Champions Cup Potential Changes 2022

molloyjh

awec wrote: »

But all this suggests is that playing in a professional league, any professional league, is better than playing in a lower-standard, domestic semi-pro league.

Nothing else.

So yes, the Pro14 is better than nothing at all, but this doesn't invalidate the point that the Pro14 is rubbish.

It invalidated the bizarre idea that its filler for the U ions. Which is the point I was addressing. It has a fairly defined place in Irish rugby (and Welsh and Scottish) that is incredibly important in terms of player development.

There are issues with the league, chief among them the Welsh regions struggles. I dont think anyone has denied that. But it is more than filler. It's one part domestic league, one part development league. We need that with such a small margin of error around player development compared to England or France plus a far higher dependence on the national team to fund the game due to disparate and smaller markets. These are things we cant change and have to accept. Not just the bare facts of them, but also what they mean in the wider context.

awec

molloyjh wrote: »

It invalidated the bizarre idea that its filler for the U ions. Which is the point I was addressing. It has a fairly defined place in Irish rugby (and Welsh and Scottish) that is incredibly important in terms of player development.

There are issues with the league, chief among them the Welsh regions struggles. I dont think anyone has denied that. But it is more than filler. It's one part domestic league, one part development league. We need that with such a small margin of error around player development compared to England or France plus a far higher dependence on the national team to fund the game due to disparate and smaller markets. These are things we cant change and have to accept. Not just the bare facts of them, but also what they mean in the wider context.

I think we need to accept that the Pro14 may be seen as something more than filler to hardcore provincial rugby lovers who enjoy watching glorified A teams tog out most weeks with the odd decent match thrown in.

But to everyone else it is filler.

There is a reason it is stuck on obscure TV channels. There is a reason that these TV operators consistently refuse to release subscriber numbers. There is a reason that stadiums are half empty for pro14 games.

By and large it is struggling for relevancy. It is struggling to win hearts and minds with fans (especially in Wales), and struggling for investment, which is why they embarked on their world tour of adding in some teams that will bring a few quid with them. North Americans next yea? Can't wait.

As a spectator and supporter of rugby (as opposed to say, an IRFU blazer), I believe the Pro14 is pure garbage. It is, by some distance, the worst and least interesting professional rugby league in the world.

As each year goes on I have been attending fewer and fewer games, and watching fewer and fewer on TV, because it's just such a boring procession. Too many rubbish fixtures, too few games with strong teams.

People can suggest that I am the exception here, but I do not believe that I am, and it will be interesting to see what happens the next time TV rights come on the table.

molloyjh

awec wrote: »

I think we need to accept that the Pro14 may be seen as something more than filler to hardcore provincial rugby lovers who enjoy watching glorified A teams tog out most weeks with the odd decent match thrown in.

But to everyone else it is filler.

There is a reason it is stuck on obscure TV channels. There is a reason that these TV operators consistently refuse to release subscriber numbers. There is a reason that stadiums are half empty for pro14 games.

By and large it is struggling for relevancy. It is struggling to win hearts and minds with fans (especially in Wales), and struggling for investment, which is why they embarked on their world tour of adding in some teams that will bring a few quid with them. North Americans next yea? Can't wait.

As a spectator and supporter of rugby (as opposed to say, an IRFU blazer), I believe the Pro14 is pure garbage. It is, by some distance, the worst and least interesting professional rugby league in the world.

As each year goes on I have been attending fewer and fewer games, and watching fewer and fewer on TV, because it's just such a boring procession. Too many rubbish fixtures, too few games with strong teams.

People can suggest that I am the exception here, but I do not believe that I am, and it will be interesting to see what happens the next time TV rights come on the table.

You're moving the goalposts now. You initially said that it is a filler for the teams. That was what I argued. Not any of what you have written above.

lawred2

irishbucsfan wrote: »

It's a very silly idea particularly in a competition that spans such a large geographical distance. I'd doubt it'll get far

Are you including SA in that? Because otherwise that doesn't make much sense

awec

molloyjh wrote: »

You're moving the goalposts now. You initially said that it is a filler for the teams. That was what I argued. Not any of what you have written above.

