Champions Cup goes from strength to stength.

First topic message reminder :

Great to see this competition throwing up some great games in only its 2nd season.

Just goes to show what the HC could have been.

Great stuff and long may it continue.

Pot Hale wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:So its not a level playing field as there are no longer disparities between the numbers between leagues?

If you need to have it repeated for you - then I'll oblige.  But I suspect you are being disingenuous.

The issue was disparity between clubs and countries - on which the old comp was founded.  

Moving it to an argument about disparity between leagues, even though two of the leagues only represented a single country/union was a smart move by PRL in strengthening their hand.   They had the power and the numbers, they won.    

As the old saying goes - quit while you're ahead - it might be useful to apply it in this discussion.



 

Yup, and as long as whole countries can't provide a whole league it has to be parity between leagues.

Oh and it does go back to the fact whats really different this year. Less below par teams but still some. If we forget about the organisational rubbish its still a lot of the same teams and the results would be the same.

TJ wrote: Its a devalued competition now and its obvious.

This is pure, unadulterated GOLD.

LeinsterFan4life wrote:The main problems have been obviously the split coverage and the woeful scheduling. In particular I couldn't believe that Leinster had to play a QF a week after the 6n! This really favours teams such as Toulon.

The irony. I can't type for laughing so much.

Oh please do explain Chunky. Don't be afraid to use quotes...

No 7&1/2 wrote:



Yup, and as long as whole countries can't provide a whole league it has to be parity between leagues.

Why?

Because otherwise its just the Pro 12 with couple of French and English thrown in . It should be the premier comp with the best os the 3 leagues fighting it out. Why do you think if these games were under the old format the quality of rugby would be better?

No 7&1/2 wrote:Because otherwise its just the Pro 12 with couple of French and English thrown in . It should be the premier comp with the best os the 3 leagues fighting it out. Why do you think if these games were under the old format the quality of rugby would be better?

That is no reason. It doesn't even make logical sense. Try again with an actual logically coherent reason why it should be so

Of course its a reason. If 3 leagues are going to combine to create this comp equal representation is a must. And your turn...

Because, as people have been saying in this one, it gets boring seeing the same sides playing in the league and then playing in the cup. The freshness of opposition makes the competition more interesting. By having equal participation between the league you have a more even spread of teams in the pools from the various leagues. Previous at least 4 and up to 6 of the 6 pools would have two teams from the same league. Now you have between 2-3 of the pools have two teams from the same league.

I enjoyed the last two weeks of rugby. Hard fought games and some surprise results (Wasps certainly helped there). The competition just seems more competitive now where as in the HEC you could normally see which two would contest the group most groups are wide open.

No 7&1/2 wrote:Oh and it does go back to the fact whats really different this year. Less below par teams but still some. If we forget about the organisational rubbish its still a lot of the same teams and the results would be the same.

Fair comments. There were less below par teams last year as well. You think the results would be the same? I would have thought that what's really different this year is the likelihood of which leagues will be represented in the knockout stages. The results for the respective leagues are changing. Time will tell how far those changes go.

Yup true. I think thats more to do with natural rises and dips within sides.

No 7&1/2 wrote:Of course its a reason. If 3 leagues are going to combine to create this comp equal representation is a must. And your turn...

But it was 6 unions that created it....................................

Come on - try to make a logically coherent reason why it should be so biased in favour of 2 unions to the detriment of 4.

geoff999rugby wrote:

ScarletSpiderman wrote:

TJ wrote:

TJ wrote:Strength to strength?  diminishing TV audiences, fragmented TV coverage, few sponsors, less income, less variety of clubs, few exciting to and fro games ( the last nowt to do with format tho)

Anyone like to try to state its getting better given the above?

Going by the above list, you can argue that the second tier is definitely getting better.

