Super Rugby finals system is an anomaly
Roar Guru By Sam Taulelei, 11 May 2011 Sam Taulelei is a Roar Guru
- Tagged:
- rugby, Rugby Union, Super Rugby, Super Rugby 2011
Question: How can winning your conference not benefit your team as much as you’d expect? Answer: If your overall points tally seeds you third amongst the finalists.
Consider this possibility your team have completed their road trip, they’ve suffered some injuries, and have won their local conference.
However, on the overall points table they finish just below the other conference winners and miss out on a valuable bye.
They console themselves with the fact they’re playing at home and then learn their sixth placed opponent is from the same conference, have not had to travel outside the country for a few weeks and also enjoyed a bye in that period.
They play their knockout final and the conference winner loses. This scenario could happen and maybe even this year.
I accept that in knockout matches nothing is guaranteed and the finals series presents every team with an equal opportunity to succeed, irrespective of what has happened beforehand. However, why make a distinction between the three conference winners?
Ewen McKenzie raised his concerns about the anomalies of Super Rugby’s finals system in his SMH column earlier this year.
He drew upon his experience in coaching at the Heineken Cup, which has four pools of six teams. Four pools create a natural finals program of quarterfinals, semi-finals and a final. To that end all pool winners automatically qualifying makes sense, and it’s equal for all.
The original Super 15 proposal did not include automatic finals qualification for each conference winner. Instead the top six finals would literally be the top six finishing teams, regardless of their conference.
South Africa rejected this, and we have a clumsy finals system that includes elements of the original proposal (top two finishers earn a bye) but falls well short of rewarding the third conference winner.
So as we count down to the finals, I ask this simple question: If the incentive of running a tri-conference format in a competition is to gain an advantage by winning your conference, then shouldn’t the advantage be the same for all?
Recommend this story.
The Turkey 10
The Turkey 10 teams have now been selected, as Wild Turkey Bourbon's sport sponsorship kicks into the next exciting phase.
Choose which side you're going to support and get in the running to win $2,500!
Simply visit Wild Turkey Australia on Facebook for your chance to win.
Find out more.
- Explore:
- rugby, Rugby Union, Super Rugby, Super Rugby 2011
May 11th 2011 @ 6:26am
Bayboy said | May 11th 2011 @ 6:26am | Report comment
The finals system is flawed no matter how you look at it.
Why any team should be guaranteed a finals berth simply for winning there conference is beyond me.
Lets look at the Table now the Crusaders are ahead of the Stormers on points but are one spot lower due to the pity finals system.
Arguably highlighting that the best teams may not necessarily contest the finals.
Reason One whilst still granted a finals berth the Crusaders would come up against supposedly superior opposition 5th as opposed to 6th placed qualifier.
More importantly and reason two, all things are not equal, they do not play the same opposition therefore some teams will have a much easier path in qualifying. I will have to stir the pot here for the sake of highlighting a point. The Reds and to some degree the Tahs have a much smoother road to the finals as the Australian conference is undoubtedly weaker and more games than not are gimmes. The South African and NZ conferences will tend to cannibalize each other. This is the first season under this system and there is still a way to go but the finals makeup is undoubtedly flawed and is in place to guarantee countries are represented in a finals series even though they may not necessarily deserve to be there.
May 11th 2011 @ 7:02am
Bayboy said | May 11th 2011 @ 7:02am | Report comment
I’m all for conference winners being given a finals Berth but it should be where they qualify overall on the points table. In this instance the Stormers would qualify 4th and therefore should play the 5th qualifier.
Should for some unfathomable reason the conference winner not qualify in the top 6 then they should come in to the finals series at 6 and the team who actually finished 6th should be compensated financially, the chances of a conference winner qualifying outside the 6 is improbable but possible.
May 11th 2011 @ 9:24pm
niwdEyaJ said | May 11th 2011 @ 9:24pm | Report comment
Totally agree Badboy… given the home-and-away intra-conference games, it would be highly unlikely that a conference winner would not also qualify for the top-6 overall. For instance, has there ever been a case since super ruby started where the top six did not contain at least one representative from each nation?