For the teams it is filler too. They pretend it's a serious league (and price it as if it was a serious competition), but treat it like a development league. For the best players in the league, and the strongest selections, the pro14 is absolutely filler. Keep the lads fit between the matches we really care about.

I'm not moving any goalposts. The perception of the pro14 didn't appear out of thin air, the perception is driven by how it's treated by the unions. It's run half-arsed, so the support is half-arsed. IMO this will be detrimental to rugby here in the long term.

AbusesToilets

The Pro14 isn't ****, I'd argue that the quality of rugby in it is often much more entertaining and attacking than what's seen in the Premiership. There is plenty of ****e in the other two leagues, in fact I'd argue that the fait accompli for away games in France is far more damning than anything in the Pro14.

This proposal comes across as another step by CVC to increase it's control over rugby. There are definite improvements that could be made to EC. 3 team groups and 2 leg semis are not it. Smaller groups would kill some of the magic in Europe, you'd never get a situation like this year where Leinster have the top teams from the other leagues in their groups. It also means getting rid of the Christmas double header, which is one of the best parts of the Group stages. 2 leg semis means you're completely erasing the reward for the best teams, by securing home field advantage.

The fundamental issue with the Pro14, and other leagues, is the overlapping calendar in Europe. If you could move the 6Ns forward, and the English and French would stop adding more games into their leagues, there wouldn't be any need to field weakened teams in any competition.

molloyjh

awec wrote: »

For the teams it is filler too. They pretend it's a serious league (and price it as if it was a serious competition), but treat it like a development league. For the best players in the league, and the strongest selections, the pro14 is absolutely filler. Keep the lads fit between the matches we really care about.

I'm not moving any goalposts. The perception of the pro14 didn't appear out of thin air, the perception is driven by how it's treated by the unions. It's run half-arsed, so the support is half-arsed.

And how did I describe it above? As one part serious league, one part development league. It has to be partly a development league. Where else will we develop talent? We dont have the luxury of letting several blindsides be non-international options like England or France so we have to treat our league differently.

awec

molloyjh wrote: »

And how did I describe it above? As one part serious league, one part development league. It has to be partly a development league. Where else will we develop talent? We dont have the luxury of letting several blindsides be non-international options like England or France so we have to treat our league differently.

You can develop talent in a serious league. Why do you think you cannot?

You aren't going to play the exact same 15 every single week. There is no problem with squad rotation, that is inevitable. The problem is the weeks where squads are decimated because some team is minus their internationals, or these other players are on an enforced layoff, or player X just doesn't play away games, or there's a european game next week and we're taking it handy this week, or we'll organise this test match for this week instead.

prawnsambo

This is nothing to do with improving the competition. It's all about clearing the calendar for domestic competitions. Especially the Premiership that is expanding to 13 teams next season. So drop two pool games and only add new games with the absolutely horrendous idea of double header semi-finals which only adds games to the few teams that will get that far. Job done.

awec

Basically:

Pro14 unions: happy to run their league as a development league, rely on big fixtures against English and French teams in Europe to bring in the dollar and maintain supporter interest. Less euro games is bad news as euro games are a huge selling point for clubs with many supporters only actually caring about the European competitions.

England / France: run their league as a proper league, Europe is a bonus if they are going well, otherwise a distraction. See their league as their main competition, want to do more to promote it and are happy to reduce the focus on Europe a bit to facilitate that.

Essentially, we are annoyed because they are looking to pull the rug from under us, even though what they are doing is really not unreasonable from their viewpoint. European games are more important to us than they are to them. We can either moan about this, or we can take steps to reduce our reliance on clubs that sit in leagues that really do not give much of a stuff about our teams, and one of those steps has to be to increase the income from our own league, which can only happen through some change of attitude toward it.

prawnsambo

awec wrote: »

Basically:

Pro14 unions: happy to run their league as a development league, rely on big fixtures against English and French teams in Europe to bring in the dollar and maintain supporter interest. Less euro games is bad news as euro games are a huge selling point for clubs with many supporters only actually caring about the European competitions.

