Super Rugby finals system benefits Aussies

I would like to see the draw changed so that in the last week before the finals there is a conference championship match between the 2 top teams of each conference to determine a conference champion. These games would be awesome by ehancing local rivalries and allowing one team from each country to hold some trophy. The winners should get the automatic places in the super rugby finals. TheWanting, I dont really think many Aussie rugby fans give a stuff what other fans think about the Reds. The fact is they were awesome last year and they won, so deal with it mate. Also, yes everyone over here feels a lot of sympathy for the people of Christchurch for the terrible earthquaques, but dont expect anyone to feel sorry for the Crusaders- they have had their fair share of winning, and deservedly so. Unfortunately with all great teams, like the current Gellong in the AFL, people do get sick of them winning after a while, and that certainly applies to the crusaders. I admit I am biased being a Brunbies fan, but I like the new system, it is about seeing the best teams from 3 nations play each other, now the fianls series will always do that. We will see if the Brunbies make it to the finals, if they would not have made it without the new system anyway, at this stage it is too early to say. If that happens i would feel sorry for the higher ranking team that misses out, but I am sure we will cop that rough end of the pineapple one day....

Jarmen - Since I am not making any cliams I do not have to provide any facts. I am asking those making claims to provide facts and figures instead of generalisations / myths / ambit claims from fuzzy extrapolations. Otherwise there is no substance to their claims just their opinion.

you need to look at the context of which it was written, drama. how a capital L would suddenly change the idea behind "SA provides the Lions share of the revenue" is simply beyond me. seems a pretty clear statement and does not suggest in any way that he meant the Lions rugby team. maybe stop trying to nitpick what is a pretty mundane comment and remember that grammar is not just about how something is written but also HOW it is read. if kiwis and saffas struggle what would you call what johnno dishes up? he is australian remember (sorry johnno!!)

you cant preclude the notion that a CONFERENCE is weaker than another by trotting out that a single team in a conference happened to win. a conference is made up of a collective, and raw numbers both this year and last point to the aussie conference being the weakest on results alone. logic and reason would also dictate that this does not mean a team from a weak conference cannot beat a team from another, simply means the accumulative strength of the conference is weak overall. again, the results prove this. no one with half a brain has argued that the reds did not win when it mattered, because it is simply a fact that they did. you cant claim logic and then ask the ridiculous question of how did the wallabies beat so and so if the conference is so weak. history has shown and the facts aswell that super rugby results dont correlate to test performance. if the teams are so well matched in a particular conference, then how does this refute the argument that australia has the weakest conference?? a pure wins/points check point to this being erroneous thinking, as the spread of points is much higher and just as close in the NZ/SA conferences. surely the composition of each conferences points tally and wins bear this out. so in essence, this year at least, each conference is cannibalising each other. jutsie, the only stat that matters is wins and points tally, and frankly on a conference level this shows that australia has the weakest conference. it DOES not show that an aussie team will lose to another team in another conference, simply illustrates an overall standard of a conference. fact is you havent actually given any evidence to support your questions which could hardly be considered logical or reasonable as they are simply suppositions.

Lippy/Jarman I'm sorry to say that most kiwis and saffas on this site can't write English grammar. Although Australia has more middle class followers of the game than NZ or SA, and in their eyes we are bunch of effete snobs, your posts are almost incomprehensible. You can't write a sentence which states "SA provides the Lions share of the revenue". A capital L means it refers to an organisation, which in this case would refer to the Super 15 team - the Lions from Joburg. You should have written 'that SA provides the lions' share of the revenue. Unfortunately your competence in English grammar matches the logic you display in your writing about the conference syatem.

If you want your tam to win, they need to win their conference and the best from the other conferences. The best team should usually still win. Even if Crusaders had a disadvantage last year, it shouldn't be said that Qld were such a bad team. We need to stop saying AUS wanted this, NZ wanted that. Lets speak in terms of the ARU and NZRU, etc. It is clear as day that all three unions are thrilled about the conference system, and the attractiveness of it to broadcasters, and to most fans. It is also clear that the conferences are built to expand, or have new conferences added, without the length of season expanding and encroaching on the domestic tournaments. Anything is possible after 2015. SANZAR has already said publicly that they are looking at Asia, America and Argentina. If the conferences were mostly closed off until the finals with a couple more teams added to them, then the lack of depth would be masked and the international finals system would be novel and exciting. I know this is not ideal, but this is where it seems to be going.

