This Conference System has to be scrapped?

[smartcooky]

We now have the ludicrous situation where the best four teams in the competition on performance are not the top four teams teams in the competition. The protected top four positions afforded to the conference winners needs to be removed. The only thing that should be granted to them is a guaranteed spot in the post-season, but their seedings should be on merit.

.....

On the left is what the table should look like, on the right is what it actually looks like.

Its a crock of shíte, and the whole competition loses integrity and credibility because of it. Play-off positions should be based on performance, not on protecting vested interests. The way to get into the top four positions should be about playing better and winning more!!

This simply has to change next season.

 

[saulan]

We can do a proper analysis of this at the end of the pool part of the season to see how silly it all is (because yes it is silly) but doing a comparison now when some teams have played two more games than others doesn't show the real picture. Also it won't change because money. But it's still worth taking a look at at the end of the pool season.

 

[back2back]

Yeah no doubt it needs changed. Crusaders were robbed of a play off spot last season because of this charity competition.

 

[CocoPampas]

As @saulan said, you are currently comparing teams with different amount of played matches. However, I get your point.
In order to debate, as your argument will stand, let's assume that this numbers are like this at the end of the groups stage (with all the matches already played).

I reckon that the "actual" table doesn't show the teams order by merit. However, your "Merit" table neither does so.

Let me give you some examples:

1. Stormers are higher than Brumbies.
   However, Stormers didn't play against NZ teams and played 2 times the Sunwolves, while Brumbies faced NZ teams and only once the Sunwolves.
2. Bulls are higher than Lions.
   But, Bulls played Australian teams, while Lions faced NZ teams. And again the differences about Sunwolves schedule.
3. It's also possible to discuss if Stormers are really over the Lions, due to the same issue already detailed.

Therefore, all the positions between 5 and 8 aren't as solid as you'd expect. And we are lucky enough to have all the NZ teams clearly on top.

So, my question is why changing from a classification system that is not showing the real merit order, to another system that is not going to do it?
BTW, at the end the better teams still need to win the knock-out stage to get the ***le.

 

[marianodan]

Yes, it's stupid and unbalanced. Just go back to one big round robin where everyone plays each other once. No internal conference double fixtures. Kick out the bottom teams from SA and OZ if needed.

 

[smartcooky]

However, Stormers didn’t play against NZ teams and played 2 times the Sunwolves, while Brumbies faced NZ teams and only once the Sunwolves.

1. Bulls are higher than Lions.
   But, Bulls played Australian teams, while Lions faced NZ teams. And again the differences about Sunwolves schedule.
2. It’s also possible to discuss if Stormers are really over the Lions, due to the same issue already detailed.

Therefore, all the positions between 5 and 8 aren’t as solid as you’d expect. And we are lucky enough to have all the NZ teams clearly on top.

You do realise, don't you, that the Stormers are not the only team that don't play any New Zealand teams? In fact none of the teams in Africa 1 play any NZ teams, and none of the teams in Africa 2 play any Australian teams.

While I agree that my merit table isn't 100% fair due to the reasons you have stated, it is nonetheless a lot more fair that what we have, and I see no reason why we cannot have it as fair as we possibly can within the constraints we end up with by compromising the competition with the use of Conferences.

As I have said earlier, a far better system could have been constructed with three conferences of six teams each (Saffas on their own, Sunwolves in the Aussie Conference and Jaguares in the NZ Conference)

 

[nickdnz]

In regards to the conference system I am of the opinion that you can't polish a turd. There is no way it is fair when there is always a huge disparity between the competitiveness of the conferences.

Right now the strength of the NZ teams is clearly demonstrated by their success against other teams.

But lets for example say the other conferences stacked two teams with all their talent. We would be in a situation where even our top teams would not necessarily be high on the table because of the competitiveness of our conference, and the increased competitiveness of the two teams in the other conference.

So we can be screwed either way. A round robon is really the only fair - and imho most entertaining - way to do it. It also makes the derbies that much more interesting when it could be the only time you have that team in a year.

The other solution is simply say goodbye to SR, go back to the NPC, and have a Euro cup style competition mid season. Has always been my preference tbh - and I think it would rejuvenate rugby a lot amongst the provinces.

 

[back2back]

The new teams. Jags, Sunwolves and Kings have only won 4 games between themselves and 3 of those came against each other, while the one other was the Jags came against the Cheetahs, another poor SA team. I dunno even know what to say to that.

 

[Cruz_del_Sur]

Simple solution. For qualification purposes, use the actual table. For seeding purposes after qualification use the merit table.

To be completely honest, i don't think it'll make a huge difference, but i am of the opinion that the competition has one winner and 17 losers, an opinion i am aware is not particularly popular.
You can also argue that playing against tougher teams earlier on potentially amounts to more injuries and sanctions.

The only problem i see with the solution i proposed above is that, as mentioned above, the merit table is not really a fair comparison because it each team faces different opponents. I still think the merit table is a tad better at assessing teams' performances.
But this is a big competition played across a plethora of time zones. You have to compromise one way or another.

