Has anyone changed their opinion of the new European competition since it started?

First topic message reminder :

Getting away from the point scoring exercises on the other thread, have the games or the way the quarter finalists panned out actually made anyone change their opinion of the competition from before it kicked off?

It hasn't been a good year for the Pro12 but I don't think that is connected with the competition itself, more the natural cycles of sporting ups and downs.

TJ wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:Not sure I picked up on a game with Castre so can't really comment but I saw Sale Munster and Sale Saracens and Sale were far from being cannon fodder. We still obviously have Treviso who shouldn't really be there.

Sale didn't win a single game - clearly outclassed and thus buy the PRL logic shouldn't be there.  Results are everything.  Trevisio won a game.  So clearly a better side more desrving to be in the tournament

Obviously I am only on a bit of a wind up but if it had been a fairer spread of teams qualifying on a truely meritocratic basis we could have had Edinburgh and Connacht instead of Sale and Castre - would the two Pro 12 teams have added more to the tournament?  certainly would have spread interest wider and shown more variety - and I bet both teams would have won a game   ( actually Castre were not the 6th french team so still likely to qualify)   Any team who wins no games does not deserve to to be in the tournament.  Treviso did better than Sale and Castre

Far too simplistic to judge stats without context though as I think you're stating. It also clearly wouldn't be more meritocratic to give a bias to 1 league over the other 2.

No 7&1/2 wrote:
Far too simplistic to judge stats without context though as I think you're stating. It also clearly wouldn't be more meritocratic to give a bias to 1 league over the other 2.

Why not?  

There's clearly a 'National' bias in the current framework.  
And there is clearly a 'financial' bias in that AP sides and Pro12 sides have one hand tied behind their back as they meet super-sides of talent from Top14s liberal capping policy.
And what about the fact that Top14 have 14 sides and still only get 6 auto entries - same as 12 team AP? What kind of bias is operating there?

There's a lot of bias going round if you know where to look for it 7&1/2

Finances should be down to individual leagues to decide so nothing to do with the European league whatsoever in my opinion. I take your point to the great number of French sides in their top flight. I would say again it's up to them how many they want there but if 3 leagues make up the comp it makes sense that it's split equally.

TJ how are Edinburgh badly damaged? This has been one of their best seasons in an European competition!

There is no guarantee yet that Sale or Castres will qualify for next season's tournament.

Castres could well be relegated from the top 14.

Also Treviso were in an easier pool than Sale.

In European rugby

Saracens > Saints

Munster > Ospreys

Clermont > Racing Metro

Sale >> Treviso

Perhaps the 1st is controversial but for the last three seasons Saracens have consistently got further and done better in Europe than Saints, taking bigger scalps and not losing to weak teams.

wolfball you get to build your confidence in the Amlin though with easier matches. It's better for confidence when you're not getting thumped in every game. Winning helps rebuild confidence in a side.

The questions I want answered are the following :-

Where is all this money we are supposed to be swimming in from the new European cup ?

Why are the French still putting out 2nd and 3rd string sides in the second tier comp ?

Where is this third tier comp that we were supposed to be seeing ?

Why have we not got a big sponsor for this new fandangled, super duper, European cup ?

We were sold a bunch of lies at the start of this whole thing, and now because a few English sides have gotten themselves a runners up spot and qualified they are trying to justify it as the next best thing. The truth is, that most of us knew what would become of this new tournament, but the people who prefer it would rather live in denial.

No 7&1/2 wrote:
Finances should be down to individual leagues to decide so nothing to do with the European league whatsoever in my opinion. I take your point to the great number of French sides in their top flight. I would say again it's up to them how many they want there but if 3 leagues make up the comp it makes sense that it's split equally.

It has everything to do with the European League.  It's the same as saying there is nothing wrong with Saracens or Northampton being in the same league as and beating fair and square two or three of the poorer teams from the League below the AP.  It's not like with like - it would be a joke.  And as far as I can tell, it couldn't even happen as sides rising up into AP have to have certain standards acquired before being let in????  I don't know the details but I hear that's an issue.   Those restrictions are designed to have a level of conformity in the top league and to have sides at least somewhat ready to compete.

