When the Super Rugby conference system began I had a feeling this format wouldn’t provide the best way to present us with the strongest teams in the Southern Hemisphere showpiece.
When you look at the motivation behind the conference system, some of the justifications made sense. – it would allow for more local derbies, more television viewers and larger gate revenue.
Yet to me this sounded like a cop out, where money was the sole motivator for expansion of the hugely successful Super XIV.
I also wasn’t convinced having six teams qualify for the play offs made any sense.
Why have this? Just to keep all countries more interested in the final weeks of the Super Rugby competition?
Consider this; since 1996 Australia has missed out on the semi finals in 1998, 2007 and 2009. South Africa has missed out in 2002 and 2003. Meanwhile, New Zealand has never missed out on a semi final spot.
But isn’t that the nature of competitive sport? You are either good enough to make it to the top or you are not.
When you consider the current conference system it is clear that in both years all three countries would have been represented in the semi finals anyway.
However my biggest concern with the new system is the fact that teams won’t be playing every other team in the tournament. Not until I started digging up records and results of the past two years did I notice how much of an impact this would make on the tournament.
I took the top nine teams in both years as it proved this year there is a marked difference in the wins gained by the top nine log leaders and the bottom teams (in 2011, however, the separation was after the top eight teams).
I compared the number of matches each of the teams have played against the top nine teams and their results based on that.
2011
Reds – played seven – won five; log points gained from the top nine teams = 23
Crusaders – played 11 – won seven; log points gained from the top nine teams = 36
Blues – played 12 – won seven; log points gained from the top nine teams = 33
Stormers – played seven – won four; log points gained from the top nine teams = 19
Sharks – played eight – won four; log points gained from the top nine teams = 18
Bulls – played nine – won four; log points gained from the top nine teams = 18
Highlanders – played nine – won four; log points gained from the top nine teams = 18
Waratahs – played seven – won two; log points gained from the top nine teams = 13
Hurricanes – played nine – won one; log points gained from the top nine teams = 11
2012
Chiefs – played 10 – won six; log points gained from top nine teams = 27 (Hurricanes result pending)
Stormers – played eight – won six; log points gained from top nine teams = 26
Crusaders – played nine – won five; log points gained from top nine teams = 26
Sharks – played nine – won five; log points gained from top nine teams = 25
Bulls – played nine – won four; log points gained from top nine teams = 21
Reds – played eight – won four; log points gained from top nine teams = 18
Brumbies – played seven – won two; log points gained from top nine teams = 15
Hurricanes – played nine – won three – log points gained from top nine teams = 15 (Chiefs result pending)
Highlanders – played 11 – won four; log points gained from top nine teams = 20
In the years prior to the conference system, every team would play every other team based on alternative years, home and away. This would have meant each team would play eight matches against the other top-nine log leaders.
Looking at the “new and improved” conference system it could be as many as 12 matches and as little as seven matches. That in my view is a farce.
How does one compute the credibility of a system with – for want of a better word – “unfairness”?
The main reason for this is New Zealand has by far the strongest conference. Hence, with four of their teams being part of the top-nine log leaders, they will inevitably play six matches against top teams just in their conference.
South Africa, with three teams, will play four and Australia, with two teams, only 2 matches.
Total matches played by New Zealand teams against top nine teams = 80
Being represented by four teams each year provides an average of 10 per season.
Total matches played by SA teams against top nine teams = 50
Being represented by three teams each year provides an average of 8.25 matches per season.
Total matches played by Australian teams against top nine teams = 29
Being represented by two teams each year provides an average of 7.25 matches per season.
The reality is the conference system is not a fair reflection of the opponents faced by each team.
Some conferences are lacking depth and quality teams.
My conclusion is that Super Rugby may be financially more lucrative, but as a competition it has much less credibility.
Kevin higginson
Guest
An 18 team competition would be a great event. 6 from each country. Play in conference (10 matches), followed by inter conference matches based on rankings, just like the Nfl, where strength plays strength. Using this years final table, the conferences and match up would look like this. Currie conference 1. Stormers 2. Bulls 3. Sharks 4. Cheetahs 5. LionsZ 6. Kings Aus conference 1. Reds 2. Brumbies 3. Waratahs 4. Rebels 5. Force 6. Adelaide Nz conference 1. Chiefs 2. Crusaders 3. Hurricanes 4. Highlanders 5. Blues 6. Central ( Napier) Argentinian players should be allowed to play as 'home' players as this would give an extra bonus of quality and bring them in line with the season, (funded by the uar). The inter conference matches would be e.g. Stormers v reds brumbies and Waratahs, and chiefs, crusaders and hurricanes. So 1 v 1, 2, 3, 2 v 1, 2, 3 etc. This would still give a 16 game season plus play offs for 6 teams. The currie cup winners could be the winners of the sa conference .
will lawton
Guest
This competition is not about finding the best team, or it would be boring wqatching the kiwis winning it all the time. This "comp" is about tv ratings in the rsa and the uk. The new 4N should be 3N by dropping Oz, where the players are nearly all kiwis, who are not good enough to get contracts in NZ or Japan.