 

[nzlizard]

Yeah something needs to be done.

Showing Charity to SA and Aus teams is not going to help them improve either, they need to earn their spots.

I like the playing each NZ team twice because in all honesty local derbies are so much more fun, but for some teams not to play a NZ team or a Aus team is just a **** take.

 

[saulan]

Yeah something needs to be done.

Showing Charity to SA and Aus teams is not going to help them improve either, they need to earn their spots.

I like the playing each NZ team twice because in all honesty local derbies are so much more fun, but for some teams not to play a NZ team or a Aus team is just a **** take.

I've said it before and I will say it again. This is not going to change because money. We can't get a complete round robin because they want to keep home and away derbies because of money. We also won't see the end of guaranteeing different regions top spots because of tv broadcasting viewership, which means money. Our best bet is making this a two tier competition where there are fewer teams in each tiers but allow everyone to play each other. But even that has some significant issues.

 

[CocoPampas]

@marianodan, sorry I can't agree with you on this one. Going back to the last format that properly addressed all the infield requirement, but almost any of the current politic and investment requirements (Super 12) is not an option for me.
@smartcooky, yes. That's actually part of my point. The conference system implies that the teams are facing different opponents. Therefore, the amount of points never is going to show you the merit of the teams from different conferences.
As @Cruz_del_Sur said, "You have to compromise one way or another."

It's interesting. Everybody seems to acknowledge that there is a problem. However, there are at least 6 different solution proposals, each of them having their own problems.
So, IMHO it isn't anything like a simple solution.

 

[RoosTah]

In regards to the conference system I am of the opinion that you can't polish a turd. There is no way it is fair when there is always a huge disparity between the competitiveness of the conferences.

Right now the strength of the NZ teams is clearly demonstrated by their success against other teams.

But lets for example say the other conferences stacked two teams with all their talent. We would be in a situation where even our top teams would not necessarily be high on the table because of the competitiveness of our conference, and the increased competitiveness of the two teams in the other conference.

So we can be screwed either way. A round robon is really the only fair - and imho most entertaining - way to do it. It also makes the derbies that much more interesting when it could be the only time you have that team in a year.

The other solution is simply say goodbye to SR, go back to the NPC, and have a Euro cup style competition mid season. Has always been my preference tbh - and I think it would rejuvenate rugby a lot amongst the provinces.

The conference system has two objectives both related to money; to reduce the exorbitant travel costs of this massive competition and to ensure each conference has at least some presence in the finals to retain public interest in each region. There is also a fairness element to that though, as the South Africans have (fairly) complained for a long time before the change that the travel has had a disproportionate effect on them than either Australia or NZ.


So you’re right - given the way the competition is structured across so many time zones, it’s just a very difficult thing to structure in a way that could be genuinely described as fair.


As for making it like a Euro style champions league competition, I think that would work for South Africa or NZ, but not for Australia, Japan or Argentina. NZ and South Africa have the benefit of having had a long standing national competition that is completely pro and high level, but Australia’s National competition is still very very new and its identities have little to traction among the public who only really know the Super Rugby teams outside of the niche rugby community here. Japan has had a long standing semi-pro comp (with marquee players getting big bucks, but most Japanese guys not earning a living wage), whilst Argentina has only just entered the pro era.


For all three Super Rugby acts as a circuit breaker that allows them to provide strong professional pathways that supersede their existing problematic club structures which have proven so intractable.

 

[TRF_stormer2010]

Refering to the OP, I think we are too many teams too scrap the conference system.

That said I do agree with you the format has some fundamental flaws as is and listening to Steve Tew I think the tournament organisers are well aware of them and see the current format as a stepping stone into something else.

I've suggested this before and I see @saulan is thinking in the same direction as me. I also think a two tier competition is the way; forward. Tiers would address two issues the current format has as a product; it would ensure strength vs strength fixtures and in effect make the amount of teams competing managable if we limit the top tier to 12 teams which I felt was something of sweet spot.

My proposal makes a few assumptions though and I would suggest a few compromizes for the sake of a few considerations the organizers clearly see as important and which I can understand;

Assumption #1 is that strength vs strength fixtures would make for a better product and would offset the fact that derbies seem to be the games that the organisers are wanting to push as they seemingly get the most interest. I for one believe the Stormers at least would get as much people in for Newlands for a Stormers vs Highlanders clash as we would for a Stormers vs Lions clash. SO maybe instead of having hosted the Lions we could have only had them in Jo-Burg and instead could have played a NZ team in that slot that we would've seen the Lions at Newlands. The cutting down on derbies would also up the relevance and attendences/marketability of the Currie Cup, NPC and put pressure on the new Aussie domestiv league indirectly which would be a good thing IMO.