England / France: run their league as a proper league, Europe is a bonus if they are going well, otherwise a distraction. See their league as their main competition, want to do more to promote it and are happy to reduce the focus on Europe a bit to facilitate that.

Essentially, we are annoyed because they are looking to pull the rug from under us, even though what they are doing is really not unreasonable from their viewpoint. European games are more important to us than they are to them. We can either moan about this, or we can take steps to reduce our reliance on clubs that sit in leagues that really do not give much of a stuff about our teams, and one of those steps has to be to increase the income from our own league, which can only happen through some change of attitude toward it.

Can't disagree with any of that. But you have to accept that regardless of what any league thinks about it, the European competition should be the pinnacle of club rugby in much the same way as it is in club football. This proposal seeks to weaken it and that will only be to the detriment of the tournament. Dealing with the inherent problems in any of the domestic league competitions, should not impinge on the European competition as a whole. And I've yet to hear any viable solution for the Pro14. There just aren't enough clubs available to make it more competitive and add a relegation scenario.

molloyjh

awec wrote: »

Basically:

Pro14 unions: happy to run their league as a development league, rely on big fixtures against English and French teams in Europe to bring in the dollar and maintain supporter interest. Less euro games is bad news as euro games are a huge selling point for clubs with many supporters only actually caring about the European competitions.

England / France: run their league as a proper league, Europe is a bonus if they are going well, otherwise a distraction. See their league as their main competition, want to do more to promote it and are happy to reduce the focus on Europe a bit to facilitate that.

Essentially, we are annoyed because they are looking to pull the rug from under us, even though what they are doing is really not unreasonable from their viewpoint. European games are more important to us than they are to them. We can either moan about this, or we can take steps to reduce our reliance on clubs that sit in leagues that really do not give much of a stuff about our teams, and one of those steps has to be to increase the income from our own league, which can only happen through some change of attitude toward it.

It really isnt that simple though. The P14 cant possibly hope to compete financially with the Premiership or Top 14. It's just not possible. Our dependence on the national side plus the Euro money helps address that imbalance. Hence the agreement in the last deal for a minimum amount to the P14 sides. But this idea goes another step towards tilting things back in favour of the big countries, just like the last set of changes to Europe where they got their equal split in revenue (reasonable from their perspective but there was a reason the split was unequal to begin with).

This is all about suiting Premiership expansion. And that's fine. The English have to do what's best for them. Similarly we have to do whats best for us. They cant complain if we veto it.

EDIT: Nobody here is doing this for the good of the competition, and I think the competition would suffer if this was introduced. As prawnsambo said, Europe should be the pinnacle of the club game here. Moving away from that wouldnt be good for the game as a whole.

awec

molloyjh wrote: »

It really isnt that simple though. The P14 cant possibly hope to compete financially with the Premiership or Top 14. It's just not possible. Our dependence on the national side plus the Euro money helps address that imbalance. Hence the agreement in the last deal for a minimum amount to the P14 sides. But this idea goes another step towards tilting things back in favour of the big countries, just like the last set of changes to Europe where they got their equal split in revenue (reasonable from their perspective but there was a reason the split was unequal to begin with).

This is all about suiting Premiership expansion. And that's fine. The English have to do what's best for them. Similarly we have to do whats best for us. They cant complain if we veto it.

EDIT: Nobody here is doing this for the good of the competition, and I think the competition would suffer if this was introduced. As prawnsambo said, Europe should be the pinnacle of the club game here. Moving away from that wouldnt be good for the game as a whole.

They can and they will. And they will ultimately get what they want, I think it's naive to think otherwise, especially now with CVC onboard.

Again, Europe is more important to us than it is to them. They know this, and we've seen how they've used this before.

Why would moving away from Europe as the pinnacle be detrimental to the game as a whole?

awec

awec wrote: »

I do think that there needs to be some tweaks to the knockout stages of the competition. The semi final situation right now is influenced too much by the sheer luck of the draw at pool stage time.

