. They played the Tahs every year of the 20s except 1927, when the Tahs went off to Britain, Ireland & France for their famous tour.
NZ understood back then the importance of keeping Australia within the rugby union family. A competitive Wallabies meant interaction between NZ & Australia, which in turn meant the ABs jumper brand remained strong among its fanbase.
It’s a shame Australia never reciprocated with cricket, but that’s another story!
Steve said | May 20th 2009 @ 1:57pm | Report comment
A really bad idea. At a time when Rugby Union in Australia can not get any attention what so ever, it now wants to take on its sporting rivals at their biggest time of the year? So, so stupid.
If the majority of sports fans dont care about S14 now, why would they care if another 30 games are played?
And when the A-League struggles for media exposure during August/September, what chance does an inferior sport such as rugby union has?
Union sure follow the “less is more” line.
sheek said | May 20th 2009 @ 1:58pm | Report comment
Justin, I don’t know how the draw will be devised.
But it would make sense to me if local derbies bookended the competition. That is, they were played both at the beginning & end of the tournament round robin.
My preferred structure for each franchise:
First 4 games, intra-country.
Next 8 games, cross-country.
Final 4 games, intra-country.
Finals – 6 teams playoffs.
jub jub said | May 20th 2009 @ 2:01pm | Report comment
what a lame system.. why not just increase the number of finals positions to 6. seems to me that the core problem was only 4 finals positions out of 14 team!!
if an australian team can’t make the top 6 they don’t deserve to be in the fnals.. this “wildcard” crap is a baaad idea.
Sam Taulelei said | May 20th 2009 @ 2:06pm | Report comment
Thanks for that OJ, looking at the breakdown of games played in the Super 15, its a fair assumption that there would also be a request to expand squads beyond the current 28 players. The most obvious cover would be for the forwards particularly loose forwards and the front row. If that was agreed to then speculation of NZ considering a proposal to submit a sixth team would be outrageous. An extra 28 plus players from where exactly?
If there is to be a 15th team then it should come from Australia, where they will find the players from to fill it is their problem.
Working Class Rugger said | May 20th 2009 @ 2:07pm | Report comment
The new format actually suprised me. It alot more flexible than I thought. I agrre with the 3 week gap for inbound teats. We can ensure that the best from each Nation come by scheduling it mid season.
Melbourne is the only real option. For the sake of Rugby’s development there is no other option. The GC and WS need to be addressed by their respective state Unions. NSW should play a game or two at Parramatta Stadium, Campbelltown Stadium and WIN Stadium. And QLD should give the GC two or three games. Aswell as move back to Ballymore.
No mention of Argentina. Now that’s disappointing. Hopefully that will come. 40 million people. There must be a expansion of the Tri – Nations to a 4 Nations and Argentinian players should be brought into the Super Rugby competition.
retiredrucker said | May 20th 2009 @ 2:10pm | Report comment
Great thread,
1st, I would reduce conference home and away by 2 games and alternate teams every other year ALLOWING all teams to play each other at least once. 2 X 3 week road trips per year
As a Force supporter I originally thought it would be great if the Force had a OWNER ala US sports or premier league.
We don’t but it sounds like JON wants this to be the case for the 5th Aussie side. If it is the case that team will be in a much stronger position to buy a competitive team straight off the bat. It also allows the OWNER to make uncommercial descisions to spend where other clubs have to bicker amongst their board/supporters. A lot of very succesfull sport francises are owned by one strong leader. Good idea or not?
How do those ideas sit with the Proletariat!
Justin said | May 20th 2009 @ 2:13pm | Report comment
This isnt directed at anybody but I think too many on here look at the short term when discussing a new team. Where will we find the players, other teams will be robbed are common catchcries. On it goes without looking 10-15 years and beyond.
In 15 years we “should” have great depth in every position, more opportunities for young players to go pro and a stronger Wallaby team. Look at what the Brumbies have done for the game here. The Force are a competitive outfit who could have easily made the top 4 this year. Give it time and Australia will reap the rewards of long term planning.
Sam Taulelei said | May 20th 2009 @ 2:16pm | Report comment
Reds fan
The topic of player movement between SANZAR countries was discussed in another thread and the common opinion is that NZ players would happily play for Australian teams and earn more money. I argued that this is a very narrow and arrogant perspective to expect that player movement would only benefit one country and if players wanted more cash then SA would appeal as a more lucrative option rather than Australia. I also debated the concept that money would be the overriding factor. All players are ambitious and want to realise two dreams, playing for their country and winning a championship. Only the elite few will realise one however more have a shot at the latter. So it’s not unreasonable to expect that NZ teams would also attract interest from some Australian players who would see their chances of success increase by playing for some of the Kiwi sides. There’s also the risk of playing for a foreign coach and team who’s style of play may not give you opportunities to express your talent.
Working Class Rugger said | May 20th 2009 @ 2:24pm | Report comment
Justin
I agree with the whole building depth idea behind having 5 teams in Aus. As for 10 -15 years down the track. Well in 10-15 years each of the SANZAR Nations should be looking to add another team from each country. To a S18 comp.
Sam Taulelei said | May 20th 2009 @ 2:27pm | Report comment
Good point Justin, but just as those comments are speculative on where players will come from in the immediate to short term future, so are your comments about whether Australian rugby “should” have depth in 15 years time. Before the Brumbies, the game was concentrated in two states. Post Brumbies, the Waratahs were weakened while the Reds maintained their strength in the mid to late 90’s. After 2000 the Reds began to go downhill and the Waratahs recovered. After 2006 the Force entered the competition and the Reds suffered again as did the Brumbies. So in the 13 years since super rugby began has the depth in all positions across Australian rugby really improved that much?
reds fan said | May 20th 2009 @ 2:31pm | Report comment
Sam. I agree. No arrogance intended, I was only jotting down one scenario. I agree that the flow of players would be a three way phenomenon, and based on many factors…. money, experience of other lifestyle, chance to improve, etc. Why wouldn’t Oz encourage its young props to do stints in NZ or SA?? I certainly would.
sheek said | May 20th 2009 @ 2:34pm | Report comment
Sam,
It’s inevitable that the S15 will go the same way as northern hemisphere rugby comps & world soccer comps.
In 10 years from now, NSW Waratahs, Canterbury Crusaders & Natal Sharks will only be relevant as to where the franchises come from, & where they are based.
Wallabies at the Waratahs will be playing alongside ABs & Boks. Ditto the other teams.
I don’t know if this is a good or bad thing, but it’s inevitable. In any case, it will help strengthen Aussie franchises with ’spillover’ players from NZ, SA & Pacific Islands.
Greg Russell said | May 20th 2009 @ 2:34pm | Report comment
I am constantly blown away by the passion of knowledge of people at this site when it comes to rugby
If I could actually offer a different and perhaps heretical viewpoint … the expansion of Super Rugby is not really aimed at any of us. We are all already a captive audience: with very few exceptions we will be into the new competition no matter what, even if we ourselves would have designed it differently.
I wonder how many people here ever stop to think that the competition changes are aimed at bringing into the fold people who don’t read these pages, in fact who probably don’t even know of their existence. Try to see Super Rugby through the eyes of a friend or colleague who is into the NRL or AFL or A-League but who spends very little time following rugby … what would they make of all this?
Personally I am afraid of the answer to this question …
ohtani's jacket said | May 20th 2009 @ 2:35pm | Report comment
The wildcard system is an American concept.
The best example is Major League Baseball, which introduced the wildcard system in 1995 when they expanded to 28 teams and realigned their two leagues to have three divisions.
The difference between MLB and the new Super 15 concept is that with the wildcard, the number of playoff contenders from each league doubled from two to four and from four to eight overall. SANZAR should probably stick with 4 or 8 teams, but with only 15 in the competition, 8 is probably too many.
There’s been many arguments for and against the wildcard system in MLB. SANZAR has never had anything resembling a pennant race or what we might call a minor premiership, so I don’t think it will cause too many issues on that front.
Interesting enough, four MLB sides have won the World Series from the wild card spot and from 2002 to 2007 one wild card team made the World Series every year. In 2002, both World Series finalists were wild cards.
What SANZAR need to take into consideration is seeding based on regular-season record. For example, if the Crusaders win the NZ conference and the next best team (eg. Hurricanes) have a better record then the SA and Australia conference winners, then both NZ teams ought to go through to the semis. In MLB, the wildcards give up home advantage, but in the NBA they changed the playoff format after 2006 where the two best teams in the Western Conference were in the same division and met in the semis instead of the finals.
Keith said | May 20th 2009 @ 2:35pm | Report comment
Wonder how long before we get trophies awarded to Conference Champions?
If we named the cups after the players from each country with the most super rugby caps it’d be:
Oz – Gregan Cup
NZ – Oliver Cup
SA – le Roux Cup
Then again it’d probably end up being something like
Oz – Westpac Cup
NZ – Fisher & Paykel Cup
SA – Standard Bank Cup
Justin said | May 20th 2009 @ 2:36pm | Report comment
Sam – fair points regarding the performance of sides, but that is not what I am chiefly concerned about here. Put it this way, I think the selectors have a much tougher time choosing a Wallaby team now than the pre Brumbies era.
I would think there are 4 or 5 half backs in contention, at least 8 trying to get into the backrow, 3 or 4 for outside centre, countless for the wings and fullback spots and 6 in the locks. that is surely better than choosing between your QLD and NSW teams only.
reds fan said | May 20th 2009 @ 2:46pm | Report comment
ohtani. i one of the articles. one from a NZ site i think… it said that each country was guaranteed a final. That is because the top two conference winners skip the first week and get home town advantage. regardless of where they finishon the table.
in the first week, the third ranked conference winner gets a home game. the home advantage in the other game between two wildcards would (I assume) go to the team that finished highest on the ladder.
I’ve read every article I can find and there is some conflicting stuff out there. There could be more to this conference thing than we think…………………
Sam Taulelei said | May 20th 2009 @ 2:48pm | Report comment
Justin agreed. there are more options available in certain positions and still more work to be done for others. NZ is no different and re-reading my last post I wasn’t trying to suggest that super rugby is a waste of time for Australia, quite the opposite in fact.
Reds fan my comment about “narrow and arrogant” wasn’t directed at you at all and I didn’t read your comments as such.
Sheek, I’ve drawn the same conclusion. Perhaps history will remember this as a milestone for southern hemisphere rugby if it arrests the player migration north and we include Argentina and other nations in super rugby
Greg, good point as usual. My wife is Melbourne born and raised and a passionate Collingwood supporter. She follows rugby now because of me and surprisingly supports the All Blacks instead of the Wallabies which has kind of stolen my thunder at having someone to sledge come Bledisloe Cup time. When I broke the news to her about the Super 15 it was met with indifference and a raise of the eyebrows followed by a long “ohhhhhh” which really meant I don’t care.
Working Class Rugger said | May 20th 2009 @ 2:51pm | Report comment
Greg
Yeah didn’t think of it that way. I guess the thinking behind if that is the main reason for expansion is to generate greater interest, revenue and talent pools for the SANZAR countries and particularly for Aus. Personally I think getting Rugby on a FTA channel here in Aus would do alot to achieving that goal.
So JON wants the 5th Aus side to be partly owned through Private Equity. This idea seems to be a test case for the other Aus sides to do the same, which appears to have been one of JON objectives he released last year. This could be a double edged sword. Turning Rugby into a business could be potentially a masterstroke at the Provincial level with mass investment in the grassroots or it could go the other way with a Province buying players from other countries. If that is the case quota system of at least 70% local players would have to be enforced.
ohtani's jacket said | May 20th 2009 @ 3:04pm | Report comment
redsfan,
The thing is that in the first round of finals, 3 and 4 will have home games regardless of whether 4 has a better record than 3, but in the semis, 4 will not only have to play away, but they’ll have to play the first ranked team. So unless they re-seed the rankings after the first round, to have 1 play 3 and 2 play 4, I think there’s bound to be some seeding issues when the new playoff system takes effect.
Obviously, you can’t have 1 play 2 and 4 host 3 at home, so the easy way to avoid this is to have the two top teams go through to the semis regardless of whether they’re from the same conference. The winner of each conference will be guaranteed a finals spot, but the seeding would depend on record.
Lion Red said | May 20th 2009 @ 3:11pm | Report comment
Could “News Limited” be part owners of a Melbourne Super Rugby Franchise to go along with their 100% NRL club Melbourne Storm?…hmmm
sheek said | May 20th 2009 @ 3:30pm | Report comment
Sam,
What I don’t want to see is a ‘Chelsea’ situation where none of the starting Waratahs XV are Australian, none of the Crusaders XV are Kiwis, or none of the Sharks XV are Saffies.
However, if each franchise has say, a playing roster of 35, then I would suggest a maximum 10 players who don’t come from the same country as the franchise, as being acceptable.
