Analysis of Strength of Conference Tables.

[Braveheart81]

Saying the Reds don't deserve a home final is ridiculous. Name any sporting competition in the world where the winner of a conference or division isn't given a home ground advantage ahead of a team in another division with a better record for the season?

NFL, MLB, NBA all give home ground advantage to a division/conference winner.

 

[Dam0]

Saying the Reds don't deserve a home final is ridiculous. Name any sporting competition in the world where the winner of a conference or division isn't given a home ground advantage ahead of a team in another division with a better record for the season?

NFL, MLB, NBA all give home ground advantage to a division/conference winner.

With respect, that is hardly a convincing point. Just because another competition in another sport does something one way does not mean that it is the fairest or best way for rugby to do it.

 

[Braveheart81]

How is it convincing to say that the Crusaders and Bulls should have been ranked above the Reds?

If there wasn't a conference system where the local sides played each other twice then I would agree, however we do have a conference system whereby three separate competitions are created within the overall competition.

It might be the case this season that the Crusaders and Bulls could be stronger than the Reds however that doesn't mean they should be ranked above them. The system has to provide the fairest result over the long term in differing circumstances. Cherry-picking one year and saying the system is broken ignores a lot of other outcomes.

 

[Karl]

If this was an education issue with kids from different schools or different teachers getting marked harder or softer, then the answer devised was moderation where the work of one student is compared to another and the results looked at. In my day we had, for example, ASAT exams that ranked schools and were used to modify your marks and achieve a TE Score that was used for Uni entrance.

Application here? I think a Conference system is a good idea for the game and the way Super Rugby is structured with SA, NZ and AU. I get why they have done it this way and the reasons are sound in a "greater good" way, which is how you need to look at it. But - the end result still needs to be fair.

So if you can't have every team play every other team twice (home and away) - which I think is the best option and haven't seen a really compelling argument against yet - then maybe the finals system needs tweaking and for there to be some "moderation" of results based on some sort of Conference Strength Score that is applied to the 3 teams that go through to the finals after the conference winners and which is used in relation to who gets the advantage of home finals games.

And lastly, how likely is it that a Conference winning side won't deserve a place in the final 6? It's got to be incredibly unlikely that a conference winner wont be in the top 6 surely, even this season the Reds made it, and on points the Brumbies would have if the Reds didn't pip them. And both teams had challenging seasons with injuries etc.

To me the issue can be confined to how the 3 other places are decided and who gets home finals. It's not that hard to tweak for a fairer result if you won't expand the number of games played.

 

[Dam0]

How is it convincing to say that the Crusaders and Bulls should have been ranked above the Reds?

If there wasn't a conference system where the local sides played each other twice then I would agree, however we do have a conference system whereby three separate competitions are created within the overall competition.

It might be the case this season that the Crusaders and Bulls could be stronger than the Reds however that doesn't mean they should be ranked above them. The system has to provide the fairest result over the long term in differing circumstances. Cherry-picking one year and saying the system is broken ignores a lot of other outcomes.

I guess the 'fairness" or otherwise of all this depends on whether you have the perspective that the Super XV is essentially 3 competitions with a bit of overlap, or 1 competition with a way of devising a draw to maximise revenue and decrease travelling costs. Both perspectives are equally valid I think.

The way the finals are seeded suggests that the former interpretation is preferred by those running the tournament, but this in no way means that this is how I or anyone else should want it to be. I think it is perfectly reasonable to argue that the winner of each conference should make it to the playoffs, but that the seeding should then go from points accrued. Frankly, the only convincing argument I have heard against this is based on economics rather than the integrity of the competition.

 

[Braveheart81]

Then the year when one conference has two really strong teams and three absolute duds and ends up with teams seeded 1 and 2 overall there will be mass outrage saying that it is completely unfair (and I would agree with that).

On the whole, I think seeing the three conference winners 1-3 provides the greatest level of integrity for the competition overall.

With the conference system, points accrued doesn't necessarily give a clear indication of overall strength of one team relative to a team from another conference. Especially when bonus points are involved. Is a team that scores more 4 try bonus points but also concedes more 4 try bonus points a stronger team than one who doesn't score 4 try bonus points but also doesn't concede any? The table would say they are, but this doesn't necessarily hold water in reality.

I get your opinion that the highest three teams on points should be seeded 1 to 3 but I in no way think that it is any more fair than the three conference winners being seeded 1 to 3.

 

[gel]

Guaranteeing a home final for the conference leaders actually is beneficial for the more difficult conference.

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.

Ensuring that the conference leaders of the tough conference get a home ground overcomes the disparity and they get a home final as a reward.

It just didn't happen that way this year - which is why I think it is ridiculous to just use one years table to justify an argument.

 

[Dam0]

Guaranteeing a home final for the conference leaders actually is beneficial for the more difficult conference.

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.

Ensuring that the conference leaders of the tough conference get a home ground overcomes the disparity and they get a home final as a reward.

It just didn't happen that way this year - which is why I think it is ridiculous to just use one years table to justify an argument.