I would personally change it so that there is a draw after the pool stages, rather than the current automatic pairings. Top 4 teams can get any of the bottom 4 teams. Then at the semi final stage it should be another open draw.

Shifts the luck from the pool stages (determined how lucky you get across six matches) to the an actual draw. I don't see how this reduces sheer luck.

AbusesToilets

awec wrote: »

Basically:

Pro14 unions: happy to run their league as a development league, rely on big fixtures against English and French teams in Europe to bring in the dollar and maintain supporter interest. Less euro games is bad news as euro games are a huge selling point for clubs with many supporters only actually caring about the European competitions.

England / France: run their league as a proper league, Europe is a bonus if they are going well, otherwise a distraction. See their league as their main competition, want to do more to promote it and are happy to reduce the focus on Europe a bit to facilitate that.

Essentially, we are annoyed because they are looking to pull the rug from under us, even though what they are doing is really not unreasonable from their viewpoint. European games are more important to us than they are to them. We can either moan about this, or we can take steps to reduce our reliance on clubs that sit in leagues that really do not give much of a stuff about our teams, and one of those steps has to be to increase the income from our own league, which can only happen through some change of attitude toward it.

That's the problem, there is little to no avenue to increase sponsorship money. The population aggregate isn't there in the Pro14 to warrant much tv money. This has been borne out repeatedly in the deals the league has secured. the absolute best case scenario would be for the South Africans to pull out of Super Rugby and go all in for the Pro14, since we're dealing in fantasy here.

The Premiership is not a sustainable product financially, as evidenced year after year in the annual accounting reports. If Nigel Wray decided he didn't want to dump millions into Saracens, they'd be right back into obscurity. As a league, it's no better run than the Pro14 is, it simple has the benefit of a much larger pool of viewers to attract tv money.

AbusesToilets

awec wrote: »

They can and they will. And they will ultimately get what they want, I think it's naive to think otherwise, especially now with CVC onboard.

Again, Europe is more important to us than it is to them. They know this, and we've seen how they've used this before.

Why would moving away from Europe as the pinnacle be detrimental to the game as a whole?

The best teams, playing the best rugby against each other, versus two average teams from the bottom of the Premiership scrapping it out.

Real head scratcher alright

errlloyd

Deleted User wrote: »

Shifts the luck from the pool stages (determined how lucky you get across six matches) to the an actual draw. I don't see how this reduces sheer luck.

A team now has to get lucky twice instead of just once. Ultimately a team now gets double punished for a harsh draw.

1: It's harder for them to get out of their pool.
2: It's likely that even if they do they will have a harder knockout stage as a result.

By drawing for random semi-finals you don't make that impossible, but you make it less likely.

awec

AbusesToilets wrote: »

That's the problem, there is little to no avenue to increase sponsorship money. The population aggregate isn't there in the Pro14 to warrant much tv money. This has been borne out repeatedly in the deals the league has secured. the absolute best case scenario would be for the South Africans to pull out of Super Rugby and go all in for the Pro14, since we're dealing in fantasy here.

The Premiership is not a sustainable product financially, as evidenced year after year in the annual accounting reports. If Nigel Wray decided he didn't want to dump millions into Saracens, they'd be right back into obscurity. As a league, it's no better run than the Pro14 is, it simple has the benefit of a much larger pool of viewers to attract tv money.

We hear this a lot, but the problem is the Pro14 doesn't maximise the pool it has available to it.

The number of rugby supporters who take an interest in the pro14 is a subset of supporters who take an interest in Europe and test rugby.

The Pro14 doesn't need to win over any brand new rugby fans, it needs to get the fans who care about Europe and Ireland to care about the league. This increases interest, which increases the value of the league, which leads to more money. It won't do that if it continues as it is today.

awec

errlloyd wrote: »

A team now has to get lucky twice instead of just once. Ultimately a team now gets double punished for a harsh draw.

1: It's harder for them to get out of their pool.
2: It's likely that even if they do they will have a harder knockout stage as a result.

By drawing for random semi-finals you don't make that impossible, but you make it less likely.

