Analysis of Strength of Conference Tables.

[PaarlBok]

The Reds dont deserved that 3rd spot, only got it by luck. They play in the easest conference by quite a long way.

 

[Braveheart81]

Why is doing it via the log points the right way PaarlBok?

When you have a conference system and the draw for each country is dramatically different then rewarding the teams that win each conference before the teams that accrue the most points is the fairest situation on an ongoing basis.

 

[barbarian]

Well then it should be an easy game for the Sharks.

Fuck I find this whole debate tiring.

 

[Braveheart81]

The Reds dont deserved that 3rd spot, only got it by luck. They play in the easest conference by quite a long way.

The system has to work every year.

If you have a year where the top 6 teams are roughly equal, but one conference has three really week teams and the others are more consistent, you could easily get the top 2 teams coming from the same conference.

If they were ranked 1 and 2 it would be far more unfair on the other conferences.

The system will be far more consistently fair if you reward the conference winners ahead of the teams that earn wildcard positions.

 

[Scoey]

Jeez, I'd be happier with the Saffers' original request - the conference winner and runner-up are in the six. They're all in there but grade 1 to 6 on comp points, which is the only correct measure.

If the issue is the comp points then your issue is with the bonus point system. The Reds had more wins than both the two lower SA teams. I'm not sure how you can say that a team that has won less deserves to be higher on the log. The Reds didn't rack up as many BP's but got more wins so it could be easily argued that they were the more consistent team where as the Bulls and Sharks are there by virtue of BP's but won less. So are less consistent.

Again, the best team will win the comp. Unless of course it's the Reds (again) and then it will because of a myriad of reasons why they shouldn't have. Pfft.

 

[PaarlBok]

The system has to work every year.

If you have a year where the top 6 teams are roughly equal, but one conference has three really week teams and the others are more consistent, you could easily get the top 2 teams coming from the same conference.

If they were ranked 1 and 2 it would be far more unfair on the other conferences.

The system will be far more consistently fair if you reward the conference winners ahead of the teams that earn wildcard positions.

Clearly the NZ conference is the most difficult one , SA second and Aus the easiest by quite a margin. Unfair that they get third spot via conference method. We have an overall log and it show they just got into sixth spot via the help from the lowest team in the strongest conference. This cant be to difficult to understand.

 

[Muttonbird]

The Saders could have made more money if they have done it the right way by log points. Less money to pay for the travelling team (Reds) and the Brutes and Sharks wont had to travel plus the Bull Ring would had a sold out in days. This format cost now a lot of money plus the TV income would be much higher. Saders vs Reds in peak Aus & NZ TV time and Brutes vs Sharks in peak SA time.

Excellent points about the further, financial ramifications of this conference finals set-up, PB.

 

[Braveheart81]

By that exact same token, New Zealand could have had the strongest conference and not had a team in the top 3. This could easily happen if the Blues, Highlanders and Hurricanes had been a bit stronger and the NZ conference ended up splitting all their games and very few bonus points were scored.

All that would have had to happen this season for this result to occur is for the Reds to not have dropped a game against the Force, the Bulls beat the Sharks a couple of weeks ago and the Chiefs lose a game to the Blues. If that had happened the top 3 sides on points would be Stormers, Bulls and Reds. New Zealand would have still had the strongest overall conference and they wouldn't have got a single team in the top 3.

As I've said, the system has to work every year.

 

[Scoey]

Clearly the NZ conference is the most difficult one , SA second and Aus the easiest by quite a margin. Unfair that they get third spot via conference method.

The Reds won more games than Bulls & Sharks. Unfair that they should sit above the Reds on the log on the basis that they have more BP's. Curious to note that the SA conference was the one that produced the most amount of 4 try BP's in derbies. This can't be to difficult to understand.

 

[TOCC]

The Reds won more games than Bulls & Sharks. Unfair that they should sit above the Reds on the log on the basis that they have more BP's. Curious to note that the SA conference was the one that produced the most amount of 4 try BP's in derbies. This can't be to difficult to understand.

Why do you think the SARU is against relegating a team to accommodate the Kings... Its because they are afraid the Kings will actually put up a fight thus making it harder for the other South African teams to get easy points in their own conference.

 

[Muttonbird]

If the issue is the comp points then your issue is with the bonus point system. The Reds had more wins than both the two lower SA teams. I'm not sure how you can say that a team that has won less deserves to be higher on the log. The Reds didn't rack up as many BP's but got more wins so it could be easily argued that they were the more consistent team where as the Bulls and Sharks are there by virtue of BP's but won less. So are less consistent.

