Time to fix flawed Super Rugby conference format

barbarian

<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="mariner4life" data-cid="599991" data-time="1469410335">
<div>
the 2011 Reds were a good side. 
 
You can't blame Sanzar for the earthquake. Or the Crusaders taking a game to London. 
</div>
</blockquote>
 
Or the NZ teams resting players before the RWC.

nzzp

<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="mariner4life" data-cid="599991" data-time="1469410335">
<div>
the 2011 Reds were a good side. 
 
You can't blame Sanzar for the earthquake. Or the Crusaders taking a game to London. 
</div>
</blockquote>
 
They were a good side, blessed by a dream draw that saw damn near all tough opposition at home, avoiding some key threats.
 
I still remember the look McCaw gave the ref at the end of the RR game when they got penalised after blowing over and past the ball ... cost them the game and a home path to the finals. The rest, as they say, is history.

antipodean

Surely Robbie Fleck watched some games of Super Rugby this year that involved New Zealand sides? Either way, one conference tournament isn't enough data to scrap the competition.

MajorRage

Agree. But 41-0 and 60-21 are not scores of quarter finals in anything above the most amateur of competitions.
 
EDIT: Just thinking what we did to France in RWC ... contradiction time!

Rancid Schnitzel

The finals system sucks but IMHO this format is by far the best for NZ rugby. We get an elite NPC, the other nations don't play us near enough to get used to us and of course there's the SANZAR cash. 
One thing that's ridiculous is the Sunwolves playing in an African conference. Surely it would make far more sense for them to be together with NZ or Aus.

Nairobi

why not have a nba type playoff system. This year the wc in the nba hard many strong teams that could probably have deserved a trip to playoffs ahead of many EC teams but ad the playoff system is set they could only fight it out in their conference. the gamesof okc/spurs okc/gsw were so entertaining that they didn't devalue just because they were not finals.

hydro11

One relatively simple change that SANZAR could do is have a week off between the semi finals and the final. I know a lot of people won't like it because it essentially leaves a week with no rugby. However, that would really balance out the negative effects of the travel schedule. If the Chiefs have to play an away final in South Africa, you would give them a far better chance if they had an extra week to rest up and get used to altitude.

rotated

<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="mariner4life" data-cid="599991" data-time="1469410335">
the 2011 Reds were a good side. 
You can't blame Sanzar for the earthquake. Or the Crusaders taking a game to London.</blockquote>
Can blame them for admitting a woeful Rebels team after the ARU proved they couldn't even stock the Force with passable talent. Then mandating that the "winner" of that conference got a bye and a home final. 
When we first saw the structure I think most predicted if there was a half decent Aus team they would cake walk to a home final with travel taking care of the other side of the bracket. 
SA teams now have much more of an advantage with the three of the four worst teams all in their conference - plus the travel factor. 
2011 Reds were one of the better non-Brumbies Aussie Super teams - but probably the weakest winners in Super history aside from perhaps the first Crusaders title.

DMX

This year I have simply refused to watch any games that do not feature a NZ side, hence this was my first time watching the Stormers.

sparky

I'd like to see them go back to a 12 team competition with every side playing each other, but it ain't going to happen.

hurricane

One feature of the current set up I like is the large number of intra- New Zealand games. I don't really want to go back to round robin. I realise the OP wasn't suggesting straight round robin but the stormers were after their loss to the chiefs.

Damo

I think we should give it another year at least. One year is not enough to make a judgement. 
 
The only tweak I'd make for next year is to say that only the Division winner gets a guaranteed home quarter (ie one team from the 2 SA conference and one team from NZ/AUS conference. After that all playoff should be played at the team who scored more points in the RR.
 
That tweak aside, let's give it a chance to bed in for another year or two.

westcoastie

I posted this into one of the other forums, but its more appropriate here:
 
I whole-heartedly believe Super Rugby should use the finals system they use in AFL (or a similar version of it) and subsequently the NRL who realised it was better than what they had been using.
Essentially, 1 v 4, 2 v 3 and then 5 v 8 and 6 v 7.
Positions 1-4 get the double-life, so winners of boths games actually get a week off, while the losers play winners of 5-8. 
I would give the conference winners positions 1 - 4, based on actual ladder. 
Then 5 - 8, would be the next four highest overall table placings. 
Highest rank team gets the home-advantage whole way through to GF.
 
This years finals would look something like.
1. Hurricanes v 4. Brumbies
2. Lions v 3. Stormers - Look South Africa get a semi-final in the republic week 1, and finals in the next two weeks as well.
5. Highlanders v 8. Sharks
6. Chiefs v 7. Crusaders
Lets suggest the home-team wins. Hurricanes & Lions both get a week off, and will host the major semi-finals.
 
