End in sight to Euro Mess?

First topic message reminder :

Reports in the Times today that agreement may be close for pan-European competitions for the next 8 seasons including Pro12/AP/T14 teams. (cannot link due to paywall).

It seems that in the last few weeks Ian Ritchie has been hosting a series of private meetings with all relevant parties to try and thrash out a deal. Interestingly PRLs representative in these meetings has been Bruce Craig - Mark McCafferty being sidelined?
Any way it seems that compromises have been reached on qualification methods, division of finances and management of the new competition. It would seem ERC are out, but the clubs will only have a say in the new competition not the full control they demanded. It even suggests we may see BT and SKY operate as joint broadcasters!!

Supposedly this new competition is almost agreed by all the relevant stakeholders (primarily the 6 Unions but also PRL/LNR). It may all be journalistic bluster - but I see no reason why a NewsCorp paper should be peddling this line if they did not believe it. After all until very recently their stories have always been heaping the utmost scorn on PRL/RFU.


So if a deal is struck that gives us a true set of pan-European competitions I can only be really pleased. I do hope that the story is true about the private meetings - as there has been far too much public posturing from people that only serves to antagonise. A public argument is much harder to heal than a private one.

So if true I guess congrats to Ian Ritchie who has kept RFU out of the limelight. Accused of sticking his head in the sands, it would suggest that he has actually been doing something useful away from the glare of the press and internet.

I need a shower now, cannot believe I just said something decent about the RFU.

beshocked wrote:

ScarletSpiderman wrote:

mystiroakey wrote:

ScarletSpiderman wrote:Another intersting fact is that the top of the HEC pools as it stands are ....

and thats interesting because its based on 1 game each and everyone hasn't played everyone yet!! is it?  and originally based on ludicrous seedings:erm:

To be fair the Eurotable standings are not exactly relevant to the HEC at the moment either for exactly the same reason, they are based on how the teams are doing in their own leagues, and which doesn't factor in for whether on league is stronger than another etc.

Scarletspiderman it does give you an indication and perceived qualities of sides.

Also you might say Exeter don't deserve to be 13th but when you look at the stats their last 3 losses in all competitions were Leicester x 2 and Saints.

I guess the truth is your never going to get a perfect measuring rod for how the Pro12/T14/Jeff teams measure up against each other, as there are too many variables. Eurotable is definately closer to reality than the HEC seedings, but I still look at some of the positionings on there and question them a bit. After all it doesn't take into account the sides feilded/injuries etc. For example if a team loses to Zebre, but feild their second stringers, it is not half as bad as when the Blues lost to them feilding a neigh on full strength side. However both are recorded on Eurotable as the same which is not really fair.

quinsforever wrote:

mystiroakey wrote:quins your league coefficients and initial post contradict each other.

Domestic games shouldn't have any bearing on working out league coefficient allocations. The only time that domestic standing matters is dishing out the allocations at the end of the year.

both posts came from the same website. none was my opinion. all was quoted directly.

well you have to understand that uefa do not allocate teams based on domestic performance, only european performance. You see individual team rankings are immaterial, but the better a league does in uefa club comps the more teams they receive into the european tournies!

However there is also a uefa club ranking system- This is based on the same principle as you have explained in your posts, but that isn't actually used to work out the coefficients for european placings

Casartelli you can't pick the 30 games. It's in order by when they were played.

Scarletspiderman not really because for example

Tigers played Ulster away - a decent side like Ulster should win at home against pretty much any side. Northampton also played Castres away. Only with home and away for both teams can we compare each other. These were always going to be tough games for the English sides to win.

I would say the only English side to be truly disappointed with the weekend's results are Quins.

It's a much fairer system than many out there than the ERC ranking and the IRB ranking for example.

Scarletspiderman if you are going to use the excuse of injuries, 2nd stringers etc you could make excuses for any loss e.g. an English side who has lost players in the IWs losing to weaker sides.

Personally I don't think there's any excuses. Last season my side lost to Worcester and London Irish when we didn't have a full strength side - it happens. If it harms perceived European rankings so be it.

Strength of the domestic league (Account is taken of the differences in playing standards of the various domestic leagues by applying coefficients (this one's for you Casartelli Very Happy ) for each country. These are based on the performance of each country's clubs in the Heineken Cup (and to a much lesser extent, the European Challenge Cup) over the previous three seasons. The approach is similar to that used by UEFA to calculate their football rankings for each country.

