At first glance there is something pleasingly balanced about the make-up of this season’s Champions Cup.
Twenty-four sides involved – eight each from the Top 14, Premiership and URC. That’s fair then, right? As it should be? A best-of-the-best tournament run on gloriously meritocratic lines?
On the surface, yes, but not in reality. There’s a problem with this season’s Champions Cup. There are too many English clubs.
For eight out of the 10 to be herded into Europe’s blue-riband club competition makes a nonsense of the VIP queue.
It is almost harder not to qualify for the English team.
It would better reflect the current balance of power in the game if one Premiership club was chopped for an extra French club to be brought in.
It would also improve the spread of the tournament if another Premiership side was replaced by a Welsh region.
The big picture is that the more diversity there is, the better it is for the competition.
It just doesn’t feel right with no Welsh representation for the first time this season. The Welsh game may be at a low ebb at the moment but there is an ingredient missing from the pot.
The Champions Cup is an international competition so its make-up should be as international as possible.
“It is sad because you want representation,” said Ospreys head coach Toby Booth. “The big picture is that the more diversity there is, the better it is for the competition. The game is struggling a little bit and having a Welsh side in there would add to it.
“It aids the credibility and visibility of Welsh rugby to be in there which is definitely what is needed because everyone is finding a reason not to support it, rather than a reason to support it, at the moment and that’s something we all have a responsibility to try to change.
“We need to grow the game at the very top level and this is a competition that helps people do that.”
Ospreys would have been involved this season, having finished eighth in the URC last term, but they were elbowed out by a lower-placed side from the same league – South Africa’s Sharks – winning the European Challenge Cup.
While it is right that the carrot of Champions Cup qualification is dangled for the Challenge Cup winners, a place should be reserved for a Welsh, Scottish and Italian team every season to enhance the mix. For consistency, Ireland and South Africa should be covered too, although a backstop in their cases would be purely hypothetical.
The current strength of the Premiership does not warrant 80 per cent of its clubs being involved.
The detractors would say that adding a Welsh side would dilute the quality of the Champions Cup. The Welsh regions have not exactly been lighting up the tournament of late but neither have they been a total embarrassment.
Scarlets made it to the semi-finals in 2017/18, since when Welsh regions have twice reached the knockout stages – including Ospreys as recently as 2022/23.
“Competition integrity is part of it and maybe gets magnified because of where we are with Welsh rugby,” said Booth. “We still need to be good enough to compete in that competition, but I don’t see it necessarily as us making up the numbers.
“In the year we qualified as Welsh Shield winners, we beat the French champions (Montpellier), the English champions (Leicester), we got to the knockout stages and narrowly lost out to Saracens.”
The reality is that a Welsh region is not going to win the Champions Cup any time soon but with the greatest respect to Exeter and Leicester, the two lowest-ranked of the English qualifiers, neither are they this season.
The current strength of the Premiership does not warrant 80 per cent of its clubs being involved.
You want teams to qualify on merit but not because you finish eighth in a 10-club league.
Booth, as an Englishman looking in from the outside, is able to see that clearly.
“It doesn’t make any sense. It is disproportionate for sure,” he said. “The rules have stayed the same but the context is different because there are three fewer teams in the Premiership.
“You want teams to qualify on merit but not because you finish eighth in a 10-club league.”
The current qualification quota implies that the Premiership is the equal of the Top 14, which it isn’t.
The last four winners of the Champions Cup have been French (Toulouse and La Rochelle, twice each).
One round of games is a small sample size but, unless Leinster come good, it has the scent of a French tournament again this season.
Six French clubs won last weekend and just two English clubs. Saracens had a decent win against the Bulls on their home patch and Northampton saw off a weakened Castres at Franklin’s Gardens, but that was it for the Premiership.
The English remain capable of landing a few spectacular blows – Harlequins won at Bordeaux and Exeter triumphed at Toulon last season after all – but no-one should be in any doubt where the real power lies.
