RugbyRebels

So, are we still on track for 4 NZ sides in the playoffs? Any possibility whatsoever the Blues could get the 5th wildcard spot with a big win?

Changes afoot. Again.

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/sport/news/ar ... d=11673966

jared_7 wrote:So, are we still on track for 4 NZ sides in the playoffs? Any possibility whatsoever the Blues could get the 5th wildcard spot with a big win?

The sharks would need to lose to the sunwolves with no bonus point. The bulls would need to lose to the cheetahs. The blues would need a bonus point win over the waratahs.

I think.

Sharks versus sunwolves outcome seems rather unlikely.

It looks like there will be some further tinkering to the format for next year, with SANZAR addressing one of the most glaring issues in this year's competition - that teams like the Crusaders, Hurricanes and Highlanders will not be rewarded with any sort of home field advantage, while shitty shitfuck dumpsterfire bonersquads that have topped a conference made up of the shittiest shits that ever shat in the history of shitty shit rugby (I'm looking at you, Australian conference) do. That at this stage, there's a real danger that at least one of the Conference leaders will qualify for the play-offs despite earning fewer competition points than a team that didn't qualify obviously has not gone unnoticed.


Seriously, the structure fucking sucks.

jared_7 wrote:Changes afoot. Again.

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/sport/news/ar ... d=11673966

It needs it after SANZAR shit the bed hard on this one. There is something absolutely absurd about the Aussie conference leader ranked higher on 39 points than the Crusaders, Highlanders or Hurricanes. In short, the current format is a shit that needs to be fixed, and fast. It's remarkable that the SANZAR administrators failed to anticipate this very scenario.

Honestly, if you look at the way the Super Rugby season has panned out this season, and you think "yes, this structure is cool and good," then I don't know what to say to you.

cashead wrote:

jared_7 wrote:Changes afoot. Again.

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/sport/news/ar ... d=11673966

It needs it after SANZAR shit the bed hard on this one. There is something absolutely absurd about the Aussie conference leader ranked higher on 39 points than the Crusaders, Highlanders or Hurricanes. In short, the current format is a shit that needs to be fixed, and fast. It's remarkable that the SANZAR administrators failed to anticipate this very scenario.

I don't think I'd have expected such dominance given the NZ teams have to play 8 fixtures against NZ teams.

Lizard wrote:

morepork wrote:I can't believe you actually took the time to make a graph. You could have made an effort to give us an R-squared value FFS.

I have never forgotten more about one subject than MATH110 or whatever my 1st year stats paper was.

I failed that one.

Eugene Wrayburn wrote:

cashead wrote:

jared_7 wrote:Changes afoot. Again.

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/sport/news/ar ... d=11673966

It needs it after SANZAR shit the bed hard on this one. There is something absolutely absurd about the Aussie conference leader ranked higher on 39 points than the Crusaders, Highlanders or Hurricanes. In short, the current format is a shit that needs to be fixed, and fast. It's remarkable that the SANZAR administrators failed to anticipate this very scenario.

I don't think I'd have expected such dominance given the NZ teams have to play 8 fixtures against NZ teams.

I don't think anyone expected the Aussie teams to suck harder than a supermassive black hole caught in a vacuum, but I recall quite a few people smelling something rotten when they noticed some conferences would never meet, much like Rudyard Kipling's East and West.

If SANZAR are insistent on adding teams to the comp, they're either A) going to have to restructure the system in a far more equitable way, or B) establish a promotion-relegation system. Something, perhaps, like a two-tier 12-teams-each structure (which allows for the continued presence of the Jags and Sunwolves and provides room for the Pasifika teams).

The current standings, if adjusted for competition points will read

1. Lions (Africa 2)
2. Chiefs (NZ)
3. Crusaders (NZ)
4. Highlanders (NZ)
5. Hurricanes (NZ)
6. Stormers (Africa 1)
7. Brumbies (Australia)
8. Sharks (Africa 2)
9. Waratahs (Australia)
10. Bulls (Africa 1)
11. Blues (NZ)
12. Rebels (Australia)
----------------------------
13. Cheetahs (Africa 1)
14. Jaguares (Africa 2)
15. Reds (Australia)
16. Force (Australia)
17. Kings (Africa 2)
18. Sunwolves (Africa 1)


So, let's say this were to happen next year: I'd put the top 12 into Tier 1, and find 6 more teams for Tier 2 - one to represent Samoa, one for Tonga, one for Fiji, perhaps a 6th NZ franchise, another combined Pacific Island team (Cook Islands, Niue, that sort of thing) and maybe something like a developing Latin Americas team. Something like that, with a promotion-relegation system were the Tier 2 finalists get automatically promoted, swapping with the bottom two teams, and the 3rd and 4th placed teams play the 3rd and 4th to last teams.

The structure was driven by television money; if there wasn't a semi-final in each market the television rights would not be worth as much.

So yes, the current structure is shitty, unfair to better performing teams who aren't winning their own conference, and etc.

OTOH, the money is also good.

