Template talk:2016 Super Rugby standings

Any point?

Is there any point in having this table? The only time teams from different groups need to be compared is in the seeding of the two sets of 8 finalists. The full table will end up with highlit rows all over the place. 2.100.179.76 (talk) 19:44, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

Since the first criterion on classifying teams is to sort conference winners first, it won't ever be "all over the place". The top 4 sides will always be the conference winners (i.e. in green). I removed the colouring for the wildcards in the overall table, since it won't necessarily be teams 5 to 8 to qualify from there. Since the overall classification is used to determine the seeding, there would be a point in showing it, yes. TheMightyPeanut (talk) 13:22, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

I'd be very impressed if the conference winners always end up sorted to the top of that table even if they have fewer table points than some conference non-winners! For comparison, the ERCC/Heineken Cup pages don't lump all 20 teams into one table, they just have a smaller table showing the seeding of the winners/qualifiers - like page 3 of this document http://files.allblacks.com/comms/new-era-super-rugby/Outline-%20Super-Rugby-Comp-Structure-infographic.pdf 89.197.18.3 (talk) 12:53, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

Prepare to be impressed then. In 2012, Australian Conference winners the Reds finished on 58 points, while the Crusaders (second in the New Zealand Conference) finished on 61 points. The Reds were classified ahead of the Crusaders. The Reds were also classified ahead of the Bulls and the Sharks, who both finished on 59 points. TheMightyPeanut (talk) 15:39, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

Obviously a moot point until the season begins, but I believe the wildcard teams should be highlighted in the overall table and ranked as teams 5-8, given that the quarter final matchups are (correctly) listed as teams 1-4 vs 5-8, which implies that as the four conference leaders will always be ranked 1-4 on the overall table (regardless of their points relative to the non-conference-leaders), so should the four wildcard leaders always be ranked 5-8 on the table (regardless of their points relative to teams which are not in finals positions). Does that make sense? 203.87.11.54 (talk) 05:56, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

Hi there, that all depends on the tie-breaker criteria for the logs. For 2011–15, the first tie-breaker was whether the team was a conference leader/winner or not, followed by log points, games won, points difference, etc. I haven't seen anything clarifying how this will be affected by the new format; if the tie-breaking criteria was changed to now be conference leader, then wildcard teams, then log points, etc., then your suggestion would make perfect sense. If, however, the tie-breaking criteria remained as before, it would be incorrect, since teams 5 to 8 won't necessarily be the wildcard teams. TheMightyPeanut (talk) 09:28, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

About the overall table I think is better put the teams in his real position, and highlighted as conference leaders & wildcards. Really, Cheetahs 4th wih 1 pts is a joke to any overall table.--186.137.91.137 (talk) 22:04, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

The teams are in their 'real' positions, according to the rules of the competition. The Cheetahs were only temporarily in fourth spot before any of the other teams in their conference actually played any matches. TheMightyPeanut (talk) 09:13, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

Excuse me TheMightyPeanut but that not is true (The teams are in their 'real' positions, according to the rules of the competition). The 2 links used in the article to the tables confirm this. The Super Rugby page only use Groups & Conferences tables, none Overall table there. You can even see the explanatory video of SANZAAR, and uses exactly the same, Groups and Conferences, none Overall table again. In SA Rugby site the teams are all together but divided by groups. Is easy to knowing with just watch the site. My point, if you were to use a Overall Table in the article should be placed teams in their "real" position, and highlighted those who are making a place in the next phase, either as group leaders or wild-cards, because don't exist a oficial overall table!!!. About Cheetahs, was only a example.Hernán186.137.91.137 (talk) 16:31, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

Certain other sites do have an overall table, such as the FoxSports website and the NZRU's Super Rugby website. On the FoxSports website right now, you can see the Crusaders classified ahead of the Lions (despite an inferior points difference), because the Crusaders are the New Zealand Conference leader. On the NZRU Super Rugby website (not updated with today's matches), you can see the Blues classified ahead of the Sharks and Waratahs, despite having less log points, because the Blues were the New Zealand Conference leader. TheMightyPeanut (talk) 16:43, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

IMHO, all the important information is in the two main conference groupings, "Africa" and "Australasia" as this is where the finalists come from and it is only necessary to see the highlights in these two charts. These are the really important charts and should be placed at the top of the chart profile. The only reason to bother with the "overall table" is for seeding (at the end of the home and away season) but otherwise simply a basic curiosity for an overall comparison for those who like more charts than you can poke the proverbial stick at. Using highlights in this chart is simply adding unnecessary repetition (tautology?) which actually complicates the issue, but can stimulate amusing discussion between people who have more time than they know what to do with themselves. The individual conference charts really serve nothing more than the curious comparison of teams within each individual conference while fulfilling the urges of people who like creating and reading such things. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jlyster (talk • contribs) 11:35, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

Hi @Jlyster:, you're right re the overall table, it's only relevant for the play-off seeding. I just removed that. However, you're wrong re the conferences - the winner of each conference will qualify for the play-offs (not the top two in each group), so the conference standings are indeed of importance and not just a "curious comparison". TheMightyPeanut (talk) 12:35, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

Hello "Mr. Peanut". I'm glad you followed my reasoning here, to a degree. Personally, I wasn't opposed to the idea of an "Overall Table", however it certainly didn't deserve the significance of being the top most table. I think if it was installed below the two "Group Tables" and renamed the "Seeding Table" then that would be fine, not withstanding its lack of utility until the end of the "home and away" season. In the meantime it is essentially just a curiosity. Nothing wrong with that I suppose, so long as it is not afforded the significance of being inserted at the top of all these tables. I would certainly not have inserted the "highlight colours" in this particular table as this simply adds to the unnecessary complication and repetition as that info is more than adequately handled in the two "Group Tables". The whole point of the "home and away" season is to get into the finals and this battle is best viewed from within these two "Group Tables" with their highlight boxes as you so adequately show. Because the "points for seedings" are not specifically related to this battle for a finals position, then I think the "Seeding Table" is simply best left with the list of teams in the order of points and without the highlights of conference winners and wildcards. At times, I can imagine these highlights beginning to look a little "all over the place" as was discussed above. Yes I do agree with your last point regarding the individual "Conference Tables", however my point is that this information is once again essentially covered in the two "Group Tables". Yes yes, it is fine to have "more charts than one can poke the proverbial stick at", for those who like this sort of stuff, however their comes a point where "too much information" just becomes too confusing except for those of us with PhDs in making up such things. But I can see that these four "Conference Tables" do have their place. In terms of utility I would have the "Overall Table" renamed as a "Seeding Table", with no team highlights and below the four "Conference Tables" with a short note to explain that this only becomes important as the determinant of the order of the finalists at the end of the "home and away". Personally I am an AFL fan and while I acknowledge the culture of the great English game, I think it suffers from an inherent tendency towards complication that seems to be repeated here. But I mean that in a nice way. 14.2.119.48 (talk) 09:20, 15 March 2016 (UTC) 14.2.119.48 (talk) 09:26, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

Hi there - the thing is, the overall table was simply brought forward from the 2015 season, when all websites used it; however, most seem to have now dropped it, with some exceptions such the FoxSports website and the NZRU's Super Rugby website. Rather than moving the overall table and renaming it a "Seeding Table", I moved that information here, which probably makes more sense. Even if a "Seeding Table" was reintroduced, you can't leave it as a "list of teams in the order of points". The sort order is to have the conference leaders/winners first, then the rest. Right at this moment, it won't actually make any difference, but it often does, such as in 2015 when the Highlanders had the second-best record, but were classified fourth. As to your argument that the conference table information is essentially covered in the group tables - you can take that one step further and argue that all the group table information is also essentially covered in the overall table, so in essence, that would be all that would be required. And as for the "inherent tendency towards complication" - I really won't apply that to all rugby union competitions. However, the current Super Rugby format came in for a lot of criticism for its complexity. I guess that's a price you have to pay for trying to please too many stakeholders. TheMightyPeanut (talk) 09:40, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

