H-Cup: 8 qualifiers from the 6 groups

legendary.xix

I like the H Cup. Compared with the Champions League, I think the group stages are more exciting, helped by the fact teams more or less have to win their group to get through.

Would there be any room for a slight manoeuvre regards the runner-up? e.g. the 4 best runners-up play-off for the last two quarter-final spots. The two losers to head to the Challenge Cup along with the winner of a play-off involved runners-up 5th v 6th?

Other than that the competition generally should stay as it is. The groups have far more of an edge that the champions league.

WeeBushy

Nah, that's too messy imo. Also adds another round of games into an already full schedule. I think it's right the way it is tbh.

wixfjord

Yeah, i'd leave it as is too.
The only thing I'd change is the randomness of home semi finals.
The team with the highest seed left should get the Home SF, without doubt.

twinytwo

wixfjord wrote: »

Yeah, i'd leave it as is too.
The only thing I'd change is the randomness of home semi finals.
The team with the highest seed left should get the Home QF, without doubt.

i think that they should get rid of the home semi and have it a completely neutral stadium

For example in 2010, toulouse got a home QF home SF with the final played in france.

Keep the home QF for those who top their groups after that the semi should be neutral. With the final being played in whatever country it is given to.

Spud83

I don't like the idea of a neutral venue for the semi finals. With two sets of fans having to travel I think it could lead to some half empty stadiums.

twinytwo

Spud83 wrote: »

I don't like the idea of a neutral venue for the semi finals. With two sets of fans having to travel I think it could lead to some half empty stadiums.

but as in the above scenario it handed the HC to toulouse.

Also with the countries being so close, granted with the way things are you may be right, but i could still see them selling out most stadium for a semi.

Guy:Incognito

Spud83 wrote: »

I don't like the idea of a neutral venue for the semi finals. With two sets of fans having to travel I think it could lead to some half empty stadiums.

Not wuite the same but I really dotn liek the way the ENglsh FA have the FA cup semi's at Wembley. Devalues getting to Wembley for a final, especially for a small team liek when Milwall got there a few seasons ago.

Any move towards a scenario like that is bad imo.

durkadurka

I agree the home semi is a huge factor in deciding the winner and should either be neutral or merit based.

I wouldnt change much else though.

If you look at the champions league group stage, the big teams waltz through it, needing only to win at home and grab something away to a weaker team to go through.

Every game is vital in HEC. you're always trying to get that extra point to try to qualify, or get a home qf etc.

irishbucsfan

The problem with having a merit based system for deciding SF venues is that there are two options to decide it, neither of which are ideal.

1. Do it based on seeding after the groups: Problem here is that certain teams benefit from having weak groups and it would mean having a weak group could guarantee you a home spot right up until the final.

2. Do it based on club european rankings: Problem here is that it favours big clubs. Northampton, for example, were unbeaten going into the semis last year but would have been away to any other quarter finalist because they weren't in europe in 07/08... away to Ulster for example.


The idea of a neutral venue would be interesting. Where you would have it is a problem. Anywhere in either team's home nation is still not "neutral." Having it in another nation might hamper attendances though... Although a Leinster-Toulouse semi final in Twickenham would probably be great... as would a Munster Leicester semi final in Paris... For example a randomly decided stadium in a neutral country, but not the one where the final is to be played? Might be extremely tricky to organise.

legendary.xix

I think the idea behind the semi-finals is that having used seeds for the quarter-finals, all teams are there on merit. For that reason they've opted for an open draw. Neutral venues aren't practical. The only change that could come would be two legged semi-finals but I can't see that happening.

Play-offs for the runners-up isn't messy but I accept the points made. It would only add one other round of games though. The challenge cup itself could do with another round as well i.e. 5 group winners taking on 5 group runners up, with group winners at home and then quarter-finals after that with the 3 H Cup teams coming in.

Runner-up play-offs in last seasons H Cup would've seen:
Leicester V Clermont
Ulster v Wasps
With the winners going on to the quarters and losers to the challenge cup.