It matters plenty that one team in the Champions league has perhaps five or six times the player budget of a competitor.  People who are familiar with football and the Premier League don't seem to have a problem with the disparity in wealth between competing sides - but I say it's a pretty big stumbling block in 'meritocracy'. It doesn't matter what individual leagues do as regards finances (their business) but when they enter Europe, the ringfenching of financial clout should occur.

From Wales Online, their precis of the peace deal from April last year:

"The size of the third-tier Qualifying Competition is yet to be confirmed, with planning still ongoing. It will feature between eight and 12 teams, including clubs from the likes Georgia, Romania and Russia, along with Italian sides. The two finalists in this competition will qualify for the Challenge Cup the following season."

http://www.walesonline.co.uk/sport/rugby/rugby-news/european-rugby-champions-cup-idiots-6951859

The Qualifying Competition for this season was only 4 teams, but did widen the national pool by including a Georgian team.

The current 3rd tier competition that is underway comprises 8 teams, adding Russian, Spanish and Portuguese representation, along with Italian and Romanian.

LordDowlais wrote:We were sold a bunch of lies at the start of this whole thing, and now because a few English sides have gotten themselves a runners up spot and qualified they are trying to justify it as the next best thing. The truth is, that most of us knew what would become of this new tournament, but the people who prefer it would rather live in denial.

Yup - but sure that was why the unions did their best to resist the PRL but ultimately the house always wins.

SecretFly wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:
Finances should be down to individual leagues to decide so nothing to do with the European league whatsoever in my opinion. I take your point to the great number of French sides in their top flight. I would say again it's up to them how many they want there but if 3 leagues make up the comp it makes sense that it's split equally.

It has everything to do with the European League.  It's the same as saying there is nothing wrong with Saracens or Northampton being in the same league as and beating fair and square two or three of the poorer teams from the League below the AP.  It's not like with like - it would be a joke.  And as far as I can tell, it couldn't even happen as sides rising up into AP have to have certain standards acquired before being let in????  I don't know the details but I hear that's an issue.   Those restrictions are designed to have a level of conformity in the top league and to have sides at least somewhat ready to compete.

It matters plenty that one team in the Champions league has perhaps five or six times the player budget of a competitor.  People who are familiar with football and the Premier League don't seem to have a problem with the disparity in wealth between competing sides - but I say it's a pretty big stumbling block in 'meritocracy'.  It doesn't matter what individual leagues do as regards finances (their business) but when they enter Europe, the ringfenching of financial clout should occur.

Well it wont full stop.Why would the French want to limit themselves? They d simply not play in it.

No 7&1/2 wrote:

SecretFly wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:
Finances should be down to individual leagues to decide so nothing to do with the European league whatsoever in my opinion. I take your point to the great number of French sides in their top flight. I would say again it's up to them how many they want there but if 3 leagues make up the comp it makes sense that it's split equally.

It has everything to do with the European League.  It's the same as saying there is nothing wrong with Saracens or Northampton being in the same league as and beating fair and square two or three of the poorer teams from the League below the AP.  It's not like with like - it would be a joke.  And as far as I can tell, it couldn't even happen as sides rising up into AP have to have certain standards acquired before being let in????  I don't know the details but I hear that's an issue.   Those restrictions are designed to have a level of conformity in the top league and to have sides at least somewhat ready to compete.

It matters plenty that one team in the Champions league has perhaps five or six times the player budget of a competitor.  People who are familiar with football and the Premier League don't seem to have a problem with the disparity in wealth between competing sides - but I say it's a pretty big stumbling block in 'meritocracy'.  It doesn't matter what individual leagues do as regards finances (their business) but when they enter Europe, the ringfenching of financial clout should occur.

Well it wont full stop.Why would the French want to limit themselves? They d simply not play in it.

There you go, that's 'meritocracy'.  Some more equal than others because of a bank balance.  

