2012 Super.... 15?

[BjR]

So, is it definitely confirmed that it'l still be Super 15? I heard rumors that the Southern Kings were finally gonna break into it, IMO that'll be silly with another SA team.

Then again, it'll make better pool play and hopefully less byes

 

[TRF_Ezequiel]

The schedule was announced a couple of weeks ago:

http://superxv.com/fixtures/

 

[TRF_stormer2010]

Soonest Kings are coming in will be in 2013 (according to a promise SARU made the union) and then only probably at the expense of another S15 team. Kings are set to join the Currie cup in 2012 but the final decisions are yet to be announced in that regard as well.

 

[TRF_Ezequiel]

It would be unfair to promote the Kings when they lost the final to Boland. The only way, the Kings are promoted is to relegate 2 teams and keep the no. of teams in the PD at 8, which is not what SARU was thinking of.

They were thinking to relegate 3 teams, promote the Kings and leave the PD with 6 teams. Now that is all uncertain because of their massive loss in the Championship final

 

[TRF_stormer2010]

^^^ True enough but the staff (at the Kings) are arguing that SHOULD they get promoted (unfairly) they'd be in a 'position of certainty' and COULD/WOULD get in the required players. Hot air IMO but this is SA politics..

 

[TRF_heineken]

^^^ True enough but the staff (at the Kings) are arguing that SHOULD they get promoted (unfairly) they'd be in a 'position of certainty' and COULD/WOULD get in the required players. Hot air IMO but this is SA politics..

by that you mean Puke Twatson's dad Cheeky...

if we watched this year's Super 15, it would've been an easy swap for the Kings to take the place of the Lions, but after this Currie Cup, the problem is much worse... but the only real margin to work with, will be next year's super 15... and yet I still can't see the Kings coming into the Super 15...

this has been now 2 years in a row where they failed to get into the Premier Division, and teams like the Griquas, Pumas and Leopards showed they're more hungry, more deserving and more willing to take that 5th spot if it was to be open for other teams to qualify...

 

[TRF_stormer2010]

Yes, Cheeky Watson (die einste).

If the Kings coming into the S15 is a given then there is only 3 options I can see;

1 A very unfortunate and unfair dropping of either the Cheetahs (smallest union finance and fanbase wise; Bloem is not a big city) or the Lions (mainly because they have been the worst in recetn years and the Bulls are VERY close ITO geography- that way the 5 teams would be about as far seperated as possible) - join the Lion/Bulls, Lions/Ceetahs or Cheetahs/Kings? not a long term option though and not sure it should even be considered (remember the Cats?)

2 change the conferene system (which sucks IMO in any case and only benefits Aus)

3 Expand to a Super 18 ASAP and get 1 Argentine team (Pampas and a team based in Beunos Aires) into each of the NZ and Aus conferences to equal it up at 6 teams per conference.

 

[Deadmonton]

I'd rather they didn't add more teams, but if they must add the Kings, they should add an Argentine team, and either another Argentine team or a team to represent the Pacific Islands.

 

[smartcooky]

No way to work a system that has one conference with more teams than the others, because teams in that conference would play more matches, and therefore would accumulate more table points, giving them an unfair advantage on the Composite Table.

I have no problem with the Conference system as it stands. Yes it does give those teams participating in a Conference containing two weak teams an advantage. In
2011 that was the Australian conference, but in a few years time, it could be another conference. Remember the Bulls, Lions and Sharks in 2002. They finished in the bottom three spots managing to win only five matches between them. How easy would it have been for the Stormers to make the semis that year (they finished 7th)

I would also like to see the "missing" matches done away with.

 

[TRF_heineken]

No way to work a system that has one conference with more teams than the others, because teams in that conference would play more matches, and therefore would accumulate more table points, giving them an unfair advantage on the Composite Table.

I have no problem with the Conference system as it stands. Yes it does give those teams participating in a Conference containing two weak teams an advantage. In
2011 that was the Australian conference, but in a few years time, it could be another conference. Remember the Bulls, Lions and Sharks in 2002. They finished in the bottom three spots managing to win only five matches between them. How easy would it have been for the Stormers to make the semis that year (they finished 7th)

I would also like to see the "missing" matches done away with.

Yeah I agree, There has to be equal amount of teams in a pool/conference. WIth that being said, I feel at the moment 15 teams with only 6 spots available is not enough to justify a good season for a team. If we add 3 more teams, we would have 18 teams, 6 in a pool/Conference and then the top 2 of each pool goes automatically through as well as the next 2 best finishers. that will set it up for Quarter Finals, Semi Finals and then a Final, with every team having to give as much as any other team.

One of the main reasons why it expanded was because John O'neill felt that Australia was getting the worst end of the stick and that they were falling behind, and by expansion, the better Aussie teams got a bigger advantage than the SA and NZ teams.

If we can add the Kings to SA's pool, for the first couple of years they'll definitely be the whipping boys of the tournament, but that will just aid the other SA franchises...

With that being said, i think it would be terribly cruel if they were to be allowed to play Super 15 ahead of other top ranked franchises, even if they can't even qualify to play in the premier local division...