May 11th 2011 @ 9:13am
mitzter said | May 11th 2011 @ 9:13am | Report comment
South African conferencewill tend to cannibalise each other?? You kidding, everyone good is in 2 teams (ok maybe 3 teams) how is this any different to Australia
May 11th 2011 @ 9:27am
Rusty said | May 11th 2011 @ 9:27am | Report comment
Historically even the lower teams, especially the Cheetahs have upset the apple cart and campaigns of the Bulls, Sharks and Stormers
May 11th 2011 @ 7:36am
ohtani's jacket said | May 11th 2011 @ 7:36am | Report comment
The other way to look at it is that it adds some spice to the round robin system as the Crusaders try to chase down the Blues or the other conference leaders try to finish number one overall. The downside to this is that it paths the way for more injuries.
We haven’t had a finals series yet so we don’t know the benefits of finishing 3rd vs. 4th, 5th or 6th. On the current table, failing to finish 3rd is the difference between a Stormers home match against the Waratahs or a possible road trip to New Zealand against the Crusaders. The concern I’ve long raised is that if the Stormers lost their grip on the 3rd spot towards the final weeks but are guaranteed to finish in the top 6, then they might as well tank their way to 6th and play the Sharks in South Africa. Memphis did this in the NBA this season and look at how they’re going.
As for rewarding the conference winners with top seeds, I think the first round byes for the top two seeds is a bit much. Obviously, it can’t be a 8 team finals series unless they expand again, but I guess with the injuries we’ve seen this year the top two winners will have earnt their spots. People might argue that the Reds are a big fish in a meager pond, but there’s no guarantee they’ll finish 1 or 2. If they win the necessary games to finish in the top two, I don’t see how people can say they haven’t deserved it.
What the competition needs is more finals wins on the road. After 18 rounds, this may end up being more likely due to the injury situation. I believe the reason they give the conference winners top seeds is to try to avoid all-South African finals or all-New Zealand finals, which clearly don’t rate as well as cross-conference finals.
May 11th 2011 @ 9:24am
Rusty said | May 11th 2011 @ 9:24am | Report comment
Super 16 from 2013 – 8 team finals…….proper quarters, semis etc. Also from next year we will not have this position where a team may through the draw avoid playing a vastly superior team.. in example the Lions will not play the Crusaders in which would surely boost the Lions and deny the Saders a very likely 5 pointer. Likewise the Blues and Reds have played the Lions… this season is flawed in many ways despite its many entertaining facets
May 11th 2011 @ 9:32am
The Bush said | May 11th 2011 @ 9:32am | Report comment
Rusty,
“Also from next year we will not have this position where a team may through the draw avoid playing a vastly superior team.”
That’s wrong. Even next year, the competition will only consist of sixteen (16) rounds, with eight (8) home and eight (8) away matches played by each team. Every team will miss out on playing one (1) team from each conference – two (2) in total.
The only difference between this year (as a World Cup year) and next year, is that the competition started a week or two (2) earlier and that next year the competition will stop for three (3) weeks during the June Internationals (in-bound tours).
Please see: http://www.superxv.com/format/
May 11th 2011 @ 9:33am
Brett McKay said | May 11th 2011 @ 9:33am | Report comment
Rusty, this mention of a 16th team – presumably the Kings – came up on my column yesterday. Is there any detail about it anywhere, or is this just your solution to Sam’s or OJ’s conundrums?
Also, won’t the only change next season be the pause for the June internationals and the later finish? Won’t the draw remain in it’s current structure where each team only plays 4 of 5 teams from the other two conferences?
May 11th 2011 @ 9:40am
Rusty said | May 11th 2011 @ 9:40am | Report comment
The Bush/Brett – pretty sure I saw somewhere in the SA rugby press that the reason for the compacted season was the world cup and that like the tri-nations we would move to full playing schedule next year… then again it took us until the start of the season to even understand this one so I wouldnt be suprised the source was wrong or I misinterpreted it.
On the 16th team, the noise in SA is that this is a done deal. All the pointers such as the Super rugby branding and government backing/push on this would seem to say so. As per the first comment – lets see what happens closer to the time
May 11th 2011 @ 9:49am
Brett McKay said | May 11th 2011 @ 9:49am | Report comment
OK, that’s interesting. My understanding of the format for the next few years was the same as Bushy’s, that (expansion aside) the rolling draw would see teams playing 4 of 5 from the other two conferences on a rotating system over five years..
