SA teams unduly favored by the new format

The next is an artcle from The Roar which shows without doubt how much the SA teams are going to be favored by the new format.

http://www.theroar.com.au/2016/02/22/a-tale-of-four-conferences-super-rugby-2016/comment-page-3/#comment-4701194

The first table just shows what would have happened last season if the new bonus point system had been applied. The principal table shows what would be the final table if the same matches and results of last year would have been played under the new format. It's been made refilling this season's fixtures with last year's results (or in some few cases those of 2014).

The author "assumed the Kings and Sunwolves would be well beaten home and away i.e. maximum points would be gotten. For the Jaguares I thought they would win their opening game against the Cheetahs away, the Sunwolves away, the Kings away, and then win their home games except against the Bulls due to excessive travel."

The compolete explanation in the article.

The results


The next shows the results of the changes wrought by the new conference format.

The analysis and conclusion

What is interesting to note that the top three are very close, and seven teams vying for the last twi positions. Of course, the specific teams and specific outcome may vary but I believe this sort of grouping will occur quite often.

For an Australian or New Zealand Team to top the table they need a very good year. For a South African team to top the table they need to be in the conference not playing New Zealand teams and only have a reasonable year.

South African teams do well overall against Australian teams but poorly against New Zealand teams, in fact not as well as Australian teams. So one South African conference not playing any New Zealand teams is a significant bonus.

Additionally the other significant advantage gained is the top team in the South African conference that plays the New Zealand teams (and hence has a very similar draw to the Australian teams) has a poor year yet can jump from 10th to 4th due to the system of home team finals for conference winners.

In my analysis I think the impact of the new conferences is best demonstrated by the differences by conference between the old and the new. The specific positioning and actual points of each team can fluctuate based upon one different result. However over all the differences in points over the whole conference tells an interesting story. These differences are highlighted in purple.

The Australian conference is fairly neutral, with a total of six extra points over five teams.

The New Zealand conference is fairly neutral, with three less points over 5 teams. The gain of playing less New Zealand teams is balanced by playing the new team Jaguares and only playing 3 South African teams instead of 4 and an extra Australian team.

South Africa Conference 2 is neutral with two less points difference over two teams. The advantage of playing weak teams is counterbalanced by having to play the strong New Zealand conference and having the strongest new team in their conference.

The schedule of matches for this conference is very similar to the Australian one in that it plays every New Zealand team and every team in the South Africa Conference 1. The biggest unknown and variance is the performance of the Jaguares.

South Africa Conference 1 is the big winner, in total 35 points better over three teams or an average of 12 points better each which is three wins.

The Bulls jump from 9th to 5th by points. The Stormers from fifth to second by points. They leapfrog three positions each. So the top team in this conference will have a greatly enhanced chance of finishing first. Furthermore the second team in this conference will have a significant advantage in being in the first two wildcards.

South African Conference 2 also gets one advantage, despite most likely finishing mid table they will still get a home final.

Hurricanes still manage to top the board losing only 2 games whilst the Stormers lost five games.

Of course the following year it would be the other South African conference that benefits the most whilst ever the New Zealand conference is the strongest.

The system is not fair, however nor is life.

 the same author has completed his study with a table that shows what would have happened if last year matches had been played under a system with no conferences playing every team once against every other team

The difference between the traditional and 2016 conference system using 2015 data

The next table shows the results of the changes wrought by the new conference format compared to a traditional system on 2015 results.

The analysis

There is a very significant difference for one conference between the traditional system and the new four conference system.

The Australian conference has a small bias towards it of 2.6 points per team. Approximately one extra drawn game per team.

The South African conference two has a small bias towards it of five points per team. That’s one bonus game win per team.

It is as expected for these two conferences to be so similar since they have the same draw, play every New Zealand team once, and play the other South African conference once.

The New Zealand conference has a negligible bias against it of -0.2 points per team. This is better than the three conference system because it has less games within it’s own conference and one more against the Australian conference.