 

[Tricia McMillan]

No way to work a system that has one conference with more teams than the others, because teams in that conference would play more matches, and therefore would accumulate more table points, giving them an unfair advantage on the Composite Table.

Not that I'm a proponent of uneven conference sizes, but having unequal conference/division/group/whatever sizes works in North American leagues. Until somewhat recently, the NFL had 31 teams total (5 divisions of 5 and one of 6). Currently, the baseball league has 30 teams, but instead of 6 divisions of 5, they have 4 divisions of 5, one of 4, and one of 6.

It works out for them in the end, the NFL teams all played 16 games, and the baseball teams all end the season with 162. I have yet to hear any real discussion between baseball/NFL fans on whether they think it's "fair" or not though - but I get the impression that they don't think it really matters.

 

[TRF_stormer2010]

No way to work a system that has one conference with more teams than the others, because teams in that conference would play more matches, and therefore would accumulate more table points, giving them an unfair advantage on the Composite Table.

I have no problem with the Conference system as it stands. Yes it does give those teams participating in a Conference containing two weak teams an advantage. In
2011 that was the Australian conference, but in a few years time, it could be another conference. Remember the Bulls, Lions and Sharks in 2002. They finished in the bottom three spots managing to win only five matches between them. How easy would it have been for the Stormers to make the semis that year (they finished 7th)

I would also like to see the "missing" matches done away with.

Yeah, I don't think anyone would suggest a disproportionate number of teams per conference. Also agreed on the "missing" matches as you put it being a bit of an unfortunate situation; the beauty (if you could call it that) of Super rugby was that all the teams played against each other which made it "fair".

In a perfect world (IMO);
> each team plays each other once and once only (no double conference match-ups; that's what domestic rugby is for)
> Aus get a meaningful domestic championship up and running (without giving up after 1 sub-successful year)
> possibly.. Kings and Arg/PI team(s) join ("make up" for the 2 less games played per team; [minus 4 inter-conference matches][plus 2 international matches- add the "missing matches"] )

 

[Tricia McMillan]

In a perfect world (IMO);
> each team plays each other once and once only (no double conference match-ups; that's what domestic rugby is for)
> Aus get a meaningful domestic championship up and running (without giving up after 1 sub-successful year)
> possibly.. Kings and Arg/PI team(s) join ("make up" for the 2 less games played per team; [minus 4 inter-conference matches][plus 2 international matches- add the "missing matches"] )

I agree with pretty much all of this.

I'd also like to see the season a bit shorter. 2011 was too long to begin with, and now 2012 is even longer. Grrr...

 

[TRF_heineken]

Well with the NZ squads already named, and the Lions winning the currie cup... it looks like the SA and NZ pools are going to be really tough!!

Not much news about the aussie squads apart from the Rebels signing a bunch of guys...

I know it's still a bit early, but I'm already looking forward to the tournament!!

 

[smartcooky]

Not that I'm a proponent of uneven conference sizes, but having unequal conference/division/group/whatever sizes works in North American leagues. Until somewhat recently, the NFL had 31 teams total (5 divisions of 5 and one of 6). Currently, the baseball league has 30 teams, but instead of 6 divisions of 5, they have 4 divisions of 5, one of 4, and one of 6.

It works out for them in the end, the NFL teams all played 16 games, and the baseball teams all end the season with 162. I have yet to hear any real discussion between baseball/NFL fans on whether they think it's "fair" or not though - but I get the impression that they don't think it really matters.

Yes, but they don't have a composite table that is used to qualify the playoff teams, and they don't accumulate table points the way we do. Playoff qualification is done purely on their position withing their respective conferences, which is decided on win-loss ratio.

The two conferences (AFC and NFC) have four divisions in each; North, South, East & West. Each division has four teams. Within each conference, the winner of each division gets in the playoffs and then the next two best win-loss records get in as wild cards. The playoff seeding works like this:
Top seed = Division winner with the best win/loss record
2nd seed = Division winner with the second best win/loss record
3rd seed = Division winner with the third best record
4th seed = Division winner with the fourth best record
5th seed = Division runner-up with the best record
6th seed = Division runner-up with the second best record

The from that point, the playoff system works the same at Super Rugby. In the first round, 1 & 2 get the week off, 3 plays 6, 4 plays 5. The lower seeded winner of the first round plays the No. 1 seed, the higher seeded winner plays the second seed. The highest seeded team gets home advantage

You end up with an AFC winner and a NFC winner, and they playoff for the Vince Lombardi trophy in the Superbowl, which is always played at a predetermined neutral venue.


Interestingly, if Super Rugby had used that system last year, the playoff teams would have been slightly different;

win-loss-draw record in brackets after the team name
actual 2011 SR seeding in Red

1st seed - Reds (13-3) 1st
2nd seed - Stormers (12-4) 2nd
3rd seed - Crusaders (10-5-1) 3rd
-----------------------------
4th seed - Sharks (10-5-1) 6th - on head to head record
5th seed - Blues (10-5-1) 4th
6th seed - Bulls (10-6-1) DNQ- gets in ahead of the Waratahs (10-6-1) 5th - by virtue of the best Head-to-head record) -