Yes, the French would get stroppy and refuse to play because they believe they have a right to try to outbuy opponents rather than outplay them in a reasonably fair contest (abilitywise). This is true and interesting that you put it that way, 7&1/2.  

France wouldn't play ball with 'containment of resources' rules and therefore PRL didn't seek containment and so allowed the show to go ahead along the lines that it was only the Pro12 alone that had a 'loaded dice' in terms of advantages non-conducive to meritocracy.
So financial clout doesn't only win out in the winning-games stakes but it also wins out in getting rules that are moulded to suit its unreasonable petulance.

The sporting world - and I emphasise 'SPORTING' - is sometimes a nuthouse when it comes to logic and the disdain of a genuine sporting Chance.

Think you yearn for amateur days.

No 7&1/2 wrote:Think you yearn for amateur days.

 No... amateur days were done mostly in muck.  I like the cleanliness of modernity and professionalism.  

Yearning for genuine sporting days perhaps.  When what happened on the field dictated the winning rather than who has how many shares on the stock market and how many other sporting business interests around the world the owner has.  Or why the markets are getting edgy because a player hasn't made up his mind where he's going to play the next season.

It's business now of course - most sport - but with it it's become so much more false and manufactured and staged and scripted and preening and ................ just increasingly dead and heartless actually.  Same characters every year, chatting about the same 'controversies', concerning the same clubs, owning the same circling den of players.

No.................................. actually the real problem is probably TOO MUCH sport.  I think I've fallen on the truth now for me ------ too much damn sport now is I think my conclusion.

The TV is full of the stuff.  If they're not playing it, they have quizzes about it or they're talking about it endlessly; the managers are moaning and whining to the media about things they don't really give a damn about but the media demand they sit there so they have to say something.  And their faces are increasingly long, morbid, and longtoothed (especially in the coaching realms)  That's mosly the snippets I'm getting from Premiership football anyway    - so many bored looking old greyhaired men talking crap to the media when they should be off on their own, fishing and enjoying retirement.

And then you have all the big EVENT cycles (Olympics etc) - so many of them one after another that they become a bloody year long drag.

So yeah, maybe it's just me, getting absolutely sick of sport in general and sighing as rugby rushes to be another of the oh-so-slick, 24 hour a day, talking shops for player transfer drawmah and team selection mid-week yawnfests.................

WL/8 - The previous European competition was special because fans would make a special effort to travel with their team. Supporters pushing the boat out by travelling to three different countries has a lot more variety and romance than choosing to go down the well traveled road to a League neighbour in the same country.

TJ wrote:Indeed my lord!

Billions of extra dosh - not happened
More competative top tier without lopsided pools - not happened
more competitive 2nd tier - not happened
3rd tier - not happened

Yes it has in my book. A few of the tier three teams (Lusitanos etc) moved out and a few Pro 12 teams moved in resulted in closer scorelines.

2013/14 Average winning margin in pool stages = 24.4 points
2014/15 Average winning margin in pool stages = 19.1 points

Rovigo were obviously one of the weakest teams in the tournament as illustrated by the much quoted 100 point drubbing to Cardiff. Worth noting though that the score in Italy was only 18 - 33 to Cardiff.

It hasn't tho to any significant amount - the quality has gone up but its still not competative is it only a couple of teams could possibly win. Most teams in it are still cannon fodder

More than a couple of teams that can win it and definitely more so than the pool stages in the previous two years where teams dropping down from the HC ended up winning the Amlin.

Didn't say it was the most competitive tournament in the world (second tier cups will always struggle here), but it is certainly more competitive than last year, contrary to your assertion.

Margin_Walker wrote:More than a couple of teams that can win it and definitely more so than the pool stages in the previous two years where teams dropping down from the HC ended up winning the Amlin.

Didn't say it was the most competitive tournament in the world (second tier cups will always struggle here), but it is certainly more competitive than last year, contrary to your assertion.

Insignificantly so. thats the point. As you agree its impossible to do what the PRL said they would.

I'd imagine less people are watching and being exposed to this game because of the new subscription TV deals. Particularly in France since it used to be free to air. But also in the UK and Ireland since you now need two subscription TV channels.

