The small details of the RCC [ed] and/or HEC

How will seedings be managed?
Will should there be any lucky loser drop-downs?
Will should pool performance determine home quarters?
Will should the same ERC rule apply to semis?

At this stage the key deliverable we should focus on is the value added by the overall brand identity.

This tea & toilets small detail stuff can be thrashed out in a 10min conference call next summer. Guys.

Not on rugby then  Casartelli ?

the big stumbling block remains as goverence. Isuspect the PRL will reject the deal and try to get more.

TJ wrote:Not on rugby then  Casartelli ?

the big stumbling block remains as goverence.  Isuspect the PRL will reject the deal and try to get more.

What's rugby got to do with any of this Franglo business?

Not a lot ;-)

It's all about a couple of 'guys' who want to swagger around, talking (very loudly) in business-speak buzzwords, like some mad Fry and Laurie sketch from the 80s, getting off on the media attention.  Their ultimate dream is that this all leads to a slot on Dragons Den.

Rugby is just the commodity.  

Many union folk are incompetent fools, but at least you get the sense that the majority of them have the interests of rugby at heart.  Hence why this situation is so irritating.

Casartelli wrote:It's all about a couple of 'guys' who want to swagger around, talking (very loudly) in business-speak buzzwords, like some mad Fry and Laurie sketch from the 80s, getting off on the media attention.  Their ultimate dream is that this all leads to a slot on Dragons Den.

Rugby is just the commodity.  

Many union folk are incompetent fools, but at least you get the sense that the majority of them have the interests of rugby at heart.  Hence why this situation is so irritating.

you could say exactly the same about some of the union folk too...WRU and FFR heads would be cases in point...

people in glass houses...

I was hoping to avoid the political stuff in this article and it would have explicitly explained on the OP had I not been called out to clear some storm damage at my son's house.

It's about the functional processes in the real world, not another squabble-fest.

Personally, I want to see:
seedings aligned to meritocratic principles - something along the lines of
a. (the old ERC rankings points accumulated over the preceding season)
plus
b. A ranking based on last season's relative league position of qualifiers' in the top 12
So e.g. Toulon : EC cup winners) 11pts + T14 league winners (13-1) 12pts = 23 seeding pts
Leinster : CC winners 6 pts + R12 winners (13-1) 12 pts = 18 pts
Treviso : 1 ERC pts + R12 7th (13-7) 6pts = 13pts
Exeter : 2 ERC pts + AP 6th (13 - 6) 7pts = 9pts

An adjustment would need to be made for the T14 - so I know its not perfect.

Qtrs and Semis - straight draws at end of previous round.

Seedings need a revamp for sure. dunno how mind you.

Portnoy's Complaint wrote:How will seedings be managed?
Will there be any luck loser drop-downs?
Will pool performance determine home quarters?
Will the same rule apply to semis?

Home Advantage Rule will strictly apply to all those areas.  That is to say, if it is in the Home Advantage interests of either PRL or LNR to declare a Home Advantage for any rule or rules pertaining to the new contest, then such rule or rules shall apply without any reference to voting shares of other rights holders.

Thinking about it a little more - 'ERC' pts should balance League positional pts. i.e. max 12 pts for RCC/HEC winners and scale dow from there.

The T2 pot seedings would be more difficult to administer, but a similar process could be applied.

And I forgot
T2 drop-downs from T1 losers - none
But they maybe could be arranged as often as possible in paired double-headers on Thursday evenings given that it's TV money rather than crowds which generate the dosh.

SecretFly wrote:

Portnoy's Complaint wrote:How will seedings be managed?
Will there be any luck loser drop-downs?
Will pool performance determine home quarters?
ting shares of othWill the same rule apply to semis?

Home Advantage Rule will strictly apply to all those areas. That is to say, if it is in the Home Advantage interests of either PRL or LNR to declare a Home Advantage for any rule or rules pertaining to the new contest, then such rule or rules shall apply without any reference to voer rights holders.

That, SF is not exactly in the spirit of a non-squabble-fest.  

If there is no squabble then people get the impression all is right with the world and force always wins.

A very bad precedent for democracy, Portnoy.  So I squabble on the battlements for genuine fairness and not the replacement of one dictator with another...

Carry on though.  I'll squabble oh so very little on this one as it is a number-crunching/league logs/seeding coefficient type of thread that freezes my numerically challenged brain

Portnoy's Complaint wrote:Thinking about it a little more - 'ERC' pts should balance League positional pts. i.e. max 12 pts for RCC/HEC winners and scale dow from there.

The T2 pot seedings would be more difficult to administer, but a similar process could be applied.