Again, the best team will win the comp. Unless of course it's the Reds (again) and then it will because of a myriad of reasons why they shouldn't have. Pfft.

We are really turning back the clock years if we are considering scrapping bonus points. Personally, I don't have much of an issue with bonus points although I wonder how many games are very much influenced by them at all.

If the Reds win the title they would certainly deserve some credit for the necessary two away wins (or, maybe not both away), but you'd have to have an asterisk next to it in the history books due to the Reds game this weekend being played in Brisbane, not Christchurch. The season is about momentum and we know home advantage is important. So, this little boost could be the difference.

 

[Scoey]

Clearly the NZ conference is the most difficult one , SA second and Aus the easiest by quite a margin. Unfair that they get third spot via conference method. We have an overall log and it show they just got into sixth spot via the help from the lowest team in the strongest conference. This cant be to difficult to understand.

Just had a quick look at the results for this season.

Seems the Bulls picked up 4 winning BP's from the Cheetahs and Lions alone.
Seems the Sharks picked up 2 winning BP's from the Cheetahs and 1 from the Lions.

It's probably a stretch to say that the lowly, and let's face it, quite lucky Reds would've managed to beat those two powerhouse teams from the MUCH stronger conference with BP's twice but you can see that if they had, your all important log would've worked out just fine.

 

[Scoey]

If the Reds win the title ... you'd have to have an asterisk next to it in the history books due to the Reds game this weekend being played in Brisbane, not Christchurch.

I really wanted to reply to this, but couldn't find something to write that didn't break rule 6.

Did you read it before you pressed "Post Reply"?

 

[gel]

We are really turning back the clock years if we are considering scrapping bonus points. Personally, I don't have much of an issue with bonus points although I wonder how many games are very much influenced by them at all.

If the Reds win the title they would certainly deserve some credit for the necessary two away wins (or, maybe not both away), but you'd have to have an asterisk next to it in the history books due to the Reds game this weekend being played in Brisbane, not Christchurch. The season is about momentum and we know home advantage is important. So, this little boost could be the difference.

Do you disagree with this statement:

If a conference is very difficult, then it would be expected that the results WITHIN that conference would have a lower win loss ratio and therefore (generally speaking) the teams in that conference would sit lower on the overall ladder at the end of the season.

 

[Muttonbird]

Well then it should be an easy game for the Sharks.

Fuck I find this whole debate tiring.

It should be, but they have to travel a lot further. Do you think they'd fancy their chances more at Suncorp, or Loftus?

 

[PaarlBok]

Just had a quick look at the results for this season.

Seems the Bulls picked up 4 winning BP's from the Cheetahs and Lions alone.
Seems the Sharks picked up 2 winning BP's from the Cheetahs and 1 from the Lions.

It's probably a stretch to say that the lowly, and let's face it, quite lucky Reds would've managed to beat those two powerhouse teams from the MUCH stronger conference with BP's twice but you can see that if they had, your all important log would've worked out just fine.

If my auntie had balls , she'd be my uncle. I'll take you back to the overall log. Reds is in the six position overall and is lucky to get a home play off via a stupid conference method.

 

[Braveheart81]

If my auntie had balls , she'd be my uncle. I'll take you back to the overall log. Reds is in the six position overall and is lucky to get a home play off via a stupid conference method.

... and what happens next year when the results fall slightly differently and the strongest conference ends up with no teams in the top 3?

As I explained a few posts ago, it would have only taken three games to go the other way and no New Zealand team would have made the top 3. If that had happened, I don't think anyone would be arguing that the top placed New Zealand team didn't deserve a home final.

 

[Muttonbird]

Do you disagree with this statement:

If a conference is very difficult, then it would be expected that the results WITHIN that conference would have a lower win loss ratio and therefore (generally speaking) the teams in that conference would sit lower on the overall ladder at the end of the season.

Yes within, but not overall ladder-wise, because you are not taking into account the inter-conference results which contribute to the standings on the ladder. Teams in a weak conference overall would not gain as many inter-conference points as those from a strong conference, overall.

 

[PaarlBok]

. and what happens next year when the results fall slightly differently and the strongest conference ends up with no teams in the top 3?

As I explained a few posts ago, it would have only taken three games to go the other way and no New Zealand team would have made the top 3. If that had happened, I don't think anyone would be arguing that the top placed New Zealand team didn't deserve a home final.

My auntie will still be my uncle if she had balls.

I warned against this stupid format before it was even invented and now the realities kicks in.

 

[whatty]

This is soooo tiring this argument.

Especially the relativity of so-called easy groups. Overall the internal conference games across all three groups were generally tight games. So its a non agrument.