The remaining group runners-up: Munster v Cardiff would've played off for the third challenge cup spot for group runners-up.

Mister Dread

My system involves 20 teams in 4 grousp of 5 wtih top 2 to go through. Stick the rest in the Amlin and scrap the bottom tier teams in that cup which are just too far off the pro rugby pace.
It would make for a much fairer cup with teams not being double rewarded for having an easy group. But I do enjoy the way it is now despite things being not very fair.

Quint2010

Perhaps a bonus point for an away win?

.ak

If it ain't broke, don't fix it.

Fishooks12

.ak wrote: »

If it ain't broke, don't fix it.

Was just about to say the exact same thing

The only thing that could possibly be changed is the semi home advantage lottery

Other than that it's perfect with every-game being crucial

Aidric

The people saying ye don't understand a word of Irish. Did ye not go to school or something?

Digifriendly

Mister Dread wrote: »

My system involves 20 teams in 4 grousp of 5 wtih top 2 to go through. Stick the rest in the Amlin and scrap the bottom tier teams in that cup which are just too far off the pro rugby pace.
It would make for a much fairer cup with teams not being double rewarded for having an easy group. But I do enjoy the way it is now despite things being not very fair.

Main problem I see is not the no. of teams playing in the pool stages but problem is with qualification at present i.e. it is possible for an Italian or Scottish team to finish last in the league and qualify for HC and for Irish or Welsh team to finish as high as 4th and still not qualify e.g. if all 4 Irish or Welsh teams filled top 4 spots in the league, the 4th side would be in the Amlin except a side from that country won the Amlin or HC - this doesn't seem fair. However how you change this and still have all 6 nations fairly represented I'm not sure.

CIARAN_BOYLE

Aidric wrote: »

The people saying ye don't understand a word of Irish. Did ye not go to school or something?

wrong thread man.

CatFromHue

Last year the group stages lasted about 15/16 weeks in total. I like this seasons format of having the 6 pool games in 10 weeks much better.

Other than that I'm pretty happy with the comp. For me neutral Semi Finals wouldn't work. Just look at the amount of away support at last years Semi's, there is no way a neutral Semi Final would sell 50,000 tickets.

durkadurka

The compressed format is only for world cup years though, it will revert back to starting in October next year.

CatFromHue

Yeah I know. I just prefer it this way.

legendary.xix

I wouldn't disagree about if it aint broke don't fix it. At the same time, it doesn't mean there aren't one or two kinks that could be ironed out. Essentially the competition is grand. SOme runners-up can have an easier group to qualify as top 2. Having a play-off between the best 4 would at least iron it out a bit. I definitely wouldn't suggest any other changes to structure etc.

The H CUp has had quarter-final play-offs in the past. It would be a fairer reward for some teams efforts.

Mister Dread

It's a little bit broke. There are still years which have 3 top teams fighting it out and then other groups who have a handful of poor teams. Leinster have had a few of these in past years. Its not really fair on the hard groups when the home advantage and second place qf spot are decided by points when you can't compare the groups.

legendary.xix

Mister Dread wrote: »

It's a little bit broke. There are still years which have 3 top teams fighting it out and then other groups who have a handful of poor teams. Leinster have had a few of these in past years. Its not really fair on the hard groups when the home advantage and second place qf spot are decided by points when you can't compare the groups.

Groups have seedings though, there's always going to be a degree of luck of the draw and tough groups. The narrow path for runners-up is all really that could be tweaked with a play-off.

tolosenc

In terms of a neutral semi, both should be in the same stadium on the same weekend, with tickets being valid for both matches. Pop it in somewhere like Milan, Barcelona, Madrid, Berlin, Lisbon, Edinburgh. Basically a big city in a country which isn't going to provide a semifinalist.

If they're going to be at one team's stadium, they really should be done on some sort of seeding.