Before the second tier was included English, French, Italian, and Welsh (occasionally Irish too).  Now it has Scottish sides, so it has improved on 'variety of clubs'

Before the change 6 teams, outside the 3 main leagues, gained entry to the 2nd tier now only 2 can - not sure how that has improved variety

Because the quality of the sides in there have now increased, and there is a greater national variety (but this is one of those nation/league clusterhump issue I think).

One of the key factors used to sell the new competitions was that the Challenge Cup would be more competitive and therefore more marketable. Unquestionably it now has bigger names but in fact seems to be treated as a youth development competition even more this year than last by English as well as French sides. There is dreadful marketing and coverage of the whole thing so that key factor in improving the competition is little short of a disaster.

Regarding the marketing of the Cup itself, the lack of the promised five sponsors is telling. With fewer teams that are hopefully better quality the EPCR must have been hoping for a windfall from someone who appreciates better quality rugby. The problem is that the quality may be marginally better but having only 20 teams means that the same fixtures are far more likely to appear in successive years, and with only five groups there is only one pool winner travelling away who is likely to cause an upset. In short the romance has been diluted if not entirely removed. So is it easier to sell a competition that has romance or a competition that appeals to the connoisseur of quality? The EPCR have plumped for the latter but may now be wishing they had paid more heed to the former, because it is clear the current format does not have both.

TJ wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:Of course its a reason. If 3 leagues are going to combine to create this comp equal representation is a must. And your turn...

But it was 6 unions that created it....................................

Come on - try to make a logically coherent reason why it should be so biased in favour of 2 unions to the detriment of 4.  

See above. You not even going to attempt an answer?

And wasn't it the PRL who did the deal, not sure on the French, so you want the English excluded? Thats your next question you answer the 1st tj!

The Great Aukster wrote:One of the key factors used to sell the new competitions was that the Challenge Cup would be more competitive and therefore more marketable. Unquestionably it now has bigger names but in fact seems to be treated as a youth development competition even more this year than last by English as well as French sides. There is dreadful marketing and coverage of the whole thing so that key factor in improving the competition is little short of a disaster.

Regarding the marketing of the Cup itself, the lack of the promised five sponsors is telling. With fewer teams that are hopefully better quality the EPCR must have been hoping for a windfall from someone who appreciates better quality rugby. The problem is that the quality may be marginally better but having only 20 teams means that the same fixtures are far more likely to appear in successive years, and with only five groups there is only one pool winner travelling away who is likely to cause an upset. In short the romance has been diluted if not entirely removed. So is it easier to sell a competition that has romance or a competition that appeals to the connoisseur of quality? The EPCR have plumped for the latter but may now be wishing they had paid more heed to the former, because it is clear the current format does not have both.

Champions league vs fa cup?

No 7&1/2 wrote:
Yup, and as long as whole countries can't provide a whole league it has to be parity between leagues.

Not sure I follow that. So if a country could provide a whole league, it wouldn't be parity between leagues??

Pot Hale wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:
Yup, and as long as whole countries can't provide a whole league it has to be parity between leagues.

Not sure I follow that.   So if a country could provide a whole league, it wouldn't be parity between leagues??

I think he means if there were 6 national leagues with even amounts of teams, and all the leagues were if a similar strength, then there would be even amounts from each league (and no multi nation league, which is really causing issues if nation/league).

ScarletSpiderman wrote:

Pot Hale wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:
Yup, and as long as whole countries can't provide a whole league it has to be parity between leagues.

Not sure I follow that.   So if a country could provide a whole league, it wouldn't be parity between leagues??

I think he means if there were 6 national leagues with even amounts of teams, and all the leagues were if a similar strength, then there would be even amounts from each league (and no multi nation league, which is really causing issues if nation/league).

No I don't think he means that. Because that is also parity between leagues. He was making a contrast.

As long as each country doesn't have a whole league, then it has to be parity between leagues.

I'm asking if each country does have a whole league, then what? Disparity between leagues???

No 7&1/2 wrote:Champions league vs fa cup?

