Premiership Rugby out of Heineken Cup?

McCBrian · 21-10-2013 11:51PM

irishbucsfan wrote: »

If the only motive behind the reduction of the H Cup to 20 teams was money then it makes absolutely no sense. As De Doc says it is all about control Clubs v UnionsIf all they wanted was money then they'd look for a 24 team tournament (which is worth more money) and equal participation in that.

The only reason they (PRL) are committed to a 20 team tournament is that it is one of the criteria that they knew the other UNIONS would move on and was a way to subjagate their ulterior motive/s

irishbucsfan · 21-10-2013 11:53PM

McCBrian wrote: »

The only reason they (PRL) are committed to a 20 team tournament is that it is one of the criteria that they knew the other UNIONS would move on and was a way to subjagate their ulterior motive/s

Oh right I see. And a better standard tournament for their teams to play in wouldn't come into it at all?

McCBrian · 22-10-2013 12:05AM

irishbucsfan wrote: »

The 3rd tier hasn't really been discussed lately because it can't be organised until they know who is playing in the tiers above it. But the idea which had most traction is a shortened competition played before the start of the Amlin with 2 finalists qualifying.

And why not I wonder why?
In the inital proposals I seem to recall that PRL were proposing Iberian/Georgian/Romanian/Russian teams playing in a 4 team tournament in August (ie out of season for all of them). Not that any of their Unions/clubs had been contacted about it.
Although PRL said they would fund it:pac:

There was no guarantee whatsoever of promotion to the 2nd tier in PRL's proposal.

If somehow there was promotion. How would the logistics work if 2 teams qualified 6 weeks before the start of the 2nd tier competition.
And would PRL finance their participation in the Amlin. It would cost the best part of €1M, (to come out of PRL's share, to provide the € for the 3rd tier and continuation in the Amlin)

And BTW no matter how you dress up the 2nd tier (Amlin) it will always be an inferior competition and what happens to the Italian club sides who have participated in the Amlin/Parker Pen since it's inception are they just going to be cast aside?

McCBrian · 22-10-2013 12:08AM

irishbucsfan wrote: »

Oh right I see.

Glad you are at last seeing the light IBF:D

McCBrian · 22-10-2013 12:20AM

irishbucsfan wrote: »

And a better standard tournament for their teams to play in wouldn't come into it at all?

Not at all in PRL's eyes it is all about CONTROL and more money they are not bothered about a better standard of tournament, as what they are proposing will make it more difficult for a PRL team to win it imho :P

irishbucsfan · 22-10-2013 12:26AM

McCBrian wrote: »

Not at all in PRL's eyes it is all about CONTROL and more money they are not bothered about a better standard of tournament, as what they are proposing will make it more difficult for a PRL team to win it imho :P

That's your opinion, and of course it doesn't make much sense for them to pursue a smaller tournament if they're only after more money. But you're welcome to believe whatever you want.

Of course they want more control and money, but that is not the driving force behind the demand to reduce the tournament size (which supposedly came out of the LNR originally)

McCBrian · 22-10-2013 12:46AM

irishbucsfan wrote: »

That's your opinion, as what they are proposing will make it more difficult for a PRL team to win it imho and of course it doesn't make much sense for them to pursue a smaller tournament if they're only after more money. A pie divided by 20 teams is > than a pie divided by 24 is it not, not withstanding that PRL want to increase their share from 24% to 33% But you're welcome to believe whatever you want. I beleive the cold facts

Of course they want more control and money, but that is not the driving force behind the demand to reduce the tournament size (which supposedly came out of the LNR originally)So at last we have you agreeing that PRL want control and money, thought it was all about fairness in qualification;)

Do you know how to read a post or do you just twist everything and ignore punctuation?

Off to bed now

irishbucsfan · 22-10-2013 01:32AM

If all they wanted was money and power then they'd be after 8 teams each in a more profitable 24 team competition. They want a 20 team tournament because it makes rugby sense.

But that doesn't fit into certain people's narrative of the big bad evil men who are out to destroy European rugby and take it away from the Union knights in shining armour, cashing in their meal tickets for seats at the round table.

22-10-2013 08:57AM

irishbucsfan wrote: »

If all they wanted was money and power then they'd be after 8 teams each in a more profitable 24 team competition. They want a 20 team tournament because it makes rugby sense.

But that doesn't fit into certain people's narrative of the big bad evil men who are out to destroy European rugby and take it away from the Union knights in shining armour, cashing in their meal tickets for seats at the round table.

