Time to fix flawed Super Rugby conference format

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.

taniwharugby

<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="nzzp" data-cid="603650" data-time="1470533488">
<div>
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.
</div>
</blockquote>
 
erm, they didnt beat every Kiwi team...?
 
Lost home and away to Canes
Won home and away v Chiefs
Lost home and won home v Crusaders
Won home v Blues

nzzp

<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="taniwharugby" data-cid="603651" data-time="1470533957">
<div>
erm, they didnt beat every Kiwi team...?
 
Lost home and away to Canes
Won home and away v Chiefs
Lost home and won home v Crusaders
Won home v Blues
</div>
</blockquote>
 
OK, 4/5. My bad.

pakman

<a data-ipb='nomediaparse' href='http://www.smh.com.au/rugby-union/union-news/the-super-rugby-final-format-is-unfair--just-check-the-numbers-20160722-gqbhmn'>http://www.smh.com.au/rugby-union/union-news/the-super-rugby-final-format-is-unfair--just-check-the-numbers-20160722-gqbhmn</a>

Unco

<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="taniwharugby" data-cid="603651" data-time="1470533957">
<div>
erm, they didnt beat every Kiwi team...?
 
Lost home and away to Canes
Won home and away v Chiefs
Lost home and won home v Crusaders
Won home v Blues
</div>
</blockquote>
Must've taken a massive effort to beat the Chiefs at home and away when they only played them once :P
 
I still think the Aus/NZ and Africa conferences having their own finals and then the winners play each other is by far the best format. It means SA are guaranteed a bunch of home finals, which is what the money men at SANZAAR are really after, and while it might result in Aus not hosting any finals at all, I think we're in similar enough time zones that it doesn't really matter.

gt12

<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="Unco" data-cid="604932" data-time="1470878852">Must've taken a massive effort to beat the Chiefs at home and away when they only played them once :P 
I still think the Aus/NZ and Africa conferences having their own finals and then the winners play each other is by far the best format. It means SA are guaranteed a bunch of home finals, which is what the money men at SANZAAR are really after, and while it might result in Aus not hosting any finals at all, I think we're in similar enough time zones that it doesn't really matter.</blockquote>
 
Yeah, to solve the travel problem, I can't see a better way, and it's not the end of the world to do it that way as we could have top 4 teams from NZ / Oz conferences play for the 'Oceania' Champion. 
I'd still like it if the final Super Bowl like, moving between the four conferences each year.

taniwharugby

<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="Unco" data-cid="604932" data-time="1470878852">
<div>
Must've taken a massive effort to beat the Chiefs at home and away when they only played them once :P
 
I still think the Aus/NZ and Africa conferences having their own finals and then the winners play each other is by far the best format. It means SA are guaranteed a bunch of home finals, which is what the money men at SANZAAR are really after, and while it might result in Aus not hosting any finals at all, I think we're in similar enough time zones that it doesn't really matter.
</div>
</blockquote>
 
Ah, my bad...I had in my head as I was typing both the Crusaders and Chiefs lost the semi to them haha

KiwiMurph

Also it must be remembered this year, Aus and NZ teams played their own conference in 6 games (play everyone else once, play two of the teams twice), rather than 8 games last year (play everyone twice) and played the opposite conference in 5 games (everyone in other coference once) rather than 4 games last year (4 out of the 5). 
 
For example Blues played Canes and Crusaders twice, but only Highlanders and Chiefs once, and played all 5 Aussie teams, whereas last year Blues missed out on playing the Reds I think it was.

The Silver Fern

Time to fix flawed Super Rugby conference format