The Champions League has 32 teams in the group stage drawn from almost 80 entrants. There is plenty of variety to ensure that stage is not throwing up the same fixtures in rapid succession. There are also far more countries involved so there aren't the restrictions in pool composition to avoid teams from the same country playing each other. The international element is crucial in the CL because fans look to it as an indicator for the National team.

The EPCR may have enviously tried to recreate the rugby version of the Champions league but there simply isn't enough international variety to sustain interest. There is a romance to international collisions (however mis-matched). The new competition has three groups out of five with either two French or two English teams involved. In the old competition there would only have been one out of six. Having two teams in a group of four significantly increases that country's chance of progression to the knockouts, so the variety (romance) inevitably is reduced.

Aukster, the old system spewed up pro12 v pro12 regularly. Whereas now it is less likely. So from a pro12 point of view variety is increased

ScarletSpiderman wrote:Aukster, the old system spewed up pro12 v pro12 regularly.  Whereas now it is less likely.  So from a pro12 point of view variety is increased

SS - By old system, you mean that there are now 4 less Pro12 teams involved?

The English clubs are setting the pace in this seasons competition with some outstanding performances. French are hot and cold, the postponed fixtures have not helped and the Celts are struggling. Hangovers from the World Cup maybe?

Pot Hale wrote:

ScarletSpiderman wrote:

Pot Hale wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:
Yup, and as long as whole countries can't provide a whole league it has to be parity between leagues.

Not sure I follow that.   So if a country could provide a whole league, it wouldn't be parity between leagues??

I think he means if there were 6 national leagues with even amounts of teams, and all the leagues were if a similar strength, then there would be even amounts from each league (and no multi nation league, which is really causing issues if nation/league).

No I don't think he means that.  Because that is also parity between leagues.  He was making a contrast.

As long as each country doesn't have a whole league, then it has to be parity between leagues.

I'm asking if each country does have a whole league, then what?   Disparity between leagues???

If Wales want more teams they need to either get 6 to the top of the Pro 12 clearly not possible, or get their own professional league together and gain entry.

The Great Aukster wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:Champions league vs fa cup?

The Champions League has 32 teams in the group stage drawn from almost 80 entrants. There is plenty of variety to ensure that stage is not throwing up the same fixtures in rapid succession. There are also far more countries involved so there aren't the restrictions in pool composition to avoid teams from the same country playing each other. The international element is crucial in the CL because fans look to it as an indicator for the National team.

The EPCR may have enviously tried to recreate the rugby version of the Champions league but there simply isn't enough international variety to sustain interest. There is a romance to international collisions (however mis-matched). The new competition has three groups out of five with either two French or two English teams involved. In the old competition there would only have been one out of six. Having two teams in a group of four significantly increases that country's chance of progression to the knockouts, so the variety (romance) inevitably is reduced.

In reality though there aren't more league vs league clashes than before.

Pot Hale wrote:

ScarletSpiderman wrote:Aukster, the old system spewed up pro12 v pro12 regularly.  Whereas now it is less likely.  So from a pro12 point of view variety is increased

SS - By old system, you mean that there are now 4 less Pro12 teams involved?

Yep. Now there are far less pro 12 clashes in the top tier of europe, so more variety of opposition for us.

No 7&1/2 wrote:

The Great Aukster wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:Champions league vs fa cup?

The Champions League has 32 teams in the group stage drawn from almost 80 entrants. There is plenty of variety to ensure that stage is not throwing up the same fixtures in rapid succession. There are also far more countries involved so there aren't the restrictions in pool composition to avoid teams from the same country playing each other. The international element is crucial in the CL because fans look to it as an indicator for the National team.

The EPCR may have enviously tried to recreate the rugby version of the Champions league but there simply isn't enough international variety to sustain interest. There is a romance to international collisions (however mis-matched). The new competition has three groups out of five with either two French or two English teams involved. In the old competition there would only have been one out of six. Having two teams in a group of four significantly increases that country's chance of progression to the knockouts, so the variety (romance) inevitably is reduced.