This appears to be reasonable but with football there are a lot more leagues to compare, so teams from that league will rarely play eachother, that's fairly regular in rugby, 3 games in the HC in the first round between teams from the same league. So the coefficient shouldn't really be based on the performance of teams from a league in the competition overall, but based on the results of games between teams from separate leagues.

For example, lets say Leinster win 6 games in their pool this year, and Ospreys win 4 (all bar the games against Leinster). And that puts Ospreys out of the cup, they would have beaten English and French opposition home and away. So their performance, would reflect better on the Rabo than for example if Scarlets qualified top of their group with 4 wins (2 away losses) against Clermont and Racing.

D’yaknowwarramean?

It's a good system, but still imperfect.

beshocked wrote:Scarletspiderman if you are going to use the excuse of injuries, 2nd stringers etc you could make excuses for any loss e.g. an English side who has lost players in the IWs losing to weaker sides.

Personally I don't think there's any excuses. Last season my side lost to Worcester and London Irish when we didn't have a full strength side - it happens. If it harms perceived European rankings so be it.

If your team has loads of injuries, and STILL wins away from home, you should get extra points.

'Shocked - I am not looking at the table from any particular view point, and they are not excuses, but they are things that are not factored in. It skews the table, and as you say it skews it for the Jeff sides too. Like I said it is not a perfect system, and there are flaws in it, but it is not too far from where things lie.

Honestly I don't think any of us really give two hoots where somebody's IT project has us rated in the pecking order, we care about how our team is performing on the feild, and where they are standing in the current competitions/leagues etc.

ScarletSpiderman wrote:'Shocked - I am not looking at the table from any particular view point, and they are not excuses, but they are things that are not factored in.  It skews the table, and as you say it skews it for the Jeff sides too.  Like I said it is not a perfect system, and there are flaws in it, but it is not too far from where things lie.

Honestly I don't think any of us really give two hoots where somebody's IT project has us rated in the pecking order, we care about how our team is performing on the feild, and where they are standing in the current competitions/leagues etc.

To be honest, I don't trust people who spend too much time on computers anyway.

Mickado wrote:It's a good system, but still imperfect.

+1

Mickado wrote:

Strength of the domestic league (Account is taken of the differences in playing standards of the various domestic leagues by applying coefficients (this one's for you Casartelli Very Happy ) for each country. These are based on the performance of each country's clubs in the Heineken Cup (and to a much lesser extent, the European Challenge Cup) over the previous three seasons. The approach is similar to that used by UEFA to calculate their football rankings for each country.

This appears to be reasonable but with football there are a lot more leagues to compare, so teams from that league will rarely play eachother, that's fairly regular in rugby, 3 games in the HC in the first round between teams from the same league. So the coefficient shouldn't really be based on the performance of teams from a league in the competition overall, but based on the results of games between teams from separate leagues.

For example, lets say Leinster win 6 games in their pool this year, and Ospreys win 4 (all bar the games against Leinster). And that puts Ospreys out of the cup, they would have beaten English and French opposition home and away. So their performance, would reflect better on the Rabo than for example if Scarlets qualified top of their group with 4 wins (2 away losses) against Clermont and Racing.

D’yaknowwarramean?

It's a good system, but still imperfect.

The problem initially is that the Rabbo has move teams involved therefore will gain more coefficient points from the off. 

The way it works in football is that you cannot meet a team form your league until the knock outs which aids the coefficient system. So yes the fact that we cant do that in the heineken will hinder the system!!

I prefer rugby to maths though...always have.

have emailed eurorugby to ask what the different league coefficients currently are (ie how they weight domestic and the 2 euro competitions).

will post any answer that is forthcoming. something to take about while we wait for scraps from the rfu negotiating table...

there is just no need to even bother with the domestic matches..

just europe and if we base it on leagues then only games v other league teams should count, if its based on unions then only games within the euro comps should count against each individual union(a matchup between cardiff v glasgow would count but not edinburgh v glasgow)

and the amlin should count as well- however clearly the coefficient points from them should only have something like 2/3's of the rating- 

then we also have a 20% per year decay, so after 5 years the 1st years has gone- the second year is worth 20% , the third year 40% and so on

in theory you are right oakey, but the eurorugby formula is the only one that takes into account and compensates for the current system of 11 qualifying places for rabo12 teams. and from the rankings it appears the eurorugby coefficients do penalise the rabo12 league in terms of how domestically competitive it is.

it only makes sense to base euro cup qualification on league performance if each league has the same risk/reward in terms of their teams qualifying/not qualifying.