The question is, does the game get any benefit from the additional money, or do the administrators who signed the deal and approved the structure, get that benefit? Not suggesting anything funny, I really don't know. But if the answer to that question is that the game benefits, then the question becomes: does the shitty structure provide more benefit than it costs? IOW, is it worth it? Does the game benefit enough to make the shitty structure tolerable?

Apparently, the current crop responsible for administering the game, think it does. More or less.

Personally, I think it's short-term good but a long-term error. It will end up costing fans > eyeballs > advertising revenues > TV rights pricing.

Depends on how the crowds are this year. Any different to last?

Sunwolves doing surprisingly well for a change. Just two points adrift of the Sharks (in SA) at HT...

Update: Didn't last long! Sharks score straight after the break

Sharks ran away with it in the end. Does that also end the Blues' play-off hopes??

Holy cow! Canes win 10-35 in Christchurch. Surely one of the biggest home-losses ever suffered by the 7-time champions - rugby's 'Real Madrid,' as I call them. Not sure that it changes the play-offs picture any though, but at least the boys from Wellington are going in with plenty of momentum behind them. Could this be their year after all

Good game going on in Dunedin. Highlanders trailing Chiefs 5-7 HT. Solid Chiefs defence, bit of biffo, A Smith passing up a storm.

FT 25-15 Highlanders. Well deserved win, played most of the rugby. The Chiefs mostly defended well, but blew their attacking chances.

Hurricanes top NZ conference. Didn't see that coming on Friday morning.

What? The Canes finished top? That looked inconceivable a few weeks ago. So what's between them and that ever-elusive title this time? A Lions' den in Jo'burg, I suspect...

Jags leading Lions into final quarter. This could be a huge upset that would see the Canes finish top of the table, one point ahead of the South Africans...

Jags stun Lions 34-22, visitors only needed a bonus point to top the ladder!!! Well done, Argies. Totally justifies their inclusion in the competition.

Meanwhile, all the stars aligned for the Canes in the last few weeks of the regular season. They finish top with home advantage through the playoffs.

Don't worry, the Hurricanes will fuck it up.

rowan wrote:Jags stun Lions 34-22, visitors only needed a bonus point to top the ladder!!! Well done, Argies. Totally justifies their inclusion in the competition.

Not really. They were very sloppy throughout the game, and it was largely an inexperienced, C-grade Lions team strangling themselves through poor discipline that cost them. The Jags missed 20 tackles, and the Lions missed 29, while the Lions conceded 17 penalties to the Jags' 7, with 2 yellow cards to show for it. The Jaguares were only OK, and the Lions started decent and turned to absolute shit.

That said, I'm not sure how much the result will have any bearing on the quarterfinal fixture against the Crusaders at Ellis Park, seeing as how a fair chunk of that Lions team is unlikely to appear next weekend.

cashead wrote:Don't worry, the Hurricanes will fuck it up.

I'm sure. They ought to beat the Sharks but the semis looks like a potential banana skin - ACT or Otago - two of the Canes' old Nemeses. If it's the latter, that's going to be a huge grudge match after last year's final

scuzzaman wrote:

Lizard wrote:Bula vinaka, Crusaders. Thanks for coming, Bros.

Chiefs Mana takes us back to our rightful top of the table.

Twas a solid performance from the Chiefs, against arguably the most dangerous side in the comp.

I'm still puzzled as to why McKenzie didn't get a run against Wales. He has surely earned it.

From a couple of weeks ago, but if you're wondering why McKenzie didn't get a run, I'd imagine it would be related to his tackle success rate for the Chiefs this year - it's below 70%. I'd wager Ben Smith and Izzy Dagg are rating much higher than that.

cashead wrote:

rowan wrote:Jags stun Lions 34-22, visitors only needed a bonus point to top the ladder!!! Well done, Argies. Totally justifies their inclusion in the competition.

Not really. They were very sloppy throughout the game, and it was largely an inexperienced, C-grade Lions team strangling themselves through poor discipline that cost them. The Jags missed 20 tackles, and the Lions missed 29, while the Lions conceded 17 penalties to the Jags' 7, with 2 yellow cards to show for it. The Jaguares were only OK, and the Lions started decent and turned to absolute shit.

At the end of the day, it's a league and you're going to have to rest your players at some stage, so a win is a win and this was a big one for the Jags, who ultimately prevented the Lions from topping the table. For certain nobody ought to be questioning their involvement. They've had a far more successful debut season than the hapless Sunwolves, finishing ahead of two Australian teams (including former champions the Reds) and two South African teams (including the Kings). NB: The Port Elizabeth-based outfit actually debuted a few seasons ago but were effectively relegated after losing a play-off with the Lions.

cashead wrote:

scuzzaman wrote: I'm still puzzled as to why McKenzie didn't get a run against Wales. He has surely earned it.

From a couple of weeks ago, but if you're wondering why McKenzie didn't get a run, I'd imagine it would be related to his tackle success rate for the Chiefs this year - it's below 70%. I'd wager Ben Smith and Izzy Dagg are rating much higher than that.

There's a fair point.

Cheers!