Time to fix flawed Super Rugby conference format

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).

Chris B.

I usually find the "my brilliant structure" posts pretty boring, so I'll keep this very brief.
 
Three conferences
SA
Aus + Sunwolves
NZ + Jaguares
 
Play all the teams in your conference home and away (10 games per team)
 
Break for the June internationals.
 
Top three teams in each conference go into the "Top Nine" division - carrying forward the points they've obtained against the teams that progress with them
Bottom three teams in each conference go into the "Bottom Nine".
 
Play the six teams you haven't already played in your division (6 more games).
 
Top six teams from Top Nine and top two teams from the Bottom Nine contest the play-offs.

Chris B.

<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="Rocky Rock Rockbottom" data-cid="601816" data-time="1469921682">
<div>
Interesting idea although once teams realise that if theyre in the top nine, 3 good teams are going miss the playoffs altogether so theyll be manouevring to get in the bottom 9 and aim for 2 of the "easier" routes to the playoffs anyway?
</div>
</blockquote>
 
To get home advantage you'd have to be in the Top 9.

Chris B.

I suppose that would add intrigue. :)
 
Maybe add some trophies for winning conferences and the Divisional premiers - not that that would help if a third ranked team decided to chuck a game to be fourth. Back office would probably not be happy about the impact on their gates.

shark

If we have to humour the South Africans by allowing them to have two conferences from which they can have pool winners and automatic finals qualification, then so be it, as we need their cash. But I'd suggest we don't rely so much on Australian broadcast revenue, so we should say fuck you ARU, we'll have two Australasian conferences so potentially two Kiwi sides qualify automatically for home finals. You might have the Crusaders, Highlanders, Hurricanes, Rebels and Force in one conference and Blues, Chiefs, Reds, Tahs and Brumbies in the other. So if the Chiefs and Hurricanes topped their conferences they get the same advantages the South African teams do. That'd be one way of redressing the balance slightly. 
 
Alternatively, play a full round robin and play every side once. This is the only truly fair way of doing it, but then you remove some of the money-spinning derbies, and this also means you potentially end up with a lot of home games against crap sides like the Kings, Sunwolves, Reds and Force plus whoever else is blowing goats in any particular year. This is great for advancing one's way up the table but does nothing to engage interest from fans.

antipodean

The danger in letting Australian rugby die is what are you going to do if the South Africans decide to do anything else?

nonpartizan

I know that a big reason for moving to the conference system was so that there would be more national derbies but round robin and one solitary table would be my preference. That would be two more games than are currently played now but I like the symmetry and meritocracy of everyone playing everyone else once. 
 
Obviously given the number of timezones that the competition is played in and the amount of travelling involved there are logistical problems that can never be resolved but those are issues that are largely out of the hands of the administrators.

shark

<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="nonpartizan" data-cid="602132" data-time="1470038460">
<div>
I know that a big reason for moving to the conference system was so that there would be more national derbies but round robin and one solitary table would be my preference. That would be two more games than are currently played now but I like the symmetry and meritocracy of everyone playing everyone else once. 
 
Obviously given the number of timezones that the competition is played in and the amount of travelling involved there are logistical problems that can never be resolved but those are issues that are largely out of the hands of the administrators. 
</div>
</blockquote>
 
I think as far as the travel goes, you'd just have to accept that each team would need to make a 3-4 week tour during the season and maybe one other brief but lengthy trip every year, or something like that. I imagine a NZ side would have to conduct a three match tour to SA every year, and then another trip to either Japan or Argentina. Or maybe they could structure it so they could choose to make it a single four week tour and get all that long distance travel out of the way in one go. Every second year you'd also have to play in Perth too. The South African teams would have to travel for 5 weeks and possibly 6, to play a total of five away games against Australasian sides, plus either the Sunwolves or Jaguares. Or they might also choose to make the South American or Asian trip a separate jaunt. Or possibly even split the five Australasian games and game vs the Sunwolves or Jaguares into two three week tours at different stages of the season.

pakman

It is very apparent that the travel factor is paramount at the pointy end of the season. If Chiefs had beaten Clan a few weeks ago their likely path would have been Sharks//Crusaders /Lions, all at home. The Canes would have had Ponies/Lions(away) and if they got through that Chiefs back in NZ. In which case my money would have been on Chiefs. 
It would make more sense, if it could be engineered, that semis minimised travel. Top two seeds have home game, and others go what's closest to quarters. So as was Chiefs would have flown Cape to J'burg -- one hour -- and Clan to Caketin -- 3 hours. 
With hindsight It is clear that given the enormous advantage of a hometown final, Acekerman's gamble on Jaguares was I'll founded.

nzzp

<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="pakman" data-cid="603575" data-time="1470480529">
<div>
With hindsight It is clear that given the enormous advantage of a hometown final, Acekerman's gamble on Jaguares was I'll founded.
</div>
</blockquote>
 
It's not hindsight - many people have been saying this for years. It is a real issue at playoff time in this competition.
 
Looking at the playoffs, 2/4 quarters, both semis and the final were home team wins. And the two away wins were against teams that wouldn't have finished high enough to host a final with a proper round robin.
 
Here's the thing though - we are seeing this from a sporting perspective. All the administrators care about is revenue. To that end, their main priority is TV money, by having playoff games in major markets. It sucks, but they won't compromise $$$ for sporting effectiveness.
 
The travel is why I think there is a strong argument for splitting Australasia and SA during the finals, and each sending up a winner, possibly even to a neutral venue.
 
<insert image of NZZP flogging a dead horse>
-

Frank

The right team won. The Lions didn't have to play all the Kiwi sides twice in one season and also got to play the Sunwolves once and Kings twice.
 
Thank God Ackermann fucked up by not sending his 1st team to Argentina, because the advantage to the Bok sides is already too much.

nzzp

<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="Frank" data-cid="603633" data-time="1470527844">
<div>
The right team won. The Lions didn't have to play all the Kiwi sides twice in one season and also got to play the Sunwolves once and Kings twice.
</div>
</blockquote>
 
I agree, but the Lions did beat every Kiwi side in the comp. You couldn't argue they hadn't earned the right to be there...even if some was home advantage in the playoffs.

The Silver Fern

Time to fix flawed Super Rugby conference format