The South African conference one has a major bias towards it of 16.3 points per team. This is an advantage of an extra four wins per team.

The conclusion

The traditional system and the three conference system are quite equal but the four conference system is quite skewed and it is easy to see who the pigs are in this animal farm and who are the sheep, cows and horses.

For an Australian or New Zealand Team to top the table they need a very good year. For a South African team to top the table they need to be in the conference not playing New Zealand teams and only have a reasonable year. South African teams do well overall against Australian teams but poorly against New Zealand teams, in fact not as well as Australian teams. So one South African conference not playing any New Zealand teams is a significant bonus.

Additionally the other significant advantage gained is the top team in the South African conference that plays the New Zealand teams (and hence has a very similar draw to the Australian teams) has a poor year yet can jump from tenth to fourth due to the system of home team finals for conference winners.

 So we have that the new 4 conference system gives to the Stormers and Bulls an ad vantage of around 20 points. These are 5 wins!

That's a hell of advantage!!!!!!!!

I agree, this system favours the SA teams..or at least gurantees they'll make it to the play-offs. 
Bring back the Super 14. 4 each from Aus NZ and SA, and one each from Arg and Jap. Every team plays every other team, top four go through to the semi's. Make each team travel an equal amount. Simple! 

Good post AB, many of us were talking about how SA teams had an unfair advantage but this article really quantifies it.
Of course we will have to rely on the refs being "fair" to offset this unfair advantage. Beeno, may we have your response please?

 I agree with BB. The best format was the S14. Better still. If they really wanted to incorporate the Japanese and  Arg teams, they could have gone back to the original S12 (four teams each from SA, NZ and OZ) and then added the Jap and Arg teams which brings us back to a S14.
Coincidently one of the key SA figures when the terms for the S15 were negotiated Andy Marinos, the same  clown who is now heading the circus. That is also the same clown who lead the WP/Stormers players' strike back in the day.
@ABF, I think you would  go far to find many SA supporters who  favour the new  18 team BS format, if any. One do not need paragraph upon paragraph and graphics to know that it is sh1t idea. 

 I don't think so necessarily, because a lot of our player resources are being spread over so many teams now and therefore all our teams are weaker.

Its a dumb format.
Nothing new here that hasn't already been acknowledged. Even the organizers recognize the competitive bias in the schedule and it is why the playoffs will have two more teams (5 total) from the Australasian group than the South African group (3 total).
Where the bias will really make an impact is in the seeding for the playoffs and home field advantage.
If they had half a clue there would be an A and B division with relegation/promotion after every season. A sure fire way to keep the competition fresh and competitive. 

great read there basque fan,

but this bitter pill is not that hard to swallow thnx to the 2015 spXV debacle. stormers 45pts, crusaders 46pts, but stormers make the finals and crusaders season is over??? talk about smh in disgust.

if SARU and the Bok coach had the intestinal fortitude to pick only SA based rugby players dor its national team, the number of high quality players leaving SA shores for $$$ would be dramatically reduced.
this would stop the hemorrhaging of players leaving SA and in turn strengthen their spXV teams.

remember when SA sulked cos the rebels were picked as the 15th super rugby team and not the kings???
they threatened to leave the SANZAR comps and go play in the NH, -_-

i need a LMAO and facepalm hybrid meme to adequately respond to that.

Great to see you back here Naruto San!

Would you look at that...finally we can all agree on something!! 

 JW you know us well enough by now. We don't want an unfair advantage unlike you corrupted down under oaks living off corrupt refs.You got it JW?
Frankly the whole system sucks. Given the overseas exodus we can field bout four competitive sides. So yes how about a super 14 as Bluebok says.
Yes great to see the nar otter san back!!!

Beeno, in an enlightened society we take care of those who are less fortunate - as a Christian I am sure you agree?
By extension the rugby world is lending a helping hand to the SA teams - one should be sympathetic - I guess. Some might call this cheating