Right.

Look at Munster for example. If they get out of that pool as runners up, it's arguably a much greater achievement than some of the group winners, but they'll be hit with an away quarter final. All because of the unfortunate draw they got at pool time.

awec

AbusesToilets wrote: »

The best teams, playing the best rugby against each other, versus two average teams from the bottom of the Premiership scrapping it out.

Real head scratcher alright

That's not a given in Europe? There are many bang average teams playing bang average games in that competition as well.

AbusesToilets

awec wrote: »

We hear this a lot, but the problem is the Pro14 doesn't maximise the pool it has available to it.

The number of rugby supporters who take an interest in the pro14 is a subset of supporters who take an interest in Europe and test rugby.

The Pro14 doesn't need to win over any brand new rugby fans, it needs to get the fans who care about Europe and Ireland to care about the league. This increases interest, which increases the value of the league, which leads to more money. It won't do that if it continues as it is today.

That's not how advertisers weigh investing. They look first and foremost at what the potential viewership for their product is. That's a fairly finite number for the Pro14. Those who care about rugby, probably already watch it.

AbusesToilets

awec wrote: »

That's not a given in Europe? There are many bang average teams playing bang average games in that competition as well.

At times certainly, featuring equal numbers of **** English and French teams as Pro14 ones. There are also absolute belters, and I'd argue the knock outs are a consistently quality product, with an intensity far above any of the respective domestic leagues.

molloyjh

awec wrote: »

They can and they will. And they will ultimately get what they want, I think it's naive to think otherwise, especially now with CVC onboard.

Again, Europe is more important to us than it is to them. They know this, and we've seen how they've used this before.

Why would moving away from Europe as the pinnacle be detrimental to the game as a whole?

Last time they didnt quite get what they wanted though. They had to compromise and guarantee us a minimum return, which in the end hurt them because they overestimated how much they could sell the tournament for.

sydthebeat

awec wrote: »

Right.

Look at Munster for example. If they get out of that pool as runners up, it's arguably a much greater achievement than some of the group winners, but they'll be hit with an away quarter final. All because of the unfortunate draw they got at pool time.

BS

munster are the architects of their own crap this year.

awec

AbusesToilets wrote: »

That's not how advertisers weigh investing. They look first and foremost at what the potential viewership for their product is. That's a fairly finite number for the Pro14. Those who care about rugby, probably already watch it.

This I do not believe is true.

Many who care about rugby do not care about, watch or attend the Pro14. That is the problem.

They will attend and watch Ireland games, they will attend and watch European games, they may even attend and watch interpros, but they have little to no interest in the Pro14 as a competition.

molloyjh

awec wrote: »

This I do not believe is true.

Many who care about rugby do not care about, watch or attend the Pro14. That is the problem.

How is it at all strange that the bigger competitions that require the least involvement gain the most traction though? Surely thats the same in most sports?

awec

molloyjh wrote: »

How is it at all strange that the bigger competitions that require the least involvement gain the most traction though? Surely thats the same in most sports?

Not sure I follow?

I do not believe that the drop off in interest from the Champions Cup to the Premiership or Top14 is as great as it is from CC to Pro14.

Of course, not all of this is down to how the league is currently run, but also down to the league's relatively short history, it's made-up teams, ever-changing structure and format and the like which means it's starting from a much lower base anyway.

AbusesToilets

awec wrote: »

This I do not believe is true.

Many who care about rugby do not care about, watch or attend the Pro14. That is the problem.

They will attend and watch Ireland games, they will attend and watch European games, they may even attend and watch interpros, but they have little to no interest in the Pro14 as a competition.

How much of that it due to the difficulty in actually watching games? It's not as easily viewed as other comps, in part because it isn't as valuable to Sky or whatnot, due to the decreased value to attract sponsors. It's self perpetuating.

