Analysis of Strength of Conference Tables.

[liquor box]

I would suggest that we create another team of up and comers, and call them the 'bye'. In a similar fashion to the barbarians, they wouldn't have a home ground, but instead travel to their designated oppositions home ground every week.

can they wear light blue and have a flower as their emblem? Maybe women could win a chance to have a dinner on halfway at halftime at their games too

 

[Scoey]

Regardless, the inescapable conclusion from this is that the strongest Aussie sides and to a lesser extent the strongest SA sides disproportionately benefit from having the weakest sides in the conference from which it is easier to win and collect bonus points. On the other hand the relative strength of the NZ conference makes it that much harder to top the table or achieve a high position.

Your "logic" is self defeating. In your second statement, you completely disregard BP's but then using "stats" generated without BP's you demonstrate how easy it is to collect BP's. ???
I haven't looked myself, so I have no idea what the results will show, but if you want to see which teams benefited from "easy" matches as you say, then look at which teams actually picked up BP's from teams within thier own conference.
Clearly you don't like the conference system, but if you're going to uses stats to back you up then try and keep them relevant.
"Oh, people can come up with statistics to prove anything. 14% of people know that.” - Homer Simpson

 

[FrankLind]

Your "logic" is self defeating. In your second statement, you completely disregard BP's but then using "stats" generated without BP's you demonstrate how easy it is to collect BP's. ???
I haven't looked myself, so I have no idea what the results will show, but if you want to see which teams benefited from "easy" matches as you say, then look at which teams actually picked up BP's from teams within thier own conference.
Clearly you don't like the conference system, but if you're going to uses stats to back you up then try and keep them relevant.
"Oh, people can come up with statistics to prove anything. 14% of people know that.” - Homer Simpson

Okay forget bonus point being accumulated more easily in the easier home conference. I can't be assed going through that. I retract that part of my point (even though i am probably right on it)

Non-conference wins , despite your protests, is a fair way of calculating conference strength.

Fact is, presently, the Aussie conference is considerably easier and thus benefits the Reds and Brumbies because they play each team twice. It's bloody easy to understand. Are you denying this?

If so, got any stats to back it up?

 

[Braveheart81]

The reality is the conference system exists for scheduling reasons and to create more local derbies which have added interest.

The safeguards to fairness are that the winners of each conference are guaranteed a finals spot and to be the top three seeds. The two highest scoring conference winners get spots 1 and 2 which historically are the only positions from which you are likely to win Super Rugby from. The other conference winner gets third spot which gives them a reasonable shot at the title based on them being the best team in their conference.

The next three highest scoring teams all get a finals spot giving them a crack at the title. This is fairer than just having the top two from each conference as it allows a potentially stronger conference to get three teams in.

All things considered, it seems like a pretty fair system to me. Let's remember that this was a new system last year and is in place for four or five years before potential changes might be made to the number of teams or the conference setup.

2012 might indicate that the Australian conference was the weakest and that is reflected in there only being one Australian team in the finals.

I think the system is as fair as it could be. Remember the same system has to work to be the fairest in all situations, not just when you look at a single year's results and then compare that to the six teams who make the finals and the order they are seeded.

 

[Scoey]

I disgree with this ranking conferences as being easier or harder etc. It's all BS. There is so many more influencing factors that weigh much more heavily on a result than what the country of origin for a team is. Just ask the Crusaders about thier game against the Rebels.

But since we've already gone there I did some quick calcs. All these numbers relate to 4 try BP's only. I may have miscounted but I think I'd be pretty close.

BP's scored by nation
NZ 22
AUS 16
SA 17

BP's conceded by nation.
NZ 12
AUS 23
SA 20

BP's scored in "Derbies" by nation.
NZ 8
AUS 8
SA 11

The BP's scored in derbies stat doesn't demonstrate that Aus has a distinct advantage in that they can score more BP's as they play twice as many derbies as O/S teams. Quite the contrary. But it does show that NZ teams tend to score more BP's against non-NZ teams.

And I haven't even looked at losing BP's.

 

[Scoey]

Okay forget bonus point being accumulated more easily in the easier home conference. I can't be assed going through that. I retract that part of my point (even though i am probably right on it)

Non-conference wins , despite your protests, is a fair way of calculating conference strength.