In reality though there aren't more league vs league clashes than before.

You compared it to the European Champions League that thrives on international variety and spreads the game accordingly. It is the international element that raises the perception of the competition to be closer to Test than League and therefore more attractive to those who aren't rugby anoraks. Increasing the proportion of teams from the same country playing each other in the competition reduces the perception and therefore makes it less appealing to sponsors looking for volume.

I was just going with quality vs romance. Bath vs Wasps is the same as Munster vs Ospreys is the same as Toulon vsRacing in terms of variety.

No 7&1/2 wrote:

Pot Hale wrote:

ScarletSpiderman wrote:

Pot Hale wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:
Yup, and as long as whole countries can't provide a whole league it has to be parity between leagues.

Not sure I follow that.   So if a country could provide a whole league, it wouldn't be parity between leagues??

I think he means if there were 6 national leagues with even amounts of teams, and all the leagues were if a similar strength, then there would be even amounts from each league (and no multi nation league, which is really causing issues if nation/league).

No I don't think he means that.  Because that is also parity between leagues.  He was making a contrast.

As long as each country doesn't have a whole league, then it has to be parity between leagues.

I'm asking if each country does have a whole league, then what?   Disparity between leagues???

If Wales want more teams they need to either get 6 to the top of the Pro 12 clearly not possible, or get their own professional league together and gain entry.

That's not an answer to my question though. You're arguing that as long as a country doesn't have a whole league, then it has to be parity between leagues. So if each country does have a whole league, then what would happen?

Negotiations would begin again.

I mean if you have 3 pro leagues making up the comp you split it 3 ways. If another league it could feasibly expand. It would make little sense to be biased towards the Aviva like people say it should be for the pro 12.

No 7&1/2 wrote:I was just going with quality vs romance. Bath vs Wasps is the same as Munster vs Ospreys is the same as Toulon vsRacing in terms of variety.

I agree each of those fixtures appeal in similar quality to their fans (mostly from their local catchment areas).

However the Munster v Ospreys fixture also has an Ireland v Wales dimension and that appeals to a wider audience, especially with the 6N following on the heels of the pools. That is added interest for sponsors and something that adds an additional marketing hook. Broadcasters love extrapolating club rugby to Test level and with reduced international clashes at Club level that romantic notion is diminished.

The so-called "quality" argument is totally subjective and flawed anyway - what makes better quality? More tries or less tries? More international players involved or less? There are calls now to get rid of more Pro12 teams because they aren't of the required "quality", but where does that argument stop? Just keep chipping away at the Pro12 and stop at the top 4, or maybe just the top 2? That would of course allow the teams dropping out to be replaced by more English and French sides making the competition eventually totally Franglo. The PRL and LRN would have an increasing wedge of the takings, but would such a competition really have wide appeal when half the fixtures have no angle beyond what is seen in the AP or T14 every week (and the Challenge Cup a facsimile of the Pro12)?

Maybe the lack of sponsors or romance will be inconsequential to the competition, and the drop in excitement because of the split coverage will not affect popularity but right now the ERCC is a bit like a Saturday takeaway - seemed like a good idea at the time.

Out of curiosity what you basing the idea that non-fans are more interested in teams from different countries playing over teams of higher quality?

Pot Hale wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:

Pot Hale wrote:

ScarletSpiderman wrote:

Pot Hale wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:
Yup, and as long as whole countries can't provide a whole league it has to be parity between leagues.

Not sure I follow that.   So if a country could provide a whole league, it wouldn't be parity between leagues??

I think he means if there were 6 national leagues with even amounts of teams, and all the leagues were if a similar strength, then there would be even amounts from each league (and no multi nation league, which is really causing issues if nation/league).

No I don't think he means that.  Because that is also parity between leagues.  He was making a contrast.

As long as each country doesn't have a whole league, then it has to be parity between leagues.