Hello. Awesome. I think you have it just right now, especially how you put the "Conference Winners/Leaders" and "Wildcards" as separate tables and then inserted them where you have in between the "Home and Away" and "Finals" as this is where these become relevant. This is the right balance of the right information in the right place, while not blowing people away with endless, perhaps unnecessary, data at the top. I think this is the go. I concur with the rest of your thoughts. Essentially the "overall table" has become an anachronism given the way this competition is set up and is now just for people who are in the habit of looking at such things. I bet there will be people who still expect this even though it has no utility. Yes, the "complexity" here does not come from the game of rugby, as such, it comes from the structure of this competition and is actually unavoidable, given the reality of such a grand scheme. I was intrigued at how they would go about striking this balance of TV, fairness, balance, simplicity while keeping in mind the operational realities such as team travel, costs, stadia etc etc. Such a monumental project that must have taken a lot of effort and negotiation. The AFL has similar issues in scheduling but micro by comparison. What every competition wants is essentially a fair balance of all teams playing each other, preferably at home and away. The AFL has 18 teams and in a 22 game season this is not possible, so the concept of conferences has actually come up. Having said that, I have actually tried to look at Union as a game and tried to figure it out. If I may be so bold, I have come to conclusion that it is extremely complicated, too much so. I don't mean to be unreasonably critical, however I can see how the rules were changed to Rugby League in order to simplify the game and make it more open as a spectacle. Nevertheless, I'm sure that greater minds than mine have been looking at these issues for as long as this game has been played. cheers 14.2.121.184 (talk) 11:44, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

Hello again. Just another thought/suggestion. Perhaps you might like to put the four "Conference" boxes into an order that makes it easier for the reader to find out who their team plays throughout the course of the season. If I may, my suggestion would be to have the "Australian Conference" Box first with the "New Zealand Conference" Box to its right (so they would have to be formatted a little smaller in order to fit them in) and then the "Africa 1 Conference" Box below the Australian box with the "Africa 2 Conference" Box to the right of this and just below the NZ box. Add to this the annotation that indicates that members of each Conference/Box play other members of said box six times while playing those of the two neighbouring Conferences/Boxes once each......if you get my drift. This would also add extra utility to the reason for having these "Conference" boxes. Just a thought. 14.2.121.184 (talk) 12:13, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

Hi again, the change you're proposing would probably be more relevant to the "Competition format" section in 2016 Super Rugby season. Also, while Africa 1 play Australia and Africa 2 play New Zealand this season, it would look fine, but in 2017 Africa 2 will play New Zealand and Africa 1 will play Australia, then the order might not make sense. TheMightyPeanut (talk) 11:40, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

Sorry, but I am a little confused here. My proposal was simply a suggestion re the layout of the four "Conference" boxes, regardless of where you have inserted them. At this moment you have them under the "Standings" heading, which I think is appropriate. I appreciate that you have a worded comment regarding who teams are playing in the "Competition Format" paragraph, however I think that if the "Conference" boxes were laid out in the manner I have suggested then this might give a neat visual indication of who teams are playing. It's hard to describe in words, but I do have a visual image of what I am trying to say. Please excuse me however I am also confused by your second sentence here. It looks to me as if you have repeated yourself. If I understand you correctly then you are suggesting that in 2017 Australia will play Africa 2 and New Zealand will play Africa 1, something that could be addressed when you set up the wiki page for next season, simply be reversing the names of the Africa boxes underneath the Australasian boxes........if I understand this correctly. 14.2.121.184 (talk) 12:22, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

Yes, that's what I meant (I swapped too many of them around!). If Africa 2 is to the left of Africa 1, or New Zealand to the left of Australia, someone somewhere would inevitably complain that it's not in alphabetic/numeric order. I assume you mean something like this image, with each box containing a contracted version of the conference log? I just think information pertaining to the fixtures being played is better suited to the "Competition format" section, in the same way the seedings of the top four teams are better suited to the "Finals" section. If you compare the Google results for 2016 Super Rugby format and 2016 Super Rugby standings, you'll see the "format" search provide more results similar to your proposal. That's obviously just my opinion... TheMightyPeanut (talk) 13:33, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

Well my friend everything is everyone's opinion and since this is your show then you will do things as you see fit and no doubt someone, somewhere will quibble with something. At least that means they are taking notice, lol. Yes I agree with you that "information pertaining to the fixtures is better suited to the "Competition Format" section....." as shown by your google searches and if you chose to create this new chart for this purpose then this is where you would put it. Yes your diagram is along the lines of what I proposed, although it seems to be visually more complicated than what I had in mind, simply because of the extra wording you have in it, albeit useful. Since you have this wording in that diagram then the only suggested change I would make is to the sentences within the brackets. eg for the Africa Group (8 teams, finals comprise the 2 Conference winners + 1 wildcard) Nevertheless, my over riding feeling is one of "too many charts is too much information", hence my preference to simply have your present four conference boxes displayed in the "Standings Section" in the way I described above, with just a single sentence to indicate why they are laid out in this manner. I prefer less charts and minimal wording in them..............visual simplicity. Then just flip flop the conference boxes for subsequent years as you create the new wiki page for that year. If someone "complains that they are not in alphabetical order" then surely the simple explanatory sentence should suffice? Indeed, I notice in your present layout of the Conference Boxes that they are not in alphabetical order. (Australia, NZ, Africa 1, Africa 2) Well done and good luck to you, this is a complicated scenario and it is just about the balance of trying to communicate it all but keeping it simple. 14.2.41.16 (talk) 00:49, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

SORRY, GUYS, I'M AMAZED AND DISAPPOINTED AT DROPPING THE OVERALL TABLE. THE WHOLE PURPOSE OF REGULAR SEASON IS TO DETERMINE FINAL EIGHT AND PAIRING FOR QUARTER-FINALS. HENCE, THE PRIMARY TABLE - WITH ALL 18 TEAMS ON IT - IS A MUST 'CAUSE IT CLEARLY SHOWS WHO SITS WHERE AND WHAT CHANCES THEY HAVE AT THIS POINT OF THE SEASON. AND IT IS TOO EASY TO MAINTAIN THIS OVERALL ONE: YOU SIMPLY PUT 4 CONFERENCE LEADERS IN TOP FOUR AND THEN FILL NEXT 4 WILDCARD PLACES SO THAT 3 COME FROM EITHER NZL|AUS AND JUST 1 FROM SA1|SA2

TO MY OBSERVATION, IT IS JUST UNFORTUBATE THAT SANZAAR OFFICIAL'DOM DOES NOT HAVE THAT KIND OF TABLE ON THEIR SITE - WITH S15 THEY NEEDED ONLY 2 TABS IN LADDER'S HEADING WHILST IN S18 NOW THEY NEED 3 BUT ARE UNWILLING TO PAY THEIR DEVELOPPER|CODER A FEW BOBS TO UPGRADE THAT FRAME. ON THE OTHER HAND, FOX SPORT ARE LAVISH AND OK - VERY SIMPLE

I'M A VOLUNTEER AND FOLLOW SR AVIDLY. I DO ONLY OVERALL TABLE http://ovaluri.comxa.com/2016/Q3/16_ZERA-03+EN.htm AND THINK IT IS ENOUGH FOR MY READERSHIP. AND AFTER ALL, DOING IS BETTER THAN NOT. HENCE, I STRONGLY ADVOCATE FOR WIKI - A ZILLION TIMES AUTHORITATIVE AND RESPECTED SOURCE THAN MY PERSONAL SITE + IN GEORGIAN LANGUAGE - TO RESTORE THAT DROPPED OVERALL TABLE - AS FINALS SECTION AFTER 17 ROUNDS IS BEING TOO OBSCURED BY THOSE 17 ROUND-LONG BLOCK

AND FINAL QUESTION: WHAT LAZY SANZAAR WILL DO AFTER COMPLETION OF 17 ROUNDS? WILL NOT THEY PUBLISH THAT VERY SAME 18-TEAM TABLE YOU HAVE DROPPED 'CAUSE SOME READERS DID NOT LIKE IT? CHEERS etc etc — Preceding unsigned comment added by 176.221.164.75 (talk) 06:14, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

Overall table - Yes or no?

