Strewthcobber
Michael Lynagh (62)
This was published yesterday on the super rugby site, so looks like you were right to question it
Super Rugby Pacific Qualifying Finals Confirmed
super.rugby
Super Rugby Pacific 2025
- Thread starter rugbyAU
- Start date
super.rugby
waiopehu oldboy
Rocky Elsom (76)
That seems different from what I read mid-season although I'm now not sure if I read it on the Super Rugby site.
Wilson
John Eales (66)
If we work with the single ranking point drop for the lucky loser (which must happen after the teams are condensed to 4 to satisfy no repeat match ups) then that means the Chiefs are guaranteed to host a semi even if they lose this weekend and the Reds and Blues have no path to host one. The Reds can still host the final though, but only if it's against the Blues.
Ignoto
John Hipwell (52)
Yeah seems like a stupid system that doesn't really emphasize that it's do or die.
If they want to keep this finals format, then the winner of each game keeps the highest seed position i.e. if the Blues beat the Chiefs, they go to 1, if the Reds beat the Crusaders they go 2.
The Chiefs can throw this weekend knowing they will have a home semi no matter what which seems to be the opposite to what a quarter final should mean.
If they want to keep this finals format, then the winner of each game keeps the highest seed position i.e. if the Blues beat the Chiefs, they go to 1, if the Reds beat the Crusaders they go 2.
The Chiefs can throw this weekend knowing they will have a home semi no matter what which seems to be the opposite to what a quarter final should mean.
zer0
Greg Davis (50)
The lUcKy LoSeR concept is already stupid. That the Chiefs are guaranteed to host a semifinal even after their inevitable Chiefs Choke is exponentially stupid. If you lose then you should be out.
But, if you absolutely have to use the concept for the sake of one whole extra match, then at least banish them to the bottom of the semifinal seeds. You shouldn't be rewarded for losing an elimination match.
But, if you absolutely have to use the concept for the sake of one whole extra match, then at least banish them to the bottom of the semifinal seeds. You shouldn't be rewarded for losing an elimination match.
Don't see why the team that finished sixth should suddenly be in pole position to host the final. Surely, that'd go to the second placed team (Crusaders) , with the Chiefs dropping to fourth, and blues moving up to third.
Wilson
John Eales (66)
Can't do that either, it means the Hurricanes could never host the semi while the Reds and Blues could.
Personally I don't really have a problem with the lucky loser system, I just wish they had been a bit more proactive and detailed in explaining it. But also, as interesting as it is to go through the permutations this super rugby - the finals almost always go to plan and end up won by the home the side, particularly outside of the conference systems distortions.
The occasional upsets do happen though, so everyone should familiarize themselves with the most likely one (winners in bold):
CHF v BLU
CRU v RED
BRU v HUR
and then the semi's are:
CHF v RED
BRU v (CRU)
I don't think anyone could really argue with that arrangement.
zer0
Greg Davis (50)
I hadn't thought about the #1 seed potentially throwing their match. But, if I understand this all correctly, this silly concept, and the fact that #2 plays before #1, means that, if the Reds beat the Crusaders (#2) on Friday, then the Chiefs (#1) could throw the match on Saturday against the Blues to guarantee the Crusaders are eliminated, all while knowing that they would be hosting the Reds in the semifinal.
As funny as it would be to see the Evil Empire eliminated that way, it does seem somewhat unsporting.
EDIT: The Chiefs would also be condemning the other semifinal host, i.e., either the Brumbies or Hurricanes, to getting battered by Vern-ball.
Highlander35
Steve Williams (59)
Wait Seeds 1 & 2 don't have a first round bye?
Strewthcobber
Michael Lynagh (62)
No byes for anyone under this system
Ignoto
John Hipwell (52)
I think there should be some reward for knocking off the top dogs in a knock out final. I like finals being unpredictable and that on any given day any team can win one game.
The Chiefs/Crusaders only have to win 2 games to be Super Rugby champions and are guaranteed a home semi. It doesn't really promote this idea of finals being do or die does it?
Seems a bit rough on the Crusaders who spent 16 weeks being better than the Blues though, since they didn't get the same opportunity to knock the big dog off?
dru
David Wilson (68)
I don't really have a problem with the "minor premiers" (Chiefs) having a get-out-of-jail-free card. The only thing that I would change is for the ranking following the quarter final, to include the same points system as during the season. On the current table if Chiefs lose to Blues they would still be ranked ahead. They've deserved it based on their season performance.
(That doesn't mean I like them.)
(That doesn't mean I like them.)
Wilson
John Eales (66)
There is, it's progressing to the semi finals.
Wilson
John Eales (66)
yes, but it will still determine the semi match ups - winner will play the Crusaders, loser the Chiefs
Dctarget
David Wilson (68)
so they're both trying to throw the game?
Brumby Runner
Jason Little (69)
Quarter final, semi-final and final. Seems to count up to three to me,
EDIT : OK I see where you are coming from, but still not 100% correct. One of them only needs to win two games but the Crusaders would be eliminated straight away if both lose at the Quarter final stage.
Hurricanes would surely much prefer the Crusaders?