Working Class Rugger said | May 20th 2009 @ 3:38pm | Report comment
Hmmm.. Not sure whether that would be a good idea Lion Red. If done right it could be the spark Rugby needs. Say Victoria gets the team. The Private Equity partner not only will help signing players but developing and promoting the game in schools and the public.
Hemjay said | May 20th 2009 @ 3:39pm | Report comment
OJ,
You are bang on with the point that the top two teams regardless of which conference they are from should go through to the semis and have a week off.
Pity finals are not what this competition needs.
I’m still worried about how this will effect rugby in NZ the public has made it loud and clear that they are getting rugby overload. The expanded competition is going to surely put the NZ fans into an overdose coma and surely will do more damage than good. While I as a rugby fan look forward to it. As Greg pointed out not everyone follows rugby as closely as we do. But from what I know of NZ rugby and polls taken in shows such as Reunion in NZ and in papers such as the NZ herald. new Zealanders don’t want more rugby they want more competitive rugby.
I guess we aren’t going to know until 2011
Bay35Pablo said | May 20th 2009 @ 3:41pm | Report comment
WCR,
“The Private Equity partner not only will help signing players but developing and promoting the game in schools and the public”
Just like the EPL clubs? As in, not much at all and only to look after themselves.
Private equity is not the solution to all problems, and produces problems of its own.
Hemjay said | May 20th 2009 @ 3:47pm | Report comment
What i don’t want to see is a situation where 4 or 5 clubs have all the money and no other club can afford a decent starting has a real chance of winning the tournament. XV Sheek has pointed out what would be the point. Before this can happen a Salary cap may need to be imposed. It has done wonders in the NRL and has created a very competitive competition.
I’ll be the first to admit I’m not a soccer fan but the EPL is a great competition the club structure is a joke, honestly outside of the top 5 clubs none of the others really have a chance do they. Is this a scenario that we want to be faced with down here in the SMH. They same teams winning year in year out ,As it stands the majority of the teams have a fair shot at the title
Hemjay said | May 20th 2009 @ 3:49pm | Report comment
sorry we don’t want a situation where 4 or 5 clubs have all the money and talent and the rest can’t afford a starting XV and therefore a real chance of winning the tournament
Hammer said | May 20th 2009 @ 3:52pm | Report comment
The question is Justin whether it’s SANZAR’s role to develop Australian player depth or the ARU’s … I’d argue the latter therefore for expansion to be warrented (from a quality product side of things) then a 5th Aust franchise should not weaken any of the existing teams and be competitive from day 1 …. but it won’t be
no good talking of 10 – 15 years out if the Aust sides struggle for the first 5 years – which will impact on TV deal talks – and as someone has pointed out early who is to say this new concept will be greeted with more cash – in all likelihood it may just remain the same
so in answer to Greg’s question re a new audience it’ll be very hard to see new punters switching on or turn up at the turnstyle if the Aust teams aren’t competitive – this will be hidden somewhat due to the round robin conference phase being played first .. but if there’s 1 dominent side, 1 middling outfit and 3 weak ones then it’s hard to see a new audince being attracted
Justin said | May 20th 2009 @ 4:15pm | Report comment
Hammer – I agree that its predominantly the ARUs responsibility to develop player depth. I dont think any country can start a new team without it effecting the existing ones unless they get all the players from OS or league. That much is obvious. However (being positive) people prefer to watch local matches so the move to more derbies is a great idea (if its scheduled right, but will be an improvement either way).
In relation to a new audience it is from that angle that it is imperative the new team is Melbourne, a new market for fans and players. The biggest sporting city in the southern hemisphere and some say the world and no pro Rugby…
Remember things dont stay the same, the Crusaders were a laughing stock at one stage…
ohtani's jacket said | May 20th 2009 @ 4:17pm | Report comment
I can’t see Super rugby ever taking off in Australia.
Why would the average Australian be interested in what’s happening in the NZ or SA conference? Even dyed-in-the-wool rugby fans will probably check the results and maybe watch the odd marquee match-up.
There’s just not a strong enough sense that Super rugby is a national sport. The best thing the Aussie franchises can do is concentrate on their individual markets, similar to big market American sports teams.
Sam Taulelei said | May 20th 2009 @ 4:19pm | Report comment
Hemjay as you’ve pointed out on previous occasions, the same teams are already winning the Super 14 year in and year out – Crusaders, Blues, Brumbies and now the Bulls. What the competition needs is more teams to win. If the Crusaders achieve an incredible eighth title, while it will be a magnificent effort on their part and testimony to their organisation, it will also be a huge indictment on the other teams inability to win.
Working Class Rugger said | May 20th 2009 @ 4:41pm | Report comment
I never said that Private Equity was the way. In fact I said it could be a double edged sword. From what I can remember the Private Equity stake would just fall short of the controlling stake. It would be there as more of an independent watchdog keeping the Board in line and maximising their investment. I have briefly highlighted the positives but as it has been mentioned using the EPL as an example it could result in one or more Super Clubs. Rugby doesn’t really need its own version of Manchester United.
Pippinu said | May 20th 2009 @ 4:41pm | Report comment
Ohtani
speaking as an AFL fan, the vast majority of AFL fans pretty much only care about what happens to their club (that’s why most have big memberships).
So even if you are correct that, say, most Aust fans won’t follow the other conferences too closesl – so what? If big numbers turn up to watch the Aust clubs, isn’t that a good outcome?
I can imagine a new Melbourne franchise matching, say, what the Brumbies get in attendance – most of them probably won’t know a tight head from a block head, and yes, they’ll barely know who the teams even are in the other conferences – but does that matter?
AndyS said | May 20th 2009 @ 4:45pm | Report comment
There is a bit of conflicting information being floated around, but the overall picture seems reasonably clear. I am happy they seem to have decided that the derby rounds will start the competition, as I always thought having them last would be problematic. The finals system of one through from each conference and three wildcards from across the comp is at least better than just taking the top two from each conference, but I guess time will tell the effect of different strength conferences and half the total games played domestically. The break for the June Tests will also be interesting, especially so close to the run into the finals. It certainly won’t give the national coach much time to collect and prepare his team, and I wonder if it will militate against players that are overseas during the round prior. I also can’t help but wonder how teams doing well will view their best players having another three matches, while everyone else freshens up. Mind you, I am almost looking forward to the flurry of articles expounding on why various NSW players don’t deserve and shouldn’t be considered for mid-year Wallaby selection, and especially the front row.
Found the change to the 3N most interesting though. Last time it started in SA we got a second string team sent on tour, and you’d have to wonder what would happen any year SA didn’t start well at home. I’m uncertain about locking in the timing of the Bledisloe matches too – depending on the schedule it may ensure that one of either Australia or New Zealand must have four Tests back-to-back. Still, given that SA will have already done their part and be back at home playing CC, perhaps there could be a bye week prior to the last two Bledisloe matches.
Working Class Rugger said | May 20th 2009 @ 4:56pm | Report comment
I have been let down by the Tri-Nation format. There’s no allowance to promote Argentina into the fold.
ohtani's jacket said | May 20th 2009 @ 5:04pm | Report comment
Pippinu,
Depends whether you think eight home games is a big deal.
Pippinu said | May 20th 2009 @ 5:13pm | Report comment
Ohtani
but 8 is better than 6 or 7! (and the whole 6 or 7 business was problematic to begin with)
8 is only marginally less than 11 (which is standard in the AFL – but even here, plenty of clubs end up with less than 11 true home games)
I know in the NFL, – their playing calender is probalby smaller than is envisaged by the new Super 15s – I honestly don’t think it’s a problem.
Working Class Rugger said | May 20th 2009 @ 5:43pm | Report comment
Just finished reading a article on Foxsports.com in regards to the GC. Supposedly a well connected source within the ARU has said that the decision has already been made on the 5th Aus team and it’s not Melbourne. If that’s the case then the entire ARU board should be kicked out on is arse. What the hell are they thinking if this suggestion even has some truth to it.
Justin said | May 20th 2009 @ 5:50pm | Report comment
I would think its just some trash journalism WCR, considering the decision was only made last week…the more I think about it logically the more the GC would be a great wasted opportunity.
AndyS said | May 20th 2009 @ 6:01pm | Report comment
I’d agree, but would worry about O’Neill saying “The new team in Australia will have a different ownership model. I won’t go into an exact description, but we think it’s a chance to bring in private equity, which is something we announced last year to assist with the funding of the game.” I doubt it is what the VRU had in mind, and doesn’t sound like any of the current teams.
Working Class Rugger said | May 20th 2009 @ 6:01pm | Report comment
I hope so. Just hope the ARU board actually thinks rationally about this one and don’t get seduced by the promise’s of supposed friends. JON wants some private equity involved. The VRFU bid is based on the traditional Union controlled format whilst the GC bid suits JON vision a little more.
Justin said | May 20th 2009 @ 6:07pm | Report comment
I think I am right in saying SANZAR have to approve the new team/location. If thats the case I am not sure SA and NZ would be keen on private equity for the new team due to any possible financial advantage perceived or otherwise.
I think the Kiwis are pretty keen on Melbourne from what I have read and there is a big population of them here too. SA probably dont care as long as they dont think they are getting shafted in any way or disadvantaged.
tifosi said | May 20th 2009 @ 7:18pm | Report comment
greg russell
Im one of those sports fans that you are talking about. I like my NRL and Soccer(a-league + socceroos + overseas leagues).
I have a small interest in rugby and have seen a few brumbies games here in Canberra, but only when i have been a guest of someone else. I watch the wallabies occasionally also.
For me personally, this new format makes little difference. The problem for me is that the game has too many penalties which i dont understand. I dont know the difference between or what is a short arm penalty or long arm one.
Maybe its my fault for not learning all the rules, but i dont believe sport should be too complicated. I always think back to Channel 7’s coverage of the Wallabies games and how they have to display the penalty on the tv screen just so you know whats happened.
Saying that im sure the fans that love rugby would rather see Australian based teams play more often against each other.
Hope this helps.
Yikes said | May 20th 2009 @ 9:05pm | Report comment
The discussion about who gets into the finals is taking some wrong turns, I think.
We should stop thinking about this competition as if it were just one big competition table, and think of it as 3 separate conferences, each with their own competition table. To smash them all together is to compare apples and oranges because they have not all played the same teams.
So: the three conference winners go through to the finals automatically. Then the next three teams with the highest number of competition points go through regardless of conference. Simple.
Pretending this is all one big table and so if 1 and 2 on the table are from the same conference they should both so through to the semis is ludicrous. What if 3 of the teams in their conference were easybeats? Now, this issue is unavoidable in working out who finalists 4-6 are, but at the end of the day, so long as the top team in each conference goes through, the best team will win the comp. Full stop.
One other point: NOWHERE in the SANZAR press release does it say that the local derbies will be played first, then the inter-conference rounds. I think this was just a turn of phrase used by a journalist that has been taken to mean more than it was intended. I think the matches will probably be mixed up throughout the season as they are now. It might be that the local derbies are spread out somewhat to avoid the “them again already?” factor.
Tahriffc said | May 20th 2009 @ 9:13pm | Report comment
Yikes – if that is the case – you’re describing a Champions League format – as in European and Asian Soccer
So why not do it properly – have the winners of the three countries domestic competitions play each other in a triangular series
The issue with the released structure – and your three conferences scenario – is that anomolous results could evolve
For example this year – the Conference winners would be the Force – but per the released structure the Waratahs would be finalists (qualifying ahead of teams with more points – and others who performed better within the conference).
I hope they make the competition easy to understand
Yikes said | May 20th 2009 @ 9:20pm | Report comment
Tahriffc – You have misunderstood me, the points within each conference table would include points won in inter-conference games.
To be honest, you get the same outcome – but thinking about it in this way eliminates the temptation to think that the Top 6 teams regardless of conference deserve to go through which is wrong, or think that Teams 1 and 2 on the log deserve to go through to the semis regardless of conference which is also wrong.
(As for you idea of a triangular series format, I love it – but what do you do if over 3 weeks they each win one game each??!)
Tahriffc said | May 20th 2009 @ 9:22pm | Report comment
Bonus Points – For/Against
Then we can all write about how unfair it is afterwards
Big Steve said | May 20th 2009 @ 10:11pm | Report comment
Have a look at any if the American sports standings, NHL.com, NFL.com, MLB.com for how a conference works.
There is a ladder for overall placings and a secondary ladder for each conference. Confernce leaders are placed 1,2,3 and then the next teams are ranked on points. So you can easily have 4,5,6 having more points than 3. See the North West division in the NHL the last few years. The reason they had lower points totals was cause it was such a strong conference and they beat each other all the time. So with one win you could move from 7th to third theoretically. This will effect the NZ and AUS conferences as most of the teams appear evenly matched.
I hope the waratahs stop playing games away from the SFS!