Assumption #2 is that if we keep the amount of games the same and even go for more after expansion it'd translate into at least breaking even with the money the current format can generate from broadcaster deals; as is we have 18 teams playing 15 games each for 270 games toal in the regular season. My idea is for a top tier of 12 teams and a bottom tier looking to expand to 12 teams also with promo/relegation between the two but also some measure of cross-over so as to not make them two totally different competitions as I believe making each relevant to the other would be crucial for TV viewership and so as to not alienate the bottom tier. I would for those purposes look at derbies and that the top two teams of the bottom tier join an eight team play-off format with QF's, Sfs and a grand final. That'd mean teams from the top do indirectly compete with teams from the bottom tier and would keep them relevant to the competition. 12 teams in a round robin translates too 12 x 11 = 132 games per tier and then have each team play 4 games in a cross-over between tiers which adds another 12 x 4 = 48 per tier. Totaling 360 games total but keeping it to 15 per team keeping it strength vs strength with an element of derbies between the bottom tier and derbies are almost always something of a leveler and a banana skin for the top tier so I don't think it takes away from the integrity of the results too much. I'd keep the conference system to determine these 'derbie' games;

Top tier;
NZ conference;
(too play 1 round robin match against each of the top tier teams and 1 game against each of the NZ bottom tier teams)
Crusaders
Chiefs
Highlanders
Hurricanes

SA conference;
(too play 1 round robin match against each of the top tier teams and 1 game against each of the SA bottom tier teams)
Lions
Sharks
Bulls
Stormers

Aus conference;
(too play 1 round robin match against each of the top tier teams and 1 game against each of the Aussie bottom tier teams)
Brumbies
Rebels
Waratahs
Reds

Bottom tier;
NZ conference;
(too play 1 round robin match against each of the bottom tier teams and 1 game against each of the SA top tier teams)
Blues
Fiji 1
Samoa 1
Tonga 1


SA conference;
(too play 1 round robin match against each of the bottom tier teams and 1 game against each of the SA top tier teams)
Jaguares
Argentina 2
Cheetahs
Kings

Aus conference;
(too play 1 round robin match against each of the bottom tier teams and 1 game against each of the NZ top tier teams)
Force
Sunwolves
USA 1
Canada 1

The travel factor would be insane but it is insane as is in any case. Just look at the Sharks' movements in the last weeks and the Stormers currently. SA to Singapore to SA to Aus and back to SA.

 

[TRF_heineken]

Us Saffas have been against the conference system since it's introduction into Super Rugby and the disdain for this system just gets stronger as the game goes on.

I get the reason for the Conference system, and the financial implications, but it's just not working. I hate it that my team (the Bulls) doesn't get to play against the NZ teams. This tournament was always about the strongest coming out on top, but now there is no way to measure that. I miss the early Saturday morning wake-ups just to watch the Bulls play against a NZ team in NZ. It's also a good way to see which youngsters can perform on tour, and who can adapt to the conditions. Now the Springbok coach doesn't get the opportunity to see what the Bulls players could do in NZ, and the Lions players in Oz.

I'm behind the idea of the conference system being scrapped, but what will be put in it's place? We can't have the round robin idea of the past as there just isn't enough time from February to June to fit all the matches in before the June internationals (which no union will want to abolish either). Unless we have midweek matches too, but then we're back to the problem that teams will field poorer teams for certain matches which will result in a bad contest.

 

[die_mole]

playoffs in conference systems are not meant to bring the best teams together, it is meant to decide which team is best out of the respective division winners... the introduction of the wildcard really through a wrench in that logic
teams have the entire regular season to prove that they are the best in their division
you also can't compare table points with teams that haven't played similar schedules, i think giving a home playoff game to division winners is the fairest thing to do

that being said i think the current setup is ****, should be a three conference system where you play every team in your conference twice and another conference once
afterwards you sort the teams into three tiers, top two, middle two, and bottom two in each division and do a six nations type deal to determine the

 

[TRF_stormer2010]

playoffs in conference systems are not meant to bring the best teams together, it is meant to decide which team is best out of the respective division winners... the introduction of the wildcard really through a wrench in that logic

That's POV I havn't considered before.Anyway, reading through this article it does seem that the organisers take the general criticisms from the fans seriously. I guess we'll have to wait and see; http://www.superxv.com/sanzaar-planning-a-better-structure-for-super-rugby/

 

[TRF_heineken]

That's POV I havn't considered before.Anyway, reading through this article it does seem that the organisers take the general criticisms from the fans seriously. I guess we'll have to wait and see; http://www.superxv.com/sanzaar-planning-a-better-structure-for-super-rugby/

Well at least SANZAAR admits that there is a problem and that they are looking at ways to sort it out. I understand their reasoning for looking at 2018 for changes as they have mentioned in the article, but surely they can try to work out a better system for next year with the current teams??

 

[GoTheNaki]

The only fair way to do a fair table would be everyone played everyone. But that equates to more money being spent on travelling etc. which I don't believe the teams want tbh.

 

[TRF_heineken]

The only fair way to do a fair table would be everyone played everyone. But that equates to more money being spent on travelling etc. which I don't believe the teams want tbh.

Yeah, but it won't work as there are currently too many teams to accomodate such a plan within the period allowed for the SR tournament, and then you also have to add bye weeks...

Unless they go the route of not having playoffs at all, and just let the team with the most points at the end of the season win the trophy.