Digifriendly

tolosenc wrote: »

In terms of a neutral semi, both should be in the same stadium on the same weekend, with tickets being valid for both matches. Pop it in somewhere like Milan, Barcelona, Madrid, Berlin, Lisbon, Edinburgh. Basically a big city in a country which isn't going to provide a semifinalist.

If they're going to be at one team's stadium, they really should be done on some sort of seeding.

In all honesty how many fans are going to go to Berlin or Milan (which is a grim industrial connurbation as I've been there) for HEC semi-final? Champions League maybe but HEC?

irishbucsfan

Digifriendly wrote: »

In all honesty how many fans are going to go to Berlin or Milan (which is a grim industrial connurbation as I've been there) for HEC semi-final? Champions League maybe but HEC?

A weekend in a nice European city with two matches for the price of one? I like the idea and I'd definitely go.

GerM

The profits from the gate receipts of the semi-finals go to the ERC. There's no chance they'll put both games on in one stadium in a neutral country/venue. It's also the reason they'll never put a single game in an entirely independent venue either. They need these games to be big sellers and if they didn't get a stadium being used near one of the semi-finalists base, that wouldn't be the case. If Munster were to play Toulouse in Edinburgh in a semi-final, how many people would be there? Or if Perpignan played Northampton in the Millennium Stadium? Or Leinster vs Clermont in Twickenham? They would lose out on a shed load of cash and it's a numbers game.

iroced

I think the only way to make the competition fairer (the semi-final "controversy") is having two-legged SF. Ideally the neutral venue would be great but it wouldn't be fair to the fans. So the question is : is it possible to fit this extra game in an already hectic schedule ? I'm afraid the answer is no... unless domestic schedules are modified. In France for example, get rid of the play-off rounds at the end. Just declare TOP 14 champion whatever team finished first after the 26 games. Problem is: rugby lovers are very much attached to this "cup-like" system. I think it's the only way. But I don't think "rugby people" want that...

tolosenc

iroced wrote: »

I think the only way to make the competition fairer (the semi-final "controversy") is having two-legged SF. Ideally the neutral venue would be great but it wouldn't be fair to the fans. So the question is : is it possible to fit this extra game in an already hectic schedule ? I'm afraid the answer is no... unless domestic schedules are modified. In France for example, get rid of the play-off rounds at the end. Just declare TOP 14 champion whatever team finished first after the 26 games. Problem is: rugby lovers are very much attached to this "cup-like" system. I think it's the only way. But I don't think "rugby people" want that...

Could condense the schedule a bit for the HEC. 2 in October, 2 in November, 2 in December and then the 2 legged quarter in January. Then the regular slots in April/May.

legendary.xix

There's nothing wrong with the cup system when the various league don't really run domestic cups or the sort. I know there's the powergen.

Podge_irl

I dislike the idea of two-legged games. I don't think they work in rugby.

RGS

the runner up qualification needs to be looked at. groups with an italian team usually gets the two runner up qualifiers.

maybe discounting the result against the bottom group would give the other runner ups a chance of qualifying.

Podge_irl

The Italians are getting better, which will do more for making the best runners up qualification fair then any twiddling with the rules or schedule.

Digifriendly

legendary.xix wrote: »

There's nothing wrong with the cup system when the various league don't really run domestic cups or the sort. I know there's the powergen.

You mean the LV Cup?

legendary.xix

Podge_irl wrote: »

The Italians are getting better, which will do more for making the best runners up qualification fair then any twiddling with the rules or schedule.

They are to be fair. Is there enough of a reward for the efforts of second placed teams? Hat's off to the H Cup that winning the group is paramount unlilke the Champions League but at least a play-off between 4 runners-up would bring some fairness?

