European Rugby Champions Cup Format Changes Success or Failure?

errlloyd

Effectively the knockout stages are exactly like the old ones just a little bit earlier, the business end of top tier of Europe has always been the pool stages. I feel now is a good time to cast an eye back over what we saw and ask ourselves is this better or worse than what we had before. Obviously there are a number of thing to consider in terms of broadcasting, format and seeding. The fourth poll option refers to the fact that the seeding this year was a complete outlier, caused by bizarre top 14 results. Vote that way if you think this year was bad, but next year (with normal results) it'll be fine.

So firstly seeding. Did the new seeding system work better?

Well I feel a good way to see if the seeding system worked better is to simply look at how teams were seeded, and then see how they did in their pools compared to how the competition predicted them to do. Only one pool was perfect, Toulon and Ulster's pool worked out exactly how seeding would have predicted. In the 2013 H/Cup 3 pools worked out exactly as predicted.

That doesn't tell the full story though. I compared the years, but assigned points to teams who overperformed or underperformed. For example, Castre who were a 2nd seed who finished 4th, earn two points (for dropping two places), Wasps who were a 4th seed who finished 2nd also earn two points. This years group stages got 16 points, so there were 16 instances of teams over or under performing (arguably there may only have been 8, because a team has to overperform at someone else's expense, but you get me). The previous H/Cup only scored 8, despite having 1 extra pool.



Basically the bright green indicates a team who moved up two places, the dark red indicates they dropped two places. Light green means up one, light red means down one. As we can see in the H/Cup the movers were all bottom table teams, in fact the top 8 (*competing) seeds all got through I believe. In the ERCC teams all over the place are moving, Clermont top their pool despite being the 3rd seed, Wasps go through despite being fourth - and not even qualifying for the competition in the first place!

So does this mean the old system was more accurate? Well not necessarily, it could also mean the current pool stages are simply harder to predict. I also need to remind everyone that the old system had *Biaritz as the 5th seed, so it was far from perfect.

So between system A (old system) and system B (current system) I think system A is better, but there is a choice of system C (what the current system is supposed to bloody be).

To me the biggest failing of seeding is something easily fixable. For some reason the Pro12 and the Top14 insist on using teams positions after the play offs to make their seeding, while the AP uses the league placings. The AP is absolutely right in this instance. The Pro12 seeding ended up the same because Ulster and Munster lost away in the knockouts, but the T14 ones ended up all sorts of confused because Castre finished 6 but got to the final so ended up as a second seed! It is impossible to tell how things would have worked out if the French teams had been seeded properly, but for the record this is what the pools would have looked like.



The question is did the bad seeding this year throw up any anomalies and would the old system have corrected for them. Well the only pool unaffected by Castre and Racing Metro beating the form book in the barrage was Toulon's pool, which is the only one with correctly predicted seeding.

I think Montpellier and Castre were much of a muchness, so Leinster's pool would have been unaffected, but I think Racing probably would have finished third in a pool with Sarries and Munster (and yes Munster would have gone through). I think Toulose possibly would have finished second in the pool with Saints, I think Saints got caught off guard by Racing, but are actually a superior team. Clermont would have beaten Glasgow to top the final pool, and Bath wouldn't have got a best runner up spot.

In summary I think the seeding system used will work most seasons, because French teams don't usually win away in the playoffs, that was plain weird. That said I think they should change the seeding to the league position and not the knockout position because the league position is the best predictor of a french team's position the following season, which is the best predictor of whether or not they'll care in Europe.

Broadcasting: From a broadcasting point of view it is obvious that last year's arrangement was superior for fans. Having two different providers was a bit of a nightmare. If you were in a pool like Munster and only had one English team it wasn't so bad, but in a pool like Leinster's with two English teams it mean the majority of our games were on BT sport.

The actual quality of the broadcasting comes down to personal preference, but I guess if you're going to measure it in any way it should be stated that the hours of analysis went up as the two competed to provide a better service. Less games were relegated to the red button, I think, and all 60 games were televised in Britain and Ireland (I think). Obviously 2 less games per weekend, but maybe it balances out. Sky used to really scrape the bottom of the barrel for commentators in the least desirable fixtures, but sure BT were scraping the barrel for all the fixtures! It must be said BT will improve in time.

