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

[PaarlBok]

Including 5 teams from Aussie was okay, this doesn't mean that one team from each country MUST qualify in the top three.

I would be say it is unfair REGARDLESS of which country is benefiting.

It just strikes me as bullshit. I didn't know it has been posted here many times before, which I guess is unsurprising, because it is bullshit.

Happy reading
http://www.greenandgoldrugby.com/community/threads/sanzar-super-rugby-future-format.3602/

 

[liquor box]

You lot have been pretty shite this year. You should get another team and get a promotion regulation system going like SA.

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.

 

[Cave Dweller]

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.

Well I think the inclusion of the Kings next year is a indication that if you do not perform or your bottom dwelling you will be replaced as it looked like they created a mini relegation thing in the Saffer Conference.

But we can all point the flaws of it but the viewer totals is whats bringing in the $$$$ for all 3 countries and they respective teams. They want interest from all 3 countries semi final times.

But has anyone ever looked at the positives of it? Although you can start of with 5 weak teams they will improve over the years and so will the depth of that country and it equals out the amount of away games played. Previous tournaments the Saffer sides went on a 2 month away trip in NZ and Australia which depended on their tournament hopes. A bad tour meant the end of their chances of reaching the semi's. Thats how I saw it from a neutrals point of view I might be wrong.

 

[ACT Crusader]

I'm not complaining and guess what I'm a kiwi...

As others say it makes perfect sense in a conference system. And it is a genuine conference system where you play H&A to the other teams in the conference so there is a point of difference. You have to reward conference leaders or why have the conference system if there is no incentive.

I wasn't opposed to the conf system as I think it was admirable in what it was trying to promote.

 

[Cave Dweller]

But aint the incentive a semi final spot?

 

[ACT Crusader]

Theres a dual incentive. It was to create "local" interest and bragging rights to finish above your compatriot opponents (and all that) plus to do their best to try and get the best chance to go deepest in the playoffs

 

[Cave Dweller]

And a home semi final

 

[kiap]

And a home semi final

Only for the top 2, clearly. On the positions of the current log, the Brumbies would not get a home semi.

 

[Cave Dweller]

Only for the top 2, clearly. On the positions of the current log, the Brumbies would not get a home semi.

So there is a incentive to get to the top two spots?

 

[kiap]

So there is a incentive to get to the top two spots?

Si

 

[Cave Dweller]

Team Ranking Points

Position Team(History)/ Ranking Points/ Last RPE /Movement

Super Rugby ranking table which shows the ranking point positions of each team since the first Super12 match in 1996. Each team started on 80 points and they move up and down relative to each other using the same points exchange system that the IRB use for ranking Test matches.

Exchange points are doubled for semis & finals.


1 Crusaders NZL 86.4307 +1.2983
2 Stormers SAF 85.7892 +1.2035
3 Bulls SAF 85.1940 0.0000
4 Chiefs NZL 84.9516 +1.0950
5 Reds AUS 82.4175 -1.2035
6 Sharks SAF 80.7114 -1.0950
7 Highlanders NZL 80.3554 +0.4378
8 Waratahs AUS 79.9014 +0.0633
9 Hurricanes NZL 79.4895 -1.2983
10 Brumbies AUS 77.8365 0.0000
11 Cheetahs SAF 77.4559 -0.8249
12 Blues NZL 76.8581 -0.4378
13 Force AUS 76.3722 -1.1918
14 Rebels AUS 73.4080 -0.0633
15 Lions SAF 72.8284 -0.0793

 

[Scotty]

I'm not complaining and guess what I'm a kiwi...

As others say it makes perfect sense in a conference system. And it is a genuine conference system where you play H&A to the other teams in the conference so there is a point of difference. You have to reward conference leaders or why have the conference system if there is no incentive.

I wasn't opposed to the conf system as I think it was admirable in what it was trying to promote.

I like it to, but the only issue is that you don't play all teams. Would be good to have that extra two weeks of games.

 

[Scotty]

Team Ranking Points

Position Team(History)/ Ranking Points/ Last RPE /Movement

Super Rugby ranking table which shows the ranking point positions of each team since the first Super12 match in 1996. Each team started on 80 points and they move up and down relative to each other using the same points exchange system that the IRB use for ranking Test matches.

Exchange points are doubled for semis & finals.


1 Crusaders NZL 86.4307 +1.2983
2 Stormers SAF 85.7892 +1.2035
3 Bulls SAF 85.1940 0.0000
4 Chiefs NZL 84.9516 +1.0950
5 Reds AUS 82.4175 -1.2035
6 Sharks SAF 80.7114 -1.0950
7 Highlanders NZL 80.3554 +0.4378
8 Waratahs AUS 79.9014 +0.0633
9 Hurricanes NZL 79.4895 -1.2983
10 Brumbies AUS 77.8365 0.0000
11 Cheetahs SAF 77.4559 -0.8249
12 Blues NZL 76.8581 -0.4378
13 Force AUS 76.3722 -1.1918
14 Rebels AUS 73.4080 -0.0633
15 Lions SAF 72.8284 -0.0793

Is this really started in 1996? If so it is surprising that the Stormers are ahead of the Bulls, the Chiefs are so high, and the Brumbies and Blues so low?

 

[Scarfman]

Scotty, the table moves fast. You can gain +1.5 in a week.

 

[Scotty]

It doesn't really represent the history of super rugby then, does it?

 

[Cave Dweller]

Is this really started in 1996? If so it is surprising that the Stormers are ahead of the Bulls, the Chiefs are so high, and the Brumbies and Blues so low?

Match results for every game played in the history of the Super 12, Super 14, and brand new Super 15 competition

End-of-Year Ranking Points:

 

[Scotty]

Average end of season position (based on position, not points):

Brums (4.8)
Blues (5.6)
Bulls (6.75)
Stormers (6.8)
Chiefs (6.8)

Maybe someone else can do the overall rankings by adding up the points at the end of each season and dividing by number of seasons played? Too much work for me.

 

[Cave Dweller]

Average end of season position (based on position, not points):

Brums (4.8)
Blues (5.6)
Bulls (6.75)
Stormers (6.8)
Chiefs (6.8)

Maybe someone else can do the overall rankings by adding up the points at the end of each season and dividing by number of seasons played? Too much work for me.

Super Rugby ranking table which shows the ranking point positions of each team since the first Super12 match in 1996. Each team started on 80 points and they move up and down relative to each other using the same points exchange system that the IRB use for ranking Test matches.

Exchange points are doubled for semis & finals.

The first one I posted was for this year. The link is to the full tables like the 3 I posted above here. Look at the end of 2010 the Bulls was narrowly ahead of the Stormers. Now those totals carry over so they will go up and down. Can you see what the Brumbies total was at end of 2011? That it was they started of this year where wins and losses will add or reduce that number.

 

[RedsHappy]

SANZAR CEO states clearly it's highly unlikely changes to the current S15 format will take place before 2016, so can the tedious whinging threads now be dismantled until then:

http://m.news24.com/sport24/Rugby/S...424?utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter

 

[Scotty]

The first one I posted was for this year. The link is to the full tables like the 3 I posted above here. Look at the end of 2010 the Bulls was narrowly ahead of the Stormers. Now those totals carry over so they will go up and down. Can you see what the Brumbies total was at end of 2011? That it was they started of this year where wins and losses will add or reduce that number.

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

Position Team(History)/ Ranking Points/ Last RPE /Movement