Lions v Hurricanes (SF)
-
@Winger I don't think you can get that under the current format.
The Brumbies were the fly in the ointment with the least points but sitting in the 'top 4' with a home semi.
Only way it could work would have been if it was a true 1 v 8, but then Aussie would not have had a home final...which would have looked like this I think
Lions v Brumbies
Crusaders v Sharks
Hurricanes v Stormers
Chiefs v HighlandersWhich would likely have seen semis of....
Lions v Hurricanes
Crusaders v winner of Chiefs/Highlanders@taniwharugby said in Lions v Hurricanes (SF):
@Winger I don't think you can get that under the current format.
The Brumbies were the fly in the ointment with the least points but sitting in the 'top 4' with a home semi.
Only way it could work would have been if it was a true 1 v 8, but then Aussie would not have had a home final...which would have looked like this I think
Lions v Brumbies
Crusaders v Sharks
Hurricanes v Stormers
Chiefs v HighlandersWhich would likely have seen semis of....
Lions v Hurricanes
Crusaders v winner of Chiefs/HighlandersHate to say it but I agree with @Winger
Would it be hard to implement the SFs being drawn on rankings in round robin?
They do that in AFL and I'm pretty sure NRL.
-
@taniwharugby said in Lions v Hurricanes (SF):
@Winger I don't think you can get that under the current format.
The Brumbies were the fly in the ointment with the least points but sitting in the 'top 4' with a home semi.
Only way it could work would have been if it was a true 1 v 8, but then Aussie would not have had a home final...which would have looked like this I think
Lions v Brumbies
Crusaders v Sharks
Hurricanes v Stormers
Chiefs v HighlandersWhich would likely have seen semis of....
Lions v Hurricanes
Crusaders v winner of Chiefs/HighlandersHate to say it but I agree with @Winger
Would it be hard to implement the SFs being drawn on rankings in round robin?
They do that in AFL and I'm pretty sure NRL.
@booboo said in Lions v Hurricanes (SF):
@taniwharugby said in Lions v Hurricanes (SF):
@Winger I don't think you can get that under the current format.
The Brumbies were the fly in the ointment with the least points but sitting in the 'top 4' with a home semi.
Only way it could work would have been if it was a true 1 v 8, but then Aussie would not have had a home final...which would have looked like this I think
Lions v Brumbies
Crusaders v Sharks
Hurricanes v Stormers
Chiefs v HighlandersWhich would likely have seen semis of....
Lions v Hurricanes
Crusaders v winner of Chiefs/HighlandersHate to say it but I agree with @Winger
Would it be hard to implement the SFs being drawn on rankings in round robin?
They do that in AFL and I'm pretty sure NRL.
Quoting myself ...
... or did we have that argument last year when the finals were fucked up then in another way?
-
@taniwharugby said in Lions v Hurricanes (SF):
@Winger I don't think you can get that under the current format.
The Brumbies were the fly in the ointment with the least points but sitting in the 'top 4' with a home semi.
Only way it could work would have been if it was a true 1 v 8, but then Aussie would not have had a home final...which would have looked like this I think
Lions v Brumbies
Crusaders v Sharks
Hurricanes v Stormers
Chiefs v HighlandersWhich would likely have seen semis of....
Lions v Hurricanes
Crusaders v winner of Chiefs/HighlandersHate to say it but I agree with @Winger
Would it be hard to implement the SFs being drawn on rankings in round robin?
They do that in AFL and I'm pretty sure NRL.
@booboo how would your finals format work, with the teams that finished as they did under existing ranking format?
-
@booboo how would your finals format work, with the teams that finished as they did under existing ranking format?
@taniwharugby In the semis you have the top ranked team play the lowest ranked team.
Lions finished highest after round robin, Chiefs lowest (of those remaining) after the round robin.
Then the middle two teams play each other, with the higher ranked team at home (Crusaders).
-
@taniwharugby In the semis you have the top ranked team play the lowest ranked team.
Lions finished highest after round robin, Chiefs lowest (of those remaining) after the round robin.
Then the middle two teams play each other, with the higher ranked team at home (Crusaders).