I'm asking if each country does have a whole league, then what?   Disparity between leagues???

If Wales want more teams they need to either get 6 to the top of the Pro 12 clearly not possible, or get their own professional league together and gain entry.

That's not an answer to my question though.   You're arguing that as long as a country doesn't have a whole league, then it has to be parity between leagues.  So if each country does have a whole league, then what would happen?

Surely the point is this.

There are three leagues of somewhat equal quality. Therefore it makes sense to treat each league similarly.  If each country had a league, the leagues would not be of remotely similar quality given the demographics involved.  Clearly Scotland or Wales would not be able to support six Champions Cup quality teams. Therefore there would need to be differentials.

The current situation is a compromise between:

1. Demographics and finance which would mean more English and French teams and less Celts and
   
2. Tradition and the needs of international rugby which mean each country needs some representation at the top level
   

The previous arrangements probably prioritised 2 over 1. Any move to reduce Pro12 participation would be prioritising 1 over 2. Best leave well alone is my view.

The problem for the pro12 (are Italians 'celts'? Let's stop the celts nonsense) is that in a world where only 6 teams make it through to the ERCC, individual countries teams will have greatly reduced players playing top quality European rugby. So for example, let's say this year we have 4 irish, 1 scot and 1 welsh team qualify for next year. You have 3 welsh teams who will not be exposed to higher level clashes. This makes them weaker. Then the dominate teams in the pro12 continue to improve relative to the weaker pro12 and so the same teams qualify most years, making the ERCC even more boring. The only way Wales and Scotland can give their national players proper exposure is to have them play in England/France so you may we'll see that exodus start to worsen, packing the best of France/England with even better pro12 players. Eventually you get a franglo league with some token irish team who never makes the knock outs. Soo maybe the supporters of the ERCC think that this path is a feature not a bug, but I would love to hear what exactly the end game pro-ERCC people want to see? Like what should the comp look like in 5 years? The makeup of the teams? Do they want the same 4 english/French teams winning it forever and if not, how do you change the structure so that money doesn't automatically win...

The Great Aukster wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:I was just going with quality vs romance. Bath vs Wasps is the same as Munster vs Ospreys is the same as Toulon vsRacing in terms of variety.

I agree each of those fixtures appeal in similar quality to their fans (mostly from their local catchment areas).

However the Munster v Ospreys fixture also has an Ireland v Wales dimension and that appeals to a wider audience, especially with the 6N following on the heels of the pools. That is added interest for sponsors and something that adds an additional marketing hook. Broadcasters love extrapolating club rugby to Test level and with reduced international clashes at Club level that romantic notion is diminished.

The so-called "quality" argument is totally subjective and flawed anyway - what makes better quality? More tries or less tries? More international players involved or less? There are calls now to get rid of more Pro12 teams because they aren't of the required "quality", but where does that argument stop? Just keep chipping away at the Pro12 and stop at the top 4, or maybe just the top 2? That would of course allow the teams dropping out to be replaced by more English and French sides making the competition eventually totally Franglo. The PRL and LRN would have an increasing wedge of the takings, but would such a competition really have wide appeal when half the fixtures have no angle beyond what is seen in the AP or T14 every week (and the Challenge Cup a facsimile of the Pro12)?

Maybe the lack of sponsors or romance will be inconsequential to the competition, and the drop in excitement because of the split coverage will not affect popularity but right now the ERCC is a bit like a Saturday takeaway - seemed like a good idea at the time.

So from that we can summise the Pro 12 has larger sponsorship deals, more tv revenue and larger viewing figures at the matches anhd on tv? Ithink people need to remove their emotional baggage and club bias from this.

wolfball wrote:The problem for the pro12 (are Italians 'celts'? Let's stop the celts nonsense)

Well northern Italians are celts and that's where the teams are, so yes?

is that in a world where only 6 teams make it through to the ERCC,

7 with a playoff spot.