SecretFly wrote:I prefer rugby to maths though...always have.

I prefer most things to maths.

It was a point i was trying to make before- The whole rabbo(4 unions in one league) really makes it tough to work out a fair coefficient system

quinsforever wrote:in theory you are right oakey, but the eurorugby formula is the only one that takes into account and compensates for the current system of 11 qualifying places for rabo12 teams. and from the rankings it appears the eurorugby coefficients do penalise the rabo12 league in terms of how domestically competitive it is.

it only makes sense to base euro cup qualification on league performance if each league has the same risk/reward in terms of their teams qualifying/not qualifying.

But Top14 has 14 teams (not 12) and each team has four more games each per season than either AP or Pro12 sides. Is that more domestically competitive and a more difficult qualifying procedure than the teams in AP have to go through?

Without a doubt, yes - it is. Is it factored in on Eurorugby though?

mystiroakey wrote:there is just no need to even bother with the domestic matches..

just europe and if we base it on leagues then only games v other league teams should count, if its based on unions then only games within the euro comps should count against each individual union(a matchup between cardiff v glasgow would count but not edinburgh v glasgow)

How (in that case) do you assess a team that is new to euro competition? In a sense what this model tries to do is assess, say, Exeter, based on how they perform against teams who do regularly play in european competition.

As has been said stats are stats and there are always weaknesses that we can complain about but it does make for interesting reading.

lostinwales wrote:Stats are stats and there are always weaknesses that we can complain about but it does make for interesting reading.

That's debatable.

lostinwales wrote:

mystiroakey wrote:there is just no need to even bother with the domestic matches..

just europe and if we base it on leagues then only games v other league teams should count, if its based on unions then only games within the euro comps should count against each individual union(a matchup between cardiff v glasgow would count but not edinburgh v glasgow)

How (in that case) do you assess a team that is new to euro competition? In a sense what this model tries to do is assess, say, Exeter, based on how they perform against teams who do regularly play in european competition.

As has been said stats are stats and there are always weaknesses that we can complain about but it does make for interesting  reading.

each individual team doesn't really matter. its about how the teams in each league have performed before.

Tottenham got in the CL the other year- It didn't matter that they weren't in it before- just that other PL teams have performed well enough to keep the PL at the top of the pile in regards to getting 4 teams into the comp.

Anyway point being- that is how the coefficient system is worked for football, the one that quins posted up incorporates other factors- which may actually be a decent way of sorting it out considering the inconsistencies of the rabbo league

mystiroakey wrote:It was a point i was trying to make before- The whole rabbo(4 unions in one league) really makes it tough to work out a fair coefficient system

In fairness, quite a gentle dig at the Rabo. It doesn't fit with maths.

mystiroakey wrote:It was a point i was trying to make before- The whole rabbo(4 unions in one league) really makes it tough to work out a fair coefficient system

Correct. Some of us repeat that often but the amount of repeats doesn't make the point any less true. It is tough to work out 'fairness' in a competition that includes one league with four Unions, two leagues with one Union and one league with two extra sides and little or no capping system. Talking about 'fair' in that climate is unproductive.

mystiroakey wrote:

Mickado wrote:

Strength of the domestic league (Account is taken of the differences in playing standards of the various domestic leagues by applying coefficients (this one's for you Casartelli Very Happy ) for each country. These are based on the performance of each country's clubs in the Heineken Cup (and to a much lesser extent, the European Challenge Cup) over the previous three seasons. The approach is similar to that used by UEFA to calculate their football rankings for each country.

This appears to be reasonable but with football there are a lot more leagues to compare, so teams from that league will rarely play eachother, that's fairly regular in rugby, 3 games in the HC in the first round between teams from the same league. So the coefficient shouldn't really be based on the performance of teams from a league in the competition overall, but based on the results of games between teams from separate leagues.

For example, lets say Leinster win 6 games in their pool this year, and Ospreys win 4 (all bar the games against Leinster). And that puts Ospreys out of the cup, they would have beaten English and French opposition home and away. So their performance, would reflect better on the Rabo than for example if Scarlets qualified top of their group with 4 wins (2 away losses) against Clermont and Racing.

D’yaknowwarramean?

It's a good system, but still imperfect.

