The unfairness of the conference system illustrated right here...

[FrankLind]

Chiefs 35
Stormers 33
Brumbies 26

Bulls 33
Highlanders 30
Crusaders 28

As it stands, the Brumbies qualify 3rd (as the top Aussie team) despite being behind the Bulls, Highlanders, and Crusaders on points. I think this is unfair

 

[Slim 293]

That's a shame...

 

[Tordah]

this is brand new information

 

[cyclopath]

You read it here...672nd.
FrankLind - this has been discussed ad nauseam, there might even be threads on it.
It's here, not all like it (including me, I might add) but it ain't news.

 

[RedsHappy]

Yeah, but it's also narkily silly (at this juncture and on these numbers). The Brums are within 2 of the Cru and 4 of the Highlanders and there's much, much to play for yet.

 

[Cave Dweller]

Chiefs 35
Stormers 33
Brumbies 26

Bulls 33
Highlanders 30
Crusaders 28

As it stands, the Brumbies qualify 3rd (as the top Aussie team) despite being behind the Bulls, Highlanders, and Crusaders on points. I think this is unfair

Tell that to Rupert Murdoch

 

[liquor box]

Chiefs 35
Stormers 33
Brumbies 26

Bulls 33
Highlanders 30
Crusaders 28

As it stands, the Brumbies qualify 3rd (as the top Aussie team) despite being behind the Bulls, Highlanders, and Crusaders on points. I think this is unfair

I dont, it makes sense that each country puts forward its best team, the Brumbies deserve to get there based on that alone.

 

[Nusadan]

Bulls will slip down the ladder once they hit the road ...

 

[Bruwheresmycar]

Phew, I was starting to get worried. It's been over a few weeks since we last discussed this, I was starting to think people might have completely forgotten about this pressing issue.

 

[Slim 293]

What is really fair anyways?

2006

​

​

1 Crusaders 13 11 1 1 412 210 202 5 51

2 Hurricanes 13 10 0 3 328 226 102 7 47​

3 Waratahs 13 9 0 4 362 192 170 9 45​

4 Bulls 13 7 1 5 355 290 65 7 38​

5 Sharks 13 7 0 6 361 297 64 10 38​

6 Brumbies 13 8 1 4 326 269 57 4 38​

2007

1 Sharks 13 10 0 3 355 214 141 5 45

2 Bulls 13 9 0 4 388 223 165 6 42​

3 Crusaders 13 8 0 5 382 235 147 10 42​

4 Blues 13 9 0 4 355 235 120 6 42​

5 Brumbies 13 9 0 4 234 173 61 4 40​

 

[fatprop]

I reckon you right a very sharply written note to SANZAR

http://www.sanzarrugby.com/general/contact/

best of luck

 

[Penguin]

Yawn!

 

[Schadenfreude]

If only this had been considered when they designed the system...

 

[rugbysmartarse]

as a side track to this, I know the Saffers (in particular) are using this argument this year a lot, but my recollection of the lead up to the conference system is that the conference leader part of the set up was at the insistance of the SARU. Can anyone confirm this?

 

[Cave Dweller]

I have read the following

South African viewers made up 62% of the Super 15 television audience in 2011

 

[Braveheart81]

That's because South Africa has a population of 50 million and doesn't play mungo ball or AFL.

 

[Cave Dweller]

That's because South Africa has a population of 50 million and doesn't play mungo ball or AFL.

Now say there is no team from another country in the semi finals what will be the viewer total be compared to where all 3 still have interest?

 

[Lee Grant]

SAffer and Kiwi fans should blame their unions for agreeing to the conference system and 5 teams for Oz. The unions did it for the money so they should sent them a fax and not start threads on the matter here.

Some Aussies didn't want the 5th team either, because we don't have the depth; many objected to the 4th team earlier also. Blind Freddie could see that the chances of winning Super would be better with only 3 or 4 teams.

Others, like me, said that if they had a choice between having a national domestic competition and another Super team, they would choose the NDC every day of the week, but since the ARU couldn't afford to have one we would take the 4th team and then the 5th team - though 5 was enough.

Having the 4th team means the numbers of professional players in Oz increases by 33%, and having the 5th, 25%, more on that. Giving those extra pro players a gig tends to keep more in the country and helps to identify more Wallaby candidates - or if they stay in Oz regardless, they are noticed sooner.

I'm going to save that post and cut and paste it for next week when there is another whinge.

 

[Da Munch]

I kinda agree with FL, it is unfair, but we should drop all the points scored from the bottom 2 teams;
14. Lions 14
15. Blues 12
instead, as these are just the easy beats and are propping up some conferences.
And no, this isn't a new idea, it was spruiked a lot last year over the Rebels.

 

[Troy]

And yet we won the whole shooting match last year with our low stocks and new team. While I know there are alot of imports at the Rebels they did still get a few AUS players (L Weeks) in particular, from the Reds..

I don't think all the problems lie with the players, rather the coaches! Link last year and JW this year have taken quite a few players not wanted by other franchises or unearthed new talent that has seen a great impovement in their respective teams.

Instead of saying we have no depth, we should be asking why the coaches can't turn things around, if the above 2 can turn their teams around why not the rest?