May 11th 2011 @ 9:47am
Darwin Stubbie said | May 11th 2011 @ 9:47am | Report comment
Brett – as I mentioned on your piece yesterday – I’m pretty this 16th team in 2013 is a myth …
I’ve been back in the homeland recently and heard Tew on the radio discuss this very topic and also commented on overall future expansion .. he made it very clear that NZ consider they have the right balance at present and wouldn’t be entertaining the idea of future expansion sides in the NZ conference .. further he made mention that if SA want to have the kings / Spears (?) they’ve been told that they must come up with a solution to the draw and also the finals series – whether that be a promotion / relegation scenario within their conference to keep it at 5 teams (not likely) or try and accommodate unequal conferences within the current set up … to which he added the comment that there isn’t a workable solution to 5/5/6 …
May 11th 2011 @ 10:52am
The Bush said | May 11th 2011 @ 10:52am | Report comment
Darwin,
There is a “workable” solution to 5/5/6, it would just be even more silly than the current set-up (if it’s not your cup of tea).
An idea I’ve floated around in my head is that South Africa could bring in their sixth (6th) team, whilst simutaneously each Australian and New Zealand team picks a team from the other Conference to play against home-and-away.
This would lead to a situation whereby, for example, the Blues and the Waratahs would play home-and-away every year. This would build a rivalry (in theory) between these two (2) teams. Furthermore, the travel isn’t far for Australian and New Zealand teams, and this would ensure that all teams play the same number of games.
It would also remove the unnecessary bye weeks (in a tournament that currently only goes for sixteen (16) games over eighteen (18) rounds, and would only be increased to eighteen (18), still with breaks in June for the in-bounds anyway).
Finally, with sixteen (16) teams, we could have the top two (2) conference places automatically into the Quarter Finals (with the top team guaranteed a home quarter-final), and just two (2) wildcards to round out the eight (8). Then it would be straight knock-out Quarters, Semi’s and Finals (no bye weeks).
The whole tournament wouldn’t be any longer, but would include more games and less byes and be slightly fairer in some ways (qualifying for finals, and bye weeks), but less fair in other areas…
Obviously the Australian team that draws the Crusaders is getting the short straw, but hey, it’s an imperfect system…
Just an idea to keep everyone happy.
May 11th 2011 @ 11:12am
Darwin Stubbie said | May 11th 2011 @ 11:12am | Report comment
It’s certainly a solution … but as is very evident I don’t it’s possible to keep everyone happy in the SANZAR partnership which give credence to the committee designed horse maxim .. and will surely have various fans screaming foul when the match ups are announced
But think we’re seeing from this new set up is that it is more than necessary to retain a double bye for each team .. the injuries are piling up and we’re seeing some sides becoming stale … for example over the last couple of weekends the blues and reds especially have looked to be limping their way to a their next bye – I’d hate to see either side slip up over the coming weeks because of injuries and the need to recharge the batteries
May 11th 2011 @ 11:20am
Brett McKay said | May 11th 2011 @ 11:20am | Report comment
Darwin, I certainly haven’t seen any mention of further expansion in the Australian press either, but I couldn’t say with certainty that I haven’t missed something. I believe the ARU position is similar to that of NZ’s as you’ve outlined there: 15 teams, 3 conf’s of 5 teams, 6 team finals…
That said, it’s been mentioned now by several different Roarers from the Republic, so I was/am just wondering if there might be some substance behind the rumour..
May 11th 2011 @ 11:31am
Rusty said | May 11th 2011 @ 11:31am | Report comment
Been doing some digging and the only stuff I can find refer to the fact that the Kings will be in Super Rugby in 2013. Although no definitive solution has been put forward those that have been mooted are a relegation play off system. Where the loser will participate in the Nations cup and a few other fixtures with the winner being promoted/holding the last Super rugby spot. This is something along the lines of the original Spears proposal where they would get immunity in Super rugby for 2 seasons and the be vulnerable for promo/relegation. How is it going to look if the government tries to force the SARU to supplant the Guma group (a black empowerment company) backed Lions with the political Southern Kings…. If this is the case expect the legal mudslinging to be all time
May 11th 2011 @ 10:14am
Bayboy said | May 11th 2011 @ 10:14am | Report comment
I just hope if and when an extra team is included it is not for political reasons.