The problem initially is that the Rabbo has move teams involved therefore will gain more coefficient points from the off. 

The way it works in football is that you cannot meet a team form your league until the knock outs which aids the coefficient system. So yes the fact that we cant do that in the heineken will hinder the system!!

Don't think of the coefficient as a bank of points that accumulates (like league points) in this case it's the calculated "strength" of one league versus another.

If the coefficient is based on only matches between teams of different leagues then it wouldn't matter how many qualify from each league. If there are only 6 English teams there can be only 6 games per week that inform the coefficient, the fact that there are 10 Rabo teams is irrelevant, there's more chance of them playing eachother (in which case the coefficient isn't effected) and if they're not playing eachother, they're playing teams from another league in which case there is more data upon which to base the coefficient.

SecretFly wrote:

quinsforever wrote:in theory you are right oakey, but the eurorugby formula is the only one that takes into account and compensates for the current system of 11 qualifying places for rabo12 teams. and from the rankings it appears the eurorugby coefficients do penalise the rabo12 league in terms of how domestically competitive it is.

it only makes sense to base euro cup qualification on league performance if each league has the same risk/reward in terms of their teams qualifying/not qualifying.

But Top14 has 14 teams (not 12) and each team has four more games each per season than either AP or Pro12 sides.  Is that more domestically competitive and a more difficult qualifying procedure than the teams in AP have to go through?

Without a doubt, yes - it is.  Is it factored in on Eurorugby though?

i would hope so...will let you know if they get back to me!

will be hard to break out impact of more games vs greater success in HC (both of which are true for top14) in their contribution to a tougher coefficient. i am sure eurorugby could, but equally sure they wont open their toybox and give me all their toys.

On certain occasions, a team's total ranking points may fall despite winning a match. In such cases, the match is ignored for the particular team and the previous 30 games are used to calculate the ranking. Such games are denoted by a '*'. When does this arise ?

- One example is where a team has already won its national league or is guaranteed to qualify from its Heineken Cup or European Shield pool in first place, then any subsequent results (in that particular competition) that would result in a fall in their total ranking points are ignored.

- Another example is when a team wins a cup match against a team from a lower division (fewer points are at stake for such cup matches) or when a team's recent record is so good that, say, a low-scoring home win against a low-ranked Premier team will not increase their total ranking points.

There's a * beside Leinsters last three games against Italian opposition. Interesting.

Mickado wrote:

mystiroakey wrote:

Mickado wrote:

Strength of the domestic league (Account is taken of the differences in playing standards of the various domestic leagues by applying coefficients (this one's for you Casartelli Very Happy ) for each country. These are based on the performance of each country's clubs in the Heineken Cup (and to a much lesser extent, the European Challenge Cup) over the previous three seasons. The approach is similar to that used by UEFA to calculate their football rankings for each country.

This appears to be reasonable but with football there are a lot more leagues to compare, so teams from that league will rarely play eachother, that's fairly regular in rugby, 3 games in the HC in the first round between teams from the same league. So the coefficient shouldn't really be based on the performance of teams from a league in the competition overall, but based on the results of games between teams from separate leagues.

For example, lets say Leinster win 6 games in their pool this year, and Ospreys win 4 (all bar the games against Leinster). And that puts Ospreys out of the cup, they would have beaten English and French opposition home and away. So their performance, would reflect better on the Rabo than for example if Scarlets qualified top of their group with 4 wins (2 away losses) against Clermont and Racing.

D’yaknowwarramean?

It's a good system, but still imperfect.

The problem initially is that the Rabbo has move teams involved therefore will gain more coefficient points from the off. 

The way it works in football is that you cannot meet a team form your league until the knock outs which aids the coefficient system. So yes the fact that we cant do that in the heineken will hinder the system!!

Don't think of the coefficient as a bank of points that accumulates (like league points) in this case it's the calculated "strength" of one league versus another.

If the coefficient is based on only matches between teams of different leagues then it wouldn't matter how many qualify from each league. If there are only 6 English teams there can be only 6 games per week that inform the coefficient, the fact that there are 10 Rabo teams is irrelevant, there's more chance of them playing eachother (in which case the coefficient isn't effected) and if they're not playing eachother, they're playing teams from another league in which case there is more data upon which to base the coefficient.

 

True, actually yep good point if we use minus points over just plus points!!. however when that coefficient comes around the following year and every league has the same points , we will all just get 6 teams each!!

so wouldnt it be better to just have plus points to work out the coefficients.

