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.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2009_Major_League_Soccer_season#Competition_format

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?

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.

We understand that much – so isn’t the only question whether officially there are three separate tables or one?

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

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.

Must. Find. Pub. To. Watch. Canes. Chiefs. ….

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

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?!

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.

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.

Thanks OJ, geez it looks like a statisticians wet dream.

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.

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.)

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.

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.

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.

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.

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!

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