The only time a team should be entered in this competition is if they can realistically field an extra team from said nation as well as maintain the competitiveness of the other teams within the conference.
As it stands all three teams have cellar dweller teams but it is blatantly clear that two conferences have very weak teams propping up the bottom of the ladder in their respective conferences.
If expansion is to take place surely a team from the Pacific Islands or another New Zealand team would be the obvious choice and this is based purely on the competitiveness of the conferences. The bottom placed NZ team and arguably Australian teams are streaks ahead of the Lions and until recently the Cheetahs
May 11th 2011 @ 9:26am
Sam Taulelei said | May 11th 2011 @ 9:26am | Report comment
Thanks for that Rusty.
May 11th 2011 @ 7:54am
The Bush said | May 11th 2011 @ 7:54am | Report comment
“He drew upon his experience in coaching at the Heineken Cup, which has four pools of six teams. Four pools create a natural finals program of quarterfinals, semi-finals and a final. To that end all pool winners automatically qualifying makes sense, and it’s equal for all.”
That’s completely wrong.
The Heineken Cup has six (6) pools of four (4) teams. It also relies on a system of “wildcards” whereby the top six (6) automatically qualify (as “winners” of their pool) and the next best two (2) runners-up also make the quater-finals.
So the “pool” (think “conference”) leader/champion’s are also ranked by their points to determine who gets home ground advantage. This results in two (2) pool winners playing away against other pool winners.
A dash of research would have shown you that using this as an example of a competition which has a logical qualification system that is fair for all group winners and runners up was not a good choice.
The only thing that the Heineken Cup has that is “fairer” than the Super Rugby Conferences, is that the qualifying teams are ranked each year on performance and the pools are then created on a more equal basis, except for the caveat that England and France shouldn’t have two teams in a pool if it can be avoided. This is in contrast to the static Conferences we have that will always result in New Zealand having a more diffcult conference.
May 11th 2011 @ 9:01am
Sam Taulelei said | May 11th 2011 @ 9:01am | Report comment
Thank you for that correction Bush. My only weak defence is that I was quoting directly from McKenzie’s column in the SMH, I should have researched more thoroughly.
May 11th 2011 @ 9:27am
The Bush said | May 11th 2011 @ 9:27am | Report comment
Sam,
Sorry mate, that tirade came out a bit harsh on you.
Interesting that McKenzie got it so completely wrong. Probably shows why he was sacked by Stade Francais; if you’re not even sure how a competition works, then you’re unlikely to win it…
Having said that, possibly he was quoted incorrectly by the journalist from the SMH – wouldn’t be the first time an Australian Rugby Journalist revealed their complete lack of knowledge about Northern Hemisphere Rugby.
May 11th 2011 @ 6:34pm
Red Rooster said | May 11th 2011 @ 6:34pm | Report comment
McKenzie is not that dumb – I remember the article and I dont recall him discussing in on ruggamatrix it was not 4 pools of 6, rather the opposite 6 pools of 4 – I suspect he would know and maybe an editor made a hash of it
May 11th 2011 @ 8:08am
sheek said | May 11th 2011 @ 8:08am | Report comment
Sam,
Then again, if you want to be champion, you beat whoever is in your path.
Yes, the finals system is slightly, rather than overly, flawed, but I’m comfortable with it.
May 11th 2011 @ 8:21am
Yikes said | May 11th 2011 @ 8:21am | Report comment
This article also has it wrong when suggesting South Africa stopped the “original proposal”. You may be getting confused with when South Africa stopped the 6-team finals series in the old Super 14. The Super 15 has always had 3 conference winners to ensure every country hosts a final.
A much better and fairer system is 1v6, 2v5 and 3v4 with the 3 conference winners getting home ground advantage in week 1 of finals, and then the highest placed losing team getting a second chance into the week 2 semis. This creates an extra game also. (I fail to see why 2 of the conference winners deserve a week off and one doesn’t especially when the one coming “third” probably had the harder pool!)