I guess the intangible is that our teams ultimately get more money this way, as fans it's hard to assess the impact of that. It was a shame that one broadcaster seemed to luck-out on the important games comes the end of the pools, but it won't be like that ever year.

Format: So did we like the new format. Well the new format keeps teams alive a little bit longer. BT made a big deal of Bath getting our of their pool having lost their opening two games (as did Wasps), when that was virtually impossible in the old system. (You could get out on 4 wins, but the chances were that was 3 at home, 1 on the road, lose at home and you were goosed usually).

Objectively speaking there were probably more teams alive in the closing weekend than in previous seasons. By my calculations 12 of the 20. There were only two or three dead rubber games. The drama during the final games in pool 4 was excellent. However that ability to lose three times and still go out took some of the excitement out of rounds 1 and 2. I liked the idea that teams played for survival at least once in the opening weekend.

Apart from excitement does this format produce more accurate results? It's kind of hard to say. I blamed the seeding issues for most of the inaccuracies in the pools, but now that it is easier to be a best runner up, average teams who have a "roll over a die" team in their pool make it out, when previously they wouldn't, Wasps for example. Leicster will feel kind of aggrieved they didn't get any roll over and die team, while the teams they competed with, Wasps and Northampton did. Again, I don't think the top 8 teams are the 8 left in it, for this year I'll blame the mad seeding rather than the format.

In my mind in the H/Cup the two best runners up were often amazing teams, because they had to pick up lots of points to get there but just got pipped in the group. They were sometimes on 5 wins, I think Ulster managed to get more wins than Biartiz one year, but still came second in the pool. If the best runners up this year had been Sarries, Wasps and Racing like they should have been (inexplicably capitulation by Northampton, twice aside) I just think we'd have been letting two fairly average European sides into the knockouts.


Final thoughts:

The rugby hasn't been good from an Irish point of view or indeed a celtic one. It might have been crap even if the format hadn't changed. Everything else is just different. The seeding thing is horse pooh. Castre could very easily have been a top seed, and they lost every game. At this stage, that and the broadcasting fiasco are my biggest issues.

LeinsterDub

The only teams seeded where the league /playoff winners. Everyone else was into a hat

sydthebeat

Just a quick q

How were Connacht 3rd tier last year in their first HC? Ahead of zebre....

errlloyd

LeinsterDub wrote: »

The only teams seeded where the league /playoff winners. Everyone else was into a hat

You know, I remember reading that was gonna be how it was done, but it wasn't. It was actually seeded right the way down (or if not it incredibly coincidentally worked out that way).

The randomness was made to decide the cut off because there were 6 in each tier (three 1sts, three 2nds) and only 5 pools. So the only random element was drawing Castre (for example) out of a hat, to be a second seed, when they could easily have been a top seed.

errlloyd

sydthebeat wrote: »

Just a quick q

How were Connacht 3rd tier last year in their first HC? Ahead of zebre....

The old system was based on your last 4 years in Europe. Participating in Europe at any level was hugely beneficial.

Connacht had always participated in Europe, and always done reasonably well in their pools, so they had enough points to bring them above teams with no European history. Like Exeter, Zebre, Treviso etc.

aimee1

Its going to take time.

The seedings will always have some skewed look with 3 leagues and 5 groups and 1 italian team and some obligatory french dis-interest

The tv deal needs to be with 1 station

sydthebeat

Cheers for that.
I would have though zebre would have had a better record in the HC..

errlloyd

sydthebeat wrote: »

Cheers for that.
I would have though zebre would have had a better record in the HC..

For the record, here are the Rankings that were used to generate the pools for the last H/Cup.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Rugby_Club_Rankings

its_phil

Seeding and TV are my two biggest gripes. But the increase in competitivness of Pro12 is most welcome due to the meritocracy measures introduced.

Zzippy

sydthebeat wrote: »

Just a quick q

How were Connacht 3rd tier last year in their first HC? Ahead of zebre....

Last year was Connacht's third year in the HC, not their first.

errlloyd wrote: »

The old system was based on your last 4 years in Europe. Participating in Europe at any level was hugely beneficial.