Fact is, presently, the Aussie conference is considerably easier and thus benefits the Reds and Brumbies because they play each team twice. It's bloody easy to understand. Are you denying this?

If so, got any stats to back it up?

Forget the bonus point issue? You think you're right but can't be assed to back yourself up? But you want me to provide stats to back up YOUR point? You started this thread mate. Clearly you have no idea. I'll have the argument when you're serious.

 

[FrankLind]

Forget the bonus point issue? You think you're right but can't be assed to back yourself up? But you want me to provide stats to back up YOUR point? You started this thread mate. Clearly you have no idea. I'll have the argument when you're serious.

So, based on your BP analysis local derbies did not give any team any advantage to the stronger Aussie teams. Good work. I was wrong on this point.

It does show NZ sides score more 4 try bonus points against non-NZ sides and that Aussie side concede more. Thanks for confirming what I though on the issue of the Aussie sides being weaker.

Wins are what matter most of all.

Specifically wins against team outside of your conference.

That is the main issue because a win is worth 5 points.
Bonus points are icing on the cake, and if you now how to win, not as important (ask the Stormers)

 

[The Red Baron]

I thought a win was worth 4 points. A bonus point win would be 5.

Didn't you start a thread on this a couple of months ago?

 

[PaarlBok]

Outside conference score sheet, (AwAy Wins):
NZ 26 W 14 L (Ch 3, Hu 3, S 2, B 2, Hi 1= 11)
SA 22 W 18 L (St 3, B 2, Sh 1, Ch 2, L 0 = 8)
Aus 12 W 28 L (R 1, Br 2, W 0, F 0, R 0 = 3)

Jean de Villiers mentioned at the start of the season is that we see our tour wins as bonus points and that it will be the differense in the SA conference.

 

[PaarlBok]

I dont have any doubt that the NZ conferense is the strongest , the biggest reason is the central contracting of players. Its positive is that it give their top players the oppertunity to play at this level but the downside is that they have many supporters confused by which franchise they should support. SA's way of contracting is provincial and you get your WP supporters behind the Stormers, exct. Dunno about Aus, they lack players not having a provincial competition in place.

 

[Scoey]

So, based on your BP analysis local derbies did not give any team any advantage to the stronger Aussie teams. Good work. I was wrong on this point.

It does show NZ sides score more 4 try bonus points against non-NZ sides and that Aussie side concede more. Thanks for confirming what I though on the issue of the Aussie sides being weaker.

Wins are what matter most of all.

Specifically wins against team outside of your conference.

That is the main issue because a win is worth 5 points.
Bonus points are icing on the cake, and if you now how to win, not as important (ask the Stormers)

Your whole argument relies on the fact that the AUS teams have a "disproportionate benefit" because they play other AUS teams twice "...which it is easier to win and collect bonus points".

Clearly this is not the case. Aus teams picked up 8 BP's from within thier conference and so did NZ. NZ teams have also accumulated 22 BP's as opposed to 16 BP's to AUS which to me is fair reward for being the stronger conference (a fact that I have never disputed).

You argue that the NZ teams are disadvantaged by our current system. The end of the regular season sees the top six teams as follows:
1. Stormers
2. Chiefs
3. Reds
4. Crusaders
5. Bulls
6. Sharks

The Blues are where they deserve to be, so tell me, where in that top six do the Canes and Highlanders deserve to be?

 

[PaarlBok]

The Blues are where they deserve to be, so tell me, where in that top six do the Canes and Highlanders deserve to be?

Well the Blues beat the top Aus team at home in the last match. That show there is some way between the strength of the Aus and the NZ conference.

 

[The_Brown_Hornet]

I think most of us Aussies would love to have a domestic comp, Paarl, but the issue is money. The only reason we can carry the Sheffield Shield in Australia these days is because international cricket brings in so much money. Rugby struggles to do the same and the fact that the game is effectively QLD/NSW/ACT doesn't help.

I doubt it will ever happen, the attempt with the ARC notwithstanding.

