Time to fix flawed Super Rugby conference format
-
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. <br>
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.<br>
With hindsight It is clear that given the enormous advantage of a hometown final, Acekerman's gamble on Jaguares was I'll founded. -
<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="pakman" data-cid="603575" data-time="1470480529">
<div>
<p>With hindsight It is clear that given the enormous advantage of a hometown final, Acekerman's gamble on Jaguares was I'll founded.</p>
</div>
</blockquote>
<p> </p>
<p>It's not hindsight - many people have been saying this for years. It is a real issue at playoff time in this competition.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>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.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>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.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>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.</p>
<p> </p>
<p><insert image of NZZP flogging a dead horse></p>
<p>- </p> -
<p>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.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>Thank God Ackermann fucked up by not sending his 1st team to Argentina, because the advantage to the Bok sides is already too much.</p> -
<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="Frank" data-cid="603633" data-time="1470527844">
<div>
<p>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.</p>
</div>
</blockquote>
<p> </p>
<p>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.</p> -
<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="nzzp" data-cid="603650" data-time="1470533488">
<div>
<p>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.</p>
</div>
</blockquote>
<p> </p>
<p>erm, they didnt beat every Kiwi team...?</p>
<p> </p>
<p>Lost home and away to Canes</p>
<p>Won home and away v Chiefs</p>
<p>Lost home and won home v Crusaders</p>
<p>Won home v Blues</p> -
<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="taniwharugby" data-cid="603651" data-time="1470533957">
<div>
<p>erm, they didnt beat every Kiwi team...?</p>
<p> </p>
<p>Lost home and away to Canes</p>
<p>Won home and away v Chiefs</p>
<p>Lost home and won home v Crusaders</p>
<p>Won home v Blues</p>
</div>
</blockquote>
<p> </p>
<p>OK, 4/5. My bad.</p> -
-
<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="taniwharugby" data-cid="603651" data-time="1470533957">
<div>
<p>erm, they didnt beat every Kiwi team...?</p>
<p> </p>
<p>Lost home and away to Canes</p>
<p>Won home and away v Chiefs</p>
<p>Lost home and won home v Crusaders</p>
<p>Won home v Blues</p>
</div>
</blockquote>
<p>Must've taken a massive effort to beat the Chiefs at home and away when they only played them once :P</p>
<p> </p>
<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.</p> -
<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="Unco" data-cid="604932" data-time="1470878852"><p>Must've taken a massive effort to beat the Chiefs at home and away when they only played them once :P<br><br>
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.</p></blockquote>
<br>
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.<br><br>
I'd still like it if the final Super Bowl like, moving between the four conferences each year. -
<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="Unco" data-cid="604932" data-time="1470878852">
<div>
<p>Must've taken a massive effort to beat the Chiefs at home and away when they only played them once :P</p>
<p> </p>
<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.</p>
</div>
</blockquote>
<p> </p>
<p>Ah, my bad...I had in my head as I was typing both the Crusaders and Chiefs lost the semi to them haha</p> -
<p>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). </p>
<p> </p>
<p>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. </p>