Tahriffc said | May 20th 2009 @ 10:18pm | Report comment
Big Guy – the yanks have 24 plus teams and can bring in Wildcards etc to the competitions
IMO 15 teams is too small for cross fertilisation and conferences
sheek said | May 20th 2009 @ 10:39pm | Report comment
Having had the day to absorb all these new announcements & their manifestations, I am blown away by ‘The Messiah’.
Yep, I’m talking about John O’Neill. Is this guy a genius? Or is he a genius? I think he’s a genius!
I keep reading how all 3 countries had to make concessions, & I’m still trying to figure out where Australia made its concessions. I mean….. REAL concessions!
O’Neill has managed to convince SA & NZ to agree to an expanded season so as to give Australia’s its token national comp. He gets to use the team & playing resources of SA & NZ to fight head-on against AFL & NRL.
Expanding the super season means that the Currie Cup & ANZ Cup have each been consigned to tin-pot status. Gee…..
Let me amend the genius status – O’Neill is a ’super’ genius!
Australia will get the 15th franchise, which will be a predominately Aussie outfit. And forget about SANZAR deciding where the license goes. It will go wherever O’Neill tells them he wants it.
Working Class Rugger said | May 20th 2009 @ 11:07pm | Report comment
Sheek
You may be right. He’s a Super Dooper Genius. All his hardline talk has payed off. Bet you the SARFU and NZRFU think they have really put him in his place. Let’s hope he makes the right decision come the 5th Australian team.
Sam Taulelei said | May 20th 2009 @ 11:11pm | Report comment
Gotta agree Sheek, it’s hard to see where Australia really compromised it’s position. However SA also got a better deal in regards to the finals format which is along the same lines that they originally submitted that NZ and Australia disagreed with last year that broke down the negotiations between the three. They also get to start the Tri Nations in SA each year and Australia gets to open the Bledisloe each year. South Africa’s biggest compromise is in agreeing to each country receiving an equal share of the revenue and cost sharing.
What I’m still trying to figure out is what exactly has NZ won from this new deal? You mentioned earlier that the NZ franchises wouldn’t be disadvantaged and that may be correct but certainly Australia and SA have received a greater advantage in guaranteeing themselves a top three spot in the best of six finals series. That may not automatically translate into winning more titles but certainly the way this article was written sums it up for Australian fans “Australian rugby will never again go without a Super rugby finalist as part of a revamped SANZAR schedule” You can now also insert South African rugby.
Thinking unselfishly, assisting Australia in developing their rugby infrastructure so they become more competitive will actually assist NZ rugby longer term as well – we already have the transtasman rivalries that we feed off but realistically over the past five years it’s all been one way traffic. This may be heartening for Kiwi fans but seriously I would rather see Super rugby follow a scenario similar to the AFL and NRL when there are different teams winning their competitions most years and the dominance one side enjoys is of a shorter duration. The unpredictability of picking a winner each week and the realisation of success shared by different teams over the years actually adds and not detract from a competition.
I admit that the notion of a guaranteed finals spot for each conference winner goes against my personal beliefs and values but I accept that from a broadcasters perspective it’s a much more attractive package when you have a team from each different country represented to sell airtime in local markets and get higher ratings. It also opens the door for another conference to be added that one would hope includes the Pacific Islands, Argentina, the Americas and Japan.
Thanks Yikes for clarifying those points. It seems that the way this has been reported in the dailies differs in one critical detail to what is appearing on official SANZAR channels with regards to the timing of the local conference games being played in relation to cross conference games.
Phew what a rigorous debate, I’ve certainly learned a lot from everyone’s contributions thus far and as more details come to light I’m sure we’ll all be at it again. Certainly the announcement of the fifteenth franchise will generate a lot of comments.
One interesting footnote to the 15th team. There have been many comments about the makeup of this team if it’s based in Australia especially around the notion of relaxing eligibility rules amongst SANZAR countries for players to freely swap between the three without sacrificing national eligibility. A quote from Steve Tew in an interview today put paid to that notion for now “The Australians are obviously very keen (to get the 15th team), as they have a strong desire to grow their game, but I think there’s a question mark over their talent depth, which is why they are looking for a change in the eligibility criteria, which we’ve said no to at this stage,” Tew said.
Now if JON gets the NZRU to change this then he will be a bloody genius!!!
Sam Taulelei said | May 20th 2009 @ 11:23pm | Report comment
After giving it more thought, perhaps NZ’s best accomplishment from this new deal is that they gain greater revenue than previously and with that extra income, the restucturing of the super season and finals format it will assist them in retaining their best players. That’s also true for SA and Australia but comparatively we’ve lost more experienced players to overseas clubs in recent years. Without those marquee players how super will super rugby actually be?
Working Class Rugger said | May 20th 2009 @ 11:30pm | Report comment
Sam
You never know. From the comments from the NZ Player’s Union suggests that the player’s may very well be up for it. I guess we’ll see. Your point about this development may open up the possibility of new conference’s actually may have some credence. The creation of new conference’s with completely new regions is the next step for Super Rugby. A Asian and Americas conference would be the next logical development. Plus each of the existing SANZAR nations adding a sixth side each.
westy said | May 21st 2009 @ 12:08am | Report comment
Sheek depite the Two Blues defeat of Warringah last week this is the last throw of the dice for Wsetern Sydney rugby as an entity in its own right.
Every club in the Shute Shield knows that rugby in Western Sydney provides players to other areas.
It is important for parramatta to become the exclusive feeder clug for any new Melbourne Super 14 franchise in the Shute Shield with a consequential realignment of western Sydney juniors to the new franchise .
The new franchise would as the Storm do in QLD subsidise professional coaching at Granville and Blacktown Olympic Park for Parramatta and our Colts.
This would be a win for Melbourne and awin for the development of rugby in Western Sydney. Bluntly the connection with both the NSWRU and especially the Waratahs is strained to say the least.
One Australiaa schoolboy representative from parra and he is advised by NSWRU to play elsewhere. we are heartily sick of it.
Four Parramatta U/15 rep players transported each week to play for in Norths . Give us something to offer and it is Melbourne franchise.
ohtani's jacket said | May 21st 2009 @ 12:48am | Report comment
Yikes,
The way the Super 14 is set-up now, 1 and 2 can never play each other until the final. If the three conference winners are seeded 1-3, then the two best sides may meet in the semi-finals. That means that 2 or 3 can advance to the finals without playing either of the two best sides in the competition.
Not only that, but in this case it’s better to be the 6th seed than the 5th seed. To make the final, the fifth seed would have to beat the two best teams in the competition on the road.
The NBA had this problem in 2006 when San Antonio and Dallas were the two best teams in the Western conference and wound up playing in the semi-finals because SA was seeded 1 and Dallas 4. Right before the playoffs, the Clippers played the Grizzlies with the outcome determining the 5th and 6th seeds. LA intentionally lost to get the 6th seed and a better first round match-up with Denver, the 3rd seed.
It shouldn’t matter if you play in a weaker conference, because you also have to play across conference, and besides complaining that one conference is weaker than another is a pretty good reason not to give a conference winner a top seeding.
sheek said | May 21st 2009 @ 6:43am | Report comment
Sam,
The Kiwis do gain financially from Aussie & Saffie financial resources. Of course, it must be worrying to see the others catch up to NZ on the pitch.
As the highly irreverent ‘greenandgoldrugby’ site suggests, the Crusaders fans have become complacent & bored with their team’s perennial success, & now can look forward to more challenging times!
Westy,
The Gold Coast is NOT our best option right now for the 5th team. I just hope it’s “paper talk”.
Guys,
You’re getting far too carried away with final 6 playoffs system. As if that’s the most important factor to come out of the new arrangements.
sheek said | May 21st 2009 @ 6:56am | Report comment
Actually, when I think about this clinically & without emotion – Gold Coast WON’t get the 5th Aussie team license.
It doesn’t present the same opportunity for growth of rugby as Melbourne.
It doesn’t provide the same financial possibilities as Melbourne.
It is too close to Brisbane, which has already seen the Reds player ranks decimated.
No, a cool & calm head says Melbourne will win the 5th Aussie team license.
Hemjay said | May 21st 2009 @ 8:23am | Report comment
Sheek Im all for the team going to Melbourne should Australia get the franchise.
But what I must point out to you is that the Chiefs and Blues are just over an hour away from each other. Hamilton has a population of not quite 200k Auckland 1.4Million
Yes rugby is the dominant sport in NZ however there are more people playing the game in Australia.
I think people want the game to go to Melbourne for different reasons like myself it will give me something to go to other than AFL when in Melbourne. I can see the point that the Gold Coast could and will be staurated with professional sports teams from various codes but sureley the GC could be successful although maybe not as big a money spinner.
Also who’s to say the Victorians will take to the team and rugby, its going to be a huge uphill battle. While the novelty factor at first whould get the punters along will it keep them there? In all likeliness the team will be the whipping boys for a while is this going to keep the sports nuts victorians coming through the turnstiles to watch a game they barely understand and where their so called team is getting flogged week in week out? In some ways this could do more damage to rugby in Victoria than good. If it is a team the city cannot relate to re a hybrid team surely this could also impact on the success of the team. I am just grabbing at straws here but i’m trying to open the debate up. Like I said I’m all for Melbourne but I don’t think the choice is as clean cut as some would have us to believe
Yikes said | May 21st 2009 @ 8:51am | Report comment
ohtani’s jacket – how do you know which are the ‘best’ teams?
You say: “If the three conference winners are seeded 1-3, then the two best sides may meet in the semi-finals.”
This is incorrect. They are only the two ‘best’ sides if you smash all three conferences into one table. Which I am arguing is comparing apples and oranges.
Hemjay said | May 21st 2009 @ 9:13am | Report comment
I don’t see any point really in cross conference matches if the best from each conference goes through anyway.
Whos to say that the NZ conference teams don’t get hammered in the cross over by the Aus and SA teams. Should they still get a finals placing I don’t think so.
While highly unlikely there is a chance that one country may not even feature in the top 6. But will still get a finals place out of pity for topping their own conference.
Also it is blatantly obvious some conferences will be more competitive and this could be a huge downside to the competition. While local derbies will be very competitive in passion that doesn’t necessarily transfer to skill on the park. lets take the Brumbies reds game for example played ar Suncorp, imagine the possible carnage that could’ve occurred on the return leg in Canberra. Will teams such as the Tahs and Brumbies gain anything from coming up against so called lesser teams?
The same could be said for the SA conference in the Lions, Cheetahs and Stormers being perennialy flogged by the Sharks and Bulls. the NZ conference has seen the field even out greatly over the last few years and everyteam has contested a semi final only the chiefs so far have not contested a final.
My summations are just from which teams have consistently made the finals for Australia and South Africa and in some degree NZ could be rated as such but like I said our talent has evened out with the exception of the Highlanders.
The playing styles betweeen the conferences will also be interesting come finals times and how it will effect the competition will be interesting
sheek said | May 21st 2009 @ 9:50am | Report comment
Hemjay,
I understand what you’re saying. However, geographically, things change between Auckland & Hamilton, you move from built up urban areas to rolling country. Auckland is NZ’s biggest city, while Hamilton is what, 5th or 6th.
Brisbane is Australia’s 3rd largest city & Gold Coast the 6th. The end of Brisbane virtually merges with the beginning of Gold Coast. It’s not quite the same thing.
And it’s crazy that Australia’s second largest city Melbourne, isn’t represented. Imagine NZ’s second largest city Christchurch not playing rugby????? As for the Vics warming to rugby, we only want a core following, we’re not out to conquer AFL.
OJ,
I don’t think anyone should have any problem with the conference winners being protected for the finals. It’s almost inconceivable that one of conference winners wouldn’t be among the top 6 best performed teams.
ohtani's jacket said | May 21st 2009 @ 10:28am | Report comment
Sheek,
It’s not a matter of whether they should be “protected”, it’s a matter of how the top six should be seeded.
If the Crusaders finish 14-2, the Hurricanes 13-3, the Bulls 12-4 and the Waratahs 10-6, they should be seeded in order of their record regardless of the Hurricanes finishing runner-up in their conference.
Teams are already going to vying to win wildcard berthes instead of trying to win their conference. In the scenario I gave above, it’s better to be the sixth seed than the fifth seed, because the 6th seed play the 10-6 Waratahs and not the 12-4 Bulls. So if the 5th and 6th seeds are decided in the final round, teams will throw games.
CronullaKiwi said | May 21st 2009 @ 11:26am | Report comment
Am I missing something or does the new 3N tournament mean that SA only has to play NZ and AUS in SA? Ridiculous if thats the case
Hemjay said | May 21st 2009 @ 11:44am | Report comment
Cronullakiwi,
The Saffa will just get to start the tournament at home and then it will move to Australia for a bledisloe test before the Saffas arrive again in Aus and NZ to finish their part in the Tri-Nations and leaving NZ and Aus to finish the tournament with the Bledisloe fixtures.