Ask any coach whether he’d rather have a potential second chance if they lose or the week off, and I think they’ll go for the former.
May 11th 2011 @ 8:36am
Handles O'Love said | May 11th 2011 @ 8:36am | Report comment
Yikesy…under your system, two conference winners could play each other in the first week, so they can’t have a home final. For example if NZ teams finish first and second, and SA fifth and sixth, then the team finishing second overall will have to travel to South Africa, and if they lose (for example at altitude) they may have to play away again the next week.
May 11th 2011 @ 9:27am
Brett McKay said | May 11th 2011 @ 9:27am | Report comment
Handles, I think Yikes is still operating with the conference winners finishing 1-2-3, and all getting home finals in week one. So at worst, you might have a conference winner playing a conference runner-up, where the only thing that seperated them on the table was differential or bonus points, which isn’t too different to how the old S12/14 semis used to work…
May 11th 2011 @ 8:37am
ohtani's jacket said | May 11th 2011 @ 8:37am | Report comment
That’s one way of solving the problem, but what if the 6th seed loses by a point and the 4th seed is blown out?
May 11th 2011 @ 8:59am
Sam Taulelei said | May 11th 2011 @ 8:59am | Report comment
Yikes
From my recollection the standoff between SA and NZ/Australia over the Super 15 proposal was on two fronts – the length of the season encroaching on the Currie Cup and that a team from each conference was guaranteed a finals place. Negotiations had broken down so far that SA were threatening to secede from SANZAR and play in European competitions.
There was never a top six finals series proposed for the Super 14, the issue between SA and Australia over that proposal was who was going to be the 14th team – the Rebels or the Southern Kings. There was even a ludicrous suggestion that were the Kings to succeed they would base themselves in Melbourne.
There were interviews with Steve Tew and Oregan Hoskins that discussed these points, I’ll see if I can find them for you.
May 11th 2011 @ 10:25am
Spencer said | May 11th 2011 @ 10:25am | Report comment
Sam – Yikes is correct.
http://www.rugby.com.au/news/super_14_set_for_six-team_final_series,97518.html/news/archive/section/21893
….and SARU did insist on the leading team from each country getting a home final. That killed it.
May 11th 2011 @ 12:13pm
Sam Taulelei said | May 11th 2011 @ 12:13pm | Report comment
Thanks for that link Spencer.
May 11th 2011 @ 8:32am
B-Rock said | May 11th 2011 @ 8:32am | Report comment
I dont see this as a major issue – not all conferences are created equal (we hear how weak the OZ conf is on the roar almost daily) so why should each of the conf winners get the same benefit come finals time? If you top the NZ conf you have probably won more games than the OZ conf winner (largely due to winning more non-conf games), so should get a higher seed, byes, whatever the advantages in the system are. The current system also increases the importance of non-conf games. If all three conf winners had the same finals standing these games would lose their intensity.
In saying this, I would have thought a 1-6 seeding irrespective of conferences is a better method. Understand the SA concerns but really if you cant get a team in the mix for a home final or at least certainly in the 6, you dont deserve to be involved in the finals.
May 11th 2011 @ 9:18am
mitzter said | May 11th 2011 @ 9:18am | Report comment
Exactly if the australian conference is so weak compared to NZ than they should all be lower due to the interconference games
May 11th 2011 @ 8:54am
Matt said | May 11th 2011 @ 8:54am | Report comment
Expand to 3 Pools of 6 teams. Top 2 from each pool qualify, plus 2 wild cards. Quarterfinals (Top 8), Semis, Final.
That means each Pool winner get’s a home Quarter, with the best Runner up also getting a home quarter.
Each nation would then have at least one ‘home’ game within their country for local TV in the QF weekend, with one nation having two matches. This system would also produce two additional playoff matches (4 Quaterfinals, instead of the current 2) which are very lucrative for the home team and the SANZAR TV contract in general. And this can be done without adding any additional rounds to the playoffs or regular season.
Introducing some kind of talent equalisation across each conference would help too. Australia is already looking to do this, and NZ seems to do it organically. But South Africa sees massive disparity between the quality of the teams, which makes any kind of Conference winner type qualification model unfair, as some teams get easier rides.