The Premiership has its place – its internal competitiveness and its entertainment level is admirable – but the depth of squads are not comparable with the French clubs and Leinster.
Partly that is down to choice with a £6.4m salary cap in place. Had Bristol been free to spend Steve Lansdown’s fortune, the Bears might have been able to better combat a Leinster bench amped up to the heavens by the likes of Jordie Barrett and Caelan Doris last Sunday.
Forget the fake equality. The Champions Cup should move to nine French clubs, nine from the URC – with backstop powers for each nation – and six from the Premiership.
But for most Premiership clubs the cap is less a hindrance than a welcome mechanism to safeguard their future.
The fact is that with a TV deal in France which dwarfs that in England, the Top 14 clubs simply have more spending power.
It may not be the situation forever but for the time being, the Premiership is the support act compared to the Top 14 and Europe needs recalibrating to reflect it.
Forget the fake equality. The Champions Cup should move to nine French clubs, nine from the URC – with backstop powers for each nation – and six from the Premiership. That would break down as 64 per cent of the Top 14, 60 per cent of the Premiership and 56 per cent of the URC.
All round, that would be a much more accurate reflection of the state of play.
That dilemma has been one of the strongest drives of my ideas, where my hope would be for clubs (and more importanltly their fans) to switch focus and allow the leagues to come up with leagues with better player welfare (ie shorter). I get Finn's ideas but I just don't think they are actually going to work, they are kinda like fake incentives. Rugby as a whole needs to improve for this problem to get resolved.
Nick Bishop has come out with an article where he suggests it is just a South African problem, but I think this earlier reply of mine to Finn is pertinent to your question (and that article) so I'll include it here a well.
This is more of a suggestion for NBs new article on SA but I'd argue more pool games mean its easier to have a structure based on region system where say all of the SA teams that qualified are in the same pool, and you can play all those away games against them consecutively. Then return home and they come to you etc.
I don't think its necessarily needed as I think it would be quite easy for EPCR to take into account/do in conjunction with each leagues fixture list.
(I also go on to say I don't like that pool idea in the perfect world but you can ignore this)
To me, pool play should be sort to just acheive a ranking system. The bottom team of each pool is kicked out or 'culled' (perhaps to Challenge Cup, I'm fond of that exchange), but the fixtures then go into consecutive knockouts of home/away fixtures, say 1 v 16, then go thru to 1 v 8(or worst seed of the other winners etc) home/away, 1v4, etc etc. Maybe the Semi's onwards are 'neutral' fixtures and those last three games are just do or die fixtures?
Yeah, that's what I'm pointing out! It was the same valid reasoning in both cases!
He accused me of hating English rugby because I thought having 8 (of 10) sides was ridiculous.
So your intention is that teams prioritize those games because it's going to be more reliable way to remain in Champions than league performance. Say in your predicted case where England has 8 strong teams, only four are going to gain automatic entry, so the other four are going to stay up by doing well enough in Champions Cup pool games.
I would be interested on just how many teams would have gone out of contention in the last few years using your system, my thought is that it would not be a lot. Winning a quarter of your games might be enough to remain in it each year. It greatly depends one how much the leagues fluctuate, and I see that becoming less and less.
This is more of a suggestion for NBs new article on SA but I'd argue more pool games mean its easier to have a structure based on region system where say all of the SA teams that qualified are in the same pool, and you can play all those away games against them consecutively. Then return home and they come to you etc.
I don't think its necessarily needed as I think it would be quite easy for EPCR to take into account/do in conjunction with each leagues fixture list. To me, pool play should be sort to just acheive a ranking system. The bottom team of each pool is kicked out or 'culled' (perhaps to Challenge Cup, I'm fond of that exchange), but the fixtures then go into consecutive knockouts of home/away fixtures, say 1 v 16, then go thru to 1 v 8(or worst seed of the other winners etc) home/away, 1v4, etc etc. Maybe the Semi's onwards are 'neutral' fixtures and those last three games are just do or die fixtures?
