Strewthcobber
Simon Poidevin (60)
I think the real problem is it might just be crusaders -> other kiwi team > crusaders > other kiwi team without anyone else getting a look in
Last edited:
Super Rugby General Chat
- Thread starter waiopehu oldboy
- Start date
Dan54
David Wilson (68)
The opposite is one of reasons I like it mate, as seen with Ranfurly shield, and especially Moascar cup, one win over team at home and whole thing is wide open. Moascar cup moves around country here, with it certainly not being just held by the top private schools. The beauty is one good game on the day, and supporters love it, especially for a game with not a lot else on it.
But just an idea that I think has merit anyway. It opens up the chance of teams that have that one good game in them etc.
PhilClinton
Mark Loane (55)
I know I’ve mentioned this before, but outside the top 4, the rest of the finalists this year will have either an equal or losing record and in some cases a terrible for and against.
Quite sad really.
Edit: actually the Reds should have a winning one
Quite sad really.
Edit: actually the Reds should have a winning one
The Ghost of Raelene
Simon Poidevin (60)
I know it protects the end of the season having too many irrelevant games but it also adds a who cares to 5-8 in the standings.
I'd like to see a top 6.
Week 1:
Top 2 get a first week of finals bye.
3 v 6, 4 v 5.
Week 2:
1 v (4,5 winner) game, 2 v (3,6 winner)
Week 3:
Final
I'd like to see a top 6.
Week 1:
Top 2 get a first week of finals bye.
3 v 6, 4 v 5.
Week 2:
1 v (4,5 winner) game, 2 v (3,6 winner)
Week 3:
Final
Wilson
Phil Kearns (64)
I understand the desire to drop back to a top 6 but I think most of these formats ignore that the top 8 is actually a reward for the top placed sides. If 1st and 2nd have a bye that's one less finals game they each host, which is a huge loss in money for most sides. It's also less high value content for the broadcasters
I don't think reducing the number of teams in the final is unworkable though, and if the Rebels drop out it will likely have to happen, but they'll need to find a lot more content to make up for it, at least 3 more rounds but probably up to a full home and away round robin. Fitting that into the calendar does get a bit tricky though.
The Ghost of Raelene
Simon Poidevin (60)
Totally get the money making aspect but I also think the product is lower because of the current setup which has flow on to viewers etc...
I reckon some teams and coaches would love a week off though from a performance point of view. Reward for a top season.
I reckon some teams and coaches would love a week off though from a performance point of view. Reward for a top season.
PhilClinton
Mark Loane (55)
Is 1st v 8th really 'high value content'?
I'll happily eat my words if we get some upsets, but I think with the gulf between those sides we're liking going to see a flogging in that game.
A 1st v 4th and 2nd v 3rd in majors would even be a better result in my opinion. Have 5th - 8th play in knockouts. Loser of the majors plays the winner of the minors and then we get semi finals.
Solves the content issue and minimises the chances of a team with a losing record making it through to the grand final.
Slim 293
Stirling Mortlock (74)
I think if they want to continue with a top 8 they need to go with the AFL/NRL model...
Qualifying final:
1 v 4
2 v 3
Elimination final:
5 v 8
6 v 7
Winners of qualifying final get a week off and host a prelim.
Losers of the QF get a second chance, hosting the winners of the EF in a semi final.
Qualifying final:
1 v 4
2 v 3
Elimination final:
5 v 8
6 v 7
Winners of qualifying final get a week off and host a prelim.
Losers of the QF get a second chance, hosting the winners of the EF in a semi final.
Wilson
Phil Kearns (64)
Hosting finals is worth a lot to those teams that get to, even quarter finals. It's variable depending on the stadium setup, but it's a lot more lucrative than just about any regular season game.
From a broadcast perspective as well it's high value in the sense that it'll rate better than most regular season games and generally qualifies as the sort of "must see" live tv they really want out of sports content. Yes, semis and closer fought finals are more valuable, but even a 1v8 quarter final is a big step up from a regular season game.
PhilClinton
Mark Loane (55)
Yep agree @Slim 293 and I think the teams would prefer that. Gives a better reward for the top of the table.
Imagine being 1st, copping a couple of contentious cards during the game and losing to the 8th team who have won 2 games all year and its all over red rover. In heavily officiated games that is a very real scenario.
Imagine being 1st, copping a couple of contentious cards during the game and losing to the 8th team who have won 2 games all year and its all over red rover. In heavily officiated games that is a very real scenario.
The Ghost of Raelene
Simon Poidevin (60)
This is the season 1 v 8 is scary as it can be. Fijian Drua are the side in 8 I would rather not play.
I get all sides of the convo but I just hate the fact a losing record and a BAD losing record can get you in the finals. It's not finishing at 50/50 its 3 games back of that getting in with a differential of -100+
I get all sides of the convo but I just hate the fact a losing record and a BAD losing record can get you in the finals. It's not finishing at 50/50 its 3 games back of that getting in with a differential of -100+
Wilson
Phil Kearns (64)
There's a top 6 version of this that might be the way to go if we're dropping to 11 teams next year:
First round:
1v6, 2v5, 3v4
Bottom two losers drop out with the highest ranked loser getting a 2nd chance. So assuming the top teams win in the first round, for the semis you get still get a top 4:
1v4, 2v3
This maximizes the content available from a top 6 finals by not having all the teams play and gives the top 2 multiple hosting opportunities but also offers the top teams a bit of protection against upsets in that first round.
zer0
John Thornett (49)
Surely the Crusaders are the worst option to face at 8th now they have their full front-row available.
Drua, on the other hand, are typically bunnies outside of Fiji. Especially if they have to go to their Fiji - NZ on a Saturday evening.
The Ghost of Raelene
Simon Poidevin (60)
Maybe true but cmon my Tahs did em twice.
waiopehu oldboy
George Smith (75)
"All Blacks star Beauden Barrett isn't eligible to play for the Blues during the Super Rugby Pacific playoffs, and it’s also understood he won’t be considered for their final round-robin game against the Chiefs in Auckland on Saturday night"
www.stuff.co.nz
Stuff
www.stuff.co.nz
Dismal Pillock
Michael Lynagh (62)
"All Blacks star Beauden Barrett isn't eligible to play for the Blues during the Super Rugby Pacific playoffs, and it’s also understood he won’t be considered for their final round-robin game against the Chiefs in Auckland on Saturday night"
Stuff
Ignoto
Peter Sullivan (51)
"All Blacks star Beauden Barrett isn't eligible to play for the Blues during the Super Rugby Pacific playoffs, and it’s also understood he won’t be considered for their final round-robin game against the Chiefs in Auckland on Saturday night"
Stuff
How is this surprising?
I could have sworn I remember a conversation Reg and Gagger had about injury cover for the Reds leading up to the 2011 finals and that was with someone (was it Braid?) who actually had played games for the Reds that season.
Slim 293
Stirling Mortlock (74)
In the past if you weren't contracted in the original squad you had to play a minimum of four regular season matches to play in the finals...
Blues' bold ploy to bring back Barrett denied by Super Rugby
www.rugby.com.au
Caleb Ralph played for the Reds in 2011. Might be him? I know it was for injuries. Can’t remember discussion around availability for finals but he was only used once off the bench.