Connacht had always participated in Europe, and always done reasonably well in their pools, so they had enough points to bring them above teams with no European history. Like Exeter, Zebre, Treviso etc.

Exactly. Challenge Cup points accrued, plus points accrued in the previous 2 years of HC, inluding wins over Biarritz and Harlequins - more than Zebre achieved despite being in HC every year by default.

errlloyd

its_phil wrote: »

Seeding and TV are my two biggest gripes. But the increase in competitivness of Pro12 is most welcome due to the meritocracy measures introduced.

I had forgot to mention that.

Please don't judge me, it's a Sunday night and I don't want to sleep yet. But for arguments sake, I also did the seeding for this year as if was using the old system.

Richard Hillman

I have found myself being less engrossed in the tournament because of the TV deal. I only really paid attention to Leinsters group.

irishbucsfan

The first seeds under this system were:

Toulon, Saracens, Leinster, Northampton Glasgow

The first seeds under the old system would have been, as pointed out above:

Leinster, Toulon, Clermont, Ulster, Munster

I think it's pretty clear that the new seeding system called that a little better. Even if there are blips like Castres (who have completely collapsed), the new seeding system adds more competitiveness in the domestic competitions and that should be welcomed. The old seeding system was broken, but I wouldn't mind a compromise between the two systems, league position over 3 previous seasons.

The TV deal issue has been the biggest problem with the tournament so far. The removal of an automatic place for the Challenge Cup is also having a big impact there. Changing both of those will increase the quality of the competitions further.

errlloyd

irishbucsfan wrote: »

I think it's pretty clear that the new seeding system called that a little better. Even if there are blips like Castres (who have completely collapsed), the new seeding system adds more competitiveness in the domestic competitions and that should be welcomed. The old seeding system was broken, but I wouldn't mind a compromise between the two systems, league position over 3 previous seasons.

I don't disagree with you. Although it's unfair to limit the top seeds to 5, when in reality there are 6. Castre being this system's 6th and Saracens being the old system's 6, the old system clearly predicts it better.

How and ever, I think if it's done purely on league standings the problem is instantly solved. Using a bit of European form would be even better.

In the long run the true saviour for seeding would be if French teams prioritized Europe, and we had some deterrent to stop teams giving up when they were out.

total former

Yep, the new seeding system is much better. The old system was flawed in that it was self perpetuating but also one good season, even if it was a fluke, could skew the rankings for four years.

Dropping to 20 teams was a good move.

No one is happy with the TV deal but it was a necessary compromise that will be resolved ASAP.

Purely for the good of the competition, I'd remove the automatic spot for every country in the pro12. It's good for general rugby reasons but it warps the pool draw.

a very cool kid

its_phil wrote: »

Seeding and TV are my two biggest gripes. But the increase in competitivness of Pro12 is most welcome due to the meritocracy measures introduced.

Bit mad that if the Pro 12 finished tomorrow, there'd be 4 Irish teams and only 1 each from Italy, Scotland & Wales

bilston

a very cool kid wrote: »

Bit mad that if the Pro 12 finished tomorrow, there'd be 4 Irish teams and only 1 each from Italy, Scotland & Wales

Re: the Welsh what goes round comes round. They were warned...

A gripe I hadn't thought about until we were up and running though.

Scheduling has had an unintended result in actively dissuading travelling support.
I understand fully that this is to maximise TV audience, and TV audience is cash king to the clubs etc.

But Friday night games, evening Sunday games involving 4 hour flights etc are a bit of a disaster for the travelling fans. Even the early KO Saturday games don't really 'fit' very well.

Perhaps this is more of a general whinge at the "state of the system" in that games are scheduled for TV and not attendance, but I feel it's flared up with the tournament this year a fair bit.

irishbucsfan

[Deleted User] wrote: »

A gripe I hadn't thought about until we were up and running though.

Scheduling has had an unintended result in actively dissuading travelling support.
I understand fully that this is to maximise TV audience, and TV audience is cash king to the clubs etc.

But Friday night games, evening Sunday games involving 4 hour flights etc are a bit of a disaster for the travelling fans. Even the early KO Saturday games don't really 'fit' very well.

Perhaps this is more of a general whinge at the "state of the system" in that games are scheduled for TV and not attendance, but I feel it's flared up with the tournament this year a fair bit.