That's is exactly what happens. You might be really misunderstanding badly the relationship between "teams", and countries. Oceania had a dozen members so they were rewarded with entry. Which wouldn't be as good as the last dozen of Europes members.
This is probably making a point you already understand once it clicks. It's the concept of this article, Wales has four teams, so should have some representation if the EPCR is about the game rather than an Elite super league to allow the rich to get richer. There is of course a midground here were people don't need to get carried away.
No, it wouldn't. It gets harder by simple mathmatics, not just for SA, but for all in URC compared to England in your model. SA have the same league standings in previous years. I'm just picking out SA as an example as they've probably had the biggest share involvement so far, you're getting too fixated on recent results dictating the success of your idea. You need to envision what else might happen.
Gloucester are a great example of your idea going a bit too far in it's randomness. They are coming up but they are not ready for Champions Cup. With your model they would have been excluded for another up and coming team, for example Benneton. So if you like going by recent examples, one lost to a Top 14 new commer, the other beat one of Premierships best sides. The right team has made it into the Champions Cup.
I don't want 8 teams from the same league full stop so obviously not 8 English teams
Like I've said before about your idea (actually it might have been something to do with mine, I can't remember), I like that teams will a small sustainable league focus can gain the reward of more consistent CC involvement. I'd really like the most consistent option available.
Thing is, I think rugby can do better than footballs version. I think for instance I wanted everyone in it to think they can win it, where you're talking about trying to make so the worst teams in it are not giving up when they are so far off the pace that we get really bad scorelines (when that and giving up to concentrate on the league is happening together). I know it's not realistic to think those same exact teams are going to be competitive with a different model but I am inclined to think more competitive teams make it in with another modem. It's a catch 22 of course, you want teams to fight to be there next year, but they don't want to be there next year when theres less interest in it because the results are less interesting than league ones. If you ensure the best 20 possible make it somehow (say currently) each year they quickly change focus when things aren't going well enough and again interest dies. Will you're approach gradually work overtime? With the approach of the French league were a top 6 mega rich Premier League type club system might develop, maybe it will? But what of a model like Englands were its fairly competitive top 8 but orders or performances can jump around quite easily one year to the next? If the England sides are strong comparatively to the rest do they still remain in EPCR despite not consistently dominating in their own league?
So I really like that you could have a way to remedy that, but personally I would want my model to not need that crutch. Some of this is the same problem that football has. I really like the landscape in both the URC and Prem, but Ireland with Leinster specifically, and France, are a problem IMO. In football this has turned CL pool stages in to simply cash cow fixtures for the also ran countries teams who just want to have a Real Madrid or ManC to lose to in their pool for that bumper revenue hit. It's always been a comp that had suffered for real interest until the knockouts as well (they might have changed it in recent years?).
You've got some great principles but I'm not sure it's going to deliver on that hard hitting impact right from the start without the best teams playing in it. I think you might need to think about the most minimal requirement/way/performance, a team needs to execute to stay in the Champions Cup as I was having some thougt about that earlier and had some theory I can't remember. First they could get entry by being a losing quarter finalist in the challenge, then putting all their eggs in the Champions pool play bucket in order to never finish last in their pool, all the while showing the same indifference to their league some show to EPCR rugby now, just to remain in champions. You extrapolate that out and is there ever likely to be more change to the champions cup that the bottom four sides rotate out each year for the 4 challenge teams? Are the leagues ever likely to have the sort of 'flux' required to see some variation? Even a good one like Englands.
I'd love to have a table at hand were you can see all the outcomes, and know how likely any of your top 12 teams are going break into Champions rubyg on th back it it are?
"I see those teams, SA in particular, as only improving their performances in EPCR."
well, its gone the opposite direction so far!
"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."
my model would have given SA 3 spots in a 16 team CC this year, which is the same number as they have in the 24 team version that is actually taking place. But yes, if they keep getting worse it would get harder for them to get places. It would also get harder for you to argue that they deserve places though!
