European Champions Cup [Most Improved]

[ronk]

Meritocracy

[Ruckedtobits]

Race to the bottom?

[Laighin Break]

Congrats to the prem, they now have over half of their league automatically qualified to the main comp every year, while simultaneously reducing our leagues representation over the years.

I get the sentiment but haven't they and the Top14 (and pre-URC Top1X) regularly had over half the league qualifying? But now the Prem will have a considerable majority of their teams qualifying

[Keith]

Congrats to the prem, they now have over half of their league automatically qualified to the main comp every year, while simultaneously reducing our leagues representation over the years.

I get the sentiment but haven't they and the Top14 (and pre-URC Top1X) regularly had over half the league qualifying? But now the Prem will have a considerable majority of their teams qualifying

It used to be 6 from the Top14, 6 from the prem and then a certain number of spots were given to each union that made up our league. The prem could be looking at having 80% of their league automatically qualified next season, which is crazy since they were a driving force behind getting our leagues allocation reduced for "fairness".

[heno]

Congrats to the prem, they now have over half of their league automatically qualified to the main comp every year, while simultaneously reducing our leagues representation over the years.

I get the sentiment but haven't they and the Top14 (and pre-URC Top1X) regularly had over half the league qualifying? But now the Prem will have a considerable majority of their teams qualifying

It used to be 6 from the Top14, 6 from the prem and then a certain number of spots were given to each union that made up our league. The prem could be looking at having 80% of their league automatically qualified next season, which is crazy since they were a driving force behind getting our leagues allocation reduced for "fairness".

The Urc predecessor had 9 out of 10 at one point, so I think a rebalance was fair at that time.

Probably it's reasonable to stick with 8 English teams for next year so at least those teams get a little cash.

But long term, 50% of each league, 8, 5 and 7. 20 teams total is probably the best. Probably won't happen though

Sent from my SM-A528B using Tapatalk

[Keith]

I get the sentiment but haven't they and the Top14 (and pre-URC Top1X) regularly had over half the league qualifying? But now the Prem will have a considerable majority of their teams qualifying

It used to be 6 from the Top14, 6 from the prem and then a certain number of spots were given to each union that made up our league. The prem could be looking at having 80% of their league automatically qualified next season, which is crazy since they were a driving force behind getting our leagues allocation reduced for "fairness".

The Urc predecessor had 9 out of 10 at one point, so I think a rebalance was fair at that time.

Probably it's reasonable to stick with 8 English teams for next year so at least those teams get a little cash.

But long term, 50% of each league, 8, 5 and 7. 20 teams total is probably the best. Probably won't happen though

Sent from my SM-A528B using Tapatalk

Our allocation wasn't based on the league, each union was given an allocation as I've said above. The original comp was run by the unions, ie the only people who know how to run a successful cross border tournament.

What this did was avoid English sides playing against other English sides and French playing other French sides etc etc in the group stages. which I (along with many others, I presume looking at the downfall of the tournament) have absolutely no interest in watching.

I'm not necessarily adovating a return to that, but I do like what we had last year with the URC qualification (I believe its changing for next season?). I think it's a mistake to completely lock out entire markets from the comp. Imagine if for instance the SA and Irish sides made up the top 8 places in the URC, that means that only 4 nations would be represented in the following HC. Is that really expanding interest in the game? Wouldn't the group stages be incredibly dull?

[heno]

It used to be 6 from the Top14, 6 from the prem and then a certain number of spots were given to each union that made up our league. The prem could be looking at having 80% of their league automatically qualified next season, which is crazy since they were a driving force behind getting our leagues allocation reduced for "fairness".

The Urc predecessor had 9 out of 10 at one point, so I think a rebalance was fair at that time.

Probably it's reasonable to stick with 8 English teams for next year so at least those teams get a little cash.

But long term, 50% of each league, 8, 5 and 7. 20 teams total is probably the best. Probably won't happen though

Sent from my SM-A528B using Tapatalk

Our allocation wasn't based on the league, each union was given an allocation as I've said above. The original comp was run by the unions, ie the only people who know how to run a successful cross border tournament.

What this did was avoid English sides playing against other English sides and French playing other French sides etc etc in the group stages. which I (along with many others, I presume looking at the downfall of the tournament) have absolutely no interest in watching.

I'm not necessarily adovating a return to that, but I do like what we had last year with the URC qualification (I believe its changing for next season?). I think it's a mistake to completely lock out entire markets from the comp. Imagine if for instance the SA and Irish sides made up the top 8 places in the URC, that means that only 4 nations would be represented in the following HC. Is that really expanding interest in the game? Wouldn't the group stages be incredibly dull?

I know how it worked. My point is I think they had a point when they said that our league had 9 spots handed out to 90% of the teams whereas theirs had 6 spots that had to be earned. A competition supposedly for the best of Europe where a large portion did not have to earn their place doesn't result in the opposite of dull if you ask me.

Also, our league started with 9 Welsh premiership clubs and had 4 Scottish at one point too, so when our number of teams fell did we voluntarily give up places?

Sent from my SM-A528B using Tapatalk

[Keith]

The Urc predecessor had 9 out of 10 at one point, so I think a rebalance was fair at that time.

Probably it's reasonable to stick with 8 English teams for next year so at least those teams get a little cash.

But long term, 50% of each league, 8, 5 and 7. 20 teams total is probably the best. Probably won't happen though

Sent from my SM-A528B using Tapatalk

Our allocation wasn't based on the league, each union was given an allocation as I've said above. The original comp was run by the unions, ie the only people who know how to run a successful cross border tournament.