@KiwiMurph said in Lions v Hurricanes (SF):
@taniwharugby In the semis you have the top ranked team play the lowest ranked team.
Lions finished highest after round robin, Chiefs lowest (of those remaining) after the round robin.
Then the middle two teams play each other, with the higher ranked team at home (Crusaders).
That was the system last year and the teams agreed to the change to have less possible destinations and therefore less costs associated with holding multiple sets of flights.
-
@booboo how would your finals format work, with the teams that finished as they did under existing ranking format?
@taniwharugby said in Lions v Hurricanes (SF):
@booboo how would your finals format work, with the teams that finished as they did under existing ranking format?
I cant see how it could have been done any differently as it stands.
Of the 4 teams that make the semis the highest ranked gets to play the lowest ranked, not the winner of a given game.
2nd highest plays the 3rd ranked.
Teams still have to wait to see who wins what to see where they travel to.
Where anomalies may occur is if a conference winner has an undeserved higher ranking. But we get that now.
(The AFL/NRL system does gives teams 1 through 4, and POTENTIALLY 5 and 6 a second chance, but there is an extra week of playoffs as only two teams drop out per week.)
-
@taniwharugby In the semis you have the top ranked team play the lowest ranked team.
Lions finished highest after round robin, Chiefs lowest (of those remaining) after the round robin.
Then the middle two teams play each other, with the higher ranked team at home (Crusaders).
@KiwiMurph said in Lions v Hurricanes (SF):
@taniwharugby In the semis you have the top ranked team play the lowest ranked team.
Lions finished highest after round robin, Chiefs lowest (of those remaining) after the round robin.
Then the middle two teams play each other, with the higher ranked team at home (Crusaders).
What he said.
-
@KiwiMurph said in Lions v Hurricanes (SF):
@taniwharugby In the semis you have the top ranked team play the lowest ranked team.
Lions finished highest after round robin, Chiefs lowest (of those remaining) after the round robin.
Then the middle two teams play each other, with the higher ranked team at home (Crusaders).
That was the system last year and the teams agreed to the change to have less possible destinations and therefore less costs associated with holding multiple sets of flights.
@Cyclops said in Lions v Hurricanes (SF):
@KiwiMurph said in Lions v Hurricanes (SF):
@taniwharugby In the semis you have the top ranked team play the lowest ranked team.
Lions finished highest after round robin, Chiefs lowest (of those remaining) after the round robin.
Then the middle two teams play each other, with the higher ranked team at home (Crusaders).
That was the system last year and the teams agreed to the change to have less possible destinations and therefore less costs associated with holding multiple sets of flights.
So it's about cost cutting.
-
@Cyclops said in Lions v Hurricanes (SF):
@KiwiMurph said in Lions v Hurricanes (SF):
@taniwharugby In the semis you have the top ranked team play the lowest ranked team.
Lions finished highest after round robin, Chiefs lowest (of those remaining) after the round robin.
Then the middle two teams play each other, with the higher ranked team at home (Crusaders).
That was the system last year and the teams agreed to the change to have less possible destinations and therefore less costs associated with holding multiple sets of flights.
So it's about cost cutting.
@booboo I guess it swings in round about then? With it looking good one year and not in another...NRL is different anyway with teams at the top getting a bye don't they?
What never looks good, is a team that isn't even in the top 10 of a comp, hosting a home quarter final.
-
@Cyclops said in Lions v Hurricanes (SF):
@KiwiMurph said in Lions v Hurricanes (SF):
@taniwharugby In the semis you have the top ranked team play the lowest ranked team.
Lions finished highest after round robin, Chiefs lowest (of those remaining) after the round robin.
Then the middle two teams play each other, with the higher ranked team at home (Crusaders).
That was the system last year and the teams agreed to the change to have less possible destinations and therefore less costs associated with holding multiple sets of flights.
So it's about cost cutting.
@booboo said in Lions v Hurricanes (SF):
That was the system last year and the teams agreed to the change to have less possible destinations and therefore less costs associated with holding multiple sets of flights.
So it's about cost cutting.