"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)."
interesting argument, but it doesn't always go that way. Gloucester are improving, but they improved in cup competitions before league fixtures started going their way. The same is true of Sharks, and the same was true of la Rochelle. I think maybe this is just an argument for allowing more teams to qualify via the challenge cup!
"Wait, so your hole plan is to allow teams to stay in the Champions Cup once they get there"
What do you mean? Its a knockout competition, not a league, so teams that lose their games will fail to progress.
"the seasons a so bloatedly that if they can only fully concentrate on one, you're specifically trying to make that the EPCR over their league?" if the CC is the pinnacle of european rugby then teams should prioritise it, or at least EPCR should try to encourage teams to prioritise it. When teams don't prioritise it, it makes the competition worse. When teams do prioritise it I think they should be rewarded.
"Right, so even if they were the 4 worst teams in Champions Cup, you'd still have them back by default?"
I think (i) this would literally never happen, (ii) it technically couldn't quite happen, given at least 1 team would qualify via the challenge cup, so if the actual worst team in the CC qualified it would have to be because they did really well after being knocked down to the challenge cup.
But the 13th-15th teams could qualify and to be fair I didn't think about this as a possibility. I don't think a team should be able to qualify via the Champions Cup if they finish last in their group.
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!
That's the basis of my very first comment, what is the future going to look like? And work around some system that encompases that.
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).
It has some merit I admit, especially in this climate where I think it's unlikely to be able to use the EPCR as a way to revoltionize rugbys make up to improve on the long seasons.
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?
Wait, so your hole plan is to allow teams to stay in the Champions Cup once they get there, regardless of league importance. That the seasons a so bloatedly that if they can only fully concentrate on one, you're specifically trying to make that the EPCR over their league?
Wasn't he just being a smart ass that you didn't want 8 English sides? Your reasoning for going below 8 is the same reason you didn't want so many english sides. You did think of that!
Right, so even if they were the 4 worst teams in Champions Cup, you'd still have them back by default?
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.
Why did you say "I've told you twice already how I did it but your refuse to listen" when you had clearly not told me that you'd placed a limit of 8 teams per league?
"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.
Yes true they have done quite well at getting to QFs. But given early indications are that their results are getting worse each season that record might not look the same in years to come.
"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.
"oh ok, seems strange you didn't put the limit at 7 given you said you thought 8 was too many!"
I genuinely didn't think of that... 😅
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
oh ok, seems strange you didn't put the limit at 7 given you said you thought 8 was too many!
Why did you say "I've told you twice already how I did it but your refuse to listen" when you had clearly not told me that you'd placed a limit of 8 teams per league?
"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.
Nar that was just my bad for insinuating, he may indeed have just been refering to Pro days.
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.
Ah my bad, i think i might have missed the "more" part of your statement.
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.
Was he? Not in the comment you were replying to!
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.
No because if it was a 1:1 correspondence it would have been 10 top14, 3 URC and 3 Prem. I did arbitrarily put a max limit per league at 8 because for me if half of the teams are from the top14 it will make no sense. I genuinely didn't think the discussion will go that way tbh as for me it is a details.
which post?
Go back up the tree here and reply to his post if still awake.
Please disgregard, I see it's below
No, you were being an idiot by jumping on an irrelevant point.
was I right to infer that you assumed a 1:1 correspondence between points and places?
If so why were you so evasive about admitting that?
I've typed out a reply regarding the pool format but I won't send it if you don't answer my question.
Alan was talking about the South Africans.
Applicants I mean to say, the most teams wanting to be a part of it. I think it only fair the get an applicable share (just reiterating my old point).
I'll admit whatever you want if it makes us progress.
6/5/5 is good for me, or even 6/5/4 and bring last year's winner on top of that.
So we have
6 top14
5 prem
5 URC
Agreed with 4 pool of 4 and home and away games?
So was I right to infer that you assumed a 1:1 correspondence between points and places?
If so why were you so evasive about admitting that?