I can't speak for everyone, but I am certainly not basing any argument on the result of this years (or any year) table. I just think that the seeding for the playoffs should be based on the final tally of points scored. I must confess that I don't know why the results this year have any bearing on whether this approach is fair or unfair/uneconomic or whatever.

You are right though of course that the stronger conference(s) (as in the ones(s) that have a high win rate in inter-conference games) may tend to be disadvantaged by this system because they may end up with a lower win rate against those they have to play twice. Them's the breaks I guess.

 

[Braveheart81]

If you didn't rank the conference winners as the top 3 and instead ranked the top 6 purely on points, what happens if a conference winner wasn't in the top 6 teams on competition points?

There would be no logic for them making the playoffs whatsoever.

I think on the whole there is a lot more logic in ranking the conference winners as the top three teams than ranking a team that didn't win their conference above a team that did win their conference.

 

[Scoey]

The team that wins the championship will be the team that takes thier chances and performs on the day. Conference system or not.

It seems that most of the discussion on percieved unfairness in the system revolves around the Reds being where they are. Lets call a spade a spade. I mean, go back a week ago when the Reds were only an outside mathematical proposition to even make the playoffs and there was no mention of unfairness then. So what's changed?

For the Reds to win the flag they will need to beat three of the top six teams in a row in the next three weeks. Sharks at home, then the Chiefs away, then most likely the Stormers in Capetown, or the Bulls or Crusaders at home. Pretty tall order, so if they manage to pull that off I think they'll be pretty deserving.

 

[fatprop]

I guess the 'fairness" or otherwise of all this depends on whether you have the perspective that the Super XV is essentially 3 competitions with a bit of overlap, or 1 competition with a way of devising a draw to maximise revenue and decrease travelling costs. Both perspectives are equally valid I think.

The way the finals are seeded suggests that the former interpretation is preferred by those running the tournament, but this in no way means that this is how I or anyone else should want it to be. I think it is perfectly reasonable to argue that the winner of each conference should make it to the playoffs, but that the seeding should then go from points accrued. Frankly, the only convincing argument I have heard against this is based on economics rather than the integrity of the competition.

The way the comp is set up is to maximise local derbies because they rate best

The way the finals are set up is to maximise interest across 3 countries for tv coverage

It isn't about fairness it is about getting the tv money so we can keep players in the Southern Hemisphere.

 

[Muttonbird]

The way the comp is set up is to maximise local derbies because they rate best

The way the finals are set up is to maximise interest across 3 countries for tv coverage

It isn't about fairness it is about getting the tv money so we can keep players in the Southern Hemisphere.

That's nice. For the Reds.

 

[fatprop]

That's nice. For the Reds.

Well we can always go back to a smaller tv deal and have less money available for the comp

 

[Braveheart81]

I still disagree completely that ordering the finals on the basis of competition points scored when you have a conference system in place is fairer.

If the Hurricanes had scored two more bonus points then people would also be arguing that no Australian team should have made the playoffs.

Under a conference system you have to rank the conference winners 1 to 3.

 

[Muttonbird]

I still disagree completely that ordering the finals on the basis of competition points scored when you have a conference system in place is fairer.

If the Hurricanes had scored two more bonus points then people would also be arguing that no Australian team should have made the playoffs.

Under a conference system you have to rank the conference winners 1 to 3.

And they'd be right.

I don't have an issue with them being there as conference winners but to elevate them to third, so everyone is nice and happy and Reds fans don't have to get up at 5:00 am to watch, is farcical.

 

[Braveheart81]

I don't think it is farcical at all.

The Reds won their conference. In my opinion, and in every single conference/division based sporting competition I can think of in the world, that ranks them higher than a team that came second in their conference but had a superior record.

It is a very simple premise that the competition is structured such that the top 3 ranked teams are the three conference leaders and then the next three spots are wildcard positions.

If you're going to have a competition with three separate conferences then you need to reward the three conference winners. Any other system will result in many more situations considered unjust or unfair than the current setup.

 

[Muttonbird]

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 you're going to use points to pick the three wildcards in the current system, they why would you suddenly abandon them when it comes time to pick the order of finish? Oh, that's right, it's for the TV, and if you don't mind me saying, the good of Australian Rugby.

Harrumpf!

 

[Braveheart81]

I don't agree that's it is for TV at all.

It is accepting that the draw for each conference makes them separate entities within the overall competition and the winner of each deserves a spot in the top 3.

It is designed to be a fairer system in most years because you are rewarding the team that won their conference. Looking at this season in isolation might make it look unfair but you have to have a single system that operates for every year.

 

[No4918]

We have known about this finals system for 2 years now and are stuck with it through to 2016(?). People are going to need to get to grips with it pretty quickly and get over the fairness issue.

My perspective is that on a whole I see no reason that it should not provide the most balanced outcomes in the long run, or at least as good as anything else. Until each side is playing each other twice no system will be without flaws and that isn't happening.

 

[PaarlBok]

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 you're going to use points to pick the three wildcards in the current system, they why would you suddenly abandon them when it comes time to pick the order of finish? Oh, that's right, it's for the TV, and if you don't mind me saying, the good of Australian Rugby.

Harrumpf!

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.