Super Rugby News
-
Sounds like Milner Skudder is out at least 6 weeks with a fractured foot.
-
http://www.stuff.co.nz/sport/rugby/super-rugby/90422620/super-rugby-to-cut-two-teams--report
So it appears that chopping three was too easy so only chop two and keep the pools all confused?
Glad to hear there is chopping.
-
-
@Stargazer said in Super Rugby News:
Apparently, a 16 team draw is much harder logistically than a 15 team draw. I feel sorry for the admins who have to make that draw. Even just thinking about it gives me a head ache.
Nah it will be sweet as 3 fives make....... oh no wait.
It's all cool as we all just have the 5 teams... no no wait. I will get there.
NZ will have 5, Aus 4 and SA 4 with one from Japan and Argentina. That's it! No wait, hang on. I need to complicate this a bit.
-
What I'm expecting is that they choose a prime number of teams, you know to make it interesting. So 17 teams, 13 teams, or maybe even 11 teams.
-
@Billy-Tell said in Super Rugby News:
What I'm expecting is that they choose a prime number of teams, you know to make it interesting. So 17 teams, 13 teams, or maybe even 11 teams.
Current rumour is 16 teams. it's like these muppets set out to make things hard for themselves.
16 teams only works if one NZ team plays in a cobbled together pool of leftovers.
The other option is to scrap the conference system but I thought the big attraction was the derby matches as they draw the biggest TV numbers.
-
@Billy-Tell said in Super Rugby News:
What I'm expecting is that they choose a prime number of teams, you know to make it interesting. So 17 teams, 13 teams, or maybe even 11 teams.
Easy - add a Pacific Island team, make it 19.
Ticks all the boxes... expanding the "market", extra travel, prime number to make the format 'interesting' -
So 16 teams and scrap pools? Everyone plays everyone would certainly make it fairer.
Means more travel but the sunwolves/jaguares already have to travel a shit ton anyway so again it's just making it fairer.
Might mean more NZ home semi-finals of course. Which SA and Aus won't like....
-
@Frye said in Super Rugby News:
So 16 teams and scrap pools? Everyone plays everyone would certainly make it fairer.
Means more travel but the sunwolves/jaguares already have to travel a shit ton anyway so again it's just making it fairer.
Might mean more NZ home semi-finals of course. Which SA and Aus won't like....
Currently we have 17 rounds followed by 3 weeks of finals.
If 16 teams and a straight RR then you could have two bye weeks, a quarter, semi and final. Straightforward and easy to follow.
The reason they muck around with the format so much is the obsession with guaranteeing a post RR game in each country.
I'm guessing a full RR but still 3 'pools' (NZ, Aus, SA& Arg). The winner of each pool gets a home game (as long as they are in the top eight) plus the next 5 highest placed teams. Match ups still 1 v lowest non automatic etc.
So lets say after the RR the table is1 Canes
2 Saders
3 Lions
4 Chiefs
5 Stormers
6 Highlanders
7 Blues
8 BrumbiesCanes v Blues (1 v 7)
Lions v Highlanders (3 v 6)
Brumbies v Saders (8 v 2)
Chiefs v Stormers (4 v 5)Highest v lowest
middle 1 v middle 2eg if all the home teams won it would be
Canes v Brumbies
Lions v ChiefsHighest team from RR gets home final
Would be nice if there was a way to stop a team having to travel right around the world during the finals though while the 1 ranked team gets such a massive advantage.
-
@Crucial said in Super Rugby News:
@Frye said in Super Rugby News:
So 16 teams and scrap pools? Everyone plays everyone would certainly make it fairer.
Means more travel but the sunwolves/jaguares already have to travel a shit ton anyway so again it's just making it fairer.
Might mean more NZ home semi-finals of course. Which SA and Aus won't like....
Currently we have 17 rounds followed by 3 weeks of finals.
If 16 teams and a straight RR then you could have two bye weeks, a quarter, semi and final. Straightforward and easy to follow.
The reason they muck around with the format so much is the obsession with guaranteeing a post RR game in each country.
I'm guessing a full RR but still 3 'pools' (NZ, Aus, SA& Arg). The winner of each pool gets a home game (as long as they are in the top eight) plus the next 5 highest placed teams. Match ups still 1 v lowest non automatic etc.
So lets say after the RR the table is1 Canes
2 Saders
3 Lions
4 Chiefs
5 Stormers
6 Highlanders
7 Blues
8 BrumbiesIf that
is the table based on points only, you'd get this table with the pool winners ranked first (as it's done now):1 Canes (NZ conf winner)
2 Lions (Afr conf winner)
3 Brumbies (Aus conf winner)
4 Saders (wild card)
5 Chiefs (wild card)
6 Stormers (wild card)
7 Landers (wild card)
8 Blues (wild card)and these Quarter Finals (pool winners and highest placed wild card playing at home):
1st v 8th: Canes v Blues
2nd v 7th: Lions v Landers
3rd v 6th: Brumbies v Stormers
4th v 5th: Saders v ChiefsIf the home teams won, you'd get these semis:
winner of QF1 v winner of QF 4: Canes v Saders
winner of QF2 v winner of QF 3: Lions v BrumbiesAgain, if the home teams won, the final would be:
Canes v Lions -
@Crucial said in Super Rugby News:
Currently we have 17 rounds followed by 3 weeks of finals.