The knockout stage already looks a little bit like Super Rugby division 2 in terms of the increasing numbers of non-European players. Italian and Scottish players being starved of top flight European rugby. And increasingly French players too actually. If it keeps going in this direction, and it will, it could ultimately be extremely damaging to European rugby. Especially the development of young players.

It also seems that two of the biggest advocates of this among the PRL already may be cheating in terms of their own English salary cap. How surprising, if true. Both will probably be future European champions in the new fair (according to them) meritocracy.

Wouldn't the fact that you can now get it either on Sky or BT Sport increase the chances of the casual fan picking up a game?

Can the people who think the tournament is better answer these questions then ?

Where is all this money we are supposed to be swimming in from the new European cup ?

Why are the French still putting out 2nd and 3rd string sides in the second tier comp ?

Where is this third tier comp that we were supposed to be seeing ?

Why have we not got a big sponsor for this new fandangled, super duper, European cup ?

The quality of some of the games has improved due to weaker teams not being admitted (generally) so I'll have a go at your questions.

Don't care, generally don't follow the finance stuff to closely.

Because they are more bothered about their league possibly but you'd have to ask their owners and managers.

The third tier was one of several proposals so not a definitive and not the proposal accepted.

Again I don't care what kind of lager sponsors the cup I'm more bothered about the quality of rugby.

So although I do not hold you responsable, all the promises made by the French and English at the start of all this have not been made, so it was all based on a bunch of lies ?

Well the answers were: I don't know or care.

I don't know.

That wasn't what was agreed.

I don't care.

None of which really have any bearing on the top comp.

LordDowlais wrote:Can the people who think the tournament is better answer these questions then ?

Where is all this money we are supposed to be swimming in from the new European cup ?

Why are the French still putting out 2nd and 3rd string sides in the second tier comp ?

Where is this third tier comp that we were supposed to be seeing ?

Why have we not got a big sponsor for this new fandangled, super duper, European cup ?

If by "tournament" you mean Champions Cup, then I'm not one of those people who think it's better (I think it's pretty much the same as HC overall) but I'll respond anyway. I do think the Challenge Cup is better than the Amlin, though, and I'm encouraged by the Qualifying Competition broadening participation to Georgia and Russia, whilst being somewhat dismayed by it's makeshift organisation.

Money
Dunno, but I wouldn't expect there to be much public info till after the conclusion of the tournaments. If they're financially successful, EPCR will likely be shouting it from the rooftops. If not they'll be mucho whinging in the Union-fed media. Quite possibly both, with the out-turn being spun in different directions.

French Challenge.
The "Why" is probably, in the words of Bernard Jackman of Grenoble, because they find it "a great opportunity". That quote's probably best read in context, but ignoring the spin of the journos' who wrote the articles. There's a long thread about it.
"2nd and 3rd string" depends on definition - my perception is that the French teams were largely half-and-half (half 1st team, half squad" to 2nd string (squad only with all 1st choice rested". Pretty much the same as most teams treat the LV Cup. If someone wants to do the legwork by analysing the French selections, feel free. I think all the Challenge teams rested players at some point in the pool games, regardless of nationality and to varying degrees.

Third Tier.
If by 3rd tier you mean an 8 team Qualifying Competition as initially espoused by PRL, then it's happening - I refer you to my post a page back on this thread.
If by "Where" you mean location, then the QC's have been held in Georgia, Romania, Italy, Spain and Portugal, with more fixtures due in Russia, Romania and Italy.
If by 3rd tier you mean a 20 team competition mirroring the Euro Cups, then you're fvcking delusional, although something like that may yet develop in time.

Sponsor
The new fandangled, super duper, European cups have the same sponsor as the old fandangled super duper European Cup, albeit apparently paying less and having their name banished from the title. We have been assured that 4 or 5 more sponsors will be in place next season. I judge it a failure of EPCR not to have a full complement of sponsors in place for this season, but I note the extenuating circumstances of the tardy agreement of the peace deal. Doesn't really affect the rugby though, just the finances.