Yeah I have a feeling things will continue on that road.

Really interesting to think the NFL (beloved by many money-hungry ideogist sports tycoons) operate in exactly the opposite fashion, with television blackouts extended over games where attendance hasn't sold out, to the extent owners end up buying tickets to their own games to ensure they get on TV!

total former

Deleted User wrote: »

A gripe I hadn't thought about until we were up and running though.

Scheduling has had an unintended result in actively dissuading travelling support.
I understand fully that this is to maximise TV audience, and TV audience is cash king to the clubs etc.

But Friday night games, evening Sunday games involving 4 hour flights etc are a bit of a disaster for the travelling fans. Even the early KO Saturday games don't really 'fit' very well.

Perhaps this is more of a general whinge at the "state of the system" in that games are scheduled for TV and not attendance, but I feel it's flared up with the tournament this year a fair bit.

There were far fewer Friday games this season than last...

The Sunday evening is a pain in the arse alright, but for most pool games the numbers of travelling supporters is pretty minimal anyway.

Cookiemunster

Deleted User wrote: »

A gripe I hadn't thought about until we were up and running though.

Scheduling has had an unintended result in actively dissuading travelling support.
I understand fully that this is to maximise TV audience, and TV audience is cash king to the clubs etc.

But Friday night games, evening Sunday games involving 4 hour flights etc are a bit of a disaster for the travelling fans. Even the early KO Saturday games don't really 'fit' very well.

Perhaps this is more of a general whinge at the "state of the system" in that games are scheduled for TV and not attendance, but I feel it's flared up with the tournament this year a fair bit.

The only big difference I've seen is the 7:30 Saturday KOs. There were always Friday night and lunchtime Saturday and Sunday KOs. Maybe Leinster didn't get those slots previously, but Munster have had plenty of them.

Winters

http://www.walesonline.co.uk/sport/rugby/rugby-news/european-champions-cup-better-tournament-8498545#ICID=sharebar_twitter

Gwyn Jones says it's a failure.

#JusticeForDerekMcGrath

icdg

Cookiemunster wrote: »

The only big difference I've seen is the 7:30 Saturday KOs. There were always Friday night and lunchtime Saturday and Sunday KOs. Maybe Leinster didn't get those slots previously, but Munster have had plenty of them.

Its a trade off. The multiplicity of slots is the price we pay for having almost every game live on UK TV. Its something that's been part of the European Cup for years, although we've gone from 6 TV slots (with half the games relegated to the red button) to 8 (with only 2 games on the red button). The new slots are the Saturday 7:45pm and Sunday 5:30pm slots, all the other slots were there (with slightly different KO times) under ERC.

The alternative would be something more similar to football - every game kicking off at Saturday 3pm with only a minority of games moved for TV. But in such a system you'd have to accept that only a small number of each teams games would be televised.

Digifriendly

They could actually show all 10 pool games at a different time (to maximise TV coverage) if they wished with 2 Friday evening KO's i.e. 6.00pm and 8.00pm and 4 each on Saturday and Sunday i.e 1.00pm/3.15pm/5.30pm/7.45pm. This would not suit all supporters but would suit TV companies surely.

Ed The Equalizer

errlloyd wrote: »

I had forgot to mention that.

Please don't judge me, it's a Sunday night and I don't want to sleep yet. But for arguments sake, I also did the seeding for this year as if was using the old system.

Those groups look a lot more imbalanced, including that 2 of them have 3 French teams in them.

Am a big fan of the new tournament, a lot more competitive games but still a good shot to qualify with the 3 second place slots. The negative has been having to subscribe to BT, but I've enjoyed listening to BOD there.

errlloyd

Ed The Equalizer wrote: »

Those groups look a lot more imbalanced, including that 2 of them have 3 French teams in them.

Am a big fan of the new tournament, a lot more competitive games but still a good shot to qualify with the 3 second place slots. The negative has been having to subscribe to BT, but I've enjoyed listening to BOD there.

Oh sorry, it's not clear, that's not the groups. It's just the tiers. The groups would have to be randomly drawn from them.

The_Captain

I think the big problem with tiers and seeding is the lack of short/mid-term consistency in clubs.