May 11th 2011 @ 10:59am
The Bush said | May 11th 2011 @ 10:59am | Report comment
Matt,
Spot on.
It seems inevitable that it will become three (3) conferences with six (6) teams each. The round numbers are just so much more logical (removes byes etc).
The issue is where do the teams come from?
SA claim they are ready to go, so that’s one (1).
In Australia, I assume the only place left to go might be Western Sydney (though I recall both the Gold Coast and Sunshine Coast bidding for a team last time – unrealistically).
However, surely we’re stretched for resources as it is?
New Zealand had a tender last time (Hawke’s Bay if I recall correctly), but do they really have the finances to put up another team? Surely that would make the ITM Cup EVEN more pointless?
Some difficult issues to debate, even if the end result is the right one.
May 11th 2011 @ 12:35pm
Wilbur said | May 11th 2011 @ 12:35pm | Report comment
Get The Cockatoos in as the 6th team and play their homes games between Gosford and Newcastle (maybe the odd game in The Gong).
Might not be that competitive to start with but 18 teams (3×6) will mean an extra couple of games a weekend and 6 of those in NZ/Aus would be awesome. more teams = more spots for young rugby playersand eventually standards would rise. Who cares if there are a couple of oridnary games, more rugby can’t be a bad thing!!!!!
May 11th 2011 @ 1:01pm
Bayboy said | May 11th 2011 @ 1:01pm | Report comment
It was Taranaki who had the realistic bid and the financial backing form a multi millionaire Taranaki ex-pat based in Russia, however the NZRU squashed this idea before the SANZAR meetings to appease South Africa and Australia.
Hawkes Bay also were looking at a bid however I am lead to believe they did not have the financial backing for a realistic bid to have the 15th Super team at the time.
I do believe if the NZ conference was to be expanded you may find a Central North Island team included comprising Taranaki and Hawkes Bay.
May 11th 2011 @ 3:56pm
The Bush said | May 11th 2011 @ 3:56pm | Report comment
Taranaki , that’s right!
I would assume that a team from the North Island is far more logical than a team from the South Island.
You have to admit that six (6) teams in each Conference is far more logical in every way…
May 11th 2011 @ 2:22pm
Darwin Stubbie said | May 11th 2011 @ 2:22pm | Report comment
Bush interested to hear why you think the ITM cup is pointless – the NZRFU certainly don’t think so – it’s the breeding ground for future ABs … It won’t be going anywhere and like the Curry Cup is non negotiable part of all the talks regarding expansion
May 11th 2011 @ 3:54pm
The Bush said | May 11th 2011 @ 3:54pm | Report comment
Darwin,
Thank you for picking that up, you’ve caught me out. Pointless was certainly the wrong word. Perhaps that sentence should have read “Surely that would make the ITM Cup EVEN more insignificant?”
I also believe that it is a breeding ground for future All Blacks, and in fact all Super players. Australia is a lesser country for not having one.
However,
Whilst I certainly don’t believe the competition is pointless, rather the unfortunate reality of the modern Rugby/Financial World means that New Zealand will have to pick just one level of professionalism.
If they were to drop SupeRugby, then perhaps they could have eight (8) or more professional sides. However I have reservations as to how much money the competition could produced – resulting in a loss of star players.
If it is assumed that SupeRugby is the only vehicle for making enough money to hold on to our (NZ and AUD) talent, then the ITM Cup has to be relegated well and truly. This means that we have to accept that our top players are only going to play in this competition and that it needs to run for a full season (as it nearly does now).
Already it will be unlikely from this/next year that All Blacks will have the time to play ITM Cup.
The future for SupeRugby has to be that it stands on its own two (2) feet at the TV negotiating table, and that means more derbies and a longer season. Once the season expands beyond sixteen (16) games, plus maybe finals, plus warm up games, plus touring side matches in the odd year, plus Tests etc, I just can’t see how the players are going to have time to play in this comp.
Perhaps this moves it [the ITM Cup] to a season long, home-and-away comp that acts as a true Second Division (semi-professional, back to fourteen (14) teams again, instead of the now ten (10))? I dunno. The Heartland Championship obviously then becomes a “true” Third Division.
