Time to fix flawed Super Rugby conference format
-
<p>From memory Nick Mallett suggested two divisions of 10 teams. Each year two teams would be relegated & promoted</p>
<p> </p>
<p>But that raises it's own issues.</p>
<p>Traditional rivalries may not take places for years. There would be less of the lucrative derby matches. Also, there is a risk the same sides would keep moving between the divisions and the bottom 8 would fall away</p> -
<p>There are plenty of tweaks that can be made for the playoffs but the real problem is the regular season schedule and the amount of travel required to play the games across 5/6 countries and multiple time zones within a designated time period. Ideally, every team should play eachother once and the 2 best teams host SFs and the winners end up in the final irrespective of what country/conference that team is from. Perhaps removing the byes allows extra games to be played but that raises the issue of player welfare.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>I don't see the current format being changed unless the June tours are either moved to later in the season or not played at all. But that's another debate...</p> -
-
<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="Unco" data-cid="599909" data-time="1469402029">
<div>
<p> </p>
<p>Personally, I want them to embrace and fix up the conference format instead. Just go with two conferences (Aus/NZ and Africa), have x number of crossover games between conferences and have conference finals based purely on performance within those conferences, with the final between the Aus/NZ and Africa conference winners.</p>
</div>
</blockquote>
<p>I'm not sure I could get my head around always having an SA team in the final, although I know that's how the US conference systems need to work. Probably the most realistic way to make the existing conference format work though.</p> -
<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="Unco" data-cid="599909" data-time="1469402029">
<div>
<p>Saying the US conference format doesn't work across multiple continents is pretty silly because Super Rugby doesn't have that format in the first place, it has a clusterfuck mix of conferences and round robin. That's the problem IMO.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>Splitting the competition into two divisions and going back to round robin just seems like a step backwards to me. It makes it harder for bad teams to get good, like the Chiefs, Lions, Landers, Tahs and Canes have all done over the last 6 or so years, and also makes the comp more boring because you're mostly playing the same exact teams twice every year. And on top of that, nothing you've just said would really fix the travel problems you've pointed out. NZ teams would still have to fly over to SA for tours and, in particular, finals.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>Personally, I want them to embrace and fix up the conference format instead. Just go with two conferences (Aus/NZ and Africa), have x number of crossover games between conferences and have conference finals based purely on performance within those conferences, with the final between the Aus/NZ and Africa conference winners.</p>
</div>
</blockquote>
<p>The only difficult thing there is, who gets the home final?</p> -
<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="GM1" data-cid="599936" data-time="1469405721">
<div>
<p>I'm not sure I could get my head around always having an SA team in the final, although I know that's how the US conference systems need to work. Probably the most realistic way to make the existing conference format work though.</p>
</div>
</blockquote>
<p>Sure it'll suck to see the end of all NZ finals but I think it's the right move. It makes the format a lot easier to understand, can feed into the NZ vs SA rivalry (with an Aussie cameo once every few years), cuts down on most of the bullshit finals travel and is probably the best option in terms of $$$.</p>
<p> </p>
<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="hydro11" data-cid="599965" data-time="1469407412">
<div>
<p>The only difficult thing there is, who gets the home final?</p>
</div>
</blockquote>
<p>Using the NBA as my example, the team who has the most points in the regular season. gt12's SuperBowl idea is kinda interesting though.</p> -
<p>The problem with the competition is that it really makes no sense at all to have the South African, Sunwolves & Argentinian team involved.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>Apart from the cash which the first 2 offer, and the "expansion and we love argentina" feel-good factor.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>I don't think there is a solution which works well for NZ rugby. Part of me almost hopes that SA rugby realise that they are pretty much so being taken advantage of, and bugger off. A NZ / Aussie / Suva / Apia tournament would work really well, and should sell to NH. </p>
<p> </p>
<p>A tournament where teams may have to make 3-4 seperate long haul flights just doesn't make sense. Money is being chosen over logistics.</p> -
<p>MR, apparently the ARU pitched a Trans- Ta$man comp to the NZRU at the last round of negotiations, but the Kiwis knocked it back. The money has to be the main reason, and in the commercial world we live in I suppose that's understandable.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>I think the comp is a bit of a dog's breakfast at the moment, but considering it now covers 50% of the fucking globe I'm not sure if that is ever going to be avoidable.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>The one thing I will say is the best team ends up holding the trophy 95% of the time. Yes a few teams may be screwed out of a home final, but them's the breaks, and it generally sorts itself out in the end.</p> -
<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="barbarian" data-cid="599984" data-time="1469409476">
<div>
<p>I think the comp is a bit of a dog's breakfast at the moment, but considering it now covers 50% of the fucking globe I'm not sure if that is ever going to be avoidable.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>The one thing I will say is the best team ends up holding the trophy 95% of the time. Yes a few teams may be screwed out of a home final, but them's the breaks, and it generally sorts itself out in the end.</p>
</div>
</blockquote>
<p> </p>
<p><cough> 2011 Reds <cough></p> -
<p>yep, for all the perceived weaknesses, and "legs up" the winner of the comp is going to be a kiwi team, or the Lions, which is pretty much justified given the play over the course of the season. </p>
-
<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="nzzp" data-cid="599987" data-time="1469410018">
<div>
<p><cough> 2011 Reds <cough></p>
</div>
</blockquote>
<p>the 2011 Reds were a good side. </p>
<p> </p>
<p>You can't blame Sanzar for the earthquake. Or the Crusaders taking a game to London. </p> -
<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="mariner4life" data-cid="599990" data-time="1469410274">
<div>
<p>yep, for all the perceived weaknesses, and "legs up" the winner of the comp is going to be a kiwi team, or the Lions, which is pretty much justified given the play over the course of the season. </p>
</div>
</blockquote>
<p> </p>
<p>Yep if Lions win they will have beaten 3 Kiwi teams in 3 successive knockout games - deserved winners I would say.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>Also - all 4 play a cracking entertaining style of rugby too.</p> -
<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="barbarian" data-cid="599984" data-time="1469409476">
<div>
<p>MR, apparently the ARU pitched a Trans- Ta$man comp to the NZRU at the last round of negotiations, but the Kiwis knocked it back. The money has to be the main reason, and in the commercial world we live in I suppose that's understandable.</p>
</div>
</blockquote>
<p> </p>
<p>The majority of SANZAAR's broadcasting income is from SA and Supersport. Tew said earlier in the year that an Australasian comp wouldn't be financially viable. I can't find the exact quote but to paraphrase he said it wouldn't last more than a year or two.</p> -
<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="mariner4life" data-cid="599991" data-time="1469410335">
<div>
<p>the 2011 Reds were a good side. </p>
<p> </p>
<p>You can't blame Sanzar for the earthquake. Or the Crusaders taking a game to London. </p>
</div>
</blockquote>
<p> </p>
<p>Or the NZ teams resting players before the RWC.</p> -
<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="mariner4life" data-cid="599991" data-time="1469410335">
<div>
<p>the 2011 Reds were a good side. </p>
<p> </p>
<p>You can't blame Sanzar for the earthquake. Or the Crusaders taking a game to London. </p>
</div>
</blockquote>
<p> </p>
<p>They were a good side, blessed by a dream draw that saw damn near all tough opposition at home, avoiding some key threats.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>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.</p> -
Surely Robbie Fleck watched some games of Super Rugby this year that involved New Zealand sides?<br><br>Either way, one conference tournament isn't enough data to scrap the competition.
-
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. <br><br>
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. -
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.