Clubs who could smash up Europe in 2007 (Stade Francais/Wasps) were pretty much just tackle bag holders by 2010.
Then when new money started pouring into the Top 14, previously nothing clubs skyrocketed.

You'd end up with the tournament favourites in Tier 2 or 3, while Tier 1 could have clubs in Tier 1 not within an asses roar

Winters

http://www.irishtimes.com/sport/rugby/leinster-should-be-thanked-for-breaking-monotony-of-champions-cup-last-eight-1.2080312

Winters

Winters wrote: »

http://www.irishtimes.com/sport/rugby/leinster-should-be-thanked-for-breaking-monotony-of-champions-cup-last-eight-1.2080312

James? I doubt even his Mum calls him that.

Thornley's whinging is getting ridiculous, he was right the first time, he doesn't need to write the same article on a fortnightly basis.

errlloyd

[Deleted User] wrote: »

James? I doubt even his Mum calls him that.

Thornley's whinging is getting ridiculous, he was right the first time, he doesn't need to write the same article on a fortnightly basis.

Ah that article actually had some different points in it. It was reflective in some parts, and he doesn't sound optimistic for the quarters.

total former

Winters wrote: »

http://www.irishtimes.com/sport/rugby/leinster-should-be-thanked-for-breaking-monotony-of-champions-cup-last-eight-1.2080312

Let's go back to 2012. It's not that long ago.

The quarter-finals were:
Leinster v Cardiff
Munster v Ulster
Edinburgh v Toulouse
Saracens v Clermont

So 5 Pro12 teams, 2 French, 1 English.

If Gerry was agitating for change in January 2012, to level the playing field for the English and French to catch up with Pro12 dominance, then I'll take this article seriously. If not, then I just wish he'd change the record.

Larbre34

It will be a few years before the revised arrangements can be properly appraised, but I view this season as a failure, because of the confusion, the delays in many aspects, the failure to deliver the sponsors, the ineptitude of the new administration, the immediate irrelevance of the Challenge Cup, disappearance of the mooted 3rd tier comp and the notorious TV mess. The previous exclusive deal meant the broadcaster could organise good scheduling and better engage the fans of other clubs in watching matches neutral to them, so the whole buzz of the thing is lost, particularly the shakeup in Rds 5 and 6.

The reduction from 24 to 20 has done damn all, the number of fixtures are the same for clubs and the 8 QF-ists we ended up with could just have easily come out of a 6x4 format. So no easing of fixtures for the big clubs and no incentive for the lower table dwellers.

You might almost say 'plus ca change' however so much has gone backwards, its not really appropriate.

24 -> 20 has been good imo. But didn't need a new board to do it!

Rest of those gripes are teething issues mostly (and dual-broadcasters being in charge of fixtures instead of the board). If ERC had run it as before as a 20 team tournament we'd have had none of those issues and gotten the benefits of the final weekend lack of dead rubbers.

The weird thing is that one of the original reasons behind going to 20 was to improve the quality of the second tier competition. That seems to have fallen off a cliff by removing the auto-qualification spot, so would not be at all surprised to see that get put back on the table shortly enough.

irishbucsfan

Why do people think the 2nd tier competition has fallen off a cliff? Do people actually remember what the Pool stages of the Amlin Cup were like?

I think the auto-qualification spot would be a good idea though, the playoff spot may not be enough.

irishbucsfan

irishbucsfan wrote: »

Why do people think the 2nd tier competition has fallen off a cliff? Do people actually remember what the Pool stages of the Amlin Cup were like?

I think the auto-qualification spot would be a good idea though, the playoff spot may not be enough.

I believe that the idea of looking to improve the 2nd tier competition has fallen off a cliff. An example of this being the removal of the qualification spot.

Please lets not do the misrepresenting thing again ibf, I'm weary at this stage, and we've not butted heads on this in aaaaaaaages.

Deleted User wrote:

The weird thing is that one of the original reasons behind going to 20 was to improve the quality of the second tier competition. That seems to have fallen off a cliff by removing the auto-qualification spot, so would not be at all surprised to see that get put back on the table shortly enough.

irishbucsfan

Deleted User wrote: »

I believe that the idea of improving the 2nd tier competition has fallen off a cliff by the removal of the qualification spot.