Partly, and to give the teams (and managers) some certainty of where they could be travelling to.
From a previous Stuff article I posted it stated:
The new structure means teams seeded third to eighth all have just two possible semifinal destinations, whereas the old system had two options for the third seed, three options for the fifth seed and four options for teams seeded fourth, sixth, seventh and eighth.
I agree that the new system is still not perfect either. You can't compare to the NRL and AFL as the distances travelled are much less.
-
@booboo I guess it swings in round about then? With it looking good one year and not in another...NRL is different anyway with teams at the top getting a bye don't they?
What never looks good, is a team that isn't even in the top 10 of a comp, hosting a home quarter final.
@taniwharugby said in Lions v Hurricanes (SF):
@booboo I guess it swings in round about then? With it looking good one year and not in another...NRL is different anyway with teams at the top getting a bye don't they?
What never looks good, is a team that isn't even in the top 10 of a comp, hosting a home quarter final.
NRL give a life to the top two ranked losers and a bye to the top two ranked winners, so it's a 4 week playoff rather than a three week. If we're going to continue with conferences SANZAAR will have to look at byes because I think every final so far has involved one finalist having had to fly across the Indian ocean and one not which makes home advantage huge and a bye is the only way I can think of levelling that.
-
@taniwharugby said in Lions v Hurricanes (SF):
@booboo I guess it swings in round about then? With it looking good one year and not in another...NRL is different anyway with teams at the top getting a bye don't they?
What never looks good, is a team that isn't even in the top 10 of a comp, hosting a home quarter final.
NRL give a life to the top two ranked losers and a bye to the top two ranked winners, so it's a 4 week playoff rather than a three week. If we're going to continue with conferences SANZAAR will have to look at byes because I think every final so far has involved one finalist having had to fly across the Indian ocean and one not which makes home advantage huge and a bye is the only way I can think of levelling that.
I quite like the idea of reducing travel by having the two conferences find a winner - ie an Australasian playoff, and then an African playoff. Kind of like the NFL playoffs - with NFC and AFC champs playing in a Superbowl. Would mean that the travel is inside the conference, and that one winner from each conference plays the Super Final. Cuts out the insanity of teams like the Chiefs having to potentially play Aus - SA - NZ - SA to win the comp.
-
I quite like the idea of reducing travel by having the two conferences find a winner - ie an Australasian playoff, and then an African playoff. Kind of like the NFL playoffs - with NFC and AFC champs playing in a Superbowl. Would mean that the travel is inside the conference, and that one winner from each conference plays the Super Final. Cuts out the insanity of teams like the Chiefs having to potentially play Aus - SA - NZ - SA to win the comp.
@nzzp said in Lions v Hurricanes (SF):
I quite like the idea of reducing travel by having the two conferences find a winner - ie an Australasian playoff, and then an African playoff. Kind of like the NFL playoffs - with NFC and AFC champs playing in a Superbowl. Would mean that the travel is inside the conference, and that one winner from each conference plays the Super Final. Cuts out the insanity of teams like the Chiefs having to potentially play Aus - SA - NZ - SA to win the comp.
That's one option. They really need to find a way to give all teams that make the finals a reasonable chance. So the finals becomes a fair contest not the farce it is now
Even with this current structure if the super rugby administrators had anyone with any common sense at all they would have set up a slight adjustment to ensure that one team having a travel schedule of SA >> back to NZ or Aust >>> back to SA or likewise for a SA team would never happen
It would have been so simple to do this. In the situation we have where the Chiefs are in SA they would always play the SA team. Its not difficult to work out that the Chiefs situation might occur and to inset a clause where if it does the Chiefs will play the SA team to reduce travel. as it is they have changed the structure and made it worse. Its makes it almost impossible for the Chiefs to win (as they are stuffed with the travel factor). So one semi is almost meaningless. as the Chiefs / Canes semi was last year. and if the Canes win likewise for the final. And it happened last year for the Chiefs too so its not a rare occurrence.