I don't have much of an opinion about how it should be done. It isn't my preferred system as I think there should be a significant number of teams who qualify directly as a result of their performance in the previous year's CC. But I think 6/5/5 or 6/6/4 would probably make the most sense as splits if they ever did go over to the UEFA model.
Sure.
And what do you suggest should be the number of teams for the league with the most points?
You haven't told me how you did it. I can infer that you assumed a 1:1 correspondence between points and places, but you kept insisting that you didn't after JW pointed out that "you can't use maths like that".
You also insisted you knew how the UEFA system works, despite the fact that the UEFA system doesn't assume a 1:1 correspondance between points and places.
Come on surely this post is more interesting than the trash talk. Any response?
Feel free to come with another conclusion and show your proof.
I've told you twice already how I did it but your refuse to listen and it is getting late.
"Well, you know what they:"
what they indeed!
You get more places if you have more points, but how many points you need to get extra places is determined by a set of rules that are entirely exogenous to the points system.
In other words there is no rule that says that X number of points should translate to Y number of places, unless you came up with that rule.
So I ask again:
How did you come to the conclusion that half of the champions cup teams would be french if a UEFA style points system was adopted?
Why are you being so evasive about this?
Well, you know what they: "When the debate is lost, slander becomes the tool of the loser."
This is how the UEFA system works, if you have more points you have more places, and currently, if you don't put a limit of places per league, the top14 is so overwhelmingly dominant that they would reach half of the places.
there is no rule that says that X number of points should translate to Y number of places, unless you came up with that rule.
So I ask again:
How did you come to the conclusion that half of the champions cup teams would be french if a UEFA style points system was adopted?
That's what I tried to explain but you don't care about the calculation
You being an idiot is getting tedious.
I didn't.
I asked how you came to the conclusion that half of the champions cup teams would be french if a UEFA style points system was adopted?
"You realise no one is going to gain entry through performance in the champions cup right? When was the last time a team was good enough to reach the best four in europe but not in their own league?"
last season. Harlequins. In 2023 Exeter. In 2022 la Rochelle and Racing 92. I can't be bothered going back further but I think I've made my point!
"Otherwise, like I've already said, you're first likely to be looking at Challenge, getting a few their, then back to Champions quarters I'd imagine."
I'm quite confused by how you're framing this. 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.
"You might find it more palatable if you flip the sequence in CC qualifcation"
I'd find it a lot less palatable, hence why I didn't suggest it!
"I don't care how you calculated the points"
Then don't ask.
I don't care how you calculated the points, but there is no rule that says that X number of points should translate to Y number of places, unless you came up with that rule.
So I ask again:
How did you come to the conclusion that half of the champions cup teams would be french if a UEFA style points system was adopted?
Rhhho can you stop the insults and aggessivity? It's getting tedious and devaluate your points
In the two years they have had 3 in Semis, Ireland 2. They also won Challenge. Not bad for not taking it seriously
then you should have put it in quote marks you ignoramus!
no, I meant champions league.
It might have changed this year, but my understanding is that about one eighth of the qualification spots in the champions league go to english clubs, but around a quarter of the semi finalists are normally english.
The point being that in UEFA's system there isn't a 1:1 correspondence with the proportion of teams from each league that make the semis and the proportion of teams from each league that qualify for the competition. I was making this point because AlanP seemed to think that there would have to be a 1:1 correspondence if a UEFA style system was adopted for the champions cup.
"And at some point, a 'chance' to make it by winning challenge cup etc, is not going to cut it."
Why not? I don't see why Black Lion need to be in the champions cup. If they win the Challenge Cup then they can qualify for the Champions Cup. If they make the semis or the quarters of the Challenge Cup then that would probably prove that they are good enough for the Champions Cup, but not so good that the Challenge Cup doesn't still pose a challenge for them.
Because obviously I gave more points to team that reach the final and even more for the winner. I chose the semis as a cut off point for ease of calculation, that's all. I didn't have the time to do a full calculation using all the results
Fair enough then.
You realise no one is going to gain entry through performance in the champions cup right? When was the last time a team was good enough to reach the best four in europe but not in their own league?
