Super XV - how legitimate is the conference system really?

For the diehard Super Rugby fanatic the Super XV has kicked off and are now well under way with the first number of rounds completed. For a diehard rugby fanatic from South Africa it is however not that enthralling or even as inviting as it has been during the years of the Super 14, 12 etc.

I don’t like this new look Conference system at all, it seems to me that each respective country’s franchises are fighting it out to be the top dog in their country, interrupted with the odd visiting team from abroad.

The first issue I have a problem with it is the fact that you do not play all the teams. Now this to me is unheard of, how do you create a system with a round robin where teams don’t play the same opposition? It simply just doesn’t make any sense at all.

My second issue is the fact that the tournament is now so long, lasting an almighty 24 weeks in total. In fact it is so long now that it has to be interrupted after week 15 just to accommodate the June internationals and then recommence at the end of June. It then runs until the first week in August.

My third issue is the fact that the Currie Cup, South Africa’s premier domestic competition has now been reduced to six teams, purely because there just isn’t enough time in the calendar to have 8 teams competing. When you consider that 5 of these teams are already playing a double round in the Super XV, they will repeat the same process and just add one more team. Where is the common sense in that?

My fourth issue and perhaps the most significant one is the Conference system. When you scrutinise it in-depth, all it really does is guarantee every participating country a qualifier for the knock out rounds because the leading Franchise in each Conference gets a spot.

This is however not the end of the farce, as the top two log leaders of these three qualifying franchises are guaranteed a semi-final spot, whilst the remaining leading franchise of the other Conference has to play a qualifying match against one of the next three qualifiers of the log.

The reasons why this conference system in itself is farcical is that if one country has a much stronger conference than the other two nations, it stands to reason that the log leader of that conference might not be in the top two nations of the log, hence they will not only have a tougher route by having to play a double round of matches in their tougher conference, but then will also have to play an additional qualifying match because of it.

To further add insult to injury, a conference with less competitive strength will provide the leading franchise of that conference with an almost insurmountable advantage as they will have a situation whereby they can rack up a log points against 2 or even 3 poor teams in a home and away fixtures that teams in other conferences may not even play once. This could be an advantage of anything up to 20 log points.

That is absolutely ludicrous when comparing the Super XV to previous models of the Super 14, 12 and even Super 10 whereby every team played every other team on an alternating home and away basis bi-anually.

Now you may argue that I am being extremely critical about the new Conference system, and perhaps that may be true, but this system reeks of manipulating results in a manner where the maximum TV audiences in each of these respective countries can be enticed to remain glued to the television set for the duration of the tournament and not only up to the point where their country’s representative teams have been eliminated.

In the history of the Super Rugby Tournament on 6 occasions not all three countries were represented in the semi-finals, Australia 1998, 2007, 2009, New Zealand 2001 and South Africa 2002, 2003, did not make the semi-finals, but is that not the nature of the beast?

In my view teams should compete on equal footing for the honour of earning a well deserved semi-final spot. When teams are virtually guaranteed to make the semi-finals because of a new look system that is neither logical nor fair, the importance of the achievement is degraded and frankly meaningless.

It is my hope that when the next installment of broadcasting rights are discussed around the table by SANZAR, that they will take a long hard look at the compromises that have been taken when the conference system was put into place.

Looks good Biltong, I've fixed some minor typos (spaces in semi-final), capitalisation.

I understand the semi-final system was SARU's idea, and NZ and Aus went along with it as they got their own way over the Rebels getting the 15th team spot.

Do you know where I can reference that Kiwi?

However SANZAR came about to decide on that system it was bound to be flawed when they wanted three conferences.

biltongbek wrote:Do you know where I can reference that Kiwi?

However SANZAR came about to decide on that system it was bound to be flawed when they wanted three conferences.

I'll have a search. From memory it was based on an opinion piece in an NZ newspaper.

And on 2nd thoughts, it may have been that NZ and Oz wanted an expanded semis series (similar to the NRL one) and SA would only agree to the one they put in.

Here's an article on how daft the permutations can be http://www.nzherald.co.nz/sanzar/news/article.cfm?o_id=500498&objectid=10721049

Now you know exactly why this is a load of BS in my view.

Can't find anything on who's idea it was, and from memory it was an NZ columnist repeating gossip (SANZAR generally don't release meeting minutes)