I am curious though as to will the venues and teams alternate as it seems in the NZ Herald you could be mistaken for thinking that the ABs will always play 2 games in SA.
I think NZ rugby has been dealt the biggest blow in this as every year we will be disadvantaged as we have to play the first three games away from home. In my opinion now that they have defined the dates in which the Tri-nations has to be played there is nothing stopping SA coming out to Aus and NZ first on alternative seasons thenheading back to SA in the same window.
I make no bones about saying it and I believe this has all played into the Saffas hands they have got pretty much everything they want. everyone is talking up O’Neill but it seems to me as the SARU did hold the cards. Their currie cup is not affected as much as people like Sheek would like us to believe. In fact in doesn’t do stuff all really the Springboks are still available to play in it. If anything NZ has been screwed big time in all of this and in some ways Tew is to blame. He has put the integrity of our national competition in serious jeopardy, Where the boks did there utmost to keep there stars involved. Tew has taken ours out. If the boks can play Super rugby, June tests, more super rugby, Tri-nations then why the hell can’t the ABs. Is this some new half brained idea to win the World Cup by resting players. NZ arguably the best rugby nation in the World and certainly the most well known brand it seems has been given the big finger not just by the other under performing super partners but also by one of its on in Tew
Dan said | May 21st 2009 @ 12:29pm | Report comment
Not the case. It basically runs like it does now; alternating from playing 2 home games against 1 side and 2 away games against another.
retiredrucker said | May 21st 2009 @ 12:52pm | Report comment
It’s all about da money!
The finals format that is, doesn’t matter(to SANZAR) if its fair or not. It allows the broadcasters a final in each country too beat up and allows the conference winner to ad another 500-1000K(based on 40K attendance) to the balance sheet.
It might not be fair on the Kiwis but I think Tew has already conceded this one so we might as well get used to it.
Yikes said | May 21st 2009 @ 12:54pm | Report comment
ohtani’s jacket
No, they shouldn’t be seeded in that way, because they have all played different teams. You are comparing apples and oranges.
Once you understand that the whole thing will be inherently unfair no matter what you do, you will see the light: ie. In the situation you give, the “better performed” Bulls may only be better performed because they played the Lions and Cheetahs twice!!
Putting them all on the same table is misunderstanding the competition.
ohtani's jacket said | May 21st 2009 @ 1:18pm | Report comment
Yikes,
So what if the Bulls play the Lions and Cheetahs twice. The Australian teams will play the Reds and the fifth franchise twice. The New Zealand teams will play the two lowest teams twice. There will be an advantage towards some teams in the cross-conference scheduling, but I don’t understand what you mean by “putting them all on the same table is misunderstanding the competition.” Two of the conference winners are going straight to the semis, if they don’t determine this by comparing overall records, how are they going to determine it?
Hemjay said | May 21st 2009 @ 1:35pm | Report comment
Oj
I think Yikes is trying to say that you cannot have an overall table as such when the teams will not be playing the same teams throughout the entire competition and therefore you cannot really put them all on one table.
The point being OJ is that the bottom two NZ teams are generally speaking much better than the bottom two placed SA teams so how can we say the Bulls are a better team when the competition they have played is not necessarily of the same standard.
Also the second point is that the Bulls in the foreign phase may also avoid having to play the Waratahs and the Crusaders, where as the Sharks may avoid the Highlanders and the Reds so how will this proove who is better. It doesn’t really it leaves the competition wide open for much debate which is what is happening. I know nothing can be fool proof but this is in my opinion a fundamental flaw and will only distort the competition and we will not get the best teams in the finals.
I’m against the winner of the conferences getting an automatic semi and top seedings even though their records might not warrant it like yourself actually I’m against pity finalists full stop only the best deserve the chance.
Technically speaking the winners of two of the conferences could finish fouth through fifth. Is it right that two teams who finish higher are forced down the seedings to accomodate the pity kids thats the question that needs answering and i think this is where your coming from also correct me if i am wrong
Yikes said | May 21st 2009 @ 1:36pm | Report comment
Yes, they will use overall records (so to to determine 4-6). But this is not necessarily an argument as to why the top team in each conference should not go through. Just an acknowledgement that the whole system is inherently unfair and so at some point you have to make judgements based on total record.
But it would be MORE unfair (to NZ teams, mostly) to use your logic, because the comparing apples and oranges would start at determining who goes through to the semis!
Nick (KIA) said | May 21st 2009 @ 1:41pm | Report comment
What makes you think this is about having the best teams in the finals? We already have that system and it’s broke.
This is about getting more marketable product in each country.
Yikes said | May 21st 2009 @ 1:41pm | Report comment
Yes, but Hemjay, they are not “pity” finalists as you insist on calling them.
For the very reasons you outline to OJ, the process of putting them all on one table is misleading. So when you say “Technically speaking the winners of two of the conferences could finish fouth through fifth”, this doesn’t make any sense, because there is no 4th or 5th.
The top teams in each conference DO deserve to go straight through to the finals with top ’seedings’ becasue they have done the best against the opposition they were pitting against. It’s not their fault they didn’t get to play the Cheetahs and Lions twice (for example).
So, SANZAR has settled on: the finals are the 3 top teams in each conference, plus the 3 next best performed teams (as best as that can be determined even though it’s an unfair comparison) regardless of conference. It’s actually simple and very logical.
Hemjay said | May 21st 2009 @ 1:53pm | Report comment
I strongly disagree Yikes and I call them pity finalists for this simple reason
Conference 1 Winner Chiefs Conference 2 Winner Force Conference 3 Winner Bulls
However final standings while I may not agree with the method will be used to determine the final three Wildcards it will be taken from the overall table.
1. Chiefs
2. Crusaders
3. Bulls
4. Blues
5. Sharks
6. Force
I fail to see why the Crusaders who arguably are in the toughest conference then muscled it out on the foreign phase should drop to 3rd so the Bulls get a week off and a direct hand up(pity spot) to the finals, nor do I see it fair in anyway that then the Crusaders would be pushed down to fourth to accomodate the Force in a higher (pity) seeding.
Only the best deserve to go through its highly unlikely that 1 team from each country will not be represented in the finals do remember the finals are now a 3 week 6 team process so why should automatic spots been given. the example I have just given highlights just a few of the huge flaws that this system could throw up. But wait til it actually happens we thought the Tahs threw their toys over a pts differential they would seriously be popping some blood vessels should they be forced to give up their number 2 spot to accomodate a team who finished below them overall.
Justin said | May 21st 2009 @ 2:16pm | Report comment
Nick, presume you are referring to Tah and Saders???
Yikes said | May 21st 2009 @ 2:38pm | Report comment
Hemjay
This only looks bad if you list the teams in this way in one overall table. Which is total crap for the reasons I outlined and you repeated to OJ! There should be no overall table.
OK, I give up repeating myself. SANZAR have the right system, and if you disagree, fine.
Pippinu said | May 21st 2009 @ 2:46pm | Report comment
There will definitely be an overall table – the conferences are conceptual only (i.e. you won’t ever see three separate tables).
Hemjay said | May 21st 2009 @ 2:49pm | Report comment
yikes,
Sansar have said they will take the next best three overall so the table I have used as an example will be the same table SANZAR will be using to determine the finalists.
Its an overall table Yikes and Im highlighting the flaws this will inturn create.
The fact of the matter is Yikes they are going to use an overall table so basically this makes all your posts crap and pointless.
I have agreed with you that I don’t like the idea but it is what SANZAR has said they are going to use. So relax a bit buddy I am just using what they have given us.
Hemjay said | May 21st 2009 @ 3:00pm | Report comment
Basically Yikes while the three conferences will go through regardless they will still feature on an overall table. this in turn could create disputes of which I have tried to highlight to you. Just because you win your conference it does not mean you will finish above teams from other conferences on the overall table from which the Wildcards will be taken.
Is it that hard to understand?
What I and others like OJ are trying to do is highlight some of the misgivings now before the tournament starts because you can sure as hell guarantee that a scenario similar to the one I painted out will develop and then the crap is really gonna hit the fan. Like I said take what happened with the Waratahs this year it will be minor compared to what will happen when and if two teams from the same conference qualify best overall yet one is made to make way to accomodate a lesser performed team.
I don’t agree with an overall table as not all the teams play each other, but this can also be said for conference tables some will be tougher than others so no matter what there is huge room for weaker teams getting in to the finals oppossed to stronger teams.
Hemjay said | May 21st 2009 @ 3:08pm | Report comment
My thoughts exactly Pippinu and it seems to be the way from everything I have seen and it is in some ways the most logical.
What I would be most interested in knowing is how the conference winners will be determined.
Will they be whoever has the superior record /points from the domestic leg or will it be whoever qualifies the highest overall after the foreign matches have been included?
Bay35Pablo said | May 21st 2009 @ 3:11pm | Report comment
Watching you lot debate this is liking watching 2 drunks fight each other with blunt knives. It goes on for ever and goes nowhere.
Hemjay, you play your games, the points go towards your score on the table for all teams. The top teams on that table from each conference qualify, then the next three highest teams.
What’s so hard to understand?
And stop whinging about unfairness. The NRL hasn’t played a full home and away round for a number of years and no one whinged about unbalanced games or draws.
Hemjay said | May 21st 2009 @ 3:30pm | Report comment
Bay,
it seems you have a problem with me highlighting the possible scenarios of how the finals system is flawed. In essence the example could effect any team.
But instead of actually thinking about the thing which I have highlighted you find it easier to come in here and chastisize me. I in turn will now ask you is it that the system I have highlighted maybe is just too hard for you to get your head around?
I agree with Yikes about the overall table I don’t see you having a go at him.
However while agreeing with him I have also tried to look at it through other peoples eyes and how they are seeing it and trying to offer up examples of why the scenarios could take place. But it seems you’d rather just belittle me and not actually offer any alternative yourself. So maybe until you can you should just bite your lip
Bay35Pablo said | May 21st 2009 @ 3:53pm | Report comment
Chastise and belittle? No, mate. When I chastise and belittle you’ll know it. This is just me getting peaky.
What is annoying is that the “discussion” and “debate” seems to be going around in circles, quite often on points where people either say they aren’t sure how it will work (which doesn’t stop them holding forth), or on points where the media has quite clearly reported how it will work yet people here don’t seem to have bothered to read.
You queried “What I would be most interested in knowing is how the conference winners will be determined.”
The answer appears to be quite clear. As I said in my post, all the teams get registered on the same table (just like now). There are no NBA style separate conference tables. The top NZ, SAF and Aus teams on that table are the relevant conference winners, and go into the top 6 (I presume seeded on points basis).
Why at post number 201 this is having to be explained again, is puzzling.
The teams not playing each other can theoretically result in “unfair” draws in that a team could get a “weaker” draw. But this can’t be avoided without a full seeding system that would possibly not have teams play certain others for years, or having a full 10 games against other conferences which was clearer not possible (although JON will clearly be pushing for).
My point is that this happens in the NRL right now. They have 16 teams but only 24 rounds, so not all teams play each other twice. From memory they split them into “conferences” mostly Sydney and non-Sydney, and that decides who plays who twice. There may be some element of seeding, but I am pretty sure it is on location to ensure more derbies (sounding familiar?). But this has never been from memory an issue in the NRL.
At worst, the S15 teams will be playing every team in each other conference 4 years out of 5, which is still pretty good.
At the end of the day the S15 structure is decent, and as I said many dozens of posts ago, is a camel not a race horse, because of that compromise.
Most of the complaining going on here sounds like a bunch of Poms on holiday in Corfu. Given you have been pretty quick off the mark to have a go at others, it is nice to see you so snippy when someone has a pop at you.
Having said that, most of what you have to say I take on board. I just get exasperated that 200 posts in it seems like your criticisms have been operating without a full grasp of the system being attacked.
Let the blood letting resume.
Pippinu said | May 21st 2009 @ 4:10pm | Report comment
Hemjay
Once we accept the conferences are coneptual only, it’s pretty much business as usual. The conferences help determine the shape of the draw, and who goes through to the finals, but otherwise, nothing else is really changing.
WE have rounds 1 to 16. Table positions get determined as usual. as we approach round 16, we get excited about the possible permutations (becomes a bit more of a mentally taxing calculation!).
At the end of it all, we have six finalists determined by the new rules.
But nothing else actually changes (in terms of determining table positions through the season, bonus points, etc).
We have to remember that half the draw is dedicated to within the conference, and half the draw to teams outside of the conference (for each individual team) – so it makes sense that there must be one table calculated in the normal way.
It’s only after round 16 that finals placings comes into full reckoning.
What isn’t clear to me – and some have already alluded to this, perhaps you have as well, is the primacy we give to conference winners vis-a-vis the other three best placed finishes.