A lot of the **** aspects of the league are due to the Welsh not wanting to be in it. They and their supporters are continually yearning to go prop up the bottom of the Premiership, so they give short shrift to the Pro14. For all the criticism of the Irish sending weakened teams out, they're still well capable of beating any of the others. That suggests to me that the other countries need to pull the thumb out.

awec

AbusesToilets wrote: »

How much of that it due to the difficulty in actually watching games? It's not as easily viewed as other comps, in part because it isn't as valuable to Sky or whatnot, due to the decreased value to attract sponsors. It's self perpetuating.

A lot of the **** aspects of the league are due to the Welsh not wanting to be in it. They and their supporters are continually yearning to go prop up the bottom of the Premiership, so they give short shrift to the Pro14. For all the criticism of the Irish sending weakened teams out, they're still well capable of beating any of the others. That suggests to me that the other countries need to pull the thumb out.

On the first point, I think that is a huge issue. The selling of the rights to the obscure channels was a mistake IMO. Yea they got more money, but the league really didn't need to be made so inaccessible. Of course, they couldn't have foreseen the shambles Eir would make of it in Ireland so it's hard to blame them for just how bad it has become.

The Welsh thing is self-perpetuating too. They don't want to be in it because they don't care about it, because of how it's run, because of the made-up nature of their teams etc etc.

AbusesToilets

awec wrote: »

On the first point, I think that is a huge issue. The selling of the rights to the obscure channels was a mistake IMO. Yea they got more money, but the league really didn't need to be made so inaccessible. Of course, they couldn't have foreseen the shambles Eir would make of it in Ireland so it's hard to blame them for just how bad it has become.

The Welsh thing is self-perpetuating too. They don't want to be in it because they don't care about it, because of how it's run, because of the made-up nature of their teams etc etc.

I'd agree to that. For me, the only real avenue for change is a B&I league or pan European one, which is the logical and financially most likely outcome. Just a question of when it comes to pass. Brexit might have scuttled the B&I option for the foreseeable future, unfortunately.

As to Welsh, they need to sort their house out. I get it, they lost their historical teams, but it's pushing two decades now. They're not coming back, and if they were to join the Premiership, it wouldn't be those old club teams doing it either.

Quin_Dub

awec wrote: »

It's 6 groups of 3, not 3 groups of 6.

With each group having 1 team from each league presumably.

Ah ok - I understand

Then Dear God no... That's an appalling idea.

Most groups would be incredibly imbalanced if you try to keep the countries apart.

Quin_Dub

AbusesToilets wrote: »

How much of that it due to the difficulty in actually watching games? It's not as easily viewed as other comps, in part because it isn't as valuable to Sky or whatnot, due to the decreased value to attract sponsors. It's self perpetuating.

A lot of the **** aspects of the league are due to the Welsh not wanting to be in it. They and their supporters are continually yearning to go prop up the bottom of the Premiership, so they give short shrift to the Pro14. For all the criticism of the Irish sending weakened teams out, they're still well capable of beating any of the others. That suggests to me that the other countries need to pull the thumb out.

Absolutely agree on this point.

If the other teams/countries feel that the Irish teams are fielding weakened teams then the best solution is to go out an hockey these allegedly "weak" teams.. but that doesn't happen , why is that??

They need to answer that question for themselves 1st.

errlloyd

I think part of the problem could be solved by going direct to semi-finals again. At the moment finishing top 6 is too easy. Ultimately the upper mid-tier teams like Ulster and Scarlets are going to continue to not bother with Leinster games but take our their big guns for the Cardiffs, Connachts, Ospreys, and Edinburghs of the competition. One of the biggest problems for some of lower middle tier teams is that they actually end up playing harder games than the top teams because the competition culture is to only target games that are definitely winnable and definitely losable.

The league right now allows teams to not have to scrap for points from Leinster who (as a result) get a cake walk for most of the season.

*Note I realise Scarlets ended up missing out on qualifiying to Bennetton last year.

Neil3030

First step to fixing the Pro14 is to have fewer stronger teams.

Merge Ulster with the Dragons, for example. Have them play in Holyhead.

errlloyd

errlloyd wrote: »

A team now has to get lucky twice instead of just once. Ultimately a team now gets double punished for a harsh draw.