First people wanted it, now they don't... Let's do this democratically: should there be an overall table for the Super Rugby standings?

For people requiring background information – there are 18 teams in Super Rugby, they are divided into four conferences (Australia, New Zealand, Africa 1 and Africa 2) and two groups (the Australasian Group comprises of the Australia and New Zealand Conferences and the South African Group comprises of Africa 1 and Africa 2 Conferences). The four conference winners will qualify to the quarter finals, along with three wildcard teams from the Australasian Group and one from the South African group. For the quarter finals, teams will be ranked (the conference winners as Teams 1 to 4, the wildcard teams as Teams 5 to 8) and Team 1 will host Team 8, Team 2 will host Team 7, Team 3 will host Team 6 and Team 4 will host Team 5. Anyway, initially, an Overall table was shown, along with the individual Group and Conference tables. Some people wanted the overall table removed, since the only real relevance is to show the seeding of the teams for the quarter finals. When it was removed, some people want it added back in ... since it shows the seeding of the teams for the quarter finals.

To give you an idea of what some of the official websites show – the official site only shows the group and conference classification, as does the South African Rugby Union website. Some websites, such as the Brumbies website and the Hurricanes website just show an overall table, while websites such as the New Zealand Rugby Union and Sunwolves websites show both an overall table and conference and group tables. So, basically, there is no commonly-accepted standard for this.

Just one thing to note – according to the classification/seeding rules, teams 1 to 4 will always be the Conference winners, teams 5 to 8 will be the wildcards, and then the remaining teams, so there won't ever be a case of the 8th-placed team qualifying for the quarter finals instead of the 8th-placed team (which might lead to some strange colouring, etc). However, it would mean that the 9th-placed team could actually have more log points than the 8th-placed team (however, this is also the case with the existing tables – as an example, the winner of the Australian Conference might have less points than the runner-up in the New Zealand Conference, but would be ranked higher due to the fact that it's a Conference winner).

You can see the current template without an Overall table and a historic table with an Overall table.

So, anyway, what do the people want? An Overall table, yes or no? TheMightyPeanut (talk) 13:22, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

Yes, personally I want it included. Sirpottingmix (talk) 18:32, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

Dropping of Overall Table suits cheats as well. For SA and Kings it's much better to be 8th in Conference than 18th overall. And I've not found yet anything like Wiki's Finals 8 Table on SANZAAR site. They may argue it's too early but I see it more as their site staff's inability to calculate amd maintain correct placings. So, why Wiki should follow those incompetent people? Cheers. Zaal, aka Qaflan, of Georgia, Caucasus, operating Ovaluri Oazisi since April 2002 = now shown on web only since January 2009 (old material archived) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 176.221.164.75 (talk) 06:06, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

me TOO. MORE SHOULD BE BETTER THAN LESS, TABLE-WISE. Who is against? Andy Marinos? Cheers, Zaal of GEO

For those who are missing it = THAT Table

Sorry for delay = usually done on WED

http://ovaluri.comxa.com/2016/Q3/23_ZERA-04+EN.htm http://b.pix.ge:81/t/o4mkc.jpg

This also will be useful http://ovaluri.comxa.com/2016/S_TRAVEL.htm — Preceding unsigned comment added by 176.221.164.75 (talk) 12:39, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

The votes are in. After the votes were counted and re-counted, I can announce the voting results are as follows: Overall Table=Yes : 2 votes. Overall Table=No : 0 votes. A clear win for apathy, but it means the overall table will now be restored. TheMightyPeanut (talk) 08:53, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

I voted "no", but my vote didn't count I guess due to a lack of voting and counting procedures. An overall table showing teams ordered partly according to finals qualifying status and partly according to points does not show why some teams qualify for finals and others don't. It is not in order of points (as almost every other sporting table in the world is) due to the results in the tables below. To understand why it is ordered the way it is, you have to look at the lower tables. When you do look at the conference tables, it is easy to see all the information that you need in a small space. Top teams qualify, and next three best teams in the Aus/NZ conferences, and best second team from the SA conferences. The orange qualifying teams should be highlighted in these tables, and then with a couple of sentences nearby you have everything you need to know in a relatively small space.

It might be possible to incorporate the information from the tables below into an overall table - i.e. have an additional column or two in the overall table that shows the conference and group ranking - and then it might be easy to see from information within the overall table why it is arranged the way it is.

Dear "Mr. Peanut", I disagree with you that this "vote" could possibly be interpreted as a win for so called apathy. If two people voted "Yes" and nobody voted "No" then, BY DEFINITION, it means that there were two people who had the energy to bother to vote "yes", whereas "No" voters like myself couldn't even be bothered to vote. This was surely a "loss" for the apathetic. May I suggest that you re appraise your understanding of the meaning of the word "apathy". Nevertheless, do I suspect in your comment here that you actually consider a "No" vote for the "Overall Table" to be the right thing to do, but that it was simply the apathy of "No" voters that requires you to re-insert this chart, against your better judgement? I had a look at this Georgian chap's "Overall Table" and some of his other incredible charts and rarely have I ever seen such a patch work quilt of unnecessary colour and graphics, such a kaleidoscope of confusion. Clearly some people simply have a predilection for such excess. I defy any person in need of a quick and easy way to understand what is going on with this competition to be able to make anything of value from those charts. There is an old saying in business, "confused people don't buy" and rugby needs all the help it can get............it does not need more "graphic salads" to further befuddle its already dwindling supporter base. In my humble opinion, I think you have it about right already, a mix of useful information and "plain packaging" that does not unnecessarily confuse people who just want to get the important bits, in quick time, before confusion sends them to another site. Cheers jl 14.2.94.126 (talk) 12:22, 27 March 2016 (UTC) PS, regarding the issue of "finals seedings", this issue only becomes important at the end of the "home and away" season. No amount of staring at an "Overall Table" is going to inform the reader of who is playing who until we are fully appraised of who has actually qualified for the finals. Staring at the top teams in order of points at the end of round three will not further one's understanding of who is going to be that team's potential opponent in a finals round match until the finalists have been sorted and during the season this is gained by looking at your present charts. Surely, at the end of the "home and away" it would THEN be a simple matter to list the eight finalists in the order of conference winners and wildcards and their points. Even at this point the there would still be no need to have a complete "Overall table" as this business of seedings is not relevant to the other ten teams that did not qualify. Having such a chart is simply satisfying the urge that some people appear to have for mindless graphics, even if they only serve to needlessly confuse people who have more to do with their time than spends hours staring at wiki pages, trying to figure out what is going on. No, "more is not better" unless it improves the reader's understanding of an already complex competition set up. jl 14.2.94.126 (talk) 12:58, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

Dear 14.2.94.126 - if you do not feel the Overall Table is not necessary, pls, just neglect it. To my opinion, it is a MUST; it shows at every point of season the REAL picture - placings for all 18 teams, who qualifes, who meets whom in play-offs and who would have vital HOME advantage is semis and Grand final. If we neglect it, we - the fandom and the franchises proper - should ourselves compare records of teams from different parts of the comp in order to calculate all the above-mentioned facts - whilst in the Overall Table everything is clear, ready-made and user-friendly. That's why Fox Sport does it.