You are never going to get it broken down into facts Peter. They've publicised the overall number, but who paid what would be highly financially sensitive and we'll never see it without a leak of parliamentary proportions. So, as I see it, it breaks down into two possible scenarios: 1. That SuperSport do not in fact contribute the lions share of the deal, meaning their 62% of the total audience get a great deal while viewers in Aus/NZ pay more on a per head/per match basis; or 2. That SuperSport do contribute the lions share of the deal, meaning they effectively own the tournament the way NewsCorp used to and it is set up how the SA broadcaster thinks it will best suit their only audience. Either way, I certainly can't see how anyone from the Republic can have an issue with it. Either they are effectively getting their rugby subsidised, or the competition has been specifically set up by their broadcaster to suit them. Tougher on the rest of us, but then if we didn't think it was worth it we wouldn't watch.

Good point Jutsie. Last thing I want to do is start being logical and sabotage my campaign to become a Roar Guru.

Logic and reason like that is not welcome in these here parts rhino. We prefer to pick and choose statistics that prove our point and dismiss any stats or counter-arguments that contradict us.

It all sounds pretty presumptious saying one country's conference is stronger than the other and thereby making assumptions on who benefits the most. Who's to say that NZ conference is strongest, SA next then weakest is Aust. If that's the case, why did Reds win title last year defeating two NZ sides in finals. And how did Aust beat SA in World Cup - no Bryce lampooing please! And how did Aust win Tri-Nations? Like the French proved at World Cup, anyone can progress if they win when it counts. Also doesn't seem to account for fact that within one conference, all the teams might be well matched and possibly split their derbies and therefore share points around more within conference.

It is a conference system the penalty for being the weakest performing conference winner is having the extra finals round. Really if you want to analyse this in further detail. The highlanders have only played two games outside of new zealand and are yet to even go to SA. the only transnational victory they have had is against the rebels and were beaten by the so called "elevated welterweights brumbies". it will be interesting to see how the highlanders play against the cheetahs. Talk about an easy draw their transnational games are against the brumbies which they have already lost to, the rebels, the cheetahs and the sharks, it is very unlikely they will go into the finals having beaten any team in the finals away from home since round 1 and even that was in NZ

people have to realise this is not a fair system... but it isn't meant to be... it is about revenue and interest... the concept of a conference is to allow a local competition thrive within an international competition... this conference system has created an interest in the upcoming Australian fixtures that there never would have been within the old system, the reds tahs and brumbies are battling to get a home final. Without the old system they would be vying for sixth place, and unlikely finals prospect. I am an Australian Rebels supporter, the fact is if you are good enough to win your conference you are assured a home final, if you are the weakest performing conference winner you have to play an extra finals round. For the South Africans particularly i feel sorry as they do have an unparalleled depth of talent in my opinion. But you must admit the local derbies will mean so much more when a home final or a week off is on the line, you have the biggest aggregate crowd attendance and viewers of broadcasting stations, and under the conference system you get more local games and games in local viewing time. It may be creating false competion for the sake of drama but its subsequent effect on revenue and interest is in the interest of all parties.

I think the wins should be the most important then use PD or BPs as a tie breaker.

agree, winning should take precedance, and its idiotic for the tahs or anyone to have missed out in that situation. why reward a close loss? surely the players arent school children and need to be pandered to in this way to make them feel better about losing? on the other hand, bonus points based on playing positive rugby and scoring mountains of tries should stay, but i guess we just end up going in circles. the saders should have got at least 15 bonus points a few years ago when they touched up the tahs 93-3 or whatever it was, that would have been the correct way to reward the win (sic)!!

not a standout team, thats right, but i definitely enjoy watching them play. cant fault a team who just gets stuck in and works hard. can they maintain it though? fundamentals seem strong, so if they keep their heads then i would suggest thats a yes.