Please lets not do the misrepresenting thing again ibf, I'm weary at this stage.

Oh, right you mean the idea itself has fallen off a cliff, I thought you meant the quality of the competition had fallen off a cliff.

The quality of the competition has been much improved thus far, so I don't think that idea has been forgotten, I think we just need to encourage competitiveness by incentivising the the competition more, easier said than done though.

irishbucsfan

irishbucsfan wrote: »

Oh, right you mean the idea itself has fallen off a cliff, I thought you meant the quality of the competition had fallen off a cliff.

The quality of the competition has been much improved thus far, so I don't think that idea has been forgotten, I think we just need to encourage competitiveness by incentivising the the competition more, easier said than done though.

They actively disincentivised the competition, nevermind not incentivising it!

irishbucsfan

Deleted User wrote: »

They actively disincentivised the competition, nevermind not incentivising it!

They increased the standard of the competition across the board. It's far better now than ever before.

They also did not "actively" disincentivise the competition. They didn't set out and say "Let's make the Challenge Cup less desirable by removing their place".

The disincentive was a side effect of reducing the size of the elite competition and the negotiations which took place over the 20 places that were left. They went with 18+2 playoff spots, I think the better result would have been 18 + 2 winners, with the spots going to the respective leagues if the winners were already qualified. But I can understand the desire for those playoffs I suppose, particularly with the Pro 12 staring down the barrel of a massive reduction in qualification places. I'd be very happy if they changed that.

Removing the auto qualification spot is an absolutely stone wall example of actively disincentivising the competition. Nothing you've said suggests otherwise, it just explains why they've done it.

its_phil

irishbucsfan wrote: »

Oh, right you mean the idea itself has fallen off a cliff, I thought you meant the quality of the competition had fallen off a cliff.

The quality of the competition has been much improved thus far, so I don't think that idea has been forgotten, I think we just need to encourage competitiveness by incentivising the the competition more, easier said than done though.

If you're talking about the quality of the Challenge Cup improving then you could not be further from the truth. The amount of second string teams put out would greatly outweigh the first string teams. You only have to read the Connacht thread and Connacht Clan website before rounds 3 & 4 to see debate on whether the competition should be taken seriously. That argument didn't exist when Connacht were in it previously.

I've no doubt the knockouts will be better than ever, but the group stages were a farce.

irishbucsfan

Deleted User wrote: »

Removing the auto qualification spot is an absolutely stone wall example of actively disincentivising the competition. Nothing you've said suggests otherwise, it just explains why they've done it.

Actively doing anything means taking an action with the intention of producing a result. Do you think it was the intention? I don't think it was, which is why I'm saying the did not actively disincentivise the competition, that's what I'm saying.

irishbucsfan

its_phil wrote: »

If you're talking about the quality of the Challenge Cup improving then you could not be further from the truth. The amount of second string teams put out would greatly outweigh the first string teams. You only have to read the Connacht thread and Connacht Clan website before rounds 3 & 4 to see debate on whether the competition should be taken seriously. That argument didn't exist when Connacht were in it previously.

I've no doubt the knockouts will be better than ever, but the group stages were a farce.

Ah come on, you should remember the competition from before.

Match points difference of 4th place teams in 2013-14: -270, -262, -233, -93, -37

Apart from Worcester those teams were being completely smashed, there was no point in having them in the competition.

Now at least the teams involved are competitive (outside of Bucarest/Rovigo this year) and playing at a level they should be able to compete at. London Welsh are atrocious this year as well, replace them with Bristol next year and the competition gets even tougher for whoever draws the bottom English seed.

The lack of incentive is still a problem, not sure there can be any solution to that without an increase in TV value for the competition, which may not forthcoming any time soon.

irishbucsfan

irishbucsfan wrote: »

Actively doing anything means taking an action with the intention of producing a result. Do you think it was the intention? I don't think it was, which is why I'm saying the did not actively disincentivise the competition, that's what I'm saying.

The first bolded piece is a pretty ridiculous effort to redefine 'actively'. You're conflating both actions and intentions to suit your argument. I also never said intention. This is either an example of confusion or misrepresentation.

The definition is also incorrect. I think you should avoid trying to semantically argue this point, simply because you're wrong.