Stalker
Guest
This is exactly what I have been thinking all along. Is it a curse for the Aussie teams not to be exposed to the best as often all season as well? How are the Aussie conference teams going to get any better when the rebels and force games are so soft?
sheek
Guest
AD, Shall I say it.....now? The S12 & S14 from the old days were "another country".......... I think Bush explained it superbly above.
sheek
Guest
+3 Bushy.
Matt I agree with you the disparity of Budgets is a major contributor to the spread of professional players.
Matt
Guest
I think it's time that Super Rugby also looked to the other major conference based sports and adopted a Salary Cap and revenue sharing model. The reason that South Africa's and Australia's top 2-3 teams have it good is because there is such disparity in roster value. The Brumbies have shown that you don't have to be the wealthiest team to do well, while the Rebels and Blues have shown that buying star players from other teams doesn't equal success. But in terms of seeing the best talent on the pitch each weekend it is no good allowing the big and/or rich sides like the Bulls, Sharks and Rebels to buy in talent to their teams from the smaller regions. The Highlanders have shown that if you step in a force some of the excess talent to a weaker team then you'll get a better chance of results, which in turn sees more fans turning up. A salary cap also encourages teams to instead invest in young academy talent too, as these players can often be contracted for lower initial rates. That means teams can spend bigger on their stars and control the quality of their squad from season to season. Imagine how much better ratings would be if the Lions, Cheetahs, Force and Rebels could take on their more illustrious opponents week to week. It would keep fans guessing and make for more close matches.
Kid, those are city centers. You have to add many suburbs which would bring it to over 6 million. Gauteng is high density area's but some of it falls under different municipal areas.
Crazy Horse
Guest
What I love about the conference system is that it makes it possible to follow a team in each country.
The Bush
Roar Guru
And why not... We face two (2) problems here; 1. Rugby isn't that big; and 2. What fans we do have are spoilt - they've grown up on a diet of Super Rugby and they won't settle for anything less.
kid k
Guest
No biltong how can cape town and durban have more people than joburg? Joburg has 11 million people durban has 10mil and cape town has five, where do you get your numbers from?
kovana
Guest
All in all. I love the new conference system. This year has proved it by having bigger crowds and TV ratings than last season. The only way to improve it is to have more derbies and less international Round robin matches. Have 6 teams in each conference.. Since it always seems the Saffas miss out in regards to TV viewings... 6 teams means an automatic 3 matches each weekend.
AndyS
Guest
That has absolutely been the JO'N/ARU intent. Unfortunately, they have simultaneously been severing the links between the Super teams and the underlying grassroots competitions by eliminating academies and shrinking lists. By the time Super Rugby becomes the domestic competition, it'll be nothing of the sort as there will be zero link to the location of the team.
Brett McKay
Expert
I've long thought more should be done around the conference champions, KPM, and I can one day see some kind of conference playoff, though semis would require a lot more than five teams per conference. And I'm happy with five per conference now, I think that's the best number to consolidate for the next few years.. And Dasher, I'm absolutely certain that is/was JO'N's endgame - and it's a sad representation of the crusted-on nature within Aust rugby that it would be considered easier to create a national comp via expanding Super Rugby than it would be to try and come up with the pragmatic approach with all the stakeholders at the next level down..
Atawhai Drive
Roar Guru
Exactly, Johnno. Money trumps quality every time.
Johnno
Guest
Atawhai the good old days were good but they don't pay the bills in the pro world.
Johnno
Guest
I agree KPM europe are far more advanced and SANZAR could have the most avant-garde format.
Kuruki
Roar Guru
What i would like to see is a competition where every team plays all other teams at least once. The extra double up games can be held as local derbies but based on the previous years rankings where teams like the Stormers would double up against the Bulls and the Sharks and the Lions would play the Cheetahs twice instead of playing the Stormers. I'm not sure exactly how it would work out but something like this to stop walkover matches within a conference would be good.
kingplaymaker
Roar Guru
Johnno an interesting point: SANZAR could have the most avant-garde format already, and the absence of private owners is the only thing making it look worse than it is. On the other hand the number of teams in England and France is enviable: I think the SANZAR format with more teams and private ownership is a good mixture.
Atawhai Drive
Roar Guru
Someone has to say it, so it might as well be me: I don't like the Conference system. There, it's out. I feel better now. I preferred it when my team, i.e. the Waratahs, played every other team once. Going further, I preferred the Super 12 to the Super 14 or 15. Concentration of talent, and all that. But as Dasher said above, the present system allows Australia to grow a domestic competition under the Super 15 umbrella. So we're stuck with the Conference system forever, I guess.