no argument from me about how it works. i have been an NFL fan for years, so dont get me started on good seasons going to waste due to conference systems haha!! the season isnt over yet justin, of course, but irrespective of who makes it in, a potentially weak team will take the spot of a much stronger team from NZ/SA due to the format. what happens to that team is a moot point. HOME ground advantage is just that, and a potentially weak team gets that benefit over a stronger team who happens to be in a stronger conference. it pays to note that we on theroar are not the first to complain about a conference system in its infancy, fans from other sports still have issues with it, thankfully the teams themselves seem to just get on with it. its (obviously) a commercial decision as has been sited ad nauseum, but it does leave a sour taste in the mouth, if for arguments sake, a conference were to be dominant overall and had 3 or 4 teams eating up the wins, but the efforts were basically in vain due to the format situation. as i said further up, just bad luck. but cold comfort for the fans. im guessing your not a betting man, otherwise you shouldnt be amused about people bringing up hypotheticals!? but i catch your drift. the same situation as you have said would have arised if it was the lions/cheetahs who were at the bottom of the log, but as you know, its always fun to stick one to you aussies!! lol. i wish the brumbies (if they keep it going) brought their (potential) home final up to suncorp so i didnt have to fly down to miserable canberra!! ahh well, maybe the reds will leap frog them all once healthy. im impressed by the support for the rebels down in melbourne, but just like the force, they really need to develop some quality lower grades, otherwise the merry go round will continue. each team will go through massive troughs in support and results. what ever happened to the idea of : half short, twice strong??

The author of the article is using a hypothesis of current standings to help highlight his broadcasting point. I agree re the 2009 debacle a similar thing happened in NZ during the ITM cup where Taranaki I believe finished with more wins than Wellington yet missed out on the semi finals due to points for and against.

I mean no disrespect to the Brumbies in my statement they are not a standout team yet. i am talking in comparison to the Reds of 2011 who were heads and shoulders above their local rivals. The current Australian conference is actually still anyones to take. Did anyone else see the article in stuff re the Brumbies Bulls match? http://www.stuff.co.nz/sport/rugby/super-rugby/6812801/Referee-blew-it-for-Brumbies-Lyndon-Bray

Its a moment in time still - AUS has a new franchise that will take a few years to develop. Look how SA teams struggled in the past, Lions/Cheetahs fighting for the spoon. I dont follow how SA/NZ teams will miss out to ensure an Aus side gets through? For a start the comp isnt over yet and secondly the Brumbies have enough points to make the finals if you wanted to stop the comp now (though why people bring up hypotheticals based on results of a comp at the halfway mark amuses me no end). They get a home final as a conference winner, thats how the system works. If they are not up to it they wont win the comp. There are other issues with the system that could be looked at. For instance the Tahs lost out on a finals spot in 2009 despite winning MORE matches than the Crusaders. I know the reason why the Saders qualified but if you have issues with this current system then you have to take issue with any system that doesnt reward a team winning more games than an opponent. Winning is more important than bonus points. Was there an uproar when this happened? Not to my knowledge - the rules were the rules and everyone got on with it...

I think from what i can see this is the gist of what Irks a lot of people on this thread. An Australian team is going to get a top 3 spot regardless of their overall performance. They may not even finish in the 6 yet still gain a big ticket revenue gathering home final at the expense of another team. I doubt that this situation would arise but as has been noted by Warren the broadcasters have fixed / rigged the system to the greater good of the bank balances it does not necessarily reflect the true standings of the teams within the competition. Over the back end of the tournament we will see a lot more local derbies so in effect the table should actually level out slightly. The Brumbies are travelling well however they are not exactly a standout team in the Australian conference yet, they could be in a few weeks after playing return legs against NSW, QLD at home and an away trip to the NSW and Rebels. The Australian conference looks quite evenly matched however it is hard to argue that they are on the same playing field as the NZ and SA conference. The interesting thing about this tournament is the Crusaders now start a run of three matches in a row against Australian opposition starting with NSW on Sunday back home to the Reds the following week then away to the Rebels.