If the three conference winners are already sitting in the top 6, do they stay in the positions they are already occupying? It seems to me that that would placate a lot of people if that were the case (so if the highest Aust team finishes 6th, it starts the finals there rather than leap frog other teams).
In this scenario, the only controversy possible is in the rare circumstance where one of the conference winners finishes outside of the top 6, and under the rules, it must leapfrog the lowest of the other finishers (most probably sitting in sixth, it’s almost impossible to come with a scenrio where the fifth spot team loses out).
An extreme scenrio is where two conferences supply all top six finishers (three each), meaning the final conference winner will leapfrog the team in 6th spot (but most likely, the final conference winner is going to be very, very close in points earned to that team in 6th spot).
To be honest, when you work through the various scenarios – it’s almost impossible to come up with one where a team disadvantage to any great degree (every now and then, the 6th placed team might get leap frogged by a team just below it)
Hemjay said | May 21st 2009 @ 4:21pm | Report comment
Pippinu,
You have many of the same questions as me and I too am still trying to work it all out.
Hopefully Bay will supply the link to where it states exactly how the conference winners will be determined.
See below a possible scenario that could occur on the final overall table as you say it really is the only way to go to have one table.
This is what I am trying to get answersd for because if what I have read is true it could all get very messy and we could see some very disgruntled teams dropping down the placings to accomodate the Conf winners in the Automatic finals positions
Hammer said | May 21st 2009 @ 4:21pm | Report comment
I wonder if they gave thought to playing the some of cross conference games during the home and away rounds … easy to accommodate when 1 team from each conference every week will be sitting out … and it would add a different dimension to the overall table …
Hemjay said | May 21st 2009 @ 4:21pm | Report comment
So Bay,
I’ll look forward to you trying to have a go at me if the situation ever shall arise because ai tell you now son you will certainly know also when I am not happy with something. I am not fazed by someone having an opinion but I am very quick to pull someone down a peg or two should they get ahead of themselves and expect the same in return.
Ok so you’ve explained how the conferences will be determined can you supply the link again because over here in NZ nothing has been said about how this will be done.
Also have a look below at what I am trying to get across to Yikes and yourself in the possible scenario of what could happen going from what I have read and seen. Its really not that hard to see. But in your rush to reply you have not taken the time to actually read what I and others have written although some was written in another thread so I can’t hold you to that. Quite frankly I’m getting rather tired having to explain it to you as you are trying to explain something and like you say to me I don’t think you have the full grasp either so we are all in the same basket speculating on what and could happen. But better it be done now than at the end of a season like the Tahs did this year right.
Rusty,
Yes your getting my point here but if we go by what SANZAR has stated thats were you may have got confused in my further method of placing the teams.
My original placings were
1. Chiefs
2. Crusaders
3. Bulls
4. Blues
5. Sharks
6. Force
SANZAR has said the top two conference winners would go straight to the Finals and the lowest ranked conference winner would take the third finals spot and play one of the wildcards so going by my example that would change the table to the below
Automatic finals qualifiers
1. CHIEFS – Winner Conf 1
2. BULLS – Winner Conf 2 Highest placed conference winners
Sudden death play offs I am assuming the conference winner will get home advantage
3. FORCE – Lowest ranked conference Winner
4. CRUSADERS dropped 2 places and have to contest a sudden death playoff even though technically 2nd placed team
5. BLUES dropped one and lose home advantage for first round of finals overall ranked higher than winner conf 3
6. SHARKS dropped one also while ranked higher than conf 3 winner
This is just a example of a possible scenario that could occur
Bay35Pablo said | May 21st 2009 @ 4:40pm | Report comment
Hemjay, I can’t give you the link because it hasn’t been stated explicitly. it hasn’t been stated explicitly because it clearly goes without saying. It goes without saying that things remain as they are, because if they were changing it they would have said something.
Dr Seuss is in the house ….
Your example of the Force finishing 6th but getting a home final is what will happen. Because they have said every country is guaranteed a home final. They might give a home final to the 6th place team for TV purposes but still seed them 6th, but it’s highly unlikely.
Is it fair? No. is it for TV? Yes. Is it because the Saafies demanded it? Yes.
Important question, will it happen very often? Probably not.
Which is the reason I’m not getting het up about it. just like I didn’t get het up about NSW missing out despite losing out on the finals despite winning more games than the Saders. They got more bonus points. They scored a better F&A. That’s the rules.
And I think SANZAR have thought, and fought, this all through already. it’s the compromise they clearly had to reach to keep the Saafies happy. Which is insane because they are clearly good enough to be qualifying regularly, but the buggers can be paranoid.
If and when we end up with the unfair scenario you have raised, watch people scream, and only then will it get fixed.
but given we will probably have a S18 or S20 within a few years, we’ll probably end up with a different finals system before that happens.
Pippinu said | May 21st 2009 @ 4:47pm | Report comment
Just revisiting an article in the Australian, which says:
“The winners of each conference will advance to the finals along with three wild-card teams, which will be the next-ranked teams from across the competition.
An elimination series in the first round of the finals will lead to two semi-finals and the final. ”
As Bay says, it’s not explicit, but it’s pretty clear to me from these few words that the winners of each conference get primacy over everyone else, so if the Bulls and Brumbies finish 5th and 7th as the best finishers in their conference, they jump to 2nd and 3rd, and away we go.
That probably is a bit problematic.
But I do wonder what is wrong with the Bulls staying in 5th and Brumbies just just jumping to 6th?
I guess our answer is in the desire for every country to host at least one game.
Hemjay said | May 21st 2009 @ 4:55pm | Report comment
Finally you can see where I am coming from in that sense Bay,
While unlikely that the Lowest ranked conference winner could come in 6th it is still possible
However what is highly likely Bay is that two teams from one conference will finish one and two and that in itself still throws up some major issues and puts the credibility of the tournament at question. I have to live with conferences getting guaranteed finalists but they should not be given home finals simply because they were the best from their area. It must be in order of their overall ranking on the table not some rigged format to suit TV, this in itself puts an underachieving team at greater advantage when in all likeliness rightfully it should be with the other team.
So taken the example I used Bay
The Bulls would go straight through to the finals at the expense of the Crusaders who while finishing second overall are forced to play sudden death footy and pushed down to not third but fourth to accomodate the Force in third.
I would like to know in a highly likely scenario where number 2 is from the same conference and forced to play sudden death footy. Should number two win this game will they be awarded the home final? Surely the Bulls in this scenario have already had enough of a leg up and should forfeit home advantage
This Bay is a highly likely scenario and has me worried not only that the best teams won’t be there come finals but the integrity of the whole super tournament could be tested severly and fans could revolt. there is huge potential for things to backfire whilst also it could go the other way and be hugely successful.
Hemjay said | May 21st 2009 @ 5:00pm | Report comment
Pippinu
That is what I have been saying all along have a look at what I wrote.
I even gave a example of how the finals will be going by sanzars articles
I gave an example of an overall top six and then I gave a example of an altered top six going by Sanzars press release
What I was truing to establish is why cant the top six stay as they are why should they be doctored. Surely it would take more to get 2nd overall than it would to just win your conference
retiredrucker said | May 21st 2009 @ 5:15pm | Report comment
Hemjay I have to agree with Bay on this on as I posted earlier
It’s all about da money!
The finals format that is, doesn’t matter(to SANZAR) if its fair or not. It allows the broadcasters a final in each country too beat up and allows the conference winner to ad another 500-1000K(based on 40K attendance) to the balance sheet.
It might not be fair on the Kiwis but I think Tew has already conceded this one so we might as well get used to it.
Good to see Cowan and Hodgson make the squad, go the Force. Whats with cooper getting a go????
Hemjay said | May 21st 2009 @ 5:25pm | Report comment
Im not saying this as being fair on any country thats where you have misinterpreted what i am trying to say.
What i am saying is if the teams finished in the overall positions that i stated why don’t they stay that way?
Is that too hard for people to grasp.
I gave you an overall standings then a Sanzar altered standings trying to highlight the issues i and others have with this system. While bringing more dollars it is taking away the integrity of the competition to some degree as in some ways we are rigging the tournament to favour certain teams advancement through to the final.
But for the sake of the dollar the credibility of this tournament is being put on the line, where higher ranked teams are being forced to play sudden death matches away from home when on the current system that isn’t be changed so Bay keeps telling us. the crusaders in my example would get the home advantage. Also the Force would also be made to play away from home.
So in all reality the system is no longer the same except they way in which pts are awarded, However final standings will not mean jack stuff all.
This is the fundamental point of my argument that you are missing.
I know this is all done for money, what I am saying is the championship winner may not necessarily be the best team. When lower qualifying teams are awarded a home final at the expense of better teams it totally swings the balance and what teams have played so hard for all season to finish high on the table and get a home final.
retiredrucker said | May 21st 2009 @ 5:46pm | Report comment
Hemjay,
I/we understand your arguments, I think but………. SANZAR has in its wisdom taken the punt that us punters will still follow the game regardless of how unfair it is.
In the end it will be the same as this year with the Waratah’s missing out and having a whinge. If everybody is aware going into the comp what the rules are they can live by them.
AndyS said | May 21st 2009 @ 5:49pm | Report comment
A conference system is always going to be inherently flawed. One of the problems might be in the term “best” – at current strengths, the extra games against the Lions, Cheetahs and Stormers could have easily bumped the Sharks into second while the Chiefs and Hurricanes struggle to maintain 3rd and 4th against the other Kiwi sides. Doesn’t mean that the Sharks are necessarily “better”, they just scored more points. But if they scored less than the Bulls, then the Bulls are definitively better and get the first final place in that conference.
Hemjay said | May 21st 2009 @ 6:50pm | Report comment
that is what i’m trying to say because i sure as hell will be peeved should my team have to make way for a pity rigged finals placement all in the aid of money. Conferences should be happy they’re guaranteed a bloody final spot. In no way should the competition be set up for the betterment of ones wallet. It should be for the betterment of rugby. Anyone who agrees money should come first is not a true rugby supporter
ohtani's jacket said | May 21st 2009 @ 6:55pm | Report comment
It’s not even a true conference system. It’s more like three divisions within a single conference, but for simplicity’s sake let’s call them conferences.
Since you have four top seeds — three conference winners plus the team with the next best record, they earn home ground advantage, either with a bye through to the semis or home advantage in the first round of finals. How difficult is it to seed these teams based on their overall record?
I don’t understand what Yikes is talking about when he says there is no overall table. Cross-conference play will factor into your record for and against. Even if you sweep your conference 8-zip, if you go 3-5 in cross-conference games, then an 11-5 record might not be enough to win your conference and guarantee you a finals spot.
If cross-conference results didn’t factor into your record, there would be no point playing them. The six finalists will not be decided by winning percentage within their conference, they’ll be determined by overall records. This is as fair a system as can be achieved without adding more teams or making the competition longer, since every team will play the same amount of home and away games.
Teams will be aware of where they stand on the overall ladder, because there are going to be races to get byes to the semis and even more competitive races to get wildcard berths. All it will take is one team to deliberately lose to expose the flaws in this finals system.
AndyS said | May 21st 2009 @ 7:00pm | Report comment
So you’d be happy with just the top six going through, even if it proved that the extra games against the bottom three teams in the Australian and African conferences meant that only one team could ever really qualify out of a much more even NZ conference? There would be no “They are not better, they just had an easier run”? Would giving a fourth ranked Crusaders or Hurricanes a final be pity?
ohtani's jacket said | May 21st 2009 @ 7:23pm | Report comment
There’s no problem having the three conference winners go through. They just need to seed the top four in order of record. IIt’s very, very simple, but important given that the No.1 and 2 teams go straight to the semi-finals.
They don’t just qualify for the finals, they skip the first round of finals altogether and receive a home semi against whoever qualifies to play them. This is a massive advantage over finishing 3rd or 4th.
If the NBA can make this change after one controversial post-season, I don’t know why the Super 15 can’t make this clear beforehand. There’s a lot of people who can’t envision it happening now, but trust me — the Waratahs missing out this year is a storm in a teacup compared to the flaws lying in this system.
Bay35Pablo said | May 21st 2009 @ 7:58pm | Report comment
The aim of the system is clearly to ensure that there are teams from all
three countries in the finals.
Hemjay,
Here’s a scenario that never happened in 14 years of S12/14 – all 4
finals teams from the same country. Even though it was technically
possible.
As such, the system will USUALLY ensure the best 6 sides are there. I
think it is unlikely that the scenarios you put will occur, but it is
possible. So you end up with 5 of the best top 6 sides, and another team
from another country. Who if they are that bad will get smashed … but
which I don’t think will really be that bad. Can you tell me that the
Tahs or Sharks, who missed the final this year by whiskers, would have
been rolled had they been in the finals?