-
@nzzp said in Lions v Hurricanes (SF):
I quite like the idea of reducing travel by having the two conferences find a winner - ie an Australasian playoff, and then an African playoff. Kind of like the NFL playoffs - with NFC and AFC champs playing in a Superbowl. Would mean that the travel is inside the conference, and that one winner from each conference plays the Super Final. Cuts out the insanity of teams like the Chiefs having to potentially play Aus - SA - NZ - SA to win the comp.
That's one option. They really need to find a way to give all teams that make the finals a reasonable chance. So the finals becomes a fair contest not the farce it is now
Even with this current structure if the super rugby administrators had anyone with any common sense at all they would have set up a slight adjustment to ensure that one team having a travel schedule of SA >> back to NZ or Aust >>> back to SA or likewise for a SA team would never happen
It would have been so simple to do this. In the situation we have where the Chiefs are in SA they would always play the SA team. Its not difficult to work out that the Chiefs situation might occur and to inset a clause where if it does the Chiefs will play the SA team to reduce travel. as it is they have changed the structure and made it worse. Its makes it almost impossible for the Chiefs to win (as they are stuffed with the travel factor). So one semi is almost meaningless. as the Chiefs / Canes semi was last year. and if the Canes win likewise for the final. And it happened last year for the Chiefs too so its not a rare occurrence.
@Winger said in Lions v Hurricanes (SF):
Its makes it almost impossible for the Chiefs to win (as they are stuffed with the travel factor).
Unless they get up over the Crusaders, and then face the Hurricanes in NZ having travelled back from SA.
so yeah, basically impossible.
-
@nzzp said in Lions v Hurricanes (SF):
I quite like the idea of reducing travel by having the two conferences find a winner - ie an Australasian playoff, and then an African playoff. Kind of like the NFL playoffs - with NFC and AFC champs playing in a Superbowl. Would mean that the travel is inside the conference, and that one winner from each conference plays the Super Final. Cuts out the insanity of teams like the Chiefs having to potentially play Aus - SA - NZ - SA to win the comp.
That's one option. They really need to find a way to give all teams that make the finals a reasonable chance. So the finals becomes a fair contest not the farce it is now
Even with this current structure if the super rugby administrators had anyone with any common sense at all they would have set up a slight adjustment to ensure that one team having a travel schedule of SA >> back to NZ or Aust >>> back to SA or likewise for a SA team would never happen
It would have been so simple to do this. In the situation we have where the Chiefs are in SA they would always play the SA team. Its not difficult to work out that the Chiefs situation might occur and to inset a clause where if it does the Chiefs will play the SA team to reduce travel. as it is they have changed the structure and made it worse. Its makes it almost impossible for the Chiefs to win (as they are stuffed with the travel factor). So one semi is almost meaningless. as the Chiefs / Canes semi was last year. and if the Canes win likewise for the final. And it happened last year for the Chiefs too so its not a rare occurrence.
@Winger said in Lions v Hurricanes (SF):
@nzzp said in Lions v Hurricanes (SF):
I quite like the idea of reducing travel by having the two conferences find a winner - ie an Australasian playoff, and then an African playoff. Kind of like the NFL playoffs - with NFC and AFC champs playing in a Superbowl. Would mean that the travel is inside the conference, and that one winner from each conference plays the Super Final. Cuts out the insanity of teams like the Chiefs having to potentially play Aus - SA - NZ - SA to win the comp.
That's one option. They really need to find a way to give all teams that make the finals a reasonable chance. So the finals becomes a fair contest not the farce it is now
Even with this current structure if the super rugby administrators had anyone with any common sense at all they would have set up a slight adjustment to ensure that one team having a travel schedule of SA >> back to NZ or Aust >>> back to SA or likewise for a SA team would never happen
It would have been so simple to do this. In the situation we have where the Chiefs are in SA they would always play the SA team. Its not difficult to work out that the Chiefs situation might occur and to inset a clause where if it does the Chiefs will play the SA team to reduce travel. as it is they have changed the structure and made it worse. Its makes it almost impossible for the Chiefs to win (as they are stuffed with the travel factor). So one semi is almost meaningless. as the Chiefs / Canes semi was last year. and if the Canes win likewise for the final. And it happened last year for the Chiefs too so its not a rare occurrence.