I'm not too opposed to the open semi-final draw. Teams are seeded for the quarter-finals. At the semi-final stage, all clubs are treated equal and home advantage is down to luck of the draw.

skregs

Just pick a neutral venue from the list of venues from the final.
Like, if the final is in Twickers, a SF between Munster and Ospreys would be held in Stade de France, and a SF between Toulouse and Leicester would be in Murrayfield

CatFromHue

skregs wrote: »

Just pick a neutral venue from the list of venues from the final.
Like, if the final is in Twickers, a SF between Munster and Ospreys would be held in Stade de France, and a SF between Toulouse and Leicester would be in Murrayfield

If either of those semi finals were held in those places you'd be doing well to get 20,000-30,000.

I see no major reason to fix something that isn't broken (other than making the pool games played over a shorter time period like this season).

legendary.xix

Digifriendly wrote: »

Main problem I see is not the no. of teams playing in the pool stages but problem is with qualification at present i.e. it is possible for an Italian or Scottish team to finish last in the league and qualify for HC and for Irish or Welsh team to finish as high as 4th and still not qualify e.g. if all 4 Irish or Welsh teams filled top 4 spots in the league, the 4th side would be in the Amlin except a side from that country won the Amlin or HC - this doesn't seem fair. However how you change this and still have all 6 nations fairly represented I'm not sure.

There are two ways this could be looked at.

1) The Pro 12, Top 14 and Premiership being treated as individual leagues. Now with 38 clubs altogether in these 3 leagues, you'd be looking for about half that at most in the H Cup.
That'll give you 20 clubs? Top 6 in each league (6x3), Pro 12 being regardless of country e.g. could be 4 Irish and 2 Welsh, H Cup winner and Amlin winner. 5 groups of 4, group winners and 3 best placed runners-up going into the quarter-finals.
The Amlin then would be the competition with the rest 6 groups of 4, eventual winner earning a H Cup spot.

It'd be a fair system of sorts. The focus in each league will effectively be to finish in the top half to be in Europe's premier club competition. Finish outside that, take you're place in the second tier competition but win it and a place can be earned at the top table.

2) Now I don't think option 1 would be accepted by the powers that be though it might gain support in some quarters.

The question was kind of asked (without a question mark but I'll put it in ); However how you change this and still have all 6 nations fairly represented I'm not sure?

I think the answer should be in the following regards the Pro 12 clubs. Ireland currently gets 3/4, Wales 3/4, Scotland 2/2 and Italy 2/2. No club should have guaranteed right to the H Cup. Every country should have the risk of at least one club not getting in.
Ireland should keep 3/4 and Wales 3/4 as well. Scotland and Italy should get 1/2 each. That's 8 out of 12 in the H Cup. The remaining two places should go to the best two clubs of the remaining 4.

Last year it would've worked out from:
7th. Newport Gwent Dragons
9th. Connaught

---

11th. Glasgow Warriors

---

12th. Aironi

With Connaught gaining a place this year thanks to Leinster, Glasgow Warriors would be the club to benefit.

Even after typing all this, 10 or 11 clubs out of 12 seems a lot for one league though we are speaking of 4 countries. With England and France effectively having 50% of their league qualifying, there could be a case for Ireland 2/4, Wales 2/4, Scotland 1/2 and Italy 1/2. Adding in England 6/12 and France 6/14, that's 18 again plus H Cup and Amlin winners giving 20 clubs. To make the Pro 12 a bit more competitive and give fairness in terms of 50% qualification for each country plus two European winners, there's a good case for 5 groups of 4 in the H Cup.

From last years Magners League, the following would've made the H Cup, if it was reduced to 20 clubs:
1. Munster
2. Leinster
3. Ulster (Being the club to benefit from Leinster's win, giving Ireland one extra so 3/4 instead of 2/4)
4. Ospreys
5. Scarlets
8. Edinburgh
10. Benetton Treviso

The rest would have had to have made do with the Amlin:
6. Cardiff Blues
7. Newport Gwent Dragons
9. Connaught
11. Glasgow Warriors
12. Aironi

Now I like many am glad to see Connaught in the H Cup this year. It's not a strong qualification though when so many qualify from the Pro 12.