And I forgot
T2 drop-downs from T1 losers - none
But they maybe could be arranged as often as possible in paired double-headers on Thursday evenings given that it's TV money rather than crowds which generate the dosh.

Personally Portnoy, i would favour moving away from previous HC performance counting towards seeding. i would simply base the seeding on qualifying position within domestic league in the previous season and organise accordingly. with a few other provisos, like no celtic teams from the same country in the same group.

so put the top team in each league in different pools. put bottom finishing qualifier from each league in the same pools as the winner. and let everything else be done by random draw, subject to minimum 1 french and english in each pool and no two celts of the same country in any given pool.

That seems fairish, quins. Pools usually arranged to separate national teams anyway in most(?) trans-national sporting competitions.

I'd still favour some credence in allowing reference to previous ERC/RCC performance. After all, it will only make a difference once they've qualified - even for previous winners.

Have the biscuits served at disciplinary hearings been agreed?

quinsforever wrote:

so put the top team in each league in different pools. put bottom finishing qualifier from each league in the same pools as the winner. and let everything else be done by random draw, subject to minimum 1 french and english in each pool and no two celts of the same country in any given pool.

A minimum of one French and English in each pool?  Which implies there could be more - yes?  But under no cicumstances (in a random draw of all things!) should two sides from any single "Celtic" nation be in the same pool?

Two questions: Why?  Second question: Why?  Third question: Why?

Plus... bottom finishing qualifier from each League in the same pool as the winner?

Question:  The winner of which League?  You didn't specify but I assume you have an specific idea on that one too.  

It all seems so calculated so far, guys... sounds almost as if some of you want to manufacture a top and a bottom to keep the top on the top and the bottom at the bottom.

But forge ahead...explain the reasoning.

SecretFly wrote:

quinsforever wrote:

so put the top team in each league in different pools. put bottom finishing qualifier from each league in the same pools as the winner. and let everything else be done by random draw, subject to minimum 1 french and english in each pool and no two celts of the same country in any given pool.

A minimum of one French and English in each pool?  Which implies there could be more - yes?  But under no cicumstances (in a random draw of all things!) should two sides from any single "Celtic" nation be in the same pool?

Two questions: Why?  Second question: Why?  Third question: Why?

Plus... bottom finishing qualifier from each League in the same pool as the winner?

Question:  The winner of which League?  You didn't specify but I assume you have an specific idea on that one too.  

It all seems so calculated so far, guys... sounds almost as if some of you want to manufacture a top and a bottom to keep the top on the top and the bottom at the bottom.

But forge ahead...explain the reasoning.

not that controversial old bean am assuming we have 5 pools of 4, and 6,6,7 (+1) qualifiers from respective leagues. fans, clubs, broadcasters do not want a pool to be a repeat of a domestic league, so i merely suggested a numerical device to allocate the teams to pools on that basis.

at least 1 Fr and Eng because if there are 0 of each in 1 pool you could end up with 2 or 3 from Fr or Eng in 1 or several pools. No celtic teams of same nation in same pool because who would want that anyway? Leinster/Munster in same pool of 4?

winner of each league (AP/top14/Rabo)

winners of league in same pool as last place qualifiers is to give some small advantage to being seeded. otherwise just make it all random. which i would be fairly happy with too. pretty fair.

quinsforever wrote:

at least 1 Fr and Eng because if there are 0 of each in 1 pool you could end up with 2 or 3 from Fr or Eng in 1 or several pools. No celtic teams of same nation in same pool because who would want that anyway? Leinster/Munster in same pool of 4?

winners of league in same pool as last place qualifiers is to give some small advantage to being seeded. otherwise just make it all random. which i would be fairly happy with too. pretty fair.

Fairness and equality of the choosing criteria would want it, quins.  

It shouldn't be a circus.  It's a rugby competition.  You don't want a circumstance where the last eight are manufactured before the pools even start to ensure a  - well, here we go again on this repeating one - large viewing audience, large attendances and big advertising rates stoked up by BT to pay for its 'free' service.

If the competition is just going to be orchestrated to have what some think to be the dream teams fighting out the final stages (for profit's sake) then it's a dead duck as a competition...but of course some participants aren't going to care too much about that as it's all about 'product'.  A big 'product' to sell to the natives of other TV watching nations outside Europe - to be sure, to be sure to be sure.

But, if two 'Celtic' sides from the one Nation (funny how that has become an issue again BTW ) combine to drop either a favourite French or a favourite English side - or both - from the pool they're in, then that's a 'fair' pool that could have easily had two heavy hitting English sides dropping a single Irish side out of the pool instead.  Fairness...not a choreographed show to make the fans from the biggest two leagues happy.