Just my thoughts…
May 11th 2011 @ 9:05am
Sam Taulelei said | May 11th 2011 @ 9:05am | Report comment
My question is not about the structure of the finals system, clearly the odd number of sides and three conference winners guaranteed a finals spot makes it awkward.
My question is that if all the conferences are created equally (this is not an assessment of quality or performance as that will vary from year to year) why then make this distinction between the top two conference winners earning a weeks rest while the third placed conference winner doesn’t.
I mean there will always be a third place with three conference winners. The overall points table should really determine who the wildcard teams are for the last three spots in the finals and shouldn’t impact on who the conference winners are.
May 11th 2011 @ 9:25am
ohtani's jacket said | May 11th 2011 @ 9:25am | Report comment
The third place conference winner has the opportunity to push for one of the top two spots. If they finish third, they’ll just have to lump it. It’s better than finishing in the bottom three. The system is pretty clearly set up for future expansion and no first round byes.
May 11th 2011 @ 12:20pm
Elifanti said | May 11th 2011 @ 12:20pm | Report comment
I was thinking along the same lines – if you finish 3rd best amongst the conference winners, that’s what you get.
Why would anyone consider that unfair?
May 11th 2011 @ 11:03am
The Bush said | May 11th 2011 @ 11:03am | Report comment
“I mean there will always be a third place with three conference winners. The overall points table should really determine who the wildcard teams are for the last three spots in the finals and shouldn’t impact on who the conference winners are.”
What do you suggest then Sam?
How do you have three (3) home finals in the same weekend?
Do you do that, i.e. against the Wildcards, and then only the two worst performing are eliminate?
What other option is there than to “separate” the conference winners based on their final points tally?
If you accept that this structure is the only way to do it, what do you do?
May 11th 2011 @ 12:46pm
Sam Taulelei said | May 11th 2011 @ 12:46pm | Report comment
Bush
If I was involved in the planning dicussions for the new finals format for the expanded competition, I would have suggested two formats.
In the Super 15, if there was a need to award a bye to each conference winner then play a top five finals series. Places 4 and 5 play in a straight knockout match in the first week, then in the second week you have a straight semifinals playoff between 1 v 4 and 2 v3 then the final. That way the advantage of a weeks rest is fair for all conference winners, each conference winner has a hometown final as well as the fourth placed team in the table.
If the competition expands to a Super 16 then run a top 8 finals competition following format Matt has stated in his post earlier.
With a six team finals series, I would have argued that there is no fair allocation of a bye round for all teams that have earned a place in the finals by virtue of winning their conference.
I concede however that they’ve made the best out of a less than ideal situation which is likely a result of negotiations between all parties to keep everyone happy.
EDIT – Just spotted the flaw in my idea as 3rd place doesn’t get a home final. Gee I can understand why it took so long to nut out this competition, it’s really hard to get a working scenario.
May 11th 2011 @ 1:05pm
Matt said | May 11th 2011 @ 1:05pm | Report comment
Yeah, I think they’ve really made the best of what they’ve got to be honest.
The only other option would have been to let in an additional 2 wild cards, so that 8 of the 15 teams make the finals.
Top 3 conference winners + 1st wild card host 5th-8th in the quarter finals.
Top 2 ranked winners then host semis
Top ranked winner hosts the final.
That would ensure the finals take up the same number of weeks as the 6 team format, but every nation would get to host a quarter final round match and no teams get the unfair advantage of a bye. It also means there are 7 finals games instead of the current 5 (more finals games = more money).
This would also open up FAR more excitement for teams chasing one of 5 wildcard slots instead of only 3.
Based on the current points table you’d have:
(1) Blues vs Bulls (8)
(2) Reds vs Highlanders (7)
(3) Stormers vs Waratahs (6)
(4) Crusaders vs Sharks (5)
And most teams in the competiton would also still have a very good chance of sneaking 8th place from the Bulls. Seems like it makes sense to me, not sure what the negatives would be…more travelling for the finals?
May 11th 2011 @ 4:46pm
The Bush said | May 11th 2011 @ 4:46pm | Report comment
Matt,
The only logical reason I can see for the use of a six (6) team finals system as opposed to an eight (8), is that historically the SupeRugby competition has been very difficult to make the finals, and to double the number of participants, whilst only adding one (1) team, significantly alters the “prestiege” of the finals.