Anyway its all getting confusing because i have later stated that maybe we should only rank games based on teams that are from different leagues or unions.

Mickado wrote:

On certain occasions, a team's total ranking points may fall despite winning a match. In such cases, the match is ignored for the particular team and the previous 30 games are used to calculate the ranking. Such games are denoted by a '*'. When does this arise ?

- One example is where a team has already won its national league or is guaranteed to qualify from its Heineken Cup or European Shield pool in first place, then any subsequent results (in that particular competition) that would result in a fall in their total ranking points are ignored.

- Another example is when a team wins a cup match against a team from a lower division (fewer points are at stake for such cup matches) or when a team's recent record is so good that, say, a low-scoring home win against a low-ranked Premier team will not increase their total ranking points.

There's a * beside Leinsters last three games against Italian opposition. Interesting.

notes from eurorugby on their calcs...

(1) The Eurotable covers all teams competing in the English Aviva Premiership, the French Top 14 and the RaboDirect Pro 12. At the beginning of the season, teams that are newly-promoted into the 'premier' leagues have to prove themselves before they are included in the Eurotable. A team has to play 10 games before it is given a provisional Ranking.

(2) Included are all games in the English Aviva Premiership, the French Top 14, the RaboDirect Pro 12 and the LV= Cup as well as the Heineken Cup and European Challenge Cup. Friendlies and games against touring sides are also excluded.

( 3) On certain occasions, a team's total ranking points may fall despite winning a match. In such cases, the match is ignored for the particular team and the previous 30 games are used to calculate the ranking. Such games are denoted by a '*'. When does this arise ?

- One example is where a team has already won its national league or is guaranteed to qualify from its Heineken Cup or European Challenge Cup pool in first place, then any subsequent results (in that particular competition) that would result in a fall in their total ranking points are ignored.
- Another example is when a team wins a cup match against one of the weaker Italian, Spanish or Romanian sides in the Challenge Cup (fewer points are at stake for such cup matches) or when a team's recent record is so good that, say, a low-scoring home win against a low-ranked team will not increase their total ranking points.

mickado - "Don't think of the coefficient as a bank of points that accumulates (like league points) in this case it's the calculated "strength" of one league versus another.

"If the coefficient is based on only matches between teams of different leagues then it wouldn't matter how many qualify from each league. If there are only 6 English teams there can be only 6 games per week that inform the coefficient, the fact that there are 10 Rabo teams is irrelevant, there's more chance of them playing eachother (in which case the coefficient isn't effected) and if they're not playing eachother, they're playing teams from another league in which case there is more data upon which to base the coefficient."

all absolutely true, but there is no way for coefficients within a given euro competition to account for differences in the challenge of qualifying (rabo12 raise their game in HC so the argument goes). how to account for risk/reward of qualification to HC or even relegation from domestic league? not possible cleanly anyway.

quinsforever wrote:
Each week, the results of all domestic league and cup games (2) as well as European ties are fed into the computer. As with any league, points are awarded to teams for winning or drawing a match. The Eurotable, however, takes account of many other factors:

Points scored and points conceded (the points system encourages attacking rugby but it also rewards sides who lose a match by a narrow margin.).
Whether the game was played at home or away (bonus awarded to the away team).
Strength of the opponent (more points are awarded when playing against a top-ranked opponent as opposed to a weaker one).

Strength of the domestic league (Account is taken of the differences in playing standards of the various domestic leagues by applying coefficients (this one's for you Casartelli  ) for each country. These are based on the performance of each country's clubs in the Heineken Cup (and to a much lesser extent, the European Challenge Cup) over the previous three seasons. The approach is similar to that used by UEFA to calculate their football rankings for each country.  
Importance of the game (more points are awarded for European Cup games and at the latter stages of all cup competitions).
Recent form feature (a unique weighting of the results ensures that a team's more recent performances are given more credit than those of earlier games. As a result, the rankings will usually reflect current form rather than a team's standing over its last thirty games.

seems a lot fairer than the ERC rankings (bit silly to only include ERC results over 5 years when 11/12 Rabo teams get in every year - but i am guessing this issue has been done to death on this website, no?)