The OT also shows the sour fact that Kings of SA are actuallty last - 18th overall and not just 8th in their weak region, and that Blues would be left out of Finals as NZ's maximum quota stands at 4: 1 Conference Leader + 3 Wild cards. Why we should drop those pretty details just for the fact that SANZAAR site's staff are lazy and unwilling to pay their coder an extra dime to insert the third tab?

As for my kaleidoscope of CLARITY (not confusion, as you think), if you don't like them pls do NOT visit my page - instead, spend your precious time on some other business ... I do NOT dare suggest WHAT. Cheers from Georgia — Preceding unsigned comment added by 176.221.164.75 (talk) 06:59, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

Dear "Mr. Georgia", thankyou for your considered input. 1)Unnecessary repetition of USEFUL information as ALL of your points are contained adequately in the Group and Conference tables as so well established by "Mr. Peanut". For example, one can CLEARLY see that the NZ Blues are out of the "NZ finals" simply by looking at the "Australasian Group" as is presently displayed. Effectively there are two SEPARATE competitions, divided into the two GROUPS. Indeed they are so separate that teams in each group don't even play those within one of the two conferences in the other group. The finals lists are created from within these two "Groups" without regard to what is happening in the other group. One can see that ALL of the information that you have listed is clearly visible within these two charts, groups and conferences, as presented here by "Mr. Peanut". The "vital home ground advantage" simply goes to the conference leaders/winners, information that is clearly listed in the four conference groupings. Who qualifies is clearly listed in the two group listings in a manner that adequately demonstrates the very teams that one's preferred team is competing with for finals positions, rather than the needless confusion of blending all the other teams are not in competition for a finals position with yours. Indeed, other teams that one's chosen team may not even play against during the course of the season. Most people who view this page just want to "nail" what is important, not spend time scrolling through more charts that don't actually further one's understanding of what is important in their chosen team's progress through the "home and away". Alas, no amount of staring at the "OT" is going to further one's understanding of what your chosen team's potential "seeded opponent" in the finals may be as this only becomes evident when the "two separate competitions" are finally brought together at the commencement of the finals. 2)Labeling people (or teams) as "cheats" is a manifestly odd interpretation of the reasons for not having the "OT". This interpretation is as unsubstantiated and "personal" as is your unfortunate characterization of the efforts of the SANZAR web site and staff as being "lazy and unwilling to pay their coder an extra dime to insert the third tab?" However, I would agree with your assertion that the Fox site is "lavish"..........my point exactly. 3)If "Mr. Peanut" does finally include the "OT", does he list the teams in order of overall points or does he disregard this and list them in order of seedings? As has already been discussed above, the difference between these two has the potential to make this "OT" look pretty messy by season's end. Casual visitors to this site will simply be put off, and presumably head off to another sport's site, with it's single competition table, or at best stick with the SANZAR site which is set up with "two tabs" for its simplicity and ease of understanding. What rugby needs is more succinctness and less confusion if this site is to attract visitors. 4)At this point in time I appreciate that "Mr. Peanut" is trying to be democratic, but all we now have is the unfortunate situation where the least important and most confusing chart is now set up in pride of place at the top of this site's "Standings" section. Casual visitors will be simply left with a feeling of confusion and so quickly lose interest. 5)A simple listing of the seeds from 1 to 8, when they become relevant at the end of the "Home and Away" season, will surely suffice. Until this time, such information is really of no relevance and, indeed, listing all the other ten teams that don't make the finals serves no purpose to people who want to know who is playing who and where in the finals. THIS SITE NEEDS TO DECIDE IF IT IS GOING TO BE FOR A LARGE NUMBER OF CASUAL VISITORS WHO MIGHT BEGIN TO APPRECIATE WHAT THIS COMPETITION IS ALL ABOUT OR IF IT IS GOING TO BE A BOUTIQUE SITE FOR AFFICIONADOS AND "CHART-A-HOLICS" 14.2.94.126 (talk) 09:07, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

Dear 14.... I do NOT agree for a moment with your view that there are two separate competitions and they will come together just in Finals. Yes, some influential circles would have liked to split it, or rather portray SR in this way, but I see all 18 teams as parts of one, united fold, vying for Top 8 and better berth within it.

After all, each team plays one third (33%) of regular season games - 5 out of 15 - with opposition from other Region, so how they stand separate? As for complexities of rugby, its rules|laws, SR system etc etc, it is a utterly different topic and I seriously doubt your fears, that seeing the dreaded just by you Overall Table will turn the reader off rugby, SR, Wiki etc etc = Cheers from FLIDTA RISXVA = in case you are Hernan14 from t2r forum

ps In Overall Table teams are arranged by COMPETITION RULES = say, 5th could have more points than 4th and this is not anything new for NHL pundits. After all, SR copied the whole conference system from ice-hockey. So, let's enlighten rugby folks - encourage them to look just beyond Llanelli, Coogee Oval, San Isidro etc etc to wider world of sport

pps Sorry, as I'm working on Georgian translation of Handball Rules and do all table-making for Georgia RU site, I'll not be available till April 1. I just hope the Overall Table stays HERE despite your opposition. Cheers once more — Preceding unsigned comment added by 176.221.164.75 (talk) 10:02, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

Dear "Mr. Georgia", we are all entitled to see things how we wish of course, however the reality of this competition is that there is not a "Top 8". There is a "top 5" plus a "top 3" and the really important bit is how those teams achieve a spot in the finals. This is by competing for points within TWO SEPARATE CONFERENCES, which could easily be called TWO SEPARATE COMPETITIONS......what's in a word? The fact that each team plays 33% of its games against teams from the other conference is an interesting fact, but this is not substantial when looking at a list that indicates to the reader their team's prospects for making the finals........it's just "interesting". Now just as "interesting" is the fact that each team misses one of the other conferences entirely during the season. Yes indeed, just like having a full list of teams that play in two separate groups, piling them all up into the one list may be "interesting" (for some) but is actually useless in reality. This competition is structured differently from the usual competitions where such an "OT" does have utility. This doesn't make it better or worse, it just means that a data set that is useful for one particular scenario may not be useful in another scenario. Having information is not about what looks "interesting" for some people, perhaps "lavish" for others. Having a data set that takes up a space (especially pride of place at the very top of the "Standings" section of this page) is about providing the reader with useful information in a succinct manner that gets to the point and doesn't unnecessarily complicate the issue, especially with unnecessary repetition or even complete lack of utility. It is clear to me that this is the thinking of the professionals at the SANZAR site who have no doubt thought about how to impart information while not needlessly confusing readers with repletion and, at times, useless data (just like I am now doing, this must be catchy lol)....professionals who you have made the unsubstantiated assessment that they are either "lazy" or "unwilling to pay their coder.....". I agree with you that the laws of rugby are "an utterly different topic" and that you are right to "seriously doubt" that "my fears will turn people off rugby", however as an outside observer to the game of rugby, I find there to be some interesting parallels to its rules of play. But that's just me I suppose. Yep, it is OK for some things to be "interesting", but that doesn't make them useful enough to put onto a wiki page that is trying to give all sorts of readers a brief intro and overview into the workings of this competition. Since this is "Mr. Peanut's" site then he will decide. Will he follow the succinct and professional example of SANZAR or will he needlessly complicate an already difficult to understand structure with data sets that are only relevant to a "single conference" competition? Your call "Mr. Peanut" 14.2.94.126 (talk) 13:31, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

Dear 14. Your professionals at the SANZAR site

0) last year copied NRL template and showed props as fullbacks

1) until very start of 2016 season kept Sunwolves in Japanese Conference and Jaguares in Argentinian Conference

2) after round 1 of 2016 thought that only 1 wild-card would qualify from NZL+AUS and it's me who alerted them

3) and very same professionals for the third year are keeping every stats section to just 10 lines|entries

http://www.sanzarrugby.com/superrugby/competition-stats/2016-player-ranking/

thus making it alomost useless as at the bottom too many are left out | cut | truncated

Just check tries: would you think, pls, that exactly those 6 guys has scored 3 after five rounds?