So week 2. I think the AFL sets it up a bit different, but lets give the highest rank team, the advantage of playing the lowest rank team. 
3. Stormers v 6. Chiefs
4. Brumbies v. 5. Highlanders
Lets suggest the winners, for shits and giggles were the winners of the most recent game between these two sides. Highlanders and... the Chiefs (in 2015). 
 
Week 3 finals then.
1. Hurricanes v 6. Chiefs
2. Lions v. 5. Highlanders
 
At this point, well... Highlanders have had to travel, twice and lose. The Chiefs, controversely get Liam Messam back, who having slimmed downed for sevens outsprints Beaudy in a race for a bobbling ball on time to win. Fanciful right? I like the romance of the Hurricanes winning...
Anyway 2. Lions v 6. Chiefs.
 
Chiefs win, when 8 out of 15 players rested in the infamous Round 17 game v the Jaguares suffer soft-tissue injuries in the first 15min of the Final. Liam Messam kicking an unlikely droppie when Crudes bounce one off the opposition #9 with time almost up.
 
Anyways, you get the idea of the finals.

nzzp

It's not controversial, but it still doesn't deal with the travel factor.
 
The issue seems to be around teams being asked to make insane trips - if the Chiefs win this weekend, it's probably back on the plane to SA for a final FFS.
 
I am starting to come around to an idea of playing knockout footy in the Australasian and African conferences - throw up a champ however you like, and they then go for it (possibly even at a neutral venue). Only one bad inter-conference trip involved.

Username

How about hosting not just the final at a neutral venue but holding the entire knockout stage in one country. So the quarters, semis and finals would all be held in New Zealand one year, South Africa the next, Australia the year after, then Argentina or Japan and back to New Zealand? Kind of a mini-tournament at the end of the regular season. Just a random thought.
 
Obviously, coming up with a good structure for the entire tournament is difficult given the different number of teams in the pools. If there were four pools of four or five (no thanks) each, it becomes a lot easier.

Frye

<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="Username" data-cid="601113" data-time="1469736800">
How about hosting not just the final at a neutral venue but holding the entire knockout stage in one country. So the quarters, semis and finals would all be held in New Zealand one year, South Africa the next, Australia the year after, then Argentina or Japan and back to New Zealand? Kind of a mini-tournament at the end of the regular season. Just a random thought. 
Obviously, coming up with a good structure for the entire tournament is difficult given the different number of teams in the pools. If there were four pools of four or five (no thanks) each, it becomes a lot easier.</blockquote>
 
Yeah I like that. Especially if the team that would have got the home advantage gets a bigger slice of the pie. 
I'm sure the Brumbies wouldn't mind that. I don't even think they broke even hosting a game against the Highlanders because of the fee they had to pay them.

nzzp

<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="Username" data-cid="601113" data-time="1469736800">
<div>
How about hosting not just the final at a neutral venue but holding the entire knockout stage in one country. 
</div>
</blockquote>
 
Not enough broadcast money in it I suspect. All of this is driven by the need to have content in multiple TV markets.

MajorRage

<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="Username" data-cid="601113" data-time="1469736800">
<div>
How about hosting not just the final at a neutral venue but holding the entire knockout stage in one country. So the quarters, semis and finals would all be held in New Zealand one year, South Africa the next, Australia the year after, then Argentina or Japan and back to New Zealand? Kind of a mini-tournament at the end of the regular season. Just a random thought.
 
Obviously, coming up with a good structure for the entire tournament is difficult given the different number of teams in the pools. If there were four pools of four or five (no thanks) each, it becomes a lot easier.
</div>
</blockquote>
 
I dunno, Chiefs vs Hurricanes is arguably the biggest match of the year so far this weekend, and if it was in SA, it would probably get 300 spectators.
 
There just isn't a solution.

hydro11

I still think the simplest answer is just to have a week off between the semi final and final. If the Chiefs were to have another week to prepare for a final against the Lions, you couldn't really blame the travel.

hurricane

<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="hydro11" data-cid="601206" data-time="1469762725">I still think the simplest answer is just to have a week off between the semi final and final. If the Chiefs were to have another week to prepare for a final against the Lions, you couldn't really blame the travel.</blockquote> Interesting. In NFL (and don't call me out on this as I am a casual and sporadic fan) they have 2 weeks between the semis and the finals. You get a bit worn down by the hype and just want the game to start already by the time it finally comes around. The other point I will admit to pulling out of my arse, two weeks is a long time to prepare for a final and some teams seem to really get the tactics right which can result in blow outs through sheer exhaustive analysis of the other team. A couple of times when they only had a week long break the games appeared to be closer (maybe that was just a fluke though I concede before someone with more NFL knowledge objects).

The Silver Fern

Time to fix flawed Super Rugby conference format