[quote]individual countries teams will have greatly reduced players playing top quality European rugby. So for example, let's say this year we have 4 irish, 1 scot and 1 welsh team qualify for next year. [quote]

Do you see he irony of complaining about 'celts', and then ignoring the Italians when talking about the pro12?

You have 3 welsh teams who will not be exposed to higher level clashes. This makes them weaker. Then the dominate teams in the pro12 continue to improve relative to the weaker pro12 and so the same teams qualify most years, making the ERCC even more boring.

You are aware that under the previous system the exact same 10 Pro12 clubs qualified every year? The only exciting development is that Connacht got in off the back of Leinster wins and Dragons got in off Blues CC win. The new system is much more likely to result in some different teams qualifying than the old one.

The only way Wales and Scotland can give their national players proper exposure is to have them play in England/France so you may we'll see that exodus start to worsen, packing the best of France/England with even better pro12 players.

It is good to see that you think that the Scottish and Welsh players would get nothing from playing in Pro12 against teams who will be significantly better than them. If that's true then we really should be opening up the top tier to everyone in Europe.

Eventually you get a franglo league with some token irish team who never makes the knock outs. Soo maybe the supporters of the ERCC think that this path is a feature not a bug, but I would love to hear what exactly the end game pro-ERCC people want to see? Like what should the comp look like in 5 years? The makeup of the teams? Do they want the same 4 english/French teams winning it forever and if not, how do you change the structure so that money doesn't automatically win...

Personally I hope it get scrapped at the next possible spot. I didn't want it in the first place. But if it stays do I want the same few teams winning it? Not really. Although that would depend on each person I would think. But I fail to see the difference between this and the previous (which was apparently a wonderful competition that was close to perfect).

HammerofThunor wrote:Out of curiosity what you basing the idea that non-fans are more interested in teams from different countries playing over teams of higher quality?

"Non-fans" by definition won't have a team and by inference they won't have the first notion about what is "good quality", but they are likely to have an affiliation to a country.

So people outside of the 6 nations don't understand quality rugby? Or in fact people from those countries who don't support any of the teams in it don't? Interesting

EDIT: do you mean (for example) Welsh fans will be less interested if there is only one welsh team in it because they don't understand 'quality' but just want to see Welsh teams? Not sure about the 'quality' bit but yeah, that's almost certainly true. Of course in that case they would have 3 teams in the Challenge Cup and therefore they should have a lot more interest in that. Especially if quality doesn't come into it.

No 7&1/2 wrote:

The Great Aukster wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:I was just going with quality vs romance. Bath vs Wasps is the same as Munster vs Ospreys is the same as Toulon vsRacing in terms of variety.

I agree each of those fixtures appeal in similar quality to their fans (mostly from their local catchment areas).

However the Munster v Ospreys fixture also has an Ireland v Wales dimension and that appeals to a wider audience, especially with the 6N following on the heels of the pools. That is added interest for sponsors and something that adds an additional marketing hook. Broadcasters love extrapolating club rugby to Test level and with reduced international clashes at Club level that romantic notion is diminished.

The so-called "quality" argument is totally subjective and flawed anyway - what makes better quality? More tries or less tries? More international players involved or less? There are calls now to get rid of more Pro12 teams because they aren't of the required "quality", but where does that argument stop? Just keep chipping away at the Pro12 and stop at the top 4, or maybe just the top 2? That would of course allow the teams dropping out to be replaced by more English and French sides making the competition eventually totally Franglo. The PRL and LRN would have an increasing wedge of the takings, but would such a competition really have wide appeal when half the fixtures have no angle beyond what is seen in the AP or T14 every week (and the Challenge Cup a facsimile of the Pro12)?

Maybe the lack of sponsors or romance will be inconsequential to the competition, and the drop in excitement because of the split coverage will not affect popularity but right now the ERCC is a bit like a Saturday takeaway - seemed like a good idea at the time.