The ERC rankings are for both competitions so they cover all 12 PRL clubs and all 14 T14 clubs and the 12 Pro12 clubs. The guaranteed numbers for each nation are Eng & Fra 6, Ireland 3, Wal 3, Italy & Sco 2. An extra team gets in from the country that wins either the H Cup or C Cup. Last season, this was France and Ireland. Season before Ireland and France, season before that Ireland and England, and before that France and Wales. (Interesting that four different countries have won the C Cup in the last four years.) The Eurotable also takes into account results from the LV CUp which only has Welsh and English clubs in it - not sure how much this skews rankings in favour/against any of those 16 clubs.

for reference

this is how UEFA does it- and why i am confused by pro rugby's wording(saying it is similar to ueafs). Teams are not ranked on domestic games at all. 

"The associations' or country coefficient rankingsare based on the results of each association's clubs in the five previous UEFA Champions League and UEFA Europa League seasons. The rankings determine the number of places allocated to an association in forthcoming UEFA club competition.
Points system
1. Each team gets two points for a win and one point for a draw (points are halved for matches in the qualifying and play-off rounds). 
2. Clubs that reach the round of 16, quarter-finals, semi-finals or final of the UEFA Champions League, or the quarter-finals, semi-finals or final of the UEFA Europa League, are awarded an extra point for each round. 
3. In addition, four points are awarded for participation in the group stage of the UEFA Champions League and four points for qualifying for the round of 16.
Coefficient calculation
The coefficient is calculated by working out an average score: dividing the number of points obtained, by the total number of clubs representing an association in that season’s two club competitions. The resulting figure is then tallied with the results of the previous four seasons to calculate the coefficient. Where two associations have the same coefficient, the association with the higher coefficient in the most recent season is placed first.
These rankings will be updated after each round of UEFA club competition matches."

quinsforever wrote:mickado - "Don't think of the coefficient as a bank of points that accumulates (like league points) in this case it's the calculated "strength" of one league versus another.

"If the coefficient is based on only matches between teams of different leagues then it wouldn't matter how many qualify from each league. If there are only 6 English teams there can be only 6 games per week that inform the coefficient, the fact that there are 10 Rabo teams is irrelevant, there's more chance of them playing eachother (in which case the coefficient isn't effected) and if they're not playing eachother, they're playing teams from another league in which case there is more data upon which to base the coefficient."

all absolutely true, but there is no way for coefficients within a given euro competition to account for differences in the challenge of qualifying (rabo12 raise their game in HC so the argument goes). how to account for risk/reward of qualification to HC or even relegation from domestic league? not possible cleanly anyway.

The counter argument would be that if it's harder for teams to qualify from England or France then only better teams will do so. Therefore they would beat Rabo teams more often and it would balance out.

If the football champs league had 2 German teams, 2 English, 2 Spanish, 2 French and automatically 6 Irish teams, all starting with an equal coefficient and based on results from only teams from different leagues, would the Irish coefficient benefit in any way from having more teams?

Mickado wrote:

quinsforever wrote:mickado - "Don't think of the coefficient as a bank of points that accumulates (like league points) in this case it's the calculated "strength" of one league versus another.

"If the coefficient is based on only matches between teams of different leagues then it wouldn't matter how many qualify from each league. If there are only 6 English teams there can be only 6 games per week that inform the coefficient, the fact that there are 10 Rabo teams is irrelevant, there's more chance of them playing eachother (in which case the coefficient isn't effected) and if they're not playing eachother, they're playing teams from another league in which case there is more data upon which to base the coefficient."

all absolutely true, but there is no way for coefficients within a given euro competition to account for differences in the challenge of qualifying (rabo12 raise their game in HC so the argument goes). how to account for risk/reward of qualification to HC or even relegation from domestic league? not possible cleanly anyway.

The counter argument would be that if it's harder for teams to qualify from England or France then only better teams will do so. Therefore they would beat Rabo teams more often and it would balance out.

If the football champs league had 2 German teams, 2 English, 2 Spanish, 2 French and automatically 6 Irish teams, all starting with an equal coefficient and based on results from only teams from different leagues, would the Irish coefficient benefit in any way from having more teams?

not more teams, but it would benefit if by not needing to compete furiously in domestic competition, they were able to deliver consistently above average performances in an euro competition that they are much more focused on

quinsforever wrote:in theory you are right oakey, but the eurorugby formula is the only one that takes into account and compensates for the current system of 11 qualifying places for rabo12 teams. and from the rankings it appears the eurorugby coefficients do penalise the rabo12 league in terms of how domestically competitive it is.