If random is random, then it's genuinely random and the contest then truly exists in the moment.  And the weaker sides can truly have a chance of making the headlines in any given year by getting further than the organisers would have hoped for.
That's the true epic nature of European contest - that a group of death can destroy the hopes of some 'top' teams' and that an easier group could present a fairytale ending to a lesser side and its fans.  That is what people want.  Chance and hope not curtain dressing and token entries.

Pools need to be seeded to stop the best teams ending up in the same pool. No need to stop teams from one hnation being in the same pool. ~We just need to prevent the situation where the two favourite teams end up together.

TJ wrote:Pools need to be seeded to stop the best teams ending up in the same pool.  No need to stop teams from one hnation  being in the same pool.  ~We just need to prevent the situation where the two favourite teams end up together.  

The best teams in any given year have already met in the pools...that's history and a pretty epic history it has been some years as two top teams suddenly realise they have to genuinely begin their toughest brand of rugby much earlier than they might have thought. It also adds excitement to the idea of 'group of death' and stretches the hightened interest of the contest into the pool stages themselves, which can often have a processional air to them as the best glide to the top...using plenty of cotton wool

na - its the whole point of seeding is to prevent this happening. Just the HC seeding has been rubbish

For the pool draws lets call them sides A to T and the pools 1-5 each consisting of seeds SA to ST.

Pools 1-5 (first tier teams) could be populated by sides A-E

each of the subsequent pool members could be drawn on the following basis:

Wherever possible the next seeded teams drawn on the following priority
a. Nationality
b. League

It may be that one or more 'draws' are pre-determined (e.g.) if seeds A-E contained (say) 4 French sides and one side in seeds F-J is French, then that French side is automatically allocated to the one pool without a French team.

So for teams F-J (2nd tier seeds)

Each team drawn is allocated to a pool not containing a compatriot side and if possible its own league. If no 'place' is left available, then that side will have if necessary to be drawn against a team from it's own league and/or in the case of the Rabo, its own country

And similarly for seeds K-O (3rd tier seeds) and P-T (4th tier seeds)

However it may be possible to allow inter tier seeding trading to enable national/league clashes.

In your opinion TJ....... some of us, indeed many of us, liked it.

Anyway, I promised Portnoy I wouldn't hog this one too long.  Carry on guys... won't bother you all again.

SecretFly wrote:In your opinion TJ....... some of us, indeed many of us, liked it.

Anyway, I promised Portnoy I wouldn't hog this one too long.  Carry on guys... won't bother you all again.

I've no problems with constructive criticisms/arguments, SF. It's just slagging, point scoring and circular debates I'd prefer to avoid.

Under any system, btw, the chances of a national clash amongst the Rabo are highly remote - especially under the proposed RCC rules even if it ends as a 6/6/8.

[ed] Actually impossible under my proposals.

An idea just that just popped into my mind for seedings but havn't sorted all the details
1 point for league position 1st 1 2nd 2 etc
1point for winning in europe 2 for second dont know whether to go 3 for 1/4 finalist or 4 other 2nd place in pools get 1 more point, 3rd in pool +1 etc
Those in 2nd tier of europe +1 or 2 points
lowest total top seeds this elemenates the Top 14 dispariaty
Any additional comments welcome

the reality is, if the 20 teams in the RCC are more or less the top 20 teams, then every pool is going to be tough, so seeding is probably not as important as before. just some sensible rules, as in other sports, to keep teams from the same leagues relatively separated.

or if some form of seeding is deemed necessary how about keeping it de minimus: if we have 5 pools of 4, i would seed the winners of each domestic league, and maybe also the previous year's RCC winner. so a max of 4 seeds.

simple. hard to argue that it's overly complicated!

I wonder how people regard home quarters and semi-finals based on pool results.

And incidentally, I'd welcome Secret Fly to express his views (see above).

small idea from left field re the knockout stages - how about home and away legs in the qtrs? and in order to keep the number of matches manageable, how about 4 pools of 5 where you only play each team in your league once, and get 2 home and 2 away games, and top 2 go through from each group?

i know ERC currently controls the semis. but it seems pretty obvious that they couldnt organise a wizz up in a brewery so i would be flexible on semi home and away matches, or make them be played in 40k+ seaters in respective countries but not actual home stadiums?

Given that the entire competition's future remains uncertain, I changed the OP.

But no bickering would be welcome.

So comments like "they couldn't organise a wizz up in a brewery" would by the same token, are not because as it is patently obvious in other articles, more than one event organiser.