So from that we can summise the Pro 12 has larger sponsorship deals, more tv revenue and larger viewing figures at the matches anhd on tv? Ithink people need to remove their emotional baggage and club bias from this.

Interesting non sequitur. It's fairly likely that international element does provide bigger deals for the Pro12 than they otherwise would have garnered, but I think you're comparing it in isolation to the AP and T14 with their much larger rugby populations? The International angle is an added appeal to casual watchers and there's far more of them in England and France than in the Pro12 nations.
It is astonishing that you "think people need to remove their emotional baggage and club bias from this." - if that becomes the predominant attitude the competition will become truly soulless.

HammerofThunor wrote:So people outside of the 6 nations don't understand quality rugby? Or in fact people from those countries who don't support any of the teams in it don't? Interesting

EDIT: do you mean (for example) Welsh fans will be less interested if there is only one welsh team in it because they don't understand 'quality' but just want to see Welsh teams? Not sure about the 'quality' bit but yeah, that's almost certainly true.  Of course in that case they would have 3 teams in the Challenge Cup and therefore they should have a lot more interest in that. Especially if quality doesn't come into it.

Where does the outside of the 6N come from? Currently European Professional Club Rugby deals with those teams under it's umbrella. I've no idea if someone in Moldova understands what quality rugby actually is, or if they have an idea who Tigers or Scarlets are, but I'd be reasonably confident that they have heard of England and Wales.
Whether a casual fan understands the nuances of a high quality tackle or not, I'd be reasonably confident that they understand the "Champions Cup" is superior to the "Challenge Cup" - the clue is in the title.

Aukster, when you're looking at the ideal format of a club comp you really do need to take emotion out of this. We have 3 leagues, it would be stupid to weight the comp to one of these leagues over the other. I really don't think casual fans (I'm assuming that's what you're meaning with this ie the fans who are just getting into it or may not have seen much rugby) are more likely to take a bigger interest in a Munster vs Treviso against a Toulon vs Clermont. They're just going to turn the tv on and if the game catches their attention great (could happen with any game), the more interested fan ain't going to be bothered if its an all Pro 12 or Aviva or 14 match (that happens to be EC).

The Great Aukster wrote:

HammerofThunor wrote:So people outside of the 6 nations don't understand quality rugby? Or in fact people from those countries who don't support any of the teams in it don't? Interesting

EDIT: do you mean (for example) Welsh fans will be less interested if there is only one welsh team in it because they don't understand 'quality' but just want to see Welsh teams? Not sure about the 'quality' bit but yeah, that's almost certainly true.  Of course in that case they would have 3 teams in the Challenge Cup and therefore they should have a lot more interest in that. Especially if quality doesn't come into it.

Where does the outside of the 6N come from? Currently European Professional Club Rugby deals with those teams under it's umbrella. I've no idea if someone in Moldova understands what quality rugby actually is, or if they have an idea who Tigers or Scarlets are, but I'd be reasonably confident that they have heard of England and Wales.
Whether a casual fan understands the nuances of a high quality tackle or not, I'd be reasonably confident that they understand the "Champions Cup" is superior to the "Challenge Cup" - the clue is in the title.

When you said 'wider audiences'...I thought you meant actually wider audiences, not just those that may be in the competition even if they're not this year.

So now what you're saying is that Welsh people are more interested in the competition if more Welsh teams are in it. Irish are more more interested if more Irish teams are in it? Well, ok. There are 50 million English people, most of whom would be casual fans. About 6.5 million in Ireland, 5.5 million in Scotland and 3 million in Wales. If we want to appeal to casual fans would it not be better to have teams based on the ratio of population? So really for every Welsh team we should 2 scottish teams, 2 Irish teams and 18 English teams.

TJ wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:Because otherwise its just the Pro 12 with couple of French and English thrown in . It should be the premier comp with the best os the 3 leagues fighting it out. Why do you think if these games were under the old format the quality of rugby would be better?