The current system has 10 qualifying H Cup places for PRO 12 teams - highest ranked 3 from Irl and Wal, and 2 each from Sco and Ita.

If the unions somehow persuade PRL/LNR to give them a 6/6/8 mix, then I think PRL/LNR should insist on a straight top 8 qualification, and no automatic country places. Equally, this principle of top 6 would apply to the PRL as well with no freebie place being given to the AW Cup winner.

Pot Hale wrote:

quinsforever wrote:in theory you are right oakey, but the eurorugby formula is the only one that takes into account and compensates for the current system of 11 qualifying places for rabo12 teams. and from the rankings it appears the eurorugby coefficients do penalise the rabo12 league in terms of how domestically competitive it is.

The current system has 10 qualifying H Cup places for PRO 12 teams - highest ranked 3 from Irl and Wal, and 2 each from Sco and Ita.  

i'm rounding up from 10.5 (avg over last 10 years)...

as you can also note the uefa cup (the equivalent of the amlin cup) carries almost the same weight as the CL does!!

quinsforever wrote:

Pot Hale wrote:

quinsforever wrote:in theory you are right oakey, but the eurorugby formula is the only one that takes into account and compensates for the current system of 11 qualifying places for rabo12 teams. and from the rankings it appears the eurorugby coefficients do penalise the rabo12 league in terms of how domestically competitive it is.

The current system has 10 qualifying H Cup places for PRO 12 teams - highest ranked 3 from Irl and Wal, and 2 each from Sco and Ita.  

i'm rounding up from 10.5 (avg over last 10 years)...

And what's your rounding up average for English and French teams so in the same period?

Pot Hale wrote:

quinsforever wrote:in theory you are right oakey, but the eurorugby formula is the only one that takes into account and compensates for the current system of 11 qualifying places for rabo12 teams. and from the rankings it appears the eurorugby coefficients do penalise the rabo12 league in terms of how domestically competitive it is.

The current system has 10 qualifying H Cup places for PRO 12 teams - highest ranked 3 from Irl and Wal, and 2 each from Sco and Ita.

If the unions somehow persuade PRL/LNR to give them a 6/6/8 mix, then I think PRL/LNR should insist on a straight top 8 qualification, and no automatic country places.  Equally, this principle of top 6 would apply to the PRL as well with no freebie place being given to the AW Cup winner.

let them do it any way they want. if they want to go top 8 or top 6 and guarantee the other unions teams a place them its up to them.. But it will causes issues within their league. however we just give them 8 spots..

Talking of maths, at what number of posts does a thread close on here?

21-22 pages worth- but it can allways be rebooted just for you

Pot Hale wrote:

quinsforever wrote:

Pot Hale wrote:

quinsforever wrote:in theory you are right oakey, but the eurorugby formula is the only one that takes into account and compensates for the current system of 11 qualifying places for rabo12 teams. and from the rankings it appears the eurorugby coefficients do penalise the rabo12 league in terms of how domestically competitive it is.

The current system has 10 qualifying H Cup places for PRO 12 teams - highest ranked 3 from Irl and Wal, and 2 each from Sco and Ita.  

i'm rounding up from 10.5 (avg over last 10 years)...

And what's your rounding up average for English and French teams so in the same period?  

without thinking too hard i would guess 8 for French and 6.5 for English. sound about right?

quinsforever wrote:

Pot Hale wrote:

quinsforever wrote:

Pot Hale wrote:

quinsforever wrote:in theory you are right oakey, but the eurorugby formula is the only one that takes into account and compensates for the current system of 11 qualifying places for rabo12 teams. and from the rankings it appears the eurorugby coefficients do penalise the rabo12 league in terms of how domestically competitive it is.

The current system has 10 qualifying H Cup places for PRO 12 teams - highest ranked 3 from Irl and Wal, and 2 each from Sco and Ita.  

i'm rounding up from 10.5 (avg over last 10 years)...

And what's your rounding up average for English and French teams so in the same period?  

without thinking too hard i would guess 8 for French and 6.5 for English. sound about right?

actually i'll just round down for the english clubs...so 6  

mystiroakey wrote:

Pot Hale wrote:

quinsforever wrote:in theory you are right oakey, but the eurorugby formula is the only one that takes into account and compensates for the current system of 11 qualifying places for rabo12 teams. and from the rankings it appears the eurorugby coefficients do penalise the rabo12 league in terms of how domestically competitive it is.