Also, it would mean that more than half the competition qualifies for the finals. Never a good look for a comp in my opinion.
May 11th 2011 @ 4:54pm
Jerry said | May 11th 2011 @ 4:54pm | Report comment
Yeah, I hate the idea that all a team has to do to qualify is be in the top half of the table.
May 11th 2011 @ 4:31pm
AndyS said | May 11th 2011 @ 4:31pm | Report comment
You could have three matches, with only the bottom two losers eliminated. So 1 v 6, 2 v 5, 3 v 4 with 1, 5 and 3 winning sees 2 get a second chance.
May 11th 2011 @ 11:42am
mjpt said | May 11th 2011 @ 11:42am | Report comment
Conferencing is the start of the end to consistency. It is predicated in the US ideal to have a BIG SHOW at the end of the comp (Superbowl, NHL,NBA, MLB finals format) In going for the TV dollar, this is the logical end game. Round robin formatting at least sees team playing each other, in this conferencing system teams are not as good as they think they are but are not as bad as they think they are either. However we will not find that out until the finals- thats too late IMO -then it becomes, did the right teams make the finals as some were advantaged by a soft schedule. The Blues have had the softest schedule of all NZ teams by avoiding the good SA teams (no stormers until late in comp and no bulls)…look where they stand in their conference (1st). The kicker is that Reds 1st in their conf lose to Hurricanes-dead last in theirs!! If your in a bad conf(nz) or right conf (oZ) your fate is already sealed. It does not have to be this way, the EPL and Man U as well as Spanish Liga and Barcelona show the European alternative, where first past the post (FPP) rules. In those comps, the most consistent teams ALWAYS wins. Now with conferencing, teams can get strategic and tank games so that they get someone they know they can beat in the playoffs!! regardless of ranking. One need only look at NRL under Mcintyre where top ranked team get knocked off regularly by lower ranked teams (see roosters last year), NBA in conferencing (champs Lakers just knocked out and finalists Celtics in trouble). This argument is the following strategy V consistency. It depends on the punters via TV numbers which one they want USA V Euro models.
May 11th 2011 @ 12:24pm
Elifanti said | May 11th 2011 @ 12:24pm | Report comment
The comp need only be extended out to 18 rounds to have a situation where same conference teams play each other twice, and everyone else once (which would be a pretty good structure).
My personal opinion is that you go out to win as many games as you can, collect bonus points, finish as high as you can and then challenge for a spot in the final – if you’re good enough, you’ll get there, if you’re not, bad luck.
May 11th 2011 @ 1:06pm
Andrew Leonard said | May 11th 2011 @ 1:06pm | Report comment
All the talk of expansion to make 16 teams – why is SANZAR not seriously considering a team in Argentina? Then the Pumas could be invited to a new 4 nations? Admittedly it would be a massive cost on the competition – one team would be be flying to or from BA every week but if the game is to grow further then how serious should we be championing this idea?
The six nations is one of the great annual sporting tournaments. With 2 games a week we wouldn’t have one nation having rest every second week?
May 11th 2011 @ 4:04pm
Brett McKay said | May 11th 2011 @ 4:04pm | Report comment
Andrew, Argentina WILL be in an expanded Tri-Nations (Quad-Nations?) from 2012..
May 11th 2011 @ 4:26pm
Andrew Leonard said | May 11th 2011 @ 4:26pm | Report comment
I stand informed – didn’t research before commenting – not sure how this slipped past me considering the date of the press release.
http://www.irb.com/newsmedia/mediazone/pressrelease/newsid=2033716.html
However whilst the invite has been extended and seemingly accepted I am surprised that there is not more publicity about this?
Either way its a great move and one to look forward to.
May 11th 2011 @ 4:49pm
The Bush said | May 11th 2011 @ 4:49pm | Report comment
There was decent publicity about it at the time.
Besides, it’s not actually happening until next year. There is a World Cup in between to worry about…
Personally I think they should have been invited from this year. The Pumas will already be playing warm-up games through July and August, so the team is assembled. We had to reduce the tournament this year for the World Cup, so this would have enabled us to fit in two (2) extra Tests in preparation. A bit more travel sure, but so what, it toughens you up…