That is no reason.  It doesn't even make logical sense.  Try again with an actual logically coherent reason why it should be so

The Pro 12 teams are already getting destroyed. Adding more wont make it a better competition.

The 4th best English/French teams are just much better than the 4th best of other nations.

HammerofThunor wrote:

The Great Aukster wrote:

HammerofThunor wrote:So people outside of the 6 nations don't understand quality rugby? Or in fact people from those countries who don't support any of the teams in it don't? Interesting

EDIT: do you mean (for example) Welsh fans will be less interested if there is only one welsh team in it because they don't understand 'quality' but just want to see Welsh teams? Not sure about the 'quality' bit but yeah, that's almost certainly true.  Of course in that case they would have 3 teams in the Challenge Cup and therefore they should have a lot more interest in that. Especially if quality doesn't come into it.

Where does the outside of the 6N come from? Currently European Professional Club Rugby deals with those teams under it's umbrella. I've no idea if someone in Moldova understands what quality rugby actually is, or if they have an idea who Tigers or Scarlets are, but I'd be reasonably confident that they have heard of England and Wales.
Whether a casual fan understands the nuances of a high quality tackle or not, I'd be reasonably confident that they understand the "Champions Cup" is superior to the "Challenge Cup" - the clue is in the title.

When you said 'wider audiences'...I thought you meant actually wider audiences, not just those that may be in the competition even if they're not this year.

So now what you're saying is that Welsh people are more interested in the competition if more Welsh teams are in it. Irish are more more interested if more Irish teams are in it?  Well, ok.  There are 50 million English people, most of whom would be casual fans.  About 6.5 million in Ireland, 5.5 million in Scotland and 3 million in Wales.  If we want to appeal to casual fans would it not be better to have teams based on the ratio of population? So really for every Welsh team we should 2 scottish teams, 2 Irish teams and 18 English teams.

I would suggest that the vast majority of English people are fanatical soccer supporters who think rugby is just for snobs. If they have any interest in rugby, its the international team.

Sin é wrote:

HammerofThunor wrote:

The Great Aukster wrote:

HammerofThunor wrote:So people outside of the 6 nations don't understand quality rugby? Or in fact people from those countries who don't support any of the teams in it don't? Interesting

EDIT: do you mean (for example) Welsh fans will be less interested if there is only one welsh team in it because they don't understand 'quality' but just want to see Welsh teams? Not sure about the 'quality' bit but yeah, that's almost certainly true.  Of course in that case they would have 3 teams in the Challenge Cup and therefore they should have a lot more interest in that. Especially if quality doesn't come into it.

Where does the outside of the 6N come from? Currently European Professional Club Rugby deals with those teams under it's umbrella. I've no idea if someone in Moldova understands what quality rugby actually is, or if they have an idea who Tigers or Scarlets are, but I'd be reasonably confident that they have heard of England and Wales.
Whether a casual fan understands the nuances of a high quality tackle or not, I'd be reasonably confident that they understand the "Champions Cup" is superior to the "Challenge Cup" - the clue is in the title.

When you said 'wider audiences'...I thought you meant actually wider audiences, not just those that may be in the competition even if they're not this year.

So now what you're saying is that Welsh people are more interested in the competition if more Welsh teams are in it. Irish are more more interested if more Irish teams are in it?  Well, ok.  There are 50 million English people, most of whom would be casual fans.  About 6.5 million in Ireland, 5.5 million in Scotland and 3 million in Wales.  If we want to appeal to casual fans would it not be better to have teams based on the ratio of population? So really for every Welsh team we should 2 scottish teams, 2 Irish teams and 18 English teams.

I would suggest that the vast majority of English people are fanatical soccer supporters who think rugby is just for snobs. If they have any interest in rugby, its the international team.

You could say that about the Irish too (who also support English sides in the Premiership  )

Not in Munster where rugby is as mainstream as GAA or Soccer (English premiership).