What format for a 20 team tournament makes sense?

(think logistics, round robins, seeds, qualification etc)

Here's an example of how you may do it - http://www.htosports.com/teams/default.asp?u=CONSIGLIOF&t=c&s=baseball&p=custom&pagename=Pool+Play

irishbucsfan · 22-10-2013 09:06AM

Deleted User wrote: »

What format for a 20 team tournament makes sense?

(think logistics, round robins, seeds, qualification etc)

Here's an example of how you may do it - http://www.htosports.com/teams/default.asp?u=CONSIGLIOF&t=c&s=baseball&p=custom&pagename=Pool+Play

The format they've put forward. 5 groups of 4. Pretty much the exact same for at we've already used except with one less group.

Edit: That's also with 3 best runners up going through to quarter finals

22-10-2013 09:08AM

irishbucsfan wrote: »

The format they've put forward. 5 groups of 4. Pretty much the exact same for at we've already used except with one less group.

Where is that? I can't find it anywhere.

irishbucsfan · 22-10-2013 09:11AM

Deleted User wrote: »

Where is that? I can't find it anywhere.

I'm not sure now, it's been so long. But it was in one of the English papers. There's really no other format that actually works.

22-10-2013 09:20AM

irishbucsfan wrote: »

I'm not sure now, it's been so long. But it was in one of the English papers. There's really no other format that actually works.

I'm skeptical that 5x4 can work. I'd really need to see the progression on it.

Off the top of my head I can't think of any 20 team tournament that has a schedule that you could copy and it would work.

irishbucsfan · 22-10-2013 09:25AM

Deleted User wrote: »

I'm skeptical that 5x4 can work. I'd really need to see the progression on it.

Off the top of my head I can't think of any 20 team tournament that has a schedule that you could copy and it would work.

I don't understand... It's 5 groups of 4. So 6 games within the group with all the group winners going through to the quarter finals. Then the 3 best runners up going to the Quarter finals and the 2worst runners up either dropping to the Amlin or out of the competition altogether. Then knockouts exactly as they've been done.

There's very little change from the current structure, where do you need to see the progression?

22-10-2013 09:27AM

irishbucsfan wrote: »

I don't understand... It's 5 groups of 4. So 6 games within the group with all the group winners going through to the quarter finals. Then the 3 best runners up going to the Quarter finals and the 2worst runners up either dropping to the Amlin or out of the competition altogether. Then knockouts exactly as they've been done.

There's very little change from the current structure, where do you need to see the progression?

Seeding is important

3 best runners up vs 2 best runners up is a pretty big deal too

(2/6 vs 3/5)

irishbucsfan · 22-10-2013 09:32AM

Deleted User wrote: »

Seeding is important

3 best runners up vs 2 best runners up is a pretty big deal too

(2/6 vs 3/5)

Seeding will remain as is and the groups will be pulled from that I'd imagine, i don't see where the issue would arise from that.

Also if you're looking for an example of a 20-team tournament, there is the Amlin! But unfortunately there are rarely competitive groups in it at the moment to compare.

Cookiemunster · 22-10-2013 09:35AM

Deleted User wrote: »

Seeding is important

3 best runners up vs 2 best runners up is a pretty big deal too

(2/6 vs 3/5)

I don't agree with reducing to 20, but i don't see the big deal with the 5 x 4 format if it happens.
It's the same 1v8, 2v7, 2v6, 4v5 format in the quarters. It's the way the Amlin worked before the 3 teams dropped from the Heineken.
4 x 5 doesn't work as it means 8 games and 10 weeks to play them.

22-10-2013 09:35AM

irishbucsfan wrote: »

Seeding will remain as is and the groups will be pulled from that I'd imagine, i don't see where the issue would arise from that.

Also if you're looking for an example of a 20-team tournament, there is the Amlin! But unfortunately there are rarely competitive groups in it at the moment to compare.

It's not a 20 team tournament because it gets teams added

Cookiemunster · 22-10-2013 09:38AM

Deleted User wrote: »

It's not a 20 team tournament because it gets teams added

As I said in my previous post, it was before they started dropping the 3 teams in.

22-10-2013 09:38AM

Cookiemunster wrote: »

As I said in my previous post, it was before they started dropping the 3 teams in.

I know, I'm trying to find another Live 20 team tournament to use as a comparison tool.

irishbucsfan · 22-10-2013 09:53AM

Deleted User wrote: »

I know, I'm trying to find another Live 20 team tournament to use as a comparison tool.