The fear in the scenario appears to be that you will not end up with the
best team winning. I think this is also perhaps misplaced. If they are
good enough, they will win. If the Crusaders beat the Bulls, then beat
the Chiefs/Canes, will they not deserve to win? Will we all be jumping
up and down saying they shouldn’t even be there because the tahs should
have been (etc etc etc). No.
Now they will have an advantage in that they get a home game when they
are not in the top 3 sides in the comp, but by the same token the team
playing them is getting an easy ride in playing a team worse than the
nominal 3rd best. it’ll still be 2 good sides, and a good game. And
I don’t believe that the conferences will be so uneven that teams will
be really mismatched. As has been suggested elsewhere, you may end up with
NZ being a tough comp, all the teams being even, low points, and the top
NZ side actually only scoring 4th-6th in points, but in the end being a
really good side to get there.
We don’t have a round robin comp which is the only way to solve all the
problems you raise. This may not be a silk purse, but it it’s closer to
that than being a pig’s ear.
Bay35Pablo said | May 21st 2009 @ 8:03pm | Report comment
OJ,
I take on board the NBA example, which seems to be more about the deliberate loss to get an easier seed, but here’s some issues:
* From memory NBA finals are best of 5 or 7, so it isn’t just one game.
* Home ground advantage means less in NBA, especially with the travel. Although they travel far in the NBA, it’s not as far as NZ to SAF, it is not a contact sport, the links are easier, and conditions in any arena are pretty similar.
* The home team takes the gate. A team would have to be pretty sure of themselves, and pretty well off, to give up a home semi to play away to a “weaker” team, and forego the cash.
That doesn’t mean I can’t see where you and Hemjay are coming from. It’s just that having dealt with these type of people before, the deal is done. No one is changing anything now. You’ll be able to say ‘I told you so” in about 2 years or so.
And its always been about the cash. Even before the game went amateur. No matter what the suits tell you. Cash and egos.
Hemjay said | May 21st 2009 @ 8:39pm | Report comment
Bay, i’m getting the feeling you don’t want to see others peoples views. The example i gave you is highly likely take this years final table standings for example. The top australian team finished 5th therefore under sanzars new rules it would leap frog both the crusaders and hurricanes. Now that is absolute crap. Also the example i gave earlier it is highly likely the top two teams could be from the same conference. The fact money is being put first will be detrimental to rugby. Teams won’t play as hard because they know they wont get a home semi. This+is+a+danger+this+system+is+opening+up.+Its+effectively+giving+teams+the+finger+who+do+well+only+to+be+dropped+down+the+pecking+order+and+rigging+finals.+We+all+know+how+important+home+advantage+is.+
Bay35Pablo said | May 21st 2009 @ 9:08pm | Report comment
Hemjay, I have no problem with peoples’ views, when they are reasoned and properly explained.
It took long enough to tease out what your point was and why, now you seem to want me to fall to my knees, admit you are right, and beg forgiveness for ever doubting your previous comments.
We disagree. On what? That this is as major an issue as you say it is, and whether it can be fixed at this point in time. Some people agree with you, some with me. Hardly unprecedented.
Hemjay: It should be an apple.
B35P: That’s because it’s an orange.
Hemjay: But it should be an apple.
B35P: Well, yes I agree. But we aren’t able to get apples. Maybe next week. Until then we’ve got oranges.
Hemjay: But I don’t like oranges. Everyone prefers apples. It should be an apple.
B35P: Well it’s an orange.
Hemjay: I want an apple.
(B35P exits stage left)
Hemjay: It really should be an apple.
Bay35Pablo said | May 21st 2009 @ 9:59pm | Report comment
Just watched the pork chops on the Rugby Club on Foxtel. They talked to Mark Carroll, the Deputy CEO of the ARU, who essentially confirmed it is structured as most of us suspected. There was an off the cuff comment about the NFL, vis via conferences. So they have probably been paying attention to the Yanks.
So to answer someone’s question all the games you play, whether within your conference or not, count to your points total on the Super 15 table to work out who is the top team in your conference.
They crossed to Trevor Johnson in NZ, whose almost first comment was that it was “interesting” to see that the semis structure would guarantee a home final to a conference winner against a wildcard team who might have finished higher (i.e. with more points on the Super 15 table) than the conference winner. So Hemjay’s and OJ’s (and others) worst fears are realised.
I still think it’ll be cracking rugby, but if we ever end up with the SAF (or Aus or NZ) teams being 11th to 15th and the 11th side getting a home semi against a team that finished (say) 2nd, it’ll be blood on the walls. And I’ll laugh myself silly remembering these postings and you lot being right.
Although, as you lot suggest, having a team finish even 6th and get a home final, or 7th and still making the senis, will cause screaming. It seems SANZAR has decided this is how theyu have to structure the S15.
Yikes said | May 21st 2009 @ 11:08pm | Report comment
Of course all the games you play count toward your competition points and whether you win your conference.
Hemjay says there will be an overall table, and hence all my post are crap and pointless. However, the SANZAR press release does NOT say anything about there being one overall table. It says:
“The three Conference winners and three wildcard teams with the highest number of competition points from any Conference qualify for the play-offs”
You could still have 3 tables, and then take the 3 winners, and then the next 3 from any conference with the highest number of points. This assertion that there will be only 1 table is just that – assertion. In fact if anything, the language implies the conferences will be anything but merely conceptual. Noone here knows what SANZAR are going to do.
I think publishing an overall table is going to be confusing and misleading (for all the reasons everyone here has outlined) and so I wouldn’t do it. And there’s nothing to suggest SANZAR will do it except people’s assertions here. We’ll find out in 2011.
Sam Taulelei said | May 22nd 2009 @ 1:02am | Report comment
But Yikes the release also defines the first round of finals to involve the third highest conference winner and the three wildcard teams regardless of what conference they play in. So the question that has everyone puzzled is exactly how will those three wildcard teams be selected and seeded if there isn’t an overall table or as you state, maintaining the three tables and calculating the points accumulated within each conference.
Put it this way if it was logically thought out and explained we wouldn’t be debating this point endlessly, so there are valid questions raised. The precedent has already been set with the dissatisfaction expressed by Phil Waugh that a team can miss out on a finals spot to a team that has won less games during the regular season.
ohtani's jacket said | May 22nd 2009 @ 1:03am | Report comment
Bay35Pablo,
The point I’m raising is two-fold:
1. Imagine for argument’s sake that the 4th seed has a better record or more competition points than the 3rd seed conference winner.
The third and fourth seeded teams (the conference winner with the least amount of points and the wildcard with the highest amount of points) will host home finals against the 6th and 5th ranked wildcards respectively.
Should they win those finals, the 3rd seed will play the 2nd seed and the 4th seed will play the 1st seed in the semi-finals. In order to win the Super 15 title, the 4th seed will need to win a semi-final and final on the road, despite the fact that they had the second best record or second highest amount of points in the competition.
Only four teams have ever won a semi-final on the road, so really you’re giving he 2nd seeded conference winner a tremendous leg-up (a bye into the semis and home ground advantage.) In this case, they’re not really a true 2nd seed but they’ve gifted a semi at home.
So any team who finishes runner-up in their conference, but second or third overall on the points table is screwed.
2. If the 3rd seed is actually a weaker team than the 4th seed, then it’s more advantageous to finish 6th rather than 5th.
Imagine that the 3rd seed is an Australian team and the 4th seed is a South African team. If you’re a New Zealand or Australian team fighting for a wildcard, are you going to make a legitimate attempt to finish 5th? You’d rather play a finals game in the same country or with less travel, right?
To be fair, that’s going to a problem regardless of how you seed the top 4, because they’re guaranteed that there’s a finalist from every country. All we can hope for is that there are a group of sides fighting for the wildcard spots. In some years, 3 and 4 will be from the same country, so there will be no advantage other than which side is stronger.
If you’ve beaten the 3rd seed once or twice in the season, but lost to the 4th seed, you’re going to tank your season to finish 6th.
So, for these reasons I think the top four should be seeded based on record or competition points.
Sam Taulelei said | May 22nd 2009 @ 1:04am | Report comment
Sorry that should have read “first round of finals to involve the third highest conference winner and the three wildcard teams with the highest points regardless of what conference they play in”
Sam Taulelei said | May 22nd 2009 @ 1:09am | Report comment
Hey Zac, is this some kind of record for a thread? 227 posts in two days and still going strong.
Yikes said | May 22nd 2009 @ 8:02am | Report comment
Ummmm, Sam – what’s not clear? The three teams with the highest number of competition points are the three wildcard teams.
Honestly SANZAR could not have put this much clearer. Yet OJ and others can’t seem to see the wood for the trees.
I mean, the whole fact that they called them ‘wildcard’ teams should give you a clue that SANZAR doesn’t seem them as ranked in one overall table.
Otherwise they would have said “the three highest ranked non-conference winners” go through to the finals”. They didn’t. They said “three wildcard teams with the highest number of competition points from any Conference”.
ilikedahoodoogurusingha said | May 22nd 2009 @ 9:02am | Report comment
Just a thought, but how is this for a potential scenario: Melbourne gets the 5th Australian franchise, and the Melbourne Storm relocates to the Central Coast, where their junior teams already train and play, taking the $8million on offer for any NRL team to do so. The money is used to pay News Ltd for their investment in the Storm, and News ends up with a Super Rugby franchise instead. When asked on tv where the players were going to come from, the ARU said that there are “Australians playing overseas who may be willing to play at home …and there are 16 NRL teams we can target”.
I think the S15 and mooted S18 have an eye on the potential new digital TV Free to Air future, as well as Pay TV…there may be more than one bidder in the future when it comes to tv rights.
Hemjay said | May 22nd 2009 @ 9:08am | Report comment
Finally Bay you got what OJ and I have been trying to tell you all along.
the point that you just didn’t seem to grasp until you heard it from Tony Johnson to me was blatantly obvious and I’m a little bewildered that a rugby mind such as yourself seemed to have missed this altogether. Yet still telling me that I was somewhat mislead or wrong. I will take your comment that our worst fears are realsied as some kind of admission that we were on the money all along.
Yikes while I agree with you on how can we compare teams when the don’t all play the same teams. I have for this purpose tried to take my personal view of it out and present to roarers what is a highly likely scenario that could happen come the make up of finals in 2011. Idn’t it best to air concerns here then maybe just maybe someone in the rugby world may pick up on these concerns and take it to SANZAR you never know right. Afterall do we really know who each other is behind our alias on here?
The fact is Yikes to determine the three wildcards they will have to have an overall table also there is the likelihood that a conference winner may not be determined until the final round of regular season matches so it is ineveitable that a full table there will be.
The greatest point that I and OJ have been making all along that it seems yourself and others have overlooked is that even if a team wins their conference it doesn’t necessarily transfer them to coming 1st,2nd, or 3rd on a overall table. The crusaders could quite possibly win the NZ conference but finish down in 3rd overall with the Tahs in 4th. Is it fair that the Bulls then leapfrog second placed say the Crusaders and automatically qualify for the finals and have a week off?
I say no and it seems most others do also
While I’m not for guaranteed finalists I do believe that the order in how teams finish overall is how it should stay.
Pippinu said | May 22nd 2009 @ 9:09am | Report comment
Three separate tables? Makes zero sense when half the games are with teams from outside your own conference.
There clearly will be one table, and the three conferences are conceptual only.
I like the uniqueness of this idea, but I am understanding Hemjay’s point, and it’s a valid one – if there is the one table, why should anyone jump over anyone else in the top six?
The top six should stay as is.
The only time any movement should occur will be in the extremely rare circumstance where a conference winner is outside of the top six, and therefore must take the sixth spot off the unlucky team that happens to be there at the end of the season (when you think through the various scenarios, it’s extremely unlikely that anyone higher than 6th will ever lost their spot).
I doubt any of us are going to be too concerned about the 6th placed team being displaced (except those who follow that team!)
Furthermore, when you look carefully at the structure of the draw, it’s only in very extreme curcumstances when a conference winner won’t actually make the top 6 in their own right (one possible scenario: all Australian teams defeat each other home and away, struggle against the other teams, one emerging slighly ahead of the other teams in their own conference, but will behind the leading pack in the overall table).
I don’t have a problem with the basic principle that a conference winner is more worthy of a finals spot than a team finishing 6th overall – when expressed in those terms – it’s not all that controversial.
But if a team can jump (theoretically) from 11th to 3rd at the end of the year – then that really starts to look like a nonsense.