You could do what I suggest and add that qualification to the league. You might find it more palatable if you flip the sequence in CC qualifcation. The first way a team qualifies for top seed (this probably already happens in some respect) is by winning it the previous year, then that is through to fourth seed. Then comes the "guarenteed" league spots, so if a French side finishes 1 and 4 four instance, those two are in, then the four most ranked teams in France are allicated, so have 6 team entry (possible more if you also doing Challenge). It is basically my idea but on steroids, x4.
Otherwise, like I've already said, you're first likely to be looking at Challenge, getting a few their, then back to Champions quarters I'd imagine.
But yea, my main explaination was in reply to the idea that Alan seemed to have thnking you were suggesting looking at Champions finishes well past the quarter stage. And I don't think you were suggesting that were you.
Well let's make some progress and move on.
Do we agree on 16 teams?
Do we agree on 4 pool of 4?
Do we agree on home and away games?
For the selection do we agree on last year's winer qualifying automatically?
Do we agree on using the UEFA system? If yes what should be the maximum (and minimum) teams per league?
I would say max 7 (including last year's winner)
So that would mean for next year:
7 top14
5 prem
4 URC
How did you come to the conclusion that half of the champions cup teams would be french if a UEFA style points system was adopted?
Why are you avoiding that question?
Is it because you insisted you weren't implying a 1 to 1 correspondence between the proportion of teams from each league that make the semis, and the proportion of teams from each league that should qualify for the competition, when you clearly were?
Doesn't seem so though...
"I'd just this is a symptom of the current climate in regards to how teams treat the CC"
Well frankly I was more blaming my memory and getting old 😜
I am aware that is how the UEFA system works.
I was quoting yes
You said it though.
It wouldn't if we put a limit per league, otherwise the last 5 years results are so overwhelming French that it would if not even more than half
The less challenging point wasn't from me but from Mourad Boudjellal the ex president of Toulon
Or maybe you should look on how the UEFA system actually works. And they do have a max number of teams per league to avoid having too many Spanish and English teams
Oh, right, you meant champions cup, not champions league?
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).
do they? They're not showing it in the URC or the champions cup. If teams consistently do poorly I'm not sure how you can infer their quality!
"More challenging but exactly the same as the top14 so not interesting."
you said it would be less challenging.
"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.
They definitely have the quality, theyre just following the prescribed plan of european rugby and need to rest players.
So how did you come to the conclusion that half of the champions cup teams would be french if a UEFA style points system was adopted?
"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.
I'd just this is a symptom of the current climate in regards to how teams treat the CC, it changes one year to the next dependant on how teams think it's viable compared to the league schedule. One year it may work to take it seriously, the next not.
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.
Absolutely not!
I was using the past result in the semis to make a quick estimate on what the ranking could look like. You are completely missing the point. If you prefer I could do an estimate using previous rounds and I bet I will come to a similar results
More challenging but exactly the same as the top14 so not interesting.
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?
you were, actually.
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?
"I would have swear that one year SA had 2 teams in the semis!"
popular perception of the quality of the SA provinces really doesn't match reality!
"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.
"AlanP was trying to use maths/numbers like that'
No I wasn't. Absolutely not!
"Those two things are not the same, you can't use maths/numbers like that."
I agree. AlanP was trying to use maths/numbers like that, and I was saying that it didn't make sense.
"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.
Well the other idea I had been toying with which I think is still used in football, is something like each pool winners of the Challenge Cup gets entry into the round of 16 etc (or whateveer equivalnt entry point we can come up with) in the Champions Cup.
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.
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.
also never let rugby pass tv do u20 broadcast not on youtube again , with the chat it was boring as hell! i wouldnt pay for that shite!, idiots didnt even start youtube broadcast on time, please make it back on youtube not this ameteur hour cock up!
what you say is true , 16 teams expanded to 4 qualifiers from earlier challenge cup rounds, but either way you are asking teams to lose money by not playing! for some clubs this is much needed income! so how do you reward them for loss income?