Under the current format, this years finals format is probably the best system. I don't think any team is disadvantaged commensurate to where they finished on the table.
-
@Winger said in Lions v Hurricanes (SF):
@nzzp said in Lions v Hurricanes (SF):
I quite like the idea of reducing travel by having the two conferences find a winner - ie an Australasian playoff, and then an African playoff. Kind of like the NFL playoffs - with NFC and AFC champs playing in a Superbowl. Would mean that the travel is inside the conference, and that one winner from each conference plays the Super Final. Cuts out the insanity of teams like the Chiefs having to potentially play Aus - SA - NZ - SA to win the comp.
That's one option. They really need to find a way to give all teams that make the finals a reasonable chance. So the finals becomes a fair contest not the farce it is now
Even with this current structure if the super rugby administrators had anyone with any common sense at all they would have set up a slight adjustment to ensure that one team having a travel schedule of SA >> back to NZ or Aust >>> back to SA or likewise for a SA team would never happen
It would have been so simple to do this. In the situation we have where the Chiefs are in SA they would always play the SA team. Its not difficult to work out that the Chiefs situation might occur and to inset a clause where if it does the Chiefs will play the SA team to reduce travel. as it is they have changed the structure and made it worse. Its makes it almost impossible for the Chiefs to win (as they are stuffed with the travel factor). So one semi is almost meaningless. as the Chiefs / Canes semi was last year. and if the Canes win likewise for the final. And it happened last year for the Chiefs too so its not a rare occurrence.
Under the current format, this years finals format is probably the best system. I don't think any team is disadvantaged commensurate to where they finished on the table.
@ACT-Crusader said in Lions v Hurricanes (SF):
@Winger said in Lions v Hurricanes (SF):
@nzzp said in Lions v Hurricanes (SF):
I quite like the idea of reducing travel by having the two conferences find a winner - ie an Australasian playoff, and then an African playoff. Kind of like the NFL playoffs - with NFC and AFC champs playing in a Superbowl. Would mean that the travel is inside the conference, and that one winner from each conference plays the Super Final. Cuts out the insanity of teams like the Chiefs having to potentially play Aus - SA - NZ - SA to win the comp.
That's one option. They really need to find a way to give all teams that make the finals a reasonable chance. So the finals becomes a fair contest not the farce it is now
Even with this current structure if the super rugby administrators had anyone with any common sense at all they would have set up a slight adjustment to ensure that one team having a travel schedule of SA >> back to NZ or Aust >>> back to SA or likewise for a SA team would never happen
It would have been so simple to do this. In the situation we have where the Chiefs are in SA they would always play the SA team. Its not difficult to work out that the Chiefs situation might occur and to inset a clause where if it does the Chiefs will play the SA team to reduce travel. as it is they have changed the structure and made it worse. Its makes it almost impossible for the Chiefs to win (as they are stuffed with the travel factor). So one semi is almost meaningless. as the Chiefs / Canes semi was last year. and if the Canes win likewise for the final. And it happened last year for the Chiefs too so its not a rare occurrence.
Under the current format, this years finals format is probably the best system. I don't think any team is disadvantaged commensurate to where they finished on the table.
And - of course - this will be the last year of the current format. Has anybody seen even a hint of how they're thinking about organising the whole comp next year, with 3 (maybe) teams dropped?
3 conferences of 5 teams each - NZ, Aus+Jp, Afr+Arg ? -
@ACT-Crusader said in Lions v Hurricanes (SF):
@Winger said in Lions v Hurricanes (SF):
@nzzp said in Lions v Hurricanes (SF):
I quite like the idea of reducing travel by having the two conferences find a winner - ie an Australasian playoff, and then an African playoff. Kind of like the NFL playoffs - with NFC and AFC champs playing in a Superbowl. Would mean that the travel is inside the conference, and that one winner from each conference plays the Super Final. Cuts out the insanity of teams like the Chiefs having to potentially play Aus - SA - NZ - SA to win the comp.
