Conference and playoffs systems fail to deliver
Trans-Tasman netball league bosses should take a bow. They developed the most ridiculous conference and playoff system known to sport, and somehow got away with it.
Conference systems work in the United States – the NBA, NFL, NHL and MLB – because there are a large number of teams and depth of competitiveness, not to mention a draft system which helps to balance things out.
They work in Super Rugby, albeit to a lesser degree than in the States. It is almost a necessity because of the vast travel distance involved, though there is one conference (the New Zealand one) which is stronger than the other two.
A conference system does not work in the trans-Tasman netball league because Australia always has been and always will be a much stronger netball nation, depth-wise, than New Zealand.
Exhibits A, B and C: the points standings after regular-season play.
Quite incredibly, the Southern Steel have qualified for the playoffs. Unless you follow the competition closely you might wonder why it’s so incredible, but here’s why: the Steel won just three of 13 matches this season.
Show me another sporting competition anywhere in the world where you can qualify for the post-season with three wins from 13 matches and I’ll show you a lemon.
What’s worse, the Steel’s three wins this season have come against the Mainland Tactix (twice) and Central Pulse, who, between them, combined for four wins from 26 matches. The Steel couldn’t beat anyone else.
This all comes down to the conference system employed for the first time this year. There is an Australian conference (very strong) and a New Zealand conference (very weak). The top three teams in each five-team conference qualify for the playoffs.
While that means the cream rises to the top in Australia, it also means weak links like the Steel and Magic, who finished second in the New Zealand conference despite also boasting a losing record (five wins, seven losses and a draw), progress.
The table-topping Mystics are the only Kiwi team with a winning record and they failed to beat any Australian side. They lost four matches – a couple of them rather comprehensively – and drew with the Thunderbirds, who were bottom in Australia.
Compare to Australia where all three qualifiers have a winning record and even the poor old Melbourne Vixens, who finished fourth of five teams in Australia and missed the post-season, boasted a seven-win, six-loss record.
One of those wins was a comprehensive 63-54 victory over the playoff-bound Steel, and another of them was an eight-point victory over the Mystics, in Auckland no less, on Monday night.
And all this despite the fact the Aussie teams have the tougher task of playing each other more than their trans-Tasman counterparts, while the Kiwi teams have the enviable task of playing more games among themselves.
It’s almost like the first division and second division.
No doubt keeping the Kiwi viewers, and broadcasters, interested in the competition is a driving factor for this system but let’s be honest, playoffs should be about the best teams playing each other, not token appearances to keep things on an even keel.
Which brings us to the playoffs system. The league’s media guide takes a page to chart the playoffs in a flow diagram and it needs all of that page to do it.
So we have an Australian elimination final on Friday, between the second-placed Swifts and third-placed Fever, and a New Zealand elimination final on Saturday between the secondplaced Magic and third-placed Steel (remember, both with losing records). The loser of each match goes home. The winner goes into a conference final against the top qualifiers. All good.
Here’s where the playoffs start to get confusing.
There is an Australian conference final on Sunday and a New Zealand conference final on Monday, but, basically, the results of those matches don’t really matter, because all four teams go into the semifinals anyway.
Rather than have a final between the two conference winners (which would make sense), the winner of the NZ conference final plays the loser of the Australian conference final in one semifinal, and the loser of the NZ conference final plays the winner of the Australian conference final in the other semi.
The winners of those matches play in the actual final. The final final. Once again this appears designed to level the playing field and ensure as many teams from both countries feature in playoff matches, maintaining interest on both sides of the ditch for as long as possible.
Whatever happened to the top four teams in a competition playing in semifinals and the winners of those matches playing in a final?