Scotland boss Townsend's message for quartet of dropped players

I think so too, but as I've said, I'm in favour of a structure that needs as little change as possible in the future. And at some point, a 'chance' to make it by winning challenge cup etc, is not going to cut it. I'm talking lasting another 20 years until maybe Europe is fully on board and lots of nations can handle one or two elite pro teams, then I'd be happy with another revamp.

But how many changes has CC/EPCR gone through? I'm just worried its a reason for it's current decline (not having followed it ever I wouldn't know of course).

"Why it wouldn't be half French teams? If we use the last 5 years history it will. Unless you are thinking of a max number per domestic league. What would that number be then? 6? 7?"

Jesus Christ. You insisted you weren't using maths like that.

Maybe you need to look up how the UEFA system actually works.

"I was using the past result in the semis to make a quick estimate on what the ranking"

If the top14 ranked more highly than the Prem and the URC then that wouldn't entail that HALF the teams should be French.

The hope would also be that if CC can raise it's prestige, in part through a better structure that were trying to find, and in leagues better welfare and season lengths (Englands current point of difference and advantage/reason for impirovement?), then one might hope that allows France the avenue to fall in line as well.

You suggest they'd just dump it because they already play the majority of opposition in their own league, so CC fixtures are devalued. But if they can get that to flip and those same FvF fixtures suddenly are more important than the league ones, by this I mean both teams send their top sides to each away fixture, then suddenly those league games become of less value to TV and LNR, to the point were they could drop their own double round robin and increase player welfare.

How else did you come to the conclusion that half of the champions cup teams would be french if a UEFA style points system was adopted?

"It would be, because then the top14 will leave the competition because it is not challenging enough"

except that it would make the competition would be more challenging.

But as I pointed out, half the teams wouldn't be French.

"I don't think it would be a disaster if half the teams were from the top14,"

It would be, because then the top14 will leave the competition because it is not challenging enough. There are already some voices in that direction within the top14.

For the Black Lion and the Lusitanos I was pushing a bit, agreed. But I just love watching them and Iwant to give them a path for progression.

"That doesn't make you any less of a hypocrite!"

Coming from you, I think I'll take it as a compliment, thank you.

"But it would increase year on year wouldn't it, because they have entry"

it might, or it might not. Italy spent about 2 decades stagnating in the 6 nations before seeing proper improvement in the past year or two. I definitely agree with having Black Lion in the challenge cup, I just think they should be asked to prove themselves there before making a step further.

That's not quite my idea.

For a 20 team champions cup I'd have 4 teams qualify from the previous years champions cup, and 4 from the previous years challenge cup. For a 16 team champions cup I'd have 3 teams qualify from the previous years champions cup, and 1 from the previous years challenge cup.

"The problem I mainly saw with his idea (much the same as you see, that league finish is a better indicator) is that you could have one of the best candidates lose in the quarters to the eventual champions, and so miss out for someone who got an easier ride, and also finished lower in the league, perhaps in their own league, and who you beat everytime."

If teams get a tough draw in the challenge cup quarters, they should have won more pool games and so got better seeding. My system is less about finding the best teams, and more about finding the teams who perform at the highest level in european competition.

"You mean like the option I suggested like 3 times now?"

I mean the option that you initially suggested, but then disavowed because you didn't like the outcome.

"That will lead to have half of team from top14 and the end of the tournament."

I don't think it would be a disaster if half the teams were from the top14, but that wouldn't actually necessarily be a consequence of the system. We're talking about a UEFA style system. UEFA grant 1/8 champions league places to English premiership sides, but much more than 1 in 8 champions league semi-finalists are English.

"I genuinely disagree with that. I do think it's a decent team and are not doing too badly in the challenge cup."

Black Lion have won 2 and lost 4 in the Challenge Cup group stage in the past 2 seasons. That's not the record of a team that would do well in the Champions cup. They might have some close games, but the likelihood of a win is very low I think.

"Based on the current geopolitics I won't bet on this happening anytime soon 😉"

More's the pity!

Those T2 sides could play a pool or some simple comp with the bottom dwellers (that was actually something else I liked in Jones structure, he left out 2 English sides alltogehter, 4+4-2), and then come into the Challenge Cup when those top4 sides go up?

That idea just helps keep a nice balance for me. I like both comps having exactly the same structure, and raising 4 or so T2 sides requires that to break in some manner.

I'm strongly against Challenge cup semi finalists going to the Champions Cup, I could vaguely agree for the winner but definitely not beyond that.

Neither. You have a situation where like the Stormers lose to la Rochelle in Ro16 but lose out to a lower performing league team in Benneton (5th place v 7th) just because they made it to the semis of Challenge Cup.