Hammer said | May 22nd 2009 @ 9:16am | Report comment
Look – speaking as a biased one-eyed kiwi .. I agree with with my countrymen on here that both the new S15 and Tri-series has been stacked against NZ in all this …
but lets be honest lads NZ have dominated both forms since inception and we really need a new challenge – making it harder for us is a good thing
Hemjay said | May 22nd 2009 @ 9:17am | Report comment
Sorry Yikes I made a stuff up there on the table.
what i was meant to say is that the Bulls could quite possibly win their conference but on the overall table finish in third with the Tahs in 4th therefore that would mean to NZ teams finish 1 and 2. so for this example lets say the Crusaders finished 2nd. They would then have to relinquish their direct home final advantage for no other reason to accomodate a conference winner whos overall season was not as successful as theirs. This is how and why I have dubbed them possible pity finals.
Sam Taulelei said | May 22nd 2009 @ 9:19am | Report comment
Yikes, I was merely pointing out that Hemjay and OJ were illustrating the flaws with the guaranteed conference winners in relation to wildcard teams if an overall table wasn’t applied to seedings as you were of the opinion that three tables could be maintained to determine the three non conference winners with the highest number of points.
I along with Hemjay and others interpreted SANZAR’s release differently to other opinions and as Pip has mentioned, 3 separate tables doesn’t make any sense.
Bay35Pablo said | May 22nd 2009 @ 9:19am | Report comment
(B35P re-enters from stage left)
Hemjay, I had gotten it after some painful back and forth, before Johnson said it on TV. When he finished saying it, the first thing I thought was “That’s exactly what they’ve been carrying on about on the Roar, and it took him 7 seconds rather than 201 posts to explain it”.
The difference between us is that you think it’s a real problem. I don’t. Yes it can provide results which we may look at and say another team should have qualified, but they have fundamentally changed the qualification structure from that previously. You say we should stick to the intent of the old structure, I say I’d prefer it too, but can live with the new one (and it won’t change until you get some weird result and people scream, or the format changes again with further expansion). That appears to be our difference. The conference tables are useful for working out who is conference leader, the overall table for wildcards.
Pippinu, the American sports play games outside their conferences, but all those games get counted when working out who tops the conference. All the 10-4, 12-3 stat summaries include games outside the conferences, which are usually only 4-7 teams in size.
Pippinu said | May 22nd 2009 @ 9:29am | Report comment
So it if it’s a real conference system, using the American model, there are actually three tables?? And even though half the games are with teams outside of the conference, they show up in the individual tables??
Ok folks – maybe I was wrong to automatically assume there would be the one table (in the Australian context, we often use the term “conference” quite loosely, especailly in the AFL where we have an uneven draw).
Benefits of the 3 separate tables idea:
1. the physical separation in terms of presentation of the competition takes the angst out of seeing conference winners leap frog better performed teams (it’s a visual/pychological thing)
Disadvantages:
1. I can tell right now – the Australian media will focus on the “Australian conference”, and for 16 rounds we will follow a competition with 5 teams in it – once again, it’s a pychological thing – but I don’t reckon it’s a good look.
Bay35Pablo said | May 22nd 2009 @ 9:32am | Report comment
Pippinu, right on both counts. Although I think:
1. The media will use one overall table for the time being because of habit.
2. The Australians will still pay attention to the other tables if only to see who is likely to make the finals, who is competing for wildcards.
Pippinu said | May 22nd 2009 @ 9:41am | Report comment
Bay
speaking about the Australian market place, as a general rule (and I even include myself here) we know so little about the SA/NZ teams.
So I’m just imagining, talking about the casual observer, your average arm chair fan, that the SA/NZ teams would become almost invisible.
I’m not talking about the hard core rugby fan – I’m talking about everyone else (which is a large chunk of the Australian population!)
Sam Taulelei said | May 22nd 2009 @ 9:57am | Report comment
Great comment Pip. My wife follows rugby now because of me but is a passionate Collingwood supporter. She has participated in a rugby tipping competition for the past five years but still asks me which team is ……..? and where are they from?
Matt Carroll on the Rugby Club last night mentioned that the ARU is pushing for SA and NZ to return to geographical names for their teams to make it easier for people to identify and align themselves with teams. The big difference is that SA and NZ teams represent a region made up of individual representative teams that play in a domestic competition. Australian teams follow existing state lines. The Hurricanes is made up of Wellington, Manawatu, Taranaki and Hawkes Bay in the first division of the ANZPC. The traditional provincial rivalry that exists during the ANZPC would make if difficult for a Taranaki fan to get all warm and fuzzy about the Wellington Hurricanes.
The only way this would work is if Super rugby followed the format of the Heineken Cup where teams have to qualify to play by where they finish in their domestic competitions. But until Australia has a domestic competition it remains another point of dicussion and negotiation.
Yikes said | May 22nd 2009 @ 10:06am | Report comment
Right – now we’re getting somewhere! The discussion has come down to the point I’ve been making all along.
The advantage Pippinu notes is exactly why there should be 3 tables. Nip this ranking crap in the bud.
The disadvantage he notes is an interesting one. I’m not sure what the impact would be from an Australian perspective. Frankly one of the big issues with Super rugby in Australia is that we’ve no knowledge of or interest in the other franchises. Cutting them out of a table entirely might not do any harm in Australia. (On review it seems Pippinu has made a similar point above).
Hemjay said | May 22nd 2009 @ 10:13am | Report comment
Bay,
it most certainly will impact the finals make up. Also it seems only you and Yikes had trouble grasping the fact everyone else seemed to have got it. Have a look many of the posts were to try and get it across to people like yourself. If I was on the telly and could actually voice it I too could have got it across in a few seconds.
I’ll try once more for you Bay
In this system there is the guaranteed scenario that a higher placed team will not only miss out on direct qualification a team could also miss out on a home final. And we all know how important a home final can be with only 4 teams winning away from home in finals in 13 years of super rugby.
So maybe its about time instead of reacting you might actually really take time to think about it a bit more.
With this system teams not only get shunted down the ladder to accomodate conference winners better performed teams will also have to give up home advantage especially if a Conference winner finishes in 5th or 6th.
I don’t know about other roarers Bay but it seems you think home ground advantage counts for nothing. And you still quite haven’t grasped the fact of what Tony Johnson and roarers like myself and OJ have been trying to get across. Its so blatantly obvious its ridiculous. I can see that in the highly unlikely scenario a conference winner may finish outside the top 6 and the team in 6 should make way but in no way should a team who finishes 3rd, 4th or 5tth be promoted above another team and gifted a home final. That Bay is the point you still can’t seem to grasp.
While as it stands this is what will and could happen Bay the majority of people are saying is that it isn’t right. It has the potential to cause much disagreement and toy throwing if and when the situation does arise. Look at the Tahs dummy spit this year and they all knew too well what could possibly happen. There’s no way in hell the tahs if they finish 2nd overall behind their own conference winners ACT are they going to be too happy about relinquishing a direct finals berth to a team ranked third possibly 4th.
Nor would the Sharks be too happy about having to drop down to 5th from 4th and give up home advantage to accomodate the NZ conference winner who finished in an overall position of 5th or 6th.
Bay35Pablo said | May 22nd 2009 @ 10:38am | Report comment
Hemjay,
Um, how many times can I repeat this. I get it. Yes you are right, it is easier to explain when talking,. I was actually going to volunteer that in that post, but I’m trying to avoid writing essays for every post here.
And no I don’t discount the home ground advantage. It is a big advantage, as has been proven over the years.
As I have said, this isn’t going to get changed until there is screaming.
Hemjay said | May 22nd 2009 @ 10:51am | Report comment
Well thats what rugby fans like you and I and other roarers need to start doing.
Steve Tew has always said that he has acted on behlaf of the fans. This couldn’t be further from the truth.
If he was acting on behalf of the fans there would be less rugby in NZ our provincial tournament would still be strong and contain the All Blacks. Deans would’ve been appointed coach after henrys almighty stuff up at the 07 world cup. Our worst result ever and the most money ever spent but he is the only coach to retain his job? I’m still trying to work this out myself. I do give him credit though as he has a very good record since and before although he lost waht counted and he was hired to win.
Tew and his mates have once again acted on what they think is best in no way what they are doing is it what the fans have wanted nor does it make rugby more accessible. The Super 14 is still highly overpriced to actually attend hence smaller numbers. team merchandise is absolutely ridiculously overpriced and could explain why many supporters are sitting in the same jersey from years earlier not to mention the jerseys change every year. last but not least pay TV subscriptions don’t get any cheaper if anything they will go up as there will be more content.
New Zealands own provincial competition it seems has been put in serious jeopardy to accomodate this new SANZAR competition.
fans did not and do not want that from any of the polls I had and have seen in NZ
I can’t speak for Australia but there is a huge feeling of NZ being hard done by in this New Deal as has been pointed out in other threads there is no obvious gains for NZ
Also from the cross section of comments in here it is also blatantly obvious that the powers that be have not listened to the fans.
Yikes said | May 22nd 2009 @ 1:18pm | Report comment
Hemjay.
We get your point. I just don’t agree with it. To say a team that finishes higher on an overall table is more deserving than a conference winner is just complete rubbish. Whether it is you, OJ or Tony Johnstone that says it.
BECAUSE the teams have not all played the same teams. An overall table is not a fair ranking of teams. Therefore the issue of whether they are more deserving or not is a moot one.
There should be no overall table. SANZAR is filling spots 4-6 on the basis of who has the next highest number of competition points overall because that is the least worst way of doing it. There is no good way.
Just picking teams 1-6 from some imaginary “overall table” would be an even WORSE way than the way SANZAR have picked because of the obvious potential disparity between conferences.
Sam Taulelei said | May 22nd 2009 @ 1:27pm | Report comment
Yikes I agree, with the decision to guarantee each conference winner a place in the finals and expanding it to six teams, this is probably the best of a bad bunch of scenarios. That was obviously a compromise for Australia and NZ who argued for a top six placing finals selection regardless of the conference.
Hemjay said | May 22nd 2009 @ 1:32pm | Report comment
Yikes
What is rubbish is you and your reacting before actually taking the time to read and think about what has been said. I would say it is this reactionary aspect to many of your posts that leaves one wondering and why it seems people always question you and where you are coming from.
I have agreed with you Yikes that I don’t necessarily agree with an overall table because of the same reasons. Dam how hard is that for you to understand???????????
What I am doing Yikes is highlighting a fact that you seem hell bent on ignoring
Also Yikes it seems you are the only person who can’t seem to accept that there will be a overall table and that this is and will be used. I don’t know if its downright ignorance on your behalf to think that a overall table will not come into play at any stage or just that you ared still stuggling with the concept of the new system as seems some peole have.
We get your point that not everyone is dealt the same hand, However the same pts system and table will be used.
its not just the finals that are flawed but the whole dam system it seems. I can’t see why they don’t cut the bye weeks down to three and maybe cut the Tri-Nations to a home and away format seriously playing Aus four times in a year gets a tad boring not to mention the Boks three times. Thus making the gap so all team will play each other outside of the conferences.
What do you suggest Yikes come on throw it at us what do you propose to make it fair
Yikes said | May 22nd 2009 @ 2:32pm | Report comment
I am not hell bent on ignoring your point. I understand it. I just don’t think it’s relevant. The fact a “higher placed team” on an imaginary overall table is shafted for a lower team IS NOT A CONCERN. Because an overall table is rubbish.
I “can’t seem to accept” there will be an overall table because there is no evidence that there will be an overall table published.
I have quoted the press release from SANZAR that gives no indication that there will be one overall table. On the contrary, it implies that finalists 4-6 will be taken out of the conferences.
Where is your evidence that there will be one?
Pippinu and Sam are on board… maybe you next!
Hemjay said | May 22nd 2009 @ 2:46pm | Report comment
No way Yikes,
Maybe you might want to read a few of Bays posts too. Because he had similar views to you also but he also has finally realised what is actually going to occur.
Your view is something that you have drrived yourself and in some ways it is self defeating.
To get the next best three teams Yikes they are going to have to take them from an overall table. take the conference winners out by all means which is what you want isn’t it?
But you are still going to get a pts table Yikes from which the Wildcards will be chosen. We all to have read the releases Yikes but it is quite obviousa that the majority see it much differently to you and have accepted that a overall table will be used to not only define the conference winners but also the best of the rest.
Where I can agree with you on your argument is that even within the conferences not all the teams will play the same opposition so in effect distorting the tables. Then conference some will be stronger than others its inevitable.
But for you to think that people will not relate the conference winners into overall standings is ludicrous and totally ignorant. while it may not have an effect it will rile teams no end that they could aquire a myriad more points than a conference winner yet still be denied a home final.
It is all relevant Yikes thats why its now also being highlighted on the rugby shows as Bay mentioned. You could just about guarantee it will also be on reunion this coming tuesday. Because like you people are starting to see flaws in the finals system and isn’t it best that they try and address our concerns which of course will be held by others before the tournament begins and try and save all the arguing and dummy spits that will occur.
Pippinu said | May 22nd 2009 @ 3:12pm | Report comment
Yikes
I’m not on board yet!