And for all those mishaps there is very simple reason:

a league coder has done this site from the outset and they have just adapted it to union needs, and since then they have never paid anybody to upgrade it from S15 to S18, by introducing third level of tabs - the Overall one

Meanwhile, FOX has done it, ABC as well, whilst PLANET and SCRUM still display ONLY Conference Tables and NO Regionals at all

and everywhere the reason is (probably)) very same: unwilingness to change | upgrade | re-code the ENGINE they successfully USE

By the way, I'm a coder ... lecturer at University is this field

As for Wiki, it's easy to upgrade and thanks to Mr.Peanut it has been done in time

So, I re-iterate - it should stay this way, and those who do not like 18, should just scroll down to 10+8 and 5+5+4+4

Frankly, I think 18 suffices and 5+5+4+4 is utterly useless, but I've never called and will not for dropping it as every reader should have a chance to learn what he regards a MUST

Cheers! Zaal aka Overall Table, SR pundit since 1993 (S10 era)

Phew, so now we have it, what you are basically saying is that you prefer to have the "OT" rather than the four individual conference tables which you describe as "utterly useless". If you still have the energy then you will see somewhere above that I had also expressed my reservations about these FOUR tables, however "Mr. Peanut" pushed back a little on account of these four tables giving us a clear indication of the individual conference battles for that all important "conference winner" spot. This is basically the battle for a guaranteed finals spot and a home final in the first week of the finals, so I suppose I would agree with "Mr. Peanut" that this makes these tables useful. My fundamental issue is just having too many tables that essentially give us the same information and this sort of thing is a known source of "viewer fatigue"......also known as BOREDOM, ie "too much information". Part of me can actually accept having the "OT" instead of the four individual conference tables, however I suspect that "Mr. Peanut" preferred the four conference tables and actually I agree that they have more value. So you have adequately described the apparent "lack of professionalism" on the SANZAR site......I'll take that on board, but simply re iterate that the fundamental issue is that we now have no less than NINE TABLES for people to peruse, whereas other competitions just have ONE. Yes indeed, I notice that "Mr. Peanut" has also added two "Seedings" tables at the bottom, under the "FINALS" heading. I think this is the appropriate place to put this information and while it is "interesting" it is really not all that important until the finals teams are set. WHAT IS IMPORTANT during the course of the season is the battle for a finals spot and this is where the two "GROUP" tables are important. I wouldn't argue against putting those two tables in there, but if you look we NOW have NINE TABLES for people to look at; "OT", 2x Groups, 4x Conferences, 2x Seedings tables. Phew. Only those wishing to have a PhD in this competition are going to find that interesting.........I suspect that you are due for your own "doctorate" soon. However, I ask you to imagine yourself as a newcomer just looking at this bloated cacophony of repeated tables, telling the same information in more ways than you could poke the proverbial stick at. And this is supposed to compete with "viewer interest" for other sports competitions that have just ONE TABLE. The irony is that we now have what I consider to be the least informative table, the "OT", given pride of place at the top of all of these. Phew. Also, you have commented that "they have never paid anybody to upgrade it from S15 to S18, by introducing third level of tabs - the Overall one". Quite frankly I am confused by this comment. For the S15, you already HAD an "OT" plus the three conferences (SA, NZ, AUS), so there was no need to "introduce the third level of tabs, the overall one". Because the whole competition was played as ONE GROUPING (ie ALL teams were competing with each other for the same six finals positions)then there was 1)no need for any "Group" tables and 2)a need for the "OT" as it was of value in this scenario. And so herein lies the crux of the matter. The S 15 was played as a ONE GROUP competition but with three conferences, hence the value of the "OT" and three conference tables. The S18 is entirely different, we now have TWO SEPARATE GROUPS (see above, please don't ask me to go over this again) with four conferences. Truly and sincerely, if you want your NINE TABLES then good luck to you, but SURELY the "OT" should be put down the list of tables, underneath the more useful "Group" and "Conference" tables. Lastly, this is the link to the wiki page on the 2015 competition with its FOUR Tables. There just has to be a limit to how many times a group of eighteen teams in a competition can be displayed before eyes glaze over and people look elsewhere. 14.2.22.106 (talk) 13:27, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

Dear 14. Frankly, I got tired by reading your deliberations. MrPeanut from the outset was doing 7 tables in natural succession: Overall-18, ANZAC-10, SA-8 plus 4 Conferences. You have forced him to abandon the topmost one and add two seeding tables after R17. I've just asked to restore status quo = O18 at the top and got OK. So, it stays Peanut & sorry, MY way for ALL but one, unfortunate week (R4)

So, I politely ask you: What do you want - Wiki once again revert to it, less comprehensive status?

As I guess, you are neither Table-maker nor a Coder whilst we both are

I personally think that coloured O18 is enough to show every finest detail of S18 complicated system (and regularly produce it >> http://ovaluri.comxa.com/2016/Q3/30_ZERA-05+EN.htm)

whilst Mr.Peanut uses all those tables with Wiki formatting restrictions = Wiki style to achieve the same,

and Fox Sports do this their own way, etc etc

So, I kindly ask you to stop trawling this page and instead, urge SANZAAR, ESPN SCRUM, PLANET RUGBY, SUPERSPORT, REUTERS to put their tables in order

Cheers, Zaal of Georgia, sole-maker of personal site since 2002

ps Surely, there is a terminology mixup between us: I refer as tab to a switch on the top of a tables' frame | blcok, ie SANZAAR site had 2 for S15 (conferences and overall) and has another 2 for S18 (groups and conferences), whilst FOX has 3 tabs (overall, conference and region) - but not in natural, logical progression (as per wiki)

+ check also RUGBY HEAVEN - I forgot them lately http://www.smh.com.au/rugby-union/super-rugby/ladder ! SINCE THEY HAVE DROPPED LEGENDARY GREG GROWDEN !

If Wiki goes from big to little, they start with little and finish with big = OT

So, there is enough supporters of OT in mainstream SR media, as they see it as a sole definitive tool to show how the championship race unfolds involving all, 18 stake-holders