1: It's harder for them to get out of their pool.
2: It's likely that even if they do they will have a harder knockout stage as a result.

By drawing for random semi-finals you don't make that impossible, but you make it less likely.

awec wrote: »

Right.

Look at Munster for example. If they get out of that pool as runners up, it's arguably a much greater achievement than some of the group winners, but they'll be hit with an away quarter final. All because of the unfortunate draw they got at pool time.

Makes sense. Home quarters and semis were always a massive advantage regardless. Doing a draw of sorts still leaves it up to chance. Two legs in the knock outs makes the most sense to me if schedules can make it work. Not sure how the scoring would work though.

roverjoyce

Neil3030 wrote: »

First step to fixing the Pro14 is to have fewer stronger teams.

Merge Ulster with the Dragons, for example. Have them play in Holyhead.

Fix the Pro 14 by having
Division 1 with 8 teams - (Top 4 playoffs) - Bottom 2 relegated
Division 2 with 6 teams - Top 2 promoted

AbusesToilets

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Makes sense. Home quarters and semis were always a massive advantage regardless. Doing a draw of sorts still leaves it up to chance. Two legs in the knock outs makes the most sense to me if schedules can make it work. Not sure how the scoring would work though.

I don't like an open draw, it removes the advantages that good teams earn. Always hated the fact that a team can get a home quarter but have to play an away semi against a lower seeded team. Completely ass backwards.

As ever the NFL is a good shout for reference. Reduce it to 6 teams qualifying , give the top two teams a bye. Cuts down on games, improves competition in the groups. Make it 4 groups, of 5 teams or 4 if they're cutting teams again. Top finishers and 2 best runners up.

Nah....

its_phil

roverjoyce wrote: »

Fix the Pro 14 by having
Division 1 with 8 teams - (Top 4 playoffs) - Bottom 2 relegated
Division 2 with 6 teams - Top 2 promoted

How do you propose to replace the guaranteed income generated from interpros that are massive money spinners for the province?

Six teams having to play each other 3 times minimum with three less games in a division 2 is horrendous, not a fox.

Squidgy Black

roverjoyce wrote: »

Fix the Pro 14 by having
Division 1 with 8 teams - (Top 4 playoffs) - Bottom 2 relegated
Division 2 with 6 teams - Top 2 promoted

Great way to completely alienate the Welsh teams altogether, there's not a hope in hell any of them would sign up to that considering their disdain for the pro14 as it is.

If you were to take the tables last season, and go purely off points, your top 8 league would consist of Glasgow, Munster, Leinster, Ulster, Connacht and Treviso.

Similar situation with this year where Scarlets would scrape in as the 8th team. There's not a chance any of the unions, be it Wales, Scotland, South Africa or Ireland are going to give up revenue and have teams playing in a lower league than what they currently are.

Teams don't like the concept of relegation. Look at the all the furore over the Premiership with teams trying to ringfence it.

Downlinz

Exclamation Marc wrote: »

Couldn't disagree more. Two leg games can be absolutely awful to watch where away teams are simply looking to concede as little as possible rather than score or where a team savages another in the first leg and the second leg becomes a sleepwalk.

It also severely limits the chances of any upsets and takes away the frenetic nature of knock out rugby.

What "frenetic nature"? The home team wins in the current format, it's boring and predictable.
Just looking at the last 10 years there have been 17 home wins and 3 away, it's hardly very exciting.

irishbucsfan

Downlinz wrote: »

What "frenetic nature"? The home team wins in the current format, it's boring and predictable.
Just looking at the last 10 years there have been 17 home wins and 3 away, it's hardly very exciting.

The competition is set up to ensure that better teams are at home more often than not. The only time a lower performing team will get a home semi is if they win an away quarter final.

So to say home teams always win just ignores the massively important context that the home teams are nearly always better

Podge_irl

irishbucsfan wrote: »

The competition is set up to ensure that better teams are at home more often than not. The only time a lower performing team will get a home semi is if they win an away quarter final.

