PhilClinton
Mark Ella (57)
I am glad someone found it funny!
Dropping No 1 to No 4 in the semis and raising No 6 to No 3 ensures there will be no repeat match ups in the semis. The other two semi finalists are both winners so couldn't possibly have played the week before. Just a smokescreen.That's a decent response in my view.
A six team final series is always tricky. Teams 1 and 2 don't really want a week off in the first week of the finals because the extra home final is worth a fair bit of money. Until last weekend it is pretty much unheard of that a sixth placed team will beat the minor premiers.
One of the things I read about the final series originally is that the matchups (and a progressing loser only dropping one place) was designed as the method which ensured there couldn't be a repeat matchup from week 1 to 2.
That might have been a request from Nine/Stan - have the Australian game in the Saturday 7.30pm timeslot
No but regular scheduling is important to retaining and building viewership. My guess off the back off MarkJ's comment is that RA/Nine/Stan probably wanted to retain that 7:30pm Saturday slot as their premier timeslot for rugby, and it would have been far too late for the Saders to host the Reds in ChChI would argue that more eyeballs onto a playoff game that would be literally pointless isn't a good thing for the competition
Thankfully the Blues saved the day
True, although I get the feeling they wouldn't get themselves in the pickle in the first placeAs a side, while it's less likely to be an issue in the NRL/ AFL with most of those comps being played out of the east coast - I guarantee in those competitions any clash like this (comp integrity vs broadcast), broadcast will win.