That's one option. They really need to find a way to give all teams that make the finals a reasonable chance. So the finals becomes a fair contest not the farce it is now
Even with this current structure if the super rugby administrators had anyone with any common sense at all they would have set up a slight adjustment to ensure that one team having a travel schedule of SA >> back to NZ or Aust >>> back to SA or likewise for a SA team would never happen
It would have been so simple to do this. In the situation we have where the Chiefs are in SA they would always play the SA team. Its not difficult to work out that the Chiefs situation might occur and to inset a clause where if it does the Chiefs will play the SA team to reduce travel. as it is they have changed the structure and made it worse. Its makes it almost impossible for the Chiefs to win (as they are stuffed with the travel factor). So one semi is almost meaningless. as the Chiefs / Canes semi was last year. and if the Canes win likewise for the final. And it happened last year for the Chiefs too so its not a rare occurrence.
Under the current format, this years finals format is probably the best system. I don't think any team is disadvantaged commensurate to where they finished on the table.
And - of course - this will be the last year of the current format. Has anybody seen even a hint of how they're thinking about organising the whole comp next year, with 3 (maybe) teams dropped?
3 conferences of 5 teams each - NZ, Aus+Jp, Afr+Arg ?@Kruse said in Lions v Hurricanes (SF):
@ACT-Crusader said in Lions v Hurricanes (SF):
@Winger said in Lions v Hurricanes (SF):
@nzzp said in Lions v Hurricanes (SF):
I quite like the idea of reducing travel by having the two conferences find a winner - ie an Australasian playoff, and then an African playoff. Kind of like the NFL playoffs - with NFC and AFC champs playing in a Superbowl. Would mean that the travel is inside the conference, and that one winner from each conference plays the Super Final. Cuts out the insanity of teams like the Chiefs having to potentially play Aus - SA - NZ - SA to win the comp.
That's one option. They really need to find a way to give all teams that make the finals a reasonable chance. So the finals becomes a fair contest not the farce it is now
Even with this current structure if the super rugby administrators had anyone with any common sense at all they would have set up a slight adjustment to ensure that one team having a travel schedule of SA >> back to NZ or Aust >>> back to SA or likewise for a SA team would never happen
It would have been so simple to do this. In the situation we have where the Chiefs are in SA they would always play the SA team. Its not difficult to work out that the Chiefs situation might occur and to inset a clause where if it does the Chiefs will play the SA team to reduce travel. as it is they have changed the structure and made it worse. Its makes it almost impossible for the Chiefs to win (as they are stuffed with the travel factor). So one semi is almost meaningless. as the Chiefs / Canes semi was last year. and if the Canes win likewise for the final. And it happened last year for the Chiefs too so its not a rare occurrence.
Under the current format, this years finals format is probably the best system. I don't think any team is disadvantaged commensurate to where they finished on the table.
And - of course - this will be the last year of the current format. Has anybody seen even a hint of how they're thinking about organising the whole comp next year, with 3 (maybe) teams dropped?
3 conferences of 5 teams each - NZ, Aus+Jp, Afr+Arg ?Ah - ignore me, a very quick google, and indeed - discover it was all announced months ago. And looks like it could address most of the issues/whinges people have currently.
-
@Winger said in Lions v Hurricanes (SF):
@nzzp said in Lions v Hurricanes (SF):
I quite like the idea of reducing travel by having the two conferences find a winner - ie an Australasian playoff, and then an African playoff. Kind of like the NFL playoffs - with NFC and AFC champs playing in a Superbowl. Would mean that the travel is inside the conference, and that one winner from each conference plays the Super Final. Cuts out the insanity of teams like the Chiefs having to potentially play Aus - SA - NZ - SA to win the comp.
That's one option. They really need to find a way to give all teams that make the finals a reasonable chance. So the finals becomes a fair contest not the farce it is now
Even with this current structure if the super rugby administrators had anyone with any common sense at all they would have set up a slight adjustment to ensure that one team having a travel schedule of SA >> back to NZ or Aust >>> back to SA or likewise for a SA team would never happen
It would have been so simple to do this. In the situation we have where the Chiefs are in SA they would always play the SA team. Its not difficult to work out that the Chiefs situation might occur and to inset a clause where if it does the Chiefs will play the SA team to reduce travel. as it is they have changed the structure and made it worse. Its makes it almost impossible for the Chiefs to win (as they are stuffed with the travel factor). So one semi is almost meaningless. as the Chiefs / Canes semi was last year. and if the Canes win likewise for the final. And it happened last year for the Chiefs too so its not a rare occurrence.
