French international Penaud admits to sanction last week by his Clermont boss

Overall though I like my idea best because my thinking is, each league should get a few qualification spots, and then the rest of the spots should go to the next best teams who have proven an ability to be competitive in the champions cup. The elite French clubs generally make up the bulk of the semi-final spots, but that doesn't (necessarily) mean that the 5th-8th best French clubs would be competitive in a slimmed down champions cup. The CC is always going to be really great competition from the semis onwards, but the issue is that there are some pretty poor showings in the earlier rounds. Reducing the number of teams would help a little bit, but we could improve things further by (i) ensuring that the on-paper "worst" teams in the competition have a track record of performing well in the CC, and (ii) by incentivising teams to prioritise the competition. Teams that have a chance to win the whole thing will always be incentivised to do that, but my system would incentivise teams with no chance of making the final to at least try to win a few group stage matches.

"I'm afraid to say"

Its christmas time; there's no need to be afraid!

It is specifically why I suggested most of the domestic teams models in the URC as reason to increase (give a comparitive equal share based on entrants) their involvement, I see those teams, SA in particular, as only improving their performances in EPCR.

In a world where your current disposition towards their performances continues (SA'n sides only ever give themselves a shot at winning in home matches), they should do what Jones suggested and just straight kick them out.

Now of course, you have suggested ways to fix some of the problems for SA'n sides, so if and when that happens, I don't like your model that requires them to reach Semi Final level in the Challenge trophy, given the bottleneck that will be URC with 16 teams playing for only 4 places.

It may only be small factors, but I'd at least prefer those teams enter Champions Cup a year or two before that, when theyre good enough, so atleast flipping it and doing what I suggest by giving say Englands two semi finalist first seeds of the english teams, then the next best 4 on the league table as much better (it catches improving teams faster).

But wants the point of bitting the bullet in favour of EPCR? What's to gain simply by shifting incentive from one comp to another?

Randomness might not have that result very often, but I'd have thought you'd planned to not have that possiblity. Did you actually think of either of those two situations? Why do you find that idea less palatable?

I like your idea even less now I'm afraid to say, I don't think I realised you literally wanted four Champions Cup teams to come back no matter what. I think you'd need to fix that part. Maybe I haven't looked at it enough to see that you're always pretty much filling those with good teams, I still need to see some sort of limit on it like Ro16 or something though.

"some smart scheduling will have to be done"

I think they need to allow the SA teams to put as many of their away fixtures into a single european tour as possible, but that'll do nothing for the French, who just have too many games!

"I'm not sure how we can avoid teams to send a B team in any format"

you can't ever prevent it, but you can incentivise sending first teams by making performance in the CC count towards qualification for next year's competition.

"Same reason countries do/don't get in WC's of course"

Sorry, are you saying teams that put in more applications get more places in the world cup? or am I completely misunderstanding.

Well some smart scheduling will have to be done, but I'm not sure how we can avoid teams to send a B team in any format. I genuinely just don't like the luck of the draw for who's home or not

"Agreed with 4 pool of 4 and home and away games?"

I understand the appeal of pools of 4, but 6 pool games might not go down well with the French or the South Africans given already cramped schedules. I do still think that you're right that that would be the best system, but there is going to be a real danger of French and SA sides sending b-teams which could really devalue the competition unless there is a way to incentivise performance, e.g. by allowing teams that do well one year to directly qualify for the next year's competition.

In their only two seasons! No, but they had more quarter finalists. Same reason countries do/don't get in WC's of course (the All Whites example I gave, they've never deserved entry based on quality). It's fine if you chose to put forward an idea without that factor having merit, it will stand on it's own two feet whether it passes or not.

I don't think he did, he just didn't realise EPCRs previous results would mean even more imbalance, not also that there was a cap system. We'd need to look to at the impact of league size in this equation as well.

But I should stop saying what he meant as he also didn't specifcally talk about SA's part in URCs increased presence either. That was just me jumping at reasons.

I don't think its accurate that the South Africans have been the best of URC's contribution to EPCR rugby. In their first two seasons years they didn't get a single team to the semis, and at the rate they're going this season they'll be lucky to get anyone to the round of 16!

And I don't know why countries with more applicants should get more places, if the teams that apply don't meet the requirements to qualify.