Conference Finals Format: Fair or Farce?

[The Rant]

So 3rd year into the new Super Rugby format of conference systems.

I don't think anyone can argue about the fixture format. Way more local darbies makes for a much better competition to watch.

But this is now the 2nd year in a row that the TOP 6 teams will not be correctly placed for the finals.
The brumbies have technically finished 4th and by rights the Crusaders should be Playing the cheetahs at home and the brumbies should be hosting the reds. Giving only 1 aussie team a chance of making the semis instead of 2 if all goes well this weekend.

Same happened last year when the reds snagged a home final despite coming 6th (though they lost it) which forced the sharks to travel a lot in the finals and ultimatley they were knackered by the time they came up against the chiefs.

Again. I'm a big fan of the conference approach. But I believe that this should not include teams getting advantages in the finals over teams that have performed better through the season.

It's gone australia's way the last 2 years, but I'm sure we'd be talking about it more if it was the kiwi's or saffas getting the benefits to our disadvantage.

Is this something SANZAR is going to discuss or review?

 

[Sully]

It is what it is. Not going away. Get used to it.

Sent from my ASUS Transformer Pad TF700T using Tapatalk 4 Beta

 

[ChargerWA]

It is what it is. Not going away. Get used to it.

Sent from my ASUS Transformer Pad TF700T using Tapatalk 4 Beta

I don't think it is such a foregone conclusion. JON had the wood on our SANZAR partners. I doubt they will let the Pulveriser pull their pants down as badly at the next negotiations.

I agree that it's unfair. It is a simple fix. Top 6 teams get the position they finish and all of the associated benefits or disadvantages. The current format already benefits he weaker conference in that they get to play each other more times.

 

[Sully]

Well it was actually the South Africans who insisted on the finals format so O'Neil had very little to do with it.

Sent from my ASUS Transformer Pad TF700T using Tapatalk 4 Beta

 

[Sully]

It's not unfair at all it's pretty common in conference systems.

Sent from my ASUS Transformer Pad TF700T using Tapatalk 4 Beta

 

[Braveheart81]

I don't know any conference system in world sport where conference/division winners aren't ranked higher than teams with better records that didn't win their conference/division.

Consider it a competition within a competition. I don't think there is anything unfair about it. It recognizes that the draw for each team is different and that the reward for winning your conference ranks higher than coming second or third in a different conference regardless of overall record.

If you did it the other way and only took the final points to decide the top 6 there would be no logical reason to include a conference winner if they didn't make the top 6. That would be far more inconsistent in my opinion and much more inherently unfair when the draw for each team/conference is different.

 

[ACT Crusader]

I don't know any conference system in world sport where conference/division winners aren't ranked higher than teams with better records that didn't win their conference/division.

Consider it a competition within a competition. I don't think there is anything unfair about it. It recognizes that the draw for each team is different and that the reward for winning your conference ranks higher than coming second or third in a different conference regardless of overall record.

If you did it the other way and only took the final points to decide the top 6 there would be no logical reason to include a conference winner if they didn't make the top 6. That would be far more inconsistent in my opinion and much more inherently unfair when the draw for each team/conference is different.

The NBA changed their playoff format back in 2006 where the division leaders regardless of their record secures a playoff home series in the first round. The three division leaders in each conference plus the next best record team in the conference are seeded 1-4. That 1-4 seeding is based on W/L record. 8 teams from each conference go through to the first round.

For example in the 2012 playoffs the 5th ranked team was the Atlanta Hawks with a record of 40-26. The 4th ranked team was the Boston Celtics with a record of 39-27, but the Celtics won their division and get the higher seeding. 4th plays 5th in the first round, and the Celtics won the series 4-2.

The only other years this has happened is 2008 (Jazz had 1 less win than the Rockets but got 4th) and 2007 (same situation with Jazz and Rockets; and the biggest gap in the East with the Bulls having a 5 game better W/L record than the Heat, but the Heat won the Southeast).

In 2006 the system was even worst when it was just the division leaders that got the straight out 1-3 seed rankings. I remember that the Mavericks won 60 games that year and yet were ranked 4th because the Spurs won their division with 63 wins, but the other two division winners only had wins of 54 and 44 wins. In fact Denver who had the 44 wins and clinched the northwest division was the same number of wind as the team that qualified 8th in the Western Conference.

 

[Slim 293]

It's not unfair at all it's pretty common in conference systems.

I don't know any conference system in world sport where conference/division winners aren't ranked higher than teams with better records that didn't win their conference/division.

Yep and yep..........

 

[Rassie]

Well it was actually the South Africans who insisted on the finals format so O'Neil had very little to do with it.

Sent from my ASUS Transformer Pad TF700T using Tapatalk 4 Beta

The wildcard was the NZ and Aus proposal.

 

[Sully]

The wildcard was the NZ and Aus proposal.

That's not how I remember it.

 

[Rassie]

That's not how I remember it.

SARU proposed conference and the Aussies and Kiwi's the wild card.