I saw a big advantage and a big disadvantage in the 3 separate tables scenario (for want of a better descriptor).
The fact does remain that half the games are from within, and half are from without, so it’s impossible to make a clear argument as to whether there should or should not be an overall table.
But I will reiterate, if there is no overall table, the SA/NZ teams will become even more invisible than they are now – and I can’t see that being a good thing from an Australian perspective.
Pippinu said | May 22nd 2009 @ 3:18pm | Report comment
Hemjay
In fairness, having to adjudge the next three best performers just requires someone to cast a quick glance over the three tables (if that’s what we end up with), it doesn’t necessarily mean that someone has to cobble together a single table for presentation to some higher authority.
I’m not saying that because I support the idea – it just seems an obvious point to me.
I’ll give you an example from soccer.
The World Cup was a 24 team format in 1986 whereby six groups of four were reduced to 16 teams to create the now familiar knock out stage.
Two from each group made 12 teams, and then they picked the next four best performing teams. That required no more than a quick scan across the six groups – it would be the same here.
Nevertheless, having said all that, on balance, it makes more sense to have an overall table where all teams keep their placing, except where a conference winner misses out on a top six place (and therefore displaces effectively the 6th placed team overall).
But I have to admit, one attraction of the three conference table system is that each country gets a home final – and perhaps there is merit in that idea.
ohtani's jacket said | May 22nd 2009 @ 3:20pm | Report comment
If they follow an American model, then there will be three tables.
A conference table will look something like this:
New Zealand Conference
z – Crusaders
y – Hurricanes
Chiefs
Blues
Highlanders
z = clinched conference, y= clinched wildcard
It doesn’t take a genius to compare the records of the conference leaders and runner-ups to determine who’ll be seeded where.
mitzter said | May 22nd 2009 @ 3:23pm | Report comment
I like this system with guaranteeing semis in at least 2 countries. If 2 NZ teams have the most points in an overall table, i’d argue that the 2nd placed one should’ve performed better and actually won their conference if they wanted the break and semi.
Unfairness unfortunately is always a part of a finals series. we don’t always crown the ‘better’ side – just the ‘better side in the system.
ohtani's jacket said | May 22nd 2009 @ 3:27pm | Report comment
If anyone’s confused, just look at the NFL standings — http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/standings
The Divisional standings show how the three Super 15 conference standings will look. If you click on the link for conference standings, you’ll see what the overall table looks like. (The NFL has two conferences, if you refer to one of them, you’ll get an idea of what the overall Super 15 table will look like.)
Hemjay said | May 22nd 2009 @ 3:44pm | Report comment
The point of the whole argument Pipinu that I am trying to make is that this system of finals is seriously flawed for a combination of reasons that have been pointed out by myself and yikes however we also see problems that the others don’t necessarily see.
Mitzter your way of seeing it is in essence the simpleton way of seeing things and would make it all easier. However lets go back to the SANZAR drawing board it was SA who wanted guaranteed finalists noone else, they have been given one guaranteed finalist while the rest is open to everyone.
Also to use your method of thinking it is pointless having cross conference matches.
I’d go as far as saying its pointless having Super rugby conferences, NZ and SA already have their own competitions that we could pour the resources into then select the best two from our respective Currie Cup and Air New Zealand Cup competitions.
And have a Southern hemisphere champion of champions series
This in turn leaves Australia out in the cold and would need for them to get a tournament together from where they select their best two teams.
Pippinu
your right in the fact that the various countries would become nearly invisible should the 3 table method be used as not many people will really care about the other conferences until finals time and it will be a little self defeating. As for just casting an eye over I don’t think it is that simple because that will lead to huge debate from teams saying well they only played blah blah while we had to play blah blah so we should go through.
As for taking the best two that is also flawed because once again it plays into what SA want. Do remember people Australia and NZ did not want guaranteed finals they wanted finals purely on merit alone. So they obviously conceeded some but also demanded that other teams are there on ability and performance. I have said it many times you would be foolish and very naive to think conferences will all be equal. The more even the conference the greater the point spread and less likely a team will feature highly on a overall table when wildcards are announced. Its not going to be as clear cut as people are leading us to believe it will be.
Sam Taulelei said | May 22nd 2009 @ 3:48pm | Report comment
Yikes I’ve only agreed that the system is the best of a bad bunch. I still don’t agree with it.
Thanks OJ, geez it looks like a statisticians wet dream.
ohtani's jacket said | May 22nd 2009 @ 3:50pm | Report comment
Hemjay,
You need to have individual conference tables, because it’s a conference title race first and foremost.
Whether they’ll publish an overall table on websites or newspapers remains to be seen. It’s fairly easy to do, but the top six will become more relevant heading into the June break, with three rounds of competition after the Tests.
ohtani's jacket said | May 22nd 2009 @ 3:55pm | Report comment
Sam, if you think that’s bad, consider the bonus point system.
I’ve been wondering if they should scrap it and just adopt a tiebreaker system. Can you imagine the problems if the 3rd seed had a better record than other of the top two seeds, but lost a bye and a home semi on bonus points? Of if the 4th seed got a home final over the 5th seed via bonus points…. or if the 7th team missed out on bonus points.
Pippinu said | May 22nd 2009 @ 4:00pm | Report comment
Hemjay
I’m not sold on the the three separate tables business, but if that’s what ends up happening, I can’t see that there is any room for argument. What’s the games are done and dusted, we end up with whatever we end up, the three best performed non-conference winners go through, it seems pretty clear cut, no correspondence shall be entered into.
As someone has said, all finals systems and competitions have their quirks. In fact the Super 12s and 14s have always had the small issue of inequitable home games from year to year (that’s one thing this new comp is fixing up).
Arguments about being robbed – isn’t that what arm chair critics thrive on?!
What do we want to succeed in doing next – bring peace to the world?!
Sam Taulelei said | May 22nd 2009 @ 4:11pm | Report comment
Yeah OJ I’ve played out a number of different scenarios involving bonus points in the conference system. Well at least it will give the Aussies something else to blame if one of their teams misses out despite all the comments warning about the flaws and discrepancies with the system.
Pippinu said | May 22nd 2009 @ 4:19pm | Report comment
I can offer this advice to teams wanting to make the final six, regardless of whether there’s a single table, or three: try and win far more games than you lose!!
Sam Taulelei said | May 22nd 2009 @ 4:29pm | Report comment
Until the ugly head of bonus points rears up again and there are complaints about the inequity of it all!!!
Hemjay said | May 22nd 2009 @ 4:34pm | Report comment
Pipinu
This is where it all gets cagey,
Noone has said there will be three seperate tables as technically you do not need one to determine the conference winner. Quite simply put it will be obvious by going through the overall table and taking the highest placed team from each conference out this in turn gives you the easiest option of finding the next best three teams because once you take the conference winners out you will be left with a new table with a top three? makes sense doesn’t it?
So no matter what while there may be three tables to make it easier to see who is leading a conference it will be the overall table that will be used to determine the wildcards. The next best three.
While every system has its flaws as has been pointed out by many a poster this has more than the one we already have.
Yikes has pointed out that its going to be a nightmare picking who’s best simply because they won’t all be playing the same opposition.
I have pointed out that a conference winner does not necessarily determine that the team is better than a 2nd placed team from another conference. it is clear from the near three hundred comments that noone knows exactly how it is going to work when determining conference winners nor does it determine in black and white how the next best or wildcards will be selected.
Until then Pippinu your view is just as speculative as mine is as to the next person
retiredrucker said | May 22nd 2009 @ 5:03pm | Report comment
Hey Bay do you reckon Hemjay has got lucky in the last year? Hemjay have a chill pill
I’m about to watch the semi – allblack trial! Go The wallabies!
Bay35Pablo said | May 22nd 2009 @ 5:06pm | Report comment
Retiredrucker, I have been chewing through my tongue today ….. restraining myself from getting dragged back in.
Must. Find. Pub. To. Watch. Canes. Chiefs. ….
ohtani's jacket said | May 22nd 2009 @ 5:13pm | Report comment
Sam,
I just realised it’s possible to jump from 4th, 5th or 6th to 1st, 2nd or 3rd based on bonus points. It may even be possible to have the 7th best record and end up the number one team.
Hemjay said | May 22nd 2009 @ 5:16pm | Report comment
Retird trucker I wonder if you’ve moved out of mummy and daddys yet?
If you dont have anything constructive to say its best you keep your mouth closed and your fingers off the keyboard
or offer an alternative.
Is the fact that Ihave highlighted a few points and refused to get bullied into thinking a certain way too much for you to take for one day?
Also because I have thought ouside of the box seems to have irked a few people. Well deal with it I say if you have actually taken any notice of my posts I have agreed with most of you on various pts while at the same time highlighted the possible drawbacks something it seems you don’t want to know.
if it wasn’t such a big deal why would it be getting discussed on telly?
Like
Pippinu said | May 22nd 2009 @ 5:21pm | Report comment
Hemjay
isn’t it clear that it will be the next three best performed teams across the whole comp, i.e. it won’t be the 2nd best from each conference, the theoretical possibility emerges that the next three best teams could come from one comp (although highly unlikely).
We understand that much – so isn’t the only question whether officially there are three separate tables or one?
Hemjay said | May 22nd 2009 @ 6:05pm | Report comment
yes Pippinu,
I know that and thats why I have argued surely there will have to be one table to determine the final three finalists. As I have pointed out to do this from three individual tables would just be totally ridiculous.
But it seems for agreeing with people on certain aspects but highlighting where things get a bity sticky I have now come under fire by people with childish little comments.
Like I said to you earlier that we do not know what kind of tables will be used so until we do I’d say to people lay off a little at this stage we are all still speculating so it makes neither of us more right than the next person. So in essence we can’t really discredit each others rationale until we know more. At the moment everyone has valid concerns and suspicions of how this will work.
Yes we understand each other but we still have pressing points that noone can answer for us yet and only the powers that be do.
ohtani's jacket said | May 22nd 2009 @ 6:15pm | Report comment
There will be three tables.
An overall leader table is possible, but confusing due to the number of shifts each week. You’d have to separate the conference leaders from the rest of the pack and it would confuse people if teams below them had more points or a better record. You don’t need a jumbled table.
How many people here actually follow American sports?
tifosi said | May 22nd 2009 @ 8:47pm | Report comment
the new table format might look like what they do in the USA with Major League Soccer. They have two conferences and have a seperate table for each but als have an overall table.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2009_Major_League_Soccer_season#Competition_format
ohtani's jacket said | May 23rd 2009 @ 12:33am | Report comment
The problem with comparing the Super 15 to American sports is that most major American sports are made up of two conferences of two or three divisions. So either you look at the Super 15 as being one conference with three divisions, or you think about the 1, 3 and 6 seeds being on one side and the 2. 4 and 5 seeds being on another, which would equate to an Eastern and Western conference.
The Super 15 system makes sense and is reasonably easy to follow if you keep a track of the other two conferences. There will no doubt be an overall table, but it won’t matter until at least the latter half of the competition. At the halfway stage, for example, teams will still be vying with each other to win their conference, not win a wildcard. That only becomes the focus when the team above you has clinched your conference, which won’t happen until it’s mathematically impossible for you to win your conference; something that’s made a lot trickier by the existence of bonus points.
Theoretically, a conference race could come down to the final weekend, and while the loser of the race would more than likely receive a wildcard, they may not be sure of the seed. So you’ll get a situation where one team could have gotten a home semi by winning their conference and ended up with a low wildcard seed and a game on the road.
I guess I’m rambling now, but having followed American sports for a long time I’m quite aware of all the permetations in playoff races. It’s a yearly occurance in American sports.
Yikes said | May 23rd 2009 @ 9:57am | Report comment
OJ – indeed. And while it’s not common in Australasia, we’ll get used to it soon.
westy said | May 23rd 2009 @ 10:25am | Report comment
Yikes there were important political monetary and cultural reasons for the conference system in the US. This is however an unusual system.
The expansion is good.
My concern in the Australian context is that in the broader Australian community there is a very strong cultural nexus to backing your team often community or familty based. You may be aware of the broadcasters other concerns that Australian viewers just do not watch in any substantial numbers provincial teams from other countries. The conference system may exaggerate this tendency.
The Tri nations is a premier international competition between 3 countries. It is at the moment the real target of the broadcasters.
The hope is that the local derbies will generate genuine home following the problem mey be later on.
A final series as now watched by relatively few Australians.
PS Do not worry it is not all doom and gloom but on a serious note we need a competitive QLD otherwise the domestic conference scene will be rather flat. Six years is becoming to long.
ohtani's jacket, said | June 20th 2009 @ 10:46am | Report comment
Here’s an interesting article about the broadcasting rights for the Super 15 — http://www.stuff.co.nz/sport/rugby/2519222/Troubled-Irish-broadcaster-could-hurt-NZ-rugby