If 16 teams and a straight RR then you could have two bye weeks, a quarter, semi and final. Straightforward and easy to follow.There's been a lot of talk about the positives of the geographic groups - more derby games, more ratings etc
However I think South Africa has suffered under this model by having much less contact with NZ teams.If the the purpose of cutting teams is to raise the standards, then they should look at ditching the geographic pools for the same reason (are ratings down for the non derby games because a gap is growing?)
A round robin would work. Maybe even two mixed pools of 8
EDIT - another negative about the geographic groups is the attrition rate. The nz pool is extremely tough on the players
-
@Stargazer said in Super Rugby News:
@Crucial said in Super Rugby News:
@Frye said in Super Rugby News:
So 16 teams and scrap pools? Everyone plays everyone would certainly make it fairer.
Means more travel but the sunwolves/jaguares already have to travel a shit ton anyway so again it's just making it fairer.
Might mean more NZ home semi-finals of course. Which SA and Aus won't like....
Currently we have 17 rounds followed by 3 weeks of finals.
If 16 teams and a straight RR then you could have two bye weeks, a quarter, semi and final. Straightforward and easy to follow.
The reason they muck around with the format so much is the obsession with guaranteeing a post RR game in each country.
I'm guessing a full RR but still 3 'pools' (NZ, Aus, SA& Arg). The winner of each pool gets a home game (as long as they are in the top eight) plus the next 5 highest placed teams. Match ups still 1 v lowest non automatic etc.
So lets say after the RR the table is1 Canes
2 Saders
3 Lions
4 Chiefs
5 Stormers
6 Highlanders
7 Blues
8 BrumbiesIf that
is the table based on points only, you'd get this table with the pool winners ranked first (as it's done now):1 Canes (NZ conf winner)
2 Lions (Afr conf winner)
3 Brumbies (Aus conf winner)
4 Saders (wild card)
5 Chiefs (wild card)
6 Stormers (wild card)
7 Landers (wild card)
8 Blues (wild card)and these Quarter Finals (pool winners and highest placed wild card playing at home):
1st v 8th: Canes v Blues
2nd v 7th: Lions v Landers
3rd v 6th: Brumbies v Stormers
4th v 5th: Saders v ChiefsIf the home teams won, you'd get these semis:
winner of QF1 v winner of QF 4: Canes v Saders
winner of QF2 v winner of QF 3: Lions v BrumbiesAgain, if the home teams won, the final would be:
Canes v LionsThe thing I don't like about that model (i.e. like the current one) is that it artificially raises a team up the rankings for finals. e.g. Brumbies become the number three ranked team which could, after only one game, end up with them having a home semi.
I'd prefer they stay in their 1-8 RR positions but the top team from each country/group gets a home game.
Of course the Saffies would be terrified of the Jaguares winning and taking their game to Argentina. -
-
@Stargazer said in Super Rugby News:
@Crucial I agree, but just don't expect that to change because the S Africans & Aussies are already going to lose teams, so they'll never let go of that home QF advantage as well.
i'm probably not explaining my concept well or it is so obtuse that it wouldn't fly anyway.
Basically the teams are ranked 1-8 based on the RR but there are still guaranteed home quarters for each 'group'.
So, even if the top Oz team is number 5 they still get a home quarter but the semis are drawn on the RR rankings only.
so your order is the way the quarters are worked out but it reverts to RR rankings for semis.
-
@Crucial said in Super Rugby News:
@Stargazer said in Super Rugby News:
@Crucial I agree, but just don't expect that to change because the S Africans & Aussies are already going to lose teams, so they'll never let go of that home QF advantage as well.
i'm probably not explaining my concept well or it is so obtuse that it wouldn't fly anyway.
Basically the teams are ranked 1-8 based on the RR but there are still guaranteed home quarters for each 'group'.
So, even if the top Oz team is number 5 they still get a home quarter but the semis are drawn on the RR rankings only.
so your order is the way the quarters are worked out but it reverts to RR rankings for semis.
If Quarter finals would be based on total competition points earned in RR, but conference winners play at home, then you have a problem, because - using your list - the number 1 v number 8 game would be the NZ conference winner v the Aussie conference winner, and then the higher placed Canes would play at home and the lower ranked Brumbies wouldn't get their "guaranteed" home quarter final.
Unless you'd step away from the 1st v 8th, 2nd v 7th, 3rd v 6th and 4th v 5th rule, but then it would become completely arbitrary who plays who ...