Dear "Mr. Georgia", I am sorry that you appear to be getting a little upset by this mere contest of ideas and what appears to be a growing sociopathic tendency, if you don't mind my saying so. (well you probably do but that does not influence my assessment of your most recent commentary)------------------------------------------------------------------ A)-I have previously discussed what I consider to be the reasons why I respectfully suggest that "Mr. Peanut" not have the "OT" on this site, in particular at the very top of the list of tables. I will not bother to repeat these points here. Instead, it seems that I must now address your commentary style in an of itself.----------------------------------- B)-"I got tired by your deliberations". Well that's OK, we can all find it hard to "stay the pace". The point of a debate is to stick to the salient issues, not to complain about "getting tired" of your opponent. This is not a point in favor of your position. In any case, I am sure that "feeling tired" now affords you a comprehensive understanding of just how the average punter feels when he checks out the "wiki super rugby 2016" site to quickly appraise himself of what is going on, only to be dazzled by what is an endless array of "tables". An endless array, the like of which is likely only to be of interest to IT techno-heads and data junkies as opposed to the average rugby enthusiast.------------ C)-"You forced him to abandon......". tsk tsk. Now how, prey tell, did I manage to "force" Mr. Peanut to do this......did I send around my henchmen, did I make viable threats"? AT ALL TIMES I have adopted the attitude that this is "Mr. Peanut's" site, for him to make what ever decisions he will after looking at this discussion, a discussion that HE INTRODUCED. If you take the time to have a look above you will see that, at one point, I stated "Since this is "Mr. Peanut's" site then he will decide." Indeed, I concluded that submission with "Your call Mr. Peanut". Alas, you now accuse me of "forcing" his hand.----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- D)-"I've just asked him to restore the status quo". ?????? Please, it was "Mr. Peanut" who listed this box for "discussion" and, from this, I can only conclude that "Mr. Peanut" had his own reservations about having so many tables and was looking for some feedback and discussion. This clearly does NOT imply an EXPECTATION of a "return to the status quo", just because he initially started this site with the "OT" table. I would think that "Mr. Peanut" was reviewing this decision and looking for some level headed discussion about whether to retain this table. It was NEVER a fait accompli, as you now appear to suggest. May I respectfully suggest that your comment here is highly presumptuous, if not entirely dismissive of what "Mr. Peanut" might actually think about the issue. It IS, after all, HIS wiki page.......not yours, it is not for anyone to "force" his hand.---------------------------------------------------------- E)-this is a discussion about the relative merits of retaining the "OT". Yes, you have presented some interesting points regarding this and I do think that the "colorful kaleidoscope" on your own web site is quite a hit........well, sort of. However, I feel compelled to inform both you and "Mr. Peanut" that I have absolutely NO background whatsoever with IT, coding or so this called "table making". NONE what so ever. In fact I barely struggled to figure out how to come in here and contribute to this discussion, that's just how IT illiterate I am. So the question I ask is, "what has this got to do with the price of fish in China"? I do hope that you will limit your thinking to relevant points for the discussion, instead of such inconsequential tangents.-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- E)-"I kindly ask you to stop trawling this page and instead....". Not sure if this is a mis spelt here, unless you mean to imply that I have been overly thorough in "trawling" through this page. In any case, I will take this to mean that you are now characterizing me as "trolling", which means "is a person who sows discord on the Internet by starting arguments or upsetting people, by posting inflammatory,extraneous, or off-topic messages in an online community (such as a newsgroup, forum, chat room, or blog) with the deliberate intent of provoking readers into an emotional response or of otherwise disrupting normal on-topic discussion,often for their own amusement." So, during the course of this discussion, you have made a number of wild accusations, starting with your baseless charge that the SANZAR site underpays its IT staff (do you have access to their confidential financial records?). Then you accused me of "forcing" the way that "Mr. Peanut" constructs his site, even as you yourself claim that you "asked Mr. Peanut to restore status quo (your highlight) and apologized for "sorry, MY way for ALL but one". I have had no direct contact with "Mr. Peanut" and as I apply myself to the merits of this discussion I have only mentioned "Mr. Peanut" in so far as I have acknowledged that this is HIS site and so HIS decision........especially since it was HE who asked for this public discussion. Indeed, I notice the following comment from the above discussion, "I voted "no", but my vote didn't count I guess due to a lack of voting and counting procedures", which appears to have been made by "Mr. Peanut" himself. (I stand to be corrected here as, due to my fundamental lack of knowledge on coding, I can only say this based on how I read the threads and from this end it looks like this comment was written by "Mr. Peanut" himself. If this is the case then I think that ANY FAIR ASSESSMENT of this discussion could not possibly characterize me as having "forced" him. Indeed, it might well be argued that YOU are the one who is doing this to "Mr. Peanut", however I will let HIM make that assessment) You finally make the irrelevant suggestion that you "guess, you are neither Table-maker nor a Coder whilst we both are", as if that has any bearing on this discussion. Such "off topic" moves are usually sociopathic strategies designed to put your debating opponent onto the proverbial "back foot", however I can assure you that you have not had any such impact in this case. Instead I will simply dismiss this red herring for what it is and presume that it was simply an innocent example of your confused thinking. Please, "Mr. Georgia", I urge you to reconsider who it is that is "trolling" this site. From my perspective, I am merely contributing to a constructive discussion as requested by the creator of this wiki page and the person who has final say in what he will do with it.....that being "Mr. PEANUT". PS. I have no further comment to make on this page (that's right, I have not been trolling it), as I have made all of my points regarding the issue at hand and am now happy to leave this in the hands of "Mr. Peanut". To a degree I have enjoyed this exchange and I wish "Mr. Georgia" all the best.........here's hoping you don't run into Joseph Stalin lol 118.210.235.216 (talk) 11:32, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

Sir, you write in such an unstructured way and change your IPAs so frequently, that I frankly can't catch with you = I even will not bother myself to read your latest response but nevertheless save it in my archives for posterity. In meantime, I've too many other committments but to respond to your constant trawling. So, I just put here a big FULL STOP and hope, that you get off MrPeanut as well. Good luck elsewhere. ZAAL

Dear "Mr. Georgia", in response to your desire for me to "get off Mr. Peanut" please allow me to quote myself in a previous comment directed to said "Mr. Peanut" above. "Well my friend everything is everyone's opinion and since this is your show then you will do things as you see fit and no doubt someone, somewhere will quibble with something." Right now I have no idea what exactly you mean by "trawling", but I guess that, since you have not bothered to read my above post, you still appear to be conflating "trawling" with "trolling". I haven't accused you of "trolling" as I do believe that you have been sincere, extremely sincere if I may say so. However I will simply say that I have done my best to stick to the subject matter. On that I have been consistent.

I do feel compelled to finally quote two lines from the above discussion, if I may. Since I gather that "Mr. Georgia" has now quietly left this discussion then I make these quotes to you, "Mr. Peanut". 1)You commenced this discussion with "Is there any point in having this table? The only time teams from different groups need to be compared is in the seeding of the two sets of 8 finalists. The full table will end up with highlit rows all over the place." Following this comment from you I think it is fair to say that you and I appeared to come to an understanding regarding what you thought of having this "OT" table on your page. But of course that final assessment is up to you.--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 2)A comment from me to you, "Hello "Mr. Peanut". I'm glad you followed my reasoning here, to a degree. Personally, I wasn't opposed to the idea of an "Overall Table", however it certainly didn't deserve the significance of being the top most table. I think if it was installed below the two "Group Tables" and renamed the "Seeding Table" then that would be fine, not withstanding its lack of utility until the end of the "home and away" season. In the meantime it is essentially just a curiosity. Nothing wrong with that I suppose, so long as it is not afforded the significance of being inserted at the top of all these tables." I simply stand by these comments. Having this "OT" table may be "interesting" to some, but just not essentially useful and certainly not deserving of its "pride of place" at the top of all the others. I am not trawling or trolling or drifting off into inconsequential arguments. I think that I have made all of my points cogently above and I will leave this discussion now firmly in your hands. Cheers 118.210.235.216 (talk) 13:16, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

Stop Press; I just watched the late night, Fox Sports produced, "Super Rugby Extra Time" magazine show on Channel 10. I made the effort to especially follow the presentation of the tables at the end and sure enough they went through the four conference tables and then the two group tables. There was no mention of an "OT". 118.210.235.216 (talk) 14:36, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

So that was a long and mostly off-topic read. The bottom line was – initially, there was an overall table and some people moaned about it. Then it was removed and some people moaned about it. So I asked people to vote on it – I even mentioned it at the WikiProject Rugby union talk page which only seemed to pique the interest of Sirpottingmix. So I concluded that people probably don't care much either way. As I pointed out above, the overall table is in use on several different sites, and missing form several others, so the websites don't seem to care much either way either. I do think the presentation can be fine-tuned however, watch this space... TheMightyPeanut (talk) 08:10, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