What this did was avoid English sides playing against other English sides and French playing other French sides etc etc in the group stages. which I (along with many others, I presume looking at the downfall of the tournament) have absolutely no interest in watching.

I'm not necessarily adovating a return to that, but I do like what we had last year with the URC qualification (I believe its changing for next season?). I think it's a mistake to completely lock out entire markets from the comp. Imagine if for instance the SA and Irish sides made up the top 8 places in the URC, that means that only 4 nations would be represented in the following HC. Is that really expanding interest in the game? Wouldn't the group stages be incredibly dull?

I know how it worked. My point is I think they had a point when they said that our league had 9 spots handed out to 90% of the teams whereas theirs had 6 spots that had to be earned. A competition supposedly for the best of Europe where a large portion did not have to earn their place doesn't result in the opposite of dull if you ask me.

Also, our league started with 9 Welsh premiership clubs and had 4 Scottish at one point too, so when our number of teams fell did we voluntarily give up places?

Sent from my SM-A528B using Tapatalk

Well no, the whole point of the European comp was that there are clubs from numerous different nations represented. England was given more spots (rightfully) than any other "home nation" and they chose their own qualification criteria. Club rugby is an incredibly small scene (and getting smaller) going this route, where entire markets could be unrepresented isn't wise, in my opinion.

It's hardly a coincidence that the comp was at its peak under the original qualification format. A diverse group fixture list is clearly more attractive.

[heno]

Our allocation wasn't based on the league, each union was given an allocation as I've said above. The original comp was run by the unions, ie the only people who know how to run a successful cross border tournament.

What this did was avoid English sides playing against other English sides and French playing other French sides etc etc in the group stages. which I (along with many others, I presume looking at the downfall of the tournament) have absolutely no interest in watching.

I'm not necessarily adovating a return to that, but I do like what we had last year with the URC qualification (I believe its changing for next season?). I think it's a mistake to completely lock out entire markets from the comp. Imagine if for instance the SA and Irish sides made up the top 8 places in the URC, that means that only 4 nations would be represented in the following HC. Is that really expanding interest in the game? Wouldn't the group stages be incredibly dull?

I know how it worked. My point is I think they had a point when they said that our league had 9 spots handed out to 90% of the teams whereas theirs had 6 spots that had to be earned. A competition supposedly for the best of Europe where a large portion did not have to earn their place doesn't result in the opposite of dull if you ask me.

Also, our league started with 9 Welsh premiership clubs and had 4 Scottish at one point too, so when our number of teams fell did we voluntarily give up places?

Sent from my SM-A528B using Tapatalk

Well no, the whole point of the European comp was that there are clubs from numerous different nations represented. England was given more spots (rightfully) than any other "home nation" and they chose their own qualification criteria. Club rugby is an incredibly small scene (and getting smaller) going this route, where entire markets could be unrepresented isn't wise, in my opinion.

It's hardly a coincidence that the comp was at its peak under the original qualification format. A diverse group fixture list is clearly more attractive.

I'm not 100% disagreeing with you. If they came up with some global qualification matrix that could result in 20 French teams and 4 English qualifying and that's it , then yeah that would not make for a good competition. But the old way was too far the other direction where frankly quite mediocre teams were qualifying without having to do anything at all (at least this year's urc, they had to finish top of the shield). And theywould then get hockied when they got there, that did not help the competition and I would think the success at the time was in spite of it not because of it. And don't forget there was always the challenge cup which is a more appropriate standard for them. It's not like they are excluded totally.

Sent from my SM-A528B using Tapatalk

[Keith]

I know how it worked. My point is I think they had a point when they said that our league had 9 spots handed out to 90% of the teams whereas theirs had 6 spots that had to be earned. A competition supposedly for the best of Europe where a large portion did not have to earn their place doesn't result in the opposite of dull if you ask me.

Also, our league started with 9 Welsh premiership clubs and had 4 Scottish at one point too, so when our number of teams fell did we voluntarily give up places?

Sent from my SM-A528B using Tapatalk

Well no, the whole point of the European comp was that there are clubs from numerous different nations represented. England was given more spots (rightfully) than any other "home nation" and they chose their own qualification criteria. Club rugby is an incredibly small scene (and getting smaller) going this route, where entire markets could be unrepresented isn't wise, in my opinion.

It's hardly a coincidence that the comp was at its peak under the original qualification format. A diverse group fixture list is clearly more attractive.

I'm not 100% disagreeing with you. If they came up with some global qualification matrix that could result in 20 French teams and 4 English qualifying and that's it , then yeah that would not make for a good competition. But the old way was too far the other direction where frankly quite mediocre teams were qualifying without having to do anything at all (at least this year's urc, they had to finish top of the shield). And theywould then get hockied when they got there, that did not help the competition and I would think the success at the time was in spite of it not because of it. And don't forget there was always the challenge cup which is a more appropriate standard for them. It's not like they are excluded totally.

Sent from my SM-A528B using Tapatalk

I mean the whole teams getting hockied thing is going to be more prevalent than ever with 8 out of 10 prem teams qualifying. As I've eluded to before, the way we had it for last season was the best for me. Where at least one team from each nation qualified and then the rest coming from league position. Unfortunately that's changing now.

[Flash Gordon]

Champions Cup revamp confirmed for next season with four pools of 6.

https://www.independent.ie/sport/rugby/ ... 13844.html