They've removed (note, removal => action, which looks really like the word active {and actively} for a reason) the auto-qualification from the existing structure/tournament.

There's probably a semantics/linguistics forum that you could continue this on, but I probably wont be joining you there.

its_phil

irishbucsfan wrote: »

Ah come on, you should remember the competition from before.

Match points difference of 4th place teams in 2013-14: -270, -262, -233, -93, -37

Apart from Worcester those teams were being completely smashed, there was no point in having them in the competition.

Now at least the teams involved are competitive (outside of Bucarest/Rovigo this year) and playing at a level they should be able to compete at. London Welsh are atrocious this year as well, replace them with Bristol next year and the competition gets even tougher for whoever draws the bottom English seed.

The lack of incentive is still a problem, not sure there can be any solution to that without an increase in TV value for the competition, which may not forthcoming any time soon.

I do remember the competition before and it was actually competitive. You can throw nearly all the French clubs in with Bucharest and Rovigo too. There were some worse teams alright in the competition and you were guarenteed one whipping boy per group, but the other three teams took it quite serious. There was no debate as to whether you put out a strong XV because of lack of incentive. There is now.

irishbucsfan

Deleted User wrote: »

The first bolded piece is a pretty ridiculous effort to redefine 'actively'. You're conflating both actions and intentions to suit your argument. I also never said intention. This is either an example of confusion or misrepresentation.

The definition is also incorrect. I think you should avoid trying to semantically argue this point, simply because you're wrong.

They've removed (note, removal => action, which looks really like the word active {and actively} for a reason) the auto-qualification from the existing structure/tournament.

There's probably a semantics/linguistics forum that you could continue this on, but I probably wont be joining you there.

I'm not interested in a linguistic argument on this. All I said was that it was just a side effect of them having to negotiate the places down and you continued the argument, and so the only assumption is that you disagreed with that point.

If you agree that it was not their intention then you agree with me, which is always the correct side to take in any argument, and so I applaud your sound judgement.

Please don't quote my posts and argue things that aren't in them then. Simple enough solution.

It is pretty standard straw man stuff and I'm just re-iterating the original point so that the mis-representation doesn't stand as the final word.

irishbucsfan

Deleted User wrote: »

Please don't quote my posts and argue things that aren't in them then. Simple enough solution.

It is pretty standard straw man stuff and I'm just re-iterating the original point so that the mis-representation doesn't stand as the final word.

Ah come on, this constant self-victimisation is so sorry at this stage. Noone is out to get you, I'm not intentionally straw-manning or misrepresenting. I'm geniuinely sorry it seems that way. To clarify somewhat and show I don't mean this in that way, you said:

The weird thing is that one of the original reasons behind going to 20 was to improve the quality of the second tier competition. That seems to have fallen off a cliff by removing the auto-qualification spot, so would not be at all surprised to see that get put back on the table shortly enough.

Now, to interpret "That seems to have fallen off a cliff" is actually referring to the quality of the competition here (given "fallen off a cliff" in the vernacular is a quantitative statement and not a qualitative statement, you should know that better than I given it's origins). I now understand that wasn't the intention, I actually hadn't even considered that originally :pac:.

The aim is not to misrepresent you at all. You post was unclear and I responded with an incorrect interpretation to it, and you never disagreed, making the whole argument completely redundant, hence my joke just above. There's really no need whatsoever to be so defensive!

And the post regarding actively disincentivising the tournament? And the subsequent sophistry about intentions?

This kinda stuff

They also did not "actively" disincentivise the competition. They didn't set out and say "Let's make the Challenge Cup less desirable by removing their place".

is simple straw man rubbish. Please avoid. That's it.

irishbucsfan

Deleted User wrote: »

And the post regarding actively disincentivising the tournament? And the subsequent sophistry about intentions?

This kinda stuff
is simple straw man rubbish. Please avoid. That's it.

Again, not sophistry. I just explained exactly why. Apologies.

Leinsterblue

the fact is the challenge cup is a diminished trophy end of. so much for a better tier two, I also detect a disapation of interest in the main event tier one trophy. this will be compounded by having two broadcasters and french winners every year i should imagine.

Conor O'Leary is not impressed anyway