??? Did you actually read through all of that "off topic" stuff? lol Yes I certainly agree with your assessment there. Please allow me to, again, quote myself from the preceding discussion at "point A". "I have previously discussed what I consider to be the reasons why I respectfully suggest that "Mr. Peanut" not have the "OT" on this site, in particular at the very top of the list of tables. I will not bother to repeat these points here. Instead, it seems that I must now address your commentary style in an of itself." I recently had RU loving friends over from Sydney and this initiated my curiosity to view your site and find out from it just what goes on with this comp. All the very best to you and what ever you chose to do on your wiki page. 118.210.235.216 (talk) 08:35, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

Life's too short, I might have skimmed some of it... ;-) Update made to the tables. Let's see how it gets received. TheMightyPeanut (talk) 09:54, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

Nice. You are a true diplomat my friend. My RU loving friend from Sydney says that she is thinking of getting NZ citizenship as she is giving up on the Australian teams lol. 121.45.20.42 (talk) 10:12, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

It's a pity that you, Mr.Peanut bowed to 14's persistent pressure and in-transigence = I should confess I've not read 14's last two posts and will NEVER do = I simply do NOT comprehend (my wits are not enough) what he wrote lately and what his main occupation in this life is + I simply have NOT enough stamina either = In meantime, I keep producing the Overall Table as usual = both in GE and EN, and have my devoted readership (as you have yours and good on them) = and I hope FOX SPORTS and RUGBY HEAVEN will never follow Mr.Peanut's bad exemple. Good luck to you on Wiki, and keep co-habitation = discussing your balanced and protracted way = like endless ping-pong @ ZAAL (http://ovaluri.comxa.com/2016)

I thank "Mr. Peanut" for giving us the opportunity to contribute to the review of HIS site. I congratulate you on your diplomatic resolution and look forward to you further "fine tuning the presentation". I will certainly "watch this space". 121.45.20.42 (talk) 02:59, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

My arguments against the overall table

First, schedules are different for each group. It doesn't make sense to compare the results of New Zealand, Australian and African group teams, as they have different rivals.

Second, the most reliable source about championship standings is the Super Rugby official website. And they have no overall table for 2016, because of the previous point.

Third, other articles on championships with conferences and divisions don't have overall tables. See 2015–16 NBA season, 2015 NFL season and 2016 Major League Baseball season.

--167.56.160.23 (talk) 15:43, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

There has been much previous discussion regarding the need for the OT or otherwise. At this stage of the Super Rugby season, I think it is worth taking the time to revisit the above discussion in the light of the present standings and salient to have a look at the present situation of the Australian Conference and the prospects for the top three teams in this conference going forward, in particular the Waratahs. Doing this may help us to understand the practical relevance of the tables and so their essential utility. The Waratahs have had an untidy season, to say the least. Yet, given the way this competition is structured, their prospects for hosting a final are extremely strong. Indeed they are just a win away from this possibility at this stage and given that they have a game in hand then they may even be considered favorites for doing so. So let's look at the three tables and see how each one informs us of this situation in a meaningful way. 1)Conference Table. A clear display of the three way tussle for that all important Conference Winner spot and of how close this battle is between the Rebels, Brumbies and Waratahs. This is the only true interest now for Australian fans. 2)Group Table. Given the total dominance of the NZ teams over the Australian teams it is clear from this table that it is unlikely that any Australian team will obtain a wildcard, but not impossible. If you are a Waratahs fan then all the focus is on the Conference Winner spot and so this table, while being less relevant than the Conference Table itself, at least has some utility in that it affords the viewer with some sense of the plight of the Australian teams in general. Sad but still important to see. 3)Overall Table. A quick glance of this table gives the impression that the Rebels are well ensconced at the top of the order in No 4 with the Brumbies and Waratahs, seemingly well out of the running as they languish in No's. 10 and 11. Nothing could be further from the truth in all practicality. This table is not only lacking in utility, it is downright misleading unless one REALLY understands what is going on and checks out the aforementioned tables. The Australian teams are, in effect, virtually in a competition ONLY with themselves at this point of the season. While they may play SOME of the African teams, once, they are actually NOT in competition with them at all. The only vaguely useful information one may possibly deduce from this OT table is a sense of the seedings, something that does not become relevant until season's end and is actually more than adequately covered in the seedings tables that "Mr. Peanut" has so appropriately edited into the "Finals" section below. Having this OT may be of some vague interest for those with an obsessive compulsion for endless confusing, useless data points but is actually nothing but misleading irrelevance for those of us who simply want an efficient way to understand what is going on in this competition. I think that "Mr. Peanut" has done very well with his present layout while diplomatically retaining the OT in its present low profile position. 14.2.126.163 (talk) 02:57, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

---

So we are about to embark on another weekend of Super Rugby here in the Antipodes and it now looks to be the start of the home run, featuring a battle royal between the Brumbies and the Waratahs for that coveted "Conference Winner" spot, with its the rich pickings, for this underperforming Australian conference, of the guarantee of hosting a home final. The 'Tahs might be the lowest in this pecking order but they have a game in hand and so look like they might even have the inside running. The Brumbies have a proven track record of experience and success (well, in Australian terms anyway) while the Rebels even have a shot as they have 2 more points up their sleeves, but they are not playing this weekend. Never mind, they will rejoin the fray again next weekend so we surely can not rule them out by season's end. This is the great interest for Australian fans as we turn the corner for the remainder of this Super Rugby season. So where will we look to get a sense of this contest? 1)The Conference Table. Yep, it's there for anyone to see, easy. 2)The Group Table. Well, at first glance one would think that the only team with any prospects are the Rebels, but a quick "drill down" will indicate that this table merely indicates that the Australian teams are going to struggle for a "Wildcard". It really is all about the race for the "Conference Winner" spot while the "Wildcards" are a bit of a long shot now, albeit not impossible. Taking in the information from both these tables will afford the reader a pretty fair assessment of what the Australian teams are really chasing for the rest of the season. 3)The OT..........phew. We have the Rebels WAY UP THERE and the rest of the Aussie teams can forget it. Why they now have a cavalcade of New Zealand AND African teams between them and any future come the end of the "home and away" season. Why don't they just forget it now and start to plan for next season????????????????? Why don't we just forget the OT as an idle curiosity and keep thinking about this season? At best, the OT simply provides unnecessary confusion to an already complex situation.14.2.64.9 (talk) 08:16, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

For completeness of this issue, I will concede one small level of utility for the OT with respect to the above discussion. This is that the Australian teams are in a theoretical contest with the African teams (specifically the Bulls at this point) for a "Wildcard", however I would contend that this is now a long shot. Indeed, the Brumbies have the chance to close the gap with a home game against the Bulls tonight, however the Bulls still have a game in hand. Nevertheless one may argue that the OT does have some degree of utility worth mentioning. This is why I have not argued for its removal and have in fact praised "Mr. Peanut" for editing this table into its present, LOW PROFILE, position. The whole point is one of RELEVANCE and UTILITY, not piling up a page with endless data points just for the sake of it. At the commencement of this entire discussion it was argued for its retention in the super profile position at the very top of the Tables Section. I have applauded "Mr. Peanut" for his, shall we say, diplomatic re-placement of the OT into its present, low profile, position. At all times I have argued for the layout of this page to be such as to best represent utility for the reader, not based on irrational logic, ad hominens and unsubstantiated claims. 14.2.64.9 (talk) 08:37, 6 May 2016 (UTC) PS. Correction. A momentary lapse of reason in my last post. I incorrectly suggested that the "OT" may have had some utility on account of the Australasian teams being in competition with the African teams for one of the four "Wildcard" spots. This is not the case. There is one "Wildcard" position allocated to the African Conferences and this is separate to the three allocated to the Australasian Conferences. The fact of this means that the "OT" essentially has NO utility at all apart from the vague indication of the potential seedings at the time of the Finals. This is well covered in the "Seedings Tables" under the "Finals" section. It is my therefor my final contention in this discussion that the "OT" serves no purpose at all except to misrepresent and misinform the reader of what is actually taking place in this overall competition and that while its retention in its present "low profile" position may seem to be a "diplomatic resolution" of the above discussion, we would all be better served if this table was actually removed.14.2.64.9 (talk) 16:59, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