 

[ACR]

I haven't looked myself, so I have no idea what the results will show, but if you want to see which teams benefited from "easy" matches as you say, then look at which teams actually picked up BP's from teams within thier own conference.
Clearly you don't like the conference system, but if you're going to uses stats to back you up then try and keep them relevant.
"Oh, people can come up with statistics to prove anything. 14% of people know that.” - Homer Simpson

I had a bit of time on my hands so this was the result.

I had a look into the 4-try bonus point distribution. I tallied who conceded 4-try bonus points and to whom. Australia conceded the most and scored the least. South Africa was in the middle and scored slightly fewer than they conceded and New Zealand scored considerably more than they conceded OVERALL. In terms of derbies, each conference conceded roughly the same number of bonus points to other teams within their own conference as could be expected, 8, 9 and 10 respectively. This is not a parameter for the strength of each conference however, not even the competitiveness within each conference because it is all relevant to style of rugby and each individual game, (and points decide the winner, not tries). Bonus points conceded and scored via the other conferences are telling but ultimately aren't that important, wins are (obviously) far more important.

Stats never tell the full story of course and the best method is generally using your eyes and watching the rugby, happens to be my favourite method.

 

[Scoey]

Well the Blues beat the top Aus team at home in the last match. That show there is some way between the strength of the Aus and the NZ conference.

I acknowledged that NZ is a stronger Rugby nation and has the stronger sides. No question. But that was an upset pure and simple and carries the same significance as the Rebels beating the Crusaders.

This thread was all about NZ teams being allegedly disadvantaged. My question to FrankLind stands. Do the Canes and the Highlanders deserve to be in the top 6? And if so, at the expense of who?

 

[PaarlBok]

I acknowledged that NZ is a stronger Rugby nation and has the stronger sides. No question. But that was an upset pure and simple and carries the same significance as the Rebels beating the Crusaders.

No its not, the Blues beat the Brumbies AT home with absolute nothing but proud to play for. There is a massive differense.

 

[gel]

Given the number of bonus points that teams have got this season compared to last season, and given the number of upsets this season - are you guys unhappy with the way the tournament has played out? To me, this would indicate that there are no really easy teams, rather every team has to go into every game prepared, or they are in for a painful afternoon/night.

Additional question, do you also think it is fair that you look at just one year's results in isolation as a means to gauge the worth of a competition format? If so, why did the same questions not come up after the 2001 super 12 season when no New Zealand teams made the finals and 3 of the bottom 4 were NZ teams? Or the following year when the bottom seven teams were all NZ and SA? Surely those teams were rubbish and should have been kicked out then as being worthless???? (facetious, I know but this is the way it is coming across from the OP).

Obviously the teams (an conferences) will ebb and flow with strength over time and will balance out. The conference system keeps things interesting for all.

*edit* I realise there was no conference system back then, but looking at the way things stood I would have felt even a conference system would have led to 4 teams that probably deserved to be there.

 

[Braveheart81]

You're splitting hairs PB.

The Crusaders choked in an away game against one of the worst teams in the competition which cost them the NZ conference.

The Brumbies choked in a home game that cost them the Australian conference and their spot in the finals.

Neither result is really indicative of the relative strength of the two conferences.

 

[No4918]

Well the Blues beat the top Aus team at home in the last match. That show there is some way between the strength of the Aus and the NZ conference.

That's such a simplistic view and discounts all the other results. Brumbies did the Canes away, Highlanders at home and there game vs the Chiefs was a nail-biter. 2 from 4 vs NZ opposition.

How do you account for Rebels beating the Crusaders? All sides have off nights.

 

[Dan54]

I dont have any doubt that the NZ conferense is the strongest , the biggest reason is the central contracting of players. Its positive is that it give their top players the oppertunity to play at this level but the downside is that they have many supporters confused by which franchise they should support. SA's way of contracting is provincial and you get your WP supporters behind the Stormers, exct. Dunno about Aus, they lack players not having a provincial competition in place.

Paarl the days of NZRU telling players where they play are well gone, it is open slather on players in NZ, changed a couple of years back.
Look I like the Conference system, as I have said, it may not be completely fair, but means NZ teams play each other twice which means I get to see more good games, and I can support Reds against other Aussie teams more, not sure Franklind is even complaining about that, just stating how figures line up.