They haven't always added teams to the Amlin.

But it's an example of the group structure. The best runners up thing will be tough to find an example of and I'd be very surprised if it exists anywhere, not many tournaments are forced to bring 20 down to 8.

DeDoc · 22-10-2013 09:54AM

It really isn't hard

Take last years pools:

Pool 1: Sarries (4), Munster (8)
Pool 2: Tigers (6), Toulouse (10)
Pool 3: Quins (2), Biarritz (11)
Pool 4: Ulster (5), Saints (12)
Pool 5: Clermont (1), Leinster (9)
Pool 6: Toulon (3), Montpellier (7)

Now imagine that there was no pool 6, the pools (with teams moving up in seeding accordingly) would be
Pool 1: Sarries (3), Munster (6)
Pool 2: Tigers (5), Toulouse (8)
Pool 3: Quins (2), Biarritz (9)
Pool 4: Ulster (4), Saints (10)
Pool 5: Clermont (1), Leinster (7)

QFs would have been Clermont - Toulouse, Quins - Leinster, Sarries - Munster and Ulster - Tigers

22-10-2013 10:20AM

How badly can that 8th seed do and still qualify is what I'm trying to see.

Could build it from scratch but if there's another example elsewhere would rather just steal it.

The difference between 33% of second place teams and 60% of second place teams qualifying (for KO) is what I'm trying to quantify.

irishbucsfan · 22-10-2013 10:23AM

Given the groups are closed, you can look at the 3rd best runners up for the past few years, unless I'm missing something?

DeDoc · 22-10-2013 10:26AM

I wouldn't get too exercised about it. They could win all 6 games and finish second (very unlikely) if the other team got 7 bonus points and 5 wins and they got 2 or less bonus point in their 6 wins.
They could also conceivably finish second with 8 points (even with no wins and 4 draws) and qualify. Realistically I'd expect a team to be very unlucky not to win a group if they get 22+ points and very lucky to finish, and qualify in, second with less than 15 points

22-10-2013 10:29AM

irishbucsfan wrote: »

Given the groups are closed, you can look at the 3rd best runners up for the past few years, unless I'm missing something?

you are, the groups may be closed but the qualification is not.

You may be able to "game" the competition very differently.

Consider if with 3 second place teams, you now only need to 'beat' 2 (instead of 4) other second place teams to qualify.

Since these results are public, you know after two gameweeks a likely "second" place score, and as such can make decisions (imagine Gloucester played (and beat) Edinburgh in GW2 instead, and sent the seconds to Munster in GW3) accordingly.

It's still true in today's competition, it's just that the effect of it is minimal as there isn't as much leeway available.

McCBrian · 22-10-2013 10:37AM

Read somewhere over the weekend that PRL are proposing 4 groups of 5 and no QF's

, will try and find a link tonight as busy all day

This will also mean at least 2 groups with two PRL teams and the other two pools with 2 T14 sides:(

So lets dump a lucrative knock-out round and have more PRL v PRL and T14 v T14 games? Madness I tell you

irishbucsfan · 22-10-2013 10:41AM

Yes, but the effect that would have in the difference in the number of points required to make 3rd place is small. As the teams in those places have been competing for 2nd place historically, and so disregarding the game theory they've been aiming for maximum points all the time. So I can't see their totals falling too much

I'd say you'll find the average is about 19 points?

former legend · 22-10-2013 10:45AM

McCBrian wrote: »

Read somewhere over the weekend that PRL are proposing 4 groups of 5 and no QF's, will try and find a link tonight as busy all day

This will also mean at least 2 groups with two PRL teams and the other two pools with 2 T14 sides:(

So lets dump a lucrative knock-out round and have more PRL v PRL and T14 v T14 games? Madness I tell you

Blaaaaah. If that's the format, I'll be disgusted. No quarter finals? F**K that.

Plus, pools of 5 teams means you have to find an extra weekend somewhere and the calendar is pretty full as it is.

McCBrian · 22-10-2013 10:50AM

former legend wrote: »

Blaaaaah. If that's the format, I'll be disgusted. No quarter finals? F**K that.

Plus, pools of 5 teams means you have to find an extra weekend somewhere and the calendar is pretty full as it is.

Yes I was gobsmacked at the proposal, usual PRL rhetoric shoot the mouth off first and don't think the proposal through:rolleyes:

Premiership Rugby out of Heineken Cup?

Comments