The current system has 10 qualifying H Cup places for PRO 12 teams - highest ranked 3 from Irl and Wal, and 2 each from Sco and Ita.

If the unions somehow persuade PRL/LNR to give them a 6/6/8 mix, then I think PRL/LNR should insist on a straight top 8 qualification, and no automatic country places.  Equally, this principle of top 6 would apply to the PRL as well with no freebie place being given to the AW Cup winner.

let them do it any way they want. if they want to go top 8 or top 6 and guarantee the other unions teams a place them its up to them.. But it will causes issues within their league. however we just give them 8 spots..

Who's this 'we', Tonto"?

I'm talking from a PRO12 pov. If the PRO12 teams are going to abandon country participation, then do it properly, and let the league benefit as a result. Top 8 would make it far more competitive, and Treviso - the only real potential loser - are improving in leaps and bounds. Having Edinburgh, Connacht, Dragons and Zebre in the C Cup would make it far more interesting.

how is 6.5 rounded up:whistle:

Pot Hale wrote:

mystiroakey wrote:

Pot Hale wrote:

quinsforever wrote:in theory you are right oakey, but the eurorugby formula is the only one that takes into account and compensates for the current system of 11 qualifying places for rabo12 teams. and from the rankings it appears the eurorugby coefficients do penalise the rabo12 league in terms of how domestically competitive it is.

The current system has 10 qualifying H Cup places for PRO 12 teams - highest ranked 3 from Irl and Wal, and 2 each from Sco and Ita.

If the unions somehow persuade PRL/LNR to give them a 6/6/8 mix, then I think PRL/LNR should insist on a straight top 8 qualification, and no automatic country places.  Equally, this principle of top 6 would apply to the PRL as well with no freebie place being given to the AW Cup winner.

let them do it any way they want. if they want to go top 8 or top 6 and guarantee the other unions teams a place them its up to them.. But it will causes issues within their league. however we just give them 8 spots..

Who's this 'we', Tonto"?

I'm talking from a PRO12 pov.  If the PRO12 teams are going to abandon country participation, then do it properly, and let the league benefit as a result.  Top 8 would make it far more competitive, and Treviso - the only real potential loser - are improving in leaps and bounds.   Having Edinburgh, Connacht, Dragons and Zebre in the C Cup would make it far more interesting.

you said the prl and lnr should insist on what the pro12 should do:headscratch: . so how is that from the pro12 pov. I agree with you. but...

Pot Hale wrote:

mystiroakey wrote:

Pot Hale wrote:

quinsforever wrote:in theory you are right oakey, but the eurorugby formula is the only one that takes into account and compensates for the current system of 11 qualifying places for rabo12 teams. and from the rankings it appears the eurorugby coefficients do penalise the rabo12 league in terms of how domestically competitive it is.

The current system has 10 qualifying H Cup places for PRO 12 teams - highest ranked 3 from Irl and Wal, and 2 each from Sco and Ita.

If the unions somehow persuade PRL/LNR to give them a 6/6/8 mix, then I think PRL/LNR should insist on a straight top 8 qualification, and no automatic country places.  Equally, this principle of top 6 would apply to the PRL as well with no freebie place being given to the AW Cup winner.

let them do it any way they want. if they want to go top 8 or top 6 and guarantee the other unions teams a place them its up to them.. But it will causes issues within their league. however we just give them 8 spots..

Who's this 'we', Tonto"?

I'm talking from a PRO12 pov.  If the PRO12 teams are going to abandon country participation, then do it properly, and let the league benefit as a result.  Top 8 would make it far more competitive, and Treviso - the only real potential loser - are improving in leaps and bounds.   Having Edinburgh, Connacht, Dragons and Zebre in the C Cup would make it far more interesting.

seems like you both agree from where i'm sitting. no auto qualification.

I don't get why the PRL/LNR want to reduce it to to 20 teams though. Its really irrelevant at the end of the day whether it is 5 groups x 4 teams, or 6 groups x 4 teams.

Automatic spot for HCup winners & Amlin winners is as much of a nonsense as having Italian teams getting an automatic spot (except more beneficial to the development of rugby to have Treviso in the main competition).

FR 7, PRL 7, Rabo 10.

more games should equal more money so i agree- however we need to somehow give other nations a chance of getting teams in!!

Because they want to boost the  quality in the top comp with less mismatches & the appeal of the 2nd comp

They would still have the same number of matches just more would be in the 2nd comp which should be competitive rather than mismatches