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

[Dan54]

To be honest I quite like the confrence system,and I a kiwi!! While very happy to acknowledge it is not a fair system, I enjoy the extra amount of derbies between kiwi,Oz teams and to a lesser degree (because of time games are played only) of saffa teams. I can see either saffas or kiwis having 3 teams in finals this year, and yep even if Brumbies or someone don't get act together maybe there will be a final played in OZ that a better team should be playing at home, tough also under old system some teams had harder travelling games than others too! Realistically any team that doesn't end up in top 2 from there own conference probably doesn't really deserve to win title. Also the advantage of conference system is it is easier to add teams without adding amount of games to tournament.
Also means I can support Reds against other OZ teams in plenty of games, while still supporting kiwi teams!! Win win for me!!

 

[Cave Dweller]

Yep, fair enough. Was just saying it is more of a form table that a history table.

Its rankings basically. Same way international teams get ranked. In the end form will determine where you will end up on the table as well as consistency. You can see how inconstant some of the Saffer teams were during the competitions history except maybe the Lions as they consistently made the bottom end of the table. But you can also see the rise and fall of some of the teams I.E the Blues, Reds and Brumbies the latter which is showing improvement

 

[PaarlBok]

ideally for each country you have 2 almost perfect teams that always beat every other team in your conference, this ensures a better chance of getting 2 teams into the finals. Unfortunately if you have all 5 teams at an equal quality where they win once and lose once against their own countries teams you will only get one team into the finals. The only issue I have with this is you can either have 5 awesome teams or 5 terrible teams achieve this second outcome.

The way of contracting it wont happen in NZ. They have central contracts and their top 120 players is share between their teams. Not sure about Aus way of contracting but it is the reason in SA why you get a unbalance between the teams because of their player budgets. We also have our CC contracts and the youth lot playing an important role. Those not making the provincial contracts these days will get a Varsity Cup one and launch their career from there. A lot of them is playing Vodacom rugby at the moment and Hattingh got his Lion S15 contract this week. SA have way to many players for the available contracts and many go looking elsewhere to play.

 

[Ruggo]

I just wish each side could play eachother at least once.

 

[ACT Crusader]

I just wish each side could play eachother at least once.

I get where you're coming from, but I don't wish for that. The season is already long enough in my view and with the extended week of finals, it's funny but by that time of the year I'm just waiting for the internationals to start.

 

[rustycruiser]

I just wish each side could play eachother at least once.

Only way that happens is if the kill the home/away and conferences. Zippy chance that happens.

 

[kiap]

I agree the chance is zippy, and for a number of reasons. In fairness to Ruggo, he used the phrase "at least once", probably adding 2 weeks to round out the home-or-away cross-conference games, while keeping the full set of home-and-away local derby games.

Two weeks don't seem much and could possibly be added (in different circumstances it would have happened already) but there are pluses and minuses. On the upside, it would remove some unfairness whereby certain teams are missed due to luck of the draw (although it's hard to know ahead of time which will be strong or weak, e.g. Blues 2012).

But there would be downsides, particularly for SA teams requiring an overseas tour of 5 weeks instead of the current 4 weeks. For Aus/NZ teams, some would have 3 weeks in SA and others 2 weeks in SA, depending on the luck of the draw. The compromises are there for a reason and have been negotiated as part of the trade-offs to get less travel for the teams and more home-country games at viewable times for the broadcasters (btw, the home playoff for the 3rd conference winner was part of this, insisted upon by SARU).

And, as noted by other posters, the season is already tight and bumping up against the rugby internationals and other rugby. The conference system is here to stay and people need to get on with the rugby.

 

[PaarlBok]

Only way that happens is if the kill the home/away and conferences. Zippy chance that happens.

They can chuck the two byes and let all the teams play each other at least once. It sure is one reason why this format is a flop.

 

[Braveheart81]

Umm...

You have to have byes in a 15 team competition.

 

[PaarlBok]

Umm...

You have to have byes in a 15 team competition.

The byes are shite. Teams are rusted when they play their first game after a bye. The 4 points for a bye is also a vokop. They can cut this shite and let all the teams play each other at least once. No fairness now when they pick the top 6 on log points if they havent played the same oppostion at least once. If they want conferense then they must either only allow conferense matches and let the top lot fight it out at the business end or the yhave to go the Heineken Cup route.

 

[qwerty51]

I agree, there's no reason for 2 byes. Some weekends 3 teams have the bye. One team a week.

 

[Scoey]

At the start of the season, each team knows what they have to do to get to this final and set out trying to achieve that goal.

At the end of the day the best team will win the final. The rest of this discussion is moot.

 

[Slim 293]

The byes are shite. Teams are rusted when they play their first game after a bye. The 4 points for a bye is also a vokop. They can cut this shite and let all the teams play each other at least once. No fairness now when they pick the top 6 on log points if they havent played the same oppostion at least once. If they want conferense then they must either only allow conferense matches and let the top lot fight it out at the business end or the yhave to go the Heineken Cup route.

But you still have to have a bye... because there's 15 teams...

 

[PaarlBok]

But you still have to have a bye... because there's 15 teams...

OuBoet it aint round robin like in the past, they play (4x2own conferense)+(2x5x1 other conferenses)=18 matches in total.

 

[Slim 293]

There are 15 teams...

15 is an odd number...

It means there can only be 7 games a week, with one team left over with no opposition to play...

Unless you're suggesting some teams play more than once a week?

 

[Braveheart81]

I'm pretty sure it is impossible to play everyone in your conference twice and everyone else in the competition once (or everyone else bar two teams as the current format is) without each team having two byes.

The draw just can't be done where there is only one bye each and every week.

 

[kiap]

I agree, there's no reason for 2 byes. Some weekends 3 teams have the bye. One team a week.

There is a reason for the 2 byes. Each team would play 18 games, i.e. 10 O/S teams + 2 x (4 Local teams).

Or, even in the current format, each team plays 16 games, i.e. 8 O/S teams + 2 x (4 Local teams).

Either way, one team having a bye each week in this comp will only get you to week 15, and that's at best - it might not even work with the local derbies.

 

[qwerty51]

I realised that after I posted that's why I left it

 

[kiap]

No worries mate. The extra bye is handy in this long comp anyway. Teams picking up injuries and playing away on tour 3 or 4 weeks in a row can look forward to the breaks.

 

[PaarlBok]

There are 15 teams...

15 is an odd number...

It means there can only be 7 games a week, with one team left over with no opposition to play...

Unless you're suggesting some teams play more than once a week?

Sorry Slimmie, my mistake.

So one bye and one extra week to the current format aint going be a big ask for all teams to play another at least once then?