 

[Lindommer]

Rassie, your continued whingeing about SAf and its teams being hard done by is starting to wear thin. Your remarks about travel (Saffer teams have to travel east which has a worse jetlag effect than travelling west, WTF?) are patently ridiculous. Almost as ridiculous as your other complaint about teams having to play the Bulls at altitude. What are we supposed to do: re-arrange the geography of the SH land masses?, lower Pretoria? I'll give you some bad news: due to continental drift southern Africa will be even further away from Australasia in years to come. What are you going to do then? Complain even more about unfair travel?

We all bring our strengths and weaknesses to Super Rugby (in my opinion the premier domestic rugby competition): SAf with its sheer numbers of supporters against the petty interference of its political masters, Australia has the highest GDP and attendant advertising revenue from its pay TV subscribers contrasted with the brutal competition in its sporting landscape, and NZ is the clear leader in the quality of its rugby while existing in the worst economic environment of the three. That's how it is, Rassie, we can live with our differences, why can't you?

And while I'm at it, your constant blogging of inane nonsense is starting to wear thin. How many posts a day have you done since returning? At least ten. TOO MANY. If you haven't got anything meaningful to contribute to the discussion, don't post. We welcome contributions from posters other than Australian here on G&GR as we pride ourselves on taking a wholistic approach to rugby, but you aren't adding to the enjoyment of rugby discourse we want on this site.

Lift your game or take your business elsewhere.

 

[Scoey]

The conference system is great. The finals format is great also.

The premise for your post is that position on the overall log is determined by things other than total competition points? Yet both the Brumbies and Saders finished with 60pts and yet it is more acceptable to split them based on number of wins (CRU 11 wins BRU 10 wins)?

Why should the Crusaders get the advantage but when they lost more games than the Brumbies (CRU 5 losses BRU 4 losses)?

My point is simply that the competition is designed and there are discriminators built in. The line in the sand is drawn. All the teams know what they need to do to get the advantage at the end of the season. If they fail to do, what they know they need to do, why should they get the reward?

The Brumbies are in the final because they have travelled a great distance and have won two knockout games on the trot. The Crusaders won a game at home, and flew a very short distance and lost. Why are they more deserving of a finals berth?

The best team will win the lot. It's a good system.

 

[Dan54]

Of course it not completely fair, no comp ever is unless everyone just plays each other home and away, but I think this is as good as can be done , and as yet we haven't had team come through and win that wasn't in top 4 (coud happen this week I know), so you would have to say system is ok!!

 

[Dam0]

Of course it not completely fair, no comp ever is unless everyone just plays each other home and away, but I think this is as good as can be done , and as yet we haven't had team come through and win that wasn't in top 4 (could happen this week I know), so you would have to say system is ok!!

It is unlikely to happen this week I would have thought. About the only way I could see it happening would be if the Brumbies and the Bulls all tested positive for PED's and so the Cheetahs went through by default.

 

[Rassie]

Rassie, your continued whingeing about SAf and its teams being hard done by is starting to wear thin. Your remarks about travel (Saffer teams have to travel east which has a worse jetlag effect than travelling west, WTF?) are patently ridiculous. Almost as ridiculous as your other complaint about teams having to play the Bulls at altitude. What are we supposed to do: re-arrange the geography of the SH land masses?, lower Pretoria? I'll give you some bad news: due to continental drift southern Africa will be even further away from Australasia in years to come. What are you going to do then? Complain even more about unfair travel?

We all bring our strengths and weaknesses to Super Rugby (in my opinion the premier domestic rugby competition): SAf with its sheer numbers of supporters against the petty interference of its political masters, Australia has the highest GDP and attendant advertising revenue from its pay TV subscribers contrasted with the brutal competition in its sporting landscape, and NZ is the clear leader in the quality of its rugby while existing in the worst economic environment of the three. That's how it is, Rassie, we can live with our differences, why can't you?

And while I'm at it, your constant blogging of inane nonsense is starting to wear thin. How many posts a day have you done since returning? At least ten. TOO MANY. If you haven't got anything meaningful to contribute to the discussion, don't post. We welcome contributions from posters other than Australian here on G&GR as we pride ourselves on taking a wholistic approach to rugby, but you aren't adding to the enjoyment of rugby discourse we want on this site.

Lift your game or take your business elsewhere.

First of all that is nother thread and we are banging on the same issue. Think we should move on.
Secondly you whining about me whining is going to get a lot of others whining so lets not whine over each others whining.
Thirdly some one else opinion is not whining,

Let me say this. You will have your opinions through your bias Aussie glasses and I will have my opinion through my bias Saffer glasses. We will not agree so again lets move on.

The conference format is mostly a farce. Why. Because you can not expect a team to prepare for a final match at the end of a long campaign to be on level footing after they completed a 12k journey.

THey should reakly schedule a extra week for the play offs so ever team got time to adapt all be it to altitude or to traveling.

But I really want us to rever back to the Super 14. With Australia having more depth it will be much more competitive by combining the Force and REbels.

Round Robin games should return with just a semi final.