Under the current format, this years finals format is probably the best system. I don't think any team is disadvantaged commensurate to where they finished on the table.
@ACT-Crusader said in Lions v Hurricanes (SF):
@Winger said in Lions v Hurricanes (SF):
@nzzp said in Lions v Hurricanes (SF):
I quite like the idea of reducing travel by having the two conferences find a winner - ie an Australasian playoff, and then an African playoff. Kind of like the NFL playoffs - with NFC and AFC champs playing in a Superbowl. Would mean that the travel is inside the conference, and that one winner from each conference plays the Super Final. Cuts out the insanity of teams like the Chiefs having to potentially play Aus - SA - NZ - SA to win the comp.
That's one option. They really need to find a way to give all teams that make the finals a reasonable chance. So the finals becomes a fair contest not the farce it is now
Even with this current structure if the super rugby administrators had anyone with any common sense at all they would have set up a slight adjustment to ensure that one team having a travel schedule of SA >> back to NZ or Aust >>> back to SA or likewise for a SA team would never happen
It would have been so simple to do this. In the situation we have where the Chiefs are in SA they would always play the SA team. Its not difficult to work out that the Chiefs situation might occur and to inset a clause where if it does the Chiefs will play the SA team to reduce travel. as it is they have changed the structure and made it worse. Its makes it almost impossible for the Chiefs to win (as they are stuffed with the travel factor). So one semi is almost meaningless. as the Chiefs / Canes semi was last year. and if the Canes win likewise for the final. And it happened last year for the Chiefs too so its not a rare occurrence.
Under the current format, this years finals format is probably the best system. I don't think any team is disadvantaged commensurate to where they finished on the table.
For the Crusaders for sure it is (last year it was great for the Canes so I thought it was a great system
). They two other NZ teams that might beat the Crusaders (Chiefs and Canes) in the semis or finals are completely stuffed by travel. -
@ACT-Crusader said in Lions v Hurricanes (SF):
@Winger said in Lions v Hurricanes (SF):
@nzzp said in Lions v Hurricanes (SF):
I quite like the idea of reducing travel by having the two conferences find a winner - ie an Australasian playoff, and then an African playoff. Kind of like the NFL playoffs - with NFC and AFC champs playing in a Superbowl. Would mean that the travel is inside the conference, and that one winner from each conference plays the Super Final. Cuts out the insanity of teams like the Chiefs having to potentially play Aus - SA - NZ - SA to win the comp.
That's one option. They really need to find a way to give all teams that make the finals a reasonable chance. So the finals becomes a fair contest not the farce it is now
Even with this current structure if the super rugby administrators had anyone with any common sense at all they would have set up a slight adjustment to ensure that one team having a travel schedule of SA >> back to NZ or Aust >>> back to SA or likewise for a SA team would never happen
It would have been so simple to do this. In the situation we have where the Chiefs are in SA they would always play the SA team. Its not difficult to work out that the Chiefs situation might occur and to inset a clause where if it does the Chiefs will play the SA team to reduce travel. as it is they have changed the structure and made it worse. Its makes it almost impossible for the Chiefs to win (as they are stuffed with the travel factor). So one semi is almost meaningless. as the Chiefs / Canes semi was last year. and if the Canes win likewise for the final. And it happened last year for the Chiefs too so its not a rare occurrence.
Under the current format, this years finals format is probably the best system. I don't think any team is disadvantaged commensurate to where they finished on the table.
For the Crusaders for sure it is (last year it was great for the Canes so I thought it was a great system
). They two other NZ teams that might beat the Crusaders (Chiefs and Canes) in the semis or finals are completely stuffed by travel.@Winger I'm not worried mate we will travel to CHCH and beat the Saders to make it back to back championships