So to say home teams always win just ignores the massively important context that the home teams are nearly always better

Not even, any more. Higher ranked teams get home advantage the whole way through.

awec

irishbucsfan wrote: »

The competition is set up to ensure that better teams are at home more often than not. The only time a lower performing team will get a home semi is if they win an away quarter final.

So to say home teams always win just ignores the massively important context that the home teams are nearly always better

The competition is setup so the team that generates the most points during the pools gets home advantage.

Which is very heavily influenced by what teams end up in your pool.

Which is really down to sheer luck.

Comparison of points totals across pools in competitions like this does not work IMO. How can you say that team A in Pool 1 who got 25 points are better than team B in Pool 2 who got 20 points, when team A and team B played entirely different sides. It's entirely arbitrary.

The seeding is also fundementally flawed IMO. It is too rudimentary. Does anyone really believe that Racing deserved to be seeded lower than Ulster or Munster?

prawnsambo

Yeah. The original seeding model was much better. Seeding teams in a competition based on their performance in that competition makes a lot more sense than seeding them based on where they finished in their individual leagues.

Quin_Dub

awec wrote: »

The competition is setup so the team that generates the most points during the pools gets home advantage.

Which is very heavily influenced by what teams end up in your pool.

Which is really down to sheer luck.

Comparison of points totals across pools in competitions like this does not work IMO. How can you say that team A in Pool 1 who got 25 points are better than team B in Pool 2 who got 20 points, when team A and team B played entirely different sides. It's entirely arbitrary.

The seeding is also fundementally flawed IMO. It is too rudimentary. Does anyone really believe that Racing deserved to be seeded lower than Ulster or Munster?

I'd agree on that - it should return to the previous model of looking at a rolling 3-5 years of performance to gauge ranking.

In theory , if Saracens don't win it this year and manage to scrape into 6th place in the Premiership then they'd be a bottom seed next year, which is crazy.

Podge_irl

awec wrote: »

The competition is setup so the team that generates the most points during the pools gets home advantage.

Which is very heavily influenced by what teams end up in your pool.

Which is really down to sheer luck.

It's not sheer luck - there is seeding after all.

I think an open draw for the quarters might be a bit better (top 4 v bottom 4). One group winner will really get screwed but probably better than what we have now.

Podge_irl

Quin_Dub wrote: »

I'd agree on that - it should return to the previous model of looking at a rolling 3-5 years of performance to gauge ranking.

In theory , if Saracens don't win it this year and manage to scrape into 6th place in the Premiership then they'd be a bottom seed next year, which is crazy.

Is performance 3 years ago really relevant to anything though? The old system also massively over-ranked some teams who were just getting into the competition consistently while under-ranking completely new entrants. I remember some really bizarre teams ending up top seeded at times.

ArmaniJeanss

prawnsambo wrote: »

The original seeding model was much better. Seeding teams in a competition based on their performance in that competition makes a lot more sense than seeding them based on where they finished in their individual leagues.

The problem with your way is that an upwardly trending English or French team can qualify without previous history in the competition and thus would automatically be in the lowest seeds.

Fwiw UEFA saw the same issue where a team like Southampton, Rennes or Mainz could qualify for European football, but without any recent history they'd be seeded much lower than Linfield or FC Vaduz who qualify every year.

So they came up with a kind of hybrid system to level the seedings.

awec

ArmaniJeanss wrote: »

The problem with your way is that an upwardly trending English or French team can qualify without previous history in the competition and thus would automatically be in the lowest seeds.

Fwiw UEFA saw the same issue where a team like Southampton, Rennes or Mainz could qualify for European football, but without any recent history they'd be seeded much lower than Linfield or FC Valdez who qualify every year.

So they came up with a kind of hybrid system to level the seedings.

Yea in football every team has a coefficient, and every league also has a coefficient. A teams performance affects their own seedings but also the seedings of other teams from the same league.

Essentially it means if for example the majority of Pro14 teams performed poorly in Europe, Pro14 teams would be seeded lower than equivalent English and French teams. As in, the 3rd place French team could be seeded higher than the 2nd place Pro14 team.