Woah there just one second. How is it a "misrepresentation" or "misinforming the reader"? Believe it or not, but it is actually a thing. The official NZRU Super Rugby page has an overall table, as do the FoxSports website and several of the Super Rugby franchise's websites, such as the Hurricanes. Making the overall table out to be something that was just added in because we love stats is a disingenuous argument, it is actually reasonably widely in use out there. TheMightyPeanut (talk)

.....Yes indeed, the "OT" is "certainly a thing" that is used on some other web sites, no question about that. However, one may just as easily contend that the other sites that retain the "OT" are simply making the same mistake that I argue against. Indeed, at some point above, I fess up to this very same error in my own reasoning as I think I have previously suggested the "OT" be removed simply because it is NOT on certain other sites such as the SANZAR site. I think that what is important here is to look at the merits of this "OT", in and of itself, and it seems to me that its retention has been advocated simply on the basis of "tradition", "oh it's what we've always done" and even "well it's what everyone else does". If you don't mind my saying so, I consider this to be the false logic of "groupthink" and it derives from not looking at the "OT" on its merits, not considering the history of this issue, how things came about nor taking into account the changing circumstances and its present context. In order to clarify my point I think it would be useful to compare the history of the Super Rugby competition and the AFL's development competition in QLD and NSW, the NEAFL. Needless to say I am not advocating that this Rugby competition slavishly follow what the AFL does, certainly not on a web site run by rugby enthusiasts, but I simply urge a consideration of my reasoning here by way of example and comparison. For economic reasons, the NEAFL was initially established as two separate competitions which played for their own separate grand final winners, followed by a play off between these two winners for an overall title. The two separate competitions did play some "cross competition" games to "fill in the season", however there was no thought of a need for an "OT" as they had entirely separate qualifications for their respective finals series. Recently this competition was contracted into less teams and now they simply play in the one competition with the one winner and this is displayed by the "OT". The changing circumstances of this competition required the change to an "OT" which best represents what is going on. Interestingly the Super Rugby experience and history is almost the opposite. It commenced as a smaller single competition but has gradually grown in size and now split into effectively two separate competitions. Now I am in no way attempting to suggest that the present Super Rugby competition equates exactly with the original NEAFL which had two entirely separate finals series and winners, followed by a final "play off". I simply bring this up as an example of how a sports competition (indeed anything) changes and so it is always important to re assess the utility of the data sets in the light of the new circumstance and not to simply stick with "tradition" and other "feel good" thinking as I have outlined above. Now having canvassed this way of thinking I would ask you to please consider the value of the "OT" in the light of the present structure of the Super Rugby competition. I would contend that this "OT" affords the reader with no more information than is provided elsewhere on this wiki page, that being the "Conference Tables", the "Group Tables" and also your very own "Seedings Tables" edited in the "Finals" section. Now if this was all there was to this issue then I would simply agree that the "OT" is just a bit of superfluous data that you have diplomatically demoted to the lower profile. Indeed, up until now this has been the position that I have adopted in this discussion based upon my incorrect understanding that all four "Wildcards" were up for grabs. However my updated understanding of the fact that the "Wildcards" have separate qualifications has now "hardened" my attitude against the "OT" on the basis that it quite simply lacks any utility at all but worse than that, it is also positively confusing to the general viewer of this site. If one were to look at the "OT" (at the conclusion of Round 11) in isolation you are likely to conclude that the Waratahs (10th) and Rebels (12th) are in a losing struggle to fight just for a spot in the finals (for the lower four places which are "away finals"). Yet, because of the way the competition is structured in its PRESENT format, both are within a whisker of not only gaining a place in the finals, but a HOME FINAL. Indeed, the Waratahs, way down in 10th position, have a game in hand and are likely favourites in the race for a home final and in this way are not that far off a spot in the Grand Final when you come to think about it. In a similar way, both the Rebels and the Waratahs are actually better placed on the "road to be Super Rugby Champions" than the Hurricanes (7th) who probably have no chance of a "Home Final" and its benefits. If one were to look at the "OT" alone then one is likely to get quite a poor understanding of what actually is going on in this comp. I have discussed this above and I hope you can appreciate my thinking as it is NOW my opinion that the "OT" is not only "just a bit of superfluous data" but is actually a hindrance to understanding what is really going on and indeed its preservation based on the group thinking of "oh well, it's what we've always done" is now quite unwarranted. When you get down to it, the utility of these three tables is 1)Conference Tables; show the fight for the guaranteed "Home Final" within each conference and 2) Group Tables; show the fight for a "Wildcard-Away Final" within each group and 3)Overall Table provides nothing but confusion but has been argued for because "it is traditional" to a competition that has completely changed from how it was originally created. My comment that the "OT" was "just added in because we love stats is a disingenuous argument" is fair pushback from your good self, however I would urge that this is from the point of view of a rugby enthusiast who is, no doubt, fully appraised of the subtleties of the way this competition is structured. Indeed, most people will naturally expect to see an "OT" simply because this is what we are accustomed to seeing. Equally, however, I would urge you to please consider this page from the point of view of the vast majority of "part time" viewers who are looking at this page to quickly gain some insight into what is going on but are likely to have this understanding confounded by the presence of this table. Yes indeed, I was a little cheeky with my theatrical claims regarding "statisto-holics" etc etc, but if you will please excuse me, I was just trying to spice up my point regarding the need for any web site creator to take the point of view of those who are his audience. Actually those comments were mainly addressed to "Mr. Georgia" who appeared to prefer unsubstantiated claims and ad hominen to reason. Finally, I apologise for my long discourse here. I am not really that fussed about what you do as this is your site, I am much more interested in the challenge of thinking things through and I always remain open to further input and perspective. All the best jl 14.2.64.9 (talk) 11:18, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

PS. on another matter, I see that the NZ Blues have been placed below the Waratahs in the Australasian Group Table (and of course the "dreaded OT"), yet I notice that the Blues have five wins and a draw compared to the Waratahs' five wins and more bonus points. I appreciate that the Waratahs have a higher "Points Difference" however, reading through the rules, it would be my understanding that log points from game results (be it a win or a draw) should trump bonus points and "Points Difference". Unless I am mistaken, and I am happy to stand corrected, I am unsure as to why the Blues are listed below the Waratahs at this juncture. I notice the same order on other web sites, so perhaps I am missing something here? 14.2.64.9 (talk) 12:27, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

Hi there, not sure where you get "log points from game results (be it a win or a draw) should trump bonus points and Points Difference" from. When teams are level on log points (the Blues and Waratahs both have 25), then it's sorted by number of wins (both teams have five), then points differential (where the Waratahs' +44 is superior to the Blues' +12). TheMightyPeanut (talk) 20:22, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

Hmmm, yes indeed I haven't seen this formally written anywhere, it's just what makes sense to me. ie yes I can see the Waratahs and Blues have the same number of wins, however I would have thought that the points from a draw comes under the same "value", so to speak, as a win........ie more important in the "pecking order" than bonus points and "Points Difference". Nevertheless I just had another look at the SANZAR site and other sites and they have the Waratahs above the Blues. Sorry for sounding "logical" but actually that doesn't make sense to me......but who am I in the scheme of things? I did write to the contacts in the SANZAR so we'll see if they reply. Other than that, regardless of all the babble on this page I think you have struck the right balance with leaving the "OT" on your page where it is. No matter what anyone thinks about it I am sure that if you completely removed it from the page you would just end up with a whole lot of grief. Best to have the political solution. All the best 118.210.162.87 (talk) 06:35, 9 May 2016 (UTC)